The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education 9781526431158, 9781526463081

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Notes on the Editors and Contributors
Preface
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Part I: Concepts of Giftedness and Identification: Social and Emotional Needs
1: Is Gifted Education on the Right Path?
2:Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness
3:Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift
4:Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories: Revisiting the Concept of Giftedness through the Mirror of Multi-Cultural India
5:Honoring Differences: Improving the Representation of Culturally Different Gifted Students based on Equity
6:Creativity and Genius
7:Why Bother Being Different? The Role of Intrinsic Motivation in Creativity
8:New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity: Implications for Identification and Education
9:Profoundly Gifted: Outliers among the Outliers
10:Eminence in Talented Women by Domain: Issues, Similarities and Differences Utilizing the Piirto Pyramid as a Theoretical Framework
11:Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD
12:Hidden Treasures: Twice Exceptional Students
13:Serving and Honoring Gender Diversity in Education
14:The Emotional Development of the Gifted and Talented
15:Friendships of Gifted Children and Youth: Updated Insights and Understanding
16:Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children in Hong Kong
Part II:Educational Provision: Programs and Strategies
17: Building Knowledge Bridges:Synthesising Early Yearsand Gifted EducationResearch and Practiceto Provide an OptimalStart for Young GiftedChildren
18: Engineering the Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Case Study of the Process of Change in Education
19: TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social Context: A Universal Framework for Developing Thinking Skills and Problem-solving Across the Curriculum
20: Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration
21: Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners: Authentic, Augmented and Actualized Places and Placements
22: How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence that Benefits Highly Able Students to Enter Top Research Universities
23: Meta-analysis of 26 Forms of Academic Acceleration: Options for Elementary (Primary) and Secondary Learners with Gifts or Talents
24: What Works Better than the Rest? The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners
25: Continuum of Differentiation
26: The National Mentoring Program in Israel: A Model for Developing Leadership among Highly Gifted Students
27: Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners with Exceptional Potential for English-language Learning
28: Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa
29: Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts through Living Theory Research
Part III:Global Responses to Emerging G&T Provision: Defining the Future
30: The Education of HighlyAble Children in England:Challenges and Achievements
31: Creativity Competition for Gifted Students’ Communication and Self-Esteem Development
32: Gifted Education in Brazil: Historical Background, Current Practices and Research Trends
33: New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China
34: Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity
35: Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan
36: Development of Gifted Education in Turkey
37: Gifted Education in Europe
38: Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization
39: The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks
40: Gifted Education: The Future Awaits
Conclusion
Index

Citation preview

The SAGE Handbook of

Gifted and Talented Education

Advisory Editorial Board Don Ambrose (USA) Gillian Eriksson (USA) Marie Huxtable (UK) Ching-Chi Kuo (Taiwan) Hilary Lowe (UK) Kobus Maree (SA) Ken McCluskey (Canada) Jane Piirto (USA) Andrzej Sekowski (Poland) Bruce M. Shore (Canada) Michael Shaughnessy (USA) Dean K. Simonton (USA) Robert J. Sternberg (USA) Stephanie S. Tolan (USA) Ian Warwick (UK) Jack Whitehead (UK) Taisir Subhi Yamin (Germany)

‘The new Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education provides the reader with a considerable cross-section of thoughtful chapters on the education of students with gifts and talents. The Handbook is chock full of many luminaries in the field of gifted education, as well as a group of great thinkers who often write in other fields. In addition, there are several chapters on the topic of creativity and gifted education. While it does focus on the educational aspects of gifted education, it offers insights and original ideas often lacking in these types of handbooks. For example, from Dorothy A. Sisk’s chapter on spiritual giftedness, to Don Ambrose’s chapter on giftedness in the context of 21st Century Globalization, the unique subject matter provides the reader with a wide cross-section of topics.  Another way this book will broaden the minds of its readers comes from the fact that authors from numerous countries are represented. In total, this Handbook provides many up-to-date chapters on salient topics related to the education of students with gifts and talents. Seldom are books like this produced and I am confident that this book will make a splash among professionals interested in this special population.’ Professor Tracy L. Cross, Jody and Layton Smith Professor of Psychology and Gifted Education and Director, Center for Gifted Education, The College of William & Mary ‘The new SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education is a forward-looking summary that fills a gap in gifted education and reflects to contemporary challenges. Its major strength lies in the perspective of cultural and developmental psychology, so instead of expansive and all-in statements it applies a relativistic, dynamic and international approach that makes space for individual differences and diversity. Equity issues and culturally based definitions draw the readers’ attention to atypical gifted learners, with a special emphasis on social and emotional characteristics. In addition, the practical aspects of educational provisions are included with a special focus on 21st century needs and skills. Current topics, like context-based creativity, artificial intelligence and spiritual intelligence are also presented, while classical models of giftedness and creativity – like the theories of Csíkszentmihályi, Sternberg, Simonton or Renzulli – get a new light, which makes the book an essential reading for the next decade.’ Dr Szilvia Fodor, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Debrecen ‘The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education engages the reader in myriad topics that are up-to-date and thought-provoking. It is a “must-have” resource for researchers, educators and others interested in gifted education and talent development.’ Dr Julia Link Roberts, Executive Director of The Gatton Academy and The Center for Gifted Studies at Western Kentucky University ‘Unquestionably, this text is the richest, most robust scholarly investigation into the realm of gifted and talented in the last twenty years.  Belle Wallace, Dorothy A. Sisk and John Senior have brought together the finest scholars and researchers in the field to compile a massive and masterful text that is both insightful and illuminating. The chapters are captivating, riveting and inspiring while at the same time written with passion and panache. This is an extraordinary work that will serve as a guide and reference for scholars, researchers and theoreticians for the next several decades.’

Professor Michael Shaughnessy, Professor of Special Education, Eastern New Mexico University ‘Not, perhaps, since publication of the 1st edition of the critically acclaimed  International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (ed. F.J. Monks et al) in 1993, has there been a more scholarly exposition of issues that provide comprehensive coverage of the present stage of knowledge within the field. 70 renowned contributing authors offer an indispensable combination of well-argued conceptual review, details of numerous international programmes and strategies and thoughtful examination of the basis for future provision and trends. The Handbook will find a place on bookshelves and within libraries accessed by those who see the gifted and talented as one of our most precious societal resources and who are conscious of the pressing need to realise and utilize their potential.’ Dr Mike Stopper, former Head of Services for Gifted and Talented Pupils, Lincolnshire County Council ‘This is a truly remarkable book which brings together several of the world’s leading scholars on gifted and talent education, in order to provide a bridge to the front lines of a flourishing field. This Handbook is a must-read; not only for all those who seek orientation on the topic, but also for researchers who want a thorough overview of the latest  developments. Highly recommended!’ Professor Albert Ziegler, Chair of Educational Psychology and Research on Excellence, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg

The SAGE Handbook of

Gifted and Talented Education

Edited by

Belle Wallace, Dorothy A. Sisk and John Senior

SAGE Publications Ltd 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP SAGE Publications Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road New Delhi 110 044 SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd 3 Church Street #10-04 Samsung Hub Singapore 049483

Editor: Jude Bowen Editorial Assistant: Colette Wilson Production Editor: Rudrani Mukherjee Copyeditor: Rosemary Campbell Proofreader: Dick Davies Indexer: Martin Hargreaves Marketing Manager: Dilhara Attygalle Cover Design: Bhairvi Gudka Typeset by: Cenveo Publisher Services Printed in the UK Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.

Introduction & editorial arrangement © Belle Wallace, Dorothy A. Sisk & John Senior, 2019 Preface © Chris Yapp, 2019 Introduction Part I © Dorothy A. Sisk, 2019 Chapter 1 © Robert J. Sternberg, 2019 Chapter 2 © Dorothy A. Sisk, 2019 Chapter 3 © Janet E. Davidson, 2019 Chapter 4 © Krishna Maitra & Yukti Sharma, 2019 Chapter 5 © Donna Y. Ford, Jemimah L. Young, Brian L. Wright & Ramon B. Goings, 2019 Chapter 6 © Dean Keith Simonton, 2019 Chapter 7 © Kelsey Procter Finley & Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, 2019 Chapter 8 © Taisir Subhi Yamin, 2019 Chapter 9 © Stephanie S. Tolan, 2019 Chapter 10 © Jane Piirto, 2019 Chapter 11 © Kelly M. Lee & F. Richard Olenchak, 2019 Chapter 12 © Linda Kreger Silverman, 2019 Chapter 13 © Robert W. Seney, 2019 Chapter 14 © Joan Freeman, 2019 Chapter 15 © Bruce M. Shore, Tanya Chichekian, Petra D. T. Gyles & Cheryl L. Walker, 2019 Chapter 16 © Lai Kwan Chan, 2019 Introduction to Part II © Belle Wallace, 2019 Chapter 17 © Margaret Sutherland & Niamh Stack, 2019 Chapter 18 © Joseph S. Renzulli & Sally M. Reis, 2019 Chapter 19 © Belle Wallace & Harvey B. Adams, 2019 Chapter 20 © C. June Maker & Randy Pease, 2019

Chapter 21 © Gillian Eriksson, 2019 Chapter 22 © Ian Warwick, 2019 Chapter 23 © Karen B. Rogers, 2019 Chapter 24 © Janna Wardman & John Hattie, 2019 Chapter 25 © Sandra N. Kaplan, 2019 Chapter 26 © Rachel Zorman, Menachem Nadler, Pnina Zeltser & Zipi Bashan, 2019 Chapter 27 © Aranzazu M. Blackburn & Susen R. Smith, 2019 Chapter 28 © Jacobus G. Maree, 2019 Chapter 29 © Jack Whitehead & Marie Huxtable, 2019 Introduction to Part III © John Senior, 2019 Chapter 30 © Hilary Lowe, 2019 Chapter 31 © Finarya Legoh, 2019 Chapter 32 © Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar, Denise de Souza Fleith & Liliane Bernardes Carneiro, 2019 Chapter 33 © Jiannong Shi & Pin Li, 2019 Chapter 34 © David Yun Dai, 2019 Chapter 35 © Ching-Chih Kuo, 2019 Chapter 36 © Ugur Sak, Bahadır Ayas, Bilge Bal-Sezerel, N. Nazlı Özdemir, Ercan Öpengin & S¸ule Demirel, 2019 Chapter 37 © Andrzej E. Se˛kowski, Barbara Cichy-Jasiocha & Martyna Płudowska, 2019 Chapter 38 © Don Ambrose, 2019 Chapter 39 © Eva Gyarmathy, 2019 Chapter 40 © Ken McCluskey, 2019 Conclusion © Belle Wallace, Dorothy A. Sisk & John Senior, 2019

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018944623 British Library Cataloguing in Publication data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-5264-3115-8

Contents List of Figures xi List of Tables xii Notes on the Editors and Contributors xiv Preface xxviii Acknowledgements xxxii Introduction xxxiii PART I CONCEPTS OF GIFTEDNESS AND IDENTIFICATION: SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL NEEDS

1

Introduction Dorothy A. Sisk

1

1

Is Gifted Education on the Right Path? Robert J. Sternberg

5

2

Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness Dorothy A. Sisk

19

3

Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift Janet E. Davidson

32

4

Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories: Revisiting the Concept of Giftedness through the Mirror of Multi-Cultural India Krishna Maitra and Yukti Sharma

46

Honoring Differences: Improving the Representation of Culturally Different Gifted Students based on Equity Donna Y. Ford, Jemimah L. Young, Brian L. Wright and Ramon B. Goings

59

5

6

Creativity and Genius Dean Keith Simonton

70

7

Why Bother Being Different? The Role of Intrinsic Motivation in Creativity Kelsey Procter Finley and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

83

8

New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity: Implications for Identification and Education Taisir Subhi Yamin

92

viii

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

9

Profoundly Gifted: Outliers among the Outliers Stephanie S. Tolan

10

Eminence in Talented Women by Domain: Issues, Similarities and Differences Utilizing the Piirto Pyramid as a Theoretical Framework Jane Piirto

104

117

11

Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD Kelly M. Lee and F. Richard Olenchak

129

12

Hidden Treasures: Twice Exceptional Students Linda Kreger Silverman

144

13

Serving and Honoring Gender Diversity in Education Robert W. Seney

159

14

The Emotional Development of the Gifted and Talented Joan Freeman

169

15

Friendships of Gifted Children and Youth: Updated Insights and Understanding Bruce M. Shore, Tanya Chichekian, Petra D. T. Gyles and Cheryl L. Walker

184

Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children in Hong Kong Lai Kwan Chan

196

PART II  EDUCATIONAL PROVISION: PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES

213

Introduction Belle Wallace

213

16

17

18

19

20

Building Knowledge Bridges: Synthesising Early Years and Gifted Education Research and Practice to Provide an Optimal Start for Young Gifted Children Margaret Sutherland and Niamh Stack

217

Engineering the Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Case Study of the Process of Change in Education Joseph S. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis

234

TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social Context: A Universal Framework for Developing Thinking Skills and Problem-solving Across the Curriculum Belle Wallace and Harvey B. Adams

246

Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration C. June Maker and Randy Pease

262

Contents

21

22

23

24

ix

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners: Authentic, Augmented and Actualized Places and Placements Gillian Eriksson

274

How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence that Benefits Highly Able Students to Enter Top Research Universities Ian Warwick

294

Meta-analysis of 26 Forms of Academic Acceleration: Options for Elementary (Primary) and Secondary Learners with Gifts or Talents Karen B. Rogers

309

What Works Better than the Rest? The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners Janna Wardman and John Hattie

321

25

Continuum of Differentiation Sandra N. Kaplan

26

The National Mentoring Program in Israel: A Model for Developing Leadership among Highly Gifted Students Rachel Zorman, Menachem Nadler, Pnina Zeltser and Zipi Bashan

343

Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners with Exceptional Potential for English-language Learning Aranzazu M. Blackburn and Susen R. Smith

357

27

28

Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa Jacobus G. Maree

29

Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts through Living Theory Research Jack Whitehead and Marie Huxtable

PART III GLOBAL RESPONSES TO EMERGING G&T PROVISION: DEFINING THE FUTURE Introduction John Senior 30

31

335

373

390

405 405

The Education of Highly Able Children in England: Challenges and Achievements Hilary Lowe

409

Creativity Competition for Gifted Students’ Communication and Self-Esteem Development Finarya Legoh

422

x

32

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Gifted Education in Brazil: Historical Background, Current Practices and Research Trends Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar, Denise de Souza Fleith and Liliane Bernardes Carneiro

432

33

New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China Jiannong Shi and Pin Li

446

34

Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity David Yun Dai

462

35

Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan Ching-Chih Kuo

479

36

Development of Gifted Education in Turkey Ugur Sak, Bahadır Ayas, Bilge Bal-Sezerel, N. Nazlı Özdemir, Ercan Öpengin and Şule Demirel

492

37

Gifted Education in Europe Andrzej E. Sękowski, Barbara Cichy-Jasiocha and Martyna Płudowska

507

38

Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization Don Ambrose

522

39

The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks Eva Gyarmathy and John Senior

40

538

Gifted Education: The Future Awaits Ken McCluskey

553

Conclusion Belle Wallace, Dorothy Sisk and John Senior

566

Index

568

List of Figures 4.1  Model depicting multiple possibilities and their interaction for the nurturance of potential in a child 54 6.1  Ranked eminence as a function of level of formal education for 109 leaders and 192 creators composing the sample of 301 geniuses in Cox  76 10.1 Piirto pyramid of talent development 118 16.1 Three hypothesized models of paternal and maternal constructs 202 16.2 The path diagram of the complete standardized solutions of the Post hoc Modified Model of paternal and maternal factors from LISREL 204 16.3 The hypothesized Parental-influence Model I (a) and Parental-influence Model II (b) on gifted children’s perfectionism 206 16.4 Hypothesized Parental-influence Model I (a) and Parental-influence Model II – Revised (b) of paternal and maternal influence on gifted children’s perfectionism with significant and non-significant paths indicated 207 17.1 Developing teacher understanding of gifted young learners through pedagogical engagement 225 18.1 The goals of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model 235 18.2 Overview of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model 237 19.1 The basic TASC Framework 250 19.2 Planning for the 10 multiple abilities, learning modes and activities 254 19.3 Extended TASC Framework 259 25.1 The Continuum of Differentiation 337 25.2 Continuum of Differentiation: Teacher/student roles 340 25.3 Continuum of Differentiation: Relationships to core or basic curriculum 341 25.4 Intersection between the continua: Differentiation and instruction 341 26.1 The process of creating pairs of mentors and young scholars in the National Mentoring program (2–3 months) 346 26.2 The Implementation of the National Mentoring Program in Israel (12 months) 348 30.1 Summary of the cycle of enrichment and extension processes 411 34.1  A schematic representation of implementation hierarchy 464 34.2 Correlations between national average of PISA (measured at the age of 15) and national average indices of entrepreneurialism obtained from samples of working-age adults 472 35.1 Multiple placements for gifted and talented students 483 35.2 The scheme of White Book of Gifted Education484 36.1 Number of scientific studies by year 501 39.1 Linking the creative process to its brain physiological background  541 39.2 Forms of creative processing 542

List of Tables 2.1  Qualities of the person of tomorrow 22 2.2   Spiritual Intelligence components 27 2.3   Likely traits and ways to strengthen for learning 29 2.4   Seven ways to raise or develop Spiritual Intelligence 30 5.1  Two federal definitions of gifted (1972 and 1993) 64 5.2   National equity goals applying the EEOC 80% rule 66 8.1  Distribution of the tests by domain and the process of thinking evaluated for each parallel form 99 15.1 Books with specific contributions to understanding gifted friendships 187 15.2 What handbooks on giftedness have summarized about gifted friendships 188 15.3 Additional insights (already published or presented) into gifted friendships 189 15.4 Gifted versus non-gifted dyadic comparisons on eight qualities of friendship 190 15.5 Comparing friends’ roles between high school and university gifted students 192 15.6 Current and desired numbers of friends among gifted students 192 16.1 Fit indices of the hypothesized models of paternal and maternal factors (N = 297 )203 16.2 Means and standard deviations of scores of paternal and maternal factors as reported by gifted children (N = 297 )204 16.3 Fit indices of the structural models of paternal and maternal influence on gifted children’s perfectionism (N = 297 )207 21.1 Framework for positive development of the gifted using technology 277 21.2 Principles impacting school architectural design of learning spaces 280 21.3 Placement for gifted learners viewed from five perspectives 287 23.1 Summary of meta-analytical syntheses 1984–2010 312 23.2 Definitions of subject-based and grade-based acceleration options 314 23.3 Mean effect sizes for subject-based acceleration options 316 23.4 Mean effect sizes for grade-based acceleration options 317 23.5 Match of acceleration options to gifts and talents 318 24.1 Summary of meta-analyses of provisions for the gifted 326 26.1 Young scholar characteristics in the first five cohorts of the National Mentoring program (n = 83) 347 26.2 The talent areas of the young scholars in the first five cohorts of the National Mentoring program (n = 83) 348 26.3 Young scholars’ perceptions at program completion regarding the contribution of the National Mentoring program in the first five cohorts (n = 79) 350 26.4 Extraordinary achievements of young scholars in the first five cohorts of the National Mentoring Program (n = 48) 352 30.1 Enriching and extending high quality teaching and learning 414

List of Tables

34.1 A tentative assessment based on the VISCAR framework for illustration purposes 35.1 The implementation of gifted and talented education in Taiwan 35.2 Teacher in-service training program 35.3 Gifted student responses to instruction 36.1 Scientific studies by subject (1990–2017)

xiii

466 480 481 487 502

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

THE EDITORS Belle Wallace was Co-Director of the Curriculum Development Unit (University of Natal, SA) with the double brief for developing Assessment Strategies and Curriculum Extension for very able, disadvantaged learners, and training Curriculum Planners. Belle has served on the Executive Committee of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children; was editor of Gifted Education International from 1981 to 2016 (SAGE); and is past President of NACE (National Association for Able Children in Education). She was the designer and senior author of ‘Language in My World’ (Juta Publishers): an English second language series for Grades 1 to 12 which incorporated TASC principles. She has been made a Fellow of the Royal Society for Arts in recognition of her services to education. She is currently Director of TASC International. Dorothy A. Sisk, PhD, is a professor at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas and Director of the Gifted Child Center. She is an international consultant focusing on gifted education, leadership and creativity development, and former Director of the US Office of Gifted and Talented. Dr Sisk was a founder and first President of the American Creativity Association and founder/ President of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, serving as their executive administrator, and editor of Gifted International (1980–1990). She is the author or co-author of 13 books and numerous chapters and articles. John Senior is a freelance creative, academic, writer, editor, researcher and consultant to both the public and private sectors. He is an able and experienced teacher, lecturer, education manager and mentor, founder and Creative Director of Otherwise Ltd and a busy blogger. He has considerable experience of working with exceptional learners, internationally and throughout the UK. He has published extensively and is a Contributing Editor/Reviewer for Gifted Education International, a SAGE journal.

THE CONTRIBUTORS Harvey B. Adams taught high school science 1972–8, was Research Officer on decisionmaking in schools 1978–81, county advisor responsible for identifying the most able 1981–2, and director of a curriculum enrichment programme 1982–4. In 1984 he joined the Department of Educational Psychology, University of Natal, teaching postgraduate courses. He also was Co-Director of the Curriculum Development Unit, and worked with Belle Wallace on the

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xv

development of TASC. In 1994 he became Professor and Head of Department until leaving South Africa in 1998 to become a consultant to an English Education Authority, and in 2004 became a regional consultant for the national government. Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar is Professor Emerita, University of Brasilia, Brazil, and has served as Brazilian delegate to the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children. She has been awarded honorary citizenship of Brasilia, Brazil and has served as president of the Brazilian Association for the Gifted at the Federal District. Over the last 40 years she has carried out research projects and published several books and numerous articles, especially on giftedness and creativity. She is on the editorial board of several journals in Brazil and internationally, and is an honorary member of the Brazilian Council of Giftedness. Don Ambrose, PhD, is Professor of Graduate Education, Rider University in Lawrenceville, New Jersey, and editor of the Roeper Review. He serves on the editorial boards of most of the major journals in the field of gifted education and for several book series. He has initiated and led many interdisciplinary book projects involving eminent scholars from gifted education, general education, creative studies, cognitive science, ethical philosophy, psychology, political science, economics, law, history, sociology, theoretical physics, complexity theory, and critical thinking. Current projects include books of new creative and critical thinking strategies derived from various academic disciplines. He has presented throughout the world. Bahadır Ayas is a researcher in the Center for Research and Practice for High Ability Education at Anadolu University, Turkey. He also teaches Science to gifted students at the Center. He worked as a Science teacher in private and public schools before he started to work at the Center. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Science Education and Master’s and PhD degrees in Gifted Education. His research focus on creativity, measurement of scientific creativity and education for gifted students. He is the coauthor of the Creative Scientific Ability Test. Currently, he works on the measurement of scientific creativity in young children. Zipi Bashan is the coordinator of the National Mentoring Program. She has extensive experience in educational program evaluation. In the National Mentoring Program, she formed and maintains the mentor bank, comprised of more than 100 professionals in a variety of fields, such as science, mathematics, and arts from all of the universities and research institutions in Israel, as well as from industry and the performing arts. Ms Bashan organises all of the conferences in the program. She also maintains personal contact with program participants and their mentors and is responsible for following their progress via digital questionnaires and individual phone conversations, when necessary. Aranzazu M. Blackburn has been an educator for more than twenty years in Australia, undertaking diverse roles such as English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher, Spanish teacher, deputy principal, curriculum coordinator and learning support coordinator. She attained her PhD from the University of New England, Australia. Her research focuses on gifted and talented English-language learners in the secondary years. Liliane Bernardes Carneiro is an educator at the Educational Secretariat of the Federal District. She obtained her Masters degree in Science of Information and her PhD in Psychology from the University of Brasilia, Brazil. She has worked in a Brazilian state programme for gifted and talented children for many years and is the author of several articles concerning school libraries, image reading and gifted education.

xvi

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Lai Kwan Chan, EdD, is Program Director of the Program for the Gifted and Talented, the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She has served as teacher, researcher and curriculum development officer in various educational settings, and has been working in gifted education for more than 25 years. Her major research interests includes giftedness, creativity and parent education. Tanya Chichekian holds a BEd (Mathematics Education), and an MA and PhD (Educational Psychology, Learning Sciences) from McGill University. She taught secondary mathematics then served as honors-science academic adviser at Dawson College, Montreal. Her research interests include mathematics and science education, inquiry-based instruction, high-ability learners’ cognitive and metacognitive skills, and development of learners’ and new teachers’ identity, knowledge, skills and motivation as inquirers. Her doctoral research received the McGill’s social sciences Convocation Prize and a national award. She is currently a social psychology postdoctoral fellow at l’Université du Québec à Montréal and Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. Barbara Cichy-Jasiocha, PhD, is a Junior Lecturer at the Department of Psychology of Individual Differences at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland. She defended her doctoral dissertation: ‘The Selected Psychological Determinants of the Subjective Quality of Life in Artistically Gifted Adults’. Her main areas of interest are the psychology of individual differences, creativity, life satisfaction of the gifted and art therapy. For the last ten years, she has run workshops for children and adults. Since 2010, she has been working with the editorial office of The Review of Psychology. She is author of publications on creativity and special abilities. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, PhD, is Professor at Claremont Graduate University, founder and co-director of the Quality of Life Research Center, and former chair of the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago. His books include the bestselling Flow, as well as Creativity and Becoming Adult. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. David Yun Dai, PhD, is Professor of Educational Psychology and Methodology at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and Guest Professor at the College of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences at East China Normal University. He has published eight authored books and edited volumes, and over one hundred journal articles and book chapters on psychological and educational topics. He is currently serving at on the editorial boards of Gifted Child Quarterly, Roeper Review and the Journal for the Education of the Gifted. Janet E. Davidson is Associate Professor of Psychology and Faculty Director of Advising at Lewis & Clark College. Her PhD is from Yale University (1989), where she began research on the role of insight in intellectual giftedness. She conducts research on several aspects of problem solving and giftedness, including the roles that insight and metacognitive skills play in intelligence across the lifespan. She and Robert J. Sternberg have edited four books: The Psychology of Problem Solving (2003), Conceptions of Giftedness (1986), The Nature of Insight (1995), and a second edition of Conceptions of Giftedness in 2005.

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xvii

S¸ule Demirel is a doctoral student and research assistant in gifted education in the Department of Special Education at Anadolu University, Turkey. During her master’s program, she studied social values of talent types. Currently, she teaches character education for gifted children at the Center for Research and Practice for High Ability Education at Anadolu University. The subject of her teaching includes ethics, global values, social and emotional needs of gifted children and youth. She also conducts seminars for parents of gifted children about characteristics, myths and needs of gifted children. She is one of the contributors of the Anadolu Sak Intelligence Scale. Gillian Eriksson, PhD, is the Coordinator of Gifted Education and teaches Curriculum and Comparative Education at the University of Central Florida, with a doctorate from the University of Connecticut. A USA delegate to the World Council for Gifted Children (2007– 2013) and active on Florida State Challenge grants, she is the UCF P.I. on a collaborative Javits Grant, Project ELEVATE (2015–2020). An author, consultant editor and contributor to Gifted Education International, she has received awards for Teaching Excellence, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Internationalization, Minority Mentorship and a Fulbright scholarship. Kelsey Procter Finley, MA, is a doctoral student of Positive Developmental Psychology at Claremont Graduate University. Her research interests include creativity, meaning in life and positive aging. Kelsey is also a musician and is involved in the Pomona College orchestra and concert band and consequently has an additional research interest in the psychology of music and aesthetic experiences. Denise de Souza Fleith, PhD, is a Psychologist, a Full Professor at the Institute of Psychology, University of Brasilia, and a researcher at the National Council for the Development of Science and Technology in Brazil. She received her doctoral degree from the University of Connecticut in gifted and talented education. She was the vice-president (August 2015–February 2017) and president (February–July 2017) of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children. She is the author of books and articles on creativity and giftedness. Donna Y. Ford, PhD, is a Professor and Cornelius Vanderbilt Endowed Chair in the College of Education at Vanderbilt University. Professor Ford’s work focuses on: (1) the achievement gap; (2) recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education; (3) multicultural curriculum and instruction; (4) culturally competent teacher training and development; (5) African-American identity; and (6) African-American family involvement. Regarding the above, she consults with school districts, and educational and legal organizations. She has published extensively. Joan Freeman, PhD, is a world expert in the lifetime development of gifts and talents. For this, the British Psychological Society has honoured her with an elected Fellowship and a Lifetime Achievement Award. Mensa International has honoured her with a Lifetime Achievement Award, and the College of Teachers (UK) with an Honorary Fellowship. She is Visiting Professor at Middlesex University, London, and Patron of the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE). She has conducted and supervised a great deal of research and published 16 books in many languages, plus three UK government reports ad more than three hundred papers and chapters – as well as making a considerable number of international presentations. Her highly praised book, Gifted Lives: What happens When Gifted Children Grow Up, describes the intimate lives of the study participants, their pleasures, trials and successes over 35 years. Joan is Founding President of the European Council for High Ability (ECHA) and Executive European Talent Support Centres, along with having a busy international practice for gifted children in central London.

xviii

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Ramon B. Goings, EdD, is Assistant Professor of educational leadership at Loyola University Maryland. His research interests are centred on exploring the academic and social experiences of gifted/high-achieving Black males, non-traditional student success, diversifying the teacher and school leader workforce, equity and access to gifted programmes for students of colour, and investigating the contributions of historically Black colleges and universities. Dr Goings publishes extensively and serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of African American Males in Education. Eva Gyarmathy is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology of the Hungarian Academy. Her research interests focus on individuals with multiple or exceptional gifts, such as the talent associated with specific learning difficulties, ADHD, autism and social/cultural differences. She also lectures in several universities. As a psychotherapist, her work is directed toward the care of the profoundly gifted and multiple exceptionally talented. She is a consultant to private schools that serve gifted children and adolescents who could not be integrated into mainstream schools. She founded the Adolescent and Adult Dyslexia Centre and the Special Needs Talent Support Council. Petra D. T. Gyles has a PhD in School and Applied Child Psychology from McGill University. Her research, presentations and publications have focused on intrinsic motivation in school-aged children, and specifically examine how to promote growth mindsets and mastery goals in children. Areas of research include identifying and evaluating student outcomes in inquiry-based teaching and learning, and qualities and quantities of friendships among gifted children and young people. She currently works as a clinical and school psychologist privately and with the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board in Ontario and teaches at Seneca College and the University of Toronto. John Hattie is Laureate Professor, Deputy Dean of Melbourne Graduate School of Education, and Director of the Melbourne Education Research Institute. John is Chair of the Board of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership and Associate Director of the ARCSRI: Science of Learning Research Centre. He was chief moderator of the NZ Performance Based Research Fund, is President of the International Test Commission, and associate editor of the British Journal of Educational Psychology. His areas of interest are measurement models and their applications to educational problems, and models of teaching and learning. Previous appointments were in Auckland, North Carolina, Western Australia, and New England. Marie Huxtable is Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Cumbria, UK. She supports and contributes to educational conversations, web-spaces and opportunities for adults, children and young people to learn together and research, develop and offer their talents, expertise and knowledge as gifts. Her current interests include supporting the development of researching communities, such as the Educational Journal of Living Theories (http://ejolts.net), and researchers in organisations such as the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institute (https://brlsi.org/) and Make a Move (http://www.makeamove.org.uk). Sandra N. Kaplan, EdD, is Professor of Clinical Education in Teaching and Learning at USC University of Southern California. As a former teacher and administrator of gifted programmes in an urban school district in California, her primary area of concern is modifying the core and differentiated curriculum to meet the needs of inner-city, urban, gifted learners. She is a consultant for several state departments and school districts nationwide on the topics of education for gifted students, differentiated curricula in depth and complexity, and thematic interdisciplinarity. Additionally, Dr Kaplan has authored many articles and books on the

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xix

nature and scope of differentiated curricula for gifted students; is a past president of the California Association for the Gifted (CAG) and the National Association for Gifted Children (NAC) and has been nationally recognised for her contributions to gifted education. Dr Kaplan has been the Principal Investigator for Jacob Javits grants on curriculum and early childhood. Ching-Chih Kuo is Professor of Special Education at National Taiwan Normal University. She is experienced in teaching, counselling and administration. Her research interests in terms of giftedness include educational policy, identification, multiple intelligences, guidance and counselling, twice exceptional students and brain study. Past honours include the NTNU Outstanding Service Award in 2015, NTNU’s Subsidy for Distinguished Scholar since 2015, NTNU’s Subsidy for Academic Papers and Books in 2015, and the MOE Prize for Excellent Educators & Officers in 2013. Dr Kuo serves on many national and international advisory boards and committees, and was an elected President of the Asia-Pacific Federation on Giftedness (AFPG) in 2006–2008. She also serves as the Taiwan focal point for internationally related activities for the gifted, such as the ASEAN+3 Student Camp & Teacher Workshop for the Gifted in Science, the ASEAN+3 Junior Science Odyssey and World Creativity Festival. Kelly M. Lee is currently Assistant Clinical Professor at the University of Maryland department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education (CHSE). She obtained her doctorate at the University of Houston in Counseling Psychology. Her research and clinical interests include psychoeducational assessment, gifted achievement and twice-exceptional students. Finarya Legoh works at the Agency for Assessment & Application of Technology (BPPT) in developing science & technology communication programmes for the socio-engineering community, including gifted students. She is the Indonesia focal point for the APEC Mentoring Center for Gifted in Science, the APEC Forum for Science Talented, the ASEAN+3 Center for Gifted in Science, World Creativity Festival, and is the Vice Chairman for AASSA Special Committee on SHARE Communication. Finarya was the Executive Director for the Indonesia S&T Center (2007–2010), and is also an Associate Professor at the University of Pelita Harapan. Her professional awards include: First Female Indonesian Scientist in Architectural Acoustics, from the Museum of Records of Indonesia, and Lee Kimche McGrath Worldwide Award, from the Association of ScienceTechnology Centers of the US. Pin Li is Full Professor at the School of Psychology, Chengdu Normal University. She was previously a full professor at the Chengdu Institute of Computer Application, Chinese Academy of Sciences. She is majoring in educational psychology, social psychology and experimental psychology. Hilary Lowe is Education Adviser for the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE), following a career in senior management in secondary schools and in Higher Education, latterly as Associate Dean in a University Institute of Education. She was the Director for the Excellence in Cities National Training Programme for Gifted and Talented Co-ordinators, has been a member of several national education advisory groups, written materials commissioned by the Welsh and English governments and published and presented widely on the education of more able children, as well as on education leadership and professional development. She is a Consultant Editor for the Gifted Education International journal.

xx

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Krishna Maitra, PhD, is a retired professor and has been passionately involved in teaching and research in the field of gifted education. She was a member of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (WCGTC), the Council for Exceptional Children and the Asia-Pacific Federation of the WCGTC. She acted as a vice-president of the Asia Pacific Federation of Gifted and Talented and was on the editorial board of Gifted Education International and the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education. She has contributed to the field of special education by writing extensively in journals, books and by curriculum development. C. June Maker has served in leadership positions in national and international organizations for gifted children, served on Editorial Boards for national and international gifted education journals, and published numerous books, articles, and videos. She has conducted research on performancebased assessments, implementation of multiple intelligences theory, and creativity development, working with children, teachers and researchers in the US and other countries. In 2015 she received the International Research Award from the World Council for the Gifted and Talented Students (WCGTS), and in May 2016 an honorary Doctor of Letters Degree from Western Kentucky University. The website for her project, DISCOVER, is http://www.discover.arizona.edu/ Jacobus G. Maree is Educational Psychologist and a Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Pretoria. He holds doctoral degrees in Education (Career Counselling), Mathematics Education and Psychology. A regular keynote speaker at national and international conferences, he has received multiple awards for his work and he has a B1 rating from the National Research Foundation. Professor Maree has authored or co-authored 100+ peerreviewed articles and 76 books/book chapters on career counselling and related topics since 2009. In the same period, he supervised 36 doctoral theses and Masters dissertations. Ken McCluskey, Dean and Professor of Education at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada has 25 years’ experience as a school psychologist and administrator in the public school system. A recipient of programme development, creativity and publication awards from the Canadian Council for Exceptional Children, the International Centre for Innovation in Education, Reclaiming Youth International, and the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (along with his institution’s teaching, research, governance and community service awards), Ken has delivered keynote addresses in several countries on six continents and authored or co-authored more than 125 professional articles, chapters or books. Menachem Nadler is the Head of the Division for Gifted and Outstanding Students in the Ministry of Education in Israel. The division identifies the top 1–3% of gifted students and the highest 8% of outstanding students in academic ability nationwide. The division offers them a variety of enrichment programmes, ranging from magnet enrichment centres to special classes, from concurrent enrolment in universities to individual mentoring with outstanding professionals. The division is also responsible for nurturing outstanding students within their regular classroom and offers a wide range of within-school programmes for these students, while training their classroom teachers to work with them. F. Richard Olenchak is Head of the Department of Educational Studies and Professor of Educational Psychology/Research Methodology at Purdue University. He is a past president of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), and his work is devoted to improving the lives of gifted persons, particularly those who are twice-exceptional.

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xxi

Ercan Öpengin holds a Master’s and PHD degree in Gifted Education and is a Research Assistant in Gifted Education in the Department of Special Education at Faculty of Education in Duzce University, Turkey. He worked as a psychological counsellor in schools and in the Center for Research and Practice for High Ability Education (UYEP) at Anadolu University. He is a contributor of the Anadolu Sak Intelligence Scale. He has involved in research in the area of giftedness and intelligence scales. He has published journal articles and book chapters on gifted label and wellbeing and academic and social needs of gifted students. N. Nazlı Özdemir works as a Research Assistant in the Center for Research and Practice for High Ability Education at Anadolu University in Turkey. She is the coordinator of the education programs at the Center where she teaches Science to gifted students. She graduated from the department of Mathematics education at Bogazici University. Afterwards, she received her Master’s degree in the field of gifted education. She currently works on her PhD about the measure of scientific creativity in young children. She is the editorial assistant of the Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education. Her research interest includes scientific creativity, intelligence and education models. Randy Pease is co-director of a research and development project to create assessments for identifying young gifted children in the UAE, and a teacher educator with the Cultivating Diverse Talent in the STEM project of the University of Arizona. He has taught children of all ages in general education classrooms, recently implementing the Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving (REAPS) model, and taught self-contained classes of gifted students. He has also been a curriculum supervisor, a coordinator of programmes for gifted students, and a teacher educator with the DISCOVER Projects, conducting workshops and guiding teachers in the implementation of curricula to develop talents in general and special classrooms. He has co-authored numerous articles. Jane Piirto, PhD, is Trustees’ Distinguished Professor Emerita at Ashland University. Dr Piirto is the author of 21 books. She is an award-winning poet, novelist, and scholar. She has received the Mensa Lifetime Achievement Award, the NAGC Distinguished Scholar Award, the Torrance Creativity Award, the International Creativity Award, and an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from Northern Michigan University. Her textbooks in gifted education are these: Talented Children and Adults: Their Development and Education (3 editions), Understanding Those Who Create (2 editions), Understanding Creativity, “My Teeming Brain”: Understanding Creative Writers, Creativity for 21st Century Skill, and the edited book, Organic Creativity. She has been a high school teacher, a counsellor, a college instructor of humanities, a coordinator of programmes for the talented, principal of the Hunter College Elementary School, and an artist in schools for the National Endowment for the Arts. She has served as a consultant and speaker in Europe, the Near East, Southern Asia, Australia, and throughout the United States. Martyna Płudowska, PhD, is a Junior Lecturer at the Department of Psychology of Individual Differences at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland. She also holds a B.A. in sociology. Her interests concentrate on creativity, high abilities, contemporary social transformations and their consequences for the psychosocial functioning of individuals. Since 2015, she has been working with the editorial office of The Review of Psychology. She is the author of publications on creativity, values and the education of gifted students.

xxii

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Sally M. Reis is a Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor and a Teaching Fellow in Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut. She currently holds the Letitia Neag Chair in Educational Psychology. She has authored more than 250 articles, books, book chapters, monographs and technical reports. Sally is a past-president of The National Association for Gifted Children, a fellow of the American Psychological Association and a Distinguished Scholar of the National Association for Gifted Children. Joseph S. Renzulli is Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut. His research has focused on the identification and development of creativity and giftedness in young people, and on curricular and organisational models for differentiated learning environments that contribute to total school improvement. A focus of his work has been on applying the pedagogy of gifted education to the improvement of learning for all students. Dr Renzulli is a Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor. In 2009 Dr Renzulli received the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Award for Innovation in Education. Karen B. Rogers is Professor Emerita in the Special & Gifted Education Department of the College of Educational, Leadership and Professional Psychology at the University of St Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She has published extensively on the effects of academic acceleration, instructional/curricular differentiation, research synthesis methodology, programme evaluation, and gifted programme development in over 180 journal articles, 25 book chapters and seven books. She was Research Director for the Gifted Education Research and Resource Information Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia from 2005 to 2008, and has been an invited visiting scholar or honorary professor in universities around the world. Ugur Sak is the founding Director of the Center for Research and Practice on High Ability Education and chair professor of the gifted education programme at Anadolu University, Turkey. He is the founding editor of the Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education. His has published books, book chapters and articles in Turkish and English about gifted education, creativity and measurement of intelligence. He is the author/coauthor of a number of original models, such as Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale, Creative Reversal Act, Selective Problem Solving, and Creative Scientific Ability Test. Currently, he directs a nationwide project funded by the Ministry of Education to develop national curriculum for gifted students from kindergarten to high school. Andrzej E. Se˛kowski is Professor and Head of the Department of Psychology of Individual Differences at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland, Vice-President of the Polish Psychological Association and Editor-in-chief of Przegląd Psychologiczny (The Review of Psychology). As a Fulbright and Humboldt Fellow and a Kościuszko Fund Fellow, he has been on placement in numerous foreign scientific institutions, including the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. He is the author of some 250 publications – books and articles in international scientific journals, such as the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Science, High Ability Studies, the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness and Zeitschrift fűr Heilpädagogik. Robert W. Seney is Professor Emeritus at the Mississippi University for Women. He has worked in education for over 36 years, about 30 of those in gifted education. He has been a classroom instructor, district administrator, head of private schools and a university professor. He is most known for his advocacy of using Young Adult Literature with Gifted Readers. At Mississippi University for Women, he directed the graduate programmes in Education and was the primary instructor in the Masters of Gifted Studies programme. He was also the director of the Mississippi Governor’s School, a three-week summer residential programme for gifted high

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xxiii

school students. Upon retirement, the Mississippi College Board named him Professor Emeritus for his educational service to the state of Mississippi, the university, and the field of gifted education. He has been active in several state gifted organisations and the World Council for Gifted Children. He was the 2005 Conference Chair in New Orleans. John Senior is a freelance creative, academic, writer, editor, researcher and consultant to both the public and private sectors. He is an able and experienced teacher, lecturer, education manager and mentor, founder and Creative Director of Otherwise Ltd and a busy blogger. He has considerable experience of working with exceptional learners, internationally and throughout the UK. He has published extensively and is a contributing editor/reviewer for Gifted Education International, a SAGE journal. Bilge Bal-Sezerel is a Research Assistant in the Center for Research and Practice for High Ability Education at Anadolu University in Turkey where she coordinates admission office and teaches mathematics to gifted students. She graduated from the department of Mathematics Education at Anadolu University and worked as a Mathematics teacher in a private school for six years. She holds a Master’s degree in Gifted Education and currently is working on her PhD dissertation. The subject of the dissertation is the measure of mathematical creativity. She the editorial assistant of Turkish Journal of Giftedness of Education. Her researches focus on mathematical creativity, intelligence and creativity domains. Yukti Sharma, PhD, is faculty at the Department of Education, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India. She is involved in teaching and research in the area of giftedness with postgraduate and PhD scholars at the department. Additional research interests include science education, special education and creativity. She has conducted research projects that have been funded by the National Council of Educational Research & Training (NCERT), New Delhi. She has presented at several conferences and has various works published in national as well as international journals. She has co-authored textbooks on education and developed courses in special education for postgraduate students. Jiannong Shi is currently Full Professor of Psychology, affiliated with the Institute of Psychology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Department of Psychology of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. He has been a visiting professor jointly employed by the Department of Learning and Philosophy (Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Humanity) of Aalborg University, Denmark, the University of Munich, the University of Michigan, Yale University, the University of Adelaide and Regensburg University, respectively, during the last 20 years. He is the Director of the Center for Supernormal (G/T) Children at the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. He has authored (or co-authored) 11 books in the field of child development, gifted education, creativity, talent development and excellence, as well as more than 230 journal articles and book chapters in Chinese and English. Bruce M. Shore is Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology at McGill University, Montreal, having been department chair, faculty-association president and Dean of Students. His awards include American Educational Research Association Fellow, National Association for Gifted Students Distinguished Scholar, World Council for Gifted and Talented Children International Award for Research, six American Mensa Education and Research Foundation Awards for Excellence for Research on Human Intelligence and Intellectual Giftedness, and university distinctions for teaching and supervision. His research focuses on intellectual

xxiv

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

giftedness and inquiry-based teaching and learning. His latest book is The Graduate Advisor Handbook: A Student-centered Approach (University of Chicago Press). Linda Kreger Silverman, PhD, is a licensed Clinical and Counselling Psychologist. She directs the Institute for the Study of Advanced Development, the Gifted Development Center (GDC) and Visual-Spatial Resource in Denver, Colorado. Her PhD is in Special Education and Educational Psychology from USC. In the last 39 years, over 6,500 children have been assessed at GDC, the largest data bank on this population. She has studied the psychology and education of the gifted since 1961 and contributed over 300 publications, including Counseling the Gifted and Talented, Upside-Down Brilliance: The Visual-Spatial Learner, Advanced Development: A Collection of Works on Gifted Adults and Giftedness 101 (translated into Korean and Swedish). Dean Keith Simonton is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. His more than 500 publications largely concern genius, creativity, leadership and talent. Past honours include the William James Book Award, the George A. Miller Outstanding Article Award, the Theoretical Innovation Prize in Personality and Social Psychology, the Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Study of Creativity, the Rudolf Arnheim Award for Outstanding Contributions to Psychology and the Arts, the E. Paul Torrance Award for Creativity, and three Mensa Awards for Excellence in Research. In 2014 he edited The Wiley Handbook of Genius. Dorothy A. Sisk, PhD, is Professor at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, and Director of the Gifted Child Center. She is an international consultant focusing on gifted education, leadership and creativity development, and former Director of the U.S. Office of Gifted and Talented. Dr Sisk was a founder and first President of the American Creativity Association and founder/ President of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, serving as their executive administrator, and editor of Gifted International (1980–1990). She is the author or co-author of 13 books and numerous chapters and articles. Susen R. Smith, PhD, is GERRIC Senior Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Gifted and Special Education at the School of Education, University of New South Wales, Australia. She is an experienced teacher, leader, and academic scholar in gifted education. Her research focuses on differentiating teaching for talent development and for the social-emotional learning of gifted underachievers. She has been a visiting scholar, keynoted internationally, guest edited for the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education and is published in journals such as the Roeper Review, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Gifted and Talented International, and the International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity. Her three decades of practice and research resulted in the development of the Model of Dynamic Differentiation. Niamh Stack is Professor in the School of Psychology, University of Glasgow. In her role their as Director of Teaching and Learning she is engaged in activities around effective pedagogy, curriculum enhancement and graduate skills. In addition, she is the Research Director for the Scottish Network for Able Pupils (SNAP) which is hosted in the University of Glasgow. SNAP offers support and advice to the Scottish Education system in three main areas: publications, staff development and national conferences. She researches and publishes in the area of high ability/giftedness and atypical development. She has led seminars for staff and students across the UK and Europe.

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xxv

Robert J. Sternberg is Professor of Human Development at Cornell University. He is also Honorary Professor of Psychology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Previously he was IBM Professor of Psychology and Education and Director of the Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise at Yale. He is a past-president of the American Psychological Association and the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Sternberg’s PhD is from Stanford and he holds 13 honorary doctorates. He is a member of the National Academy of Education and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has won the E. Paul Torrance Award and the Distinguished Scholar Award from the Natonal Association for Gifted Children. Margaret Sutherland, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in inclusive education, University of Glasgow, Scotland. She is the Director of the Scottish Network for Able Pupils and Director of Post Graduate Research, School of Education, University of Glasgow. She has 37 years’ teaching experience in mainstream primary schools, behaviour support and, latterly, higher education. She is author of Gifted and Talented in the Early Years: A Practical Guide for 3–6 Year Olds and Developing the Gifted and Talented Young Learner. Her first book is in its second edition and has been translated into German and Slovenian. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. She serves on various international committees, has led seminars across the UK, and been invited to work with staff and students in Tanzania, Malawi, Korea, USA, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden, Austria, China, Denmark and Australia. Stephanie S. Tolan is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Educational Advancement, and has published 28 books for children and young adults, including the 2003 Newbery Honor winning Surviving the Applewhites. Her many non-fiction works about the needs of the highly gifted include the widely published and often translated essay ‘Is it a Cheetah?’ and she was co-author of the award-winning Guiding the Gifted Child (1982). One of the original members of the Columbus Group, who brought the concept of Asynchronous Development to the gifted community, she co-edited Off the Charts: Asynchrony and the Gifted Child (2013). Her most recent publication about the gifted is Out of Sync: Essays on Giftedness (2016). Cheryl L. Walker received her PhD in School/Applied Child Psychology at McGill University in Montreal, and is currently a school psychologist at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board in Ottawa, Ontario. Her research has challenged myths about gifted students’ previously presumed preference to work alone in classrooms, shifted the focus from role change to role diversification in inquiry teaching and learning, and examined social perspective-taking in successful classroom group work. She received an American Mensa Education and Research Foundation Award for Excellence for Research on Human Intelligence and Intellectual Giftedness for her theoretical paper linking ‘theory of mind’ and giftedness. Belle Wallace was Co-Director of the Curriculum Development Unit (University of Natal, SA) with the double brief for developing Assessment Strategies and Curriculum Extension for very able, disadvantaged learners, and training Curriculum Planners. Belle has served on the Executive Committee of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children; was editor of Gifted Education International from 1981 to 2016 (SAGE); and is past President of NACE (National Association for Able Children in Education). She was the designer and senior author of ‘Language in My World’ (Juta Publishers): an English second language series for Grades 1 to

xxvi

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

12 which incorporated TASC principles. She has been made a Fellow of the Royal Society for Arts in recognition of her services to education. She is currently Director of TASC International. Janna Wardman is Lecturer at the University of Auckland and currently teaches on postgraduate Initial Teacher Education courses and Masters courses on gifted education, as well as being a supervisor of postgraduate candidates. Janna is an experienced international presenter and also advises parents and schools on questions relating to gifted education. She is the editor of APEX, the New Zealand journal for gifted education. A strong theoretical background, informed by research, supports her practical experience of 30 years in education in Scotland, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Ian Warwick taught in inner London comprehensives for 20 years, then worked as the Gifted Education Lead across two top-rated local authorities before he formed London Gifted & Talented in 2003. Since then LG&T has directly worked with well over 3,500 schools and 11,000 teachers internationally. More than 150,000 educators worldwide have used their free e-resources. Ian has set up and run many national school-based research programmes for the Department for Education and the London Mayor. His recent publications include World Class: Tackling the Ten Biggest Challenges Facing Schools Today (Routledge 2017) and Educating the More Able Student: What Works and Why (Sage 2015) and he has three more books being published this year. He has devised and delivered extensive online and live training programmes for many hundreds of schools in countries across Europe, the USA, Africa and the Middle and Far East. Jack Whitehead is Visiting Professor at the University of Cumbria, a former President of the British Educational Research Association and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Westminster College, Utah. He is a Visiting Professor at Ningxia University in China and a member of the editorial board of the Educational Journal of Living Theories (EJOLTS – http://ejolts.net/node/80). Since 1973 his research programme has focused on the creation of the living-educational theories that individuals use to improve their practice and explain their educational influences in such enquiries as, ‘How do I improve what I am doing in my workplace?’ His latest publication Living Theory research as a way of life (Brown Dog Books) is available as a paperback and e-book. Brian L. Wright, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Department of Instruction and Curriculum Leadership in the College of Education at the University of Memphis. His research examines high-achieving African American boys/males in urban schools (pre-K-12), racial-ethnic identity development of boys and young men of colour, STEM and African American males, African American males as early childhood teachers, and teacher identity development. He is the author of The Brilliance of Black Boys: Cultivating School Success in the Early Grades (Teachers College Press). Taisir Subhi Yamin is Professor of Gifted Education, with a BS in Physics, an MA in Special Education and a PhD in Gifted Education and Computer Assisted Learning from Lancaster University in England. Yamin has written 20 books, numerous articles, chapters, research papers and training packages for productive thinking, creative problem solving and future problem solving. He is a former President of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (WCGTC), former editor-in-chief of Gifted and Talented International, General Director of the International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE) in Germany, and

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xxvii

research fellow at Université Paris Descartes. He founded, with Ken McCluskey, the International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity (IJTDC). ICIE publishes the IJTDC in partnership with American and European universities. Chris Yapp is a Patron of NACE (UK). He is an independent consultant specialising in Innovation, Technology, Policy and Futures Thinking. Chris was in the IT Industry for 30 years specialising in networking. He has written, edited and contributed to a number of books on these topics. He is a Fellow of the British Computer Society and blogs for them on the societal implications of technology advances. He has been involved in the Future of Education for nearly 30 years and has lectured extensively on this topic, including at the Royal Society, The Club of Rome, the British Council, the World Bank, and the EU. He has spoken on Gifted and Talented education at UK, European and Global Conferences. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He has an M.A. in Physics from Magdalen College, Oxford and an honorary Doctorate from Glasgow Caledonian University. Jemimah L. Young, PhD, is Assistant Professor in Teacher Education and Administration at the University of Iowa. Her areas of expertise include Multicultural and Urban Education and the Sociology of Education. Her research interests include: (1) the achievement of students of colour; (2) Black girl intersectionality; (3) educational outcomes for marginalised populations; and (4) culturally responsive pedagogy. She writes extensively with regard to her research interests. Pnina Zeltser is the National Supervisor of the Division for Gifted and Outstanding students in the Ministry of Education in Israel. She designs innovative curriculum models and pedagogical guidelines promoting cognitive and social-emotional development, leadership and creativity in all of the programs for gifted students nationwide. She also designs and implements professional in-service training and development for teachers of gifted students in various programs nationwide, such as magnet enrichment centers and special classes and for program directors of gifted students. In addition, Ms Zeltser supervises two year programs for training teachers to receive special certification for teaching gifted students. Rachel Zorman, PhD, is the Executive Director of the Henrietta Szold Institute – The National Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, in Israel. She directs the National Mentoring programme, which the Szold Institute implements for the Ministry of Education in Israel. Dr Zorman specialises in identifying and nurturing gifted and talented students from various socio-economic, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. She has also taught courses on gifted education in several universities in Israel and in the USA, and served as the academic advisor to the Division for Gifted and Outstanding students in the Ministry of Education.

Preface Chris Yapp

I first became interested in education research in 1990, by a somewhat odd route. I was speaking at a conference on Learning Organisations, based around ideas by Peter Senge, Chris Argyris and Donald Schön. My session was around whether Information Technology was an enabler or a blocker to organisational learning and knowledge management. The answer of course is ‘it depends’. However, in the question and answer session at the end, one person asked if I thought schools, colleges and universities were learning organisations. Sometimes a question makes you think much more deeply than you may have imagined. It was quite clear that educational institutions were ‘learned’, but were they ‘learning’? After the session I sought out and talked to the questioner about the motivation behind the question. Over the next few months I concluded that educational institutions were not learning organisations in the terms we had been discussing. Let me explain why. First, it was clear that education policy was not driven by or indeed informed by research. Much educational research was too small scale and qualitative to be influential on policy. My concern rapidly became that education policy was driven by politics and ideology, not evidence. In turn, within educational practice I discovered that camps and fads abounded. One group would claim, for instance, that understanding ‘learning styles’ was central to education improvement, while another would argue that there was no evidence that learning styles made any difference. Similarly, advocates could passionately argue that IT could transform education while others could argue that it had no impact. Yet during the 1990s, I met many educational researchers who were passionate advocates for quality research and for influencing both policy and practice. I also discovered that there were large areas of consensus about what worked. Importantly, one of the complexities in education research is that everything works somewhere but nothing seems to work everywhere with everyone. Teaching and learning is part science and part craft. Learning is a social and a socialising experience. Over the last 20 years our understanding of the human brain has advanced significantly. I don’t wish to exaggerate what we know now, but for teachers starting on a career now, I suspect that by the time they retire we may have a much greater scientific underpinning of how humans learn and what it means to learn. That is why it is a privilege for me to have the chance to welcome this book. We are in a time of great change, socially, economically, politically and technologically. There could be no greater gift from my generation to those who will follow than to create a legacy where educational research is valued and integrated into the change processes for the development of our teachers and learners, curriculum and assessment.

Preface

xxix

For some, it might be argued that we should concentrate research on tackling exclusion and underperformance, enhancing social mobility, special needs and the mainstream rather than the Gifted and Talented. For me that needs to be challenged. If we are to deliver an education system that provides the best education for all our children, we need to be clear what we mean by giftedness. This is hardly a new notion. Plato has never been bettered in 2000 years: ‘Do not train a child to learn by force or harshness; but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each’. The mistake is to ask the question: ‘is this child gifted?’ The real question should be: ‘how is this child gifted?’ I have met many children, and adults, who have extraordinary talents in one domain, yet have incredible weaknesses in others. In the words of the song, the best education for each child should ‘accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative’. That is a big ask of our teachers and indeed their parents. If we are to create a teaching force capable of rising to this challenge, we need to establish a culture where policy and practice is driven by quality evidence. I cannot see any other way. Of course, we live in a time where the future appears very unclear and the challenges to the rising generation are many and complex: • • • •

The environment, climate change and sustainability; Globalisation and the backlash; Religious conflict; Technology and the future of work.

There are others, but each of these is daunting. It is important also to note that these ‘wicked issues’ need systemic solutions crossing subject and disciplinary boundaries. Advances in Artificial Intelligence create ethical and philosophical challenges. Advances in medicine challenge what it means to be human, or to think about what we mean by a good life in the 21stcentury context. Some of my friends argue that we need a new Renaissance or a re-envisaging of the Enlightenment if we are to meet these challenges. For me, the next 30 years is about a battle of ideas and values. As Nelson Mandela put it: ‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.’ Arming our teachers, their students and their families to change the world for the better is a noble cause. Only that way can we create the creative, confident, problem-solving teams that can rise to the challenges that face the next generations. Of course, this is a cultural and political challenge. The status of teachers and teaching varies enormously between countries and communities. Investing in our teaching workforce based on peer reviewed evidence is, for me, what we should all aspire to. I grew up in an era where my parents believed that education was the best route to progress, to escape poverty and poor work. In too many communities, there is a poverty of aspiration which creates a cycle of underachievement. Yet schools and teachers do make a difference. I was the first person in my family to go to University. When I was 8 or 9, my primary head teacher took my parents aside and told them that I would go to University, probably Oxford or Cambridge. I passed entrance to Oxford at the age of 16. I am grateful to the Head, and to my parents, for the impact his early insight has had on my whole life. In 1953, the year I was born, there were 500,000 miners in the UK, enough to fill Wembley football stadium over five times. Today, they would struggle to fill the pitch. We are educating

xxx

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

our children for a world we do not understand and will not live to see. Many will work in jobs that do not yet exist, in firms or industries that do not yet exist. Even those who will work in the law, medicine and other professions will work very differently to how we understand those jobs today. So, what we need to build is a culture of lifelong learning. Even for those whose work may keep them in the same domain, the personal development for working life will be as fundamental as their school or university education. Alec Reed, the entrepreneur, described his vision of lifelong learning to me, many years ago, with a wonderful comparison to another right of passage. He envisaged a world where when a child left school, they proudly put on L-Plates to say, ‘I am a Learner’ rather than taking them off and saying, ‘I have passed’. Of course, with much investment and interest focused on ‘self-driving cars’, many children may not need or want to learn to drive. We shall see! The development of autonomous transport illustrates many of the themes I have raised so far. These developments in transport have technological underpinnings, but also philosophical, ethical, economic and political issues abound. Having spent a lifetime in the technology world, to see technologists grappling with issues such as this is fascinating: ‘If an autonomous vehicle is faced with a child running into the road and can only avoid the child by putting the passenger’s life at risk, what should the vehicle do?’ Of course, education is far more than preparation for the world of work. We need good citizens, good communities and good values. Are our schools up to the task? The central issue in my time has been that when there is a problem, the answer is always ‘Education’. Whether the problem is childhood obesity, online safety, teenage pregnancy, religious extremism or any number of issues around ‘21st-century skills’ education is the answer. We should not and cannot overburden schools with too many complex tasks. So, it is important that educational debate and research does not confine itself to what works in school, or the classroom. We need a broad debate about the fundamental purposes of education and the role of all stakeholders in society and the economy. In a world of rapid and complex change we need to think carefully about what it means to be educated. Again, this is not new. That most quotable of authors, Mark Twain put it succinctly: ‘I never let my schooling interfere with my education’. Raising standards of education at school level will fail society if our children do not become adults who value learning for the rest of their lives. That is a challenge for all of us, not just our teachers and schools. I have long argued that this is the best time in human history to be a teacher. We have new knowledge about learning. Our society, and economy, needs educated people more than ever in human history. Yet I know that for many teachers it does not feel that way. Teaching is a demanding and stressful profession. Again, here I argue that the quality of evidence and research to underpin the development of the workforce is vital. Change is stressful, but we know that if humans feel part of the change process rather than seeing themselves as victims of change, the stress feels less demotivating and damaging. It is important for me that our teachers are not just seen as objects of research or consumers of it, but active participants in shaping the agenda for research and the deployment of the findings. None of this can happen overnight. It will take courage and patience in equal measure. Bringing together the many contributors to this book is no mean achievement. I trust that all readers will find many ideas here, for policy, practice and indeed further research. There is much to learn and much to do.

Preface

xxxi

I argue a strong case for optimism. The world is changing. It is no one’s fault if our current models of teaching and learning, schools, curriculum and assessment are lacking in delivering for the new world. On the contrary, this is a great opportunity for our generations to build a system of education for all our citizens of the world. We have a growing armoury of knowledge and tools to support the new arrangements we will need. I have had the privilege to travel the world and see fantastic innovations in teaching and learning in the developed and developing world. The challenges around the world are more similar than they are different, in my experience. So, I believe that this book is timely. I have the pleasure to know some of the authors, sadly not all. I know them to be passionate and committed to the cause of education. If in reading this you believe that this is unrealistic, I can only recall John Lennon’s words: ‘You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one’. The book is full of people’s wisdom and ideas. Those I know are both dreamers and practitioners. Teachers made a difference to my life. They’ve made differences to my children’s lives. Now I’m fortunate enough to see my grandchildren starting on their learning journeys. We have the opportunity to build an education system based on evidence to create a humane, talented and cohesive society. Why not now?

Acknowledgements The Editors wish to acknowledge the generous gifts of thoughts and life-experiences the contributors brought to this volume. Many of the contributors are members of the Advisory Board, offering advice and reviewing chapters. It has been a joyous journey indeed, as ideas were shared across the world. We dedicate the volume to teachers and their students who are striving to cope with rapid change in this 21st century. We hope that parents and caregivers will appreciate the world picture presented as they play their part in helping children to realise their gifts and talents. In particular, we thank Harvey B. Adams for his copy-editing of chapters, and Sarah Philo for her quiet and calming advice. Our sincere thanks also go to Jude Bowen and SAGE for commissioning and supporting this publication. Belle Wallace, Dorothy A. Sisk and John Senior

Introduction Belle Wallace, Dorothy A. Sisk and John Senior

This volume was compiled to provide a current global overview of the challenges and issues in the field of gifted education for public and private school administrators, teachers, psychologists, researchers and parents. The various authors come from many different countries, with various cultures, politics, stages of economic development and educational policies. Each chapter has its own specific contribution to make regarding the current global picture. In general, we have moved on from the earlier ‘panning for gold’ use of intelligence tests with rigid cut-off points and discussion of IQs. Now there is a trend towards ‘seeking the philosopher’s stone’, whereby each young person is presented with opportunities to show potential, and all, including those with the highest potential, are encouraged, supported and challenged to develop this to the maximum possible level. Another shift has been away from the idea of ‘global giftedness’, whereby a gifted group was identified, then all members treated in similar fashions, whether through enrichment or extension activities, acceleration or other means. Many now accept that each individual possesses a range of different abilities, which are manifested in differing contexts, and require differing strategies and techniques for further development. In the main, writers in this volume concentrate upon those abilities which impinge upon academic success at school or university level; although all contributors include discussion of the wide range of human abilities and talents. A particular emphasis throughout the chapters is on diversity – both in the population of young people in general, and within those identified as ‘gifted’. The concepts of ‘giftedness’ and ‘gifted education’ have no predetermined, universal definitions. The political, economic and social climates within a region or a country influence each definition; and can be slanted towards the benefit of the state or the development of individual potential, or, ideally, for the benefit of both. This Handbook on Gifted Education is not a book about universal policies and practices: it presents the collective expertise and experience of over fifty contributors from around the world. In Part I, the text analyses the following issues: • What do we mean by giftedness? • How is giftedness identified?

The broad emphasis throughout the text is on creative and intellectual giftedness, although many authors discuss the wide range of human abilities and potentials.

xxxiv

The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Part II mainly discusses differentiation issues with regard to school curricula and flexibility within programmes and practices; but all authors who discuss aspects of the curriculum, also discuss enrichment and extension activities outside the curriculum. Part III presents chapters outlining gifted education in a wide range of countries. The senior editors are privileged to have worked with experts within the field of gifted education; and we present this text as a current world view of issues with regard to gifted education.

Part I

Concepts of Giftedness and Identification: Social and Emotional Needs Dorothy A. Sisk

Researchers are still struggling to generate appropriate definitions and theories of giftedness in students and adults. This section addresses this struggle in the first chapter by Robert J. Sternberg, ‘Is Gifted Education on the Right Path?’, in which he proposes his model Active Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership (ACCEL) for identifying and developing giftedness. Sternberg stresses there is more to giftedness than intelligence. His model ACCEL can be used to develop transformational leadership to address realworld problems for a common good. Sternberg identifies skills needed for transformational leadership as analytical, creative, practical and wisdom-based ethical skills. In Chapter 2 Dorothy A. Sisk expands the definition of gifted to include spiritual intelligence. She shares the development of the theory of Spiritual Intelligence proposed by Sisk and E. Paul Torrance in their book Spiritual Intelligence:

Developing Higher Consciousness (2001). Spiritual intelligence is defined as the capacity to use multi-sensory approaches including intuition, meditation and visualization to tap inner knowledge to solve problems of a global nature. Sisk views spiritual intelligence as having the capacity to integrate the multiple intelligences to solve global problems, and she agrees with Sternberg that real-world problems be addressed for a common good. In Chapter 3 ‘Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift’ Janet Davidson uses the literature of ‘gift giving’ to explore issues of identification and definition of giftedness. She suggests that we analyze our motivation for bestowing the designation of giftedness, and questions viewing gifted individuals as a national resource. Davidson recommends adapting a developmentally and focused definition of giftedness that is domain specific and includes psychosocial variables.

2

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

As our global world continues to become more and more multicultural, there is the issue of equity and the under-representation of culturally and linguistically different gifted students. This issue is addressed in Chapter 4, ‘Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories: Revisiting the Concept of Giftedness Through the Mirror of Multi-Cultural India’ by Krishna Maitra and Yukti Sharma. They propose that we address the questions of ‘Where is Giftedness?’ and ‘In What Form?’ and explore the potentiality of giftedness as a construct that is responsive to the micro stories that different cultures create. This process could yield a multicultural education that would include the social, cultural and economic needs of students. This issue of access and equity is also addressed in Chapter 5, ‘Honoring Differences: Improving the Representation of Culturally Different Gifted Students Based on Equity’ by Donna Ford, Ramon Goings, Jemimah Young and Brian Wright. They call for this issue to become a top priority of educators and policy makers. They suggest a number of solutions, including involving parents, making multicultural education available for educators, hiring more teachers of color, using culturally responsive tests and materials, setting equity goals, and implementing culturally based definitions, theories and philosophies. The relationship between creativity and genius has intrigued researchers and educators over the years, and Chapter 6, ‘Creativity and Genius’ by Dean Keith Simonton, addresses this question and discusses creativity and genius as manifestations of giftedness. He says formal education can prove irrelevant to creative development and the emergence of genius. However, even though creativity cannot be inculcated, it can be encouraged in a supportive environment in which creative potential can be realized, and students are encouraged to be open to new experiences. Equally important to the development of creative potential is the need and demand for instruments to detect creative potential that have up-to-date scoring systems. In Chapter 7, ‘Why Bother Being Different?’, Kelsey Procter Finley and

Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi explore the role of intrinsic motivation in excellence. This chapter discusses impediments to excellence and focuses on the psychological states and traits that are associated with intrinsic motivation that helps individuals persevere through external impediments to excellence, utilizing interviews conducted with highly creative individuals over a 20-year period. In Chapter 8, ‘New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity: Implications for Identification and Education’, Taisir Subhi Yamin introduces his new battery called Evaluation of Potential Creativity (EPoC). It is a multivariate approach using the definition of creative process of Sandra Linke. She defines the creative process as a breakthrough discovery in any domain that causes a paradigm shift in a field. There is increasing interest in atypical gifted learners, who are described generally as consisting of ethnic, racial and linguistic minorities, the economically disadvantaged, gifted females, twice-exceptional gifted, the gifted student with disabilities, the sexually/gender diverse, and the profoundly ­ gifted. Intragroup characteristics of atypical gifted students need to be addressed as well as intergroup characteristics. In Chapter 9, ‘Profoundly Gifted: Outliers Among the Outliers’ by Stephanie S. Tolan, the profoundly gifted are described as a minority within a minority, with faster, wider-ranging, more intense and active mental processing affecting the child’s experience of the world from birth onwards. These children are ‘out of sync’, and addressing their genius potential requires a range of suitable educational strategies to meet their idiosyncratic needs. Tolan states that we need to provide them with the challenge and support they seek and get out of the way. Chapter 10, ‘Eminence in Talented Women by Domain: Issues, Similarities and Differences Utilizing the Piirto Pyramid as a Theoretical Framework’ by Jane Piirto discusses female talent in six domains. In visual arts, creative writing, science, acting, music and dance Piirto shares biographical sketches

Concepts of Giftedness and Identification: Social and Emotional Needs

in which she found gender discrimination rife across all domains. She concludes that women battle environmental forces to rise to eminence. One area of gifted education that has shown considerable growth in both awareness and programming is that of the gifted child who is twice exceptional. In Chapter 11, ‘Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD’ by Kelly Lee and Richard Olenchak, they discuss the overlap of giftedness with ADHD and point out that the traits of giftedness and talent can easily be confused with those of ADHD. In addition, they identify barriers to the measurement of twice-exceptional students, such as that the two diagnoses can mask each other or downplay certain characteristics. Twice-exceptional children are also discussed in Chapter 12 by Linda Kreger Silverman in ‘Hidden Treasures: Twice Exceptional Students’. Silverman points out that it seems paradoxical to think that a child can be gifted and learning disabled at the same time; yet, they can exhibit the high intelligence and personality characteristics of gifted without the school achievement. Silverman stresses that classroom accommodations for these struggling 2e students can yield surprising success, and most of all 2e students thrive on relationships with caring teachers who see their gifts and teach to their strengths. Chapter 13 ‘Serving and Honoring Gender Diversity in Education’ by Robert Seney shares the progress that has been made in accepting the sexually/gender diverse student. Students who are gifted gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning (GLBTQ) continue to be plagued by verbal harassment and physical abuse. Seney suggests that prominent GLBTQ adults be identified to serve as role models for gifted students and identification models for educators. Over the years there has been considerable interest in the emotional development of gifted children and adults, and a need for empirical longitudinal studies. Chapter 14, ‘The Emotional Development of the Gifted and Talented’ by Joan Freeman serves to respond to this need. Freeman carried out a

3

35-year study on the long-term emotional effects of being gifted. She found that emotional problems among the participants in her study were due to specific challenges such as unrealistic expectations from others, grade skipping and family conflict. She noted that gifted and talented children have special emotional needs, notably exposure to the stimulation of like minds of their own age, honest communication, the opportunity to follow their interests, and acceptance as children. Along with the interest in emotional development, there has been concern over the friendships of gifted students and the gifted have often been viewed as loners. In Chapter 15, ‘Friendships of Gifted Children and Youth: Updated Insights and Understanding’ by Bruce Shore, Tanya Chichekian, Petra Gyles and Cheryl Walker the authors refute this notion. They found in their research that the number of friends of gifted students increased at university, and socialemotional contributions were most often cited as the foundations of their friendships. One pillar on which gifted friendships were developed was competing for fun. The authors suggest that the rhetoric about gifted friendships changes from difficulty and challenge to differences in patterns and priorities. Perfectionism has been listed as a characteristic of gifted students by many researchers and educators, and Chapter l6 ‘Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children in Hong Kong’ by Lai Kwan Chan discusses perfectionism in gifted children. She found that parenting styles or the practices of fathers and mothers did influence the development of perfectionism. She suggests an emphasis be placed on positive and effective parenting by educators and counselors to provide insight to parents on supporting their gifted children.

Reference Sisk, D.A. and Torrance, E. P. (2001). Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness. Buffalo, NY: Creative Ed. Press.

This page intentionally left blank

1 Is Gifted Education on the Right Path? Robert J. Sternberg*

Introduction Humans place themselves at the top of the evolutionary scale, whatever “the top of the evolutionary scale” happens to mean. Human attitudes toward their place in the universe are captured well by Lovejoy (1960), in his classic work, The Great Chain of Being. The general idea, which dates back to Plato and Aristotle, is that there is a Great Chain of Being, comprising, among other entities, God at the top, then humankind, and then successively lower animals. At the top of the Earthly beings are humans. Unfortunately, perhaps, the logic of the Great Chain of Being has been extended by us humans not only across species but withinspecies. For example, Westerners have viewed different cultures or races of people as occupying differentially elevated and privileged positions on the Great Chain (Sternberg, 2004a; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005). Many eminent behavioral scientists, including Sir Francis Galton and Raymond

Cattell, believed in some variant of the Great Chain (see https://www.splcenter.org/fightinghate/extremist-files/individual/raymondcattell). Moreover, traditional cross-cultural psychological studies of human intelligence involved (and still involve today) translating Euro-centric intelligence tests, such as the Wechsler intelligence scales, and then administering them to individuals in other cultures (e.g., Georgas, Weiss, Van de Vijver, & Saklofske, 2003). But in the field of cultural studies of human intelligence, progress has been made, largely as a result of the pioneering work of Luria (1976). Luria, in testing individuals in non-European cultures, discovered that the problems that were alleged to measure intelligence in European populations did not necessarily do so among individuals in other cultures because the individuals did not accept the presuppositions of the problems they were given. For example, when Uzbekistan peasants were given a syllogism (deductive-reasoning) problem such as,

6

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

‘There are no camels in Germany. The city of B. is in Germany. Are there camels there or not?’ the peasant might repeat the problem back precisely and then answer ‘I don’t know. I’ve never seen German villages …’. The peasants did not accept the problems in the abstract and, to them, confusing modality for which they were intended. Of course, one could argue that they could not understand the problems--that they lacked the capabilities. But then, Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp (1971) demonstrated that Kpelle tribesmen seemed not to be able to sort items categorically, but rather only sorted the items functionally, until they were told to sort the way a stupid person would, at which point they had no trouble sorting the items categorically. In our own research (see Sternberg, 2004a), we found that rural Kenyan children and rural Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo children could do tasks that were extremely important for environmental adaptation and even survival in their own native cultures (e.g., treating malaria with natural herbal medicines, finding their way across the frozen tundra from one village to another with no obvious landmarks) that their white teachers never could do. Nevertheless, the Eskimo children were considered stupid by their teachers because they underperformed in school and on standard Eurocentric cognitive tests. Who was truly lacking in intelligence: the kids or the psychologists who have given them tests inappropriate to the demands of their everyday adaptation? The Kenyan and Yup’ik children would never be identified as gifted by conventional tests of intelligence, no matter how well adapted they were to their own environments, and no matter how much more gifted they might be in their natural environments than anyone reading this chapter would likely be if placed in these children’s natural environments. The tests we used for the Kenyan and Alaskan children cut to the heart of what intelligence is – ability to adapt to the environments in which we actually or potentially might live. That is the core of

intelligence, according to surveys of experts in the field of intelligence (‘Intelligence and Its Measurement’, 1921; Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). But somehow, the idea of adaptation to the environment as the heart of intelligence has taken a strange form in the field of gifted education, much as it has in cross-cultural psychology.

IQ AS A 20TH-CENTURY INSTRUMENT FOR ASSESSING GIFTEDNESS Once upon a time, using IQ as a primary or even sole means of identifying gifted individuals seemed to psychologists and educators to make sense (Terman, 1925). In the early 20th century, the intelligence tests of Binet and Simon (1916) were still a new invention, and Terman (1925) had what many saw as an innovative idea of what could be done with them. Indeed, if one were to have a contest to name the most famous person in the history of the field of giftedness, Lewis Terman would be a very likely candidate to win the contest. A professor at Stanford, the ‘Terman Study’ of gifted children became a, perhaps the, classic in the field. Terman made an invaluable contribution to the field essentially by putting it on the map. But his approach very much reflected his times, when Binet’s ideas about intelligence were gaining prominence and Terman and his colleague Maud Merrill were in a position to revise and enhance the Binet tests for use in the United States (Terman & Merrill, 1937). But as noted above, ideas, even the best ones in the field of psychology, sometimes outlive their expiration date – consider the ideas of Freud, which were useful in Victorian times of sexual repression but much less in later societies where sexuality was not such a consuming issue. Today the greatest problems facing the world – those that we need gifted individuals to address – are not ones that IQ can directly address. There are lots of high-IQ people working on problems of

Is Gifted Education on the Right Path?

global warming, interminable wars, staggering levels of air pollution, and the like, but making relatively modest progress. Rather, what we need is the analytical skills measured by IQ supplemented by a broader range of skills and attitudes, such as creative, practical (common-sense), wisdom-based, and ethical ones (Sternberg, 2003a). We also need gifted people passionate about solving problems rather than enhancing their own prestige.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH USING IQ TESTS AS A PRIMARY BASIS FOR IDENTIFYING THE GIFTED? Why would an emphasis on IQ as a major or sole basis for identifying gifted students seem to make so much more sense a century ago than it does today? Binet’s and Terman’s tests were state of the art (and science) in the early 20th century. Variations of these tests still continue to be used, although in much revised form (Roid, 2003). But there are a number of reasons why intelligence tests should no longer be used as the sole or even primary means of assessing giftedness (see also Sternberg, 1985a, 1988b, 1990; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986, 2005; Sternberg & Reis, 2004). First, some theorists, such as Gardner (2011), Renzulli (2012), and Sternberg (1981a, 1981b, 1984, 1997), have argued for greatly expanded notions of human intelligence (see also Dai & Sternberg, 2004, for broader conceptions of the roles of affective and motivational elements in development and in giftedness). Even more traditional theorists, such as Carroll (1993), have proposed theories that are considerably broader than were the early theories of general intelligence (Spearman, 1927; Willis, Dumont, & Kaufman, 2011). Second, the belief in intelligence as a fixed ability predetermined by your genes represents the thinking of the early 1900s but not

7

of contemporary science. Estimates of the heritability of intelligence vary but generally hover around .5 (Plomin, DeFries, Knopik, & Neiderhiser, 2012), and those estimates are moderated by the fact that the heritability of intelligence varies by social class (Turkheimer et  al., 2003). Moreover, the Flynn (1987) effect – the average increase in IQs by about 3 points every decade in the 20th century – shows that, at least over secular time, intelligence, at least as measured in part by IQ, is quite modifiable, although the mechanisms underlying that modifiability remain somewhat unclear. This effect is further discussed later. Third, contemporary thinking is that there clearly is more to giftedness than intelligence (see essays in Renzulli et al., 2009; Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). Indeed, virtually every contemporary theorist of giftedness defines giftedness in terms broader than just intelligence (see Heller, Mönks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986, 2005; Sternberg & Reis, 2004). Different theorists emphasize different elements, although cognitive abilities, achievement, motivation, and, sometimes, engagement with a particular area are viewed as important in many of these theories. This chapter will not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of every theory, but rather discuss what foci are particularly important in today’s world.

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES THAT IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES SHOULD REFLECT One way to address the question of how we should identify gifted individuals is to ask what challenges the world faces at a given point in time. In the days of Alfred Binet and Simon’s (1916) work for the Ministry of Education in Paris, France, the goal that was set for Binet was to educate in an appropriate way children whose ability levels were substantially below those of other students. In

8

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

those days, that was a major challenge because of vast societal ignorance about and prejudice against children (and adults) with major challenges in their intellectual abilities. The task of educating such children remains daunting today, but society has made enormous strides in educating children with special needs since the time of Binet. An appropriate way to look broadly at the intelligence of any organism is to look at how well it adapts to the range of environments it confronts. Gibson’s (1979) concept of an affordance – an action possibility latent in the environment – is perhaps key here. The humans that are intelligent, on this view, are those that adapt well to the challenges of the range of environments they can encounter over the course of their lives. To understand children’s intelligence and to understand who is gifted, we should be looking at skills that are relevant to the children’s everyday adaptation. For Eskimo children, these skills might include ice fishing, hunting, manufacturing polar-appropriate clothing, navigating large distances without obvious landmarks, and so forth. For children in rural Kenya, these skills might include identifying natural anti-parasitic medications that can be used to combat, for example, malaria, whipworm, hookworm; hunting; protecting oneself from animal predators; gathering; and so forth. Gifted individuals are among those who have caused and continually failed to recognize some of the most serious problems civilization has created for itself – pollution, climate change, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, inequality, among others. Are the originators of such problems, unique to our species, well positioned to be the judges of what giftedness looks like? In the end, how intelligent, really, is a species that may be the only species ever to live on Earth actually to create and sow the seeds for its own destruction (Sternberg, 2002)? If nonhuman animals were to create tests of intelligence for humans, perhaps they would create tests that would measure which humans were not intent on destroying both the animals’ habitats and their own.

Consider the problems that face civilization in the 21st century, such as global warming, poverty, and war. Such problems have been around for a long time and if one thing has become clear, it is that intelligence is not going to solve these problems. The problem is not a lack of ideas about how to solve any of these problems; rather, it is a lack of people wanting to take fully into account interests other than their own or of those who for whom they view themselves as responsible, such as their family and friends.

WHAT SKILLS DO IQ TESTS MEASURE ANYWAY? Conventional intelligence tests are not going to predict people’s ability to solve complex problems such as these. Why? Consider a couple of problems that might appear on an intelligence test: 1 ocean : water :: beach : (a) umbrellas, (b) sand, (c) ocean, (d) bathers, (e) fish 2 What number comes next in the following series: 2, 5, 10, 17, 26, ? (a) 34, (b) 35, (c) 37, (d) 40, (e) 41

Problems like these will be moderately predictive of academic success and modestly predictive of conventional measures of life success, such as the responsibility of one’s job or income (Sternberg, 1988b). IQ tests and their proxies – ACTs, SATs, GREs, etc. – do measure valuable skills and it makes sense that scores on them would predict multiple real-world outcomes at a modest to moderate level. What are some of the skills they measure? These skills include knowledge base, abstract analytical reasoning, mental speed, time management, and educated guessing, among others. But the tests will be poorly predictive of ability to solve serious problems such as those mentioned above. Why? 1 Problem definition. IQ test problems are given to you. In real life, you have to figure out what the problems are.

Is Gifted Education on the Right Path?

2 Multiple choice. IQ test problems are often multiple-choice or short-answer. In contrast, realworld problems are not short answer or multiple choice. There is no one to provide the answer options. 3 Degree of definition. IQ test problems are clean and well defined. In contrast, real-world problems are messy and ill-defined. 4 Answers: IQ test problems have a unique correct answer. In contrast, serious real-world problems almost never do. 5 Emotional backdrop. IQ test problems do not evoke much of an emotional response and typically evoke no emotional response at all. In contrast, real-world problems, such as why your spouse left you or whether you should have children now, almost always have a strong emotional element that can sway our reasoning. 6 Time span. IQ test problems take a matter of seconds or at most a few minutes. In contrast, realworld problems can take days, weeks, months, or even years to solve. 7 Culture. An attempt is made (not always successfully) on IQ tests to provide problems that can be given in any culture, perhaps with minor modifications. The ‘right’ answer should be the same in any culture. In contrast, real-world problems are often culture-laden, and what is perceived as a good answer may vary widely across cultures. 8 Stakes. IQ test problems are relatively low-stake problems. In contrast, a single real-world problem can make or break a career, or a life. 9 Setting of problem solving. Examiners attempt to provide IQ test problems under highly controlled, sterile conditions (Davidson & Sternberg, 2003). In contrast, real-world problems are often presented under distracting or even chaotic conditions. 10 Role of others. IQ test problems are solved individually. In contrast, real-world problems usually involve other people, sometimes people whose interests are contrary to your own.

The bottom line is that giftedness has come to be defined largely or sometimes exclusively on the basis of performance on tests that present problems bearing little resemblance to the serious problems people confront in the real world (Sternberg, 1986). Moreover, the skills they measure are

9

extremely narrow. Serious problems can’t be solved by abstract analytical thinking alone. The world needs a better way of identifying gifted children – or adults.

THE ACCEL MODEL FOR IDENTIFYING AND DEVELOPING THE GIFTED Ambrose and his colleagues (Ambrose, 2016; Ambrose & Sternberg, 2016) have described in some detail the range of challenges that the world today faces, as well as the faltering of efforts seriously to solve many, and arguably any of these challenges. The question then is: If what we need is ‘gifted’ people who can cut through the failure to solve the serious problems of the world today, how would we identify and then nurture the talents of those gifted people? I recently have proposed a model of gifted education. The model is called ACCEL, and the acronym stands for Active Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership (Sternberg, 2016, 2017). What does that mean? And when we educate gifted children, what is our goal? Is it merely to identify smart kids and then give them enriched or accelerated education (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005)? Acceleration and enrichment are not even goals; they are processes – means to an end. But to what end? I would argue that gifted education should be producing the next generation of active concerned citizens and ethical leaders (ACCEL). Promoting higher-order thinking skills in the absence of leadership and activecitizenship produces high-IQ, abstract analytical thinkers who are paralyzed in the face of practical, real-world problems, and often respond in ways that show little knowledge of, and engagement with, the real world and the people in it (Sternberg, 2008b; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2011; Sternberg & Smith, 1985). Simply having a program that emphasizes leadership in the absence of advanced thinking skills does not produce

10

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

excellent leaders, nor does having a gifted curriculum if that curriculum fails to connect with the leadership challenges of everyday life. Our gifted programs, for the most part, are centered on selecting students for academic knowledge and skills and then developing these students’ academic knowledge and skills. There have been two major studies of academically gifted (high IQ) children – the Terman study (Terman & Oden, 1959) in California and a study by Subotnik, Karp, and Morgan (1989) in New York. The studies both found the same thing: people with high IQs are more likely than other people to go to good schools, including colleges and universities; they are more likely to get good jobs; on average they make good money; but not one person in either of these two large studies had any revolutionary, society-changing ideas. They also like people like themselves (Sternberg, 1987, 1998). If we want to develop students who are going to change the world, we won’t do it by selecting students merely on the basis of standardized tests or by teaching them in ways that develop only their academic knowledge and skills. The ACCEL model recognizes that the greatest problem we have in our society is not a lack of leaders with high IQs or sterling academic credentials, but rather of transformational leaders who behave in ethical ways to achieve, over the long as well as the short term, a common good for all. As Kellerman (2004), Lipman-Blumen (2006), and Sternberg (2008a) have pointed out, people often are seduced by toxic leaders who then proceed to wreak havoc on the countries in which they are elected. Because intelligence and rationality are largely unconnected (Stanovich, 2010; Stanovich, West, & Toplak, 2016), and because gifted people are susceptible to foolishness (Sternberg, 2004b), gifted people are at risk, just like others, of being enticed by bad leaders. Gifted people are especially susceptible to foolishness – unrealistic optimism, egocentrism, a false sense of omniscience,a false sense of omnipotence,

a false sense of invulnerability and ethical disengagement – precisely because they think they are immune to these tendencies (Sternberg, 2008a). Existing standardized tests are not going to identify the concerned active citizens and ethical leaders of the future who will be wise rather than foolish. Leadership as defined here refers to setting out on a path whereby one makes a positive, meaningful, and enduring difference to the world, at some level (Sternberg, 1988a, 1988b, 2003a, 2003b, 2016). That level may be the family, the community, the state, the nation, or many nations. Leaders, in this sense, are people who leave the world looking different and better than it did before they were in it. Thus, in preparing ethical leaders, we are preparing people who will make a positive, meaningful, and enduring difference to the world at some level. So what are the characteristics of gifted people who will be able to solve real-world problems that require a power and depth of thinking that goes beyond the kinds of characteristics needed to solve IQ test problems? I have suggested five (Sternberg, 2003c).

CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPERT REAL-WORLD PROBLEM SOLVERS ACCORDING TO ACCEL Critical (Analytical) Thinking When schools teach for critical thinking, too often it is in contexts that do not transfer to students’ everyday lives (Sternberg, 1985b, 1985c). Students could learn critical thinking in literature or history or science and still make the same dumb decisions in their lives (Sternberg, 2002). Although people reason all the time, not all of these inferences or conclusions are correct or justified by the data. Scholars have attempted to classify and study the various kinds of erroneous inferences (rickety reasoning) that people can make (see Sternberg,

Is Gifted Education on the Right Path?

Kaufman, & Grigorenko, 2008). In classifying types of inferences, they refer to everyday fallacies. It is in this realm of everyday thinking that schools most need to intervene but rarely do. In contrast, the kinds of critical-thinking skills measured by IQ-related tests are not all so relevant to everyday reasoning. When people reason in everyday situations, they deal with concrete, emotionally laden problems where there are powerful motivations for gain, such as making money or acquiring friends, romantic partners, clients, or allies. Reasoning skills applied to idealized situations are modest predictors of the messy reasoning of everyday life (Stanovich, 2010) and are largely different in kind from reasoning skills applied in everyday life (Nisbett, 1993). Moreover, people often do not apply reasoning skills in ways that maximize their own performance (Sternberg & Weil, 1980). What I am proposing to emphasize in teaching for critical, analytical thinking goes beyond what is sometimes emphasized when students do academic work. I would encourage schools to emphasize the critical fallacies people make in their everyday reasoning, such as fallacies of relevance – committed when the premises of an argument have no bearing on its conclusion; and straw-man arguments, which attempt to refute a claim by replacing it with a less believable statement (the straw man) and then attacking the straw-man claim rather than dealing with the original claim (Sternberg, Kaufman, & Grigorenko, 2008).

Creativity Creativity is skill in generating ideas of products that are novel, surprising, and useful in some way (Niu & Sternberg, 2002; Sternberg, 2017; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Creative people constantly ask themselves whether what they were doing yesterday is what they should be doing today, tomorrow, and the next day.

11

Some believe that creativity is an ability with which people are born. But creativity is not entirely or even largely genetically determined. Rather, creativity is a decision process. It’s a decision not just to follow the crowd but rather to consider unconventional paths or methods that could lead to outcomes similar to or better than those originally intended. And it’s not just about esoteric decisions among scientists, writers, or artists. It applies to everyday decisions of all kinds. Behind the decision to consider other paths or methods are several attitudes toward life: thinking outside the box, being willing to take sensible risks, being resilient in the face of obstacles, realizing that creative ideas don’t sell themselves – people need to be persuaded of their value; and realizing that what works at one time or in one place often does not work at another time in a different place. A problem in our educational system is that schools do not always encourage creativity. Sometimes, they inadvertently discourage creativity, both in instruction and in assessment. By the time students get to college, they often find it hard to rediscover their creativity, which for practical purposes has been lost. Teachers can role-model creativity, provide opportunities for young people to think creatively, and also encourage and reward creativity.

Common Sense Common sense, which also might be called ‘practical intelligence,’ largely is composed of the tacit or usually unspoken knowledge needed to navigate the everyday world (Sternberg et al., 2000). Common sense, as it is sometimes said, is far from common. Yet there are few skills more important for an active concerned citizenry and for ethical leaders than to have basic common sense. Common sense is what one needs to know to succeed in life, which typically is not explicitly taught, and which is not even often verbalized. In other words, it is what we need to

12

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

know to succeed that we are not explicitly taught and that usually isn’t even verbalized. Standardized tests don’t measure common sense. Really, grades do not measure common sense and neither do any of the other conventional measures used in college and university admissions. Yet common sense is certainly important in life and in any society. Over the years, my colleagues and I have done a number of research studies on common sense, which we have studied under the rubric of practical intelligence (Sternberg et al., 2000). Our goal in this work has been to understand how common sense functions, how it can be assessed and developed, and how much it contributes to success in life. The way in which we have measured common sense is to present to people kinds of problems such as they would encounter in their everyday lives. In our college admissions work, for instance, we showed movies with various scenarios (Sternberg, 2010a). In one scenario, for example, a movie shows roommates discussing how to divide payments among them, given that the sizes of the rooms in their flat are unequal. In another example, we showed a student entering a party in which he did not know anyone present. In each case, the movie stopped in the middle of the scene and students were queried as to how they would handle the situation. In work on managers, we presented managers with problems that they might encounter in their management work, such as dealing with a difficult subordinate, dealing with a task that somehow never seemed to get done, or coping with a boss who never could be satisfied (Sternberg et  al., 2000). We prepared similar problems for military officers, sales people, and individuals in other occupations. We found that performance on practical problems correlates, at best, only modestly with IQ-based skills (Sternberg, 2010a; Sternberg et al., 2000) but predicts scholastic outcomes and job performance. In work with younger children (Chart, Grigorenko, & Sternberg, 2008), we presented practical problems relevant to the lives

of youngsters, who constantly face practical problems, from dealing with teachers, to dealing with friends, to dealing with siblings, to dealing with parents.

Wisdom and Ethics Wisdom is the use of one’s knowledge and skills toward a common good, balancing one’s own, others’, and larger interests over the long and short terms, through the infusion of positive ethical values (Sternberg, 2004c). When I tell colleagues and friends that the chief goal of a school ought to be to educate its students for active concerned citizenship and ethical leadership (ACCEL), I sometimes receive objections, such as that: (a) schools should not be in the business of teaching ethics; rather, parents and churches should each teach ethics; (b) on the contrary, the purpose of the school should be to instill in students the knowledge that the students will need for success in their careers and their lives; (c) if teachers emphasize tos students that the students just should do the right thing, that should not take more than about five minutes; or (d) you cannot really teach ethics, can you? What is frightening about ethical lapses is not that they happen to the ethically outrageous but that they can sneak up on virtually all of us (Sternberg, 2009a, 2010b, 2012b, 2015). Relevant to this point, John Darley and Bibb Latané (1970) opened up a new field of research on bystander intervention. They showed that, contrary to their expectations, bystanders intervene when someone is in trouble only in very circumscribed circumstances. For example, if they think that someone else might intervene, bystanders tend if possible to stay out of the situation. Darley and Latané even showed that divinity students who were about to lecture on the parable of the good Samaritan actually were no more likely than other bystanders to help a person in distress. Society often exerts severe pressures to conform accompanied by fear of punishment

Is Gifted Education on the Right Path?

for noncompliance, desire to please or curry favor with one or more persons in a position of power, rationalization of one’s actions, and what I have called ‘ethical drift’ – one’s declining ethical standards in the face of group norms whereby one is not even aware that one’s standards are declining (Sternberg, 2012a). To be clear: the power of situational variables in no way excuses bad behavior. Rather, such situational variables should help us understand, in part, why bad behavior occurs in certain situations, why we are all potentially susceptible to it, and most importantly, what we can do to improve our own and others’ behavior. How does one avoid falling into the trap of ethical drift? How does a teacher teach students to learn to avoid this trap? First, the teacher needs to realize that almost anyone, including him or herself, is capable of behaving abysmally under certain circumstances. Second, we all need rather regularly to ask ourselves whether situational pressures are leading us to behave in ways that once would have seemed totally inappropriate and wrong to us. Third, we all need to ask ourselves whether we are rationalizing behavior that once would have seemed unacceptable to us. And fourth, we need to be willing to take a stand and do the right thing, realizing that although there may be serious short-term costs to acting ethically, one is willing to accept those costs so that one can live with oneself and others over the long term.

13

the young people for whom they are responsible to succeed, need to emphasize the importance of the young people’s finding their true passion. In the best case, the child’s passion fits his or her parent’s desires. More often, the young person’s passion is a mismatch for  the parents’ ambition. Parents should accept the difference. At the time I am writing this chapter, there is a lot of pressure in society on students to major in a field that will make the students a lot of money. The irony is that if one looks at successful people, defined only in terms of income, large numbers of those people majored in the liberal arts. Science and engineering majors tend to start out with higher salaries, but in the long run, liberalarts majors do at least as well and often better economically. Perhaps this is because the skills they learn in the liberal arts translate well into success in higher-level positions but not necessarily in lower-level positions, where more often one is paid to do what one is told to do rather than to think one’s own thoughts.

MEASUREMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF ACCEL SKILLS Some might be reluctant to pursue the ACCEL model, believing that the analytical, creative, practical, and wisdom-based and ethical skills can be neither measured nor developed. But this belief would be incorrect.

Passion If there is one consistent finding in the literature on creativity, it is that people do their most creative work in fields about which they are truly passionate (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). In the absence of passion, it is difficult to marshal one’s resources to do creative work. The practical implication of this finding is that parents and teachers alike, if they want

The Rainbow Project In one study (Sternberg & The Rainbow Project Collaborators, 2006; see Sternberg, 2010a), we used an expanded set of analytical, creative, and practical skills tests on 1015 students at 15 different institutions (13 colleges and two high schools). Our goal was not to replace conventional standardized

14

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

tests, but to devise new assessments that would supplement such tests, measuring liferelevant skills that these tests do not measure. In addition to multiple-choice tests as found on conventional standardized tests, we used three additional measures of creative skills and three of practical skills.

Creative skills The three additional tests were captioning cartoons, writing creative short stories using two of a number of suggested titles, and orally telling creative stories based on a pictorial illustration.

Practical skills The three additional tests were everyday situational judgments based on movie scenarios, a common-sense questionnaire based on problems found in work life, and a commonsense questionnaire based on problems confronted in school. We found that our new tests significantly and substantially improved upon the concurrent validity of the SAT for predicting first-year college grades (Sternberg & The Rainbow Project Collaborators, 2006). The increase in squared multiple correlational prediction reached 50%. The test also improved equity: using the test substantially reduced ethnic-group differences relative to the SAT/ACT.

The Kaleidoscope Project The Kaleidoscope Project (Sternberg, 2009b, 2010a; Sternberg et al., 2012) has been used now for many years to admit undergraduate students to Arts, Sciences, and Engineering at Tufts University. Each year, all of the 15,000+ applicants have been given a selection of essays assessing analytical, creative, practical, and also wisdom-based skills. The applicants are given the option of completing one of the essays and then the analytical, creative, practical, and wisdom-based skills demonstrated through these essays and other

aspects of the application are rated. Most, but not all of the applicants have completed the Kaleidoscope essays. The exact Kaleidoscope prompts have varied from year to year (see Sternberg, 2010a, for a complete list through 2009). An example of an analytical essay would be to state one’s favorite book and why it is one’s favorite book. A creative exercise might involve rendering a creative drawing, designing a new science experiment, or imaging what the world would be like today if some past event in history had turned out differently. A practical exercise might involve explaining how one convinced another person of something the person did not initially believe. A wisdom-based exercise might ask how one planned, later in life, to make the world a better place. The questions differ in the skills they emphasize. No question is a ‘pure’ measure of any single component of successful intelligence. The scoring of the exercises is holistic and is completed by admissions officers using relevant rubrics. We have found that, with targeted training, scorers can achieve good inter-rater reliability (consistency) in their evaluations. After Kaleidoscope was introduced, application numbers increased, and the mean SAT scores of both accepted and enrolling students increased. In addition, there were no statistically meaningful ethnic group differences on the Kaleidoscope measures. Students rated for Kaleidoscope achieved significantly higher academic averages in their academic work than did students who were not so rated by the admissions staff. In addition, research found that students with higher Kaleidoscope ratings were more involved in, and reported learning more froms, extracurricular, activecitizenship and leadership activities in their first year at Tufts.

Panorama Panorama is an adaptation of Kaleidoscope that has been used at Oklahoma State

Is Gifted Education on the Right Path?

University. It first was used when I was provost and senior vice president at the university. Although I left the university before data were analyzed, the assessment resulted in students being admitted who previously would not have been admitted.

CONCLUSION There are various models for updating our identification, teaching, and assessment of gifted children (e.g., Gardner, 2011; Renzulli, 2012; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2009). None of these models is likely to be perfect under all diverse circumstances, and some models may be better for some students than for others. But the models all recognize that the world has changed greatly since the days of the early 20th century, when Lewis Terman conducted his studies of the gifted based on Stanford-Binet IQ. In the ensuing century, the world has changed, and the field of gifted education must move with it. The greatest challenges the world faces today are not going to be solved by increased IQ points, no matter how long the Flynn effect might persevere. These problems require our gifted to display active concerned citizenship and ethical leadership skills, which we as a society can develop by identifying, teaching, and assessing gifted children for analytical, creative, practical, and wisdom-based and ethical skills.

Note *  This chapter represents a condensed and revised version of Sternberg (2016, 2017).

References Ambrose, D. (2016). Twenty-first century contextual influences on the life trajectories of

15

the gifted and talented. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.) (2016), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization (pp. 15–42). Boston: Sense Publishers. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2016). Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization. Boston: Sense Publishers. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (E. S. Kite, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chart, H., Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Identification: The Aurora Battery. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 281–301). Waco, TX: Prufrock. Cole, M. Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books. Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2004). Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2003). The psychology of problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171–191. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Georgas, J., Weiss, L. G., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Saklofske, D. H. (2003). Culture and children’s intelligence: Cross-cultural analysis of the WISC-III. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Academic Press. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.) (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Herrnstein, R. (1973). IQ in the meritocracy. New York: Little Brown.

16

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

“Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 123–147, 195–216, 271–275. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2010). Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, why it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicans – and how we can survive them. New York: Oxford University Press. Lovejoy, A. O. (1960). The great chain of being. New York: Harper & Row. Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Rules for reasoning. New York: Psychology Press. Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity: The East and the West. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 269–288. Plomin, R., DeFries, J., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2012). Behavioral genetics (6th edn). New York: Worth. Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150–159. Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., McMillen, K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (Eds.) (2009). Systems & models for developing gifted programs for the gifted & talented (2nd edn). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (5th edn). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan. Stanovich, K. E. (2010). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1981a). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86–93.

Sternberg, R. J. (1981b). Testing and cognitive psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 1181–1189. Sternberg, R. J. (1984). What should intelligence tests test? Implications of a triarchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing. Educational Researcher, 13, 5–15. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1985a). Human abilities: An information-processing approach. San Francisco: Freeman. Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Teaching critical thinking, Part 1: Are we making critical mistakes? Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 194–198. Sternberg, R. J. (1985c). Teaching critical thinking, Part 2: Possible solutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 277–280. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Identifying the gifted through IQ: Why a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Roeper Review, 8, 143–147. Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 331–345. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1988a). Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sternberg, R. J. (1988b). The triarchic mind. New York: Viking. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational Leadership, 54(6), 20–24. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cupid’s arrow: The course of love through time. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (2002). Why smart people can be so stupid. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2003a). WICS: A model for leadership in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 386–401. Sternberg, R. J. (2003b). WICS as a model of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14(2), 109–137. Sternberg, R. J. (2003c). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2004a). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59(5), 325–338. Sternberg, R. J. (2004b). Why smart people can be so foolish. European Psychologist, 9(3), 145–150.

Is Gifted Education on the Right Path?

Sternberg, R. J. (2004c). Wisdom and giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 169–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sternberg, R. J. (2008a). The WICS approach to leadership: Stories of leadership and the structures and processes that support them. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 360–371. Sternberg, R. J. (2008b). Wisdom, intelligence, creativity, synthesized: a model of giftedness. In T. Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 255– 264). New York: Routledge. Sternberg, R. J. (2009a). Ethics and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 20, 121–130. Sternberg, R. J. (2009b). The Rainbow and Kaleidoscope Projects: A new psychological approach to undergraduate admissions. European Psychologist, 14, 279–287. Sternberg, R. J. (2010a). College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2010b). Teaching for ethical reasoning in liberal education. Liberal Education, 96(3), 32–37. Sternberg, R. J. (2012a). Ethical drift. Liberal Education, 98(3), 60. Sternberg, R. J. (2012b). A model for ethical reasoning. Review of General Psychology, 16, 319–326. Sternberg, R. J. (2015). Epilogue: Why is ethical behavior challenging? A model of ethical reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Ethical challenges in the behavioral and brain sciences (pp. 218–226). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2016). What universities can be: A new model for preparing students for active concerned citizenship and ethical leadership. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2017). ACCEL: A new model for identifying the gifted. Roeper Review, 39(3), 152–169 Sternberg, R. J. (2018). A triangular theory of creativity.  Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50–67. Sternberg, R. J., Bonney, C. R., Gabora, L., & Merrifield, M. (2012). WICS: A model for college and university admissions. Educational Psychologist, 47(1), 30–41.

17

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.) (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.) (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd edn). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (Eds.) (1986). What is intelligence? Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Sternberg, R. J., & Fiske, S. E. (Eds.) (2015). Ethical challenges in the behavioral and brain sciences: Case studies and commentaries. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Snook, S., Williams, W. M., Wagner, R. K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Jarvin, L. (2001). Improving reading instruction: The triarchic model. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 48–52. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Kidd, K. K. (2005). Intelligence, race, and genetics. American Psychologist, 60(1), 46–59. Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). Explorations of the nature of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2008). Applied intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Sternberg, R. J., & The Rainbow Project Collaborators (2006). The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical and creative skills. Intelligence, 34(4), 321–350. Sternberg, R. J. (Vol. Ed.), & Reis, S. M. (Series Ed.) (2004). Definitions and conceptions of giftedness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Sternberg, R. J., & Smith, C. (1985). Social intelligence and decoding skills in nonverbal communication. Social Cognition, 3(2), 168–192. Sternberg, R. J., & Weil, E. M. (1980). An aptitude–strategy interaction in linear ­ ­syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 226–234.

18

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Subotnik, R. F., Karp, D. E., & Morgan, E. R. (1989). High IQ children at midlife. Roeper Review, 11(3), 139–144. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1937). Measuring intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life: 35 years’ follow-up

of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., d’Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14(6), 623–628. Willis, J. O., Dumont, R., & Kaufman, A. S. (2011). Factor-analytic models of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 39–57). New York: Cambridge U ­ niversity Press.

2 Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness Dorothy A. Sisk

INTRODUCTION: EXPLORING SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE Over the past twenty years, the concept of spiritual intelligence or (SQ) has gained considerable momentum in popular and scholarly literature. Howard Gardner’s (1983) introduction of multiple intelligences provided an important acknowledgment that other intelligences might exist. He identified seven intelligences: linguistic, logicalmathematical, musical, spatial, bodilykinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and later added naturalist, suggesting that each intelligence functions separately as an independent system. Emmons (2000) suggested that SQ might be a subset of spirituality to provide individuals with opportunities to use spiritual abilities to solve problems. Emmons said spirituality can be viewed as a set of specific abilities or capacities, and may provide a variety of problem-solving skills.

Gardner (2000) refuted Emmons (2000), stating there was insufficient evidence to support the concept of SQ. Gardner (2003) said the criteria for separate intelligences were judgmental and not fixed, and he viewed the concept of intelligence from a reductionist lens; whereas, Emmons viewed intelligence from a holistic lens. Emmons (2000) maintained that SQ facilitates an individual taking action in the world using skills to solve problems in a spiritually adaptive way. Zohar and Marshall (2000a) agreed with Emmons and described SQ as the capacity to solve problems through value, vision and meaning. Ken Wilber (2000) described SQ as ‘literacy in the practice of transformation’ and he further pointed out that SQ is fast becoming a leadership imperative (p. 95). Vaughan (2002) extended the definition of SQ as a ‘capacity for a deep understanding of existential questions and insight into multiple levels of consciousness’ (p. 10).

20

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Gardner (1999) used two classical senses of knowing: knowing how and knowing that to decide if there was an SQ. He identified skills manifested in SQ as meditating, achieving trance states, envisioning the transcendent, or being in touch with psychic, spiritual or noetic phenomena. He considered the term moral intelligence rather than SQ; yet, Gardner said, ‘I do not find the term moral intelligence acceptable as long as it connotes the adoption of a specific moral code’ (Gardner, 1999, p. 75). Later he wrote an article titled ‘The case against spiritual intelligence’ (Gardner, 2000). When Gardner examined the content of SQ, and content represents one criteria he used to identify an intelligence, he described the content of SQ as a concern for the cosmos, the mystery of our own existence, addressing the ultimate questions, mysteries and meaning of life, such as Who are we? Gardner’s concern with this content was that it is problematic and controversial. He said, ‘Having read numerous accounts of the spiritual realm, I am tempted to conclude that it refers to everything, mind, body, self, nature, the supernatural – and sometimes even to nothing!’ He called this a conceptual sprawl, contrasting sharply with the domains of Science and Math, which are relatively delimited and uncontroversial (Gardner, 1999, p. 53) Gardner referred to believers or spokespersons for spirituality claiming that spiritual concerns lead to an encounter with a deeper or higher truth as a slippery slope (Gardner, 1999, p. 56). Gardner (1999) considered existential intelligence and concluded, ‘Despite the attractiveness of a ninth intelligence, I am not adding existential intelligence to the list, I find the phenomena perplexing enough and the distance from the other intelligences vast enough to dictate prudence – at least for now’ (p. 66).

BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE After numerous conversations and debates with colleagues on the existence of spiritual

intelligence, E. Paul Torrance and I decided to embark on an intellectual quest or journey to establish and build a foundation for SQ. We sought to identify SQ components including: Core Capacities, Core Values, and Core Experiences. To accomplish this quest, we explored the fields of Psychology, Science and Ancient Wisdom, as well as Eastern Mysticism and the Wisdom of Native American and indigenous people to establish a foundation for SQ. The first field to be examined is that of Psychology.

FOUNDATION OF PSYCHOLOGY In a consideration of psychologists making a contribution to the concept of a spiritual intelligence, Carl Gustav Jung immediately comes to mind. In his book Memories, Dreams and Reflections (Jung, 1963) he recalls reading a book on spiritual phenomena and reflecting on the tales his mother had read to him as a child, noting the similarity of tales and myths from throughout the world, and thinking that they might be connected. Myths to Jung represented that which is believed always, everywhere, by everybody; and he was quoted as saying that anyone who thinks he can live without myth or outside it, is an exception. Jung said living without myth is like being uprooted, having no true link, either with the past, or with the ancestral life which continues within you, or with contemporary human society (Campbell, 1971).

Four Functions of Consciousness Jung formulated four functions of consciousness including: Thinking as a guide to judgment; Feeling; Sensing, in which you experience both the world and individuals through impressions made directly on the senses; and Intuiting of potentialities, hidden relationships intentions and possible sources. Jung said Sensing and Intuition represent the

Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness

two functions by which facts and the fact world are apprehended; whereas, Feeling and Thinking are involved in judging and evaluation. Jung said that only one of the four functions takes the lead in a person’s life and this primary function is seconded by only one function from the other dyad. Jung identified Sensing supported by Thinking as characteristic of the Western World and that Feeling and Intuiting are often disregarded.

Synchronicity Jung’s theory of synchronicity is most relevant to a concept of spiritual intelligence. Synchronicity takes place when your inner psychic condition and an external event come together in a way that is perceived as having a meaningful coincidence. Jung said these meaningful coincidences demonstrate a previously unrecognized dimension of human experience, and you can become more sensitive to the occurrence of coincidences and use them in daily life. Albert Einstein was a frequent visitor with Jung and they held long discussions. Einstein’s theory of relativity became the motivation for Jung’s thinking about a wider relevance for his theory of synchronicity. In Collected Works Jung sought to develop a concept that would be the equivalent of the relativity theory with the added dimension of the psyche: Physics has demonstrated, as plainly as could be wished that in the realm of atomic magnitudes, objective reality pre-supposes an observer, and that only on this condition is a satisfactory scheme of explanation possible. This means that a subjective element attaches to the physicist’s world picture, and secondly that a connection necessarily exists between the psyche to be explained and the objective space time continuum. (Jung, 1969, p. 230)

This subjective condition of the observer is a primary factor in Einstein’s concept of relativity theory, and the central problem that Jung sought to resolve was the question of how the physical and psychical are connected. When the psychic and the physical are no longer differentiated from one another, a continuum can be established in which synchronistic events

21

can come to pass. Jung said the physical world can be given its order and patterning by means of mathematics, while the comparable structure of the work of the psyche is brought about by the archetypes: Archetypes manifest themselves through their ability to organize Images and ideas. They carry definite patterns and models by which contents of the psyche are organized, but their patternings are always an unconscious process which cannot be detected until afterwards. (Jung, l969, p. 231)

Dabrowski’s Theory of Disintegration Another psychologist who has much to contribute to a concept of spiritual intelligence is Kazimierz Dabrowski (1967). His theory is divided into two parts, the Overexcitabilities and five Levels of Development. Dabrowski identified five Overexcitabilities (Oes): psychomotor, sensual, imaginational, intellectual and emotional. The direct translation of overexcitability from Polish is superstimulatability, which enables one to manifest an unusual capacity to care, an insatiable love of learning, vivid imagination and endless energy. The capacity to care, energy and imagination to see the world as it ought to be rather than how it is represents an important connection to the concept of spiritual intelligence as moral and to problem solving. Level V represents the attainment of one’s goals and is marked by resonating to the universal values, a high degree of empathy and a seeking of harmony. Level V individuals having resolved their inner conflicts are operating with spiritual concerns, living in service to others.

Phenomenological and Humanistic Psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow’s theories provide considerable insight toward a concept of spiritual intelligence. Phenomenological theorists are concerned

22

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

with the now of experience and focus on the present situation and its meanings. Maslow (1971) developed a model of motivation and behavior that incorporated his concept of self-actualization. Maslow called lower needs deficit (D) values and higher needs (B) values of being. Among the (B) values were wholeness, perfection, justice, beauty, uniqueness, creativity, and truth. The (B) values represent important aspects of spiritual behavior. Maslow said if we want to know the possibilities for spiritual growth or moral development, we need to study our most moral, ethical or saintly people (Maslow, 197l, p. 7). Rogers (1980) said people have an internal biological driving force to develop their capacities and talents to the fullest which he called an actualizing tendency. He developed a list of the 12 qualities of the Person of Tomorrow as depicted in Table 2.1. These 12 qualities overlap with many of the characteristics proposed as SQ by Sisk and Torrance (2001): for example: openness to new experience and ways of seeing and being, moving away from the sensual mode to the intuitive mode of being; living in harmony with nature; the desire for wholeness of life, recognizing the unity of the mind, body and spirit; the wish for community and intimacy; an awareness that life is constantly in flow and change; an eagerness to help and serve, the nonjudgmental nature; a symbiotic

attitude with nature and alliance with nature; and the yearning for the spiritual and wish to find meaning and purpose in life that is greater than the individual. From this brief examination of theorists to build a Foundation of Psychology, several ideas emerge that strengthen a concept of spiritual intelligence. People who manifest SQ are open to the multisensory way of knowing proposed by Jung in which the psychic and physical are no longer differentiated, but united and continuous. Individuals who manifest SQ are the self-actualized individuals described by Maslow (1968), and also described by Rogers in the Person of Tomorrow. Dabrowski’s Level V, in which individuals live a life in service to humanity and according to the highest universal principles of love, compassion and worth of others, represents the core behaviors of spiritual intelligence as well as Super-stimulatability, the capacity to care and insatiable love.

FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE Neuroscientist Candace Pert describes science at its core as a spiritual endeavor and she said that the body and the mind are actually part of a linked system called the bodymind. Pert concluded that neuropeptides are responsible for our emotions; not only the emotions

Table 2.1  Qualities of the person of tomorrow 1 2 3

Openness (open to new experience and ways of seeing and being) Desire for authenticity (value of open communication) Skepticism regarding science and technology (distrust of science used to conquer nature and people; sees science used to enhance self-awareness) 4 Desire for wholeness of life, body, mind and spirit 5 Wish for intimacy, new forms of communication and closeness 6 Process person (aware that life is change, welcomes risk-taking and the change process) 7 Caring (eager to help, nonjudgmental, caring) 8 Symbiotic attitude toward nature (ecologically minded, feels alliance with nature) 9 Anti-institutional (antipathy for highly structured, bureaucratic institutions) 10 Authority within (trusts own experiences and moral judgments) 11 Unimportance of material things (money and material status symbols are not the main goal) 12 Yearning for the spiritual (wish to find meaning and purpose in life that is greater than the individual) Source: Rogers (1980, pp. 350–351)

Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness

of anger, fear, sadness, joy, contentment, and courage, but also spiritual inspiration, awe, bliss and other states of consciousness (Pert, 1997). Pert said, ‘Some of my best insights have come to me through what I can only call a mystical process. As scientists, we must come to trust our inner voice and speak our truth. There is a higher intelligence that comes to us via our very molecules. It results from our participation in a system far greater than the world we receive from our five senses alone’. (Goldman, 1998, p. 50)

Physics and our Picture of the Universe Niels Bohr (1999), a Danish physicist and pioneer of quantum theory introduced the concept of complementarity into quantum physics. He found that wave models and particle models of light are complementary rather than contradictory, in that each represented certain observable aspects of the mystery of light. A thought experiment devised by three physicists and referred to as the ‘Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox’ verified in the lab that if two particles have been intimately associated and are then separated in space, they are connected nonetheless. If one is perturbed in a certain way, the other one is affected instantaneously. Fritoj Capra (1991) said, ‘In modern physics, the image of the universe as a machine has been replaced by that of an interconnected, dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interdependent and have to be understood as patterns of a cosmic process’ (p. 330).

Consciousness in the Brain Rodolfo Llinas (1987) and colleagues at the New York University School of Medicine conducted early research on consciousness in the brain, and their research indicated that 40Hz oscillations were present in the brain during fully waking alertness and in dream

23

and in REM (rapid eye movement). They concluded that consciousness or mind is a state of the brain that is intrinsic, rather than merely the result of sensory experience. Zohar and Marshall (2000b) added that across the brain oscillatory activity makes possible both the temporal bindings and the content of cognitive experience, or in other words the functioning of the conscious mind, and the brain appears to be designed to be conscious and to have a transcendent dimension. Zohar and Marshall (2000b) added that the brain synthesizes individual perceptual and cognitive events into a larger, more meaningful whole, and that the brain is capable of unitive thinking which is creative, insightful and intuitive. They stressed that language is learned with serial and associate thinking, but language is invented with unitive thinking.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Canadian neuropsychologist Michael Persinger (1996) in one of his experiments fitted his own head with a transcranial magnetic stimulator, a device that beams a powerful and rapidly fluctuating magnetic field to selected parts of the brain. He stimulated his temporal lobes and reported experiencing a profound religious experience or presence. Ramachandran at the University of California San Diego Center for Brain and Cognitive Research hypothesized that there is a permanent facilitation of connectedness between the temporal lobe and the amygdala which causes one to see deep cosmic significance in everything (Ramachandran and Blakeslee, 1998). In his book Tales of the ‘Tell-Tale Brain’ (2011) Ramachandran explored the mysterious connection between brain, mind, and body. He describes how he navigates gaps with intuitive hunches, which is similar to most scientists who use their intuition to hypothesize and then spend years using logical scientific processes to substantiate their intuition.

24

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Measuring the Brain Over the past several decades, neuroscientists have developed tools for looking at the activity levels in the brain. These tools include functional imaging which usually uses magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) or single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and all involve ways of studying the spiritual brain.

Brain Research Richard Davidson, the director of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds reported that practicing meditation and mindfulness increased blood flow to the brain and created a thickening of the cerebral cortex in areas associated with attention and emotional integration (Davidson, Kabat-Zinn, Schumacher, Rosenknrantz, Muller, & Santorelli, 2003). Zeidan, Johnson, Diamond, David, & Goolkasian (2010) found that meditation and mindfulness practices positively transformed the architecture and operation of the brain, and improved sustained attention, visualspatial memory, working memory, and concentration. Furthermore, research on the use of mindfulness practices showed a reduction in gray matter density in the amygdala, and a decrease in stress and anxiety (Holzel, Carmody, Vangel, Congleton, Yerramsetti, Gard, & Lasar, 2011). From an examination of scientists in physics (Capra, 1991; Bohr, 1999), there emerged a concept of a conscious universe in which we interact as part of a continuous connected process of unity. The brain research of Michael Persinger (1996); Rodolfo Llinas and Ribary Urst (1993), and Vilayanur Ramachandran (Ramachandran (2011) suggested there may be an intrinsic area of the brain, the temporal lobe, that can be considered as a brain state of spiritual intelligence. All of the scientists were engaged in asking the important questions of why nature is

the way it is, and where the cosmos comes from. Their work represents the classical role of science, the search for truth and their research helped to build a scientific foundation for spiritual intelligence.

EXPLORING ANCIENT WISDOM AND EASTERN MYSTICISM AND THE WISDOM AND TRADITIONS OF NATIVE AMERICAN AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLE Hermetica The Hermetica is a collection of writings attributed to Thoth. In the introduction of The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs, Freke and Gandy (1999) said Thoth revealed knowledge of astronomy, architecture, geometry, medicine and religion to the Egyptians, and that the ancient Greeks thought Thoth was the architect of the pyramids. The Greeks gave Thoth the name of Hermes, and the collection of books attributed to Hermes became known as the Hermetica. The central idea of the Hermetica is the importance of meditation and contemplation. Hermes taught that an enlightened being belongs to Nature and feels unity with everything. He said we must accept the inevitable transitory nature of all physical things and everything is in a process of being born and then dying. This common notion of the idea of change is reflected in many Eastern mystical traditions.

Essenes The Essenes were an ancient brotherhood who separated themselves from the masses to live in harmony with nature. Braden (1997) in Awakening to Zero Point said the Essenes were located primarily around the Dead Sea in the last century AD. The Essene Gospel of Peace, Book Four was edited and translated by Edmond Bordeaux Szekeley (1937) from a 3rd-century Aramaic manuscript.

Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness

The Essenes practiced communions, with the first one in the morning in which a positive thought would be held in the mind all day, while in the evening communion was performed before sleep to influence the subconscious. Szekeley (1937) said the Essenes had profound knowledge of the body and the mind, and knew the two could not be separated. Braden (1997) said the Essenes believed thought is under individual control, and we can think about what we wish, and control our feelings by thought. The Essenes emphasized the link between feeling and thought, and that emotion is located in the body. Szekelely (1937) said the Essenes believed the feeling that creates the greatest energy is love.

The Sufi Tradition Sufism represents the mystical core of Islam, dating back to the 9th century AD, approximately 200 years after the birth of Islam. Frager (1999) in Heart, Self and Soul said there are three central concepts in the Sufi tradition, the heart, the self, and the soul. Heart refers to the spiritual heart and, according to Sufi tradition, the heart contains our deep intelligence and wisdom. It is the place of spiritual knowledge. The Sufi ideal is to develop a compassionate heart and will. Love is another basic Sufi spiritual discipline and the heart is the home of love. Sufism is a spiritual path that leads from wherever you are to a union with the infinite. There are at least five paths: the heart, head, community, service, and remembrance. Sufis keep a daily journal to practice self-observation and self-awareness.

Hinduism The spiritual source of Hinduism is the Vedas, a collection of ancient scriptures written by sages or Vedic seers. The major truths in Hinduism include the search for Enlightenment and the importance of Self Harmony. Everything is viewed as

25

dynamically connected with everything else in the universe. All actions take place in time through the interweaving of the forces of nature and phenomena perceived by the senses as part of the reality that includes the self as Brahman. To become liberated, to experience Moksha or liberation, one must recognize that everything is connected and see the unity and harmony of all nature including ourselves and act accordingly.

Buddhism Two pillars of thought support Buddhism, Prajan representing transcendental wisdom or intuitive intelligence and Karuna representing love or compassion. Love and compassion are essential parts of wisdom. There are four Noble Truths in Buddhism. The First Noble Truth deals with the suffering or frustration that comes from resisting the flow of life and change. This concept of impermanence means that the concept of being separate individuals is an illusion, and there is no ego or self. The Second Noble Truth deals with clinging and grasping, trying to hold on to things that we see as permanent which are constantly changing in the never-ending chain of cause and effect. The Third Noble Truth states that suffering can be ended by embracing the oneness of life, and then the idea of a separate self disappears. The Fourth Noble Truth includes an Eightfold path to end suffering: Right Seeing and Right Knowing are the first two paths, Right Action includes four paths, and Right Awareness and Right Meditation are the last two paths. The eightfold path comprises Right Belief, Resolve, Speech, Right Conduct, Daily Occupation, Effort, Alertness and finally the ecstasy of Selfless Meditation (Burt, 1955).

Zen Suzuki (1959) in Zen and Japanese Culture said that the goal of Zen is enlightenment,

26

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

called Satori. When Satori is attained, there is an experience of the wonder and mystery of life in every single act. Zen stresses naturalness and spontaneity to focus on the process of Enlightenment, which is to realize that we become what we already are from the beginning. Zen has influenced all aspects of the traditional Japanese way of life, from serving tea to the martial arts. These activities represent a Tao or way toward Enlightenment.

Confucianism and Taoism Confucianism comes from Kung Fu Tzu or Confucius, a teacher whose teachings are based on six classical books of philosophical thought and include a philosophy of social organization, common sense and practical knowledge. Taoism is concerned with observing nature and discovering the way or Tao. Human happiness in Taoism is achieved by following the natural order, acting spontaneously and trusting intuitive knowledge. Lao Tzu is the founder of Taoism. Taoism focuses on an ultimate reality that underlines and unifies multiple things and events. Three terms describe this ultimate reality, complete, all embracing, and the whole (Needham, 1956). Reality is called the Tao, which is a cosmic process in which all things are involved and the world is viewed as being in continuous flow and change. Taoism is concerned with intuitive wisdom, rather than rational knowledge, and represents a way of liberating oneself from the world. Confucianism is rational, masculine, active, and dominating; whereas, Taoism emphasizes the intuitive, feminine, mystical, and yielding. The contrast of yin and yang is reflected in these two dominant trends of thought (Needham, 1956).

The Mystical Kabbalah The principal book of the Kabbalah, the Sefer Yetzirah traces its origin 2000 years

before the birth of Christ. Adolphe Franck (1995) in the Kabbalah: The Religious Philosophy of the Hebrews said the Kabbalah is a sophisticated and enlightened philosophy that stressed the important distinction between knowledge and wisdom. The Kabbalah teaches that the human being consists of a spirit that represents the highest degree of existence, a soul which is the seat of good and evil moral attributes, and a coarser spirit of life of the senses, closely related to the body, actions, and instincts of life. The ancient wisdom of the Kabbalah stresses the contemplative life of spirituality, the importance of reflection and intuition and the unity of man with the creator. Like many of the ancient mystical traditions it downplays the importance of the senses (Franck, 1995).

Native American Wisdom The Native American wisdom is earth-centered and the creator is manifested in every bush and tree, in the gifts of food and shelter, in nurturing, and in the fulfilment of the everyday needs. In the Native American traditions, there is a commitment to passing on native wisdom. Knowledge is considered the past; whereas, wisdom is viewed as dealing with the future. The importance of wisdom being passed on to others is expressed by Fools Crow, a Native American leader of the Sioux: The survival of the world depends upon our sharing what we have and working together; if we don’t the whole world will die. First the planet, and next the people. (Mails, 1991, p. 18)

The Native American reverence for nature and the importance of observing and learning from it is similar to the Buddhist, Tao, and Zen philosophies, and the Essene traditions. Another essential belief of the Native American is belief in the intuitive way of knowing and preference for innermost thoughts above learning through the senses.

Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness

The Native American and many first Nations people’s way of life is primarily an earthcentered spirituality in which people learn to revere their surroundings by being in a constant state of gratitude. Ecological awareness and preservation is promoted by spending time in the solitude of nature. They also stress living by example, similar to the traditions in Hinduism, Zen, Buddhism, and Confucianism, and letting the young people see adults acting in the way of Wakan Tanka. The Ancient Wisdom and Eastern Mystical traditions discussed in this chapter differ in many specific details, but there is one important common strand; they are all based on mystical experience. Another similarity is the concept of the unity and connectedness of all things and events; with all things viewed as interdependent and inseparable from the cosmic whole, the creator and creative force. Ultimate reality is called Brahman in Hinduism, Dharmakaya in Buddhism, Tao in Taosim, and the way of Wakan-Tanka, the source and essence of creation by the Native Americans.

27

Spiritual Intelligence is the capacity to use a multisensory approach including intuition, meditation, and visualization to tap inner knowledge to solve problems of a global nature.

The Spiritual Intelligence Components, the Core Capacities, Core Values, and Core Experiences are depicted in Table 2.2, along with the Key Virtues, the Symbolic System and Brain States.

SPIRITUAL PATHFINDERS Once the spiritual intelligence components were identified, ten individuals were selected whose lives represent spiritual pathfinders. They were: Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Mohandas Gandhi, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Emily Dickinson, Nikola Tesla, Hildegarde de Bingen, Martin Luther King, Helen Keller, and Albert Einstein. Two of these individuals are discussed in this chapter, Hildegarde de Bingen and Nikola Tesla.

Hildegarde de Bingen DEFINITION OF SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE From an examination of Psychology, Science, Ancient Wisdom and the traditions of Eastern Mysticism, and the Wisdom of Native American traditions and indigenous people, a foundation was formed for Spiritual Intelligence and the following definition of SQ was proposed:

Hildegarde de Bingen was an 11th-century nun who was tithed to the church at age 8 by her family, who described her as unmarriageable because of her visons and prophetic nature. She was placed with Jutta Von Spanheim in a monastic cell with one opening for listening to the monks chanting and another for food and waste. She was instructed in Latin and in the Benedictine way of life (work, silence and devotion to God) so Hildegarde developed inner strength

Table 2.2  Spiritual Intelligence components 1 2 3 4 5 6

Core Capacities: Concern with cosmic/existential issues and the skills of meditating, intuition, and visualization Core Values: Connectedness, unity of all, compassion, a sense of balance, responsibility, and service Core Experiences: Awareness of ultimate values and their meaning, peak experiences, feelings of transcendence, and heightened awareness Key Virtues: Truth, justice, compassion, and caring Symbolic System: Poetry, music, dance, metaphor, and stories Brain States: Rapture as described by Persinger (1996) and Ramachandran and Blakeslee (1998)

28

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and an inner world which was enriched by her visions. She shared her visions and revelations with Volmar, a monk who transcribed her work, as she tapped into the knowledge of the Noosphere as proposed by Teilhard de Chardin. When Jutta died in 1136, Hildegarde became the Abbess. She encouraged her nuns to drink wine and beer and said it was good for rosy cheeks and putting on weight. She showed a remarkable knowledge of engineering, providing running water and even constructing a sewage system in the nunnery. During that period, she wrote many hymns, and medical and scientific books. In her writings on the universe, she called it a symphony, with the earth, the universe, and humanity in harmony. At age 65, Hildegarde had an overwhelming vision that caused her body to break down in illness. She described a voice saying ‘Write down what I tell you’ and she wrote The Book of Divine Works. She also wrote a book on natural history and one on medicine. In addition, Hildegarde was a noted musician and wrote 700 chants, 77 liturgical songs and a musical play (Play of Virtues). As a Benedictine, she reminds us to listen with the ears of the heart, to go beyond the gathering of facts, information, programs, and the resulting activities. She said each personal decision affects all of us and our decisions can contribute either to the healing of the planet or to a further shriveling up in separation, hopelessness, fear, and pollution.

Nikola Tesla As a child Tesla experienced blinding flashing lights and images of things that were happening in distant places. Even as a young student, he knew he wanted to be an inventor and eventually, while at Technical University, he invented an induction motor. In 1884, he came to New York with four pennies in his pocket, but he was able to capture the attention of scientists like Edison with his ideas about the potential of energy. Tesla soon had

over 700 patents, and he came up with the idea of a radio and logic circuits that are currently used in robotics. His Tesla coil is used in radio, television, and wireless communication. Tesla loved America and became a citizen in 1891. His dream was to make energy free to all people. This put him in cross ways with businessmen, and his idea of DC current, when Edison was working on AC was also a problem. Tesla’s mind was his laboratory and he would actually plan and carry out designs, create prototypes and test them, all in his mind. Then when he actually carried out an experiment, it was always successful. Tesla described his own individual thinking as a 5th dimension of thinking, of moving within ideas and contacting higher levels of thought. Tesla kept a detailed daily diary of his discoveries of new understandings, and he experimented with the principle of resonance. He believed in scientific humanism, and the stimulus for his work was the collective needs of humanity. Leichtman (1980) in his book Tesla Returns described Tesla’s ability to move from concrete observable facts to a more generic level of thinking, in which he dealt with the archetypal essence of the phenomena. The patterns of thought, the principles, the generalities are examples of his giving the word genius a new depth of meaning. As Tesla made theoretical breakthroughs, he demonstrated spiritual intelligence, conceptualizing our relationship to the universe and to the Creator as a beautiful mathematical creation with harmonies and rhythms that permeate all of creation.

LIKELY TRAITS OF SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE A list of likely traits of individuals with spiritual intelligence was gleaned from the examination of Psychology, Science and Ancient Wisdom and traditions of Eastern Mysticism, and the Wisdom of Native

Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness

all, compassion, a sense of balance, responsibility and service. To develop these Core Values, a multi-sensory approach to problem-solving and life including visualization, meditation, and deep intuition is needed. With this basic premise, seven ways were identified to raise or develop SQ. They are depicted in Table 2.4. Spiritual intelligence or the spiritual mind is not limited in ways that we might expect the mind to be limited. Access to it, and indeed identification with the inner knowing of spiritual intelligence can be facilitated to an extent that is ultimately unlimited, as reiterated in the words of Arnold Toynbee, ‘The ultimate work of civilization is the unfolding of ever deeper spiritual understanding’ (Toynbee, 1934: 87). Zohar (2005) said spiritual intelligence is the ultimate intelligence of the visionary leader, and SQ underpins IQ and the EQ of Goleman (2005). Wigglesworth (2012) provides a behavioral definition of SQ as the ‘ability to behave with wisdom

American and indigenous people, as well as from the lives of the ten pathfinders of Spiritual Intelligence. Educating for spiritual intelligence and higher consciousness represents a hope and goal to provide opportunities for students to develop and use their SQ, and to discover what is essential in life, particularly in their own lives. Defining spiritual intelligence as the ability to access inner knowledge, the likely traits of Spiritual Intelligence and ways to strengthen them for learning are illustrated in Table 2.3. Many of the traits of spiritual intelligence are traits and characteristics of gifted children and youth as defined in the literature (Sisk, 2009; Clark, 2014). Consequently it is not unseemly to think that many gifted students already have developed spiritual intelligence, but they could profit from strategies and activities that address their SQ in the classroom to lessen their feelings of being out of sync. There are a number of ways to develop or strengthen SQ, including an emphasis on the Core Values of connectedness, unity of

Table 2.3  Likely traits and ways to strengthen for learning Likely traits

Ways to strengthen for learning

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Uses inner knowing Seeks to understand self Uses metaphor and parables to communicate Uses intuition Sensitive to social problems Sensitive to their purpose in life Concerned about inequity and injustice Enjoys big questions Sense of Gestalt (the big picture) Wants to make a difference Capacity to care Curious about how the world works/functions Values love, compassion, concern for others Close to nature Uses visualization and mental imaging Reflective, self-observing and self-aware Seeks balance Concerned about right conduct Seeks to understand self Feels connected with others, the earth, and the universe Wants to make a difference Peacemaker Concerned with human suffering

29

Provides time for reflective thinking Uses journal writing and processing Studies lives/works of spiritual pathfinders Uses problem solving (predicting) Conducts service learning projects Uses personal growth activities Uses problem-based learning on real problems Provides time for open-ended discussion Use mapping to integrate studies/themes Develop personal growth activities Study lives of spiritual path finders Integrate science/social science Use affirmations/think-about-thinking Employe eco-environmental approach Reads stories and myths Uses role playing/sociodrama Discussion of goal-setting activities Process discussions Trust intuition and inner voice Stress unity in studies Uses What, So What, Now What model Uses Negotiation-Conflict Sessions Studies lives of eminent people

30

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 2.4  Seven ways to raise or develop Spiritual Intelligence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Think about your goals, desires, and wants in order to bring your life into perspective and balance, and identify your values; Access your inner processes and use your vision to see your goals, desires, wants fulfilled, and experience the emotion connected with this fulfillment; Integrate your personal and universal vision, and recognize your connectedness; Take responsibility for your goals, desires and wants; Develop a sense of community by inviting more people into your life; Focus on love and compassion; and When chance knocks at your door, invite it in and take advantage of coincidences.

and compassion, while maintaining inner and outer peace, regardless of the situation’ (p. 8). Sisk (2016a) maintains that SQ integrates all of the intelligences to solve problems of a global nature. Therefore, educating for spiritual intelligence and higher consciousness has within it the hope and goal of developing children and young people who can use their spiritual intelligence to discover what is essential in life, particularly in their own lives, and what they can bring to nourish the world. Our problems are manmade and therefore can be solved by man, and Spiritual Intelligence has the potential to solve the seemingly unsolvable.

REFERENCES Bohr, N. (1999). Complementarity beyond physics. North Holland/Elsevier. Braden, G. (1997). Awakening to zero point. Bellevue, WA: Radio Bookstore Press. Burt, E A. (1955). Teachings of the compassionate Buddha. New York: New American Library. Campbell, J. (1971). The portable young. New York, NY: Penguin. Capra, F. (1991). The Tao of physics. Boston: Shambahla Press. Clark, B. (2014). Growing up gifted. Princeton, NJ: Merrill. Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality shaping through positive disintegration. Boston: Little & Brown. Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., & Santorelli, S.

(2003). Alteration in the brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(4), 564–570. Emmons, R. A. (2000). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition and the psychology of ultimate concern. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(1), 3–26. Frager, R. (1999). Heart, self and soul. Wheaton IL: Quest Books. Franck A. (1995). The Kabbalah: The religious philosophy of the Hebrews. New York, NY: Citadel Press. Freke, T. & Gandy, P. (1999) The Hermetica: The lost wisdom of the pharaohs. New York, NY: Tarcher. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2000). A case against spiritual intelligence. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(1), 17–34. Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences after twenty years. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 21, 2003. Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Goldman, C. (1998). Molecules in motion: A conversation with Candace Pert. Intuition, #22, 21–25, 49–55. Holzel, B. K., Carmody, J., Vangel, M., Congledton, C., Yerramsett, S., Gard, T., & Lasar, S. (2011). Mindfulness practice leads to increases regional brain grey matter density. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 191(1), 36–43.

Spiritual Intelligence: Developing Higher Consciousness

Jung, C. (1963). Memories, dreams and reflection. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Jung, C. (1969). Collected works. Translated by R. F. C. Huyll, Bolligen Series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. Leichtman, R. (1980). Nikola Tesla returns. Columbus, OH: Ariel Press. Llinas, R. (1987). Mindfulness as a functional state of Brain. In Colin Blakemore and Susan Greenfield (Eds.). Mindwaves, Basil Blackwell: Oxford, pp. 2078–2081. Llinas, R. & Urst, R. (1993). Coherent 40-Hz characterizes dream state in humans. Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences, USA. Volume 90 2078–2081. Mails, T. (1991). Fools crow, wisdom and pPower. Tulsa, OK: Counsel Oaks Books. Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York, NY: Viking Press. Needham, J (1956). Science and civilization in China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Persinger, M. (1996). Feelings of past lives as expected perturbations within neurocognitive processes that generate the sense of self: Contributions from limbic lability and vectoral hemisphericity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, (3), 1107–1121. Pert, C. (1997). Molecules of emotion. New York, NY: Scribner. Ramachandran, V. (2011). Tales of the ‘tell-tale brain’. New York, NY: Norton & Co. Ramachandran, V. & Blakeslee, S. (1998). Phantoms in the brain. New York, NY: William Morrow. Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Sisk, D. (2009). Making great kids greater. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Sisk, D. A. (2016a). Spiritual intelligence: Developing higher consciousness revisited.

31

Gifted Education International, 32(3), 194–209. Sisk, D. A. (2016b). Spiritual intelligence: Developing higher consciousness. Torrance Journal for Applied Creativity, 1, 150–166. Sisk, D. & Kane, M. (2016). Planting the seeds of mindfulness. Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks Press. Sisk, D. & Torrance, E. P. (2001). Spiritual intelligence: Developing higher consciousness. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Press. Suzuki, D. (1959). Zen and Japanese culture. New York, NY: Bollingen. Szekeley, E. B. (Ed.) (1937). Translation of The Essene Gospel of Peace. British Colombia, Canada: International Matsqui. Teasdale, W. (2004). The Mystic Hours (Arnold Toynbee cited on page 87). Novato, CA: New World Library. Toynbee, A. (1934). A study of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vaughan, F. (2002). What is spiritual intelligence? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42(16), 16–33. Wigglesworth, C. (2012). SQ21: The twentyone skills of spiritual intelligence. New York: Selectbooks, Inc. Wilber, K. (2000). Intergral Psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology. Boulder, CO: Shambhalah. Zeidan, F., Johnson, S., Diamond, B., David, Z., & Goolkasan, P. (2010) Mindful meditation improves cognition: Evidence of brief mental training. Conscious and Cognition, 19(2), 596–605. Zohar, D. (2005). Spiritually intelligent leadership. Leader to Leader, (38), 45–51. Zohar, D. & Marshall, I. (2000a). SQ: Connecting with our spiritual intelligence. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing. Zohar, D. & Marshall, I. (2000b). SQ: Spiritual intelligence, the ultimate intelligence. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

3 Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift Janet E. Davidson

INTRODUCTION: EXCHANGING GIFTEDNESS FOR A BETTER GIFT Recently I attended a White Elephant party hosted by a developmental psychologist. When ‘extravagant burdens’ were exchanged as gifts, I received a crocheted toilet paper cover that had a Barbie doll stuck in the middle. Writing this chapter prompted me to ask my colleagues whether giftedness is like my white elephant or a gift that is highly appreciated by its recipients and society. This perked up the party because opinions were mixed and sometimes heated. Some guests took the stance that giftedness gives children valuable characteristics, such as being able to learn deeply and think creatively, which benefits them and society. Others felt that the gifted designation is a burden because it places unreasonable expectations on children who receive it and sets them apart from their peers the same age. A few parents voiced the opinion that all children are gifted in their

own ways and the label implies that some unfairly get more ‘presents’ than the other kids receive. However, almost everyone agreed that gifted programs are usually under-funded, reflecting that society does not truly value giftedness. Historically, gifted children have been viewed as one of our nation’s most precious yet underdeveloped resources; according to Sherry (1983, p. 160), ‘Virtually any resource, whether tangible or intangible can be turned into a gift’. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the designation of giftedness is not like my toilet paper cover, but is instead productively given, received, and fostered. To these ends, this chapter first reviews the general literature on gifts from the perspective of both the giver and the receiver, establishing the attributes of gifts that are and are not appreciated. It then examines how closely current approaches to giftedness fit four attributes of a valued gift. Finally, conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made for the future of giftedness.

Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GIFTS Gifts are such a universal part of human interactions that there is an entire body of work on the motivations behind gift giving and the complex process by which they are exchanged. According to this literature, gifts are experiences, services, and objects that are given willingly without payment. Gifts are given for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, some motivations do not reliably result in the gifts being valued by either the giver or the receiver. For example, certain gifts are frequently bestowed because of cultural customs that are never questioned or modified. This means that what is given and when it is given may not make as much sense as it did in the past. Gifts are also presented because of social obligation, to mark life events, as a way to socialize children in the appropriate behaviors of their culture, as a form of communication, or to improve the economy. Perhaps the most common motivation for gift giving is reciprocity, which is captured in the final stage of Sherry’s (1983) three-stage model. The first stage, gestation, is when all aspects of planning the gift occur, incorporating giver and recipient behaviors that precede the gift’s exchange. During gestation, the gift is transformed from an abstract concept into something more concrete. The second stage is called ‘prestation’, which means gift giving. In this stage, the gift is presented at a particular time and place, often involving cultural customs and ceremony. The recipient responds with or without reservation and the giver evaluates this response. In the final stage of reformulation, the giver attends to what the recipient does with the gift. For example, the gift might be displayed, stored, consumed, or exchanged. What is done with the gift can strengthen, weaken, or end the relationship between the two parties. This realignment of the relationship often results in the recipient giving something in return. In other words, giver and receiver roles are reversed.

33

In sharp contrast to the motivations described above, research indicates that a perfect or highly valued gift successfully conveys that ‘the giver makes an extraordinary sacrifice … and wishes solely to please the recipient’ (Belk, 1996, p. 61). Essentially, the giver of the gift expects nothing in return for his or her efforts, except perhaps a thank you. Perfect gifts are selected to be distinctly appropriate to the recipient and they do not come with any strings or obligations attached. As a result, the receiver experiences great pleasure. In addition to an altruistic, recipientfocused motivation on the part of the giver, there are at least three more attributes that should be met for a gift to be highly valued. First, both the giver and the receiver must have a clear idea of what the gift is and who gets to keep it. We cannot provide or use a gift wisely if we do not understand what it is or if we think it will suddenly be rescinded. Second, for the gift to last, both the giver and the recipient need to recognize that some maintenance is required. The level of required care can range from low (e.g., a magazine subscription) to high (e.g., a puppy). As part of cultivating the gift, individuals need to know how to use it wisely or develop it, which means that instruction manuals or explicit guidance are often essential. Finally, the gift should be something the recipient appreciates, either immediately or over time, because it is well suited to his or her personal characteristics and aspirations.

IS GIFTEDNESS A VALUED GIFT? The four attributes of a meaningful gift described above will be explored in relation to current approaches to giftedness. The goal is to determine whether our conceptions and practices result in outcomes that are highly valued by gifted individuals and their society.

34

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Attribute 1: Giver Motivations and Expectations A society’s values determine which of its members are identified as gifted. Why and how does our society bestow the gifted title on some children and not on others?

Cultural custom Giftedness is frequently assessed according to an outdated cultural custom that no longer makes sense in today’s world. More specifically, standardized intelligence tests or similar cognitive measures are often the chief means to determine giftedness. As Sternberg (2017) points out, ‘Once upon a time, using IQ as a primary or even sole means of identifying gifted individuals seemed to make sense … much as did the Electoral College or smoking a cigarette that somehow removed throat irritation’ (p. 153). This practice was more justifiable in the early 20th century when Lewis Terman and Leta Hollingworth identified gifted children in terms of those who scored in the top 1% on the StanfordBinet intelligence test. Back then, IQ was viewed as more precise and objective than using parent and teacher recommendations, achievement tests, grades, or measures of specific talents. It was also based on the notion of innate generalized intelligence, or the belief that individuals who were good at one cognitive task would perform well at all types of mental endeavors. As Sternberg (2017) notes, ‘contemporary definitions of intelligence are much broader than they were in the past’ (p. 153). In addition, we now know that giftedness is heterogeneous and its various forms often incorporate more dimensions than the ones that standardized intelligence tests measure. For example, although some gifted children excel in all academic areas, it is more common for them to exhibit exceptional performance in one domain, while showing average or below average ability in others. In the United States, children can be gifted or talented in leadership, any academic discipline,

or the performing or visual arts. A subset of gifted children is ‘twice exceptional’ because they have been diagnosed with a specific learning disorder while also demonstrating high achievement or potential in one or more domains. In other words, although the analytical skills measured by intelligence tests are often viewed as a necessary component of giftedness, they are no longer sufficient for identifying all of its forms. Automatically relying on the antiquated custom of equating giftedness with high IQ will exclude some children who should be identified and include ones for which the gifted designation is not productive.

Reciprocity In addition to cultural custom, reciprocity seems to be a motivation for bestowing the designation of giftedness. This fits aspects of reformulation, which is the final stage in Sherry’s gift-giving model. We often expect gifted children to give back to society through significant domain-altering innovations and eminence after they become adults. For example, Lewis Terman originally assumed gifted children would become adult geniuses. Even today, gifted individuals are often expected to make important contributions to society in exchange for the special educational accommodations they received. Ellen Winner (2000, p. 167) captures this motivation when she states, ‘if our schools are to provide specialized education for the most able, then the most able must also learn to give back to the society that grants them extra resources. Thus, one of the ends of giftedness might be argued to be service’. Interestingly, the motivation of future reciprocity does not seem to drive the provisions we give to student athletes or children with disabilities. As noted earlier, perfect gifts should be given altruistically and not with strings attached. This means that gifted children should not be expected eventually to become eminent or to solve the world’s problems in return for the special resources they receive.

Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift

However, it can be argued that they should, for their own sake, be given the skills they will need if they choose to engage productively with an increasingly complex world. All children should be appropriately challenged by their schoolwork and encouraged to develop their abilities; this will often require different educational programs and special resources for different children of the same age.

Analysis of attribute 1: giver motivations and expectations Our motivations for bestowing the designation of giftedness on certain children, and our expectations after having done so, do not quite fit the criteria for a perfect gift. Outmoded cultural customs, such as the primary use of IQ scores, have not kept up with a changing world or with what we now know about intelligence and different forms of giftedness. Today, comprehensive assessment of cognitive abilities, emotional development, achievement, and creativity would make more sense than using one test score (IQ or otherwise) obtained at one point in time. In an ideal world, these measures would serve as diagnostic tools, rather than as the gatekeepers to giftedness. Unlike in the past, we now know that methods for identification should include ones that are appropriate to administer to children in infancy or their early preschool years. This is particularly important for detecting young gifted girls, who tend to talk, count, and read earlier than their male counterparts. In addition, Linda Silverman (2013) notes: The most effective way to increase equitable distributions of culturally diverse gifted children, multilingual gifted children, rural gifted children, and economically disadvantaged gifted children is to find them as early as possible and enhance their abilities before they fade. Every year the environment exerts a heavier hand on the life of a child. Children are much less likely to underachieve if they are placed, from preschool on, in environments that relish their aptitudes. The research has clearly demonstrated that early enrichment enables low-income gifted children from diverse backgrounds to maintain their high abilities … Early

35

identification and intervention are especially important for twice exceptional children. (p. 112)

In addition, early identification helps address the needs that arise due to gifted children’s asynchronous or uneven development. If we return to Sherry’s second stage of gift giving when the gift is presented at a particular time and place, research indicates that, for many gifted children, their gifted designation should be identified and bestowed much earlier, rather than during the more typical time of mid-elementary school or later. Reciprocity, although a common motivation for gift giving, also does not fit the criteria for a perfect gift and it can put pressure on children who have been identified as gifted to eventually become eminent or to solve the world’s problems. The motivation behind bestowing the gifted designation should be child centered, without the expectation of significant contributions given in return. Society can value giving the gift of giftedness solely to meet these children’s particular needs and interests, rather than because of the perceived social usefulness of their particular abilities.

Attribute 2: Understanding the Gift Gifts are not meaningful if we do not know what they are or that they permanently belong to us. This attribute is related to Sherry’s first stage of gift giving, described earlier, because it involves giver and receiver behaviors when planning what the gift will be, in addition to transforming an abstract concept into something more concrete. If giftedness is a gift, we don’t seem to agree on what it is. The number of perspectives and the scope of each one seem to be increasing over time and these different perspectives vary in several important respects. As part of not having a single widely used and well-accepted definition, the gift of giftedness can be temporary. For example, the standards for identifying gifted children vary

36

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

by school district, which means children can lose their classification of giftedness if they move from one neighborhood or state to another. Moreover, many individuals are recognized as gifted during childhood but not during adulthood (and vice versa). In other words, we cannot accurately identify which individuals will demonstrate long-standing gifted behaviors. For giftedness to be a true gift, consensus is needed on what exactly it is, where it comes from, and how best to identify who has it and who will get to keep it.

Competing viewpoints Given that there are many conceptions of giftedness, only a representative sample of different types will be covered here. Most of these propose an underlying cause of giftedness and have recommendations for how gifted behaviors should be identified. One type, which was alluded to earlier, focuses on innate intellect that is well above average; IQ tests or similar cognitive measures are used for identification, with testing typically occuring when children reach age 4 or older. This conception is related to Terman’s earlier work and fits what Joe Renzulli calls schoolhouse giftedness and Ellen Winner (1996, p. 14) refers to as ‘global giftedness’. Children who fit these two labels tend to perform well in school across a wide range of academic domains. Given that not all gifted children have similar degrees of intelligence or the same educational needs, different IQ-based levels of giftedness are sometimes recognized. According to Wasserman (2003, p. 435), these four levels are gifted (IQs of 130–144), highly gifted (IQs of 145–159), exceptionally gifted (IQs of 160–174), and profoundly gifted (IQs of 175 and higher). Other perspectives combine variables not measured by intelligence tests with ones that are. According to these views, giftedness depends on both nature (genetics) and nurture (appropriate environmental opportunities), as well as both psychological and cognitive elements. For example, one of Joseph Renzulli’s (1986) early models, the ‘three-ring’

conception of giftedness, consists of three interactive components (or rings): creativity, strong task commitment or motivation, and higher than average general or domain-specific abilities. He further specifies that giftedness is not a static personal trait but, instead, ‘gifted behaviors take place in certain people (not all people), at certain times (not all the time), and under certain circumstances (not all circumstances)’ (p. 76). Similarly, Robert J. Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, formulated in the 1980s, consists of three independent yet interacting types of abilities: creative, practical, and analytical abilities. A person can be gifted without being strong in all three types if strengths are used to compensate for one’s weaknesses. Interestingly, the two models described above, as well as many others, have continued to evolve for the 21st century with the addition of even more factors. More specifically, Renzulli’s most recent extension of his previous models emphasizes that leadership skills, such as self-control, optimism, socialemotional intelligence, and persistence, should be identified in the gifted and talented. Importantly, these leadership skills need to be combined with executive functions. According to Renzulli (Reis, 2016, p. 45): Executive functions are broadly defined as the ability to engage in novel situations that require planning, decision making, trouble shooting, and compassionate and ethical leadership that is not dependent on routine or well-rehearsed responses to challenging combinations of conditions. These traits also involve organizing, integrating, and managing information, emotions, and other cognitive and affective functions that lead to ‘doing the right thing’ in situations that do not have a predetermined or formulaic driven response.

The Rating the Executive Functions of Young People scale can be used to identify the skills incorporated into this model. Similarly, Sternberg’s (2017) ACCEL model includes ethical leadership skills in addition to analytical, creative, practical, and wisdom-based abilities, all of which will be needed to solve the macro-problems of our global world. He

Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift

and his colleagues have developed a variety of measures that can be used ‘to identify the concerned active citizens and ethical leaders of the future who will be wise rather than foolish’ (p. 158). A third type of widely used conception includes gifted children’s internal experiences and vulnerabilities that necessitate special services. For example, the Columbus Group (1991, as cited in Morelock, 1996, p. 8), states, ‘Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm’. Being out of sync with their peers and the school curriculum, plus more advanced in their cognitive abilities than in their physical and emotional development, causes gifted children to be at risk for adjustment problems and, therefore, in need of special teaching, counseling, and parenting. High levels of giftedness come with greater asynchrony and more need for accommodations. In contrast, some approaches call into question whether the gifted designation is even warranted. According to these views, what appears to be giftedness is actually the result of privileged access to opportunities and/or numerous hours of deliberate practice resulting in expert performance. In other words, nurture rather than nature accounts for above average performance in one or more domains. Similarly, other viewpoints argue that we need to shift from the gifted child paradigm to the talent development paradigm. The latter is less categorical and less reliant on psychometric measurement for identification than the former. As Dai (2016) notes, Although taking many forms and approaches in practice, the Talent Development Paradigm (TDP) holds a more pluralist and developmental view of human potential, and its practice is not driven by status but by one’s demonstrated potential or aptitude for a particular line of talent development … It is not preoccupied with the question of what makes giftedness but instead focuses on ‘giftedness in the making’. (p. 53)

37

In other words, the talent development approach is based on the assumption that giftedness evolves over time. The goal is to provide a wider range of children the opportunity to engage in advanced learning that will help develop their talents and interests. To this end, Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (2011) propose the following definition: Giftedness is the manifestation of performance that is at the upper end of the distribution in a talent domain even relative to other high-functioning individuals in that domain. Further, giftedness can be viewed as developmental in that in the beginning, potential is the key variable; in later stages, achievement is the measure of giftedness; and in fully developed talents, eminence is the basis on which this label is granted. Psychosocial variables play an essential role in the manifestation of giftedness at every developmental stage. Both cognitive and psychosocial variables are malleable and need to be cultivated. (p. 4)

Commonalities Although there are different conceptions of giftedness and different forms it can take (e.g., domain general, domain specific, twice exceptional, profoundly gifted), they reveal important commonalities to consider. For example, most views recognize that gifted children are developmentally advanced in their cognitive abilities and they tend to acquire information in one or more domains more quickly and deeply than peers their same age. During the preschool years, these domains tend to be ones that have an orderly and clearly defined body of knowledge that can be acquired through a series of obvious steps. By early adolescence, gifted individuals can typically remember information in their domains of interest with unusual precision and use divergent strategies and advanced metacognitive skills to solve problems. However, most views also agree with Renzulli’s point mentioned earlier that giftedness is not a static, permanent trait. Instead, it can change over time or fade away in unconducive circumstances. Gifted children’s precocity or developmental advancement often coincides with

38

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

what Ellen Winner (1996, p. 3) refers to as a ‘rage to master’, Joseph Renzulli labels task commitment, and Robert J. Sternberg and others call passion. Often beginning at an early age, extremely gifted children become almost obsessed with certain types of activities and knowledge. In other words, they are intrinsically motivated to become experts in their domains of interest. They ask numerous questions and continually seek and devour information. As implied in the above paragraphs, and unlike in the past, most contemporary models describe giftedness as largely domain specific, especially as children develop. In other words, as individuals get older, task commitment, creativity, and passion typically occur in one or more areas or disciplines rather than in all areas or disciplines. However, both general abilities and domain specific ones play a role in their performance. In addition, there seems to be agreement across various perspectives that children who are gifted need special training, opportunities, and support to fully develop their abilities within their domains of giftedness. Creativity, which is also part of many current conceptions of giftedness, involves reasonable risk taking, nonconformity, persistence, above average intelligence, and divergent and convergent thinking skills. However, the role creativity plays in giftedness can vary between perspectives. Some, such as Renzulli’s three-ring model described earlier, define creativity as creating original products that are valued by a targeted audience. Renzulli and other theorists believe creativity is necessary but not sufficient for most forms of giftedness. In contrast, creativity is an optional component in other conceptions, such as the Munich model of giftedness (MMG), which combines talent factors, performance areas, personality factors, and environmental factors, and Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Most views agree that creativity needs to be cultivated so that childhood or little-c creativity, which involves new ways of interpreting material or

solving problems on a small personal scale, can become adulthood or big-C creativity, which requires original production and external validation within a specific domain.

Analysis of attribute 2: understanding the gift Giftedness cannot be a perfect gift until we reach consensus on how to define and identify it. Having a research-based, inclusive, and well accepted view of giftedness would standardize identification, permit researchers to conduct cross-study comparisons, eliminate geographic giftedness, and allow children to keep and develop their abilities when they move to new school districts or into adulthood. Fortunately, the commonalities found across various views indicate that significant progress has been made towards consensus. Gifted children are no longer viewed as a homogeneous group and various conceptions can handle this variability. As part of this change from the past, recognition is being given to the inadequacies of using IQ scores as the primary method for identifying giftedness. It is also encouraging that many perspectives build on previous work instead of starting over again, which seems to move us forward.

Attribute 3: Caring for and Cultivating the Gift As mentioned earlier, gifts need care if we want them to last. Unfortunately, there is a misguided societal belief that gifted children can learn and succeed almost effortlessly on their own and, therefore, they have no special educational or parenting needs. The material in this section conveys negative consequences of this belief and covers various ways giftedness can be cultivated.

Meeting educational needs In general, programs for gifted children do not receive as much attention or as many resources as they deserve. This is partially

Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift

due to concerns about elitism and to the false belief that gifted children consistently perform at their maximum capacity without needing much support. As a result, these children do not always have access to nonboring, fast-paced, advanced learning opportunities that develop their abilities, foster their interests, and help them reach their full potential. Especially for children at higher levels of giftedness, an increasing number of parents solve this problem through homeschooling, although financial circumstances and other concerns limit the feasibility of this option for all families. Home-schooling, unfortunately, helps school districts to avoid confronting and prioritizing the critical issue of how to provide appropriate gifted education. Culturally diverse, low income, and rural gifted students are especially at risk of having limited access to extensive and challenging educational opportunities that match their cognitive abilities. In addition to not being sufficiently challenged, when highly gifted students are in classrooms where their abilities are much greater than those of their chronological peers, they can develop social adjustment problems. ‘They seem to pose a threat to certain individuals, not necessarily all, as they try to rise upwards in social hierarchies. … They have become accustomed to being treated as more or less unwanted; an inconvenience’ (Persson, 2009, p. 915). As a result, these children become marginalized at school. Fortunately, there are some existing recommendations and practices that help meet gifted children’s educational and social needs, because many researchers and educators recognize that ‘giftedness is not static, but malleable and needs to be developed’ (Subotnik, Worrell, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2016, p. 146). In general, gifted students should be allowed to learn at their own rates alongside like-minded peers and be given numerous opportunities to stretch their cognitive abilities through advanced material, high-level critical thinking, creative endeavors, and

39

complex problem-based learning with ‘realworld’ applications. Their teachers should be trained in the needs and characteristics related to giftedness, and counseling services should be available if they are warranted. Providing many of the opportunities mentioned above is best accomplished through full-day programs instead of ones where gifted students are pulled out of their regular classrooms for a few hours each week. Research indicates that pull-out programs are more expensive and not intensive enough to significantly advance abilities or foster lasting friendships. An under-utilized alternative involves educational advancement through early entrance to any level of schooling, grade-based and subject-based acceleration, and Advanced Placement courses. This option comes at no financial cost to the schools and typically leads to higher academic achievement more often than other forms of intervention. Contrary to popular belief, acceleration also slightly improves gifted children’s socialemotional development. The timing of skipping an entire grade varies by sex, ethnicity, and socio-economic status (SES). Perhaps because females tend to mature at a faster rate than males develop, it is somewhat more likely that girls rather than boys will skip kindergarten. Similarly, White children and those of high SES are more likely than other ethnic groups and those from low-income households to skip a grade earlier rather than later in elementary or middle school. Interestingly, it has been found that early acceleration is more likely than later grade advancement to be correlated with higher reading and mathematics achievement in grade 12. After school or weekend enrichment programs, a common option for gifted students who can access them, are not accelerated but they can help lead to educational advancement. These programs supplement or provide new topics not offered in a school’s curriculum. The goal is to provide students with the opportunity to engage with material in more depth than they would have in a regular

40

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

classroom. However, it has not been demonstrated that these programs result in the same positive effects as those found for acceleration. When gifted students are not ready to advance to the next year’s curriculum, differential teaching within a regular classroom can provide them with enrichment in specific subjects. This is done through openended questions and activities, independent projects, curriculum compacting, discovery learning, as well as other techniques. Committed, trained educators are needed so that gifted students broaden and deepen their knowledge and use their creative abilities, instead of doing mindless busy work. In addition to the options mentioned above, recent theories provide guidelines to help teachers and parents to foster giftedness. For example, Sternberg’s ACCEL model (2017) mentioned earlier, and the research behind it, provide information on how to develop creative, analytical, practical, wisdom-based, and ethical skills. Moreover, as Sternberg and his colleagues have found in their research, children learn best when teaching styles match their strengths in analytical, practical, or creative abilities.

Meeting care-giving needs Not surprisingly, parents play a major role in their gifted offspring’s cognitive and socioemotional development. What does this role entail? Research indicates that optimal home environments for gifted children: (1) are child-centered; (2) provide interesting and challenging opportunities; (3) have at least one caregiver who advocates effectively for appropriate educational programs; (4) permit children to have increasing amounts of independence and appropriate responsibilities; and (5) combine high expectations with strong support and responsiveness to the children’s interests. Without these characteristics, gifted children can develop behavioral difficulties and not fully advance their interests and abilities. Although parents of gifted children are sometimes viewed as being pushy or overly

involved, the majority tend to respond appropriately to the needs and interests of their gifted progeny. For the most part, they accurately assess their child’s abilities, hold high expectations for themselves and their child, and support their offspring’s need to be intellectually challenged and engaged. Through the use of the authoritative parenting style, they also typically allow higher than normal amounts of independence, while providing appropriate discipline, opportunities, and guidance. Even though parents of children identified as gifted are more likely than others to have advanced levels of education and moderate to high SES, there do not appear to be incomerelated differences in the parenting practices used to raise gifted children. According to Jolly and Matthews (2012): As far as can be determined from the existing literature, effective parenting practices for high ability children appear to look much the same among families from low-income environments. These parents create a home environment that encourages self-competence, they model positive behaviors, and they seek to develop supportive relationships with schools. Effective parents and families of disadvantaged gifted children draw on broader networks of extended family members, community resources, and schools, in comparison with similar parents of average-ability children, to support and foster their child’s potential. These effective parents also reinforce the importance of academic achievement in interactions with their children. (p. 273)

Of course, not all parents fit the pattern described above. Some do not fully understand what it means to be gifted and, consequently, they expect too much or too little from their gifted offspring. As a result, these children can lose their strong desire to master material, create new products, and reach their full potential. In addition, when parents are perceived as critical and demanding, their gifted children can develop high levels of evaluative concern and dysfunctional perfectionism. As a consequence, fear of failure can lead to anxiety, low feelings of self-worth, and depression.

Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift

Even if parents do fit the pattern of effective parenting described earlier, they do not always know the strengths and weaknesses of various gifted programs or how best to advocate with the schools on behalf of their gifted children. In order to successfully handle the challenges of raising a gifted child, it is important for parents to have access to their own set of support services. One type prevents problems by guiding parents through the assessment process, explaining to them how to interpret the results, and providing recommendations for home and school practices. The other, which often takes the form of family therapy, helps resolve problems that may already exist, such as gifted children’s under-achievement or issues with family dynamics.

Analysis of attribute 3: caring for and cultivating the gift The educational needs of all gifted children are not consistently met nearly as well as they could or should be met, which has negative consequences for the children who do not receive the appropriate training they need. For example, the United States’ No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 undermined essential curriculum development for the gifted; many programs are underfunded; and academic acceleration is underutilized. Given that our educational practices often fall far behind the research, parents currently shoulder the main burden of responsibility for ensuring that their gifted offspring are recognized, academically challenged, and socially accepted at school. Some parents are in a position to assume this responsibility or home-school their children, while others are not. To benefit all parents, as well as their offspring, our educational system needs to provide the most effective practices and programs and make them readily available to all gifted children. This does not seem like an unreasonable request given that some options, such as acceleration, are cost effective.

41

Attribute 4: Desirability of the Gift Sadly, not all gifted children and adolescents seem to want their gifted designation, which violates a defining characteristic of a perfect gift. I sometimes ask gifted young people what it is like to be gifted and if they would trade places with someone if they could; the responses are always mixed. Some of their replies reflect that they are proud to be smart and do well in school or they like knowing more than other kids know. These positive answers have been related to responses that indicate they would not seriously trade places with anyone (unless the other person were rich or famous). Others describe being misunderstood by many people or treated as though they are weird or ‘too smart for their own good’. These negative answers are related to the desire to trade places with someone; often they want this person to be someone popular or someone who does not have to go to school. (However, one 11-yearold girl said she would even be willing to change with me.) Interestingly, when I have asked non-identified children and adolescents if they would exchange places with anyone, none have said they would trade with someone in a gifted program. Gifted children typically recognize that they are different from their same-age peers and, therefore, are not treated the same. Although this sense of being atypical often fosters a high self-concept and feelings of pride and pleasure in being able to learn quickly and well, it can sometimes hurt gifted children’s self-esteem and lead to depression and their feeling unconnected to their chronological peers.

Social relationships If we look back on our own childhoods, friendships are often among the first memories that come to mind. In addition to being fun and getting away from adults, close interactions with an appropriate peer group foster social competency, conflict resolution capabilities, perspective taking, emotional security,

42

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and other positive attributes. In general, gifted children profit from being accepted by their intellectual peers and having companions with whom to share their common interests, emotions, creativity, and complex ideas. Unfortunately, these children’s complexity of play and asynchronous development can restrict their options for close companions. In addition, intellectually gifted children’s expectations and conceptions of friendship tend to be more aligned with those of individuals of the same mental age than with those held by their chronological peers. More specifically, gifted children are more advanced in the hierarchical stages of friendship, which means they are looking for deeper, more enduring qualities in a friend than are other children their age. This disparity between gifted children and their same-age peers is especially noticeable at younger ages than at older ones and at the exceptionally and profoundly gifted levels. One significant advantage of full-day gifted programs is that they provide a fitting and highly valued peer group for gifted children and adolescents. As noted earlier, acceleration also has some positive benefits for gifted children’s social-emotional development. According to Miraca Gross (2009): Ability grouping and grade advancement can be of invaluable assistance in the early years of school to young gifted children whose accelerated conceptions of friendship are urging them to seek the sure shelter of a relationship of trust, fidelity, and authenticity, at ages where their age-peers are seeking playmates or casual conversation. In the case of exceptionally and profoundly gifted children, it is difficult to justify, either educationally or socially, the inclusion of these children in classes comprised of age-peers whose conceptions of friendship are so radically different from theirs. (pp. 344–345)

Unfortunately, because of reductions in school funding, families’ financial or geographic situations, and lack of adult attention given to this issue, not all gifted children have access to appropriate opportunities that foster the friendships they would deeply like to have. Some gifted students, particularly females and minority children, purposely conceal

their abilities and underachieve in order to fit in with their same-age peers or to preserve their social identities. Perhaps because of early socialization, many gifted girls prioritize friendships over excelling academically. As a consequence, they hide their abilities and do not always join gifted programs or advanced classes because they want to stay with their current classmates. Even more troubling is the finding that gifted girls are more likely than their same-age peers to have lower self-perceived abilities, self-confidence, and self-esteem. In other words, they feel different than others but do not always fully recognize or appreciate their giftedness. Similarly, gifted Black males have been found to equate academic achievement with ‘acting White’ (Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008, p. 216), which can cause them to prioritize social activities over academic ones.

Stereotypes and stigma Related to the above section is the unwanted baggage that can come with giftedness. Bestowing the gifted label on some children means we are also potentially giving them the burden of negative stereotypes and stigma. Their peers, teachers, other individuals, and the gifted children themselves can be influenced in adverse ways by inaccurate, discrediting stereotypes and their consequences. Research shows that laypeople tend to view the gifted as one homogeneous group, rather than a heterogeneous one. For example, when children are recognized as being members of the ‘gifted group’, they are often automatically viewed as socially incompetent, even though studies show that gifted children are typically more socially mature than their same-age peers. In addition, they are also seen as introverted, low in agreeableness, neurotic, non-athletic, and mentally unbalanced. Stigma occurs when others identify someone as a member of a group that is atypical and the negative stereotypes associated with that group influence how they interact with the individual. In other words, people often

Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift

change their behavior when they learn a child is a member of the gifted group. For example, African American males sometimes perceive peer rejection or ridicule when their giftedness becomes known. The reaction of others, in turn, can influence what the child or adolescent chooses to reveal and how she or he decides to act. For example, the child can choose to downplay his or her giftedness, embrace it despite the stigma, or avoid situations where giftedness is an identifying characteristic. Interestingly, it is easier for gifted children to mask their exceptional mathematical abilities than their verbal ones.

Analysis of attribute 4: desirability of the gift Sadly, giftedness is not something that children and adolescents always want to receive because, in some respects, it can make their lives more difficult or unpleasant. In general, they encounter many interpersonal and intrapersonal challenges, such as finding satisfying friendships, overcoming feelings of alienation, and experiencing stigma. Gifted girls and minority children are sometimes in an especially difficult position because they are subjected, and often responsive to, tremendous social pressure to appear average, rather than exceptionally intelligent. Unfortunately, we cannot make people accept those who are different. However, in order to help make giftedness more pleasant for those who receive it, we can make concerted efforts to reduce stigma by educating the public about misconceptions of giftedness, offer support and coping strategies, and provide appropriate educational and social programs that foster satisfying friendships with intellectual peers.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Currently the four attributes of a valued gift do not fit giftedness particularly well.

43

Outdated cultural customs and the expectation of future reciprocity, rather than an altruistic motive, are often used to bestow the designation of giftedness. In addition, there is not full consensus on exactly what giftedness is and who gets to keep it; we do not always nurture it by providing an appropriate education; and the desire for close friendships and the stigma often attached to high academic achievement cause some children to regret or hide their gifted designation, interests, and cognitive skills. So where should we go from here? How can giftedness be exchanged or upgraded in order to make it a more valued gift? Even if we decide to replace the categorical gifted label with a term not containing the word ‘gift’, the literature on gift giving can help guide which steps to take in refining our approach to giftedness. First, it would be useful for leaders in the field to return to the gestation stage in order to reconsider giver and recipient behaviors that would help in planning how to transform the abstract concept of giftedness into one concrete, cohesive definition. A desired outcome of gestation would be research-based agreement and clarity on what giftedness is and how it should productively be identified, fostered, and studied in today’s complex world. The task of reaching consensus does not seem nearly as daunting as it did even ten years ago because researchbased models of giftedness appear to be converging. For example, more views are taking a developmental approach to giftedness, where potential is the focus during children’s early years and achievement becomes increasingly emphasized as children grow older and gain more domain-related expertise. Similarly, the definition should include the commonalities of creativity, motivation, and other psychosocial characteristics, as well as cognitive ones. Adopting a developmentally focused definition of giftedness that includes psychosocial variables and domain specificity has the advantage of illuminating and standardizing identification procedures. Comprehensive assessment using a range of methodologies

44

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

would replace the primary use of IQ or any single test score obtained at a single point in time. This comes with the added advantage of broadening the diversity of identified gifted children. Comprehensive assessment should begin as early as possible, perhaps in the preschool or kindergarten years, to increase the probability that potential could be identified and fostered in a wide range of young children. Furthermore, assessment results should influence the prestation stage, when the gift is given at a particular time and place. Deliberate effort should be made to bestow the gifted or talented designation as soon as there are indications of extraordinary potential. Waiting until mid-elementary school or beyond to bestow the designation based on achievement does not capitalize on what is known about the early stages of giftedness and how it can fade if not recognized. A difficult and crucial part of this plan will be to convince educators, decision makers and other relevant parties to be guided by the agreed-upon developmental definition and comprehensive assessment when identifying gifted children. Change cannot be forced on educational institutions. Instead, it needs to come about through leaders in the field working closely with stakeholders in education. During the gestation and prestation stages, members of society who endorse the gifted designation need to let go of expectations of future reciprocity from the children who receive the label. The motivation behind a universal definition of giftedness, comprehensive identification tools, and early identification should not be an expectation (or pressure) placed on gifted children to create significant products or solutions and achieve eminence when they become adults. Instead, society should focus altruistically on meeting its responsibility to provide all children and adolescents with an appropriate education that fits their abilities and needs. Just as accommodations are provided to student athletes and children with disabilities simply because it is the right thing to do, gifted children should be given the training and support

they need for their sake rather than because they are viewed as a national resource. Of course society has expectations that all children, as they develop, will learn and follow the laws and norms of their culture. The point here is that gifted individuals should not be burdened with the additional demand of giving back to society in return for the educational resources they received as children. Careful work completed in the gestation and prestation stages will lay the groundwork for determining how best to nurture giftedness. Two related and repeated themes in the literature are that giftedness has to be developed and that there needs to be a good match between educational programs and gifted children’s social maturity, conceptions of friendship, creativity, and cognitive abilities. An appropriate educational plan is one that would allow all gifted children to capitalize on their advanced mental abilities and learn alongside other passionate yet diverse peers. As with all children in the United States, they should have their skills developed through stimulating methods and relevant problems that transfer to their lives beyond school. In addition to providing an appropriate education for all forms of giftedness, a concerted effort needs to be made to reduce the stigma often associated with being a member of an atypical group. During reformulation, the final stage of gift giving, children would be more likely to display their giftedness than to hide it because of the negative reactions they receive from others. Adopting or modifying the talent development paradigm might avoid the current categorical approach to giftedness, broaden the range of identified children, and help reduce harmful stereotypes. Implied in the above recommendations is the need for collaborations between and within all relevant parties who care about the gifted. For example, educational and parenting practices need to be informed by giftedness research and supported by society. This will require productive interactions between researchers, educators, parents, and other appropriate members of the population. In

Exchanging Giftedness for a Better Gift

addition, collaborations between researchers will be needed to test each other’s models and to examine in more depth the psychosocial and cognitive variables related to giftedness and the most effective ways to develop them. It is important that gifted individuals and other members of society never perceive giftedness as an extravagant burden that they then hide or ignore. Unfortunately, for some children and adolescents, giftedness currently seems more like my ‘Barbie doll wearing a toilet paper cover’ than a perfect gift. Luckily, the literature on gift giving provides insight about why we need to agree on what giftedness is, change our motivations for identifying it, and provide effective educational programs and social opportunities for all gifted children. We can give gifted individuals and ourselves the perfect gift by exchanging our current approach to giftedness for this improved one.

References Belk, R. W. (1996). The perfect gift. In C. Otnes & R. F. Beltramini (Eds.), Gift giving: A research anthology (pp. 59–84). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press. Dai, D. Y. (2016). Envisioning a new century of gifted education: The case for a paradigm shift. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization (pp. 45–63). Boston: Sense Publishers. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Another look at the achievement gap: Learning from the experiences of gifted black students. Urban Education, 43, 216– 238. doi: 10.1177/0042085907312344 Gross, M. U. M. (2009). Highly gifted young people: Development from childhood to adulthood. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 337– 351). Amsterdam: Springer. Jolly, J. L., & Matthews, M. S. (2012). A critique of the literature on parenting gifted learners.

45

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 259–290. doi: 10.1177/016235321212451703 Morelock, M. J. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19(1), 4–12. Persson, R. S. (2009). The unwanted gifted and talented: A sociobiological perspective of the societal functions of giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 913–924). Amsterdam: Springer. Reis, S. M. (Ed.) (2016). Reflections on gifted education: Critical works by Joseph S. Renzulli and colleagues. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sherry, J. F. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 157–168. Silverman, L. K. (2013). Giftedness 101. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Sternberg, R. J. (2017). ACCEL: A new model for identifying the gifted. Roeper Review, 39, 152–169. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2017. 1318658 Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P. S., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54. doi: 10.1177/1529100611418056 Subotnik, R. F., Worrell, F. C., & OlszewskiKubilius, P. S. (2016). The psychological science of talent development. In M. Neihart, S. I. Pfeiffer, & T. L. Cross (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children (2nd edn, pp. 159–171). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc. Wasserman, J. (2003). Assessment of intellectual functioning. In J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Volume 10: Assessment psychology (pp. 417–442). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books. Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55(1), 159–169.

4 Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories: Revisiting the Concept of Giftedness through the Mirror of Multi-Cultural India K r i s h n a M a i t r a a n d Yu k t i S h a r m a

INTRODUCTION

GIFTEDNESS – AN ENIGMA

One experiences the rich diversity of India as one travels through the sub-continent. Amidst this diversity are the children with varied potential living in diverse realities and contexts. They are so different, yet they have one commonality – they all are unique and talented in their own way. Some belonging to minority communities have their own life situations, whereas others coming from farmers’ families have a different story; some dwelling in the disturbed regions of the country are surviving in extreme conditions, and if we talk of the children of daily wageearners/housemaids, they have a different level of struggle altogether. As one engages with their lives, one is amazed to experience such diverse abilities and is forced to ask oneself if there is any single quality that can be called ‘gifted’.

The concept of giftedness has created awe among populations for generations. Theories on giftedness have included early pioneers like Galton, Binet and Simon, Terman, Hollingworth and Witty. They were pioneers who first expressed concern for gifted children. But their emphasis was on test scores used to measure a child’s intelligence. But ‘intelligence’ and its varied types of measurement created discrimination among culturally and linguistically diverse children. It has taken years of exploration to free giftedness from this narrow measure of intelligence, and we need to refer to the detailed work of Guilford and that of Gardner and Sternberg. Understanding brain function in relation to intelligence created a new interest in human behavior. Thus, the concept of giftedness

Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories

started to be liberated from the scores on tests and became more diverse and inclusive. With the onset of postmodernism, people started asking questions like ‘Who is gifted and who is not?’. Tannenbaum (1997) in his plenary lecture during the 12th World Conference raised some thought-provoking issues that need to be mentioned here: Is talent a single-culture-based concept or should it be understood in the light of sub-cultures, diversified into different meanings and standards of excellence? Is there a concept such as minority giftedness or giftedness specific to the socially marginalized? Can we apply the same norms for everybody? Is there any superior or inferior concept with regard to the community or majority/minority? Fraser (1997) has recommended a multi-group perspective of giftedness which is relevant to a country like India. This perspective emphasizes that differences in cultural experiences, values and beliefs do have an impact on designing appropriate assessment and instructional programs to address the needs of students with gifted potential. Tannenbaum’s (1997) comments on multi-culturalism and social integration are also worth mentioning. He claims that multi-culturalism for integrationists means holding minority representation of meritorious achievement as another qualifier for admission to special programs for the gifted. For separatists, it means that the concept is not just culturally based, but rather sub-culturally diversified. The present chapter will explore this concept while dealing with multi-culturalism and postmodernism in India.

POST MODERNISM – A PHILOSOPHY TO QUESTION THE STATUS QUO Postmodernism that emerged as an intellectual and cultural movement is a response to the radical changes taking place in the world (Calhoun et al., 2012). Various theories and approaches in postmodernism analyze the changes taking place in the social world due to science and technology which have resulted in increased emphasis on information, knowledge, power of

47

communication technologies and mass media. It is an umbrella term that acknowledges the infinite variety embedded in different social and cultural contexts, and provides diverse ways for engaging with the changing world. Postmodernism challenges the fundamental idea that mere ‘rationality’ can understand the ‘real’ world and its diversities (Barrett, 1997). It also acknowledges that the same reality can create multiple valid experiences for different people in different situations, and celebrates ‘little narratives’ and multiple views about the world, emerging from the social construction of ideas by different groups of people in specific situations (Lindas, 2013). Hence, postmodernists acknowledge and give value to fragmented and chaotic realities, discontinuities and ephemerality that exist in contemporary societies. Postmodernism dissolves a centralized perspective of society that was created by a dominant group. It acknowledges pluralization and the presence of multiple cultural universes. It values local rationalities and gives voice to those who may be culturally different due to their region or circumstances that may be transient, disturbed, or marginalized. Local contexts are not merely created geographically, but refer to circumstances in which different groups of people live. This discussion involves examining a theory that accommodates multiple descriptions, narratives and explanations emerging from various contexts. The intersections between postmodernism and multi-culturalism should then apply to existing theories not as exclusive explanations or frameworks but as a generalizing practice that enables the theorists to see the connections and similarities between the diverse cultures.

MULTI-CULTURALISM – A PRISM FOR INTROSPECTION Multi-culturalism is an ideology that affects the policy-making of a country deemed to be democratic. It has both ardent supporters as

48

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

well as very vocal critics (Kymlicka, 1998b; Barry, 2001; Okin, 1999). To understand this duality, we need to analyze the concept and its many shades. Inherently it signifies pluralism, meaning that there are people belonging to different cultures and sub-cultures residing in the society. Does that mean co-existence, co-operation or a hierarchical structural existence with varied kinds of discrimination? In a liberal democratic country, multi-culturalism aims to provide dignity, autonomy, opportunities for free expression and equal rights that are based on the principles of equality, justice and equity. The key question is: ‘Does this happen in reality or it is a theoretical conjecture that encourages a positive imagination?’ Are all people entitled to equal rights and privileges in a multi-cultural society? A government might have a constitution that validates the above but does not guarantee its execution at all levels and everywhere. Multi-culturalism is often treated with suspicion. Because of globalization, urbanization and technological advancement people are moving from their native places in the hope of job security, better opportunities or sometimes for their own safety. So, most societies face the migration of people coming from diverse cultures who bring with them different religions, customs, languages and food habits. What is the reaction of the host countries? For some it is the principle of toleration but not acceptance in its real sense, unless the migrant contributes something highly beneficial to the host country. In some places, there is resentment and aggression against refugees and migrants by the members of the host country. In many so-called democratic countries, governments have policies that are subtly discriminatory as there is social division on the basis of language, religion, caste, class and gender. Hence, the minority population is tolerated but not accepted fully. Though many sovereign countries have policies for affirmative action or reservations for the weaker section of the society, in real-life terms this does not bring dignity and equal opportunities for them.

There is another debatable aspect of multiculturalism that exists between universalism and cultural relativism. Crowder (2015) claims that ethical universalism implies that there are certain moral rules that are binding on all human beings in all places at all times. All cultures irrespective of their huge diversities need to follow certain basic fundamental values that include universal human rights. However, universalism has its critiques too since it is often suspected to be the imposition of values that are mostly ethnocentric. On the other hand, relativism looks at each culture as unique, having its own code of conduct and standard of morality. Lyotard (1984) argues that not only ethical systems but also ‘truth’ and ‘reason’ are relative to particular perspectives. But there are problems of cultural relativism. Human rights activists question many cultural norms that are against human dignity, such as the restriction of freedom of expression, or the discrimination against women’s rights with regard to their choices for education, marriage /divorce and child birth. So, to be true to the concept of multiculturalism, it is essential that all cultures are allowed to maintain their uniqueness. This means that each culture should be able to pursue their religion, language, customs, knowledge tools and heritage. Unfortunately, many indigenous cultures are already extinct, although there are attempts by some governments to preserve indigenous language and culture. This discrimination is most prominent in the world of education since in the guise of ‘modern education’, indigenous knowledge, methods of transmission and ways of learning have been ignored. We are all familiar with the theories of Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Freire, Montessori, Piaget and Vygotsky: but can we identify a sub-culture that does not use the language of the dominant nation (Dasen and Akkari, 2008)? Each sub-culture has its own way of knowledge transmission, but ‘modern’ schooling often imposes ethnocentric content and styles of learning. This becomes a threat to children

Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories

coming from ghettos, poor families and minority cultures. These children are often blamed for their supposed ‘unintelligent’ behavior or lack of motivation.

POSTMODERNISM, MULTICULTURALISM AND INDIA: CONTEXTUALIZING GIFTED AND TALENTED India as a secular, democratic country is in a very complex web of cultural diversity. The Indian constitution guarantees equal opportunities and rights to every Indian irrespective of his/her class, caste, religion, language or ethnicity and gender. Every individual is entitled to live a life of dignity and selfrespect. All religious communities have the right to celebrate their festivals, establish educational institutions and manage their lives as their culture and customs deem fit. So, religious tolerance is a way of life in India. Though Hinduism as a religion is practiced by the majority people in India, all other religions are accepted and respected. However, as discussed earlier, an expressed policy of multi-culturalism does not always lead to autonomy, freedom of choice and happiness as is expected in the accommodation–assimilation theory. In India, states have been created on the basis of linguistic diversity. Each state follows its state language as the official language and as the medium of instruction. This language stratification has created conflicts among its populace. Because of migration, people of different states are compelled to learn the state language rather than their mother tongue and local dialect. They also learn local customs, though each community tries to maintain its own cultural activities, festivals and other religious ceremonies. Thus, there is the possibility of language and religious conflicts among various communities. India is placed geographically in a very sensitive location that has affected its demography, economy

49

and polity. Tension in the border areas permeates through its border states; this compels its citizens to migrate to other adjoining states or to other safer places. This creates overcrowding, lack of suitable jobs and resources in the urban areas producing slums, ghettos and increased crime. Social discrimination in a multi-cultural society is linked directly to the structural processes of society’s development: even the language of different groups, i.e. verbal and non-verbal features of customary behavior, become a basis of distinction between groups. The lingual expression, conditioned by structural processes, possibly gives rise to socio-cultural categories which are legitimized in every society (Sharma, 1996). Thus, cultural diversity leads to ‘identity politics’ where different groups fight for a legitimate place in a territory. This includes hierarchical caste structures that, unfortunately, are still prevalent in many parts of India. In this caste structure, Brahmin is the highest caste and Dalit, although now designated as a scheduled caste, is the lowest caste (Misra, 2008). Scheduled castes or Dalits were for generations regarded as ‘untouchables’ and restricted to doing the most menial work. They were the most oppressed by the upper caste Brahmins and other higher castes. They have now been given some special privileges in the constitution so that they can catch up with the mainstream population, but a large section of the population is not included in this affirmative action. They are the ‘original’ inhabitants of the land who live mostly in forests, hilly areas or in very inaccessible places. But, despite government initiatives, economic disparities, social discrimination, educational deprivation, child-death, abuse and gender discrimination continue to dominate. The tribes of different sub-cultures are uprooted from their land but they cannot be easily assimilated socially, culturally and economically with the majority culture. On the basis of earlier discussion and with particular reference to India, it can be said that both postmodernism and multi-culturalism

50

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

have been devalued and silenced by the dominant groups, and some sub-cultures have been lost. Cultural equality involves making a conscious effort to create adequate spaces for marginalized cultures. In creating these cultural spaces, it is necessary to question the universal theories that maintain the status quo. It can be argued that postmodernism provides the ideological framework for multi-culturalism to go beyond the alignment of cultures perceived as high or low and instead to look at cultures within multiple contexts. In the Indian context, the presence of postmodernism is seen as heralding a new movement whereby individuals identify themselves both as global and uniquely cultural citizens (Singh, 2001). Indian society is beginning to recognize itself as a pluralistic, differentiated and diverse society by questioning the traditional social order and practices. Signs of a postmodern India include minority cultures wanting their voices to be heard. For example, in the education system the entrance of students from minority cultures are challenging the dominating hegemonic perspectives through writings and researches.

GIFTEDNESS AND INDIA – UNDERSTANDING THE REALITIES In India, intelligence is defined differently in different cultures and sub-cultures depending on the context. We have discussed multiculturalism in previous sections.. Our focus would now be on those who have been either under-represented or totally neglected in the realm of education. Tribal people have been most misunderstood and under-represented in any kind of achievement. The world view of tribal people revolves around innumerable festivals based on religious beliefs and faith. Traditionally the tribal parent transmits knowledge and skills orally to their children. These people are devoutly God-fearing yet independent by temperament (Gandhi et al, 2014). As the children are more proficient in

story-telling, dramatics, puppetry, folk play, their talents are best reflected in these activities. Children from tribal and rural communities generally have to struggle in schools because of their lack of majoritarian culture and language, but show tremendous potential in activities practiced by their community for generations. Similarly, for Dalits, the majoritarian concept of giftedness does not hold good. Because of the varied educational and economic policies of the successive governments, their children join mainstream educational institutions. Tribal people, who are extremely possessive of their heritage, reject the majoritarian culture or imposition of the majority perception of education, Dalits fight for equal rights in every field. Therefore, the National Curricular Framework (NCF) 2005 in India has strongly recommended inclusion of the diverse cultures, beliefs and contexts of all communities to make it representative of the diversity that exists in India. It gave equal value to the folk knowledge and practices that existed in various cultures as a practical and tacit form of knowledge as well as the various abilities such as ability to imagine, conceptualize, work with materials, persistence in tasks, etc. As stated in the NCF (2005), the oral lore and traditions of craft are a unique intellectual property, varied and sophisticated, preserved by innumerable groups in our society, including women, marginalized communities and tribal people. By including these in the curriculum for all children, we could provide them with windows of understanding and kernels of ideas, skills and capabilities that could be worked into forms and inventions that could enrich their own lives and society. School privileges the literate, but cannot afford to continue to ignore the oral. Sustaining oral skills of all kinds is important (NCF, 2005, p. 27). In addition, this not only aims at helping children from specifically marginalized communities to relate better to their curricular experiences, but also acknowledges their unique abilities and talents emerging from their tacit knowledge. In discussing the

Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories

example of a rural girl (below) whose understanding is not appreciated in the formal systems of knowledge that are based on the predominant cultures, NCF (2005) questions the education system with regard to the restricted ways of looking at ‘abilities’. Janabai lives in a small hamlet in the Sahyadri hills. She helps her parents in their seasonal work of rice and tuar farming. She sometimes accompanies her brother in taking the goats to graze in the bush. She has helped in bringing up her younger sister. She currently walks 8 km. every day to attend the nearest secondary school. Janabai maintains intimate links with her natural environment. She has used different plants as sources of food, medicine, fuelwood, dyes and building materials; she has observed parts of different plants used for household purposes, in religious rituals and in celebrating festivals. She recognizes minute differences between trees and notices seasonal changes based on the shape, size, distribution of leaves and flowers, smells and textures. She can identify about a hundred different types of plants around her – many times more than her Biology teacher can – the same teacher who believes Janabai is a poor student (NCF, 2005, p. 47). NCF proposes that teachers need to be questioned and made to reflect upon the idea of knowledge vis-à-vis ability as it is being looked at in all domains. In tandem with this, the position papers and textbooks developed by the National Council of Educational Research & Training (NCERT) contain a variety of stories, anecdotes, illustrations, cases and examples from the lives of different communities. This indicates that much effort is being made to make the invisible gifted children from diverse communities visible through curricular initiatives so that their abilities can be appropriately nurtured. The University of Delhi (one of the central universities of India) has taken a pioneering position for enhancing research in the field of gifted education, for developing curricular models for preparing teachers of the gifted,

51

as well as for the nurturance of giftedness and creativity amongst all children. The University has also organized international and national conferences for wider dissemination, sharing and consolidation of ideas in this field. Similarly, other government organizations such as the Department of Science and Technology (DST), The Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, the Indian National Science Academy (INSA) have been working towards promoting excellence in science and mathematics through their various programs. On the other hand, organizations like the Jagadis Bose National Science Talent Search (JBNSTS) and the Jnana Prabodhini Institute of Psychology (JPIP) have worked towards identifying and nurturing gifted children in the eastern and western parts of India respectively. The Tribal Mensa Nurturing Program (TMNP), started in 2002, is specifically focusing on the children belonging to the disadvantaged and tribal communities for their holistic development. Hence, in India there are national level programs that are complemented by programs taken up by organizations working in specific regions or with particular communities. We are thus reminded of what Chattopadhyay (1984) urged long ago ‘when we talk of an unusual child it has to be in a social context, not the established formal framework’. In such a situation, we have to focus on what Tannenbaum said about sub-culture giftedness, which holds true for both tribal people as well as for Dalits. We need not try to follow one straightjacketed definition of giftedness. ‘Looking on the highways will discover some, going into the by lanes will discover many more, among the various socio-cultural groups, among the deprived, among the rural masses etc. Talent is caste free’ (Kunnukal, 1984). Thus, it can be said that although the initiatives at national level started more than a decade ago, they require that efforts should be made at all levels. To begin with, due importance should be given to some of the abilities that are encouraged in these communities,

52

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

whether they are Dalit, tribal or minority, but are not valued much in our education system such as, empathy, resilience, courage, perseverance, tolerance and hard work. These abilities need to be equally nurtured in all cultures and should be integrated into the curriculum so that academic high achievers don’t become self-centered individuals and we have high achievers in all domains as well as from all cultures! Thus, the next section attempts to theorize giftedness as it exists in various strata of Indian society.

THEORIZING GIFTEDNESS IN THE CONTEXT OF INDIA Malati’s story (see Appendix I) shows us that there are potentially gifted children living in contexts that are not very encouraging and who are neither valued nor devalued with regard to their extraordinary abilities. These children silently internalize their life conditions, and some may find expression in their creative pursuits that may not have wider dissemination. The question arises as to what giftedness and its nurturance implies for such individuals. Do their potentialities get nurtured and if so how does this function in a country like India with all its diversities and complexities? This can be understood by taking a real-life example of a person, referred to as ‘Baby Halder’, who works as a domestic help and is now a well-known author. Her autobiographical account Aalo Aandhari (A Life Less Ordinary, 2006) is a beautiful, exhaustive account that is based on introspection and reflection on her life circumstances, abilities, interests, challenges and finally encouragement. What is it that has encouraged her to recount and express her life experiences through her creative ability to write? The foreword of her book refers to her strength, resolve and determination as well as her passion for reading and writing as some of the capabilities that she had. It also acknowledges that Baby works as a domestic

help for Prabodh Kumar, who mentored her. Prabodh Kumar is the grandson of the best known Indian writer Premchand, whose novels and short stories contributed towards great social upheaval in the early 20th century. He identified the potentiality and passion in her and encouraged her to write. He provided her with a range of books to choose from. Thus, he provided her with the resources and the openness to choose for herself, with the belief that she had the ability to make informed choices for herself. These resources stimulated her to reflect on her own life experiences. The mentor further shared her writings with other members of the literary community from whom she received appreciation and acclaim. She created a new body of knowledge by documenting the realities of poor women using several levels of analysis, from sociological and psychological perspectives. Thus, this is one instance where giftedness could be discovered in an Indian sub-cultural context that reaffirms the contemporary ideas existing in the field. The current paradigm in giftedness does not see abilities/educational needs as predetermined for all highly able learners, but as needs arising from the real classroom situations with diverse learners. The field of giftedness is re-examining itself with the transformations taking place in society and in the larger schemes of education, where more emphasis is on the inclusion of children from diverse cultures, communities and backgrounds. This represents a deliberate effort to shift the focus towards understanding the learners and their unique backgrounds. At the same time, the standard criteria used for conceptualizing giftedness, is being questioned. The emphasis is on nurturing the gifted potentialities of individuals. In the Indian context, there are many instances that question the existence of a single national policy related to giftedness in a diverse culture. It is a country where talents exist in multiple forms and at various levels, such as individual, community, local bodies, government, nongovernment organizations, non-formal

Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories

education systems, etc. The narratives and stories from the micro to macro contexts offer significant learning for understanding giftedness in India. Looking at the story of Laila (Appendix I), who belongs to a tribal community and is living a life that is predetermined for her: she and her brother may be understanding their community and its resources very well, but do they have the opportunity to communicate to the world outside their tribe? Although school is available, it is too far away to be reached. Laila, being a girl, is not even allowed to go to school and is engaged with the work that the community associates with a girl. Laila may have aspirations and abilities in other fields but how can opportunities reach her and other girls of her tribe. An initiative in this direction has been taken by YUWA, a non-government organization that supports Indian youth. YUWA is working towards creating a center of excellence for talented footballers, with better nutrition, better education facilities and a small stadium. These footballers are the teenage girls of a tribe from a small village in the state of Jharkhand. YUWA recognized the potentialities of these tribal girls and is providing them with football coaching along with coaching in math and English. Most of the girls are from poor backgrounds where their parents are either daily wagers or farmers, and from a village where human trafficking and child marriage are very common, as well as the gender inequalities that they face on a daily basis (see: ‘Young girls in rural Jharkhand are fighting discrimination with football’; www. thehindu.com, June 2017). But given the nurturance of YUWA, the girls are not only excelling in soccer, English and Math but are challenging the gender inequalities prevalent in the community. This is another instance that exemplifies that India needs a comprehensive approach based on the sociocultural context of the community to which the individuals belong. The approach by this organization is defined by the complexities of the context and seeks to provide a platform for

53

those girls who are gifted in a domain, whilst also empowering all girls by educating them and making them independent. Eighteen girls have already started playing and are winning tournaments outside India: by competing at an international level they are liberated to discover their own being! Gifted education in India relies on the various educational initiatives being taken at micro-levels, where the issues of marginalization and inequality are addressed. Referring to the instances quoted above, the complexity of the contexts impels us to revisit the standard theories of giftedness and reinforces the argument that giftedness is a culturally embedded and contextually specific construct. The instances and examples for India are in congruence with the emergence of the inclusion of diversities within society. This paradigm, does not see educational needs as predetermined and common for all highly able learners, but sees the real classroom with diverse learners with varying profiles. Several studies in the field of gifted education have outlined educational needs in terms of appropriate content, pace of learning, curricular depth and representational complexity or as individual interests with a range of learning and thinking styles (Dai & Chen, 2013). In the Indian context this current paradigm of giftedness responds to issues of equity by not categorizing or labelling some learners as gifted, but understanding each learner holistically and individually when planning educational experiences. The current focus in gifted education has shifted from following predetermined longterm goals to creating opportunities that are appropriate to the needs of the child’s profile (Tomlinson, 2008). The instances above provide ample evidence to substantiate this point and further raise questions in this regard: • Does it not bring a shift in our idea of gifted education only existing in the formal structures of education, to an awareness that some leaners thrive in the informal/non-formal systems of their life contexts?

54

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

• Does it not redefine the role of a teacher as a mentor who can bring changes in the lives of potentially able learners? • Do we need to train teachers for this or rather empower them to understand the complexities and subtleties in a learner’s life and capacities?

In response to the above questions we suggest a model to consolidate the ideas related to the nurturance of each child’s giftedness – see Figure 4.1. The model depicts what needs to be done to help each child fulfil his/her dream of excelling in life. Not just the government of the

day, but also parents, community and NGOs should come together to offer resources, appropriate environments, initiatives and financial help to make India realize its huge talent pool.

VISIONING THE FUTURE In postmodern India, micro-politics, new movements, demand for autonomy and the rise of popular culture in the form of violent expression in defense of cultural symbols,

Parents/home environment/ habitation (socioeconomic/ educational status)

Mentoring – science/ literary clubs/science fair/visit to places of historical interest/ institute of higher learning/internship/ competition like olympiad/ international competitions

POTENTIAL (to excel in any field) Nurturance (individual efforts/ peer group/ interest/hobbies/ teachers/counsellors/ resources

(Non formal setting) – community/ NGOs/private/ multinational initiatives

Teachers – school environment – school management (formal setting) – govt policy on education/gifted education/funds/ scholarships)

Learnings/insights from the above practices and initiatives should inform research and teacher education programs

Research and documentation of experiences/ anecdotes/cases/initiatives

Teacher education program – interaction with best national/international teachers/scientists/ scope for researches/higher studies/exchange program

Figure 4.1  Model depicting multiple possibilities and their interaction for the nurturance of potential in a child

Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories

life styles, and language have taken the form of identity politics (Singh, 2001). This should force educationists to re-examine the established norms of curriculum and pedagogy as well as the conventional way of looking at talent. To identify and nurture talent in a multi-cultural society needs appropriate resources, opportunities and parental/community involvement. The time has arrived to look at each learner as a co-constructor of knowledge. Postmodern India investigates by asking ‘whose knowledge’? and ‘in what form’? The answers to these question are being discovered by educators and policy makers as well as the present-day government through the initiatives discussed above – in tandem with what Paulo Freire described in the following terms: The generative themes, based on the real-life situations, problems and concerns of the learners, are used as the building blocks in the construction of locally relevant curriculum which at the same time relates that local reality to a broad range of individual, community and societal problems, e.g., peer group relations in the school, public transportation, violence and public safety, and air and water contamination in an industrial city… (O’Cadiz et al., 1998, p. 11)

When school is attractive, teachers are committed, curriculum is- relevant, and pedagogy is enabling, children would love to join despite economic constraints. There cannot be an ideal situation but there can be an attitudinal change and recognition of the diversity of contexts coexisting in India that challenge the universal notions of giftedness. Thus, in India we find individuals who may not be gifted according to the popular notion of giftedness, but they are gifted in their own cultural community. Hence, the implication for practice would be to begin by not seeing the educational needs of our children as predetermined and common for all highly able learners, but as needs arising for the real classroom situation with learners coming from diverse cultural backgrounds. Therefore, the emphasis today should not be on ‘who is gifted’ but on ‘where is giftedness’ and in

55

which form! To make this dream true, we need a multicultural education that is based on a curriculum that includes the social, cultural and economic needs of all learners.

APPENDIX I Cameos of Children who Reveal Gifts and Talents within the SubCultures in India Malati’s story Malati is the only child of a housemaid who supports her family by working for many families in her locality. With her jobless husband and daughter she resides in a roadside slum of Calcutta. As Malati goes to a Government school that is almost free, her mother spends very little on her education. Malati’s mother came from a very poor family from a tribal belt in West Bengal. Malati not only excels in her studies (which she does without any help from her parents), she loves learning dance and excels in that too. She writes soulful poems in her own mother tongue. Malati’s mother came at a very young age to Calcutta to work as a housemaid so that she can send money to her parents. She brought up her siblings and arranged for their marriage. Malati’s parents do not understand this multi-talented 10-yearold girl but have never discouraged her from any pursuit. The only condition is that she should do all the necessary household chores, which she does willingly. Malati’s mother does not have any big dreams for her daughter, but wants her to have a better life than she did. Malati is not a demanding child, she never bothers her parents for what other children of her age demand and get. She is completely absorbed in reading and writing poems/songs. She, being a docile and beautiful girl signifies ‘a silent treasure’ to be discovered by some good Samaritans someday so that she can explore and express her inner self fully.

56

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Sadat’s story India has particular political problems, like many other countries in the world, because of its geographical location. The country’s extreme north and north-eastern regions are particularly sensitive: students are not able to attend schools, because of various disturbances, curfews and other socio-political happenings. Amidst all this turmoil, some children still shine, and show zest and resilience. One such boy is Sadat. His father and elder siblings are the victims of terrorism. His mother manages their life by working part-time in a job that provides just enough money for survival. Even without attending his school regularly because of curfews or strikes, he completed his school successfully. Sadat wants to pursue higher education and is determined to change his own and his mother’s life; he wants to set an example for the youth of this troubled state. He has appealed to the Government for special financial help so that he can complete his education and join the government service to give back whatever he can as a token of his gratitude. We hope he gets a chance to fulfill his dream.

Reema’s story Reema was a victim of child labor. She was rescued by an NGO which supported her and released her from the agony of child labor. With the help of this NGO, she was able to join a school and graduated successfully. Reema started fighting against child labor and rescued many children. She became the leader of the ‘Children’s group’ that works for the rescued children. She was able to eradicate child labor from her locality by sheer determination and fighting spirit. The motto of her life is to wipe out child labor from her own state and then from the face of India.

Laila and Bhiku’s story Laila and Bhikhu go to the forest every day to collect wood for cooking and wild fruits

and raw vegetables for their family of eight. Their parents are busy making puppets and other crafts that are sold to the Banya (business man) who sells these materials at a much higher price. Laila is not allowed to go to school as she has to do cooking and other chores. Bhikhu was admitted to a school which is miles away from his hut, but would miss school because of odd jobs he has to do or because of bad weather. Bhikhu is learning the family business from his parents and plans to carry on the business himself without depending on the Banya who often cheats his parents. At an early age, he learned the intricacies of puppet making. As Laila has a melodious voice, they are planning to go to the village fair to do a puppetry show. During interaction with them, they said without any hesitation that they would carry on in the family business instead of going to a school that was of no use to them. Bhikhu is aware of the futility of such an education that does not respect his culture and language.

Soma’s story Soma is a 9-year-old boy from a small rural region in Odisha. His parents are local artisans who work with bamboo to earn their living. But the produce of the crop is not sufficient to sustain their livelihood and hence his family is not able to send him to school regularly. Soma observes his parents making bamboo frames, mats, fences, poles, baskets, etc. for their own use as well as for selling in their village and nearby areas. Soma started designing baskets with his father. He saw that people in his village needed baskets for storing grain, for winnowing grain, and for storing vegetables, fish and eggs. He understood their needs and created suitable designs for various purposes. He also started using other grasses found in the region to strengthen the structures he made. From his imagination he started making images of birds, animals and other creatures from bamboo. Recently, an NGO approached his parents to help them to market their products to other regions.

Tapping the Untapped – Untold Stories

EPILOGUE I dream that one fine morning All children are busy working In the laboratories Or in the workshop Or playing new games, They designed themselves The joy I see in their eyes Make me feel to live some more days! I dream of a tribal girl child Getting a Nobel prize! (Krishna Maitra)

REFERENCES Barrett, T. (1997) ‘Modernism and Postmodernism: An Overview with Art Examples’, in James Hutches & Marianne Suggs (Eds.), Art Education: Content and Practice in a Postmodern Era. Washington, DC: NAEA. Barry, B. (2001). Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Polity Press: Cambridge. Calhoun, C. et al. (Eds.) (2012) Contemporary Sociological Theory. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Chattopadhyay, K. D. (1984) Inaugural Lecture on Gifted Children. Report of the National Seminar on Identification and Development of Gifted Children. National Institute of Public Co-operation and Child Development, New Delhi, India. In K. Maitra, ‘An Indian Perspective on Gifted Education: The Synergy of India’, in B. Wallace and G. Eriksson (Eds.), Diversity in Gifted Education: International Perspectives on Global Issues. (pp. 143–149). London, Routledge. Crowder, G. (2015) Theories of Multiculturalism: An Introduction. New Delhi: Rawat Publications. Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151–168. Dasen, P. R. and Akkari, A. (2008) Educational Theories and Practices from the Majority World. New Delhi: Sage. Fraser, M. M. (1997) ‘The Etiology of the Core attributes of Giftedness’. In Janice A. Leroux (Ed.), Connecting the Gifted Community

57

Worldwide, Selected Proceedings from the 12th World Conference of The World Council of the Gifted and Talented. (pp. 159–176). Inc. Seattle, Washington, USA. Gandhi, M. and Vakulabharanam, L. (2014). Educating Tribal Children: Issues, Concerns and Remedies, Serials Publications. New Delhi. Haldar, Baby (2006). A life less ordinary, translated. New Delhi: Zubaan and Penguin. Kunnunkal, T. V. (1984) Keynote Address on Gifted Children. Report of the National Seminar on Identification and Development of Gifted Children. National Institute of Public Co-operation and Child Development. New Delhi, India. In K. Maitra (2006) ‘An Indian Perspective on Gifted Education: The Synergy of India’, in B. Wallace and G. Eriksson (Eds.), Diversity in Gifted Education: International Perspectives on Global Issues. (pp. 143–149). London: Routledge. Kymlicka, W (1998b). Introduction: An Emerging Consensus, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 1(2):143–57. Lindas, J. (2013) ‘Engaging with Postmodernism: An Examination of Literature and the Canon’. Undergraduate Honors Theses, Paper 423. http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1618&context=honr_ theses (accessed 22 July 2017). Lyotard, J. F. (1984) The Post-Modern Conditions: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis, M N. University of Minnesota Press in G. Crowder (Ed.) (2015), Theories of Multiculturalism: An Introduction. New Delhi: Rawat Publications. Misra, C. R. (2008) ‘Education for Tribal Children in India’, in P. Dasen and A. Akkari (Eds.), Educational Theories and Practices from the Majority World. (pp. 145–167). New Delhi: Sage. National Curriculum Framework (NCF) (2005) National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), New Delhi. 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ncert.nic.in/ rightside/links/pdf/framework/english/ nf2005.pdf O’Cadiz, M. P., Lindquist Wong, P. and Torres, C. A. (1998) Education and Democracy: Paulo Freire, Social Movement and Educational Reform in Sao Paulo. Boulder: Westview Press.

58

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Okin, S. (1999) Is Multiculralism Bad for Women? (with respondents) in J. Cohen, M. Howard and M. Nussbaum. Paulo Freire: Building a Multicultural Pedagogy for Silenced Voices. In P. R. Dasen and A. Akkari (Eds.), Educational Theories and Practices from the Majority World. (pp. 329–343). New Delhi: Sage. Paulo Freire: Building a Multicultural Pedagogy for Silenced Voices. In P. R. Dasen and A. Akkari (Eds.), Educational Theories and Practices from the Majority World. (pp. 329–343). New Delhi: Sage. Sharma, S. (1996). Multculturalism and Ethnicity in Global Context. (Ed.), Rawat Publications, New Delhi.

Singh, R. (2001) Social Movements, Old and New: A Post-Modernist Critique. New Delhi: Sage. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1997) ‘Programs for the Gifted: To Be or Not To Be’. In Janice A. Leroux (Ed.), Connecting the Gifted Community Worldwide, Selected Proceedings from the 12th World Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Seattle, Washington, USA: 5–36. Tomlinson, C. (2008). Differentiated instruction. In J. A. Plucker, & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. (pp. 167–179). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

5 Honoring Differences: Improving the Representation of Culturally Different Gifted Students based on Equity D o n n a Y. F o r d , J e m i m a h L . Yo u n g , B r i a n L . W r i g h t and Ramon B. Goings

INTRODUCTION The inequitable under-representation of Black and Hispanic students in gifted education has a lengthy history that cannot be denied. According to data from the Office for Civil Rights, Black students comprise 19% of public school students, but only 10% of students in gifted education; Hispanic students comprise 25% of public school populations, but 16% of students in gifted programs (Ford, 2013). Many gaps are involved: access gaps, opportunity gaps, expectation gaps, cultural gaps, and rigor gaps. As a result and rather predictably, pathways to educational inclusiveness for students of color remain elusive. For example, students of color continue to be educated in schools where access to gifted education is limited, not because of their ability and potential, but rather because the rules of recruitment and retention for gifted education are in favor of Whites and middle-class populations. The numbers do not lie; deficit thinking, prejudice, stereotypes, and

discrimination are operating and compromising the educational experiences and life trajectories of gifted students of color. Lack of access to gifted education is prevalent, yet preventable for Black and Hispanic students. Robust, proactive, and intentional recruitment and retention efforts must be taken to equitably address cultural diversity and differences, particularly with respect to the unjust underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic students in gifted education. The recruitment and retention of students of color must include a willingness by all stakeholders to view intellectual and human development beyond the confines of the familiar (i.e., White, middle-class students), which can easily result in overlooking gifts and talents, including important cultural differences in experiences, learning styles, psychological needs, and trajectories. To understand and account for these differences, a comprehensive, culturally responsive frame of reference must be adopted that incorporates cultural influences on the intellectual, academic,

60

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

creative development of students from culturally, linguistically, and economically different backgrounds. To achieve the aforementioned, we use national statistics from the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (Civil Rights Data Collection) to examine, challenge, and expose educational inequities in gifted education, and share a federal formula from the Equal Education Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to guide districts in setting equity goals in order to eliminate barriers and repair this corrupt pipeline, which is necessary to desegregate gifted education and increase opportunities for students of color. Despite ongoing efforts to achieve educational justice in the U.S., equity for all students continues to be an idea and ideal that has not been partially or fully realized in most P-12 schools. Gifted education is an educational discipline where inequities based on race are pervasive (Mayes & Hines, 2014; Wright & Ford, 2017). The lack of access to gifted education has immediate, long-term, and recurring academic effects on students of color. This prevents students of color from realizing their unique and culturally based gifts, talents, and potential. Hence, aside from the immediate impact on students, educational inequity in gifted education has wide-reaching implications that are academic, social, personal, vocational, and fiscal. Cross (2013) candidly noted how inequality (and, as we argue, inequity) in gifted education reverberates at all levels to create and maintain hierarchies of power, privilege, and domination. Cross explained: Under certain circumstances, gifted education plays into the maintenance of the hierarchical structure that undeniably exists in our society. When participation is open exclusively to those who have had experiences that only those in the dominant culture or class have had, an injustice has been done to those with similar potential who lack appropriate experiences because of their language or economic or cultural differences. All of these conditions presently exist in gifted education to varying degrees. (p. 117)

In this chapter, we examine the status of gifted education for students of color whose teachers fail to recognize their gifts and talents because they: (a) do not care about, or (b) do not want to consider, or (c) do not know how to recognize the strengths of nonWhite students who come from a different racial and economic background. To illustrate under-representation, we present national data to challenge the procedures by which gifted students are referred to gifted education programs and subsequently evaluated and identified as gifted. Finally, we challenge and critique the ways in which the intelligence, talents, and skills of non-White students, mainly African American and Latino students, are habitually and inequitably overlooked, ignored, and under-recognized as having academic value in classrooms.

GIFTED EDUCATION ACCESS: GATEKEEPERS AND ROADBLOCKS Access to gifted education begins with referrals in most school districts (National Association of Gifted Children, 2015). Accessing gifted education begins early for some; however, denied access, be it unintentional or intentional discrimination, and covert or overt discrimination, is often the reality for students of color. This injustice has the effect of marginalizing much of what they learn in their homes and communities, rendering their culture and experiences as irrelevant for school (Ford, 2010, 2011, 2013; Ford, Trotman Scott, Moore, & Amos, 2013; Wright & Ford, 2017). For example, students of color are noticeably disadvantaged by the short-sightedness found in the gifted education screening and identification process, which results in educators and decision makers neither recognizing nor engaging assets, potential and the everyday experiences (e.g. out-of-school experiences) that these students bring to the assessment and educational process. These

Improving the Representation of Culturally Different Gifted Students based on Equity 61

culturally-situated experiences are overshadowed by an exclusive and/or extensive reliance on achievement and intelligence tests that have been highly scrutinized for their tendency to be culturally insensitive, culturally assaultive, unfair, and biased against the lived experiences of Black and Hispanic students (e.g., Ford, 2013; Naglieri & Ford, 2003). The same applies to checklists and nomination forms, which we consider biased against students of color because of their tendency to be culture blind and grounded in the lived experiences of mostly middleclass White populations. The items depicting characteristics of gifts and talents often fail to include characteristics in a culturally responsive way. As noted in much of the works and theories by Howard Gardner and Robert J. Sternberg, different cultures hold different views and values about giftedness. When this is not taken into consideration on checklists and nomination forms, opportunities for students of color to access gifted education is greatly diminished. We give this more attention later in the chapter. In many ways, biases from educators create a dichotomy where White students’ experiences are perceived and valued as the norm and culturally congruent with how schools function, whereas the experiences of students of color are viewed as a cultural mismatch (i.e., deficit-oriented lens). This dichotomous and cultural discontinuity view of the intellect, talents, abilities, and potential of non-White students is disturbing, based as it is on the pervasive and ongoing practice of privileging one group while disadvantaging others. This practice is perpetuated by teachers who are not knowledgeable about giftedness and are not culturally competent. Thus, it cannot be denied or discounted that educators, mostly White females (McFarland et  al., 2017), serve as gatekeepers to the gifted education identification process and all that it affords students in both the short and long term (Ford, 2013; Ford et  al., 2008; Grissom & Redding, 2016; Grissom, Rodriguez, & Kern, 2017). As gatekeepers

to gifted education, such educators influence who has access to gifted services, Advanced Placement classes, and eventually the most elite colleges and universities. The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) monitors national, state, and district data in its Civil Rights Data Collection. The trends are clear and disconcerting. Two student groups of color are consistently and significantly under-represented in gifted education; to repeat, Black students represent 19% of the public school population and Hispanic students represent 25%. However, they comprise 10% and 16% of gifted programs, respectively. American Indian students are not under-represented (representation is proportional); Asian students are over-represented (5% of schools compared to 10% of gifted education). White students are also over-represented, which is the case in every OCR report (49% of schools versus 62% of gifted education) (see https:// ocrdata.ed.gov and trends by Ford [2013] based on OCR data). Black and Hispanic students’ participation in Advanced Placement (AP) courses mirrors these trends. According to the College Board (2012), 72% of Black students and 66% of Hispanic students whose PSAT scores warranted placement in an Advanced Placement mathematics courses were not enrolled in the program. In a similar commissioned study by the Education Trust it was concluded that approximately 89,025 Black students and 54,623 Hispanic students were not enrolled in AP courses due to participation gaps (Theokas & Reid, 2013). These gaps begin early, thus all teachers within the gifted pipeline have an important obligation to enhance their cultural competence. Given their prevalence as educators, it cannot be denied that White teachers, White females in particular, are primarily responsible for Black and Hispanic students being denied access to gifted education and AP classes. The pipeline or trajectory is clear – students who are not in gifted education are not likely to be in AP classes.

62

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

THE BROKEN PIPELINE TO GIFTED EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS OF COLOR At no time in the history of gifted education were we able to find data indicating that Black and Hispanic students have been and are well-represented in gifted education at the national level. This clearly serves as a major impetus for this chapter. Parity between their representation in schools and their representation in gifted education has yet to be realized. More directly, no national data was found indicating that Black and Hispanic students are equitably represented in programs and services for gifted and talented students. Ford (2013) calculated that, nationally and annually, over 500,000 Black and Hispanic students combined have been denied access to gifted education. This, we maintain, also contributes to underachievement (Ford, 2010). Unchallenged students often lose interest in school. Gifted education has a relatively short history (see NAGC, 2017) compared to special education, and the field is riddled with controversy, especially as it pertains to racial and economic inequities. This brings us to the next section of this chapter, which discusses giftedness (identification and access) for students of color and provides professionals with what they must know about the characteristics and needs of gifted Black and Hispanic students, along with their professional obligation to be culturally competent.

HOW GIFTEDNESS IS RECOGNIZED AND IDENTIFIED: CHALLENGES AND REFRAMING VIA A CULTURAL LENS Gifted individuals are regarded as a small and selective group. It is difficult to quantify the percentage, given that no federal guidelines exist for gifted education, resulting in states and districts defining and adopting their own definitions and criteria, which is

problematic in light of the aforementioned data trends. Too often, what is adopted and implemented is color blind, or, most accurately, – culture blind (Ford, 2013), rendering students of color an afterthought, a footnote, or non-existent in gifted education. In other words, attention to the recruitment and retention of Black and Hispanic students is not given with all deliberate speed. This ultimately reinforces silence with respect to the gifts and talents in students of color relative to White students. Relatedly, early and continuous recognition and identification are essential to reduce the probability of gifted students of color becoming underachievers (Ford, 2010). In most states, the broken pipeline to participation in gifted education programs is influenced by two primary factors: parent/ family advocacy and teacher identification. While some districts have developed other processes to identify under-served populations (such as universal screening), most districts nationwide rely on a subjective process to select which students gain access to gifted education programs (Goings & Ford, 2018). Described next, this subjective practice privileges White students, who are over-referred and over-represented in gifted education.

PARENT/FAMILY ADVOCACY AND EMPOWERMENT Families of children from low-income and non-White backgrounds are less likely to advocate for their children to access gifted education programs. Their limited advocacy should not be viewed as a sign that they are disinterested and not invested in their child’s education, but instead as a response to a schooling environment that is not conducive to their work schedules and an environment in which knowledge about how to navigate these programs is kept a secret. This is fundamentally about cultural and economic capital – privileges and empowerment.

Improving the Representation of Culturally Different Gifted Students based on Equity 63

Consequently, those families with more social and financial capital have or can acquire the resources and support to advocate for their children. Given this unjust reality, it makes sense that gifted programs continue to be segregated and non-White racial groups are kept out. A fundamental and critical component in the gifted program referral process are the teachers and other educators (e.g., administrators, coordinators, counselors, psychologists) who are responsible for recruiting and retaining gifted students. Racial prejudices cannot be denied or discounted

SUBJECTIVITY: TEACHER INPUT Unfortunately and undeniably, research, policy, philosophy, and practice have highlighted the importance of teachers’ perceptions of students in their willingness to identify them for gifted programs. Ford and colleagues (2008) summarized several years of data and found that teachers consistently and extensively underestimate the capability of Black students and, hence, under-refer them for gifted education evaluation and opportunities. In half of the studies, Hispanic students were under-referred. Ford (1999) found many teachers of color were discouraged from entering gifted education by White administrators who refused to challenge and disagree with White parents. More recently, Grissom and Redding (2016) investigated factors that affected (i.e., hindered and compromised) the likelihood that students will be enrolled in gifted programs. They found that, even among students with the same high standardized test scores, Black students were less likely to be assigned to gifted programs in both math and reading, even when controlling for such factors as socio-economic status (SES). The only factor that increased the likelihood that a Black student (performing at the same cognitive and academic level as their White peers, regardless of income) would be enrolled in gifted programs and

services was if the teacher who referred the student was also Black. This reality leaves one to ponder, why are White teachers less likely to refer Black students to gifted programs when their profiles match that of White students? Why is under-referral so significant? Wright and Ford (2017) argued that ‘implicit biases – unconscious, split-second judgements that humans make when they encounter people or things’ (p. 112) serve as a defensible explanation regarding the myriad of reasons Black students are not likely to be referred to gifted programs by White teachers. This issue is compounded given the predominantly White teaching force and the lack of required and available coursework and programs on multicultural education overall and in gifted education; thus, the chances are high that Black and Hispanic students will have a White teacher who is not likely to refer them to gifted education and AP. Not only do teachers underestimate students’ academic ability based on their race, some researchers have found that educators also judge and penalize students by something as arbitrary as their name. In one of countless studies on teacher expectations of students’ academic ability and potential, Figlio (2005) showed that teachers were less likely to refer children to gifted programs the more the name was associated with lowincome status. Conversely, schools with more Black and Hispanic teachers tend to have more representative numbers of Black and Hispanic students receiving gifted services. In addition, universal screening programs tend to increase the inclusion of traditionally under-represented gifted students (Card & Giuliano, 2016). These data suggest that, as teachers become more diverse or as the referral process becomes more equitable, the representation of Black and Hispanic students improves. This synthesis of research explicates the arbitrary and subjective nature of the teacher identification and recommendations processes in gifted education.

64

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

This research is significant because the identification process begins early and has lasting effects. The inadequacy of this process can result in the use of superficial and arbitrary demographic data, such as race or ethnicity, to replace aptitude, potential, and creativity as determinants of giftedness. In the next section, attention is placed on past shortcomings and the potential promise of a more culturally responsive definition.

FEDERAL DEFINITIONS OF GIFTED Gifted education is not federally mandated, yet the U.S. Department of Education has issued several definitions, beginning in 1970. The most frequently adopted is the 1972 Marland definition, followed by the 1993 definition, which the authors deem to be the most culturally responsive (see Table 5.1). The 1993 definition focuses on: (1) talent, which can be developed and points to giftedness being dynamic (e.g., environmental) rather than static (e.g., genetic); (2) potential, which addresses opportunity and access gaps and inequities between students by race and income; and (3) environment and experience, which also addresses opportunity and resource gaps by race and income. For example, Tannenbaum’s (1993) model and Gagné’s (1995) theory note the importance of chance (including luck) in giftedness coming to fruition. We concur and have never supported the polemic view that environment

is trivial or does not matter. These definitions and theories should be considered when interpreting test scores, especially the mean scores for Black and Hispanic students, which are often lower than those of White students (e.g., Kaufman, Kaufman, Beghetto, Burgess, & Persson, 2009). We maintain that different experiences and the quality of those experiences affect the manifestation of gifted characteristics and behaviors, as well as test performance. For example, children who have access to high-quality early childhood programs that are focused on academics and grounded in a developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) framework will likely outperform those who experience early education programs lacking an academic focus and DAP framework; too often, we see them lacking rigor that is culturally responsive and responsible to the social-emotional, psychological, and academic needs of students of color (Barbarin, Bryant, McCandies, Burchinal, Early, & Pianta, 2006; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Lee & Burkam, 2002). For example, children reared in high-income families and communities tend to have exposure to more extensive vocabularies than those living in poverty (Hart & Risley, 1989, 1995). The work of Hart and colleague is anchored in the seminal writings of scholars, such as Bruner (1983) and Vygotsky (1962) who said learning occurs in a socio-cultural context in which adults and primary caregivers support or scaffold young children to higher levels of thinking and acting. According to

Table 5.1  Two federal definitions of gifted (1972 and 1993) 1972

1993

Students who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavour.

Source: Ford (2013); US Department of Education (1993)

Improving the Representation of Culturally Different Gifted Students based on Equity 65

this view, children who experience sensitive, cognitively stimulating home environments early in development are at an advantage in the learning process. In agreement with these claims to some extent, we also challenge the tendency of researchers to compare the out-of-school experiences of non-White students with those of their White counterparts, which undermines the importance of diverse contexts as well as the fact that what diverse cultural groups deem significant and worth cultivating in terms of ‘higher levels of thinking and acting’ varies across race and class. Since children enter school with different funds of knowledge, skill levels, and cultural dispositions, we argue that when teachers are culturally competent, Black and Latino students are recognized and valued; their cultures become strengths and assets upon which to build and further support their cognitive development, language and literacy, and academic achievement. When the realities of limited access to and fewer opportunities for more challenging discourse are ignored and/or disregarded, false positives may result for students who are more economically and educationally advantaged, and false negatives for students from underserved and under-represented populations. Disadvantages that stem from limited access and opportunity contribute to under­ achievement among gifted students.

CHARACTERISTICS AND TRAITS OF GIFTED CHILDREN: CULTUREBLINDNESS NOT ALLOWED Much of the early studies of gifted students focused on the identification and development of characteristics and trait lists. There is no definitive list of characteristics and traits of gifted students; yet, most are normed with middle-class White students in mind. This does not bode well for students of color and those who live in poverty. The National Association for Gifted Children has a short

list (see http://www.nagc.org/resourcespublications/resources/my-child-gifted/ common-characteristics-gifted-individuals). As Asa Hilliard, Mary Frasier, Alexinia Baldwin, Ernesto Bernal, Tarek C. Grantham, and the authors of this chapter, have maintained, these characteristics were not created with students of color in mind, especially Black and Hispanic students. Different cultures place different values on giftedness, and what is considered gifted in one culture may not be valued in another culture. This is why we all have written extensively about multicultural gifted education – gifted education must be culturally responsive in policies, assessments, curriculum, and instruction. A student does not have to exhibit all or most of these characteristics to be identified as gifted. However, recognizing a number of characteristics in a student may be a reason to take a closer and more critical look. Educators need to recognize that students who quickly acquire a second language should be viewed as having an extensive vocabulary; this includes speaking African American English (AAE). Students who are troubled with regard to and speak out about racism and any form of discrimination should be viewed as having a keen sense of justice. When students of color do not have access to rigorous educational experiences, a predictable vicious cycle is evident, thus resulting in a low probability of meeting the requirements for gifted education identification, placement, and services.

SETTING QUANTIFIABLE GOALS TO ACHIEVE EQUITY IN GIFTED EDUCATION While data on under-representation have been presented, this section revisits underrepresentation, with a focus on equity. Valid questions are: When is under-representation significant? How severe must under-­ representation be in order to require changes?

66

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

How severe must under-representation be to be considered discriminatory? When the percentage of under-representation exceeds the designated threshold in the Equity Allowance Formula, it is beyond statistical chance; therefore, human error is operating – attitudes, expectations, measures, and policies and procedures may be biased in favor of White students and, thus, discriminatory against students of color. Intent/motive matters when examining under-representation, depending on the legislation applied. For example, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have an adverse impact on students regarding a protected trait. Protected traits vary by statute, but most federal civil rights laws (e.g., Title VI) include race, color, religion, national origin, and gender as protected traits (Ford, 2015; Ford & Russo, 2015). Under the disparate impact doctrine, a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proved by demonstrating that an instrument, practice, and/or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on students of color. Therefore, the disparate impact doctrine prohibits school personnel from using a facially neutral practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A mantra of many districts is that of valuing and promoting equity. We wholeheartedly support equity in both philosophy and deed. Per the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), equity can be quantified in the context of disparate impact (see https://hr-software.net/ EmploymentStatistics/DisparateImpact. htm). This is where philosophy, law, and practice come into sync.

Calculating the Equity Index (EI) is simple. It is not a racial quota, which is illegal at the time of this writing. To calculate the EI, start with the percentage of each underrepresented group of students of color in the nation, state, district and/or building; then multiply that percentage by 80% (see Table 5.2). Again, Black students are 19% of U.S. students; 19% x 80% = 15.2 %. Thus, to be equitable, Black students should represent a minimum of 15.2% of students in gifted education in the U.S. The under-representation for Black students is not only significant, but also beyond statistical chance, suggesting that racial discrimination is operating. The equity goals for Hispanic/Latino students also need to be calculated. They are 25% of students, but only 16% of gifted education students. Using the 80% formula, their minimum representation must be 20%, which means an increase of 4% (from 16% to 20%) is needed to meet the equitable requirements. These data highlight and reinforce the reality that our nation’s gifted programs are racially segregated. As a nation and educational system, we are far from fulfilling the mandates of Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) regarding desegregation schools as it pertains to gifted education (Ford, 2015; Wright, Ford, & Young, 2017). Increasing access to and equity in gifted education in the early grades can be difficult for families, for the reasons mentioned earlier, and for school officials, despite legal mandates that encourage educator buy-in (e.g., McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46). It is essential to note that educators and policymakers control admission and student scheduling at state

Table 5.2  National equity goals applying the EEOC 80% rule Representation in U.S. schools vs gifted education

Equity goals using EEOC 80% rule

Black students = 19% Gifted Black students = 10% Hispanic students = 25% Gifted Hispanic students = 16%

19% × 80% = 15.2% Must increase from 10% in gifted education to a minimum of 15.2% 25% × 80% = 20% Must increase from 16% in gifted education to a minimum of 20%

Improving the Representation of Culturally Different Gifted Students based on Equity 67

and district levels because gifted education is not federally mandated. This autonomy allows schools to ignore not only the early identification of very young children to gifted programs, but racial disparities in gifted education as well. Educators and families of gifted students and those who believe their child is gifted must be concerned about gifted education along racial and economic lines in order to address inequities in identifying and serving gifted students who are non-White.

CONCLUSION Ensuring equity in gifted education must be a top priority of school district leaders and educational policymakers. Moreover, we must continue to challenge school officials, policy makers, and the like for clarity with respect to the conception of giftedness to ensure the definitions accurately account for the gifts and talents of students of color, particularly Black and Hispanic students. Without such intentional and strategic efforts to improve the recruitment and retention of culturally different students, society will fail to engage, motivate, support, and tap into the promise, potential, and possibility of all citizens. Wright and Ford (2017) and Ford (2013) described in greater detail the ways in which all education stakeholders from teachers, school leaders, counselors, families, and the legal community can support this effort to achieve equity in gifted education. With this in mind, we offer a few recommendations: • Reach out to and communicate with families of color to ensure they are aware of gifted education opportunities, and have sufficient information and local resources to advocate for their children; • Ensure that all educational professionals have formal preparation in gifted education; Ensure that all educational professionals have formal preparation in multicultural education; • Hire more teachers of color in gifted education and Advanced Placement;

• Implement programs and experiences that prime the pipeline early on, with a focus on early childhood, talent development, and potential; • Create programs and opportunities that address underachievement and support gifted students of color who have lost interest in schools • Adopt culturally-based definitions, theories, and philosophies; • Adopt culturally responsive tests and instruments; • Adopt equity goals; go beyond lip service to set quantifiable guidelines that are clear about taking on under-representation.

As committed scholars and community members we hope readers will take this information and use it to support their efforts to ensure students of color are equitably represented in gifted education programs.

REFERENCES Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., McCandies, T., Burchinal, M., Early, D., Clifford, R., Pianta, R., & Howes, C. (2006). Children enrolled in public pre-k: The relation of family, neighborhood quality, and socioeconomic resources to early competence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(2), 265–276. Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: Norton. Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13678–13683. College Board. (2012). The 98th Annual AP Report to the Nation. New York, NY: The College Board. Retrieved from http://apreport.collegeboard.org/report-downloads Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. National Association for the Education of Young Children. 1313 L Street NW Suite 500, Washington, DC 22205-4101. Cross, J. R. (2013). Gifted education as a vehicle for enhancing social equality. Roeper Review, 35(2), 115–123.

68

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Figlio, D. N. (2005). Names, expectations and the black-white test score gap (No. w11195). National Bureau of Economic Research. Ford, D. Y. (1994). The recruitment and retention of African American students in gifted education programs: Implications and recommendations. Retrieved online from http:// nrcgt.uconn.edu/wpcontent/uploads/ sites/953/2015/04/rbdm9406.pdf Ford, D. Y. (1999). A study of factors affecting the recruitment and retention of minority teachers in gifted education. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Ford, D. Y. (2010). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students (2nd ed.). Waco: TX: Prufrock Press. Ford, D. Y. (2011). Multicultural gifted education (2nd ed.). Waco: TX: Prufrock Press. Ford, D. Y. (2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Ford, D. Y. (2015). Recruiting and retaining Black and Hispanic students in gifted education: Equality versus equity schools. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 187–191. doi: 10.1177/1076217515583745. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289–306. doi: 10.1177/001440290807400302. Ford, D.Y., & Russo, C.J. (2015). No child left behind…unless a student is gifted and of color: Reflections on the need to meet the educational needs of the gifted. Journal of Law in Society, 15, 213–239. Ford, D. Y., Trotman Scott, M., Moore III, J. L., & Amos, S. O. (2013). Gifted education and culturally different students: Examining prejudice and discrimination via micro-aggressions. Gifted Child Today, 36(3), 205–208. Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111. Goings, R. B., & Ford, D. Y. (2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journals: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 25–36. Grissom, J. A., & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of

color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1177/2332858415622175. Grissom, J., Rodriguez, L. A., & Kern, E. (2017). Teacher and principal diversity and the representation of students of color in gifted programs: Evidence from national data. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 396–422. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1989). The longitudinal study of interactive systems. Education and Treatment of Children, 12(4), 347–358. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MA: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., Beghetto, R. A., Burgess, S. A., & Persson, R. S. (2009). Creative giftedness: Beginnings, developments, and future promises. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 585–598). Netherlands: Springer. Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Mayes, R. D., & Hines, E. M. (2014). College and career readiness for gifted African American girls: A call to school counselors. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 31–42. McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., & Heinz, S. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017–144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? pubid=2017144 Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). GiftChild Quarterly, 47, 155–160. National Association of Gifted Children. (2015). 2014–2015 State of the states in gifted education policy and practice data. Retrieved online from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/ f i l e s / k e y % 2 0 re p o r t s / 2 0 1 4 - 2 0 1 5 % 2 0 State%20of%20the%20States%20 %28final%29.pdf National Association of Gifted Children. (2017). A brief history of gifted and talented education. Retrieved online from http://www.

Improving the Representation of Culturally Different Gifted Students based on Equity 69

nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/ gifted-education-us/brief-history-giftedand-talented-education Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Theokas, C., & Reid, S. (2013). Finding America’s missing AP and IB students. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. US Department of Education (1993). National excellence: A case far developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Myshlenie i rech’. [Thought and language]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wright, B. L., & Ford, D. Y. (2017). Untapped potential: Recognition of giftedness in early childhood and what professionals should know about students of color. Gifted Child Today, 40(2), 111–116. Wright, B.L., Ford, D.Y., & Young, J.L. (2017). Ignorance or indifference? Seeking excellence and equity for under-represented students of color in gifted education. Global Education Review, 4(1), 45–60.

6 Creativity and Genius Dean Keith Simonton

INTRODUCTION Who is creative? Who might we call a genius? What is meant when we say someone is gifted? These three concepts – creativity, genius, and giftedness – are distinct, and yet closely related as well. Any two can be found in the absence of the other, albeit sometimes a person might exhibit all three at once. As a manifestation of these contrasts, the three concepts have distinctive histories in the empirical literature. The oldest to receive explicit scientific attention was genius, a favorite topic way back in the 19th century, especially in the latter half. The ‘science of genius’ dates back to Francis Galton’s 1869 Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences. This is not to say that philosophers did not treat the subject much earlier, for they did. For example, Immanuel Kant devotes a section of his 1790 Critique of Judgement to that very topic. Yet without threat of contradiction we can easily say that Galton’s monograph

represents the first scientific study, as suggested by its subtitle. The author collected actual empirical data and subjected it to quantitative analysis. The data collection and statistical treatment may appear inadequate to our modern eyes, yet the investigation was state of the art at the time (Simonton, 2003a). Its methods certainly surpassed other studies of genius in that era, which tended to adopt a more clinical approach, such as seen in Cesare Lombroso’s 1891 Man of Genius (see also Babcock, 1895). In fact, it was not until Havelock Ellis’s 1904 A British Study of Genius that another systematic and quantitative inquiry saw the light (see also Ellis, 1926; cf. Cattell, 1903). Interestingly, unlike the other two ideas, genius never became popular enough among investigators to have its own publication vehicle until very recently: the first issue of the Journal of Genius and Eminence did not come out until 2016! So we don’t even know whether it will make it as a permanent periodical.

Creativity and Genius

The concept of giftedness, in contrast, did not emerge as a scientific topic until almost a decade after the publication of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Terman, 1916). That’s when Lewis Terman used the new instrument to assess more than 1500 children, using the latter as the foundation for an ambitious longitudinal study that continues to the present day (Duggan & Friedman, 2014). Although the volumes were grouped under the series title Genetic Studies of Genius (Terman, 1925–1959), with only one exception the volume titles all used the term ‘gifted’ rather than ‘genius’ (viz. Burks, Jensen, & Terman, 1930; Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959). That lone departure marks the ‘exception that proves the rule’, namely, the second volume that dealt with 301 genuine geniuses (Cox, 1926) – clearly the odd one out in the five-volume set. Ignoring this single study, giftedness became associated with a child receiving high scores on a standardized IQ test. This same association is seen in Leta Hollingworth’s (1926) classic work on gifted children, including her research on those children with IQs at the highest levels (Hollingworth, 1942). Soon journals specifically devoted to giftedness emerged, such as the Gifted Child Quarterly in 1957 and the Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education in 1978. Finally, creativity research as it is known today did not really take off until the mid20th century. For historical convenience, the onset is most often associated with J. P. Guilford’s presidential address at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (Guilford, 1950). Initially, the resulting research tradition did not differ that much from the former work on intellectual giftedness. The participants were still often children, and the central methods psychometric, with a heavy reliance on measures of divergent thinking (e.g., the two classics Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Wallach & Kogan, 1965). Nevertheless, the investigative scope expanded to encompass a diversity of samples, methods, and

71

theories (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). This expansion was also accompanied by a growth in publication outlets: the Journal of Creative Behavior in 1967, Creativity Research Journal in 1988, Thinking Skills and Creativity in 2006, and Psychology of Creativity, Aesthetics, and the Arts in 2007. Notwithstanding these three developments, it is telling that a Journal of Genius, Creativity, and Giftedness – in whatever order the nouns might be placed – has never existed. Nor may it ever. The divergences among the three conceptions may surpass the convergences. To see if this explanation holds, we need to examine the three more closely. That examination will prepare the way for a discussion of the role of education in the nurturance of creators, geniuses, and the gifted, whether separately or together.

CREATIVITY, GENIUS AND GIFTEDNESS We begin by treating each construct as distinct, and then turn to ways that they might be combined into a more comprehensive concept. As will become apparent, only two combinations, each involving two concepts, have real applicability.

Separate Constructs In terms of presentation, it makes the most sense to scrutinize the three constructs out of historical order: first creativity, then genius, and finally giftedness.

Creativity The definitions in this case have adopted diverse forms. Some researchers focus on the creative product, others on the creative person, and still others on the creative process. Moreover, researchers will differ on the criteria that must be satisfied before creativity, in any form, can be said to exist. Some

72

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

favor two criteria, others three, and will define whatever criteria they prefer in contrary ways. Making matters even worse, investigators have reached no consensus on how the assessments of the criteria are integrated or even on who carries out those assessments. Therefore, I have devoted considerable effort in recent years to developing a comprehensive and precise definition applicable to all conceivable situations (Simonton, 2013a, 2016a). This development starts by defining creativity at two discrete levels, namely, the personal and the consensual. Personal creativity is purely psychological, taking place during the creative process, and involving the assessment of a particular idea – such as the solution to a particular problem. The word ‘idea’ is used in a generic sense that include responses or behaviors as well as thoughts (e.g., fingerings at the keyboard that result in an attractive melody). In any case, the definition starts by specifying the three parameters that describe any such idea or behavior: p is its initial probability (at the moment the creator starts work on a problem or project), u its final utility (usefulness, meaningfulness, appropriateness, etc. at the time the product is completed), and v is the creator’s prior knowledge of that utility (regardless of the utility’s actual value). The three parameters are all scaled from 0 to 1, like probabilities or proportions. The personal creativity c of an idea is then defined as c = (1 – p)u(1 – v), where the first factor (1 – p) indicates originality and the third (1 – v) indicates surprise (Simonton, 2012b; cf. Boden, 2004). Here c also ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 means no creativity whatsoever and 1 signifies maximum creativity. The third factor represents a patent departure from the commonplace ‘standard definition’ that only uses the first two factors, by one label or another (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). According to this three criterion definition, an idea is not deemed creative unless the individual acquires new knowledge or a novel skill that was not possessed before. Also noteworthy is the fact that the three factors are multiplied

rather than added. That makes each factor a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a thought or response to be creative. Each holds independent veto power. The commonplace, useless, or obvious need not apply! In stark contrast to personal creativity, consensual creativity requires the evaluations of others. These evaluators can include some combination of collaborators, colleagues, reviewers, editors, jurors, impresarios, critics, audiences, consumers, patrons, sponsors, connoisseurs, scholars, historians, etc. (depending on the specific domain of creativity). In addition, the aggregate of these assessments can change over time, an event impossible at the personal level by the very definition of the three parameters. Putting this altogether, we get the following formal definition of consensual creativity: Cit = (1 – Pit)Uit(1 – Vit), where Cit, Pit, Uit, and Vit, i indexing the source of the consensual assessment and t the time of the assessment. Because c is lower case and Cit is upper case, the former can be called ‘little-c’ creativity, the latter ‘Big-C’ creativity (Simonton, 2013b). Another significant feature of this two-level definition is that there can only be one value for c but multiple values for Cit at any given time t. These consensual values do not have to agree. A patent example comes from cinematic creativity: moviegoers, film critics, and industry professionals may disagree regarding how creative a screenplay might be (Simonton, 2011). Indeed, the evaluations of experts and novices seldom concur (Plucker, Kaufman, Temple, & Qian, 2009). Both little-c and Big-C are quantitative measures that can range from low to high. Yet very seldom does c = Cit. They differ not because of their numerical value, but in who is making the judgment. The former presumes only the creator’s own self-assessment at the time creativity is taking place, whereas the latter requires the assessments of many others in the position to make the judgment. It goes without saying that seldom do the two equal. Indeed, we all have learned the difference when we submit a manuscript for

Creativity and Genius

publication and find out that, to our dismay, the journal’s editor and the referees completely disagree with our own evaluation of the submission! Now to state the obvious: (a) a creative product is an entity (poem, painting, design, composition, etc.) that contains one or more creative ideas; (b) a creative process or procedure is whatever produces one or more creative ideas; and (c) a creative person is somebody who generates one or more creative ideas. Because the creativity of any idea is assessed at two levels, each of these three perspectives on creativity can be subdivided into little-c and Big-C. For example, not all persons who believe that they are creative are considered creative by others. That disjunction is a necessary consequence of the person offering ideas to the world that are not viewed as original, useful, or surprising no matter what the individual may think. Many researchers link Big-C creativity with creative genius (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). To understand the possible connection, we must turn to the definition of genius.

Genius Because the word ‘genius’ dates back to ancient Roman mythology, when it indicated something akin to a person’s ‘guardian angel’, it has acquired multiple meanings over the intervening millennia (Ball, 2014; Murray, 1989). From the standpoint of empirical research, two definitions prove most relevant. First, a genius is ‘person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140’ (American heritage electronic dictionary, 1992). No surprise where this came from! Terman’s (1925) arbitrary criterion for inclusion in his sample of intellectually gifted children was precisely this cut-off, which defines the top 1% of the population. Thus did the IQ definition of genius enter into the English language as well as into the languages of the rest of the world. Nonetheless, this definition has numerous flaws. For example, many high-IQ children in Terman’s

73

sample did not grow up to achieve anything of note, becoming so-called ‘underachievers’ par excellence. Moreover, two children initially tested by Terman, but rejected for inclusion in the sample because of their insufficiently high IQs, ended up becoming ‘overachievers’, winning Nobel Prizes when nobody with IQs of 140 or higher managed to do so. These false positives and false negatives suggest that a definition based on actual achievement might come closer to what genius should mean. Second, the same reference work also defines a genius as someone who possess ‘Native intellectual power of an exalted type, such as is attributed to those who are esteemed greatest in any department of art, speculation, or practice; instinctive and extraordinary capacity for imaginative creation, original thought, invention, or discovery’ (American heritage electronic dictionary, 1992). This conception of genius was also that put forward by Galton (1869) himself. This ‘achieved eminence’ definition was used by Cox (1926) in her historiometric study of 301 geniuses, based on eminence ratings provided by Cattell (1903). Significantly, just as IQ tests boast some of the highest reliability coefficients for psychometric instruments, archival measures of achieved eminence are comparably high (Murray, 2014; Simonton, 1991). But from the perspective of defining genius, achieved eminence may provide a more valid assessment. No doubt the twin contrasts of ‘underachievers’ and ‘overachievers’ makes no sense in this context. After all, genius is predicated directly on achievement in the first place. Besides, this second definition circumvents the dilemma that if we reverse engineer the childhoods of eminent achievers from available biographical information, we do not arrive at the characteristics of Terman’s intellectually gifted children (Simonton, 2016c). Accordingly, if we have the forced choice between the intellectual brilliance definition and the achieved eminence definition, we probably should opt for the latter – as will be done in this chapter.

74

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Giftedness As implied earlier, the original conception of giftedness might have been a bit too narrow (also see Sternberg, 2017). To be gifted was equated to a child obtaining an exceptional score on a standardized IQ test. Naturally, many researchers in this area have advocated broader definitions that are not confined to general intelligence as the deal breaker (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). Beyond the relation between giftedness and IQ, another issue is the difference, if any, between giftedness and talent. The latter term also has connections with genius. In fact, a pilot investigation that led to Galton’s Hereditary Genius originally favored the term ‘talent’ before switching to ‘genius’ four years later (Galton, 1865). Rather than debate all of these niceties, I have decided in the present chapter to define giftedness in the same manner that I have previously treated talent (Simonton, 2008, 2014). In particular, a ‘gift’ is defined as a set of genetically influenced traits and abilities that facilitate one or both of the following: (a) the accelerated acquisition of domain-specific expertise and (b) enhanced domain-specific performance for a given amount of acquired expertise. The former consequence is styled the ‘better faster’ effect, and the latter the ‘more bang for the buck’ effect (Simonton, 2014). A really outstanding gift in a given domain would produce both of these consequences.

Combined Constructs Now that creativity, genius, and giftedness are all defined, it becomes imperative to look at how they might combine to generate something that extends beyond each defined separately. There are two important pairings: creative giftedness and creative genius.

Creative giftedness This pairing signifies a child or adolescent who actively engaged in the process of acquiring precocious mastery of a given

domain of creative achievement. Any domain in the arts or sciences may qualify as creative, provided that the domain doesn’t just welcome, but expects that persons will eventually grow up to make original, useful, and surprising Big-C contributions to the domain. A non-exhaustive list would include mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, anthropology, history, fiction, poetry, painting, sculpture, architecture, music composition, and culinary arts. In contrast, creative giftedness would not normally encompass sports, chess, music performance, or other domains where the emphasis is on mastering a domain-specific expertise rather than on transforming the domain via creative contributions. Admittedly, gray areas exist in this distinction. For instance, a jazz pianist is expected not just to play the notes on the page but to creatively improvise. Interpretative skills in a classical pianist also entail a certain degree of creativity, even if any devices, such as rubato, must still stay within the bounds of the printed score. Hence, domains should not be considered either creative or noncreative but rather domains can vary in the degree to which creativity is an integral part of the job description. An athlete who wins an Olympic Medal in the 100 meters does not need to be creative, just have excellent speed, but an inventor whose inventions cannot satisfy the US Patent Office criteria of novel, useful, and nonobvious cannot count as a true inventor. More important, for the purposes of this analysis, is the fact that creative giftedness also admits of degree. In the main, the faster a youth acquires the requisite domain-specific expertise, the greater the gift. So a child prodigy in a creative domain exhibits more creative giftedness than a youth whose progress is less precocious.

Creative genius The second pairing also admits of degrees, but in a different manner. Rather than expertise acquisition, we now must consider creative contributions to that domain-specific

Creativity and Genius

expertise. According to Csikszentmihalyi’s (2014) systems model of creativity, those contributions require the approval of others working within the domain, or what he calls the field. In other words, only ideas that are considered creative by consensus, and thus represent Big-C creativity, attain certification for entrance into the domain, thereby transforming the domain. Even so, these creative domain transformations may themselves be large, small, or somewhere between. This quantitative gauge of impact has two independent sources. First, consensual creativity of any idea can vary from small to very large. Presumably, if Cit = 0 for all t and i, then it will never become part of the domain, and an arbitrary threshold might be set higher than this (as seen in the scales that peer reviewers use to assess submissions). At the other extreme an idea may be so highly original, useful, and surprising that it maxes out on consensual creativity. In the sciences, these ideas are often styled major ‘breakthroughs’ that change the domain so much that historians will later speak of a ‘before’ and ‘after.’ Biology was this way before Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and that way after. As the famous geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’ (p. 125). Second, the sheer number of consensually validated creative ideas can vary tremendously. Many Big-C creators are only fortunate enough to have one such creative idea in an entire lifetime, whereas a much smaller number will contribute hundreds of creative ideas to the domain. An example of the former is a one-hit wonder who composed a song that contains a single catchy tune that people just can’t keep out of their heads (Kozbelt, 2008). An instance of the latter is somebody like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who composed more than 600 works containing many hundreds of themes. As the Mozart example suggests, the picture is somewhat complicated by the specific vehicle containing

75

those ideas. Small works, like songs or piano pieces, may contain only one creative theme (e.g., the ABA form, with the B theme chosen only to contrast the far more memorable A theme, to get three minutes of music out of one minute’s worth of creativity). To illustrate, Ludwig van Beethoven’s familiar Für Elise contains just one highly creative idea, the opening theme in the A section (Barlow & Morgenstern, 1948). Indeed, most amateur pianists do not even know how to play the material in the B and C sections, nor do they even care to learn! By comparison, a grand opera may contain dozens of creative ideas. As a case in point, Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro is filled with more than three dozen instrumental and vocal melodies deemed worthy of inclusion in thematic dictionaries devoted to the permanent repertoire (Barlow & Morgenstern, 1948, 1950). Needless to say, that repertoire defines the performance and recording domain of classical music. Combining these assessments, the magnitude of creative genius can be assessed by the quantity and quality of Big-C ideas a creator contributes to a chosen domain. Although in theory these two quantitative components could be uncorrelated – which permit a distinction between perfectionists who offer only a few high-quality ideas and massproducers who offer a great many low-quality ideas – in point of fact quantity and quality are positively correlated (Simonton, 1997). Yet the positive relation is statistical rather than deterministic, yielding exceptions on either side. Johann Pachelbel composed more than 500 works, but today his reputation rest on a single small composition, the ubiquitous Canon in D.

EDUCATION The duel concepts of creative giftedness and creative genius now present a problem. The first concept concerns a person’s childhood and adolescence, whereas the second concept

76

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

focuses on the person’s adulthood career. That provokes some questions: How does someone go from creative giftedness to creative genius? If creative giftedness is not followed by creative genius, then why? Similarly, if creative genius, is not preceded by creative giftedness, how can that happen? Finally, what is the role of education in these developmental transitions? The answers to these questions may not be easy. To get a hint of the potential difficulties, consider Figure 6.1. The graph shows two curves, both concerning ranked eminence as a function of level of formal education. The graph is based on the data presented in Cox’s (1926) study of 301 geniuses, which, as mentioned earlier, constitutes the second volume in Genetic Studies of Genius (Terman, 1925–1959). For the 109 leaders in that sample, the relationship is negative, the more formal education the lower the eminence. Yet for the 192 creators – the creative geniuses – the curve adopts an inverted-U form! Two aspects of this nonmonotonic function are 160

Ranked Eminence

Creators Leaders 140

120

100

80

0

1 2 3 Formal Education

4

Figure 6.1  Ranked eminence as a function of level of formal education for 109 leaders and 192 creators composing the sample of 301 geniuses in Cox (1926; from Simonton, 2002; based on an equation reported in Simonton, 1976) Notes: Here 1 = high school diploma, 2 = baccalaureate, 3 = Masters, and 4 = doctorate (or their equivalents)

striking. First, the optimal amount of formal education falls around the latter part of undergraduate studies if not at the actual baccalaureate. Second, those who receive the maximum amount of formal education end up less eminent than those who had the least! Although the scaling along the horizontal axis is only ordinal, the basic conclusions would remain if an interval or ratio scale could be implemented instead, such as years of education at a particular level. Only the specific location of the peak might shift. It is also worth noting that a follow-up investigation of 20th-century creative geniuses obtained the same inverted-U curve, with the exception that for eminent scientists the optimum has moved towards graduate education; Simonton, 1984). To be sure, this study is not without limitations. One limitation is that the sample of creators is heterogeneous regarding achievement domain (artists, composers, scientists, philosophers, writers, etc.). If domains differ regarding both educational requirements and most likely achieved eminence, then similar curves might appear (e.g., artists might need the least formal education but attain the highest eminence). A more subtle limitation is that the 192 creators solely include creative geniuses (whether or not they were also creatively gifted), but excludes examples of creative giftedness that did not become creative geniuses (see also Simonton, 2016b). Even so, the outcome might intimate that education could have both positive and negative consequences for creative development. So let us investigate those possibilities, starting with the positive before advancing to the negative.

Positive Effects Csikszentmihalyi’s (2014) systems model contains three components: the individual creator, the domain in which that creator is active, and the field which evaluates the creator’s ideas to determine which shall enter

Creativity and Genius

the domain. Once a creator’s ideas enter the domain, then they can become part of the domain-specific expertise of subsequent creators (including the creator who originated the idea). This qualitative model has been transformed into a combinatorial model of exceptional creativity, including creative genius (Simonton, 2003b, 2010). The resulting model is both comprehensive in explanatory scope and precise in its mathematical predictions. However, for our current purposes, we should focus on two aspects of this extended model that indicate the positive effects of education. First, for those domains that are well represented as part of the standard academic curriculum, as holds for the major sciences, humanities, and some arts, education plays a critical role in the future creator’s acquisition of the requisite domain-specific expertise. Almost all individuals in the mathematical sciences, for example, acquired most of their basic knowledge and skills in arithmetic, geometry, algebra, and trigonometry in the later years of K-12, and mastered more advanced mathematics, such as calculus, linear algebra, vector geometry, and differential equations, in undergraduate and graduate training. To the extent that gifted education programs provide special opportunities for highly talented youths to accelerate this acquisition process, the contribution is enhanced all the more. The net outcome is the individual’s possession of the concepts, methods, and skills that define the domain – the ideas that will enter into the creator’s combinatorial hopper. Second, and again for primarily academic domains, education serves to socialize creative individuals into the field which will ultimately evaluate their contributions. Part of the contents of any domain concern the very criteria that will be applied to any potential contribution in determining its consensual originality, utility, and surprise. To the extent possible, individuals must learn how to judge their own work in the same way that members of their field will judge their

77

work. Teachers and mentors have a central function in this socialization process. If they do their job well, the creators will experience fewer surprises when they encounter peer review and other external evaluations as young professionals. To be sure, fields differ conspicuously in the magnitude of consensus displayed (Simonton, 2009, 2015; see also Fanelli & Glänzel, 2013). Field consensus is highest in the physical sciences, followed by the biological sciences; the consensus then lowers progressively for the social sciences, humanities, and finally the arts. Still, insofar as any consensus exists, each individual must acquire an awareness of the domain-specific evaluative criteria. These two contributions put together likely contribute to the positive part of the curve shown for the creators in Figure 6.1. Up to a point, more formal education does tend to enhance achieved eminence.

Negative Effects Yet the same curve in Figure 6.1 shows a downturn after undergraduate training or its equivalent. What can that signify? One partial answer is clear: not all domains of creative achievement are academic in nature. This is especially true in the arts, such as creative writing, painting, sculpture, and the like. This is not to say that colleges and universities lack creative writing or studio arts programs, but they do not seem necessary for the attainment of eminence, and sometimes may prove counterproductive (Raskin, 1936; Simonton, 1986). Academic art often requires adherence to outdated norms, such as the way the serial (12-tone) techniques of the Schoenberg School once dominated the compositions coming out of music departments, yielding works that were far from popular with modern audiences and that are seldom heard today. Similarly, it is rare that a Nobel laureate in Literature can boast a PhD in creative writing from a major university. In fact, many are college dropouts, such as Bob Dylan. Cinematic genius also seems to lack a

78

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

need for formal training: Ingmar Bergman and Steven Spielberg also dropped out of college – albeit he eventually returned to ­ campus to get his bachelors after already becoming world famous! College dropouts are equally commonplace in non-artistic domains that simply do not require or expect academic training. Among the leaders of modern technology are such examples as Apple’s Steve Jobs, Dell’s Michael Dell, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Larry Page, Microsoft’s Paul Allen and Bill Gates, Nintendo’s Hiroshi Yamauchi, Oracle’s Larry Ellison, and Twitter’s Evan Williams. Moreover, even in the sciences, formal education may not prove conducive to creative achievement during scientific revolutions, when previous domain-specific expertise becomes rapidly obsolete. Galileo Galilei revolutionized both physics and astronomy, but was also a college dropout, leaving the medical studies that his father had urged him to pursue. No wonder the academics of his day had trouble accepting his discoveries, discoveries that violated the received traditions from Aristotle’s physics and Ptolemy’s astronomy. The Galileo case illustrates another reason why formal education may form an impediment to contributing to creative development, and may even become antithetical. Galileo had extremely broad interests. Today we would say that he scored high on the openness to experience dimension of the Big-Five Factor Model, just as highly creative people generally do (McCrae & Greenberg, 2014). For instance, he had an avid fascination with the arts, including both contemporary literature and painting. Nor were these activities those of a dilettante. He published actively on the former and was a drawing instructor at the famed Accademia delle Arti del Disegno. Indeed, it was Galileo’s artistic expertise in chiaroscuro that enabled him not only to discover the lunar mountains, but to accurately draw them besides (Simonton, 2012a). So effective was the depiction that one of his artist friends quickly incorporated the image into a painting of the Madonna!

Significantly, the Big-Five Factor most strongly correlated with academic success is not openness to experience, but rather conscientiousness (Poropat, 2009). Yet the latter dimension only slightly correlates with scientific genius and negatively correlates with artistic genius (Feist, 1998; Grosul & Feist, 2014). It is openness, not conscientiousness that defines the common personality basis for creative genius. That dispositional openness often dictates that highly creative individuals drop out of higher education once it starts interfering with their broad extracurricular avocations. In truth, the less than stellar educational performance of creative geniuses might be subsumed under a much more inclusive developmental phenomenon, namely, diversifying experiences (Damian & Simonton, 2014). These experiences encompass all circumstances or events taking place in childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood that ‘help weaken the constraints imposed by conventional socialization’ (Simonton, 2000, p. 152). Exposure to such diversifying experiences ultimately generates an individual who can create ideas less confined by sociocultural conventions. Not surprisingly, historiometric research indicates that ‘highly creative individuals stem from unconventional backgrounds (e.g., cultural or religious minorities, sickly dispositions, early orphanhood, or financial trouble), [or] had unconventional educational and training experiences (e.g., studies abroad, multiple mentors, voracious reading, and diverse hobbies)’ (Damian & Simonton, 2015, p. 625). These varied influences interact in complex ways to attain the right amount of divergence from both sociocultural and domain-specific norms. Thus, Galileo was not only willing to defy contemporary physics and astronomy, but also challenge the theology of his day – leading to his trial before the Inquisition and his final years under house arrest. Yet the composite of these experiences can also go too far, setting creative development off track to the point of undermining adulthood genius. Galileo

Creativity and Genius

could have ended up as an eccentric and uninformed nonconformist who left no mark whatsoever on history. Hence arises the need for finding the ‘sweet spot’ between extreme conventionality and extreme unconventionality. The result a curvilinear inverted-U relation, as witnessed in Figure 6.1.

79

filter out the irrelevant, and yet creativity requires consideration of the superficially irrelevant – the proverbial ‘thinking outside the box.’ Hence, by definition, creativity cannot be inculcated, only encouraged. In the last analysis, that’s the key: to provide the supportive environment where creative potential can become fully realized.

CONCLUSION It should be apparent that I have only barely scratched the surface of the intricate and sometimes contradictory relation between creative genius, creative giftedness, and education, gifted or otherwise (see also Simonton, 2017). Although I have no doubt that, in theory, gifted education programs can be tailored to the specific needs of each talented youth, and thereby maximize their creative potential, programs seldom can do so. Too often the focus is on the academically gifted child selected using psychometric instruments (Sternberg, 2017). Moreover, even if the resources were available to precisely fit the training to the person – such as assigning one teacher per student – it would still not get the job done. The difficulty is inherent in the very definition of creativity. If creativity requires that someone produce an idea that is both original and surprising – as well as useful – then how can that be taught? For example, when the Patent Office imposes the surprise requirement (aka nonobvious), that stipulation is defined with respect to someone who has the relevant domain-specific expertise. So how does someone with that expertise teach someone to come up with an original idea that lies outside that same expertise? The proper answer is that they can’t. That’s where openness to experience kicks in. This openness is especially valuable insofar as it correlates highly with cognitive disinhibition, which enables a person to notice what others completely overlook (Carson, 2014). Education and training is most often dedicated to teaching someone to

REFERENCES American heritage electronic dictionary (3rd edn). (1992). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Babcock, W. L. (1895). On the morbid heredity and predisposition to insanity of the man of genius. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 20, 749–769. Ball, L. (2014). The genius in history: Historiographic explorations. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 3–19). Oxford, UK: Wiley. Barlow, H., & Morgenstern, S. (1948). A dictionary of musical themes. New York: Crown. Barlow, H., & Morgenstern, S. (1950). A dictionary of vocal themes. New York: Crown. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths & mechanisms (2nd edn). New York: Routledge. Burks, B. S., Jensen, D. W., & Terman, L. M. (1930). The promise of youth: Follow-up studies of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Carson, S. H. (2014). Cognitive disinhibition, creativity, and psychopathology. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 198–221). Oxford, UK: Wiley. Cattell, J. M. (1903). A statistical study of eminent men. Popular Science Monthly, 62, 359–377. Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity and its applications. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 533–545). Oxford: Wiley. Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2014). Diversifying experiences in the development of genius and their impact on creative

80

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

cognition. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 375–393). Oxford, UK: Wiley. Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2015). Psychopathology, adversity, and creativity: Diversifying experiences in the development of eminent African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 623–636. Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, 125–129. Duggan, K. A., & Friedman, H. S. (2014). Lifetime biopsychosocial trajectories of the Terman gifted children: Health, well-being, and longevity. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 488–507). Oxford, UK: Wiley. Ellis, H. (1904). A study of British genius. London: Hurst & Blackett. Ellis, H. (1926). A study of British genius (rev. edn). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6): e66938. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0066938 Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. Galton, F. (1865). Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Magazine, 12, 157–166, 318–327. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan. Getzels, J., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley. Grosul, M., & Feist, G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 30–43. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children beyond 180 IQ: Origin and development. Yonkerson-Hudson, NY: World Book. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of

creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–13. Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kozbelt, A. (2008). One-hit wonders in classical music: Evidence and (partial) explanations for an early career peak. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 179–195. Lombroso, C. (1891). The man of genius. London: Scott. McCrae, R. R., & Greenberg, D. M. (2014). Openness to experience. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 222–243). Oxford, UK: Wiley. Murray, C. (2014). Genius in world civilization. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 486–608). Oxford: Wiley. Murray, P. (Ed.). (1989). Genius: The history of an idea. Oxford: Blackwell. Plucker, J. A., Kaufman, J. C., Temple, J. S., & Qian, M. (2009). Do experts and novices evaluate movies the same way? Psychology and Marketing, 26, 470–478. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338. Raskin, E. A. (1936). Comparison of scientific and literary ability: A biographical study of eminent scientists and men of letters of the nineteenth century. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 31, 20–35. Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 92–96. Simonton, D. K. (1976). Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate approach to the Cox data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 218–226. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1986). Biographical typicality, eminence, and achievement style. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 14–22. Simonton, D. K. (1991). Latent-variable models of posthumous reputation: A quest for Galton’s G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 607–619. Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career

Creativity and Genius

trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89. Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, developmental, personal, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 151–158. Simonton, D. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology’s history. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Simonton, D. K. (2003a). Francis Galton’s Hereditary Genius: Its place in the history and psychology of science. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The anatomy of impact: What has made the great works of psychology great (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Simonton, D. K. (2003b). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, process, and person perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494. Simonton, D. K. (2008). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review of General Psychology, 12, 28–46. Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 441–452. Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creativity as blindvariation and selective-retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 156–179. Simonton, D. K. (2011). Great flicks: Scientific studies of cinematic creativity and aesthetics. New York: Oxford University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2012a). Foresight, insight, oversight, and hindsight in scientific discovery: How sighted were Galileo’s telescopic sightings? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 243–254. Simonton, D. K. (2012b). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106. Simonton, D. K. (2013a). Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention: Why sightedness is inversely related to creativity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33, 253–266.

81

Simonton, D. K (2013b). What is a creative idea? Little-c versus Big-C creativity. In J. Chan & K. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 69–83). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Simonton, D. K. (2014). Creative performance, expertise acquisition, individual-differences, and developmental antecedents: An integrative research agenda. Intelligence, 45, 66–73. Simonton, D. K. (2015). Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology, 19, 334–344. Simonton, D. K. (2016a). Creativity, automaticity, irrationality, fortuity, fantasy, and other contingencies: An eightfold response typology. Review of General Psychology, 20, 194–204. Simonton, D. K. (2016b). Early and late bloomers among classical composers: Were the greatest geniuses also prodigies? In G. McPherson (Ed.), Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, music education, musicology and ethnomusicology (pp. 185–197). New York: Oxford University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2016c). Reverse engineering genius: Historiometric studies of exceptional talent. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377, 3–9. Simonton, D. K. (2017). Big-C versus little-c creativity: Definitions, implications, and inherent educational contradictions. In R. Beghetto & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Creative contradictions in education (pp. 3–19). New York: Springer. Sternberg, R. J. (2017). ACCEL: A new model for identifying the gifted. Roeper Review, 39, 152–169. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd edn). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M. (1925–1959). Genetic studies of genius (5 vols). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

82

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

7 Why Bother Being Different? The Role of Intrinsic Motivation in Creativity Kelsey Procter Finley and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

INTRODUCTION Creative people do tend to be intelligent. However, intelligence doesn’t seem to supply all that creativity requires. Research first conducted by Lewis Terman in the 1920s, has found continued support across the years for a ‘necessary-but-not-sufficient’ relationship between intelligence and creativity (Karwowski et  al., 2016; Schubert, 1973; Terman, 1925). For general intelligence, it seems that the threshold score for creativity lies somewhere around 120 points, but gains in intelligence much beyond 120 points aren’t significantly associated with creativity. It should be noted however, that a metaanalysis of academic achievement and creativity found a significant yet weak correlation between the two constructs (Gajda, Karwowski, & Beghetto, 2017) and threshold theory and the connection between intelligence and creativity is likely domain specific.

Perhaps more important to excellence and creativity is perseverance and motivation. To become excellent requires a great deal of effort through deliberate practice, seeking out resources, and overcoming various impediments to having new ideas and having others accepting your perspective. Andres Ericsson proposed that expert performance in most domains requires at least 10,000 hours of deliberate practice extended over at least a decade (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993). Outstanding achievement and giftedness are not so much ‘gifts’ as they are the result of effortful training and practice that require remarkable perseverance. In addition to deliberate practice there are other resources an individual must be motivated to acquire. The systems model of creativity places the creative individual in a broader context. The creative individual gains knowledge from the domain of knowledge, then submits his or her novel works to the field, who act as gatekeepers by only accepting the truly

84

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

outstanding works into the domain of knowledge (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Mentors can provide highly effective guidance, feedback, and personalized training for gifted individuals (Grassinger, Porath, and Ziegler, 2010). The guidance and feedback that mentors provide during practice will help the individuals become comfortable with the process of having their work and novel ideas evaluated by gatekeepers to the field. At the same time, mentors may also be an individual’s first connection with a person in the field, passing down cultural memes that are important to a particular domain. In addition to the social support of mentors, creative individuals must obtain access to the knowledge and tools of the domain. This may be done through mentors at first, but the creative person must eventually have the motivation to seek more and specific information about a domain of knowledge. To be recognized as creative requires a great deal of motivation. This chapter will discuss some of the impediments and will focus on the psychological states and traits that are associated with intrinsic motivation and that help individuals to persevere through external impediments to acceptance. The chapter will also utilize interviews conducted over twenty years ago with highly creative individuals. Vera Rubin, the American astronomer whose research involved the motion and rotation of galaxies; Anthony Hecht, the American Pulitzer Prize winning poet and World War II veteran; Jacob Rabinow, the engineer and inventor who had over 230 U.S. patents; and finally Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, the German political scientist and public opinion researcher were selected to exemplify some of the following impediments to, benefits of, and ways of promoting excellence.

IMPEDIMENTS TO EXCELLENCE Sadly, one of the most pervasive impediments to excellence is a lack of access to

resources and exposure to examples of excellence. A team of economists recently conducted a secondary data analysis using linked data from over one million patent applications, tax records, and test score records. Their results indicated that individual patent success has very little to do with natural ability or intelligence (measured by childhood test scores), but rather, patent success is much better predicted by family income, race, and gender (Bell, Chetty, Jaravel, Petkova, & Van Reenen, 2017). Specifically, their results indicated that individuals from the top 1% highest earning families were about ten times more likely to become inventors. Perhaps the most illuminating result, however, is the evidence for a gender specific exposure effect on becoming an inventor (Bell et al., 2017). For example, females’ propensity to become inventors is only significantly increased by having exposure to exemplar female inventors. Gifted individuals who grow up in disadvantaged areas, or in an area where there is a lack of representative exemplars in the domain of interest must extend their reach to access the resources representative exemplars can provide, such as guidance and inspiration. Vera Rubin, the female astronomer, said that one of the most difficult obstacles in her life was a lack of support and people not believing that she really wanted to become an astronomer. Still a large number of girls get out of high school thinking that they want to be scientists. And, during their college years they say, or they learn they were not meant to be scientists, and I think really all they learned was that they just did not get support in college to become scientists … Most physicists have never studied physics under a woman. And I think that is a disgrace, and I think the academic community just does not take seriously hiring women. (Vera Rubin, October 10, 1992, personal communication)

Rubin reflected on the lack of support she received and felt that there must be many more women who would have liked to become astronomers or scientists if they had had improved support and exemplars.

Why Bother Being Different? The Role of Intrinsic Motivation in Creativity

The unique perspectives of creative and gifted individuals are often accompanied by the burden of how others perceive them. One of the senior editors of this handbook, Dorothy A. Sisk, reviewed the unique perceptions of gifted individuals in her book, Making Great Kids Greater: Easing the Burden of Being Gifted. Sisk writes about the increased occurrences of overexcitabilities, a concept established by Kazimierz Dąbrowski, in gifted children and how overexcitabilities are often seen and treated as behavioral problems (Dąbrowski, 1972; Dąbrowski, Kawczak, & Piechowski, 1970 as cited in Sisk, 2009). Gifted children’s unique perspectives and over excitements should be supported and nourished by their educators. The reality is that most educational systems are not concerned about supporting gifted children’s unique perspectives because they work within a cultural system, and they need to produce children who will grow up to have knowledge that will be accepted within that cultural system. Unique perspectives in a cultural system can be uncomfortable. It requires creative leadership to realize the value of unique perspectives or ideas (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2006). Power and leadership positions, often associated with social intelligence and knowledge of a cultural system, can decrease creative output and one’s ability to recognize creativity. There seems to be a paradox in the value and acceptance of creativity. While many people want to be creative and highly endorse creativity as a force for positive change, creative endeavors are often dismissed. One interesting set of experiments found that regardless of a person’s level of openness to experience, both preference for and ability to identify creativity decreased when elements of uncertainty where introduced (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). Historically, one of the most persistently rejected creative ideas was the heliocentric solar system. The concept of the planets orbiting the sun (instead of the earth) was proposed by Aristarchus around 200 B.C., and later in

85

the 16th and 17th centuries by Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. The heliocentric solar system was rejected because it was seen to undermine the centrality of humankind in the scheme of things, and because it was thought that it defied biblical scripture and Christian teachings. Creativity and giftedness can induce epistemological threats in the classroom, in a domain, and even in a large cultural group. Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann was excited and energized by new knowledge and spoke about how important it was to her to challenge cultural assumptions, saying: you see how your findings contradict what most people believe and what they also take as their guideline for their behavior … So I was forced by my results to think over the accepted wisdom of the day, and I found that so much is not supported by the data. (Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, April 28, 1990, personal communication)

When new knowledge challenges previous theories or beliefs on a large scale, Thomas Kuhn said the ‘crisis may end with the emergence of a new candidate for paradigm and with the ensuing battle over its acceptance’ (Kuhn, 1970, p. 84). Revolutionary ideas require effort on the part of the creator to become accepted.

MOTIVATION FOR EXCELLENCE What motivates creators and people with unique perspectives to persevere? The truth is both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards motivate people; however, intrinsic motivation is self-propelled by simply engaging in an activity, while extrinsic motivation is driven by an external stimulus. Intrinsic motivation is also associated with many more positive outcomes than extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is related to felt autonomy and subjective well-being while extrinsic motivation is neutrally or negatively related to subjective well-being, lower self-esteem, and lower quality of relationships (Kasser & Ryan, 2001). Vera Rubin said she ‘wouldn’t

86

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

tell someone to become an astronomer to get rich. To have an interesting life, certainly. To work with interesting people, by and large. But mostly to put their brains to interesting questions’ (Vera Rubin, October 10, 1992, personal communication). The following sections will review what intrinsic motivation is, its phenomenology, as well as its connection to creativity, giftedness, meaningful experiences, and personality. John Dewey theorized that interests oriented towards growth are intrinsically motivating and that when participating in these activities ‘happiness will take care of itself’ (Dewey, 1913, p. 36). Dewey concluded that: [It] is not simply that some interests are good while others are bad; but that true interests are signs that some material, object, mode of skill (or whatever) is appreciated on the basis of what it actually does in carrying to fulfilment some mode of action with which a person has identified himself. (1913, p. 43)

Jacob Rabinow advised people to simply do what they like doing. And so my advice is to do what you do and do it right, but don’t go into a profession because it’s going to make money. Go into a profession you like … If you like medicine, go to be a doctor and don’t worry about making money. If you do what you like, you’ll first do it better. If you do it better, you’ll ultimately make money. If you want to be on the stage, get some kind of profession that will at least make you a little bread and butter, and act. You may never make it. But at least you have the hope. It would be a nice society where people could do what they really want to do. (Jacob Rabinow, May 15, 1993, personal communication)

Learning, discovery, and creation across various domains are perhaps some of the most enjoyable activities a human can be involved in. These activities can often share the conditions that promote the experience of flow. The flow experience, which was discovered while conducting research on the creative process of artists (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976), is described as an optimal human experience. Flow is the feeling

often described as ‘being in the zone’, ‘losing track of time’ or ‘getting lost’ in the moment. Flow occurs when the challenges of the activity stretch the skills of the person engaging in the activity, without overwhelming them, and when the activity has clear goals and provides immediate feedback. In the flow experience, there is no worry about failure, simply because the individual does not have enough remaining attention to expend on that possibility and can only concentrate at the task at hand (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b). One of the consequences of flow, and perhaps one of the most important ones, is the intrinsic rewards it produces (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). While the flow state cannot completely explain why creative and gifted individuals persevere through the obstacles previously mentioned, the experience of flow, along with the more general concept of intrinsic motivation, may explain a great deal. Intrinsic activities are a source of motivation in and of themselves. The feeling of intrinsic motivation can occur at any moment, and may not be present when initially partaking in an activity. People often feel forced to learn something new in school or have a mandatory task they must complete as part of their job they think will be unenjoyable. Sometimes, people find an activity becomes intrinsically rewarding when they previously thought it would be disagreeable. Preexisting intrinsic motivation can be undermined or ‘crowded-out’ by extrinsic rewards (Frey & Oberholzer-Gee, 1997; for a review and meta-analysis see Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014). A child or adult may find a task inherently interesting, but when given a reward feel that the task must not be as interesting as they had previously thought. Unlike intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation is not self-sustaining. Once an individual has received the external reward it is likely engagement in the activity will stop; they will only do what is required to receive the external reward. In contrast, when a person is intrinsically motivated, the reward is the activity, which may lead to continued

Why Bother Being Different? The Role of Intrinsic Motivation in Creativity

engagement in the activity, exceeding the minimum requirements. Researchers have studied the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity. Children who are intrinsically motivated, compared to those that have been given an external reward, were found to tell more creative stories (Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986). Similar findings continue into adulthood. Researchers have had mixed findings when examining the relationship between proneness for experiencing flow and intelligence. Ullén et al. (2012) concluded that flow proneness was more strongly related to personality variables such as contentiousness than with general intelligence. Gottfried and Gottfried (2004) proposed that ‘motivation is an area of giftedness in and of itself’ (p. 121). The authors found that academic motivation was a predictor of academic success independent from general intelligence. Autotelic personalities, those who have a high proneness for flow, are likely gifted in intrinsic motivation and see challenges as opportunities for growth rather than a threat. However, even those who are highly talented and creative in their field will almost certainly have experiences where they encounter a stumbling block, a period of mundane work, or burnout. In fact, both Jacob Rabinow and Vera Rubin, who spoke about the importance of intrinsic motivation also spoke about the reality of doing work that is not enjoyable. Jacob Rabinow said it is often necessary for people to hold a job that is not as enjoyable to make a living and support their passion, work that may or may not become successful. Vera Rubin recounted the work she did as a young astronomer. I used to go to a telescope, go to an observatory several days in advance in the dark, cut photographic plates into little squares without getting a chip on them … in fact, I should say I stood at a cold telescope all night long, sometimes guiding a telescope, sometimes exposures were six hours long. I would take two exposures a night. I mean, dying of boredom. Bring them home, put them under a microscope and measure them visually very, very carefully. I mean it was very tedious … (Vera Rubin, October 10, 1992, personal communication)

87

Because it is not possible to go about life being in flow during all waking hours of the day, something else is needed to help organize our understanding of the world and to persevere. Developing a sense of meaning in life can help in ‘turning all life into a unified flow experience’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 214). Having meaning in life usually involves setting a unified goal that brings significance to one’s life. Victor Frankl, the scholar of meaning making, wrote ‘what man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task’ (Frankl, 1959, p. 105).

IMPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Much of this chapter has stressed the importance of intrinsic motivation, interest, meaning, and goals for pursuing excellence amongst obstacles such as exposure, access to resources, and fears of promoting perspectives that challenge cultural norms. How might we, as people interested in fostering excellence (family members, educators and psychologists), help provide an optimal environment that nurtures and encourages interest and meaningful goal creation? Being exposed to a topic that one finds interesting and worthy of one’s life’s work is in some way a matter of chance. However, we will conclude by reviewing research concerning the family, educational, and cultural environment, and additional considerations for motivating life-long learning and education.

FINDING PASSION, CURIOSITY AND WONDER To truly enjoy life, people must figure out what it is about life that they enjoy. Youth should not only be encouraged to develop a sense of curiosity, but also to figure out what

88

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

topics or activities stimulate their curiosity the most. Passion is certainly a part of what motivates expert performance and contributes to well-being. Having a passion, as long as it exists harmoniously alongside other responsibilities and values, has been shown to promote both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being and to protect against ill-being (Vallerand & Carbonneau, 2013). As emphasized earlier in this chapter, excellence requires hours upon hours of deliberate practice, over at least ten years, and in order to create a truly novel product or idea one must have a complete understanding of a domain of knowledge. Children cannot be creative as defined by the systems model; however, creative adults were often curious children. Curiosity is a prerequisite for creativity, in that it encompasses the development of and commitment to wonder, discovery, and a life of learning (Kashdan & Fincham, 2002). Creativity and excellence should not be education goals of youth as they are generally not attainable in childhood. However, children can appreciate the experience of pleasure in the process of discovery and can commit themselves to a life of questioning, pondering, and learning. Many of the highly creative individuals interviewed by Csikszentmihalyi and colleagues found their interest or passion early in life. For example, Jacob Rabinow remembered wanting to be an engineer by the time he was 7 or 8 years old. Vera Rubin remembers getting interested in astronomy as a child looking at the sky. I had a bed under a window that faced north and I started watching the sky and just got mesmerized by watching the stars, and that really for several years was probably the most important thing in my life, other than going to school. I just was fascinated so I started reading and doing whatever I could. (Vera Rubin, October 10, 1992, personal communication)

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s passion later in her adult life of understanding society and debunking assumptions can be seen represented in her play as a child.

My favorite toy when I was a child was not dolls, but wooden pieces to build up a village; trees, houses, fences, animals and very different houses – for example a town hall. And I would spend 2–3 days at a time when I was 10, 12 thinking up stories about the lives of the people in the village. It again indicates an interest not so much about the individuals, but about the society. (Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, April 28, 1990, personal communication)

The trend of highly creative individuals finding their interests early in life does not mean, however, that someone who finds their passion in adulthood, or has multiple passions throughout life won’t excel. Throughout his interview Anthony Hecht, remembers having a passion for multiple domains at different times in his life. In high school, he had a passion for geometry and remembers loving it because it was ‘abstract’. As an undergraduate he considered being a musician, having a ‘good voice’, and taking courses in music. After college, he entered the Army and started smoking which ‘ruined’ his voice. Anthony had several traumatic experiences serving in the Army during World War II, remembering that ‘half of [his] company were killed or wounded’. It was only after the war, when he started taking courses again that he became interested in writing and poetry.

SUPPORT AND SELF-ESTEEM There seem to be some commonalities in the families of eminent creators and autotelic personalities. In Sosniak’s (1985) interviews with concert pianists, the interviewees remembered that their parents played an integral role in the early development of their interest and access to resources. Often the musicians remembered having access to a piano in their homes, their parents applauding them for experimenting with the sounds of the keys, and supporting any interest and talent they showed for piano by helping them acquire lessons with a piano instructor. In addition to supporting children’s interests, families must

Why Bother Being Different? The Role of Intrinsic Motivation in Creativity

provide a comfortable environment to develop their confidence, as ‘being assured of one’s worth in the eyes of one’s kin gives a person the strength to take chances; excessive conformity is usually caused by fear of disapproval’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 184). At the same time, high achievement does not always produce high self-esteem. For example, when children set high expectations for themselves they are more academically successful, but often have lower self-esteem because their performance is still short of their expectations (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997a).

MODELING Most educators know, either by training or by experience that modeling is one of the most effective ways to help students absorb new knowledge and learn new behaviors. Bandura’s social learning theory is concerned with how individuals absorb and internalize values, attitudes, and behaviors through their social environment in their exposure to models and everyday encounters (Bandura, 1977; Grusec, 1992). Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development also stressed the importance of peers modeling behaviors that are just past a child’s currently skill level (Vygotsky, 1978). Just as a child can learn to tie his shoes by observing an older child or a teacher model the behavior, he can also start to understand the enjoyment that comes from genuine interest and being in wonder and in awe of the surrounding universe. Eminent creators don’t describe being influenced by a method of teaching or by a school system; rather, they often mention a specific teacher who took interest in their success and modeled behavior for excelling in the field.

CONCLUSION: CULTURE AND LIFE-LONG EDUCATION Traditionally, youth is a time for intense learning and adulthood is a time for working

89

and training youth. Once enough information and skills are learned in order to fend for yourself in your desired field, most people leave the learning environment for the work environment. However, especially in complex domains of knowledge, continuing to acquire the new knowledge in a domain is important for continued success. The theory of fluid and crystalized intelligence can encourage a limiting belief that the older you are and the more established in the field, the more crystallized your intelligence becomes. In contrast, aging eminent creators look forward to the future to being able to read and learn more about the new developments of the field (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997a). A commitment to life-long learning, opposing cultural norms when necessary, and ‘being different’ begins with and is continually motivated by an intense interest for better understanding and making meaning out of the infinite complexities of our universe.

REFERENCES Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14–23. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford, UK: Prentice-Hall. Bell, A., Chetty, R., Jaravel, X., Petkova, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2017). Who becomes an inventor in America? The importance of exposure to innovation (NBER working paper series, 24062). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 980–1008. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper & Row. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997a). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (First Harper Perennial edition). New York: Harper Perennial.

90

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997b). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity and its applications. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 533–545). Wiley-Blackwell. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2006). Creativity through the life span from an evolutionary systems perspective. In C. Hoare (Ed.), Handbook of adult development and learning (pp. 243–254). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dąbrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness: Neuroses and psychoneuroses from the perspective of positive disintegration. London: Gryf Publications. Dąbrowski, K., Kawczak, A., & Piechowski, M. (1970). Mental growth through positive disintegration. London: Gryf Publications. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest as direct and indirect. In, Interest and effort in education (pp. 16–45). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Frankl, V. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press. Frey, B., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. The American Economic Review, 87, 746–755. Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 269–299. Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2004). Toward the development of a conceptualization of gifted motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 121–132. Grassinger, R., Porath, M., & Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: A conceptual analysis. High Ability Studies, 21, 27–46. Grusec, J. E. (1992). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28, 776–786.

Karwowski, M., Dul, J., Gralewski, J., Jauk, E., Jankowska, D. M., Gajda, A., Chruszcewski, M. H., & Benedek, M. (2016). Is creativity without intelligence possible? A necessary condition analysis. Intelligence, 57, 105–117. Kashdan, T. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2002). ‘Facilitating creativity by regulating curiosity’: Comment. American Psychologist, 57, 373–374. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck, K. M. Sheldon, P. Schmuck, & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 116–131). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13–17. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schubert, D. S. (1973). Intelligence as necessary but not sufficient for creativity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 122, 45–47. Sisk, D. (2009). Making great kids greater: Easing the burden of being gifted. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Sosniak, L. A. (1985). A long-term commitment to learning. Developing Talent in Young People, 477–506. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ullén, F., de Manzano, Ö., Almeida, R., Magnusson, P. E., Pedersen, N. L., Nakamura, J., Csíkszentmihályi, M., & Madison, G. (2012). Proneness for psychological flow in everyday life: Associations with personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 167–172. Vallerand, R. J., & Carbonneau, N. (2013). The role of passion in optimal functioning in society. In D. M. McInerney, H. W. Marsh, R. G.

Why Bother Being Different? The Role of Intrinsic Motivation in Creativity

Craven, & F. Guay (Eds.), Theory driving research: New wave perspectives on selfprocesses and human development (pp. 53–82). Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age Publishing.

91

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

8 New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity: Implications for Identification and Education Ta i s i r S u b h i Y a m i n

INTRODUCTION Both research and practice have made considerable progress in developing and understanding the conceptions of giftedness, creativity, and talent. Consequently, a wide variety of models outline the framework for the screening and identification process. Taking into consideration the variety of definitions, models and tools, and the special provisions (e.g., services, programs, facilities), tools have been designed and developed to meet the diverse special needs of students. This implies that we need to explore new paradigms that focus on the developments in this field of knowledge. It seems clear that it is time to put aside the older models, and employ new dynamic models that are based on a number of principles (or rationales), including: (1) gifted, creative, and talented children should be screened and identified as early as possible; (2) the screening and identification process should employ up-to-date formal and informal dynamic

measures; (3) the dynamic screening and identification process should be focused on the potential abilities of the child; (4) the screening and identification process attempts to generate a comprehensive profile for each assessed child, and can provide an indication of giftedness and creativity; and (5) the child’s profile must match with the programs, services, and facilities differentiated, designed, and developed to meet his/her diverse needs.

MULTIPLE CRITERIA SCREENING AND IDENTIFICATION PROCESS Creativity is one of the most highly valued of human qualities. A number of questions concerning this conception include: • What is the definition of thinking? • What is the definition of creativity? • How could we measure creative potential?

New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity

• What is the most appropriate dynamic screening and identification process?

The most important factor that should be addressed when considering the multiple criteria screening and identification process is the consistency that should exist between and among: (1) the conceptions/definitions of giftedness and creativity; (2) the congruence between the conceptions/definitions and the criteria selected/employed in the screening and identification process; and (3) the aims and objectives of services, programs, and facilities that will be designed and developed to meet the diverse needs of the gifted, creative, and talented children (Renzulli and Reis, 2016). ‘This consistency or “flow” between conception, identification, and programming is so important that it might be viewed as the “golden rule” of gifted education’ (Renzulli and Reis, 2016: 117).

DEFINITION OF THINKING Thinking can be defined as the mental conscious and/or unconscious neurochemical encoding processes that lead to electrochemical changes in the central nervous system (e.g., compress and streamline information and data through symbolic means). These changes can be sensible, flexible, differentiated, and diverse sets of intentionally ordered information; and subjectively experienced realities. In agreement with Csikszentmihalyi (1990), ‘the information we allow into consciousness determines the content and quality of life’ (p. 30). This ‘depends on how attention has been used, and how it is invested’ (p. 33). This implies that quality of life has an influence on the creative potential and performance.

DEFINITION OF CREATIVITY AND THE CREATIVE PROCESS Creativity is a complex conception and various definitions were proposed before finding

93

a consensus (Lubart, Mouchiroud, Tordjman, and Zenasni, 2003). Creativity plays an increasingly important role in modern society, which requires original, innovative productive thinking and creative problem solving to address unexpected challenges in all aspects of life. The economic, social, political, and developmental importance of both personal and collective creativity as an engine for individual and societal growth in both cultural and industrial sectors has often been recognized. According to Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot (2011) and Yamin (2012), creativity can be defined as the ability or capacity to produce work that is both original (novel); and adaptive with respect to the constraints of a task or a situation, or context appropriate. Several studies show that creative performance is relatively specific to the domain of production, especially after the elementary school level (Lubart and Guignard, 2004; Mouchiroud and Lubart, 2002). In particular, the multivariate approach proposed by Sternberg and Lubart (1995) suggested that the joint combination of cognitive, conative-affective, and environmental factors influence creative capacity in connection with a field. The cognitive factors refer to knowledge and intellectual abilities which facilitate creative thinking; the conative-affective factors refer to the features of personality such as risk-taking and cognitive styles such as the preference for intuitive thinking, and motivation; last, the environmental factors take into account the physical and social environment of the child. Each one of these factors has an influence on the creative production, which is also domain specific. Based on the definition of the conception of creativity, and this multivariate approach, the creative process can be defined as the sequence of thoughts and actions leading to the production of novel, context-appropriate work (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012). However, Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot (2011) drew a distinction

94

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

between two types of thinking processes involved in potential creativity, namely divergent exploratory thinking and convergent integrative thinking.

DIVERGENT-EXPLORATORY THINKING (DET) Divergent-exploratory thinking is an intentional process that can be employed to generate various answers, ideas, solutions, concepts, methods of use, and several possibilities. It can be defined as the ability to produce many, varied elements in response to a stimulus (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012). The outcome of this process makes it possible to measure quantitatively several aspects implied in creative thinking. For example, it would be important to propose several ideas in order to select the most original and adapted one. The major interest of tests of divergent-exploratory thinking is the calculation of the quantitative index of fluency. Several studies show that fluency is very strongly related to the originality of ideas. Lubart et  al. (2003) showed that the most innovative ideas tend to be generated later rather than earlier in a sequence of ideas.

CONVERGENT-INTEGRATIVE THINKING (CIT) The convergent-integrative thinking process employs standardized tasks which can be proposed in various fields, and the participants must put together several ideas to make a production starting from imposed constraints. Thus, convergent-integrative thinking can be defined as the ability to articulate or integrate several elements into a cohesive unit. Each one of the productions resulting from these tests can be compared with the other ones. The evaluation of the

products generated in response to the tests relating to this process are scored by trained judges based on pre-defined criteria for scoring (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012).

A NEW DYNAMIC MODEL In 2010, Sandra K. Linke developed a new dynamic model for the conception of creativity and the creative process. Linke (2010) pointed out that creativity ‘is a culturally embedded phenomenon, that involves interrelated components’, including: (i) abilities and intelligent variations of habits; (ii) epistemic heritage; (iii) intellectual tools (e.g., induction, deduction and thought experimentation) and appropriate acts; (iv) personality traits and competencies (including skills and expertise); and (v) cultural rules, contexts, surroundings and environments (pp. 175–176). This proposed dynamic model provides a description of the creative process and its mechanism. It describes the unbridled gedanken (thoughts) and the quantum leap, and the expected outcome of the creative process will be different types and levels of creative, innovative outcomes (ideas, ­products, solutions). Based on this operational definition, Linke (2010) defined this phenomenon, as the ability to make a breakthrough discovery (e.g., a unique, uncommon recognized production of something as remarkable, significant, meaningful, useful, human, culturally appropriate, and novel) in any domain that causes a paradigm shift in a field, or it could be an important synthesis of existing thought and knowledge by forming new associations in order to gain better understanding of and new insight into its nature as judged by the recipients. In other words, the conception of creativity is very multifaceted. Renzulli and Reis (2016), said an operational definition must meet three criteria: (1) it is based on the best available research; (2)

New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity

it provides guidance in selection and development of measures for defensible multiple-criteria-screening/identification-systems; (3) it gives directions and frameworks for programming; and (4) it is able to generate research studies. In agreement with Kaku (2014), this model (Linke, 2010) offers a framework for both identification and programming. Kaku (2014) pointed out that potential creativity is perhaps a combination of being born with certain abilities and the determination and drive to achieve creatively. The essence of creative achievement is gedanken (or thought experimentations). As Einstein said, ‘The sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination’(The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination – Albert Einstein). This implies that innovation education should offer the right environment for simulation and thought experimentations. The further definition (Linke, 2010) and the proposed dynamic model (Linke, 2010) extend the definition adopted (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012) and was employed in developing a new battery for measuring potential creativity. In addition, this model enables educators to develop innovative curricula and instructional materials. This implies that upon the completion of screening and identification, special provisions will be designed and developed to meet the various needs of the gifted, creative, and talented students, and address the cognitive, emotional, physical, and spiritual dimensions of the learners. In agreement with Linke (2010), Newton (2016) noted the importance of the interaction between the emotional system and the intellectual system in all phases of education. ‘The reality is that there is no thought without emotion and what might be loosely called our two “minds”, the intellectual and the emotional, interact’ (p. 3). He suggested that a productive partnership between the two systems is possible in the classroom without threatening the integrity or

95

quality of purposeful thought; ‘it may, in fact, be possible to enhance its efficiency and ­effectiveness’ (p. 39).

HOW CAN CREATIVE POTENTIAL BE MEASURED? Recent advances suggest creative potential can be defined and measured. In children and adolescents creative thinking tasks can be used, as in EPoC (see below), to assess the extent to which a person is able to engage in creative work. The productions are indicative of creative potential (Lubart, Zenasni, and Barbot, 2013). The notion of potential creativity implies that certain conditions are conducive to the development or emergence of creative achievement and output. An important distinction can be made between creative potential and intelligence. According to Runco (2014), ‘creative potential and intelligence may not be entirely independent. One very common perspective today is that there is a threshold of intelligence (basically, a minimal level) that is necessary for creative performance’ (p. 5). Therefore, potential refers to a latent state which may be considered part of an individual’s ‘human capital’ (Walberg, 1988), as well as a resource for the individual’s larger social group or society. This potential may be put to use if one has the opportunity. Individuals may be aware of their potential or may be blind to it. Each individual can be described as having more or less creative potential in a domain of work, and, more specifically, in a given task (Lubart, Zenasni, and Barbot, 2013). The degree to which an individual shows different levels of creative potential across domains and tasks depends on the nature of the required cognitive (i.e., insight) abilities, selective encoding (new perception) comparison (metaphors), combination (synthesis), flexibility-mobility (divergence)) and conative (i.e., risk-taking, openness, individuality, intrinsic task-focused motivation)

96

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

factors that are involved in each task (Caroff and Lubart, 2012). There are traits and capacities such as autonomy, flexibility and openness that are indicative of creative potential (Runco, 2014). Creative potential remains latent until it is called into play in a task. At this point, through the application of an individual’s resources during the creative process, a production (idea, work) occurs. Here, the creative process refers to a sequence of thoughts and actions. The process can be conceived in terms of divergent-exploratory actions, which are extensive or expansive, and convergentintegrative actions, which are intensive and bring focus (Lubart, 2000). These two ‘modes’ occur in cycles, and various facets of the cognitive, conative, and environmental factors come together in these processes. Over time, the creative process leads to a production that can be evaluated by the creator, and by the creator’s ‘social group’, and appreciated as a more or less creative output (Lubart, Zenasni, and Barbot, 2013). According to Lubart and Besançon (2017), ‘Creative potential refers to what an individual can do given his or her cognitive abilities, personality, motivation, and environment. The potential may change over time’ (p. 337). This implies that potential does not necessarily lead to creative achievements (Gagné, 2004). In education, there is a great demand for instruments to detect creative potential and to monitor its development. Interest in creative potential concerns the detection of children who may benefit from specific educational programs (Lubart, Zenasni, Barbot, 2013). Therefore, ‘creative giftedness’ is often evoked as a capacity that is complementary to classic intellectual potential (often measured by IQ tests). For both conceptual and practical reasons, existing measures of creativity have recently come under criticism in the scientific literature (Caroff and Lubart, 2012). First, numerous recent studies indicate creativity is mainly domain specific and it is probably best to measure creativity

in each domain of activity because the mental processes may not be general in nature. Second, it has become clear that a simplified and continuously up-to-date scoring system is needed: Over time, the originality of ideas evolves and ideas that were original last year may now be common. Thus, test norms based on tables with the statistical rarity of ideas can become quickly outdated. In most cases, norms for creativity tests were created years ago. In addition, the scoring of creativity involves some social judgment of the relative novelty of the work, with respect to an individual’s peer group (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012).

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL CREATIVITY (EPoC) Identifying potential creativity in children and young people gained a great deal of momentum following the development of a new battery for measuring various domains that can play a part in the expression of potential creativity. A research team in Paris Descartes University developed a new battery to measure potential creativity in different domains (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012). It is entitled Evaluation of Potential Creativity (EPoC). EPoC was initially developed in 2009, with norms for use with primary school children in France. Two years later, the author of this chapter initiated a project to develop EPoC in the context of different cultures. As a result of this project, the battery is available in five languages: English, Arabic, German, Turkish, and Portuguese. In addition, a number of research teams in Slovenia, Croatia, and China are developing the battery in their own languages (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012). New versions of EPoC have been developed by the International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE). Recently, the ICIE developed an EPoC online system for scoring

New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity

and online training which will offer EPoC to researchers and institutions interested in exploring and assessing creative potential. The norms are constantly being enhanced and updated as new individuals complete the measures; this dynamic norming procedure avoids outdated norms and allows norms to be refined using the largest available sample. The use of technology has also offered a new perspective on training judges to score children’s productions in the convergent-­ integrative tasks. For the convergent-integrative tasks, an elaborate drawing, story, or other production must be scored for creativity. Judges learn the scoring system through an interactive website in which sample productions such as drawings from the convergentintegrative task are shown, then they suggest a score, and the system gives feedback on this proposed score. Judges learn interactively, and develop knowledge of the diversity of productions that children and youth may show. After a training sequence, a judge-in-training can take a test of his/her mastery of the scoring system by scoring a new set of productions that were previously scored by expert judges. The judge’s ability to score productions in accordance with EPoC’s guidelines is enhanced with this kind of training. EPoC aims to evaluate the creative potential of school-age children, by employing tests for the divergent exploratory thinking process, and tests for the convergent-integrative thinking process relating to different domains (e.g., graphic-artistic, verbal-literary, socialproblem solving, natural sciences). Additional domains are under development in musical creativity and mathematics. EPoC represents a synthesis and extension of several traditions in creativity measurement. In each domain, two basic thinking processes (divergent-exploratory and ­convergent-integrative) that come into play in each creative act are measured. These two modes are widely viewed as the basis of the creative process and relate to numerous educational programs to train creativity (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012).

97

A sample task in the graphic-artistic domain provides a simple graphic stimulus, which may be either concrete or abstract, and the child or adolescent must make as many drawings as possible, thus engaging divergent-exploratory thinking. In the graphic-artistic domain an example of a convergent-integrative task would be a set of photographs of objects and the child or adolescent must produce a complete drawing using at least four of the eight concrete or abstract stimuli provided. Tasks in each domain use a similar structure. In a literary domain divergent-exploratory task, the child or adolescent generates many endings to a story. In a literary domain convergent-­ integrative task, the child or adolescent generates a complete story based on a provided title or a description of several fictional characters. In each domain divergent-exploratory and convergent-integrative scores are obtained that allow the child or adolescent to be situated with respect to others of the same scholastic grade level (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012). In the social domain, the child or adolescent is expected to invent solution ideas for a friend (e.g., how do you help a friend to change his/her sad ideas to happier ones? how do you make someone you don’t know well laugh?) or invent convincing ideas for a group of children (e.g. how do you convince a group of children who you don’t know to play a game that you have chosen?). These tasks engage divergent-exploratory thinking. In the social domain convergent-integrative task, the child or adolescent is expected to invent an action plan for a group of children (e.g., imagine you are invited to your friend’s birthday party. You and the other children decide to invent a game for him/her… But not just any game: a game that does not exist and you’re (all) going to invent and construct it (all together). Then, try to answer this question: What game could you all invent, so that every child will agree on the game and its rules, and so that your friend will be happy?) (Lubart, Besançon, Barbot, and Yamin, in press).

98

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

In the human sciences domain, the test administrator introduces a fact such as: People who are older – for example 80+ years old – tend to move more slowly than people who are young; or some rocks are harder to break than others. The child or adolescent is then asked to give as many explanations as possible in ten minutes. These tasks engage divergent-exploratory thinking. In the human sciences domain convergent-integrative task, the administrator introduces three words/ concepts and things such as babies-angertiredness; or stars-night-light. The child or adolescent is expected to invent one question concerning these three words/concepts/ things. The question could be something she/he would like to know and study, and what is the answer for the proposed question. The child or adolescent will conclude this task by giving a proof or study to find the answer for her/his question (Lubart, Besançon, Barbot, and Yamin, in press). For each test, the child or adolescent is informed of the time allocated so as to use it well. It may be that a child or adolescent finishes a task before the end of the allocated maximum time; but this does not pose a problem. For the tests of divergent exploratory thinking, if the child or adolescent finishes before the time limit, the experimenter must encourage the child or adolescent only once to continue, and tell her/him ‘before finishing this part, try to see if you still can find some more ideas’. Or ‘Are you sure you have finished? You can still think a little if you want’ (Lubart, Besançon, Barbot, and Yamin, in press). As there are scores for the two creative process modes in each domain of creative activity, an intra-personal profile can be developed, showing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the individual child or adolescent. Based on the multivariate approach, this kind of measure allows an estimation of the joint involvement of cognitive and conative components of creativity, as well as interaction effects between cognitive and conative components, rendering it an interesting and

powerful approach to the measurement of creative potential in children and adolescents (Lubart, Besançon, Barbot, and Yamin, in press). This battery includes three parallel forms: Form A, Form B, and, Form C. As shown in Table 8.1, each form is composed of (16) tests in four domains (Graphic-Artistic; Verbal-Literary; Social-Problem Solving; and Human Science) and engages two modes of thinking (divergent-exploratory and convergent-integrative). It is recommended that the test battery be administered in two sessions of eight tests each, with one week between the sessions. Each test lasts approximately 10–15 minutes. All children must sit for the tests under the same conditions (methods and place); and the place of the test must offer, as far as possible, all the necessary guarantees for good working conditions, including: good lighting, calm, identical directions each time, and the test administrator will make sure that she/he has all the required material. In summary, the two sessions should not be conducted at more than three-week intervals. It is desirable, as far as possible, that the interval between the two sessions be one week. The rapidly changing field of technology is opening rich possibilities for dynamic, computerized screening and identification processes, and provides a medium for generating precise, comprehensive, and computerized profiles. After having administered all the tasks pertinent to the four domains, the data gathered will be entered on data grids associated with the computerized databases designed and developed by the author of this chapter. These databases are linked to a new online scoring and training system called ‘The Profiler’. This system has a number of functions and features, including an online training platform and the profile generator. Efficient use of this system makes it possible to manage all types of gathered data, including raw scores and standard scores, and to transform one set of variables to another.

New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity

99

Table 8.1  Distribution of the tests by domain and the process of thinking evaluated for each parallel form Domain

Divergent-exploratory thinking

Graphic-Artistic

Abstract form Concrete object Story endings Story beginnings Social interaction with two children (e.g., invent solutions/ideas for a friend)

Verbal-Literary

Social-Problem Solving

Human Sciences

Convergent-integrative thinking

Abstract forms Concrete objects Story with given title Story with characters Social interaction with a children’s group to find one solution (e.g., invent an action plan for a group of children) Social interaction with a children’s group to Social interaction with two children to convince convince them (e.g., invent convincing ideas them (e.g., invent an action plan with a friend) for a group of children) Invent explanations for a phenomenon (Human Invent a question concerning these three Sciences) concepts…; write an answer; and, find a proof (Human Sciences) Invent explanations for a phenomenon Invent a question concerning these three (physics/chemistry) concepts…; write an answer; and, find a proof (physics/ chemistry)

Session One     

Session Two

In addition, the system handles data files and norms and makes it easy to check back and forth between data files, as well as to update the look-up tables (i.e., look-up tables to convert raw scores into standard scores; look-up tables to convert raw indexes into standard indexes) and to generate up-to-date norms. Using EPoC to measure potential creativity will enable us to describe each child’s profile in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses in two main creativity processes, divergentexploratory thinking and convergentintegrative thinking. These are measured within each major domain of creative activity (e.g., graphic-artistic; verbal-literary; socialproblem-solving; human science; math; music; and kinaesthetic ability).

WHAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE DYNAMIC SCREENING AND IDENTIFICATION PROCESS? Based on the adopted definition (Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012),

and the new dynamic model of creativity (Linke, 2010), this chapter has focused on the evaluation of potential creativity. Measures of potential creativity (i.e., EPoC), can be employed and integrated with other measures and tools aimed at constructing a multiple criteria, dynamic screening and identification process. This process should specify the major resources of information that should be tapped in identifying gifted, creative, and talented students. This process encompasses four phases, namely: 1 Screening (e.g., visiting the target schools; collecting data relating to three types of variables pertinent to family, peers, and the school; reviewing the school cumulative record; administering the nomination methods); 2 Identification-phase I (administering standardized achievement tests; employing abilities measures; studying the child’s portfolio; uploading and analyzing the collected data); 3 Identification-phase II (administering a number of tools and collecting more information and data relating to the child’s learning style, expression style, interests, attitudes, values, innovation style); and,

100

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

4 Generating the child’s profile (the results and indexes will be included; the recommendations for guidance and counselling will be highlighted; and the framework for programs/services/facilities will be developed).

THE OPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CREATIVE PERFORMANCE The major purpose of this chapter was to describe how we can measure potential creativity in different domains. However, another goal was to find implications for education and present them as explicit recommendations for developing and enhancing potential creativity. ‘Living creatively links us with the process of evolution’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013, p. 344). There is a clear need for creativity and innovation on both social and individual levels (Runco, 2014), and there is a need to invest in both short- and long-term programs, services, and facilities which are designed and developed to enhance productive thinking skills, and 21st century skills. The issue is not whether the schooling experience impacts the development of the creative potential of students, but rather how creativity researchers might help educators support students’ creative potential (Runco, 2014). The main target of developing effective learning environments for encouraging gifted, creative, and talented students is for teachers, parents, colleagues, and various institutions within the community to recognize, evaluate, and invest in students’ capabilities and potential abilities. All parties need to provide educational programs to improve output in support of such environments. Working with gifted, creative, and talented students prompts the teacher to acquire certain skills, including specific knowledge, teaching skills such as methods of teaching, assessment, and functional skills, social skills, and motivation to develop all of these. No program for gifted, creative, and talented students will function unless these skills

are in place and are effectively employed (Yamin, 2017). According to Csikszentmihalyi (2013), schools seem to have little effect on the life of creative students. In other words, schools are not contributing to the accomplishment of students who have creative potential. Csikszentmihalyi (2013) reported a very limited number of cases relating to teachers who were influential, and who ‘noticed the student, believed in his or her abilities and cared by giving the child extra work to do, greater challenges than the rest of the class received’ (p. 174). This is an important point: the crucial role of the teacher in the process and his or her subject and pedagogical knowledge. (Newton, 2013: 18)

Education based on innovation aims at consolidating a learner’s self-confidence, optimizing teacher responsibility, providing interesting educational programs and opportunities suitable to the student, using effective innovative methods and strategies of teaching, and improving overall performance. Research conducted in a number of developed nations consistently shows that succeeding at school is dependent on a positive correlation between mentality and certain personal characteristics. For example, researchers (e.g., Lubart, Besançon, and Barbot, 2011; Yamin, 2012; Newton, 2013; Newton, 2016) suggest several skills have become essential for sustainability in the 21st century, namely productive thinking skills, multi-network interactivity and engagement skills, agility and adaptability, initiative and ability to excel in creating job opportunities, oral and written communication skills, data collection skills, classification and deduction skills, and enjoyment of reading and use of one’s imagination. The acquisition of creativity and innovation-based skills has currently eclipsed more traditional education that emphasizes rote learning and recall ability (Yamin, 2017). Innovation education (or innovative education) has the potential to support students of all ages as

New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity

they relate facts, construct meanings, satisfy their curiosity, imagine alternative worlds, make decisions, solve problems and build and change their mental models of the world in which they live. (Newton, 2017: 13)

Creativity and innovation-based education demands that we establish knowledge centers and scientific and technological networks; invite the private sector to share in planning as well as supporting educational systems; create new areas of research; and retrain competent teachers to help develop future generations of creators and innovators in various fields of knowledge and production (Yamin, 2017). As a closing thought in this section, Newton (2013) states: Addressing pedagogic needs in terms of a framework for productive thought has a number of advantages First, it moves away from attachments to creativity only to the arts. It also makes it clearer how the products and processes inherent in a domain can underpin deep learning with that subject. It provides a means by which subject boundaries become less important and the transferability of skills, knowledge and understandings can be more practical. Finally, a unifying model merges together different kinds of thinking for a purpose. By doing so it is possible to make the relevance of experiences explicit. (p. 52)

FURTHER RESEARCH STUDIES This chapter attempts to shed light on the latest developments in this field of knowledge pertaining to the measurement of potential creativity; however further research studies are needed. The author felt the need for undertaking a number of studies to: 1 Extend the conception of creativity; 2 Investigate the interaction between the conception of creativity and other conceptions (e.g., leadership, entrepreneurship, innovation, excellence); 3 Investigate the relationship between and among the components and elements of the proposed dynamic model for the conception of creativity; 4 Find new ways, approaches, and means of creativity in the context of different disciplines

101

(e.g., arts, music, industrial design, science, performing arts, technology, business, management, economics); 5 Develop a more comprehensive understanding of the creativity process; 6 Develop training materials and strategies for teachers to develop the competencies required to nurture effectively gifted, creative and talented students; and, 7 Understand the impact of mass education on the optimal development of the creative personality.

CONCLUSION This chapter revisited the latest definitions of creativity and creative potential, and showed how creativity is related to imagination and gedanken (thought experimentations). It considered what is meant by potential creativity and innovation and how best it can be measured; the latest developments relating to screening-identification processes; and what criteria should be used to generate the child’s comprehensive profile. It introduced a new battery for measuring potential creativity. Educators in this field of knowledge strongly believe that improvements in creative, innovative productivity can be linked to a faster pace of innovation education and more investment in gifted education as human capital. It is a must to build an educational system that seriously integrates creativity and innovation into the core of its processes to develop the creative and innovative potential of the able students. This chapter considered the importance of consistency or ‘flow’ between conceptions, screening-identification processes, and programming. It examined the factors which contribute to performance efficiency and achievement, and the implications for innovative education aimed at developing creative potential. Innovative education will be essential to bring about qualitative changes in gifted education and developing potential creativity and innovation.

102

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

REFERENCES Caroff, X. and Lubart, T. I. (2012). Multidimensional approach to detecting creative potential in managers. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 13–20. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: The psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. Gagné, F. (2004). An imperative, but, alas, improbable consensus! Roeper Review, 27(1), 12–14. Kaku, M. (2014). The future of the mind. New York, NY: Random House. Linke, S. (2010). A new dynamic model of creativity. Hamburg, Germany: Verlag Dr. Kovač. Lubart, T. and Besançon, M. (2017). On the measurement and dismeasurment of creativity. In R. A. Beghett and B. Sriraman (Eds.). Creative contradictions in education: Cross disciplinary paradoxes and perspectives. Chapter 18. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Lubart, T. and Sternberg, R. J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward & R. A. Finke (Eds.) The creative cognition approach (pp. 271–302). Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Lubart, T. (2000). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 295–308. Lubart, T., Besançon, M. and Barbot, B. (2011). Évaluation du Potentiel Crétif (EPoC). French battery. Paris-France: Éditions Hogrefe France. Lubart, T., Besançon, M., Barbot, B., and Yamin, T. (in press). Evaluation of Potential Creativity (EPoC): Social-problem solving and human sciences. Ulm, Germany: The International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE). Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., and Zenasni, F. (2003). Psychologie de la créativité. Paris: Armand Colin. Lubart, T., Zenasni, F., and Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal for Talent Development

and Creativity, 1(2): 41–52. Ulm, Germany: The International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE). Lubart, T. I. (1999). Componential models. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritsker (Eds.) Encyclopaedia of creativity (1st edition, Vol. 1, pp. 295–300). New York: Academic Press. Lubart, T. I. and Getz, I. (1997). Emotion, metaphor and the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 285–301. Lubart, T. I. & Guignard, J-H. (2004). The generality-specificity of creativity: A multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. Grigorenko and J. L. Singer (Eds.) Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington DC: APA Mouchiroud, C.; and Lubart, T. (2002). Social creativity: A cross-sectional study of 6- to 11-year-old children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(1), 60–69. Newton, D. P. (2016). In two minds: The interaction of moods, emotions, and purposeful thought in formal education. Ulm, Germany: The International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE). Newton, L. (2013). From teaching for creative thinking to teaching for productive thought: An approach for elementary school teachers. Ulm, Germany: The International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE). Newton, L. (2017). Questioning: A window on productive thinking. Ulm, Germany: The International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE). Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (2016). Defensible and doable: A practical, multiple-criteria gifted program identification system. Chapter 4. In S. M. Reis (Ed.) Reflections on gifted education. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc. Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity, theories and themes: Research, development, and practices, 2nd edition. San Diego, USA: Academic Press. Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd. Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press. Walberg, H. J. (1988) Creativity and talent as learning. In R. Sternberg (Ed.) The nature of creativity (pp. 340–361). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

New Dynamic Approach to Measure Creativity

Yamin, T. S. (2012). Evaluation of Potential Creativity (EPoC). English battery. ParisFrance: Éditions Hogrefe France. Yamin, T. S. (2017). Excellence, creativity, and innovation education. In T. S. Yamin, K. McCluskey, T. Lubart, D. Ambrose, K. McCluskey, and S. Linke (Eds.)

103

Innovation education. Ulm, Germany: The International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE). Zenasi, F., Besançon, M., and Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–73.

9 Profoundly Gifted: Outliers among the Outliers S t e p h a n i e S . To l a n

INTRODUCTION: WHO ARE THE PROFOUNDLY GIFTED? The answers to this apparently simple question are not so simple. Extreme giftedness has to do with deeper, faster, wider-ranging, and more intense and active mental processing that affects a child’s experience of the world from birth onward. Because this experience is internal it is not necessarily observable from the outside. The behaviors that unusual internal processing can lead to do not necessarily fit standard expectations or the academic structures and demands of schools. While some profoundly gifted children stand out, others (like Einstein and Edison) fly under the radar. Just now there are many who substitute the concept of individual achievement for an actual mental difference, suggesting that almost any child might become gifted if he or she is encouraged to work hard and ‘practice’ enough, and whose academic achievements

will be greater if the child is also assured that intelligence is malleable. This stance appears to assert that intelligence can be increased by determination and effort (‘grit’), or that it can be learned, like a language or a field of study. While there is no doubt that the use or development of extreme mental capacities can be encouraged or discouraged (as many recognized adult geniuses have accused schools of doing), there is no evidence that giftedness can be created. The existence of profoundly gifted children challenges egalitarian assumptions. Their developmental differences show themselves to those who are paying attention from birth. In an article in the International Journal of Pediatrics (Vaivre-Douret, 2011) the author details developmental acceleration (in infants who are later identified as what she calls ‘intellectually superior’) in the first weeks and months of life. As newborns these infants can, for instance, show ‘calm wakefulness’ for longer than eight minutes, as opposed to the four to five minute periods of average

Profoundly Gifted: Outliers among the Outliers

newborns. This clinical observation echoes a story a mother of four told me years ago about bringing her youngest newborn home from the hospital and setting her infant seat on the counter in the kitchen. As the mother did a few homecoming chores, the baby (though supposedly too young even to focus her sight for such a task) began to visually scan the room, moving her eyes and head slowly, purposely, and with rapt attention from one side of the room to the other. The mother was so surprised by this intense concentration, and its duration, that she stopped what she was doing, stood still and observed. ‘Then it was as if once my baby daughter had checked the room out, she lost interest and turned her attention to her hands’, the mother told me. This child was later found to have a score on the Stanford-Binet LM of well over 170. As they leave infancy, these children go on to reach other developmental milestones (both physical and mental) far earlier than average. According to Vaivre-Douret, they may sit, stand, walk, talk and read months or even years before other children, and as early as two may become interested in ‘life and earth sciences, astronomy, metaphysics (life and death), and in books’ (2011, p. 6). Some of the attributes this author noted are not just signs of rapid development, but of unusual awareness, such as sharp sensory perceptions, capacious and detailed memory, excellent information processing and powerful analytical capacity. These children show little interest in routine activities, wish to understand whatever situation they find themselves in, process information with unusual speed and are able to transfer what they have learned from one situation to another. The article also reports ‘emotional and affective reactivity, and a form of intuition functioning like a “sixth sense” thanks to intermodal abilities [that are] very sharp’ (Vaivre-Douret, 2011, p. 8). It is no wonder that people who begin to interact with such children only after they are old enough to attend school would be unaware of these extreme developmental differences. While it is parents who observe such

105

behaviors in their infants and toddlers, often with few non-sibling others to compare them to, they may be entirely unaware of how unusual those behaviors are and what they mean. If they report their observations to those with a great deal of experience of typical children it is easy to see why they are thought at best to be indulging in parental hyperbole and at worst announcing that their own children are better than any others, and therefore deserving of ‘special benefits’ in education, like radical acceleration or modification of the standard curriculum. In some cases, however, it can be impossible to miss the extreme developmental acceleration. One mother of a child who began speaking in three-word sentences at the age of 6 months and became famous as a ‘child genius’ when admitted to college at the age of 11 in the 1970s, reported (personal communication) that when people heard him talking, they asked what she had ‘done’ to make that happen. ‘What does anybody do with a baby?’ she would answer. ‘I fed him, changed him, played with him. He just started talking one day!’ It was our familiarity and experience with many such children, both from our own lives and from our frequent interactions with often desperate parents that led the Columbus Group to formulate a definition of giftedness as Asynchronous Development (Tolan, 2013). We understood that the differences in these children from birth onward puts them at odds both with the expectations, policies and structures of society, and (as we shall address later) within themselves as well. These are children radically ‘out of sync’, who seem to be many ages and fit many stages at once.

HOW DO WE FIND, IDENTIFY AND SERVE THEM? Because there is an extremely broad spectrum of human intelligence and a great deal of difference between children in the typical gifted range and the rare individuals who can

106

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

be termed profoundly gifted (outliers among the outliers), the issue of how to identify them and their individual modes of mental processing is critical to providing them with appropriate educational challenge, depth and breadth as early in life as possible. Not only are these children different from more typical children, they are – if anything – even more radically different from each other. So it matters that we identify them, but also that we investigate their individual mental, emotional and psychological profiles to discover how best to serve their needs; that is, if we care about their personal well-being as well as their possible future achievements and whatever their particular gifts might give to the world.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND There was a time when ‘geniuses’ were identified almost exclusively as adults after they had achieved such significant successes in their primary field of endeavor (some, like Leonardo da Vinci, achieved spectacularly in many different fields) that the label seemed not just obvious, but inevitable. These were individuals who changed the world. Occasionally a prodigy like Mozart was recognized in childhood, but again the recognition was not for developmental potential but for spectacular achievement. Achievements proved unusual intelligence or gifts, but there was no accepted way to identify unusual potential during childhood, before such achievements had been accomplished. Identifying ‘genius potential’ in children was not the prime intention for the development of intelligence testing. French researchers Binet and Simon’s initial test (which introduced the concept of mental age) was designed in the first years of the 20th century to find below average children who might need special classes in order to learn. The tests, designed to find those whose cognitive functioning was below average, also turned

out to find children far above, children who could answer questions that many older children or even adults could not. The concept of ‘mental age’ provided an early awareness of asynchrony, and was fundamental to initial intelligence testing. Lewis Terman and Leta Hollingworth both used the ratio between chronological and mental age, multiplied by 100 to determine a numerical IQ score. This way a 5-year-old whose tested mental age was ten would achieve an IQ score of 200. Later, because it was quickly realized that intelligence does not continue to increase through adolescence and adulthood, the deviation IQ (introduced in 1917) compared the test results not as a ratio of mental ages, but ‘in terms of statistical distance from the general population normative mean’ (Wasserman, 2013). Scored in this way, with the mean being 100, an IQ of 130 is 2 standard deviations above the mean, and an IQ of 200, on a test that allows such a score, would be 6.25 deviations above the mean. Having started her career in psychology with an interest in those with mental deficits, Leta Hollingworth tested a child who scored an incredibly rare 187 on the test which identified ‘superior processing’ at a score of 120 to 130. In the 1920s and 30s Hollingworth identified a group of extremely high-scoring children, and saw that an educational system based solely on chronological age did not and could not work well for children with very much higher than average mental ages. She found that children who tested above 140 (which led to a designation ‘highly gifted’), above 160 (‘exceptionally gifted’) and especially above 180 (‘profoundly gifted’) were very poorly served (or not served at all) in standard American classrooms, even back at a time when moving children ahead a grade or two was a common practice. Her book, Children Over 180 IQ, published posthumously in 1942, included case histories that had shown her the problems (social, emotional and psychological as well as pedagogical) children of extreme intelligence faced when expected to function in classes with typical

Profoundly Gifted: Outliers among the Outliers

children. She understood that these children’s astonishing abilities could not automatically assure them of a happy, fulfilled, successful life. In the early years of school, she pointed out, they already knew anywhere from half to all of what they were supposed to be learning. They also had difficulty interacting with typical children who could not understand their vocabulary, interests and preferences. Wanting to find a better way of educating and supporting the well-being of such children, she grouped them with others more like themselves (all gifted, but of varying levels), and developed a curriculum that would interest and challenge them appropriately. Because it was clear that enthusiastic gifted learners followed their own individual passions both widely and deeply, she realized that even the brightest members of the group could learn from others, whose passions differed. An important aspect of the program she created involved encouraging them to share with each other what they learned in their individual investigations. But she believed it wasn’t only academic learning they needed. Extremely gifted children also needed what she called ‘emotional education’ – ‘training in attitudes, emotions and drives’ (Hollingworth, 1942, pp. 298–299). She could see that one of their greatest problems, particularly in their early years, was social isolation. These were children at emotional and psychological risk. Because of the work she did at schools in New York City, Leta Hollingworth has been called the ‘Mother of Gifted Education’ in the United States. However, her highly successful method of ability grouping, differentiated curriculum and information sharing (she was less supportive of extreme acceleration that she felt might serve to increase their social isolation) has been and continues to be challenged in American culture as undemocratic, unfair and elitist. Intelligence tests have changed and have been challenged over the years (see Robert J. Sternberg’s chapter in this volume), but they remain important as a way

107

to diagnose learning differences in children that if untreated will almost certainly result in educational malnutrition. The landscape of intelligence testing continues to change. For a full understanding of the identification options now available see Wasserman’s Chapter 14, ‘Identification of Gifted Learners: Traditional Assessment Methods’ in Off the Charts (2013) and Silverman’s Chapters 4, ‘Life at the Extremes’ and 6, ‘Comprehensive Assessment of Giftedness’ in Giftedness 101 (2013). There are also less formal methods of identifying exceptionally to profoundly gifted outliers – such as checklists of common characteristics like this one: • Very early language development, large and precise vocabulary, complex sentence structure (… a high rate of vocabulary acquisition, accompanied by a concern with precise terminology) • Very early manipulation of numbers (a passion for counting, numbers, and measurement; selftaught math concepts – addition, subtraction, and beyond) • High levels of energy (some highly gifted infants and toddlers need less sleep than their parents; even those with normal sleep patterns are able to bring intense energy over long periods to projects that engage them; sitting still can be difficult; mental activity seems to generate physical energy) • Extreme levels of curiosity and highly connective mental processing (every answer to one question brings a flurry of further, elaborative questions, a process that often goes on until the answerer, rather than the questioner, tires) • Capacious and clear memory, observable early (spontaneous memorization of songs, jingles, commercials, and whole picture books; memory may be ‘photographic’; the memory process is often associative and accompanied by a refusal or apparent inability to memorize by rote) • Early reading or early comprehension and use of other written symbol systems, such as numbers and musical notation (some begin reading soon after their first birthdays; they are likely to grasp not only words, but also the uses of punctuation; some children take note of spellings, while others perceive sounds and meanings and virtually ignore the arrangement of letters)

108

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

• Precocious sense of humor (recognition and enjoyment of puns, witticisms, and the surprise endings of complex ‘shaggy dog stories’; many children are able to compose jokes, riddles and puns that make adults laugh; some have a taste for the bizarre) • Powerful imagination (daydreaming, pretending, inventing complex stories that may be built serially for days, weeks, and longer; imagining new uses for old objects or inventing and constructing new objects) • Unusual levels of empathy and connectedness to other children and other life forms (an exaggerated focus on ‘fairness’; a tendency to be traumatized or depressed by cruelty and random violence; an insistence on precise honesty; concern that behavior fit expressed principles) • Precocious interest in spiritual/religious, moral/ ethical, metaphysical, and philosophical issues (early questions about life and death, time, God, the boundaries of the universe, and so on, often accompanied by high levels of emotion; fears and stress levels on these topics may seem exaggerated) • Desire for close friendships, often a preference for a few deep relationships rather than many short or shallow ones (in lieu of such friendships a child may invent several imaginary friends – even whole cities or countries of them – or form intense attachments to pets, dolls, or stuffed animals; many highly gifted children prefer the company of adults or older children to that of their age peers). (Tolan, 1998, pp. 167–168)

Not every profoundly gifted child will show all of these characteristics, of course, but the more of them that fit, the more likely that identification will be accurate. There is also out-of-level testing, such as is used to qualify for talent search summer programs. For parents who are unsure about how their child’s development compares to norms (the degree of their asynchrony), there are now resources about this population, (including anecdotes by parents), on the internet. It is no longer as difficult for parents to compare their child’s abilities with those of others, as it was in earlier decades. However, no child identified as profoundly gifted, whether through informal methods or specific intelligence tests, can be guaranteed

access to an education that truly meets such unusual needs in the USA or in much of the rest of the world.

IDENTIFICATION OFTEN FAILS TO LEAD TO APPROPRIATE SERVICE The great difficulty of serving the needs of the profoundly gifted population is caused by many factors, some of them cultural, many of them practical. Even in the field of gifted education there is often resistance to the concept of general intelligence (Spearman’s g factor) in spite of massive evidence over many decades (Warne, 2016). Naturally, this resistance to the very concept of innately superior intelligence, coupled with the idea that academic achievement is the only true definition of giftedness, creates resistance to appropriate attention and programming based even on astronomical test scores (which are often challenged or flatly disbelieved), when not supported by superior achievement in whatever grade-level tasks the child is expected to perform. Even where testing might provide an avenue for service, poor and minority children may not have access to appropriate testing. And gender bias still exists, suggesting that girls are simply not as bright as boys. Girls also may be more likely than boys to choose camouflage to avoid social isolation. Particularly when the profoundly gifted child’s interests are not part of a standard academic program, or when they are treated only at such a basic level that the child cannot, or refuses to engage, the child may be judged not profoundly gifted, but defiant or even seriously disturbed. This is what occurred to a second grade boy who had been reading 500 words per minute with nearly 100% comprehension at age six. He had a deep interest in numbers and mathematics, and began turning his chair away from the board whenever arithmetic was being taught. Shortly thereafter, he shut down, refusing to speak to any

Profoundly Gifted: Outliers among the Outliers

adult he encountered during the school day, and began to tell his parents he hated them for forcing him to face such torture every day. His parents found him a psychologist, whose testing gave him an IQ score of 196. By age 11, when two other schools had failed to meet his needs, his psychologist advised his parents to take him out of school because she feared he was becoming suicidal. Different cultures have different ways of perceiving (and valuing) individual intelligence. In some it may not be acceptable to encourage one child to move ahead of the others, to stand out and ‘shine’, so special service for those children is not offered or expected. In some democracies (as is true in the USA), spending time, energy and financial resources serving children of extreme intelligence in schools that are meant to serve ‘all children’ is seen as elitist, or giving more to those who already have an excess of advantages. Extreme intelligence does not confer only benefits on its possessor. Serving the learning needs of the profoundly gifted child is no more elitist than providing Braille to a blind child. Nor does extreme giftedness occur only among the successful and wealthy who can pay for private schools or tutoring if they feel the need. Recognized geniuses have arisen from all social strata. It is also a common misconception that extreme intelligence needs no support, as if a truly bright child, unlike other children, can somehow meet his or her own needs. This shows no understanding of the experience of the extremely gifted or the truth that all children need adult input (and challenging material) to support their learning and development. There is little awareness, even among educators, of the effects on mind, body, emotions, psychological well-being and spirit of massive boredom for any child who already knows, as Hollingworth asserted, anywhere from half to all of the material offered in a regular classroom, in which that child is confined for many hours of every school day. The profoundly gifted child’s basic nature is intensely inquisitive, but if given little

109

or nothing new to learn day after day, year after year, she may withdraw, or may act out, becoming a behavior problem, or adopt protective camouflage, all of which are essentially forms of self-destruction. Even where there is a genuine acceptance of the need to serve these children, and a willingness to do so, practicalities present a problem. Though not as rare as a standard bell curve would predict (1 in 10 million) – as I understood in the 1980s when the number of children over 200 IQ I knew from my interactions with families exceeded the number that the bell curve would suggest exist in the entire population of the USA – profound giftedness is extremely rare. Teachers may have plied their trade for decades without ever encountering a single student in the exceptionally, let alone profoundly gifted category. Consequently, there is seldom either a set of policies already established for meeting their needs, or teachers with experience dealing with the children’s extreme differences. Grouping the profoundly gifted with others of similar needs is not often possible in any one school or even geographical area. Though Hollingworth’s method of putting the most highly gifted into a group with other gifted students and then providing them with a program flexible enough to take into account individual differences in the need for complexity, breadth, depth and speed has been shown to work, few gifted programs are actually equipped to offer that method or that degree of flexibility. Further, there are many utterly standard school policies and methods that create nearly insurmountable barriers to serving the most gifted. These include lack of recognition of giftedness in the earliest school years (from pre-school forward), an insistence on heterogeneous grouping, and, most obviously, the almost universal age/grade lockstep curriculum and methods on which the system is based. That solely age-related educational structure fails to take into account the extreme asynchronous development of profoundly gifted children and creates in

110

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

the education community a negative attitude toward the acceleration the children so badly need.

DIFFICULTIES FACED BY PARENTS AND THE CHILDREN THEMSELVES There are many social, emotional and spiritual issues that parents face in raising these children. As with the mother whose 6-monthold began speaking, it can be awkward interacting with other parents. To tell others (sometimes including extended family members) about the unusual levels of development one is observing in infancy and pre-school years, even in an effort to get advice, is often seen as bragging, if not lying. If they do share the problems they face, parents often encounter the message that they are pressuring, pushing or paying unhealthy amounts of attention to the child. Some may respond to this message with a feeling they need to hide the child’s developmental differences, and then may communicate that need either purposefully or unintentionally to the child. In other cases, of course, parents begin to dream of raising a Nobel Prize winner, the next Einstein, the next Marie Curie – getting so invested in their children’s abilities and applying such pressure that the children come to feel that their only value is not in who they are, but in what they can (and therefore must) do. There can be a fine line between supporting a child’s developmental trajectory and becoming obsessed by it. One extremely gifted teenage violinist, who was required by her parents to practice five hours a day, was asked why she had chosen the violin, and her answer was ‘I didn’t choose it. My parents did, when I was 3. To the follow-up question about whether she liked the violin, her answer was, ‘I don’t know what I like. I was so good at it that I’ve never been allowed to try ­anything else’.

As Hollingworth pointed out, these children most often suffer social isolation because of difficulty finding true peers. This is particularly so in their early years, when the games they prefer are more complex than those of others their age, when their sense of humor is sophisticated enough to guarantee that their age-mates never laugh at their jokes, when their interest in whatever subject they are currently obsessed with – and these subjects may change often – is not shared by any other children in their external environment. One kindergarten girl who began bringing home papers showing far less ability than anything she produced at home, explained she was copying what the other children did. When her mother asked why, her answer showed a surprising understanding of her situation. ‘Mom!’ she said, ‘To be liked you have to be like!’ At the age of 5 this girl was already clear on the value of camouflage. It isn’t only in academic areas that these children are out of sync. They are more intellectually aware of the issues (political, social, moral, environmental) of the adult world, more concerned about ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ than other children, but, because of internal asynchrony between intellectual, emotional, physical and social development, not emotionally equipped to handle that awareness. This internal asynchrony is made more problematic by what Kazimierz Dabrowski dubbed ‘over-excitabilities’. He labeled five domains of awareness (Psychomotor, Intellectual, Imaginational, Emotional and Sensual) in which highly gifted children are likely to be unusually sensitive and intense. They tend to respond to a smaller stimulus than more typical children, their response is more intense, and also longer lasting. The extreme sensitivity can lead to depression or discouragement with the state of the world, but it can also lead these children to begin formulating early a sense of personal life mission. There are many examples of

Profoundly Gifted: Outliers among the Outliers

young children who organize other children and even whole communities to serve the needs of the less fortunate, be they human or animal, or the planet itself. Some of the humanitarian kids who make the news are channeling the extreme sensitivity that comes with profound giftedness into helping others rather than, or perhaps in addition to, academic accomplishment. At the same time their unusual intensity often leads people around them to call them ‘too much!’ They may be unable to sit still for long, or they sleep much less than other children, or they talk too loud, daydream too much, cry too long and too hard, get too angry. They may find lights too bright, sounds too loud, sock seams too uncomfortable. They may argue with their family’s religious authorities about spiritual issues, perceiving flaws in traditional scriptures and hollowness in rituals. They may create imaginary friends and demand equal treatment for them in spite of their being invisible to others. Some of these children may interact with family members who have died, bringing messages to survivors that can be confirmed, and some have mystical experiences, like seeing and talking with beings they call angels. As David Henry Feldman reported in Nature’s Gambit (1986), one of the prodigies he studied had memories of what gave apparent evidence of a past life. When these sensitivities and intensities are combined with their extraordinarily advanced intellectual development, the result can be children who are not only shunned by other children, but challenge and wear out the adults around them – parents, families and teachers – no matter how caring and well-meaning those adults may be. Add to that their ability to see that too many in the adult world act in ways that are not responsible, intelligent or honest, and they may develop both a distrust of adults and an almost automatic resistance to adult authority. Whether one considers this a drawback to extreme intelligence, or an essential variation within the human species in terms of its future is another question.

111

DIFFICULTIES GETTING SCHOOLS TO MEET OR EVEN RECOGNIZE THEIR NEEDS I have long advised parents who are investigating a new school for their highly gifted child not to mention the child’s extreme giftedness in the first moments of their meeting with school officials. The main reason for this warning is that they need to find out what the school’s philosophy is, what sort of programming it offers, and what the policies and structures look like before letting anyone know what their child’s specific needs are. All too often the description of the school will be tailored to fit what the parents most want or need – and again all too often, once the child is enrolled the promised special attention to those particular needs fails to materialize. Further, if a school has a reputation for serving ‘the best and the brightest’, the program may be designed for conforming high achievers and the school may be too rigid and protective of its image to consider the need to make modifications of any kind, especially if the modification needed for one child would offend parents of other children who could not handle more advanced or accelerated work. On the other hand, parents may be told, both before the child is enrolled and after (if they should return to ask for anything more appropriate to their child’s needs), that there are ‘plenty of kids as smart or smarter’ in the school, whose parents are fully satisfied with the program. Frequently there is a tacit belief on the part of school personnel that many or most parents overestimate their children’s abilities. A further complication when trying to convince a school of the highly gifted student’s real need to have more challenging material is exemplified by the second grader who shut down. His teachers (with whom the school had not shared his test scores) had no idea that he was ‘off the charts brilliant’. A bored child may refuse to do the work at all, or do

112

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

it poorly or sporadically, looking anything but bright. Sometimes, of course, the bored child becomes hostile and disrespectful or combative, and it can become difficult or even impossible to defuse hostilities between student and teacher. Parents and educators can become enemies. The growth in homeschooling for the most highly gifted in the USA can be explained in part by such failed interactions. Teachers trained in the USA get little or no specific information about the gifted, much less about the highest ranges, so may either disbelieve in their existence, or be influenced by myths, so they fail to recognize severe outliers or cannot come up with even the most basic ways to begin addressing their unusual needs. This isn’t surprising when one realizes that these children learn in ways no one understands, often seeming to ‘recognize something’ or be ‘reminded’ of it, rather than having to actually learn it. Repetition and drill, sometimes thought to be the ‘mother of learning’, not only aren’t needed for these children, but may actually impede their progress and present obstacles to the connective way they naturally learn. When teachers are already burdened with too much to do and too many students with diverse needs, and when schools may be short of funds, it is no wonder that it’s hard to find schools willing to make an informed commitment to the profoundly gifted. There is another, less recognized, difficulty parents may have interacting with schools on behalf of their extremely gifted children, and that is the strong likelihood that they themselves were ill-served and often hurt by their own school experiences. Heredity is a very strong determiner of intelligence. Parents of such children were in most cases very gifted children themselves, whether that fact was recognized during their growing up years or not. So the process of interacting with school personnel about the need to provide intellectual challenge can bring up emotional baggage that parents may not even realize they’ve been

carrying since childhood. Their efforts will probably also earn them the epithet ‘pushy parent’ and may alienate them from parents of more typical kids unless they can find other parents also dealing with the issue of extreme giftedness. The very good news is that no matter how rare profoundly gifted people are in any geographical area, parents can find others through social media and internet presences like www.hoagiesgifted. org and www.sengifted.org.

MEETING THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF PROFOUNDLY GIFTED CHILDREN IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS There are those schools that focus on the population of highly to profoundly gifted children – see www.hoagiesgifted.org/ schools.htm. Some states in the USA (North Carolina is one) have academic year Governor’s Schools for high-school-aged students, focused on either math and science or the arts. Like the profoundly gifted, dedicated schools are rare. Ability grouping of gifted children may be available within some schools with gifted programs, and in some geographical areas. In the USA, in the Research Triangle in North Carolina and California’s Silicon Valley, and in cities with large universities or many colleges, or the sites of major research facilities like Los Alamos, there is an unusually large population of extremely gifted adults and children. Larger than usual populations of gifted students do not, however, guarantee appropriate educational opportunities that suit the needs of the most gifted among them. In such areas there is a greater chance for highly and exceptionally gifted children to find true intellectual peers, but profoundly gifted individuals may still be rare, no matter how skewed the geographical population. When parents ask about moving their household so that a child can attend a special school, my

Profoundly Gifted: Outliers among the Outliers

suggestion is always to check the school and the area out very carefully before making such a family commitment, because no single school is a good fit for every child who falls into their demographic or pedagogical profile. Further, these profiles might change if school leadership changes.

SUMMER PROGRAMS There are many of these for the gifted in the USA, some, like the university-based talent search programs, are specifically designed for children in the upper ranges. They can be costly, but they may offer scholarships. Summer programs vary widely, some of them focusing exclusively on academic subjects, others offering more camp-like activities, but all of them providing children with the vital opportunity to develop relationships with children more like themselves than any regular school population. The programs are designed specifically to offer ability grouping to kids who ‘don’t fit’ elsewhere. The biggest drawback to these programs is that they are short, leaving their attendees to return to whatever schooling they have access to for the full academic year. But as many parents and their offspring say, ‘Something is a lot better than nothing!’

ENRICHMENT Many gifted programs focus on this, and the value of such programs naturally depends on the subject areas, the materials and the intellectual challenge they offer. It is essential for enrichment programs to offer genuine educational value, depth and breadth, and a pace of presentation that meets the highly gifted child’s natural speed of information absorption. Boredom in special programs is no less problematic than boredom in a typical classroom.

113

MENTORSHIPS These are another way of meeting the needs of the brightest children. Adults with a passion for their own field of knowledge or activity, often find sharing it with an extremely bright and deeply interested young person to be both personally and intellectually fulfilling. Finding a match between field, mentor and child is the challenge, but success can result in lifelong relationships.

HOME-SCHOOLING In the USA this alternative is growing in popularity among the families of the most gifted, if the parents are financially able to organize a work and school schedule that fits the needs of both the adults and the children. In some communities cooperation with other home-schooling families for social interaction is possible (though if the other homeschooled children are not gifted, this would not be ideal), and some schools allow homeschooled students to participate in sports and other non-academic activities with regular school students. Regulations governing home-schooling vary from state to state, though it is legal throughout the USA. Where schools are especially flexible, schedules may be arranged which allow some learning in class and some learning at home. The freedom to create a curriculum to suit the individual child, or to allow the child complete freedom to follow his or her own interests and passions (also known as ‘unschooling’) is an enormous plus to this choice. The drawback may be the disparity between the child or children’s most passionate interests and those (plus the expertise) of the parent(s) overseeing the process. Now that online courses are widely and often freely available, up to and including college courses for credit, parents do not have to provide all the teaching and oversight. Some families do home-schooling during some part

114

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

of their children’s education (elementary and middle school, for instance) and enroll them in school for other parts. Social networking online can provide interactions with other children. The problem of the rarity of the profoundly gifted has been alleviated in part by their being able to be in regular touch with each other despite geographical distance.

ACCELERATION Though Hollingworth worried that extreme acceleration could increase social isolation for the highly gifted, in practice that is not usually a drawback. In fact, research has shown that social-emotional development tends to be enhanced by allowing a child to move forward according to capacity rather than age, and interacting with people of varying ages, and research has always supported acceleration as a necessary part of educating the most gifted students. There are many variations of acceleration, of course, from grade-skipping to subject matter acceleration, to dual-enrollment programs that allow students to split their time between school levels, to early-entrance college programs. The publications A Nation Deceived (2005) and A Nation Empowered (Assouline et  al., 2015) (PDFs of both are available for download) show not only the value of acceleration for highly advanced students, but the recent modest positive changes in attitude in the USA’s educational community. There are 20 varieties of acceleration discussed. Decision-making by both families and educators is helped by tools like the Iowa Acceleration Scale, 3rd Edition (Assouline et al., 2009). Acceleration is useful across the gifted continuum, but is critically important for profoundly gifted children.

GRADE-SKIPPING This method is simple, useful and economical. There is no need to make complex

scheduling arrangements, as a first grader can go directly into a fourth-grade class, for instance. Because of asynchronous development, a 7-year-old highly gifted child is likely to have more in common with 9- and 10-year-olds than with children of the same age. Not all children who are grade-skipped decide to maintain that skip throughout their school career. However, among the families I’ve interacted with, those who have maintained their two-year or more grade skips, when asked whether they would prefer to go back to the grade level their age would put them in, have answered with a resounding ‘No!’ That child who shut down in the second grade and left school at 11, began high school at 12 and is now a highly regarded professor of mathematics. As with any form of acceleration, it is important for the child to participate in the decision and for the grade-skip to be considered a temporary trial so that there is time for all involved to make the adjustment an age-grade lockstep system requires.

SELF-ADVOCACY Given the unusual awareness and intelligence of this population, there is no reason to assume that – after early childhood – they should be considered victims of a system that wasn’t designed for them. Their developmental trajectory assures that they can begin taking considerable responsibility for their lives at an early age. Adults who recognize both their needs and their capacities can encourage them to become partners in differentiating their education. As they do this, they gain experience in making life choices and confidence that they can find ways to meet their own needs. Guidance and tools for doing this can be found in The Power of SelfAdvocacy for Gifted Learners, by Deb Douglas (2017). However parents or educators approach the problem of meeting these children’s

Profoundly Gifted: Outliers among the Outliers

needs, it is vital to be aware of how different these children are from each other. Here, as everywhere else, one size does not fit all. Students of all ages need to participate as much as possible in the decisions made about their education. It’s important also to evaluate any chosen program or method regularly and be willing to change if necessary.

MYSTERY AND THE ‘REST’ OF INTELLIGENCE When discussing intelligence most of us don’t fully realize that consciousness itself remains one of the most uncomfortably uncertain mysteries of science – the ‘hard problem’. When we speak of giftedness, we are almost always referring to intellect, the logical, rational mode of mental processing. The word ‘intelligence’ too is often or mostly equated with intellect. But there is a great deal more to human intelligence than reasoning. There is also that mysterious and illusive aspect of human consciousness known as intuition, a mode of knowing that violates almost everything we think about how we learn. It is an aspect of awareness that is quite different from what is available to us in our physical world through our five senses. Going back to the article by Vaivre-Douret, we see her observation in these unusually developing children of what she called a form of intuition acting as a ‘sixth sense’. Audrey Grost, author of Genius in Residence, recounted how she and her son Michael were experimenting with telepathy when a visitor arrived, who asked ‘do you believe this nonsense?’ Audrey explained that they were keeping open minds and experimenting. Michael, who was upstairs, called down to ask the visitor to write something on paper that could be anything, ‘colors, countries, numbers’ and give it to his mother, who would try ‘sending’ it to him. The woman wrote ‘six-yellow-England’ and Audrey conjured in her mind ‘six yellow squares in an

115

outline map of England’. Two minutes later Michael called down to ask if ‘six, yellow and Great Britain’ meant anything to her (Grost, 1970, p. 75). That small anecdote, came powerfully back to me when I was conducting a fictionwriting workshop with a group of profoundly gifted children, gathered, with their families, for a ‘learning festival’ in 1992. Together we hashed out the first scene of a science fiction novel, and then I asked the children to sit quietly while I made notes about what we’d created so far. They sat, I wrote, and then I asked them what should happen next. One suggested an idea, and I said that while it was good, it had jumped forward too far, and we needed to decide what happened in between. Together, taking turns, they quickly filled the gap in the story. The hair went up on the back of my neck. ‘You’re all telling me the same story’. They nodded. ‘How did you figure it out?’ ‘Well, the same way we figured out the first part!’ said one. ‘You didn’t talk!’ ‘We didn’t?’ They were genuinely surprised. ‘How did we do it then?’ ‘I don’t know, but it’s called telepathy and I didn’t know it was real!’

What profoundly gifted children routinely do with their intellects is also thought unreal, and yet we have plenty of evidence. These children had just given me – as Michael Grost and his mother had given their visitor – evidence of another sort of mental capacity. I asked them if they minded if I wrote a novel about them, and they were happy to agree. The result was my novel Welcome to the Ark (1996), for which I did a great deal of further research into aspects of what is sometimes called psychic ability, but which I’ve come to think as an aspect of intuition, or as some refer to it, ‘higher intelligence’. It is this aspect of consciousness that allows direct knowing. Though the novel is called science fiction, none of the mental capacities included in the book are fantasy.

116

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

To limit our conception of human intelligence to intellect alone is to ignore, dismiss, and so fail to benefit from the many gifts intuition has to offer. Like intellect, not everyone seems to have the same intuitive capacity, but it is part of humanity’s ‘original equipment’ and our cultural tendency to dismiss it entirely makes little sense.

CONCLUSION Going forward, the single most difficult hurdle to overcome in seeking to provide this rare population with a range of suitable educational strategies to meet their very individual – often idiosyncratic – needs is the negative attitude of the general public and the educational institutions the children encounter. Where there is interest and willingness, where there is acceptance and understanding, these children can thrive and soar. They have extraordinary capacities, and with a little help and understanding can exhibit powerful resilience. Sometimes we need to focus less on specifics about what to do with them and simply run interference, provide them with the challenge and support they seek, and get out of their way.

REFERENCES Assouline, S. G, Colangelo, N., LupkowskiShoplik, A., Forstadt, L., & Lipscomb, J. (2009). Iowa Acceleration Scale Manual: A Guide for Whole-grade Acceleration K-8 (3rd edn). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTasselBaska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2015). A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the

Excuses that Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Vol. II). Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Colangelo, N, Assouline, S. G. & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). (Eds.), A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa. Douglas, D. (2017). The Power of Self-­Advocacy for Gifted Learners. Minneapolis MN: Free Spirit. Feldman, D. with Goldsmith, L. (1986). Nature’s Gambit: Child Prodigies and the Development of Human Potential. New York: Basic Books. Grost, A. (1970). Genius in Residence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children Above 180 IQ. Yonkers, NY: World Book. Silverman, L. (2013). Giftedness 101. New York: Springer Publishing. Tolan, S. (1996). Welcome to the Ark. New York: Morrow Junior Books. Tolan, S. (1998). Beginning brilliance. In J. Smutny (Ed.), The Young Gifted Child: Potential and Promise, an Anthology (pp. 165–181). New Jersey: Hampton Press. Tolan, S. (2013). Hollingworth, Dabrowski, Gandhi, Columbus, and some others: The history of the Columbus Group. In C. Neville, M. Piechowski & S. Tolan (Eds.) Off the Charts. Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks Press. Vaivre-Douret, L. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of ‘high-level potentialities’ (highly gifted) children. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2011 (ID210297), 14. Warne, R. (2016). Five Reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(I): 3–15. Wasserman, J. D. (2013). Identification of gifted learners: Traditional assessment methods. In C. Neville, M. Piechowski, & S. Tolan (Eds.) Off the Charts. Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks Press.

10 Eminence in Talented Women by Domain: Issues, Similarities and Differences Utilizing the Piirto Pyramid as a Theoretical Framework Jane Piirto

INTRODUCTION Talented men and women are essentially the same in intellect and in their ability to perform in their domains of talent, except for environmental influences. These environmental influences are profound, and, depending on the domain, women are less likely to reach eminence. Eminence is renown, or fame, where a person is known by others in the domain and also by the world at large for their talent and accomplishments. This chapter will consider gender as an environmental factor in the development of eminent talent in the domains of visual arts, creative writing, mathematics, science, music, acting, and dancing. A theoretical framework for the development of talent is necessary in order to view the problem with more clarity as there are many factors to consider in developing talent. A theory should have a clear framework and should meet certain criteria, such

as reliability, soundness, austerity, and comprehensiveness. The Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development is the theoretical framework being utilized here (see Figure 10.1). The author of this chapter has used qualitative archival methodology, using published scholarly biographies, published interviews, published memoirs, and published ‘puff’ pieces (Piirto, 2002, 2004, 2007).

THE PIIRTO PYRAMID OF TALENT DEVELOPMENT The Genetic Aspect Genetics is at the base of the Piirto Pyramid. We still do not know the full extent of the influence of our genetic heritage. Which talents are inherited? Which are not? By looking at the family background of those who demonstrate talent in these domains, one can

118

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Figure 10.1  Piirto pyramid of talent development

Eminence in Talented Women by Domain

perhaps make some general comments about the heritability of the talent, for talents do seem to run in families. Many aspects of talent are inherited. Coaches of athletics know this (body type, dexterity, physicality, etc.). Teachers of musicians know this (matching pitch, dexterity, tonal quality of voice, etc.). Each domain has its predictive behaviors that are often evident in childhood. The genetic influence on us seems to be half genes and half environment, with genetic traits coming forward as we age and we become more like our birth parents.

The Emotional Aspect Many studies of talented people in all domains have emphasized that successful creators have certain personality attributes in common. These go across domains – that is, people who demonstrate talent are more alike in personality than different. These attributes make up the base above the genetic aspect. Among these are androgyny, creativity, imagination, insight, introversion, intuition, openness to experience, intellectual overexcitability, passion for work in a domain, perceptiveness, persistence, preference for complexity, resilience, risk-taking, self-discipline, self-efficacy, tolerance for ambiguity, and volition, or will. These attributes appear constantly in various studies of people who are talented, showing that creative adults have achieved effectiveness partially by force of personality. One could call these attributes the foundation, and one could go further and say that they may be innate but to a certain extent they can also be developed and directly taught. Personality is sometimes equated with character, directing how one lives one’s life. The personality attributes mentioned here have been determined by empirical studies of creative producers, mostly adults. Empirical means that the researchers administered personality tests to the subjects and also observed them and interviewed them.

119

Studies of the personalities of talented people have been conducted since 1949, with the famous Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) at the University of California, Berkeley.

The Cognitive Aspect The cognitive dimension is commonly called the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). The IQ score has been over-emphasized in accounting for the presence of creativity and talent. The Piirto Pyramid treats IQ as a minimum criterion with a certain level of intellectual ability necessary for functioning in the world. Each domain has its own IQ threshold, which the practitioner of that domain must have in order to perform credibly in the domain. Theoretical physicists and philosophers need the highest IQs. However, having a really high IQ is not necessary for the realization of most talents. Rather, college graduation seems to be necessary (except for professional basketball players, actors, and entertainers). Most college graduates have above average IQs but not stratospheric IQs.

TALENT IN DOMAINS The talent itself is often inborn and innate. The presence of talent is mysterious yet specific. Talent may include necessary physical attributes (e.g., foot bend for dancers, lip shape for musicians who play wind instruments, hand span for pianists, shoulder rotation for baseball pitchers) or mental attributes (visual memory for visual artists and writers, spatial rotation ability for visual artists and mathematicians). As well as these ofteninnate attributes, every talented person needs education from experts in the rules and dimensions of the domain. These domains include mathematics, visual arts, music, theater, sciences, writing and literature,

120

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

business, entrepreneurship and economics, athletics, dance, the spiritual and theological, philosophy, psychology and the interpersonal, and education. They are all quite welldefined academically, and people can attend college to study in any of them. Talent is present and is easily recognized by those who know what they are looking for. For example, biographical commonalities for visual artists is that as children they could draw so well they were designated the class artist. Young pitchers could often throw a ball faster than others. Creative writers have as a commonality that a middle school or high school teacher accused them of cheating because their writing assignments were so good. These talents are demonstrated within domains that are socially recognized and valued within the society, and thus may differ from society to society and era to era. The hunting talent is not as valued today as it was eons ago and the coding talent was not valued until recently. In summary, genetics, personality, cognitive ability and talent in a domain are present within the talented person.

ENVIRONMENTAL ‘SUNS’ In addition, everyone is influenced by five ‘suns’. These suns may be likened to certain factors in the environment. The three major suns are (1) Sun of Home; (2) Sun of Community and Culture; and (3) Sun of School. Other, smaller suns are (4) Sun of Chance; and (5) Sun of Gender. The Piirto Pyramid seems to be the only talent development model in which gender is an environmental factor influencing the development of talent in domains. The reason gender is an environmental factor is there have been found few gender differences in personality attributes, cognitive ability, inherited or developed attributes of specific talents in adult creative producers, yet women continue to make less in salary than men working in the same

domain nor do they reach eminence. The presence or absence of all or several of these suns makes the difference between whether a talent is developed or whether the talent atrophies.

THE DOMAIN THORN However, although absolutely necessary, the presence of talent is not sufficient. The asterisk, or ‘thorn’ on the Piirto Pyramid is there to show that talent is not enough for the realization of a life spent producing work in a domain. When a talented person feels the motivation, the strong urge like the ‘wound of a thorn’, when the person cannot refrain from work in the domain, when the talented person is sick or feels unfulfilled, the thorn is present. This is what leads to commitment. The person with talent pursues School, both formal and informal, utilizing Community and Culture, drawing upon Chance, overcoming Home influences which may not value the talent, while also enduring the competition and heartbreak that often accompanies the pursuit of success in a domain of talent. The person who possesses the talent also must possess the will and fortitude to develop the talent.

THE SUN OF GENDER: WOMEN OF TALENT The ‘sun of gender’ is environmental, although many gender differences are genetic and innate. Boys and girls may be born with equal talent potential, but something happens along the way. This is shown by the 80% pay gap between men and women (AAUW, 2017). Many factors contribute to this pay gap, including the ‘motherhood penalty’, where women who step out to raise children never achieve the salaries men do (p. 19), although fathers are not affected – this is

Eminence in Talented Women by Domain

called the ‘fatherhood bonus’. Few personality attributes show significant gender differences except for Thinking and Feeling on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and ‘tender mindedness’ on the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16 PF); few intelligence test scores show significant gender differences (though boys consistently score higher in spatial ability in mathematics), and so we should look at how the environment influences the development of talent according to gender. While the Sun of Gender is present for both genders, only women will be discussed here.

THE DOUBLE BIND Women’s search for connectedness dominates their development during and just after their college years, to the detriment of their drive to succeed in their chosen field of creative endeavor. Few if any gender differences are found in creativity until women have to decide how they will manage being mothers, wives, and creators. This has been called ‘the double bind’. How will I have a career and still be a mother?’ The double bind hits hard, and this cuts across all fields and domains. The men creators never seem to wonder how they will manage raising a family and having a career. The women creators always do. That is why many women who reached prominence were childless and even lived alone, without a mate.

SUN OF GENDER IN VISUAL ARTISTS Male fine arts students have been the most studied because the women fine arts students have been viewed as not being likely to pursue the profession after art school. Looking at lists of eminent visual artists one notices the absence of women. There is Georgia O’Keeffe, Frida Kahlo, Emily Carr, Mary Cassatt and the like, but noting the names of visual artists on the walls of most

121

art museums, one sees works by mostly males. However, women have always been artists – the daughters who made models and miniatures. They have also participated in arts that are not as valued as easel painting such as fabric and ceramics.

Biographical Example of a Visual Artist: Judy Chicago (1939–) Judy Chicago (1939–) is an icon in feminist women’s visual artist circles. She is well known for recapturing and rethinking the art that women have made throughout time. She began her studies as a gifted child at the Chicago Institute of Art Children’s Program, and went on to receive a Master of Fine Arts (MFA) from UCLA. Traditional women’s art has not been valued and so Chicago has spent years trying to reimagine visually the art that women have traditionally made. In her memoir (Chicago, 1975) she described her odyssey through art history, and her thrill at discovering that women have always been artists. Her exhibit of women creators exemplified through ceramic plates, The Dinner Party (1979), and her work with The Birth Project, honoring the history of women’s needlework and weaving are examples. In 2002, The Dinner Party finally gained a permanent home at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, 23 years after its debut at the San Francisco Museum of Art in 1979. Chicago pioneered women’s art classes after receiving her MFA. She has continued to paint, sculpt, write books, and be a leader in women making art. Chicago has a long-time marriage to another visual artist; they do not have children.

THE SUN OF GENDER IN CREATIVE WRITERS Personality traits, extracurricular activities, past accomplishments, and practical knowledge about how to further one’s chances of

122

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

successful entry into a profession play a large role in whether a talented student writer will go on to show substantial adult performance. Again, within groups of creative professionals, intelligence test scores are not very different. Instead, those who are most creative and productive have significant differences in their personalities and drive. Piirto (2002) studied 60 contemporary men and 60 contemporary women American creative writers. Like most women creators and women who have careers, the women writers experienced overlapping interferences in their attempts to combine family life with their creative work. The book or the baby? Is how the question has been posed.

Biographical Example of a Poet: Anne Sexton (1928–1977) Anne Sexton (1928–1977) was a Pulitzerprize-winning American poet whose books took the poetry world by storm. Known as the mother of confessional poetry, her work heralded a sea-change in poetic expression, paving the way for women poets and for intensely personal revelations (Middlebrook, 1991). Her life coincided with the women’s movement of the late 1960s and the 1970s, and her work was read in that context, even though she did not call herself a feminist. Sexton was born Anne Gray Harvey in 1928 in Weston, Massachusetts. Her father owned a wool company. Her family was stricken with mental illness, which afflicted her maternal grandfather, who was institutionalized, her maternal great aunt, her aunt, and several other family members. Sexton herself committed suicide at the age of 45 after many bouts of mental illness, as did one of her two sisters. She saw several psychiatrists over the years, and she went for therapy several times a week. One of her psychiatrists suggested she begin to write poetry. This began her odyssey into transforming the art of contemporary poetry. She published ten books, including the Pulitzer-prize-winning Live or Die (1966).

She became so famous that she spent years teaching writing workshops at universities – without ever attaining a degree (except for honorary degrees). She was also on the reading circuit and travelled to share her work. Her correspondence with other writers is a rich trove of insights and comments about how to write and how to flourish in a writing career (Sexton & Adams, 1977). Sexton is in many ways the antithesis of the typical creative writer. Most writers majored in English in college and have at least a bachelor’s degree. Sexton went to a finishing school for one year before marrying young. Suffering from mental illness, she was extremely dependent on her husband, even though she had many affairs and relationships with other men, mostly other poets. She was a known heavy drinker, and smoked at least two packs a day. When she finally divorced her husband, she made several more suicide attempts. Unlike many other women writers, who often had two and three marriages (Piirto, 2002), she never remarried.

Sexton’s ‘thorn’ The talent of Anne Sexton was obvious from her first attempts. Within months of taking a writing workshop with John Holmes she had poems accepted by The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Saturday Review, and other prestigious venues. She had been bored and unfulfilled as a wife and mother and then she took a workshop and the magic happened. She began to write and to publish and to live the life of the successful poet. Even in her greatest despair, she continued to write. Her legacy to contemporary poetry is that she made it acceptable for women to write about their inner lives.

THE SUN OF GENDER IN MUSICIANS Having the ‘right look’, that is rife in current society, affected jazz singer Ella Fitzgerald early. Chick Webb, her first bandleader,

Eminence in Talented Women by Domain

thought she was too big, didn’t know how to dress, and didn’t know how to talk to people. Webb thought she was ugly and didn’t want her to sing for his band. Incidentally, not having the ‘right look’ also affected Janis Joplin, who, while at the University of Texas, was nominated as the ‘Ugliest Man on Campus’. Joplin arrived in San Francisco to audition for Big Brother and the Holding Company, but was considered to be plain and plump, with a bad complexion. Physical beauty is important, even in the world of classical music. Anna Sophie Mutter’s sexy album covers help sell her albums perhaps as much as her stunning playing of the violin. She was plump when she was young but she lost weight and began wearing strapless gowns for her performances. Her album sales soared. Indeed, attractiveness matters for violin performers. Linda Brava, the violinist, posed for Playboy. Vanessa May published a cover for an album featuring Dvorak’s Four Seasons that looked as if she were in blue-eye-shadowed ecstasy, Dutch jazz saxophonist Candy Duffy published a cover which showed her clutching her saxophone with her blouse fully unbuttoned. The album covers of their male counterparts reveal more conventional, formal attire. ‘It’s not over until the fat lady sings’, is a comment about the bodies of certain female opera singers. Who has ever heard similar sarcasm directed at the corpulent tenors who sing with them?

Why Are There So Few Women Composers? In an interview Aaron Copland wondered why women have not become great composers, even though they have been great singers, pianists, string players, and musical interpreters. He said perhaps women’s inability to think abstractly is the reason, as music is shapeless, formless, and has no logical content (Rosner and Abt, 1970). The last male bastion in music seems to be

123

conducting – there are few Sarah Caldwells – but today women composers can be found. Copland probably would have been surprised that the Pulitzer Prize for music composition in 1991 was won by a woman composer, Shulamit Ran, who won for her Symphony. Ran is a professor at the University of Chicago, and she said of her music, that it is a reflection of life as she, the composer, interprets it. She wants her music to speak equally to the mind and heart.

Biographical Example of a Composer: Marilyn Shrude Marilyn Shrude, a Distinguished Artist Professor of Music, founder and former Director of the Mid-American Center for Contemporary Music at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, is another successful composer. Born in 1946, she has a doctorate in music from Northwestern University. She has composed music for large and small ensembles, and her music has been performed in almost every state in the US and in many nations worldwide. She has received a Kennedy Center Freidheim Award, been named a Woman of Achievement by Women in The Communications Industry (WICI), received two ASCAP/Chamber Music America Awards for Adventuresome Programming, as well as an Ohioan Award for contributions to the cultural life of Ohio. In 1997, she received an Academy Award in Music from the American Academy of Arts and Letters. In 2000, she received a Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship to the Bellagio Center in Italy, and in 2002, a MacDowell Colony Fellowship. Marilyn grew up in an ethnic Catholic Polish and Lebanese family in Chicago and entered a convent as a high school student of 15. She had always composed music. She was the only woman in the composition class in graduate school. Though many of her teachers and mentors were supportive, the years in the convent had given her a weak

124

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

self-concept. Composing was not encouraged because it was vain, and women were not to be proud. Marilyn Shrude is a mother as well as a composer, and being a mother has put her on a different timeline than other composers. Like the artist mothers in Foley’s study (1986), Shrude has had to make modifications in order to combine parenting with composing. The value of having a supportive husband cannot be underestimated, for she stated that the children ‘have always come first. We’ve done pretty well at trying to accommodate each other’s schedules, even with young children, though it’s been difficult’. Whether having children has stymied her career doesn’t matter to Shrude. She has never thought that she would have been better off without children, nor has she been resentful because of the demands of motherhood interfering with her creative work.

actress right now. People know my name; they know Kathy Bates’s name. That’s about it. Can people open up their hearts and minds to see alternative definitions of beauty? I don’t know’. Melissa McCarthy has gained and lost weight, is one of the most well-paid actresses, and has founded a line of clothing for plus size women (she attended the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City), but she is the exception. The paucity of roles for older women actresses is also a gender issue. The memory of 50-year-old Michael Douglas making love to 25-year-old Gwyneth Paltrow, who played his wife in A Perfect Murder (1998), illustrates. Can you picture a 65-year-old Meryl Streep making love to a 40-year-old husband, perhaps a Channing Tatum? We have gotten used to seeing older men with younger women, but not the opposite. As female actors get old, their chances for roles diminish; this is also true for male actors but not as much.

THE SUN OF GENDER IN ACTORS The age-old gender difference for creators has been the double bind of women maintaining or continuing their creative careers while at the same time being mothers. This has not seemed as much of a problem for fathers. An illustration is Anne Bancroft, who stopped acting in order to raise her son, the writer Max Brooks. Another gender issue has been mentioned with regard to the question of women having to be thin, beautiful, and young in order to be performers. Actress Camryn Manheim, upon winning an Emmy, held it in the air and shouted, ‘Let’s hear it for the fat girls!’ Manheim, who studied acting in New York, was repeatedly told she had to lose weight in order to be an actress. She once lost 100 pounds using amphetamines, and within four months had put the weight back on again. Even though she is called a spokesperson, Manheim said in an interview with Weintraub (2001)., ‘I’m the only fat, younger

Biographical Example of an Actor: Angela Lansbury (1925–) Angela Lansbury was born in the United Kingdom in 1925. Her mother was the wellknown Irish actor Moyra McGill, and her father was a lumber businessman and politician who died when Angela was 10. Angela attended a drama and music school in London, and when they moved to New York City during World War II, Angela attended and graduated from another drama and music school. Her mother was well-connected to the expatriate British theater community. She appeared in her first film, Gaslight in 1944, for which she won an Academy Award nomination as Best Supporting Actress. She was 17 years old. The next year she received another Academy Award nomination, for The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945). Taller than normal (5′7″) and with features that were not conventionally beautiful, she immediately began playing the roles of

Eminence in Talented Women by Domain

women older than she really was. As such, she was rarely the young ingénue, and in this typecasting, she is one of the few people who is an EGOT (a person who has won the Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony). In one of her famous movies, The Manchurian Candidate (1962), for which she won her third Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, she played the mother of Laurence Harvey, who was only three years younger than she. She also played the mother of Elvis and the mother of Warren Beatty. However, she did not have a leading role until she was forty, when she played Mame on Broadway. She won Tony Awards for Mame (1965), Dear World (1969), Gypsy (1975), Sweeney Todd (1979), and Blithe Spirit (2009). She has also won Golden Globes and other awards for both theater and movies. Her Grammy award came in 1993 for Best Recording for Children, for Beauty and the Beast. Her most famous role, Jessica Fletcher in Murder She Wrote, was on television, from 1984 to 1996. She received various Screen Actor Guild (SAG) Awards, Emmys, and other awards as Best Actress for this role in the series, which ran for 12 years, and which is in perpetual rerun somewhere in the television firmament. Her second marriage lasted 54 years and ended when her husband, Peter Shaw, died. They had two children, a boy, Anthony, and a girl, Deirdre. Shaw also had a son and so they raised the three children together. Lansbury professed that she liked keeping house and gardening, even though she often had to be away for long periods of time on location for her career. Did such an eminent achiever as Angela Lansbury experience the guilt and conflict that many other eminent creators who are women have? Yes, according to her biographer (Gottfried, 1999). The children for years were cared for by a secretary, a governess, and their father. Angela seldom saw them. Leading a peripatetic existence with many temporary residences wherever she was working created an inexorable distance between Angela and her children. Angela

125

remained confused and regretful about the amount of time her career had taken from being with her children – a classic guilt experienced by most mothers – the double bind. How can I as a mother have a career and still raise my children?

SUN OF GENDER IN DANCERS Barron’s (1972) study of dancers revealed that the dancers were open, generous, energetic, and quite excitable. Both male and female dancers were quite ambitious. They both described themselves as ‘determined, ambitious, and capable’ with a need to succeed. It is more socially acceptable for women to pursue dance; therefore, the competition to succeed is greater. When a woman becomes a prima ballerina, she has overcome much competition.

Biographical Example of a Dancer: Suzanne Farrell (1945–) Suzanne Farrell (1945–) danced with Balanchine’s New York City Ballet from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Farrell was born and raised in Cincinnati, in a family of women (Farrell, 1990). She had, like most active girls, a childhood of scrapes and bruises, of scabs on knees and elbows, but this was the childhood of a girl who became one of America’s premier ballerinas. Suzanne’s talent was apparent early on. She was chosen to be Clara in Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker. Farrell was discovered in Cincinnati by a Balanchine scout, the ballerina Diana Adams. Suzanne had one flat foot, injured when a horse had kicked it. During the audition, Balanchine examined the foot, pressing it hard to test for resilience. When Suzanne’s foot successfully passed the test, Balanchine arranged a scholarship for her to study with the company. Her dance schedule at the New York City Ballet was so strenuous,

126

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and the tour schedules so demanding, that she never did graduate from high school. Balanchine, then in his sixties, began making ballets for the 18-year-old Suzanne, sending her love poems, and treating her as a real ballerina. He had been married several times to various ballerinas and was still married, but young Suzanne became his muse. By 1964, she had danced 16 new ballets. By 1985, when she was 40, Farrell had developed a hip problem that prevented her rehearsing for the long hours necessary. Her last performance was in 1989 with Peter Martin (Farrell, 1990). She then retired to teach at her school in the Adirondacks, and to teach as a guest with other ballet companies, including the New York City Ballet. She was a professor of dance at Florida State University and founded the Suzanne Farrell Ballet, which was an entity until 2017. She received the Kennedy Center Honors in 2003 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005. Farrell has no children. Farrell’s life as a ballet dancer was typical of that of many other great dancers. The concentration and dedication necessary must come early. General formal education gives way to specific education in the area of talent. Permanent injuries are rife. The biography of any dancer reads like a medical report, at times, as well as a list of dances performed and people met. But the physical repercussions for the bodies of dancers are always present.

SUN OF GENDER IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS Female scientists and mathematicians are rarer than males. The Johns Hopkins University’s Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) showed that in this area those few girls who qualified for radical acceleration, or grade skipping (the ratio is 20 boys to one girl) had mothers with PhDs (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). These girls were predominantly Asian.

Unfortunately, little seems to have changed. The National Science Foundation reports in 2017 showed that even though women were 50% of college graduates they comprised only 29% of the science and engineering labor force as a whole and were 42% of doctoral scientists and engineers in the United States. Of people with bachelor’s degrees, 29% of women but only 1% of the men who were not employed cited family responsibilities as the reason for not working (National Science Foundation, 2015; Wang & Degol, 2017). The afore-mentioned Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (e.g., Ferriman, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009) found that, by college, about a third of the precocious girls had dropped out of the mathematics and science tracks, and no longer aspired to get a PhD. This was despite the fact that the girls had better academic records and grades than the boys. The women who continued in the science pipeline leading to a PhD were less likely to date than the women who stepped out of the pipeline. Those who continued also had lower self-concepts than the other women. The researchers found a similarity between never-married women and married men in career trajectory, as they continued to have a strong success and career orientation, while married women with children preferred more work-hour flexibility and had more of a tendency to drop out. The consequences for dropping out and picking up a career in science or mathematics (or any creative field) after one has taken care of one’s small children may be great. The necessary track record for eminence may not be produced. Women may be prevented from producing by the double bind, that of bearing children and taking most of the responsibility for the household, as well as being creatively productive in their career. Women may have a different career pattern, peaking in productivity later than men. In the past this made them less able to achieve eminence; eminence for women may come later, after their family duties are diminished and they can focus on late careers.

Eminence in Talented Women by Domain

Biographical Example of a Scientist: Judith Resnik (1949–1986) Dr Judith Resnik (1949–1986) was the second American woman in space, but her accomplishments do not stop there. Resnik was the first Jewish astronaut. She received her Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering in 1970 from Carnegie-Mellon University. (Bernstein & Blue, 1990). She continued her schooling at the University of Maryland where she received her PhD in electrical engineering in 1977. When she heard that NASA was going to admit women into the space program, she was determined to become an astronaut. She did everything she could to be in the best physical shape, and learned as much as she could about NASA and space. She joined NASA’s space program in 1978. Tragically, Dr Resnik was one the seven astronauts killed in the explosion of the Challenger (Shuttle Mission 51L) on January 28, 1986. Resnik attended Firestone High School in Akron, Ohio, graduating in 1966. She took the most advanced courses in science and mathematics, and a photograph of the mathematics club shows her as the only female member. She graduated as valedictorian of her class. One of her mathematics teachers even saved her advanced placement mathematics test to use as a model for students. Resnik demonstrated personality, cognitive ability, and talent in the domains of science and mathematics. She took risks, she demonstrated persistence and resilience, even in the face of personal problems such as her parents’ oppositional marriage and their divorce. She later survived her own divorce and went on to become an astronaut, an American heroine.

DISCUSSION The brief biographical sketches given above illustrate that eminence in women has more in common across domains than within

127

domains. Gender discrimination is rife across all domains, and women must battle environmental factors to rise to eminence. They demonstrate the personality attributes that all successful and eminent people have; they have the cognitive abilities necessary to succeed, and they have the domain-specific talents to do the work and to acquire the requisite expertise. In addition, they experience motherhood as women do – as a double bind. The internal dilemma is ‘Can I still be a mother and be successful in my career?’ Going through the aspects of the Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development (see Figure 10.1), genetics seemed to have played a part in the talents of actor Angela Lansbury and poet Anne Sexton. In the emotional aspect, all the women showed personality attributes such as persistence, androgyny, intuition, resilience, and openness to experience. For the cognitive aspect, all the women met the minimum requirements of intellect in order to be able to perform in the domain they chose: and they were recognized by experts as they studied and performed at high levels. These biographies also speak to the environmental suns. For the Sun of School, these sketches demonstrate that to reach eminence it is not necessary to graduate from, or even attend college. Three of the eminent women – Angela Lansbury in acting, Suzanne Farrell in dance, and Anne Sexton in poetry – did not have college degrees, though all of them did receive honorary degrees and did teach at various prestigious universities. All of them did have extensive specific training in their domain from expert teachers. However, Marilyn Shrude and Judith Resnik had PhDs., and had to attain these degrees in order to reach eminence in their fields of classical music composer and astronaut. Under the Sun of Home, following our examples, classical musicians and scientists may come from the type of stable homes that are able to support a long timeline in study. Judy Chicago came from a stable home also, but suffered the trauma of her admired father dying young. Childhood trauma is often

128

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

present in the childhoods of those in the arts. Suzanne Farrell’s family experienced divorce and they had to move in order to be able to study with the right teacher in order to reach eminence. Dancers often do so. Under the Sun of Community and Culture, all these eminent women were well known to others in their field, admired and accepted by experts and critics, and ultimately became well known to the world at large. The Sun of Chance has shone on all these women, though they experienced pain and suffering along the way. They were able to position themselves at the right time in history to take their place (the rise of the second wave of feminism). This brief foray into the world of talent in particular domains has only tapped the surface of this rich avenue of study.

REFERENCES American Association of University Women (AAUW) (2017). The simple truth about the gender pay gap. C. Hill, K. Miller, K. Benson, & G. Handley. Washington, DC. Barron, F. (1972). Artists in the making. New York, NY: Seminar Press. Bernstein, J. E., & Blue, R. (1990). Judith Resnik: Challenger astronaut. New York, NY: Dutton Lodestar. Chicago, J. (1975). Through the flower: My journey as a woman artist. New York, NY: Doubleday and Co. Farrell, S. (1990). Holding on to the air. New York, NY: Summit. Foley, P. (1986). The dual role experience of artist mothers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University, IL. Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and

personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 517–532. DOI: 10.1037/a0016030. Gottfried, M. (1999). Balancing act: The authorized biography of Angela Lansbury. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345. doi.10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x Middlebrook, D. (1991). Anne Sexton: A biography. New York, NY: Vintage Books. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2014. Special Report NSF 16–300. Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.nsf. gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/ Piirto, J. (2002). ‘My teeming brain’: Understanding creative writers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press. Piirto, J. (2007). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (3rd edn). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Rosner, S., & Abt, L. (Eds.). (1970). The creative experience. New York, NY: Grossman. Sexton, L.G., & Adams, L. (Eds.). (1977). Anne Sexton: A self-portrait in letters. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Wang, M., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 119–140. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-0159355-x. Weintraub, B. (2001). Camryn Manheim weighs in on the side of the ‘fat girls’. New York Times.

11 Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD K e l l y M . L e e a n d F. R i c h a r d O l e n c h a k

INTRODUCTION Despite theory and research laced with practice spanning at least a century, the identification of gifted and talented individuals continues to be a conundrum that sadly serves only to overlook many persons – particularly school-aged youth. Such ­oversight unfortunately often amounts to inappropriate, unnecessary, or neglectful educational accommodations, and parents who tend to look to schools for guidance for home-based interventions may very well end up feeling frustrated and puzzled as to how best rear their children. While the purpose here is not to rehash the long often contradiction-filled history of gifted and talented identification, it is helpful to erect a backdrop for our primary intention: to probe giftedness as it interacts with other diagnoses, particularly ADHD. Broadly, a student is labeled as twice exceptional when they have both a ‘gift’ and a ‘disability’ (Foley-Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck, & Stinson, 2011), although researchers have

no established operational definition for this term (Ronksley-Pavia, 2015). Issues arise when one considers the ambiguous and many definitions of ‘gifts’ and ‘disabilities’. Specifically, gifted definitions are often state or school district dependent and can span several different domains (e.g., academic, artistic), whereas disabilities can range from learning disorders to neurodevelopmental disorders. An examination of each part of twice-exceptionality is necessary to understand the rich complexity that these students bring to the table.

GIFTED AND TALENTED The Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2012) provides a federal definition of giftedness, which is ‘children and youth who give evidence of higher performance capability in such areas as intellectual,

130

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields’. Identification of giftedness is located at the state or school district level, with each state adopting its own definition of giftedness (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012).

Who Has Gifts and Talents? Since the landmark Marland Report to the U.S. Congress (1972), the first national position document pertaining to gifted and talented persons, there have been a collection of theories, practices, and research that have shaped today’s identification landscape. Parsing these often disparate perspectives into two main groups allows for an overarching perspective of the ways in which professionals in education and psychology, as well as society at large, conceive giftedness and talent.

Test-driven perception The identification of gifted and talented students has been indistinguishably bound to measures of intelligence since Louis Terman (1916, 1925) focused on developing and administering the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, an extrapolation of Alfred Binet’s (1909) efforts to identify French children who needed attention for intellectual disabilities. Terman’s conception of giftedness and talent was based on the test he created: gifted and talented persons are those who scored at the top 1% of the population who took the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. The arithmetic IQ score, seemingly a precise measurement figure that did not allow for any shades of gray, meant that scores of 135 and above equated to giftedness and talent. Given that there was some degree of mystique for those who did not grasp how the scores were calculated, the conception of giftedness as performance on a test became widely held. Indeed, to this date, there are educational and commercial organizations that subscribe to the notion that a high IQ score equates

unwaveringly to one’s being gifted and talented, and that only through such measurement can giftedness and talent be ascertained. This absolute conception of giftedness serves to fan elitism and to eliminate persons who, due to a wide variety of intervening variables that inhibit test performance, are unable to perform highly enough on an IQ test but still possess intellectual gifts. To enhance comprehension of the testdriven perception of giftedness and talent, consider Tomas, a first-generation American whose family struggled to support him and his six siblings. Currently, Tomas, the recipient of specialized funding targeting diverse students, is 19 years of age and is enrolled in a demanding undergraduate program at a premier research university. Having tested with an IQ score exceeding 150 in elementary and then again in high school, Tomas was involved in several gifted and talented programs throughout his school years, the degree of which was determined by funding more than his particular educational or developmental needs. Indeed, given the unequivocal definition of giftedness and talent emerging from the test-driven view, educators and even Tomas’s parents felt that he would be successful regardless of the extent of programming gauged to his personal development. As Tomas progressed through the school years, his performance gradually became more lackluster due to difficulties he had organizing materials for assignments and meeting deadlines. By the time he was in college, he was experiencing some significant academic, social, and emotional challenges. Fortunately, some astute instructors at the university recognized Tomas’s situation, and by involving him in a collection of interventions including tutoring, extended time to complete tasks, and guided assignments with explicit timelines, Tomas slowly began to perform more in keeping with the high academic ability the test scores indicated. However, he never distinguished himself in any way, while a few other students in Tomas’s same university cohort,

Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD

whose test scores were much lower, produced extraordinary outcomes. Indeed, Tomas’s friend, Kadir, who did not test high enough to be called ‘gifted and talented’ during his school years, had enrolled at another prestigious university after high school graduation, and by his sophomore year had designed an award-winning solar vehicle while earning high academic grades in a rigorous mechanical engineering curriculum. Clearly, the IQ numbers themselves did not unveil all of Tomas’s or Kadir’s educational needs, nor did those scores ensure they would perform at remarkable levels automatically by virtue of those scores. Consequently, while test performance is indicative of the potential that high scorers will likely experience academic success, there is no guarantee. While the test-driven perception of giftedness and talent certainly is accurate in some cases, it is not nearly as absolute as Terman thought and his devotees of today continue to believe (Brown et  al., 2005). Furthermore, reliance on one or even on a series of scores does not allow for consideration of the numerous traits, experiences, and values that influence each individual’s development. Indeed, such unidimensional perceptions of giftedness likely contribute to under-representation in school gifted and talented programs among students of color, those from low socio-economic backgrounds, and those representing broad diversity of cultures (Bianco, 2005; Callahan, 2005; Erwin & Worrell, 2012; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Olenchak, Jacobs, Hussain, Lee, & Gaa, 2016; Yoon & Gentry, 2009).

Talent development perception Given that scholars have questioned the inherent likenesses in intelligence and achievement tests, most recently as illustrated by the works of Kaufman, Reynolds, Liu, Kaufman, and McGrew (2012), Rohde and Thompson (2007), and Sattler (2001), a trend to explore intelligence in its widest conception continues. Rooted in the forerunning works of J. P. Guilford (1950), several

131

theoretical concepts of intelligence models for explaining human abilities have been proposed. Guilford’s notion, emphasizing creativity and problem solving, ultimately embraced over 220 abilities, and this has served as a foundational belief that not only are there numerous kinds of intelligence and ways to express it, but giftedness and talent would naturally also reflect many dimensions of outstanding human potential and productivity. Conceptualizing intelligence as a multiplicity of abilities in a multiplicity of domains of human pursuit sparked later theories about talent and how it can be identified, nurtured, and expressed (Gagné, 1985, 2011; Gardner, 1983; Renzulli, 1978, 1988, 1990; Sternberg, 1985). Most critically, the talent development perspective is reliant on beliefs that life’s features not only can impact one’s abilities, but in fact those seemingly absolute gifts and talents are malleable. Again, contemplating a brief example is likely to enhance understanding of the talent development conceptualization of giftedness and talent. Consider Tien, who like Tomas, is a first-generation student in the United States, her family having immigrated from Vietnam some years before her birth. With above-average but not necessarily gifted test scores, she consistently demonstrated a high degree of motivation to engage with music. Fortunately for Tien, her elementary and middle schools had adopted the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997) and eventually had applied Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (2003) to their operational framework. Based on the conceptualization in these models that foundational ability needs precise developmental attention in schools, Tien’s educational program encompassed a great deal of time and support allocated to her musical abilities and interests through eighth grade, when she applied to and was accepted by a public magnet high school focused on all aspects of the visual and performing arts. While her high school was less explicit than

132

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

the elementary and middle schools about adhering to any particular set of principles regarding talent development, the fact she was able to concentrate on musical performance and composition as the talent emphasis in her academic curriculum enabled her to publish several pieces and to win accolades for her vocal performances. Most recently, Tien has been admitted to one of the most prestigious colleges of music in the world and plans to perfect her composition and performance gifts further. The talent development emphasis of her schooling helped her to ameliorate her tendency to become bored quickly and to thereafter focus not only on required academic tasks but on musical composition. Meanwhile, one of Tien’s peers, Kenya, was unable to be sufficiently productive in middle school so that she, too, would gain admission to the competitive magnet high school for the arts. Instead of finding herself about to attend a prestigious music college, she is working part-time at a café and taking classes at a local community college in an attempt to bolster her overall academic record before again attempting admission in a higher education program more directly devoted to the arts.

Identification of Giftedness and Talent McClain and Pfeiffer (2012) surveyed states’ gifted identification methods and noted 54% of states used either a multiple cut-off (i.e., students must score above certain cut-offs on two or more tests) or averaging (i.e., demonstration of giftedness in different domains) method for identification of gifted students. Seventeen states used a single cut-off score, typically an intelligence test, and 16 states did not identify a method for identification of gifted students.

Intelligence and achievement tests Even though, as mentioned previously, intelligence test scores do not paint a full picture for the identification of giftedness and talent,

McClain and Pfeiffer (2012) found 16 states mandated the use of intelligence tests and 17 states required achievements tests to determine giftedness. Currently in the field, two of the more common IQ tests include the Wechsler series (e.g., Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, WISC; Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, WAIS; Wechsler, 2008) or the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities (Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014b), although others exist. These intelligence tests are standardized, professionally administered exams, and categorize intelligence with a general ‘g’ factor, but also divide it into indices and clusters such as working memory and processing speed. The identification of academically gifted students using IQ tests typically require a cutoff of the general intelligence score between the 90th and the 97th percentile, meaning students perform better than 90–97% of their peers (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012). Similarly, Rommelse and colleagues (2016) found a large discrepancy in the cut-off scores for research articles measuring giftedness and twice-exceptionality, ranging from more than or equal to one standard deviation (standard score equal or higher to 115) to more than or equal to three standard deviations (standard score equal or higher to 145). Therefore, depending on the state, school district, or principal investigator in a research study, the designation of academic giftedness is more subjective and variable than originally thought. Achievement tests, which focus more on academic content such as reading, mathematics, and writing, are typically measured through the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT, Wechsler, 2009) or WoodcockJohnson Tests of Achievement (Schrank, Mather, & McGrew, 2014a), although other achievement tests also exist. Similar to intelligence test cut-offs, states range in cut-offs for achievement tests between the 90th and 97th percentile (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012). Surprisingly, no research on twice-exceptional students known to the authors uses achievement tests as inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD

Behavioral rating scales and checklists Although less common, several states use teacher behavioral rating scales or checklists in their determination of giftedness (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012), with the large majority focusing on themes of leadership and creativity. Several standardized observer report scales/checklists have been established to measure giftedness, including, but not limited to, the Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales (GATES; Gilliam, Carpenter, & Christensen, 1996), the Gifted Educational Scale, second edition (GES-2; McCarney & Anderson, 1998), and the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (Renzulli, Siegle, Reis, Gavin, & Reed, 2009). While each are separate and distinct, these scales have common themes of identifying giftedness based on motivation, leadership, intellectual ability, and artistic ability.

Performance-based auditions For talent identification, many performancebased schools utilize auditions and have their own set of criteria for determining cut-offs. These auditions are talent specific, and require students to demonstrate their gift to the faculty. Some of the auditions may include presenting a portfolio of previous work, engaging in writing exercises over a determined period of time, singing a selected piece of music, sight-reading music, or performing a learned movement set in a group (e.g., Houston ISD, 2017). Schools may also utilize creativity measures administered in person, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1974).

ATTENTION-DEFICIT/HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is diagnosed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric

133

Association, 2013) or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Edition (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 2016). ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by inattentiveness, hyperactivity/impulsivity, or a combination of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The symptoms should manifest before the age of 7 (according to the ICD-10; Saudi ADHD Society, 2017) or 12 (according to the DSM-5) and need to be observable in multiple settings. The DSM-5 reported a prevalence rate of 5% (APA, 2013), but other studies have found as high as 11% (Visser et al., 2013).

Who Has Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder? Though our purpose here is not to explain further the notion of Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), it is critical to discuss what ADHD is and is not, and how it influences individuals. Often mistakenly referenced as a single disorder, ADHD in reality is a collection of three types of disorders that impact academic and social performance among children and can extend into adulthood by limiting focusing ability and task completion (Barkley, DuPaul, & McMurray, 1990). ADHD – Inattentive Type is dominated by an individual’s inability to sustain attention, their difficulties organizing and locating items, distractibility, and avoidance of tasks that demand prolonged effort, while ADHD – Hyperactive/Impulsive Type is distinguished by fidgeting, difficulty sitting still, and vocal interruptions if not persistent talking (APA, 2013). The Combined Type is characterized by overarching behaviors representative of the two types. As with giftedness and talent, there is a good deal of controversy about which behaviors are definitively indicative of ADHD, and the accuracy of psychometric or behavioral assessments remains as dubious as in the process of

134

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

identifying giftedness and talent (Baum, Olenchak, & Owen, 2004; Webb et al., 2016).

Inattentive Type When persons of school age find it challenging, if not impossible, to sustain attention to the conversation, discussions, lectures, and activities that peers appear to handle with automaticity, often educational and psychological professionals and occasionally parents begin to wonder about an ADHD diagnosis. Consider Kenya again, Tien’s peer who was not permitted to continue at the arts high school. Kenya’s academic and even musical productivity at the school was marked by incomplete and/or lost assignments, a pervasive failure to attend to class discussions, and a tendency to interrupt class proceedings – even in her musical strength area. Though interested and talented in playing piano, she was unable to produce a sufficient degree of academic and musical growth to protect her place in the competitive high school. Efforts had been undertaken to identify her as having ADHD – Inattentive Type, but her overall performance in all domains was perpetually higher than average – just not high enough to keep her enrolled in the arts magnet high school.

Hyperactive/Impulsive Type Tomas’s friend, Kadir, provides real amplification of ADHD – Hyperactive/Impulsive Type. As aforementioned, he had failed to test beyond the cut-off score for participation in gifted and talented programs in school, although he did produce an overall academic record that was noteworthy enough for admission to an excellent university. In examining Kadir’s performance on two different intelligence measures over his school years, it was noted in each instance that he had rushed to complete the test items, and in one individualized test administration, he frequently had interrupted the examiner to provide answers to questions, causing him to fail many items because he impulsively wanted to deliver an answer quickly versus fully engaging with each question to be able

to offer a correct answer. Such haste is classically indicative of ADHD, and when one considers the fact that Kadir was known to be squirmy and restless in classrooms throughout his education, it is certainly plausible to think of him as grappling with ADHD – Hyperactive/Impulsive Type.

ADHD – Combined Type A student who demonstrates the inability to pay attention of Kenya, along with the impulsivity of Kadir, would have exponential challenges to confront in most academic settings. Schools usually demand conforming behaviors so that classroom operations are not impeded and teachers can spend time on instruction as opposed to controlling interruptive and even aberrant behaviors. Hence, ADHD – Combined Type may present the most challenging form of ADHD simply because interventions would need to be omnibus in form, addressing not only attentional problems, but also concerns with students having too much physical energy to comply with the rules of typical educational environments (Baum, Olenchak, & Owen, 2004; Webb et al., 2016).

IDENTIFICATION OF ADHD ADHD must be diagnosed by a mental health or medical provider and meet the criteria from the DSM-5 or the ICD-10. Psychologists or medical doctors can use a variety of methods to aid in identification, including clinical interviews, behavioral checklists, intelligence tests, and specific attention measures. Best practices include using these measures in tandem for multiple sources of data (Goldman, Genel, Bezman, & Slanetz, 1998).

Behavioral Rating Scales and Checklists Several rating scales exist to gather information from self, parent, and teacher reports

Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD

regarding attention concerns. Some of these include the Conners’ series (e.g., Conners’ Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scale; Conners, 2008), the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000), and the NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scale (National Institute for Children’s Health Quality, 2002). These scales typically pose questions related to ADHD-specific symptoms, as well as differential diagnoses for ruling out other disorders, such as anxiety or anger. The downside to using these checklists, especially if used in isolation, is that the questions are typically explicit and face valid, which could create a biased reporting if the reporter is leaning towards or away from a diagnosis. This is one of the reasons why it is imperative to gain multiple points of information (Goldman et al., 1998).

Neuropsychological and Psychoeducational Testing Intelligence tests, in combination with other attention specific measures, can be used to add data to the diagnostic picture of ADHD. There are no specific cut-off criteria for diagnosing ADHD as there are for giftedness, but deficits in working memory and processing speed are common in ADHD (Raiford, Weiss, Rolfhus, & Coalson, 2005). Furthermore, attention can be specifically examined by measures investigating sustained attention, such as a continuous performance task (e.g., Test of Variables of Attention [TOVA]; Leark, Greenberg, Kindschi, Dupuy, & Hughes, 2007), or switching attention, such as the Test of Everyday Attention (Robertson, NimmoSmith, Ward, & Ridgeway, 1994), or the Trail Making Test (Salthouse, 2011).

WHAT IS TWICE-EXCEPTIONALITY? Although twice-exceptionality is not a new topic, there is a dearth of knowledge and

135

information regarding the mechanisms behind having both a gift and a disability. Two conceptualizations exist currently, examining twice-exceptionality through a neurological and socio-cultural perspective. Gilger and Hynd (2008) posited twiceexceptionality through a neurological lens, stating that the concept of twice-­exceptionality falls under the umbrella of atypical brain development (ABD), which explains strengths and weaknesses in skill developmental variation. They consider, through this perspective, that variation is an accepted part of brain development, and thus twice-exceptionality is a ‘normal’ developmental process. The ABD concept explains that the developmental mechanisms that cause deficits are the same as those that create gifts, and therefore many ‘typical’ individuals have components of twice-exceptionality, although it often goes undetected. Gilger and Hynd’s conceptualization focuses on individual strengths and weaknesses and de-emphasizes specifying diagnoses. Specifically they state, ‘while diagnoses tell us something important about the person and they can provide research-based information and guidance, the ABD concept emphasizes a thorough, broad-spectrum analysis of each individual with the explicit aim to identify and track irregularities on both ends of the continuum’ (2008, p. 224, original emphasis). These authors support educational treatment planning based on individual strengths and weaknesses, but assert there is less benefit to diagnosing and labeling. Similar to Gilger and Hynd’s aim to explain giftedness and disability co-existing together within a specific context, Ronksley-Pavia (2015) used the medical and affirmative models of disability to frame twice-exceptionality in the broader context of social and cultural milieu. The author specifically focused on the weakness of definitions in the twice-­exceptional literature, and created a model situated in the child’s socio-cultural system at the time of diagnosis and intervention. Ronksley-Pavia stated, ‘Both giftedness and disability are

136

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

dynamic nonstatic conditions, which vary within and between individuals, and in differing situations depending on the prevailing social and cultural milieu’ (2015, p. 333). Due to variations in definitions and views on giftedness and disabilities, the author posited that culture affects the identification of and reaction to twice-exceptionality. In particular, depending on the culture and disability model to which the culture subscribes, the child may or may not be identified with a gift or disability, which then leads to the level of intervention or support provided. Indeed, Ronksley-Pavia’s (2015) assertions appear validated in studies on identification of either a gift or disability (Hartnett, Nelson, & Rinn, 2004; Rinn & Nelson, 2008). Without prompting, in a vignette that described gifted and ADHD characteristics, first year counseling psychology students and pre-service teachers were more likely to diagnose pathology only, rather than giftedness or twice-exceptionality. When prompted to consider giftedness, 46% of counseling students (Hartnett et al., 2004) and 29.4% of pre-service teachers (Rinn & Nelson, 2008) diagnosed giftedness or twice-exceptionality.

Identification Methods of TwiceExceptionality Due to the ambiguous definitions of twiceexceptionality and giftedness, identifying these students can be challenging. Regarding state identification of twice-exceptional students, McClain and Pfeiffer (2012) noted, ‘although most states acknowledge the difficulty in addressing the educational needs of these special students, few states have established specific guidelines or policies for identifying such twice-exceptional students’ (p. 75). The detection of both a gift and a disability, which sometimes conflict with one another, can cause identification issues in three subgroups of twice-exceptional students (Brody & Mills, 1997). The first group

is gifted ‘underachievers’, who are labeled gifted and their disability mis-diagnosed as another characteristic (e.g., motivation issues). These students increasingly struggle in school until, hopefully, their disability is uncovered. The second group has a disability identified, but their gifts are overshadowed or under-identified due to their disability. The authors charge that these students are ‘rarely’ referred for gifted services. Finally, the third group, which Brody and Mills characterize as the largest of the three subgroups, is made up of students who have gifts and disabilities that cancel each other out. These children are part of the general education pool and do not receive gifted or special education/accommodation services. The danger in not diagnosing a gift or disability is that as schooling progresses, students are not challenged, do not reach their personal potential, and may struggle as tasks become more challenging. Due to a gifted students’ particular set of strengths, diagnosis of a disability, especially a hidden, learning disability such as ADHD, may be difficult. For example, Chae, Kim, and Noh (2003) found academically gifted Korean students, as compared to non-gifted Korean students, performed better on the TOVA, a sustained attention measure typically used as part of a neuropsychological test for ADHD. These gifted students were better able to attend to the target stimuli, avoid making errors, demonstrate a consistent response pattern, and discriminate targets from non-targets. Thus, these students’ gifts theoretically could provide them with a higher baseline to complete tasks, and if tested for ADHD, their gifts have a potential to mask their hardship. This was demonstrated in the article by Milioni and colleagues ( 2017), in which twice-exceptional adults had less executive functioning issues as compared to non-gifted/ADHD subjects. On the opposite side, having symptoms of ADHD can negatively influence performance on intelligence tests, which in turn can cause intellectually gifted students to be overlooked due to reliance on IQ measures.

Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD

Frazier, Demaree, and Youngstrom (2004) conducted a meta-analysis on ADHD and IQ studies, and found a medium effect size (d = 0.61), demonstrating individuals with ADHD typically have a 9-point difference in full-scale IQ scores as compared to control groups, with the ADHD group scoring lower. If states use cut-off scores, particularly a single cut-off score for intelligence tests, individuals who are gifted and have ADHD may not be identified as a gifted individual due to their ADHD symptoms interfering with their performance.

DUALLY GIFTED AND TALENTED AND ADHD As evidenced in all four of the cases synopsized above – Tomas, Tien, Kadir, and Kenya, there is little doubt that each young person demonstrated characteristics illustrative of giftedness and talent as well as of ADHD. Tomas and Tien, thanks to the diligence of the educators in their lives, were able to ameliorate difficulties they had in satisfying academic requirements – Tomas due to lack of organizational skills and Tien due to boredom with routines. Each of them had the benefit of being able to satisfy gateway requirements for suitable educational provisions for giftedness and talent development. In Tomas’s case, he was able to comply with testing conditions so that his superior intellectual capacity could be assessed with some degree of accuracy, thereby qualifying him for school gifted and talented accommodations. For Tien, her progressive elementary and middle schools utilized her inherent giftedness in music as a foundation for developing her talents in singing and composing. In contrast, however, neither Kadir nor Kenya were served appropriately in schools, their giftedness masked by their ADHD. Yet, while Kadir managed to balance his ADHD so that his collegiate performance has been outstanding, Kenya still struggles to do so.

137

Decidedly, the overlap of giftedness with ADHD is one issue, but also the reality that the traits of giftedness and talent can easily be confused with those of ADHD exacerbate the potential for misdiagnoses and resulting educational mistreatment. Is Tomas’s organizational trouble truly a trait of ADHD, or is it more representative of a person with very high intellectual potential not bothering to grasp the utility of the mundane tasks often part of organizing tools, materials, and thoughts? Is Tien’s tendency to drift away from paying attention more representative of ADHD or of sheer boredom with topics and tasks that are not of interest to her? Is Kadir’s haste and fidgeting in answering questions on intelligence tests indicative of ADHD or of frustration with dull procedures? Is Kenya’s wayward attention to detail supportive of an ADHD diagnosis, or is it more a case of her feeling as though she would prefer to focus on her own interests? The fact is giftedness/talent and ADHD of all types are often suggested by the same collections of behaviors, and the same stimuli frequently produce responses that can be categorized either as giftedness and talent, ADHD, or both (Baum, Olenchak, & Owen, 2004; Lee & Olenchak, 2014; Webb et  al., 2016). A conceptualization of overlapping symptoms can be taken from Dabrowski’s theory of overexcitabilities (1967; Mendaglio & Tillier, 2006), in which gifted students demonstrate emotional, intellectual, and imaginational overexcitabilities. These overexcitabilities manifest in strong emotions, heightened activity, and daydreaming, which are also some of the symptoms of ADHD. While the behaviors may manifest similarly or overlap, the etiology of the behaviors demonstrate distinct concerns. For an individual who is gifted, fidgeting, inattention, and frustration may be a sign of boredom or not being challenged. On the other hand, there may be neurological manifestations of the same behaviors for those diagnosed with ADHD.

138

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON GIFTEDNESS AND ADHD There are only two research articles known to the chapter authors that addresses more than two comparative groups in assessing twice-exceptionality of giftedness and ADHD. The first, from Zentall and colleagues (2001), which is considered a ‘hallmark’ article in giftedness and ADHD, used qualitative methods to examine characteristics of giftedness and ADHD in boys aged 8 to 10. Nine subjects were categorized into (1) an ADHD-only group, (2) a giftedness-only group, and (3) a gifted and ADHD group (hereby known as GT/ADHD). With parent and teacher ratings, and parent, teacher, and student interviews, Zentall and associates described a number of characteristics of each group. ADHD-only and GT/ADHD groups were differentiated from the gifted-only group by being described as underachievers and inattentive. These groups, as compared to the gifted-only group, said they disliked homework, showed a preference for working with others, and stated they enjoyed social and kinesthetic stimulation. The gifted-only group was described as liking school and math, and as having a preference for working alone. In the GT/ADHD group, giftedness did not serve as a protective factor for underachievement, starting and organizing assignments, and sustaining attention. Furthermore, Zentall and colleagues described talents as helping the GT/ADHD group in increasing attentional focus and persistence. The article by Whitaker, Bell, Houskamp, and O’Callaghan (2015) is the other study to examine the three comparative groups of giftedness, ADHD, and GT/ADHD. These researchers focused on verbal memory processes measured through neuropsychological evaluations and had a sample of 125 total participants. They found twice-exceptional individuals performed better on strategic verbal memory tasks than those with ADHD-only, but worse than those identified as gifted-only.

Whitaker and colleagues provided implications of their study, stating giftedness may act as a protective factor against some of the symptoms of ADHD. However, there may be expectations placed on twice-exceptional students to perform at a higher level due to their giftedness. Most of the other studies found compare twice-exceptional students to gifted-only students. These studies discovered twiceexceptional students are more likely to repeat a grade, be placed in a special education setting, need an academic tutor, have higher rates of affective mood disorders, and demonstrate behavioral problems (Antshel et al., 2007; Antshel et al., 2009; Moon et al., 2001). These twice-exceptional students also reported lower positive self-esteem and self-concept, overall happiness, sense of well-being, and life satisfaction (Antshel et  al., 2009; Foley-Nicpon et  al., 2012). As expected, twice-exceptional individuals perform worse than their high-IQ, non-ADHD counterparts on neuropsychological tests that measure executive functioning (Antshel et al., 2010; Fugate, Zentall, & Gentry, 2013), but students identified as having both giftedness and ADHD exhibited greater creativity than gifted students without ADHD characteristics (Fugate et al., 2013).

WHAT IS UNKNOWN IN THE LITERATURE With the current area of literature, the field of twice-exceptional work investigating giftedness and ADHD has created a solid foundation of research; however, much remains unknown. The field lacks quantitative studies examining this phenomenon, with the majority of the work focusing on case studies. There also are no studies known to the authors that have the three control groups necessary to examine giftedness and ADHD; these control groups include giftedness only,

Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD

ADHD only, and non-giftedness/non-ADHD participants. Furthermore, giftedness/ADHD has not been broken down and examined at more nuanced levels. Most of the studies identified academically gifted students, not artistically or creatively gifted individuals. In addition, few studies examine the subtypes of ADHD (i.e., inattentive presentation, hyperactive-impulsive presentation, combined presentation). It is also unknown what the long-term implications are of twice-exceptionality, as most studies are cross-sectional and no articles identified by the authors have investigated giftedness/ADHD longitudinally. As a consequence, we do not know how identification of twice-exceptionality at different times of life affect life, school, and psychological functioning.

Barriers to Measurement of Twice-Exceptionality One reason the literature on twice-exceptional students is small has to do with barriers to measurement and research. The first and foremost problem with creating a large research area in this field is that there is not a clearly articulated and accepted definition of twice-exceptionality (Foley-Nicpon et  al., 2011; McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012). There are multiple domains for both giftedness (e.g., academic, artistic) and disability (e.g., learning disability, ADHD, autism spectrum ­disorder), which make creating an operationalized definition difficult. Furthermore, both conceptualizations of twice-exceptionality presented earlier (Gilger & Hynd, 2008; Ronksley-Pavia, 2015) de-emphasize or present issues with diagnosing and labeling, which only adds to the definition issue. Another barrier to measurement involves identification of twice-exceptional students. Due to giftedness and disability being often times on opposing ends of the educational spectrum, the two diagnoses can mask each other or downplay certain characteristics,

139

which can ultimately impede correct identification (Brody & Mills, 1997). As RonksleyPavia (2015) mentioned, culture plays a significant role in the identification of twiceexceptionality, and it is only with the support of parents, medical and mental health providers, and educational structures that children are accurately identified as part of this group. Finally, comparison groups and sampling issues are a third issue for measurement. Even when a sample of identified twice-exceptional students is procured, having three additional comparison groups (i.e., gifted-only, ADHD-only, non-gifted and non-ADHD) requires a higher number of participants, which may be difficult to find. At times, researchers may use potentially biased sampling techniques to fill sample requirements (Rommelse et al., 2016). Unless researchers spend their resources on the correct identification of giftedness and ADHD, researchers seeking participants in these different groups typically have to rely on previously gathered information (e.g., IQ tests, ADHD screenings and diagnoses), which in turn may limit their ability to draw conclusions and generalize.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION Going back to the case examples, Tomas and Tien were both identified early in their respective educational programs as being suitable candidates for gifted and talented services, and it seems it served them well in their later development, while the fact that Kadir and Kenya were not identified to receive gifted and talented services or ADHD interventions seems to have at least delayed their development. Hence, several implied questions emerge that demand additional practice and new research: 1 Does fairly early identification of and provision of educational services for giftedness and talent help to alleviate ADHD or ADHD-like behaviors?

140

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

2 Does fairly early ADHD identification create a pathway for actualization of giftedness and talent development? 3 Is it more critical to identify and accommodate giftedness and talent or ADHD in educational environments? Might focusing more on one (giftedness/talent or ADHD) suffice in accommodating the other?

Until there are substantial global efforts to examine these and other unknowns about the overlap of giftedness/talent with ADHD, it is likely that students will at least occasionally become lost in their own developmental needs. Professionals in education and psychology along with parents will be unlikely to know how to intervene to promote adjusted development, and a population of young people – unless they are somehow fortunate like the four cases described here – will probably be underdeveloped into and perhaps throughout adulthood. The overall impact on humankind of missing out on the potential contributions of these individuals is astonishing, if not depressing.

REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders (5th edn). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Antshel, K. M., Faraone, S. V., Maglione, K., Doyle, A., Fried, R., Seidman, L., & Biederman, J. (2009). Is adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a valid diagnosis in the presence of high IQ? Psychological Medicine, 39(8), 1325–1335. doi:10.1017/ S0033291708004959. Antshel, K. M., Faraone, S. V., Maglione, K., Doyle, A., Fried, R., Seidman, L., & Biederman, J. (2010). Executive functioning in high-IQ adults with ADHD. Psychological Medicine, 40(11), 1909–1918. doi:10.1017/ S0033291709992273 Antshel, K. M., Faraone, S. V., Stallone, K., Nave, A., Kaufmann, F. A., Doyle, A., … Biederman, J. (2007). Is attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder a valid diagnosis in the presence of high IQ? Results from the MGH longitudinal family studies of ADHD. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(7), 687–694. doi:10.1111.j.1469-7610.2007. 01735.x Barkley, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., & McMurray, M. B. (1990). Comprehensive evaluation of Attention deficit disorder with and without hyperactivity as defined by research criteria. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58(6), 775–789. Baum, S. M., Olenchak, F. R., & Owen, S. V. (2004). Gifted students with attention deficits: Fact and/or fiction? Or, can we see the forest for the trees? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(2), 96–104. Bianco, M. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers’ referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 285–293. Binet, A. (1909). L’intelligence des imbecile. L’année psychologique, 15, 1–14. Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 282–296. Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C. H. (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 68–79. Callahan, C. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 98–104. Chae, P. K., Kim, J., & Noh, K. (2003). Diagnosis of ADHD among gifted children in relation to KEDI-WISC and T.O.V.A. performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(3), 192–201. doi:10.1177/001698620304700303 Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales Manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Heath Systems. Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality-shaping through positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Erwin, J. O., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 74–87.

Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD

Foley-Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3–17. doi:10.1177/0016986210382575. Foley-Nicpon, M., Rickels, H., Assouline, S. G., & Richards, A. (2012). Self-esteem and selfconcept examination among gifted students with ADHD. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 220–240. doi:10.1177/ 0162353212451735 Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289–306. Frazier, T. W., Demaree, H. A., & Youngstrom, E. A. (2004). Meta-analysis of intellectual and neuropsychological test performance in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Neuropsychology, 18(3), 543–555. doi: 10/1037/0894-4105.18.3.543. Fugate, C. M., Zentall, S. S., & Gentry, M. (2013). Creativity and working memory in gifted students with and without characteristics of Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder: Lifting the mask. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 234–246. doi: 10.1177.0016986213500069. Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103–112. Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd edn), pp. 60– 74. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent Development and Excellence, 3(1), 3–22. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gilger, J. W., & Hynd, G. W. (2008). Neurodevelopmental variation as a framework for thinking about the twice exceptional. Roeper Review, 30(4), 214–228. doi: 10.1080/02783190802363893. Gilliam, J. E., Carpenter, B. O., & Christensen, J. R. (1996). Gifted and talented evaluation scales. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

141

Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychology, 6(3), 235–238. doi: 10/1076.chin. 6.3.235.3152. Goldman, L. S., Genel, M., Bezman, R. J., & Slantez, P. J. (1998). Diagnosis and treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in children and adolescents. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(14), 1100–1107. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. Hartnett, D. N., Nelson, J. M., & Rinn, A. N. (2004). Gifted or ADHD? The possibilities of misdiagnosis. Roeper Review, 26(2), 73–76. doi:10.1080/0278319049554245. Houston Independent School District. (2017). The High School for the Performing and Visual Arts audition requirements. Retrieved from http://www.houstonisd.org/Page/ 85612 Kaufman, S. B., Reynolds, M. R., Liu, X., Kaufman, A. S., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). Are cognitive g and academic achievement g one and the same g? An exploration on the Woodcock–Johnson and Kaufman tests. Intelligence, 40(2), 123–138. Leark, R. A., Greenberg, L. K., Kindschi, C. L., Dupuy, T. R., & Hughes, S. J. (2007). Test of variables of attention: Professional manual. Los Alamitos: The TOVA Company. Lee, K. M., & Olenchak, F. R. (2014). Individuals with a gifted/attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis: Identification, performance, outcomes, and interventions. Gifted Education International, 31(3), 185–199. Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education (and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education), 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (Government Documents Y4.L 11/2: G36). McCarney, S. B. & Anderson, P. D. (1998). The Gifted Evaluation Scale (2nd edn): Technical manual. Columbia, MO: Hawthorne Educational Services. McClain, M., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies,

142

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 59–88. Doi: 10/1080/15377903.2012.643757. Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2006). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitability research findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(1), 68–87. Milioni, A. L. V., Chaim, T. M., Cavallet, M., de Oliveira, N. M., Annes, M., dos Santos, …. B. Cunha, P. J. (2017). High IQ may ‘mask’ the diagnosis of ADHD by compensating for deficits in executive functions in treatmentnaïve adults with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 21(6), 455–464. doi: 10.1177/1087054714554933. Moon, S. M., Zentall, S. S., Grskovic, J. A., Hall, A., & Stormont, M. (2001). Emotional and social characteristics of boys with AD/HD and giftedness: A comparative case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24(3), 207–247. National Institute for Children’s Health Quality [NICHQ] (2002). NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scales. Retrieved from http://www. nichq.org/resource/nichq-vanderbilt-assessmentscales Olenchak, R., Jacobs, L. T., Hussain, M., Lee, K. M., & Gaa, J. (2016). Giftedness plus talent plus disabilities. In D. Ambrose & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization, pp. 255–279. Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Raiford, S. E., Weiss, L. G., Rolfhus, E., & Coalson, D. (2005). General ability index (WISCIV Technical Report No. 4). Retrieved from http://pearsonassessmentsupport.com/support/index.php?View=files&CategoryID=235 Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261. Renzulli, J. S. (1988). A decade of dialogue on the three-ring conception of giftedness. Roeper Review, 11(1), 18–25. Renzulli, J. S. (1990). A practical system for identifying gifted and talented students.

Early Child Development and Care, 63(1), 9–18. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., Gavin, M. K., & Reed, R. E. S. (2009). An investigation of the reliability and factor structure of four new scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(1), 84–108. Rinn, A. N., & Nelson, J. M. (2008). Preservice teachers’ perception of behaviors characteristic of ADHD and giftedness. Roeper Review, 31(1), 18–26. doi:10.1080/02783190802527349. Robertson, I. H., Nimmo-Smith, I., Ward, T., & Ridgeway, V. (1994). Test of Everyday Attention (TEA). London: Pearson. Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35(1), 83–92. Rommelse, N., van der Kruijs, M., Damhuis, J., Hoek, I., Smeets, S., Antshel, K. M., & Faraone, S. V. (2016). An evidenced-based perspective on the validity of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder in the context of high intelligence. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 71, 21–47. doi: 10.1016/ j.neubiorev.2016.08.032. Ronksley-Pavia, M. (2015). A model of twiceexceptionality: Explaining and defining the apparent paradoxical combination of disability and giftedness in childhood. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 318–340. doi: 10.1177/0162353215592499. Salthouse, T. A. (2011). What cognitive abilities are involved in trail-making performance? Intelligence, 39(4), 222–232. doi: 10/1016/j. intell.2011.03.001. Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th edn). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc. Saudi ADHD Society. (2017). ICD-10 ADHD Diagnostic Criteria. Retrieved from http:// adhd.org.sa/en/adhd/resources/diagnosingadhd/diagnostic-criteria/icd-10-criteria/

Accepting Exceptionality: Giftedness and ADHD

Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2014a). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2014b). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Torrance, P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.ststesting.com/ngifted.html. U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. Retrieved from https://www2. ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html Visser, S. N., Danielson, M. L., Bitsko, R. H., Holbrook, J. R., Kogan, M. D., Ghandour, R. M., Perou, R. & Blumberg, S. J. (2013). Trends in the parent-report of health care providerdiagnosed and medicated attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder: United States, 2003– 2011. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(1), 34–46. Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Beljan, P., Webb, N. E., Kuzujanakis, M., Olenchak, F. R., & Goerss, J.

143

(2016). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD, Bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, Depression, and other disorders (2nd edn). Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition. San Antonio TX: Pearson. Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. Whitaker, A. M., Bell, T. S., Houskamp, B. M., & O’Callaghan, E. T. (2015). A neurodevelopmental approach to understanding memory processes among intellectually gifted youth with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 4(1), 31– 40. doi: 10.1080/21622965.2013.790821. World Health Organization. (2016). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121–136. Zentall, S. S., Moon, S. M., Hall, A. M., & Grskovic, J. A. (2001). Learning and motivational characteristics of boys with AD/HD and/or giftedness. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 499–519.

12 Hidden Treasures: Twice Exceptional Students Linda Kreger Silverman

INTRODUCTION It seems paradoxical to think that a child can be gifted and learning disabled at the same time. Some educators and policy makers find the possible co-existence of these exceptionalities so inconceivable that they only permit children to receive services for one or the other, not both. The problem stems from how we define giftedness. When we think gifted students are only those who achieve high marks throughout school, twice exceptional children slip under our radar. They tend to be late bloomers, not distinguishing themselves in the early grades. Later on, they do well in some courses and poorly in others. Mistaken for ‘underachievers’, they are exhorted to ‘work harder’, when, actually, they are peddling as fast as they can. They may struggle with reading or writing or mathematics, which affects not only their achievement, but also their self-concept. They often feel stupid. Everything takes them longer than anyone

else. Many give up. ‘What’s the point of trying?’ It takes a different lens to recognize twice exceptional children. We need to see the child, not just the child’s performance. When giftedness is defined as developmental advancement or exceptional abstract reasoning ability or asynchronous development, it becomes readily apparent that children can have brilliant minds combined with blindness, deafness, physical handicaps, psychological disorders, and any number of learning disabilities. Giftedness provides no immunity against physical disease or accidents that can impair functioning. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the twice exceptional is that their disabilities enable them to see the world differently. Innovators are often dyslexic or dysgraphic or dysfluent, etc., and their genius is actually due to their disabilities (Davis, 2010; Eide & Eide, 2011; West, 2009). They experience profound relief when they learn that there is a reason for their struggles. ‘You mean I’m

Hidden Treasures: Twice Exceptional Students

not dumb?’ ‘I’m not lazy?’ ‘It’s not because I don’t try hard enough?’ Without identification, they feel flawed. The right interventions can help enormously. Twice exceptional children often progress rapidly in various therapies. Accommodations in the classroom are also essential for their success. These diamonds in the rough need to be prized and supported.

HOW MANY TWICE EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS ARE THERE? It is difficult to obtain a census of 2e learners. We do not even know how many gifted children there are, since efforts to identify them are sporadic worldwide. In all countries, there is more recognition of, and support for, learning disabilities. We are aware of the most astonishing examples of twice exceptionality, such as Stephen Hawking – the brilliant theoretical physicist who was diagnosed with ALS shortly after his 21st birthday. The vast majority of 2e children, however, are invisible – not identified as either gifted or disabled. High intelligence masks disabilities; the twice exceptional use their abstract reasoning to find another way to problem solve (e.g., suppressing vision in one eye when they see double). And disabilities depress scores on intelligence and achievement tests, as well as performance in the classroom. Giftedness and learning disabilities seem to cancel each other out, making these children appear average. Hidden in the regular classroom, without access to services for either exceptionality, 2e children cannot be counted or served. Our world contains around 7.5 billion people. Conservatively, 3 percent of them – 225 million – are gifted. If we use a very conservative estimate of the incidence of disability in the gifted population (5 percent), then 2e learners globally number at least 11,250,000. Research at the Gifted Development Center (GDC) suggests that this is an underestimate.

145

In the first ten years, when our assessment services were sought primarily to determine if children qualified for schools for the gifted or university enrichment programs, one-sixth of 1400 children tested were gifted and learning disabled (Silverman, 1989). In another study, one-sixth of the fathers of 240 exceptionally gifted children (160+ IQ) identified themselves as dyslexic (Rogers & Silverman, 1997). As dyslexia has a strong hereditary component, it is safe to assume that many of their exceptionally gifted offspring were also dyslexic. Today, over 90 percent of the children we test at GDC are 2e. Estimates of the incidence of 2e children in the U.S. school population range from 360,000 to several million (Silverman, 2013b). Even the most conservative estimate of twice exceptionality in the world population (.001 percent) is 7.5 million. There has been an explosion of interest in 2e children worldwide. Twice exceptionality is on the rise.

SIGNS OF LEARNING DISABILITY IN THE GIFTED I have been sensitized to dual exceptionality throughout my entire career. The first day I visited the University of Southern California in 1969 to pursue a degree in special education, I was introduced to one of the professors in the following manner: ‘This is Linda Silverman. She is interested in studying learning disabilities in the gifted’. He looked me in the eye and immediately retorted, ‘What you should be studying is giftedness in the learning disabled’. This is true. At least 3 percent of nearly any exceptionality is likely to be gifted. And, chances are, their education is focused on remediating their weaknesses instead of developing their gifts. Actually, we should be looking for disabilities in the gifted, giftedness in the disabled, and frustrated children in the general classroom, as well, where they pass for average students. We need to know what to look for.

146

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

In 2010, GDC began developing a checklist for recognizing twice exceptional children, which has gone through several revisions (Gilman & Peters, 2018; Silverman, Gilman & Maxwell, 2016). The first section contains the general characteristics of 2e learners, regardless of the nature of the disability. The next six sections delineate symptoms of the disabilities we see most frequently in schoolage gifted children: visual processing weaknesses, auditory processing weaknesses, sensory processing weaknesses, AD/HD, dyslexia or stealth dyslexia, and autistic spectrum disorder (including Asperger Syndrome) [http://www.gifteddevelopment. com/sites/default/files/Checklist%20for%20 Twice%20Exceptional%20Children_0.pdf]. Among the 15 general characteristics are items such as: • Appears smarter than grades or test scores suggest • Has a sophisticated speaking vocabulary but weaker written expression • Has uneven academic skills, inconsistent grades and test scores • Performs poorly on timed tests, but does well when given sufficient time • Excels in one subject, and may appear average in others • Performs well with challenging work; struggles with easy material • Needs unusual parental support to complete homework • Has wonderful ideas, with poor follow-through on implementation • Has facility with computers, but illegible handwriting • Thrives on complexity; has difficulty with rote memorization • Understands concepts easily and gets frustrated with performance requirements • Fatigues quickly due to the energy required to compensate

Visual processing weaknesses include difficulties with reading comprehension, losing one’s place while reading, skipping lines, mixing up plus and minus signs, misaligning numbers in calculations, poor spacing when writing,

inaccurate copying from the board, and putting one’s face close to the paper. At GDC, we refer more children for vision evaluations than any other type of further assessment. Some signs of Central Auditory Processing Disorder are mispronunciations, asking for repetitions, confusing similar sounding words, misunderstanding information, watching other students to find out what to do, a weak grasp of phonics, poor spelling, and exhaustion after prolonged listening. Sensory Processing Disorder can be seen in symptoms such as clumsiness, illegible handwriting, odd pencil grip, wearing only soft clothes, discomfort with crowds, being easily overstimulated, low energy, inability to sit up straight, and lack of athletic skills. Some AD/HD symptoms are impulsivity, fidgetiness, difficulty remaining seated, acts as if driven by a motor, a need for constant novelty, distractibility, forgetfulness, spacing out, and inability to focus unless interested. Typically, children who are dyslexic struggle to learn sound-symbol relations, are anxious about reading aloud, leave out words when reading, spell the same word in several different ways, have trouble learning to read analog clocks, confuse right and left, and read at a lower level than would be expected by their ability. Children on the autistic spectrum, including those who have been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, usually struggle to read social cues. They tend to be rigid: once a decision is made, it is very difficult to change it. Unexpected changes often elicit strong emotional stress. They may have flat affect or limited eye contact. They tend to be literal, black-and-white thinkers, who have difficulty understanding inferences. Rarely do we see 2e children with just one disability. So the term ‘twice exceptional’ should not be taken literally. More often than not, these children exhibit constellations of weaknesses in several areas. It is possible to be gifted and have symptoms of all the disabilities listed, plus one or more psychological disorders. Twice exceptional children are exceptionally complex.

Hidden Treasures: Twice Exceptional Students

THE IMPORTANCE OF EARLY DETECTION The key to optimal development of children with any type of disability is early intervention. This principal is known throughout the world. For example, universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) is legally mandated in many European nations, various countries in Asia and most states in the U.S. (Ptok, 2011). Children with hearing impairments are at risk for cognitive, language and social deficits (Downs, 1985). Hearingimpaired children who were recognized and treated before 6 months of age have higher IQ scores than those who were discovered later (Yoshinaga-Itano, Sedey, Coulter & Mehl, 1998). ‘Today it is axiomatic that hearing impairment should be detected and treated as early as possible’ (Ptok, 2011, p. 426). Dr Marion Downs was considered the ‘godfather’ of infant auditory screening. She helped me understand how chronic ear infections in toddlers can have long-term negative consequences (Silverman, 2002). Ear infections should be taken seriously. The earlier ear infections begin (e.g., before 6 months), the greater their number and the greater the degree of severity, the more at-risk the child for Central Auditory ­ Processing Disorder, attentional deficits and underachievement. In the United States, federal programs such as Child Find are available for children from birth and actively search for children eligible for special education services. Child Find locates preschool children whose disabilities are evident, but misses most 2e children, as their weaknesses are not apparent until they are of school age. Since typical children may take a few years to master the skills of reading, writing, spelling and calculation, a bright child who is taking a little longer to obtain mastery goes undetected. Teachers think, ‘they’re smart; they will catch up eventually’. Without early detection, there is no early intervention, and the twice-exceptional

147

child’s early experiences with school are painful and demoralizing. To detect 2e children in early childhood requires that we recognize giftedness in young children. The common equation of giftedness with achievement makes giftedness a school-based concept, and prevents the detection of developmentally advanced children in early childhood. However, parents can detect giftedness well before school age. Alomar (2003) reports that some parents in Kuwait recognized giftedness in their children as early as 3 months of age. An excellent body of research on developmental differences in gifted and average children has accumulated over the last few decades, pinpointing characteristics of gifted infants and toddlers: • Alertness (Louis, 1993) • High newborn cry count (Robinson, 1993) • Rapid habituation to visual stimuli (Lewis & Louis, 1991) • Longer attention span for novel stimuli (Tannenbaum, 1992) • Faster progression from reflexive to intentional behavior (Berche Cruz, 1987) • Early receptive language (A. W. Gottfried, A. E. Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994) • Advanced progression through the developmental milestones (Alomar, 2003).

(See Silverman, 2013b, for a more extensive list of early indicators of giftedness.) The Fullerton Longitudinal Study (Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994) found that developmental differences between gifted and non-gifted children documented at 18 months predicted differences in ability and achievement in elementary school. Early intervention is important for optimal development of the gifted as well. If we valued giftedness, we would actively seek its manifestations in young children and provide free access to assessment. We would develop Child Find programs internationally to scout for children of promise. Another shift in perspective to help us locate twice exceptional children early is

148

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

understanding that giftedness, like disabilities, runs in families (Silverman, 2013b). Instead of comparing a child to the developmental norms for average children, it is instructive to compare the child’s development to that of siblings. Did the child begin to speak much later than brothers and sisters? If so, an audiological evaluation is in order. Were all members of the family early readers except for one? A vision evaluation would be helpful to rule out visual processing deficits as the reason. Did the other children in the family develop a preferred hand by four years old, but one child keeps switching hands? A sensory processing evaluation with an occupational therapist would determine the cause and offer the cure. As norms for average children have very broad age ranges, comparing the child to members of the family enables much earlier detection of disabilities. Disabilities can be inherited, so it is also important to seek early assessment when there is a family history of visual, auditory, fine motor, gross motor, reading or mathematical deficits or other disorders. Family histories should be taken routinely to determine the degree of giftedness and the presence of disabilities in the family. Visual-motor weaknesses are more common in gifted boys than in gifted girls (Terrassier, 1985) and can be remediated more successfully if the child has sensory integration therapy before the age of 7. Some symptoms are: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Clumsiness Lack of coordination Poor balance Delayed choice of handedness Inability to cross the midline of the body without switching hands Poor pencil grip Slow handwriting speed Difficulty handling scissors Difficulty drawing simple figures Avoiding fine motor tasks Inability to ride a two-wheeled bicycle Watching instead of playing in sport activities.

The mindset, ‘He’s smart; he’ll outgrow these problems,’ prevents early intervention. Down the road the child is likely to resist writing, have illegible handwriting, underachieve, be poor at athletics, be teased by other children and develop poor self-esteem. Early detection and treatment can change lives.

ASSESSMENT Having a lifelong passion for the gifted, and obtaining a PhD in special education have allowed me to view the intersection of giftedness and learning disabilities through a somewhat different lens. I was trained to understand modality strengths and weaknesses, which is not part of the education of most psychologists. Children with large discrepancies between verbal and performance measures used to be labeled Nonverbal Learning Disorder (NVLD) – even if no other signs of NVLD were present. As all of the performance items were administered visually, I wondered about visual processing issues and sent a lot of ‘NVLD’ kids to optometrists for vision evaluation and treatment. Performance scores frequently improved; so did verbal scores, and the gap between them decreased (Silverman, 2017). The inattentive type of AD/HD shares many characteristics with Central Auditory Processing Disorder (Silverman, 2002). I would rather rule out auditory issues before diagnosing a child with AD/HD. At GDC, we collect a considerable amount of information on the child’s history of chronic otitis media (ear infections) and I have studied the impact of otitis media on IQ (Silverman, 1996). I was given a gift of Scott Barry Kaufman’s (2013), Ungifted, and read on the first page of the Prologue, ‘By the age of 3, I’d already had twenty-one ear infections’ (p. xv). Scott may be presented to the world as a great example of grit overcoming a low IQ, but I see him as quintessentially twice exceptional. His IQ score is obviously wrong.

Hidden Treasures: Twice Exceptional Students

IQ scores of twice exceptional children are rarely accurate. We have tested over 6500 gifted children at GDC over the last 39 years, and we never put in our reports, ‘This is a valid estimate’. Too many factors can render an IQ an underestimate. (See Silverman, 2018 for a more comprehensive discussion.) Instead of blindly trusting objective-sounding numbers, diagnosticians need to understand the characteristics of the population they are assessing, and measure the accuracy of test scores against their clinical judgment (Silverman, 2013a). When test scores don’t match what the examiner sees and experiences, that’s when the detective work begins. What indications are there that the child is actually brighter than these scores? Developmental milestones in parent questionnaires usually offer ample evidence of higher ability. What constellation of factors could be pulling down the child’s scores? Are there parts of other tests that can tease out the child’s giftedness or pinpoint a weakness? What specialists can I refer this child to who can rule in or out suspected disabilities? There are many nuances in interpreting test scores for 2e learners. The greatest hurdle to overcome is the standard practice of comparing the child to the norms for average children. This practice is so ingrained in diagnosticians in every field that no one even thinks to question it. Everyone asks, ‘How does this child’s scores compare to the norms?’ If the scores fall within the normative range, no disability is detected. To accurately diagnose a twice exceptional child requires a completely different diagnostic question: ‘To what extent do the discrepancies between the child’s strengths and his or her weaknesses cause frustration and interfere with the full development of the child’s abilities?’ (Gilman et  al., 2013; Silverman, 1998; Silverman, 2009b). By comparing the child’s highest and lowest performance, the extent of the disability can be seen – even if the lowest scores are in the average range. For the last 20 years, I have called this ‘an

149

intrapersonal view of testing’ as opposed to the normative view (Silverman, 1998). Group tests are likely to miss 2e children. This population requires individual IQ tests to find giftedness, as well as to document specific learning disabilities. They perform much better on untimed than timed tests. They cannot be rushed. Their performance is affected by their relationship with the examiner. They are easily distracted by noise in the building, flickering lights, or an uncomfortable chair. In my travels, I have noticed high noise levels in school buildings where children are assessed. Perhaps people are unaware that noise has a negative impact on IQ scores. Low test ceilings on IQ tests make it hard to locate 2e children. The twice exceptional usually display a pattern of hits and misses, often missing easy items and passing harder ones. They frequently pass some of the hardest items on an IQ test, never reaching the discontinue point, but miss a number of items along the way, so they don’t attain the highest scores. Room at the top is essential. If an examinee can answer the hardest questions on the test, this tells us more about giftedness than the IQ scores. The most popular IQ test worldwide for identifying the gifted is Raven’s Progressive Matrices, but it only generates scores up to 135. The fifth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (SB5) has a higher ceiling, but tends to generate lower scores than the Wechsler scales. The Differential Ability Scales (DAS) and British Ability Scales (BAS), both developed by Colin Elliott, have a full year higher ceiling (nearly 18) than the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), which tops out before 17. A further advantage of Elliott’s instruments is that processing speed is not included in the Full Scale IQ score. It is nearly impossible to find 2e children on timed tests. Group measures and the fifth edition of the WISC (WISC-V) are heavily timed. In modern testing, short discontinue criteria have become popular to shorten

150

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

administration time. Twice exceptional individuals suffer the most from this new policy. With their pattern of hits and misses, the examiner stops offering items after they have missed two or three, and they are never given the opportunity to demonstrate how much they actually know. One child we tested at GDC answered six items correctly on Matrix Reasoning on the WISC-V after reaching the discontinue point, and could not receive credit for these items. We test low-income, culturally diverse children for an inner-city preschool gifted program. We use a short form of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scale (RIAS), which requires the examiner to stop after the child misses two items. We always offer items beyond the discontinue criteria to test the limits of the child’s abilities. Ignoring discontinue criteria, one child’s composite score jumped from 119 to 156, and another from 118 to 153! (Silverman, 2009b). After we shared this information with Cecil Reynolds, he increased the discontinue criteria on the RIAS-2. Gifted children with even slight visual deficiencies attain lower scores on tests that are primarily visual, such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices, the Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test, and the WISC-V. Their highest scores are almost always in the untimed verbal sections. In attempts to make IQ tests culturally fair, fewer verbal and more nonverbal, visually presented items comprise modern Full Scale IQ scores on the major IQ tests. Yet, we have found that African refugees scored in the gifted range on the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) of the WISC-IV and significantly lower on the visual sections: the Perceptual Reasoning Index and the Processing Speed Index. Full Scale IQ scores are utterly meaningless for twice exceptional children (Silverman, 2018). When composite scores vary 23 points on a Wechsler scale (1.5 SD), the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is rendered uninterpretable (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004). In Giftedness 101 (Silverman, 2013b), I suggested that a 30-point discrepancy among

composite scores (2 SD) should be used as the criterion for determining twice exceptionality. An alternate criterion would be a 9-point discrepancy (3 SD) between an individual’s highest and lowest subtest scores. High and low scores need to be viewed separately rather than averaged. Averaging scores masks both giftedness and learning disabilities. Superior scores should be perceived as evidence of the child’s giftedness and low scores as indications of the child’s weaknesses (Silverman, 1998). To document the child’s giftedness, it is often necessary to give supplemental subtests in order to derive expanded composite scores. Two expanded composite scores were developed for the WISC-V with gifted children in mind; the norms were posted on Pearson Assessments’ website, August, 2015, in Technical Report #1 (Raiford, Drozdick, Zhang, & Zhou, 2015). A new ‘Gifted Index’ for the WISC-V was introduced at the National Association for Gifted Children conference in 2017 (Silverman, Raiford & Falk, 2017). Expanded composite scores are independently appropriate for selection to gifted programs and qualify highly gifted children for the Davidson Young Scholars program. The WISC-IV has extended norms designed to identify highly, exceptionally and profoundly gifted children (Zhu, J., Cayton, T., Weiss, L., & Gabel, A., 2008). With extended norms, gifted children receive credit for all raw score points earned beyond the top scaled score of 19. Scaled scores extend to 28, and composite scores to 210. The extended norms were posted in Technical Report #7, February, 2008. We are currently collecting data to help Pearson Assessments create extended norms for the WISC-V. The fifth edition of the StanfordBinet Intelligence Scale has extended norms for the gifted, and they are planned for the sixth edition (personal communication, G. Roid, October 13, 2017). Unfortunately, expanded composite scores and extended norms are not publicized, so

Hidden Treasures: Twice Exceptional Students

few psychologists are aware of them. These extended and expanded scores are particularly important for twice exceptional children, as gaining a more accurate estimate of the true strength of the child’s abilities also provides a more accurate picture of the dramatic discrepancies between strengths and weaknesses (often 5 or 6 SD). The higher the child’s IQ, the more abstract reasoning is available to mask disabilities. As discrepancies increase, so do frustration levels. It is exciting and challenging to look at each child individually and try to figure out what puzzling test scores really mean. What clues are available? Did the child get all the Block Designs correct, but not get any bonus points for speed? Was she really engaged in the task, solving some of them after the time limit? If so, she is probably a visualspatial learner whose visual processing does not support her learning style. What types of errors did the child make? In Block Design, did he move a block out of a correct position? Did he make the design too big and run out of blocks? Did he talk to himself the entire time? Did he not see that all the blocks were alike? Did he get confused when the designs were on an angle? Did he also show confusion in other visual tasks? In Matrix Reasoning, was he overwhelmed when there was too much detail? In Symbol Search, did he skip lines? Does he tend to make ‘careless errors’ in math assignments, like mixing up plus and minus signs? Did he love reading books when he was in first grade and lose interest in reading in second grade when the print got smaller? All of these symptoms are related to visual processing. A vision evaluation would be recommended. Twice exceptional children tend to have more erratic test score patterns than other children. Some are able to demonstrate their giftedness when they are 5 or 6, and subsequent test results look like bad news on the stock market. Some attain low average scores in their early years and get smarter as they get older. Some have dramatic peaks and valleys when they are younger and flatten out to

151

average when they hit the middle grades. And some score all over the map on various tests. The standard interpretation of IQ tests is that the most recent score is the most valid. This standard doesn’t work for 2e kids. A heretical idea is to assume that the highest score the child attains at any time on any instrument is the best estimate of the child’s intelligence. While this idea flies in the face of standard practice, it is not without precedent. If a child with intellectual developmental disorder has been given two IQ tests and achieves a score of 50 on one and 60 on the other, the higher score is probably a better representation of the child’s abilities than the lower score. One cannot fake abstract reasoning. Why isn’t the same logic applied to interpreting scores for the gifted?

A CASE STUDY Recently, we assessed a high achieving 16-year-old who had been tested twice in the previous 14 months. By third grade, this girl was reading Dante’s Inferno. Now she is struggling to read, hates school and wants to go to college early. The first report indicated that her FSIQ on the WISC-V was 128. Her VCI of 136 was interpreted as ‘superior and indicates a normative strength’. Her VCI is in the gifted range at the 99th percentile. On all tasks, the examiner wrote that she ‘did well’. She ‘did well’ on Similarities, with a score of 17, and she ‘did well’ on Symbol Search, with a score of 9. The tester concluded that there was ‘no indication [of] dyslexia or any other learning-related disability’. Symbol Search correlates with reading. The 8-point discrepancy between her Similarities (abstract reasoning at the 99th percentile) and her Symbol Search (visual discrimination) is nearly 3 SD. She did not do well in both: she is gifted with visual discrimination issues causing her frustration in reading. The second evaluation used the SB5, where the girl obtained an FSIQ of 117.

152

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Similar to other gifted children, the FSIQ was 11 points lower on the SB5 than the WISC-V. Her Visual Spatial Index was 135, while Working Memory was 109. The fact that her Visual Spatial Index was in the gifted range and 18 points higher than her FSIQ was not mentioned. On a test of visual-motor integration, she achieved a standard score of 61, at the .9%. On a test of rapid symbolic naming, her score was 70 (2%). Rapid Letter Naming earned a scaled score of 2 ( gifted; sig. but small effect

1.94 0.63 1.90 0.73 0.08

3.46 0.63 1.90 0.47 0.08

3.25 0.48 3.17 0.47 0.79

3.42 0.46 3.20 0.47 5.62

1.28 0.37 1.43 0.44 3.64

.77

.79

.38

.02

.06

.001 no diff.

.0001 .0007 .045 .045 no diff. no diff. non-gifted no diff > gifted; sig. but small effect

2.70 0.90 2.21 0.82 8.94 .003 .07 gifted > non-gifted; but high SDs and small effect

.03 .04 gifted > non-gifted; but high SDs and small effect

Friendships of Gifted Children and Youth

pillars. Using these more sensitive statistical procedures, we noted the presence of small but significant within-subject interactions between the pillars and program (F = 2.33, p = .023, η2 = .019) and pillars and sex (F = 6.59, p = .000, η2 = .053), but no significant three-way interaction. In the pillars-by-sex interaction, boys’ scores were higher only on Negative Comparison and Compete for Fun. Girls had higher scores on the other six. All the differences were small. This reflects the general understanding that boys are slightly more competitive than girls, and female friendships might rely on more pillars than male friendships. This analysis did not compare gifted versus non-gifted groups. In the interaction between pillars and giftedness, Conflict and Negative Comparison were low and not different for the gifted and non-gifted groups. Among the other six pillars, differences were again small but significant. The largest differences were in Companionship, Closeness, Avoid Conflict, and Compete for Fun. Within these larger differences, children in the regular program ranked three out of four of these as more true of their friendships; only Compete for Fun was more highly rated by gifted participants. The largest difference among the eight was for Avoid Conflict, with lower scores for the gifted. These more fine-grained analyses supported the notion that gifted friendships, at least during adolescence, are defined by a smaller number of friendship qualities. The non-gifted students’ emphasis on Avoid Conflict is especially interesting in relation to how friendships might be defined and experienced differently by gifted and other students. Gifted teenagers may be less fearful that their friendships are at risk from friendly competition, at least not the friendships they value and want to nurture. Our final analyses used an individual survey. Rather than the eight qualities of friendship as above, we asked open-ended questions about what participants valued in their friends, specifically, what roles these

191

friends played in their lives. One sample was from identified gifted classes in Grades 7 to 9 in one secondary school, and another at the university level was drawn from the members of the Golden Key International Honour Society – the invitation to join is issued to students whose grade-point averages are in the top 15% in their disciplines – at the Canadian university that has been ranked first in the country for 13 years and that also has the highest admissions cut-offs. The secondary-school students generated 42 different specific responses about the roles of their friends. We grouped these into eight categories, shown in descending order of frequency in Table 15.5. The university students, whom we also deemed gifted, generated 59 different categories of friends’ roles that we grouped also into eight categories. There is some overlap between the categories and the order also varies. It is not a surprise that more mature students would build friendships on somewhat different foundations than younger adolescents. Both samples were already grouped formally or by circumstance with other gifted learners, so our outcomes are not a refutation of common wisdom about the importance of grouping by interests or ability. However, common interests ranked fifth of eight for high-school students, but not by the university students. Intellectual ability was mentioned only twice and last by the latter. It might be important for learning purposes, but it does not define gifted young people’s friendships. Most categories were social-emotional, reinforcing the distinction between decisions for academic purposes and facilitating friendship opportunities. We also looked at the numbers of friends both the high school and university students had and wished they had. We also asked the university students to think back to when they were 14 or 15 years old with parallel questions. Results are in Table 15.6. From these outcomes we can highlight the following key observations:

192

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 15.5  Comparing friends’ roles between high school and university gifted students Rank High school gifted friendship roles (frequencies); key examples

University gifted friendship roles (frequencies); key examples

1

Provides guidance (58); e.g., there for you (13), help (11), emotional support (9), in need (9) Approachable (46); e.g., nonjudgmental (14), share interests, ideas, values (14), respectful (4) Trusting (44); e.g., trust (25), loyal (10), reliable (8), sticks by you (1) Interpersonal connection (25); e.g., knows me (6), see regularly or close (6), be yourself (5), long connection (3) Social (21); e.g., fun (8), laugh (5), enjoyable (4), hang around (1) Emotional (20); e.g., loves you (3), caring (2), feel good (2), wishes well (2), generous (1) Openness (9); e.g., honest (6), no hesitation (1), genuine (1) Intellectual (2); e.g., intelligent (2)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Trusting (61); e.g., there for you (25), trust (21), loyal (3), keep secrets (3) Provides guidance (41); e.g., listens (15), care (7), support (7), talk (7) Social (25); e.g., have fun (15), laugh together (7), funny (2) Emotional (22); e.g., respect (13), nice (6), accepting (2) Things in common (15); e.g., commonalities (5), stay friends (2), interested or interesting (2) Approachable (14); e.g., honest (6), does not always agree (2), nonjudgmental (2), fair (1) Advice (9); e.g., need (6), help (3) Role model (2); e.g., appreciate (1), look up to you (1)

Table 15.6  Current and desired numbers of friends among gifted students

Mean (SD) Current Mean (SD) Desired t (df) p d (effect size)

High school

University

University students reflecting back

4.03 (1.94) 4.72 (2.62) 2.15 (32) .04 (significant) .37 (small to medium)

5.76 (3.56) 6.67 (3.95) 3.85 (62) .00 (significant) .49 (medium)

4.81 (3.74)* 5.91 (4.02) 2.21 (62) .03 (significant) .28 (small)

Note: * One student reported having had zero friends in high school. None reported zero at university.

• High school and university-level gifted students all expressed the desire for more friends than they actually had, but the differences were small even if statistically significant. On average they replied that they would like to have about one more friend than they actually had. Wanting more of a good thing is reasonable. • The average reported numbers of actual friends rose from about four at high school to almost six at university, a trend not previously quantified. The difference was almost two more friends in both the actual and the desired numbers of good friends. The number of desired friends averaged about one more and followed a similar pattern. • When university students reflected on their earlier actual and desired number of friends, both were higher than the averages reported by actual secondary students, but lower than their university numbers. Again, this difference was about one more friend in both cases. Care should be taken in retrospective studies – memories of

such matters might be slightly colored by current improved circumstances. The patterns and general range of numbers were consistent in all these instances.

CONCLUSION With rare exceptions, it does not appear that broadly-defined gifted students are without friends in early adolescence. Previous expectations that the numbers of friends increase at the university level appear supported, both comparing age groups and in the retrospective memories of university students. We found it particularly interesting that intellectual ability was not one of the prime concerns in friendships among our secondary sample and was last among eight

Friendships of Gifted Children and Youth

criteria for our university sample. Socialemotional variables dominated both lists, consistent with the academic sphere in which gifted learners do not prefer to work alone when they feel supported and valued by teachers and fellow learners. Although we have not challenged the standing wisdom that shared interests and ability levels are defensible criteria for congregating gifted learners some or all of the time, our data point to a hypothesis that these are not ends in themselves but, rather, means for accomplishing social-emotional outcomes when it comes to friendships. The importance given to social-emotional foundations for friendships does not negate asynchronous development, but it does challenge the notion that this is an area that generally lags behind cognitive development, at least during adolescence and early adulthood. Our data also point to a reasonable hypothesis worthy of more precise study, that gifted adolescents’ friendships are supported by a smaller number and different set of pillars than friendships among other teenagers. Teens not identified as gifted place higher value on different friendship qualities. They especially build their friendships around Companionship, Closeness, and Avoiding Conflict. Their friendship cohorts were therefore possibly more homogeneous. The only pillar on which gifted friendships was more pronounced was Competing for Fun. Gifted students are open to sustaining opposing views with friends but remain open to closing the gaps, perhaps agreeing to disagree. Non-gifted participants in our research more avowedly avoided conflict. We also provided new information about gifted university students, without specific focus on early matriculation. They do experience more friendships than at high school, and also express interest in having one more. Anecdotally, when we approached the Golden Key Chapter executive committee about doing this study with their members, we shared the idea of different friends for different purposes. To a person they

193

indicated that this described their individual experiences, but our methodology did not tap this. A further study could ask such a question more directly. Our open-ended data did not generate the specific kinds of friendships anticipated by Webb et  al. (1982) or Vail (1979), but this can be tested directly in future research. We also need comparisons for the numbers of actual and desired friends by children not described as gifted. Another underexplored area is the nature of friendships between two people, one of whom comes from each group. By studying friendship groups and dyads within gifted and nongifted contexts, we could not explore other combinations. Our data revealing strong social-emotional value in friendships could arise from the fact that the relatively homogeneous groupings provided a base for interest and ability needs that did not compel comment. On the other hand, the fact that intelligence in particular and shared interests in general did not dominate the desired qualities of gifted friendships at least highlights the need to explore this further. We also do not know how gifted young people come to the point of defining friendships differently and building them around fewer friendship pillars. This is worthy of developmental research at school, at home, and in the community. If there were one overriding conclusion for which we invite consideration, it would be that the rhetoric about gifted friendships should change from difficulty and challenge to differences in patterns and priorities. The more fine-grained our understanding, the easier it might potentially be to understand the process in general and work with gifted children, adolescents, and young adults to support optimal friendship opportunities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the Golden Key International Honour Society Chapter at McGill University

194

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and Heritage Regional High School in Chambly, Quebec for enabling our data collection.

REFERENCES Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 471–484. Chichekian, T., & Shore, B. M. (2017). Hold firm: Gifted learners value standing one’s ground in disagreements with a friend. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(2), 152–167. doi:10.1177/0162353217701020. Freeman, J. (1979). Gifted children: Their identification and development in a social context. Lancaster, England: MTP Press French, L. R., & Shore, B. M. (2009). A reconsideration of the widely held conviction that gifted students prefer to work alone. In B. Hymer, T. D. Balchin, & D. Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 176–182). London, England: Routledge. French, L. R., Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2011). Do gifted students really prefer to work alone? Roeper Review, 33(3), 145–159. doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.580497. Gross, M. U. M. (2002, May). ‘Play partner’ or ‘sure shelter’: What gifted children look for in friendship. SENG Newsletter, 2(2), 1–3. Retrieved November 24, 2010 from http:// www.sengifted.org/articles_social/Gross_ PlayPartnerOrSureShelter.shtml Gross, M. U. M. (2009). Highly gifted young people: Development from childhood to adulthood. In L. S. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness, part one (pp. 337–352). New York, NY: Springer. Gyles, P. D. T., Shore, B. M., & Schneider, B. H. (2009). Big ships, small ships, friendships and competition: Things to consider. Teaching for High Potential, 3(Spring), 19. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.

Horowitz, F. D., & O’Brien, M. (Eds.). (1985). The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hymer, B., Balchin, T., & Matthews, D. J. (Eds.). (2009). The Routledge international companion to gifted education. London, England: Routledge. Hyatt, L. A., & Cross, T. L. (2009). Understanding suicidal behavior of gifted students: Theory, factors, and cultural expectations. In L. S. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness, part one (pp. 537–556). New York, NY: Springer. Jackson, P. S., Moyle, V F., & Piechowsky, M. M. (2009). Emotional life and psychotherapy of the gifted in light of Dabrowski’s theory. In L. S. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness, part one (pp. 437–465). New York, NY: Springer. Janos, P. M., Marwood, K. A., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Friendship patterns in highly intelligent children. Roeper Review, 8(1), 46–49. Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 149–195). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kerr, B. A., & Gahm, J. (2018). Developing talent in girls and young women. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. FoleyNicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 399–415). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kibulius, P., & Turner Thomson, D. (2012). Academically gifted students’ perceived interpersonal competences and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 90–104. Masden, C. A., Leung, O. N., Shore, B. M., Schneider, B. H., & Udvari, S. J. (2015). Social-perspective coordination in gifted adolescent friendships. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 3–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359 8139.2015.1028613 Mendaglio, S. (1993). Sensitivity: Bridging affective characteristics and emotions. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(1), 10–13. Neihart, M., & Yeo, L. S. (2018). Psychological issues unique to the gifted student. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, &

Friendships of Gifted Children and Youth

M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 496–510). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Perino, S. C., & Perino, S. (1981). Parenting the gifted: Developing the promise. New York, NY: Bowker. Pfeiffer, S. I., Shaunessy-Dedrick, E., FoleyNicpon, M. (Eds.). (2018). APA handbook of giftedness and talent. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressures and social acceptance of gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 13–18). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Rinn, A. N. (2018). Social and emotional considerations for gifted students. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 453–464). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Robinson, N., & Noble, K. (1991). Socio-­ emotional development and adjustment of gifted children. In M. Wang, M. Reynolds, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice (pp. 57–76). London, England: Pergamon. Schapiro, M., Schneider, B. H., Shore, B. M., Margison, J. A., & Udvari, S. J. (2009). Competitive goal orientations, quality, and stability and friendship in gifted and other adolescents’ friendships: A test of Sullivan’s theory about the harm caused by rivalry. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 71–88. Schneider, B. H., Fonzi, A., Tani, F., & Tomada, G. (1997). A cross-cultural exploration of the stability of children’s friendships and the predictors of their continuation. Social Development, 6(3), 322–339. Schneider, B. H., Woodburn, S., & del Pilar Soteras de Toro, M. (2005). Cultural and gender differences in the implications of competition for early adolescent friendship. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51(2), 163–191. Shavinina, L. S. (Ed.). (2009). International handbook on giftedness (2 vols). New York, NY: Springer.

195

Shore, B. M. (2009, August). Gifted adolescents’ friendships are supported by fewer but more focused pillars. Paper presented at the biannual World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shore, B. M., Walker, C. L., & Gyles, P. D. T. (2009, November). ‘How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.’ New insights into gifted friendships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, St. Louis, MO. Silverman, L. K., & Miller, N. B. (2009). A feminine perspective of giftedness. In L. S. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness, part one (pp. 99–128). New York, NY: Springer. Suldo, S. M., Hearon, B. V., & ShaunessyDedrick, E. (2018). Examining gifted students’ mental health through the lens of positive psychology. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 433–449). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Vail, P. L. (1979). The world of the gifted child. New York, NY: Walker. Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2015). Myth busting: Do high-performing students prefer working alone? Gifted and Talented International, 30(1–2), 85–105. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/15332276.2015.1137461 [Published in April 2016 due to production delays.] Walker, C. L., Shore, B. M., & French, L. R. (2011). A theoretical context for examining students’ preferences across ability levels for learning alone or in groups. High Ability Studies, 22(1), 119–141. doi:10.1080/ 13598139.2011.576082 Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E. A., & Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child: A practical source for parents and teachers. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology (now Great Potential Press).

16 Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children in Hong Kong Lai Kwan Chan

INTRODUCTION

Assessment of Perfectionism

Perfectionism can be described as a compulsive striving for achieving extremely high standards, together with a tendency to fear making mistakes (Flett & Hewitt, 2002). Historically, perfectionism was viewed as inherently destructive and associated with physical problems, psychological disorders, and psychiatric conditions (Hewitt, Flett, & Mikail, 2017). However, this negative view of perfectionism has been challenged. Perfectionism can be considered as healthy when striving for perfection to maximize one’s potential, and is important for human development in the self-actualization process (Maslow, 1970). Currently, perfectionism is viewed as multidimensional, with positive/ healthy and negative/unhealthy aspects, particularly among gifted students in Hong Kong (Chan, 2007, 2010).

To assess perfectionism, the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990) and the Almost Perfect Scale – Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001) have been widely used in gifted populations. Although FMPS was developed to assess six major dimensions – concern over making mistakes; high personal standards; perception of high parental expectations; doubting the quality of one’s action; perception of high parental criticism; and high preference for order and organization – it has been found to have two distinct factors that represent healthy and dysfunctional perfectionism. Slaney and his colleagues developed the Almost Perfect Scale (APS), and further revised it to APS-R (Slaney et  al., 2001). APS-R assessed perfectionism on

Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children

three dimensions: Standards, Order, and Discrepancy, with the Standards and Order dimension representing the normal or adaptive aspects of perfectionism, whereas the Discrepancy dimension represents the negative or maladaptive aspects of perfectionism. To have a comprehensive measurement of the intrapersonal aspects of perfectionism rather than parental factors in the development of perfectionism among gifted students, Chan and Chan (2010) combined the items of FMPS and APS-R but excluded the Parental Expectations and the Parental Criticism subscales of FMPS to assess perfectionism among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong, and found that the structural components of perfectionism among the respondents were best represented by three dimensions, namely High Standards, Organization and Order, and Maladaptation.

Parental Factors on Perfectionism To understand the nature of perfectionism, one needs to examine factors that contribute to its development. Among theories and models describing the origins of perfectionism, both the social expectations model and the social reaction model have recognized the roles of parents on the development of perfectionism. The social expectations model focuses on excessively high parental expectations, and proposes that the development of perfectionism hinges upon both contingent parental approval and non-approval. In an environment of positive approval, children learn that parental approval is forthcoming if they succeed and are perfect; therefore, they adopt perfectionistic tendencies to ensure a feeling of love. But in a non-approval or inconsistent approval environment, children never know how to please their parents; consequently, they might adopt perfectionistic tendencies to meet their parents’ standards to try to win their approval (Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald, 2002). Consistent with the social expectations model, Frost and his colleagues (1990) assert that parental expectations have an important influence on the development of

197

perfectionism. They also regard parental criticism (or perceived parental criticism from the parent OR parent surrogate) as another key feature of the perfectionism construct. Another model of the development of perfectionism is the social reaction model which states that children who become perfectionistic have been exposed to a harsh and stressful family environment. They adopt a coping mechanism by becoming perfectionistic as a reaction to the adverse environment in order to reduce exposure to shame or humiliation, or alternatively to regain a sense of control (Flett et al., 2002). The social reaction and the social expectations models substantially overlap, but they involve different parental dimensions. The social expectations model involves the control dimension of parenting with high expectations, whereas the social reaction model involves elements of harshness and punitive tendencies with a lack of warmth. In summary, the two models provide theoretical accounts on how excessive parental expectations, parental criticism, parental control and lack of warmth affect the development of pathological perfectionism. Nevertheless, what parental factors may influence the positive aspect of perfectionism remain unclear. While most studies examining the influences of parental factors on perfectionism are conducted in Western cultures; studying the influence of parental factors on perfectionism in a Chinese context should consider the embedded parental influence characteristics of the Chinese culture.

Perceptions of Perfectionism and Parental Characteristics in the Chinese Culture In Chinese culture, perfectionism (wan mei zhuyi) has a positive connotation. Wan means completeness and mei means beauty, whilst zhuyi is belief; wan mei zhuyi, in the literal sense of the term, commonly stands for a belief in and the pursuit of qualities such as

198

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

beauty, completeness and excellence. Thus, in Chinese perceptions, to be wan mei (perfection), demands high standards. Although, wan mei are positive words, striving for wan mei is not highly recommended in three traditional Chinese philosophy camps: Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. In Buddhism, the life of man is full of suffering through desires which cause ambition and anxiety that are insatiable, leaving life overwhelmed with suffering. The goal of Buddhist practices is to achieve enlightenment and to transcend suffering so as to lead a serene life free from afflictions. Buddhism regards striving for perfection or excellence as desires that make way for suffering, and advocates the transcendence of the mind over forms and dharma, emphasizing that true wisdom lies in The True Mind, the Bodhi Mind, which is to be realized through enlightenment to achieve Nirvana. With a quest for excellence in mind as a target, dedicative and laborious hard work follows, which is considered undesirable in Taoism. Taoism, in its literal sense, means The Way. Its core values, wu wei (無為), a cornerstone of the Taoist philosophy, could be interpreted as ‘without action’. Its intrinsic meaning is best illustrated by the paradox of ‘action without action’ or ‘effortless doing’. The Way advocates the practice of ‘action without action’ (無為) and of ‘keeping to yieldingness’ (守柔) as the rule of living. Thus, the enlightened would act without intervening while leaving nothing undone (無為而無不為). In line with the saying that ‘supreme goodness is like water’ (上善若水) and ‘nothing is more yielding than water’ (天下莫柔弱於水), the enlightened would keep to yieldingness (守柔) without competing (不爭) so as to remain impeccable. As such, the contemporary view about perfectionism, which is commonly characterized by dedicative and laborious work, is contrary to Taoist values. To interpret the deeper meaning of wan mei zhuyi in the context of Confucianism, one has to be aware that wan mei focuses more

on an individual’s personal qualities of values and integrity, rather than performance in a particular field. To achieve wan mei and to fully realize one’s self-advancement towards excellence, is to be shan (kind) (止於至善) as emphasized in ‘da xue’ («大學», a book or notion for the noble class to learn). Further, speaking from the Rule of the Medium «中庸之道 (zhongyong zhi dao)», a cornerstone of the Chinese culture, wan mei can be seen as self-actualization with an affinity or commitment to the medium, instead of pursuing the extremes. Thus, perfectionism does not necessarily, in traditional Chinese Confucian values, imply an imperative of endless pursuit for top qualities, but rather steady and continuous self-advancement towards shan or excellence in the realization of one’s endowment coupled with a strong sense of commitment. However, perception of perfectionism in modern Chinese people in Hong Kong focuses more on performance rather than personal qualities. To give a good performance or to achieve excellence, Chinese people believe that working diligently is important. To give an excellent performance or to strive for perfection, parents set high expectations for their children. The strong emphasis on their children’s achievement is reflected in the cultural belief of ‘wang zi cheng long’ (望子成龍 wishing the child to be a ‘dragon’). To ensure that parental expectations were fulfilled, scolding or criticism, as well as strict discipline, particularly via physical punishment, were used, as reflected by the saying of ‘bang xia chu xiao zi’ (棒下出孝子 a filial son is the product of the rod). Given that Chinese parents have high standards and expectations for their children, and different parental characteristics from Western people, it would be interesting to explore the contribution of Chinese parental expectations, parental criticism, parental control and warmth or otherwise, with regard to the development of perfectionism in Chinese gifted children.

Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children

The reason for focusing on parental warmth and parental control is that they are the two important parenting dimensions in the parenting literature (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). The construct of parental warmth has been assumed to be ‘universal’, whereas the construct of control is more culturally specific. In conceptualizing the separate aspects of parental control, researchers have differentiated psychological control from behavioral control. According to Smetana and Daddis (2002, p. 563), psychological control refers to ‘parents’ attempts to control the child’s activities in ways that negatively affect the child’s psychological world and thereby undermines the child’s psychological development’. Thus, psychological control is regarded as a negative or dysfunctional aspect of parental control (Shek & Lee, 2005). To capture the important features of Chinese parental behavioral control, Chao (1994) offers an indigenous parenting style concept of jiao xun (training) or guan (to love and to govern), and describes Chinese parental behavioral control as being guided by the framework of guan, which is associated with love, concern, and involvement. The construct of guan is distinguished from the Western authoritarian style and dysfunctional parental control such as punitiveness or emotional rejection, and is shown to be more relevant to current Chinese parenting practice (Stewart & Bond, 2002). The current Chinese parental behavioral control, guan, was found to be significantly correlated with parental warmth and predicted well-being (Stewart et al., 1998). Therefore, the construct of guan represents the positive or functional aspect of parental behavioral control.

The Present Study The study presented here examines the influence of paternal and maternal constructs of parental expectations, parental criticism, warmth, guan and Chinese psychological

199

control on different dimensions of perfectionism. The study has the following objectives: • To examine the structural components or patterns of relationships of parental constructs, associated measures of paternal and maternal expectations, criticism, warmth, guan (the indigenous Chinese behavioral control) and psychological control as perceived by Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong; and • To study the influence of these paternal and maternal factors on different dimensions of perfectionism among the gifted.

mEthods Participants Two hundred and ninety-seven gifted students (Grades 3 to 6) participated voluntarily with parental consent in this study. These students (188 boys and 109 girls), aged 7 to 12 (M = 9.78, SD = 1.10) from 129 schools, were either academically gifted (e.g. showing outstanding performance in school subjects), or intellectually gifted (with an IQ score over 130), or demonstrated their talents in non-academic areas. Thus, the participants could be regarded as relatively heterogeneous in terms of their giftedness or talents, their academic and non-academic achievements, and their school distributions.

Instruments Perfectionism measure A self-report Chinese perfectionism scale, drawing items from the Standard, Order, and Discrepancy subscales of APS-R, and the Personal Standards, Organization, Concern over Mistakes, and Doubts about Actions subscales of FMPS, was assembled to provide a comprehensive measure of perfectionism for Chinese gifted students. Using structural equation modeling procedures, the listed subscale items were best represented

200

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

by High Standards, Organization and Order, and Maladaptation as three dimensions of perfectionism among the gifted participants (Chan & Chan, 2010).

Parental measures Because of the different roles fathers and mothers adopt for child-rearing in the Chinese culture, two parallel sets of paternal and maternal measures were constructed in the study. Gifted students were asked to assess separately the parental characteristics of their fathers and mothers based on their self-perceptions. Specifically, the items measure the following parental constructs: 1 Paternal Expectations and Maternal Expectations were assessed by items constructed from the Parental Expectations subscale of FMPS; 2 Paternal Criticism and Maternal Criticism were assessed by items constructed from the Parental Criticism subscale of FMPS; 3 Paternal Warmth and Maternal Warmth were assessed by items derived by Stewart and colleagues (1998, 2002) to capture the positive aspect of Chinese parenting styles and practices; 4 Paternal Guan and Maternal Guan were assessed by items derived and used by Stewart and colleagues (1998, 2002). The guan scale was used to capture the positive aspect of indigenous Chinese parental behavioral control; 5 Paternal Psychological Control and Maternal Psychological Control were assessed by the Chinese Paternal and Maternal Psychological Control Scales developed by Shek (2006) to assess the negative or dysfunctional aspects of Chinese paternal and maternal control.

Items originally in English were first translated into Chinese with simple words and then back-translated into English, followed by a try-out in a group of primary school students to make sure that the items were written at the appropriate level for young Chinese gifted students. To ensure the original meanings of the English items were retained, the Chinese translations were checked by a bilingual Chinese psychologist. Each item of the paternal and maternal measures consisted of a statement. Participants responded to each item on a

5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to indicate their degree of agreement on how they perceived their fathers’ and mothers’ attitudes and parenting behaviors.

Procedure All participants gave their responses on the measures when they attended the universitybased gifted programs. They were assured that the data collected would be kept confidential and used solely for research purposes.

RESULTs Preliminary Analysis Prior to the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis, preliminary analyses were conducted to examine the item responses of paternal and maternal measures and check whether the application of SEM procedures to the total sample of participants was appropriate. First, item analysis on the paternal and maternal measures was conducted. The results show that most items significantly correlated with other items on the same scale. The items not significantly correlated with others in the same scale were then ­re-examined. After ­re-examination, some items in the Warmth scale measured un-warmth rather than warmth: e.g., the item ‘My father/mother does not seem to notice when I am unhappy’, so problematic items like this were excluded from further analysis. Second, the internal consistency of the retained items of paternal and maternal measures was examined. The high internal consistency values (.73 to .91) confirmed that the subscales could serve as indicators of the constructs of paternal and maternal parenting. Third, since past studies indicated gender difference on the perceived parental expectations of secondary students (Chan, 2003), the present study also examined whether there

Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children

were gender differences in the responses on parental measures, which might make it necessary to test a separate model for boys and girls. To check whether there was an overall effect of gender on each parental measure, and any gender effect at the item level, multivariate and univariate statistics were performed. The Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) results indicated no significant overall gender effect on each paternal and maternal measure. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results showed no significant gender differences on any of the items. On this basis, model testing on the total sample, and item responses on paternal and maternal measures of all participants were used for further evaluation with SEM procedures. Fourth, a paired-samples t-test in each paternal and maternal item-pair was performed to assess whether there were any significant differences on paternal and maternal measures as reported by the respondents. The results showed that paternal and maternal parenting characteristics reported by gifted children were significantly correlated (with item-pair correlations ranging from .18 to .64, p < .001), and among the 29 item-pairs, 17 paternal and maternal item-pairs were significantly different (with p < .05). Therefore, it was necessary to keep the paternal and maternal constructs separate when using SEM procedures to examine the patterns of relationships of parental measures and to assess how these paternal and maternal constructs affect gifted children’s perfectionism.

Model Testing (a) Dimensions or patterns of relationships of paternal and maternal constructs from perceptions of Chinese gifted students Based on the results of preliminary analyses that paternal and maternal item-pairs were significantly correlated, paternal

201

and maternal latent variable pairs were hypothesized to be correlated. Model A in Figure 16.1was proposed to show the hypothesized relations of ten parental constructs (five parallel paternal constructs and five maternal constructs on warmth, guan, expectations, criticism, and psychological control). As parental warmth is a salient characteristic of functional parenting, which correlates with positive outcomes in a large number of cultural examinations (Kagitcibasi, 1996), and guan is associated with love, concern, and involvement, which is regarded as a positive control component in Chinese parenting, they could converge to form a positive parenting factor. On the other hand, since psychological control represents a dysfunctional aspect of parental control, and parental criticism is a negative parenting practice, they were hypothesized to merge as a negative parenting factor and negatively correlate with the positive parenting factor. Moreover, parental expectations, regarded as parents’ beliefs or attitudes, were correlated with both the positive and negative parenting factors. Therefore, the hypothesized, correlated model of paternal and maternal expectations, positive parenting factor, and negative parenting factor was also proposed as a competitive model for testing. This model is presented as Model B in Figure 16.1. Another argument was that parental warmth and control are regarded as two distinct dimensions in parenting styles in the parenting literature; therefore, warmth and guan should not be assumed to form a positive parenting factor, but should be regarded as two distinct, positively correlated factors. Furthermore, guan, as an indigenous positive Chinese parental control, was suggested to be negatively correlated with the negative parenting practice factor. According to the contextual model of parenting style proposed by Darling and Steinberg (1993) which indicates that parents’ goals and beliefs influence their own parenting style and practices, paternal expectations and maternal expectations were suggested to have an influence on both

202

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Figure 16.1  Three hypothesized models of paternal and maternal constructs

the positive parenting practice guan and the negative parenting practices (i.e. the negative parenting factor which included parental criticism and psychological control). Model C in Figure 16.1, specifying the above relationships, was also proposed as another competitive model for testing. To test which of the above three models best fitted the data, covariance matrices were computed, and three separate confirmatory factor analyses with maximum likelihood as the estimation method were performed using LISREL. The corresponding chi-square values and fit indices for three measurement models are summarized in Table 16.1. The results indicate that Model C was a good fit to the data and was a better fit model than Model A and Model B. An examination of the LISREL outputs of the three models showed that the parameter estimates were reasonable. The statistical significance of parameters was determined by the t-values provided by LISREL, with | t-values | > 1.96 considered to be statistically significant (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2001).

The factor correlations between paternal guan and negative paternal parenting factor, as well as maternal guan and negative maternal parenting factor, in Model C were statistically non-significant (t-values = .37 and .04). This suggests that the parameters could be considered unimportant to the model and could be fixed to a value of 0. As a result, Model C was modified with the non-significant paths of paternal guan and paternal negative parenting factor, and with maternal guan and maternal negative parenting factor being deleted from the model. This process of modification resulted in the post hoc model (Byrne, 1989). The Post hoc Modified Model was then tested, and the chi-square value and fit indices for the modified model are also summarized in Table 16.1. Consequently, the Post hoc Modified Model provided a good fit to the data and a better fit than Model A and Model B, and with all the parameter estimates and paths being reasonable and significant (| t-values | > 1.96). Thus, it was regarded as the best-fitting model. The path diagram of the complete standardized

Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children

203

Table 16.1  Fit indices of the hypothesized models of paternal and maternal factors (N = 297) Fit index Model

χ

df

RMSEA NNFI

CFI

Independence Model Model A Model B Model C

30177.66*  4494.67*  4628.23*  4087.14*

1653 1590 1586 1583

0.080 0.088 0.074

0.89 0.89 0.91

0.90 0.89 0.91

Post hoc Modified Model

 4087.25*

1585

0.074

0.91

0.91

2

Remarks

Non-significant correlations between guan and negative parenting factors This model was modified from Model C and all paths were significant

Note: Fit indices are from LISREL analyses. χ2 = normal theory weighted least squares χ2; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index * p < .001

solutions of the Post hoc Modified Model of paternal and maternal factors from LISREL is presented in Figure 16.2.

(b) Paternal and maternal parenting characteristics as perceived by gifted students After examining the relationships of paternal and maternal factors, the study also examined the parenting characteristics perceived by the gifted respondents. Each student’s scores on the relevant items of the same parental factor were summed up and then divided by the number of relevant items to yield the mean score for each parental factor (see Table 16.2). The mean scores of paternal and maternal expectations being greater than 3 on the 5-point scale suggest that both fathers and mothers have high expectations for their children. Regarding parenting characteristics, both fathers and mothers are perceived by their children as warm (with mean scores of 3.84 and 4.14), and more with positive parental control (mean scores of paternal guan as 3.79, and maternal guan as 4.07) than negative parenting (mean scores of negative paternal parenting factor as 2.26, and negative maternal parenting factor as 2.33). To examine the differences of various paternal and maternal factors as perceived by gifted children, paired t-tests were computed using the mean scores. The test results

indicate that Chinese gifted children in Hong Kong generally perceive their mothers as significantly having more warm and guan, and setting higher expectations on them than their fathers.

(c) Structural models of parental and maternal factors on different dimensions of children’s perfectionism Since warmth and guan were regarded as positive parenting, they were believed to have a positive effect on Organization and Order, which represented gifted children’s adaptive aspects of perfectionism. On the other hand, paternal and maternal negative parenting factors were expected to cause Maladaptation of perfectionism in gifted children. Regarding parental expectations, the influence of paternal and maternal expectations on different dimensions of perfectionism was unclear. Since Chinese parents’ high expectations of their children were found to have a positive effect on their children’s school performance (Stevenson & Lee, 1990), it is reasonable to expect paternal and maternal expectations of high standards or performance would have a positive effect on gifted children’s High Standards. In addition to the direct effect of parental expectations on High Standards, the influences of parental expectations on the adaptive and maladaptive aspects of

204

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Figure 16.2  The path diagram of the complete standardized solutions of the Post hoc ­Modified Model of paternal and maternal factors from LISREL Table 16.2 Means and standard deviations of scores of paternal and maternal factors as reported by gifted children (N = 297) Paternal Parental factors Warmth Guan Expectations Negative parenting

Mean score 3.84 3.79 3.22 2.26

Maternal SD

0.76 0.80 0.77 0.77

SD

Mean score 4.14 4.07 3.43 2.33

0.72 0.76 0.87 0.88

perfectionism were also investigated. While Schuler (2000) found that parental expectations of Western parents had a positive influence on the lives of normal perfectionists, some studies, on the other hand, showed that the Parental Expectations subscale was

t (Paired t-test) −5.57 −5.99 −4.41 −1.16

df 256 256 256 256

Sig. (2-tailed) d (effect size) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.249

−0.35 −0.37 −0.28 –

associated with a wide variety of psychopathology (Shafran & Mansell, 2001). Therefore, it was hypothesized that parental expectations had an influence on both the  adaptive and maladaptive aspects of perfectionism.

Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children

The influence could directly affect gifted children’s Organization and Order, and Maladaptation of perfectionism (Parentalinfluence Model I; Figure 16.3(a)), or indirectly through parenting practices to Organization and Order and Maladaptation (Parental-influence Model II; Figure 16.3(b)). In the Parental-influence Model I, guan was hypothesized to mediate the effect of parental expectations on gifted children’s Organization and Order, and the negative parenting factor was hypothesized to mediate the effect of parental expectations on the gifted children’s Maladaptation. For comparison, the two hypothesized structural models were fitted to the data and tested using SEM procedures. Table 16.3 summarizes the corresponding chi-square values and fit indices for Parentalinfluence Model I and Parental-influence Model II. The goodness-of-fit indices of the two models indicate that both models were a good fit to the data. But a close examination of the LISREL output reveals that all direct paths of paternal and maternal expectations on Organization and Order and on Maladptation of perfectionism, and the direct path of paternal expectations on gifted children’s High Standards are statistically non-significant. The results were substantively different from those originally proposed in Parental-influence Model I. Therefore, the Parental-influence Model I was unacceptable. Although Parental-influence Model II was found to be acceptable, some paths were found to be non-significant. Therefore, Parentalinfluence Model II was revised by removing those non-significant paths. The chi-square value and fit indices of the Parental-influence Model II – Revised are also summarized in Table 16.3. The results of the analyses show that the Parental-influence Model II – Revised provides good fit to the data with all parameter estimates and paths being reasonable and significant (p < .01). Figure 16.4 presents the hypothesized Parental-influence

205

Model II and the Parental-influence Model II – Revised with significant and nonsignificant paths indicated. From Figure 16.4(b), it can be seen that paternal and maternal factors have different effects on different dimensions of perfectionism among the gifted students. In regard to parental expectations, although gifted children perceive their mothers having significantly higher expectations of them than their fathers, the evaluative results of the structural models indicate that paternal and maternal expectations are highly correlated. The results also show that fathers’ expectations and mothers’ expectations have substantial effects on their own parenting practices including guan (positive parenting control) and negative parenting (such as criticism and psychological control). Figure 16.4(b) also shows that maternal expectations have a significant direct influence on their children’s high standards, whereas the effect of paternal expectations is found to be statistically non-significant. Where the influence of parental expectations on gifted children’s maladaptive aspects of perfectionism was concerned, the results show that paternal and maternal negative parenting (such as criticism and psychological control) significantly mediate the effect of paternal and maternal expectations on their children’s maladaptive perfectionism. The results of the analyses also reveal that maternal expectations have an indirect effect on their children’s organization and order through their positive behavioral control guan. Regarding the effects of parental warmth and guan on gifted children’s perfectionism, the results show that paternal warmth but not guan, and maternal guan instead of warmth, had significant effects on Chinese gifted children’s Organization and Order. These indicate that for fathers, the warmth is more effective than guan, but for mothers, guan is more significant than warmth. For negative parenting factors, consistent results were obtained that both paternal and

206

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Figure 16.3  The hypothesized Parental-influence Model I (a) and Parental-influence Model II (b) on gifted children’s perfectionism

Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children

207

Table 16.3  Fit indices of the structural models of paternal and maternal influence on gifted children’s perfectionism (N = 297) Fit index

χ

df

Independence model Parental-influence Model I

76186.70* 10747.65*

5356 5228

0.062

0.92 0.92

Parental-influence Model II Parental-influence Model II – Revised

10762.72*

5232

0.062

0.92 0.92

10767.01*

5235

0.062

0.92 0.92

Model

2

RMSEA NNFI CFI

Remarks This model was unacceptable as all direct paths of paternal and maternal expectations on Organization and Order and Maladptation, and direct path of paternal expectations on High Standards were non-significant. This model should be modified by setting the non-significant paths to be fixed. All parameter estimates and paths were significant.

Note: Fit indices are from LISREL analyses. χ2 = normal theory weighted least squares χ2; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index * p < .01

Figure 16.4 Hypothesized Parental-influence Model I (a) and Parental-influence Model II – Revised (b) of paternal and maternal influence on gifted children’s perfectionism with significant and non-significant paths indicated

maternal negative parenting have significant influences on gifted children’s maladaptive perfectionism. The analyses also reveal that the maternal influence, in general, is greater than the paternal influence on perfectionism of gifted children in Hong Kong.

DISCUSSION The present study examined specifically the patterns of relationships of parental constructs as perceived by Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong, and simultaneously

208

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

investigated how paternal and maternal factors influence different dimensions of perfectionism. All proposed models constructed on the basis of existing theories and previous research were evaluated by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) procedures. The model testing reveals that five paternal and five maternal constructs are best represented by a number of factors namely, warmth, guan, expectations, and negative parenting under the categories of ‘paternal’ or ‘maternal’. It also shows that positive correlation exists between same factor in the ‘paternal’ and ‘maternal’ categories. Consistent with other studies (Stewart et al., 1998, 2002), the constructs of warmth and guan are found to be positively correlated. The analysis also reveals that these two constructs, though positively associated, are distinct. Further, the results indicate that fathers’ and mothers’ expectations affect their own parenting styles both in positive behavior control (guan) and negative parenting such as psychological control and criticism (see Figure 16.2). A closer examination of parental characteristics shows that fathers and mothers are perceived to have high expectations of their children. The result is consistent with previous findings (Chao & Sue, 1996; Stevenson & Lee, 1990) that Chinese parents have high expectations of their children. In general, gifted students perceive their fathers and mothers as warm, showing more positive behavior control, guan, and less negative parenting such as psychological control and criticism. Although both fathers and mothers are perceived to show high warmth and guan in this study, Chinese students’ perceptions of different parenting by mothers and fathers are consistently found (Shek, 2000, 2006). Indeed, mothers are perceived as significantly warmer and showing more guan than fathers in the present study. Regarding the effects of parental factors on different dimensions of perfectionism, the result indicates that paternal warmth not

guan, and maternal guan not warmth have significant impacts on the Organization and Order dimension of perfectionism, which is consistent with previous work on Hong Kong Chinese late adolescent girls conducted by Stewart and colleagues (1998). The findings suggest that fathers as the authority figure in Chinese families and mothers as traditionally characterized as ‘kind-hearted’ need to balance appropriate warmth and guan in parenting their children. For parental expectations, mothers’ expectations but not fathers’ are found to have a direct effect on Chinese gifted children’s High Standards, and mediates the effect on gifted children’s Organization and Order through positive maternal behavioral control guan. It is also noteworthy that paternal and maternal expectations mediate the effect on gifted children’s Maladaptation through their negative parenting. The negative paternal and maternal factors are found to have salient effects on the maladaptive aspects of perfectionism. The results are consistent with the social reaction model, which highlights the impact of adverse parental control on perfectionism. In general, mothers’ influence is found to be stronger than that of fathers in this study. This finding reveals that mothers are perceived to play a more prominent role in gifted children’s perfectionism and may reflect the societal realities of greater maternal involvement in nurturing children. In Hong Kong, Chinese fathers are more work-oriented while Chinese mothers are the caregivers of their children. The difference in the parenting roles of fathers and mothers in Chinese families is due to the influence of the Chinese proverb ‘men go out to work and deal with outside, while women take care of children and household duties’ (nan zhu wai, nü zhu nei). To verify the argument that the primary caregivers exert a stronger impact on children’s perfectionism, future studies may seek to examine whether or not this same effect would hold true for subjects with a father who is the primary caregiver and a workoriented mother.

Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children

Nevertheless, the results of the present study have important conceptual and pragmatic implications in the areas of understanding Chinese gifted children’s perfectionism, parenting the gifted, and counseling gifted children and their parents. One of the implications is that current findings help us better understand the parental constructs in the Chinese context. The findings reveal that warmth and guan, although positively associated, are distinct and do not merge to form a positive parenting factor. The findings support Chao’s conceptualization that guan is a distinctive feature in Chinese parenting. The merging of parental criticism and psychological control to form a single parenting factor which had a significant effect on maladaptive perfectionism supports the conception that parental criticism and psychological control are the negative features of parenting. Model testing and comparison of different proposed parental models also provide empirical data to see whether the results are consistent with Darling and Steinberg’s (1993) contextual model of parenting styles. The study also has practical and educational implications for gifted education and parent education in the Chinese context. The findings that parental expectations, warmth, guan, and negative parenting, including psychological control and criticism, having significant effects on gifted children’s perfectionism have implications for working with the gifted and their parents. Understanding the influence of parental expectations on gifted children’s high standards may help parents set realistic expectations for their children, and enable parents to encourage their children to aim high and strive for good performance without introducing or compounding emotional/physical behavioral issues for their children. The significant effect of paternal warmth and maternal guan on gifted children’s positive perfectionism also suggests that to help gifted children be more organized, and with good planning, fathers could be warmer to their children while mothers make better use

209

of guan in parenting. This suggests that the traditional Chinese parental roles of ‘kindhearted mothers and strict fathers’ are better shifted to ‘warm mothers with effective use of guan, and controlling father being warmer’. To secure significant positive and effective parental effect, fathers and mothers should adopt consistent ­parenting styles. Finally, recognizing the significant influence of paternal and maternal negative parenting on gifted children’s negative/maladaptive perfectionism might help educators and parents to create a positive nurturing environment and therefore reduce gifted children’s negative/maladaptive perfectionistic tendencies. Despite the fact that this study has useful findings and significant contributions, there are some limitations. Particularly noteworthy is the selected sample of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Efforts to generalize the findings to other Chinese populations and contexts should be made with caution because of the variety of cultures across Mainland China. Furthermore, the study focused only on gifted students at Grades 3 to 6; gifted students’ perceptions of their fathers’ and mothers’ parenting at different developmental stages need to be studied with gifted students at other grade levels. The results of the study could not be generalized to gifted students at different developmental stages. This is because when students grow up they may gradually establish social support networks outside of the family and develop effective skills to cope with the emotional stress caused by the negative aspects of perfectionism. As such, it is expected that parental influence on gifted students’ perfectionism may decline, while peer influence, social and school environmental factors, and factors originating from the students themselves will become more important, particularly in late adolescence. Therefore, to fully understand the development of perfectionism among gifted students, studies on the impacts of different factors on perfectionism should be conducted.

210

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Another limitation of the present study is the complete reliance on gifted children’s self-report data for the perfectionism and parental measures. Although the use of children’s self-reporting afforded the study a more representative sample than if parents were invited to participate, the data collected from gifted children only reflected their subjective experience with their parents. It would be more illuminating if parents’ perspectives could be taken into account. While perfectionistic individuals may be more likely to describe their parents as more responsive and supportive than other more objective observers (Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006), the results of this study were generally consistent with theoretical predictions and findings of other studies. This suggests that using gifted children’s self-report measures in the study was appropriate. Nonetheless, future research may want to incorporate perspectives from parents, or employ more objective external measures to examine parental characteristics and parenting styles, and their impacts on the prediction of perfectionism. Notwithstanding, the study of parental influence on perfectionism among gifted students would require more cross-sectional, qualitative and longitudinal studies. Collecting qualitative data through case studies and interviews would help illuminate the on-going developmental process of perfectionism among the gifted and identify which factors are more important to perfectionism at different developmental stages. Equally important is the need for longitudinal data to clarify the directionality of influence between parental factors and gifted students’ perfectionism. Furthermore, developmentally it is still not known whether specific factors could turn unhealthy perfectionists into healthy perfectionists, or prevent healthy perfectionists from becoming unhealthy perfectionists. These and other related issues certainly warrant further investigations in future qualitative and longitudinal studies that could focus on the developmental trajectories of different perfectionist types.

REFERENCES Baumrind, D. H. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4(1, part 2), 1–103. Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag. Chan, D. W. (2003). Assessing adjustment problems of gifted students in Hong Kong: The development of the student adjustment problems inventory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 107–117. Chan, D. W. (2007). Positive and negative perfectionism among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: Their relationships to general selfefficacy and subjective well-being. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(1), 77–102. Chan, D. W. (2010). Healthy and unhealthy perfectionists among academically gifted Chinese students in Hong Kong: Do different classification schemes make a difference? Roeper Review, 32(2), 88–97. Chan, L. K., & Chan, D. W. (2010). Perfectionism among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted and Talented, 14, 37–44. Chao, R. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65(4), 1111–1119. Chao, R. K., & Sue, S. (1996). Chinese parental influences and their children’s school success: A paradox in the literature on parenting styles. In S. Lau (Ed.), Growing up the Chinese way (pp. 93–120). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parental style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. Flett, G. L, & Hewitt, P. L. (Eds.) (2002). Perfectionism theory, research and treatment. Washington, DC: APA. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and their parents: A developmental analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.) Perfectionism theory, research and treatment. (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC: APA. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.

Parental Influence on Perfectionism among Chinese Gifted Children

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449–468. Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (2017). Perfectionism: A relational approach to conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. New York: Guilford Press. Joreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(4), 183–196. Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of research and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(6), 879–906. Shek, D. T. L. (2000). Differences between fathers and mothers in the treatment of, and relationship with, their teenage children: Perceptions of Chinese adolescents. Adolescence, 35(137), 135–146. Shek, D. T. L. (2006). Perceived parental behavioral control and psychological control in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. American Journal of Family Therapy, 34(2), 163–176.

211

Shek, D. T. L., & Lee, T. Y. (2005). Perceived parental behavioral control, psychological control, and parent-child relational qualities in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. In M. J. Kane (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Parenting (pp. 47–63). New York: Nova Science. Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 130–145. Smetana, J. G., & Daddis, C. (2002). Domainspecific antecedents of parental psychological control and monitoring: The role of parenting beliefs and practices. Child Development, 73(2), 563–580. Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high-ability students: Rational precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 238–251. Stevenson, H., & Lee, S. Y. (1990). Contexts of achievement. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 55(1–2, Serial No. 221). Stewart, S. M., & Bond, M. H. (2002). A critical look at parenting research from the mainstream: Problems uncovered while adapting Western research to non-Western cultures. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(3), 379–392. Stewart, S. M., Rao, N., Bond, M. H., McBrideChang, C., Fielding, R. & Kennard, B. D. (1998). Chinese dimensions of parenting: Broadening western predictors and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 33(5), 345–358.

Part II

Educational Provision: Programs and Strategies Belle Wallace

The chapters in this section contain a range of practical approaches to providing learning opportunities for gifted learners within formal educational settings. These include a discussion of provision for early years (Sutherland and Stack), a whole school model (Renzulli and Reis), programs for the development of thinking skills and problemsolving (Wallace and Adams, and Maker and Pease), developing appropriate learning cultures (Warwick), and the use of IT (Eriksson). There then follow chapters describing a range of specific techniques: acceleration (Rogers), differentiation (Kaplan), mentoring (Zorman et al.), English-language learning (Blackburn and Smith), life-career counselling (Maree), a review of ‘what works best?’ (Wardman and Hattie), and a new approach to training teachers (Whitehead and Huxtable). In ‘Building Knowledge Bridges: Synthesising Early Years and Gifted

Education Research and Practice to Provide an Optimal Start for Young Gifted Children’ Margaret Sutherland and Niamh Stack summarize the global situation with regard to legislation, policy and government priorities in early years provision. They discuss the implications of introducing standardized testing in early years with regard to gifted youngsters. Some examples of internationally renowned curricular frameworks are explored and the opportunities these might offer the gifted young learner are discussed. The chapter concludes with some vignettes that demonstrate how learning opportunities might be facilitated and fostered. Joseph Renzulli and Sally Reis pioneered a broader concept of giftedness through their Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) which advocates the provision of opportunities for all students to discover their respective ‘gifts’ and ‘talents’. In ‘Engineering the Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Case Study of the

214

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Process of Change in Education’ Renzulli and Reis demonstrate that SEM has an underlying policy of inclusion of all students in enrichment activities, thereafter providing appropriate creative problem-­solving projects that vary in depth and breadth. SEM includes the training of teachers so that they can accommodate varying strategies for differentiation of learning activities that promote enjoyment, engagement and enthusiasm. A vital element in the SEM model is training teachers to compact the prescribed curriculum, and so release time for those learners who then engage in individual or small-group extension activities. In ‘TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social Context: A Universal Framework for Developing Thinking Skills and Problemsolving Across the Curriculum’. Belle Wallace and Harvey Adams outline their development of TASC, which initially was developed to raise the achievement of able but disadvantaged learners in the apartheid era in South Africa. The SA TASC project lasted for 14 years, and many of these able students entered tertiary and training institutions with full matriculation. During the same period, Wallace and Adams trained teachers and curriculum planners, and worked in the local schools alongside teachers with groups of able students. Returning to the UK, Wallace, as President of the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE), became a national consultant to schools and worked with teachers and learners to apply the TASC principles in a western context that had similar problems to the South African context she had just left. The focus on thinking skills and problem solving continues through the international, multi-cultural project developed by June Maker and Randy Pease, and discussed in ‘Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration’. The REAPS model was created to serve gifted students in a variety of settings. The three teaching models that make up REAPS – Problem Based Learning (PBL), Thinking

Actively in a Social Context (TASC) and Discovering Intellectual Strengths and Capabilities while Observing Varied Ethnic Responses (DISCOVER) – were combined because they (a) include problem solving as a key component; (b) have evidence for their success when used with gifted students; and (c) build upon and develop the classical characteristics of gifted students. An additional theoretical contribution was the concept of multiple intelligences with the inclusion of the spiritual/ethical and the mechanical/ technical as domains of ability, known as the Prism of Learning. In ‘Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners: Authentic, Augmented and Actualized Places and Placements’, Gillian Eriksson explores the rapid development of complex educational technology and analyses the potential for developing extension activities that will stimulate gifted learners. She also examines the characteristics of the ‘technologically gifted’, suggesting that learners can be programmers, interfacers or fixers. Eriksson suggests that gifted learners should experience authentic learning which would engage them in live interactions and through which they would explore current global problems and conflicts. She also makes the case for augmented learning, which uses virtual simulations whereby teachers and learners interact with avatars or visit places as if they were real. Eriksson provides practical examples of schooling projects using complex technology for real-life learning, and also for teacher training. Ian Warwick’s research, discussed in ‘How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence that Benefits Highly Able Students to Enter Top Research Universities’, was driven by the following UK statistics: three prestigious independent schools and two elite sixth form colleges produced as many entrants to Oxford and Cambridge as 1800 state schools across England. Warwick’s research findings reveal an exciting and comprehensive list of teaching and learning interactions that make a classroom come alive with energy, challenge,

Educational Provision: Programs and Strategies

critical and creative thinking and high selfconfidence and aspiration. The important characteristics of the teachers are passion and excitement about learning, high-level questioning and belief in their pupils’ capacity for high-level achievement. In ‘Meta-analysis of 26 Forms of Academic Acceleration: Options for Elementary (Primary) and Secondary Learners with Gifts or Talents’, Karen Rogers examines the strengths and weaknesses of various models for accelerating very able pupils. She analyzes acceleration strategies with the intention of making acceleration options more practical in order to help educators make appropriate decisions. She argues that the category of acceleration option that will be most successful with a gifted learner is dependent upon the interaction of the learner’s cognitive functioning levels, learning strengths, personal characteristics, interests inside and outside of school, and general attitudes toward learning and school. She argues that decision-makers need to collect adequate supplementary information before making a decision with regard to which category of acceleration would best suit the learners’ needs. In ‘What Works Better than the Rest? The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners’ Janna Wardman and John Hattie continue the discussion on curricular provision for very able learners, presenting a meta-analysis carried out over 30 years on ability grouping, enrichment and acceleration for gifted learners. They define ability grouping as tracking or streaming across a year group or flexible grouping across subjects, both of which are more common at secondary level; and cluster grouping within a class, which is more common at primary level. The authors suggest, however, that the enrichment offered seldom has appropriate depth and breadth. Acceleration comes in many forms: acceleration by a year; curriculum compacting or telescoping; single subject acceleration; and, dual enrolment with a tertiary institution. The latter is perceived as a more successful strategy.

215

Sandra N. Kaplan in ‘Continuum of Differentiation’ outlines a continuum of differentiated practice that spans the multiple needs, interests and abilities of academic, linguistic, cultural and economic diversity among gifted students; enabling educators to design and practice differentiation as a fluid rather than a fixed phenomenon. The continuum presents a series of alternative activities encompassing varying levels of difficulty, acknowledges different types of gifted abilities, and encourages expressions of personal activities, academic strengths, and special talents and interests. Kaplan explains the different modes of learning that teachers and learners need to understand; namely learning that reinforces knowledge and skills, prioritizes essential and key elements, refines and extends, and re-defines when necessary. All these modes of learning underpin independent study. Rachel Zorman, Menachem Nadler, Pnina Zeltser, and Zipi Bashan present ‘The National Mentoring Program in Israel: A Model for Developing Leadership among Highly Gifted Students’. Zorman, of the Henrietta Szold Institute for the Division of Gifted leads the National Mentoring program in Israel. The program caters for highly gifted scholars in grades 10 and 11. The main goal of the program is to cultivate future national leaders in various talent areas. The young scholars are matched with appropriate mentors who are experts in their field. The scholars carry out professional research that lasts a year. They also undertake to create projects in response to community needs, and so develop their organizational and leadership abilities. Based on her work, Zorman justifies a broad model that should underpin international mentoring projects. In ‘Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners with Exceptional Potential for English-language Learning’ Aranzazu M. Blackburn and Susen R. Smith discuss the challenges that face gifted English-Language Learners (GELLs) in Australia. The key capacity of GELLs is

216

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

their ability to learn English efficiently. They suggest that GELLS need immersion in a third language so that they can apply their advanced language skills. Being bilingual from an early age enhances the development of social cognition skills, executive functioning and metalinguistic awareness due to the experience of manipulating more than one linguistic system. GELLS also need opportunities to use their bilingual capacities to develop deep understanding. Blackburn and Smith suggest that bilingualism with giftedness can result in high academic achievement but such learners need understanding from sympathetic teachers and support from policy makers. Jacobus G. Maree argues in ‘Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa’ that in most African countries, concepts of intelligence and giftedness tend to emphasize the well-being of the group rather than that of the individual. Moreover, practical abilities in rural cultures are valued because they sustain life itself; whereas values esteemed in densely populated urban communities are based on a western type of success. With regard to education in schools, a western curriculum is usually promoted and the emphasis is on raising basic standards of literacy and numeracy in large mixed ability classes. Some South African urban schools give attention to intellectual giftedness and

Maree strongly argues the case for lifecareer counselling for learners who show potential, enabling them to construct careers and design successful lives in which they can make social contributions for the benefit of the collective. This section on educational provisions and programs concludes with a chapter by Jack Whitehead and Marie Huxtable ‘Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts through Living Theory Research’. The authors promote Living Theory as a research paradigm in which practitioners accept responsibility for their own learning, the learning of others and the learning within the social environment in which they work. The research paradigm leads to higher degrees and doctorates and to becoming what Whitehead and Huxtable call master educators. The authors believe that it is very important that teachers understand and monitor their own development. Whitehead and Huxtable argue that the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) of teachers has increasingly been limited to improving their ability to train and instruct, but what is needed is CPD that engages teachers in metacognitive reflection with regard to their teaching approaches, so that they can make meaningful changes to their practice. They can then engage their students in metacognitive reflection of their learning.

17 Building Knowledge Bridges: Synthesising Early Years and Gifted Education Research and Practice to Provide an Optimal Start for Young Gifted Children Margaret Sutherland and Niamh Stack INTRODUCTION: POLICY PROVISION Global events and attention to the rights, needs, and interests of young children have led to the increased international awareness of a range of stakeholders that ECCE [Early Childhood Care and Education] should be valued not only as part of education as a human right but also for individual and societal development (UNESCO 2006). Thus, what started out as a state-sponsored intervention to provide custodial care to a disadvantaged portion of the populace in the eighteenth century has taken on a universal character as a necessary educational institution for all children around the world. (Wotipka, Jarillo Rabling, Sugawara, & Tongliemnak, 2017, p. 307)

This quote epitomises the seismic ideological shift that has occurred globally in both the conceptualisation and the articulation of

early childhood care and education. Understanding the philosophical and sociopolitical transformation which this shift has involved and what these changes have meant in practice are fundamental to understanding the current and potential future contexts in which gifted young learners are situated, and so it is here we will begin in building our bridges. Educational ideologies may be explicit or implicit and may be based on evidence or intuition but as educators, parents and former children we are, and have all been, influenced by these ideologies at different points in our lives. Historically there is evidence as to just how powerful a set of beliefs can be on educational policy and legislation. For example, when the Parochial Schools Bill (England) of

218

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

1807 was debated in the House of Commons, Tory MP Davies Giddy warned the House that: giving education to the labouring classes of the poor, would in effect be found to be prejudicial to their morals and happiness; it would teach them to despise their lot in life, instead of making them good servants in agriculture and other laborious employments to which their rank in society had destined them; instead of teaching them the virtue of subordination it would render them factious and refractory as is evident in the manufacturing counties; it would enable them to read seditious pamphlets, vicious books and publications against Christianity; it would render them insolent to their superiors. (HC Deb, 13 July 1807 vol. 9 col. 798)

This extract is from a particular country (England) during a particular historical period, and as such it is particular to that time and context but it exemplifies how prevailing societal thought, in this case that expanding education would result in the ‘working classes’ becoming dissatisfied with their lot in life which in turn might lead to insubordination, can influence educational policy and development. Throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries competing educational ideologies fought to influence education and curriculum ­development. The industrialists were focused on education as a means of producing an adult workforce that would develop habits of regularity, self-discipline, obedience and trained effort – all necessary for engaging in the burgeoning mass production era. The old humanists advocated for a classical education as the ideal and were concerned with man’s spiritual development, which depended on more than preparation for work. They were however, opposed to democracy and were hierarchical and conservative in nature. The public educators argued strongly that as humans we have the right to be educated and that creating a good society would be dependent on Governments adopting this position. Williams (1958) argues that the curriculum was shaped by public educators who were forced to draw on the arguments

of one group to offset the beliefs of another and so the curriculum became a compromise between all three ideologies and their beliefs. Beliefs about the appropriate provision for young gifted and talented learners sit within these compromised ideologies, and thus ensuing educational developments and understandings about young children are influenced by, and have their roots in, these historical moments in time. The first international survey on pre-­ primary education was carried out in 1939, it recognised that this sector was growing exponentially as a consequence of the increasing number of working mothers, and stressed the value of pre-school and childcare facilities staffed by trained teachers being freely available to all children (Kamerman, 2006). In 1945 after the end of the Second World War, the inhabitants of a village in Northern Italy apportioned the proceeds from the sale of an abandoned German war tank, a few trucks and some horses to build a school for young children. This community, which had been almost destroyed by war, believed a sustainable and peaceful future for their children was only possible if they intervened early and empowered their youngest children through strong foundations in knowledge and education (Barazzoni, 2005). The highly regarded Reggio Emilia early childhood system, which grew out of these beginnings, continues to flourish today. The emphasis it places on the balance between care and education continues to inform practice internationally, and we will discuss this approach in more detail later in the chapter. A follow-up UNESCO international survey in 1961 again emphasised how women’s growing participation in the workforce was increasing the necessity for alternative care options. As these rising demands placed pressure on limited places, priority was being given to children who were at threat of neglect, abuse or inadequate parenting. The focus, it was reported, was on the ‘whole child’. The challenges identified within the survey in meeting this increased demand for

Building Knowledge Bridges

provision included the fact that provision of this kind was expensive, that there was a shortage of qualified professionals to deliver this provision internationally and that there was a dearth of research on pre-primary provision and early childhood development to evidence and inform developments (Kamerman, 2006). In response to these findings, among others, in 1971 UNESCO included a set of early childhood education activities in its programme and budget for the first time, in order to support countries in meeting these challenges. These activities included the collation and synthesis of information and research on pre-primary provision and the dissemination of this information through expert seminars. These broader international ­developments were mirrored within individual c­ountries, for example, in the UK, the 1972 White Paper, Education: A Framework for Expansion (DES, 1972), stated that there was ‘now considerable evidence pointing to the importance of the years before five in a child’s education – and to the most effective ways of providing for the needs, and potential, which children display at this age’ (p. 4). This included evidence demonstrating that during this stage of development children, with the right support, could advance in language, cognition and practical skills further than previously believed. As in international discourse, a particular emphasis was placed upon the importance of this provision for families living in deprived areas, both urban and rural, to supplement parents’ own efforts and mediate any potential negative factors such as poverty. Importantly it stated that one of the goals of this extension of early education was to facilitate the earlier identification of children with special difficulties, as remedial measures were much more likely to be effective if applied early. At this time, of course special education was very much focused around a deficit model, and gifted children and the importance of early identification for them and their specific needs were absent from this discourse, many would argue that they still are (Walsh,

219

Hodge, Bowes & Kemp, 2010). However more generally the arguments that early intervention could be much more effective in mediating negative impact in later life was beginning to take a firm hold, but this proposed expansion into pre-primary education was hugely expensive and the costs remained a barrier to universal provision until the economic arguments began to join the pedagogical, psychological and developmental arguments. In 2003, in their foreword to their Global Directory of Early Child Development Projects the World Bank placed particular emphasis on reaching children in the years before they enter school: Early Child Development (ECD) remains one of the most powerful levers for accelerating Education for All (EFA) and the International Development Goals on poverty reduction. Children who are well nurtured during their first years of life tend to do better in school and stand a better chance of developing the skills required to contribute productively to social and economic growth. Thus investing in young children is a stepping stone in a nation’s process of human and economic development that has a considerable multiplier effect for society.

This statement reflects decades of collated research across disciplines including psychology, neuroscience and early education that progressed the discussion and debate beyond the need to find alternative care for children when women worked, to the powerful role high-quality educational provision could play for all children during this time (Stack, 2013). We began to see a move away from what Dalli and White (2017, p. 6) call the ‘residual, somewhat tedious, negative commentaries concerning the universal harm for infants in out-of-home care’ to not only acknowledging the ‘new normality of their lives in out-of-home settings’ but beyond this to recognising how early childhood provision might provide something complementary and beneficial to parental care. The World Bank, as one of the largest single funding sources for education and health

220

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

programmes, took the decision to place additional emphasis on reaching children in the years before they enter school because of the clear financial evidence of the positive impact of good quality provision during this time. Globally the provision of pre-primary early childhood care and education (ECCE) vastly expanded with the world average gross enrolment ratio in ECCE increasing from less than 10% in 1965 to more than 64% by 2010 (Wotipka, Jarillo Rabling, Sugawara, & Tongliemnak, 2017). We have progressed to the point where The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals call for all children to have access to quality ECCE by 2030, as this is now considered a necessary level of education for all children. Universal provision is an admirable and ambitious aim but three things are essential in progressing towards this aim: firstly that we carefully consider what we mean by quality ECCE; secondly that the universal intent matches the local context and its needs; and thirdly that it meets the needs of all learners, including the gifted and talented. The widescale growth in early education has raised some concerns among politicians, researchers, educators and parents about the quality of this provision (Wong et al., 2010). It would be unfortunate if universal good intent translated into low-quality generic baseline provision that meets the needs of very few young learners. Ikegami and Grieshaber (2017) argue that much of the research assessing the quality of early childhood education to date has been conducted from Western perspectives using universal measuring standards. They argue that this single lens approach blinds us to different models and to the diversity of cultural contexts. They give the example of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS-R) (Harms et  al. 2005), which was created in the USA to measure quality in early childhood education programmes and has since been translated into French, German, Hungarian, Norwegian, Spanish and Japanese. Ikegami

and Grieshaber critique this ‘universal’ approach to assessing the quality of provision on the grounds that only amending the language of the measure fails to give due consideration to cultural and contextual differences beyond language. They also critique this kind of approach to measuring quality for its positivist emphasis, which they argue is only valuable when thinking about structural aspects of quality such as educator child ratios, physical space and staff qualifications. Quality, they argue, is a socially constructed concept and therefore to effectively measure it fully within a context we must capture educators’ and cultures’ values and their beliefs about the provision, which requires a much more nuanced approach to assessing quality in early childcare provision. To better understand how to improve provision they argue for the importance of listening to educators’ accounts of everyday practice and using these perspectives to both account for and embrace diversity. To illustrate their argument, they provide case studies from Soka kindergartens. Soka education is an educational theory propounded by the Japanese educator Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, which focuses on the ideals of value creation. The ultimate goal of Soka education is to foster children to become global citizens and create positive value in their own community. Within the case studies educators from three different countries emphasise the importance of following the Soka principle of identifying and working with the positive attributes of children, for example: I always try to find something in which the student is very good, all the children are different (ED9, Japan).

They emphasise that as each child’s interests and abilities are likely to be different, creating an environment with choice enables a flexible approach to supporting learning. Within this pedagogical tradition quality is assessed by how well the educator succeeds in creating a shared learning environment that embraces diversity, and which provides

Building Knowledge Bridges

opportunities for children to learn collectively based on their own interests and abilities. Within this kind of open approach, it is easy to see how the needs and abilities of all learners including gifted young children across a diverse range of contexts and cultures can be respected and met. To protect the needs of gifted young learners it is therefore important that we are vocal in our defence of the need for appropriate measures of quality within early childcare provision, and outspoken in our resistance to misguided attempts to standardise and focus on baseline outcomes rather than diverse contextually appropriate quality provision. Let us take for example the highly controversial Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) International Early Learning Study (IELS), more commonly known as ‘baby PISA’, which is due for launch in 2018. For almost twenty years the OECD, in parallel with other international bodies such UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank, has played a hugely significant role in helping to progress early childhood education. The OECD Starting Strong I+II (2001, 2006) reports are considered landmark research in the field that provided essential understanding of provision and possibilities for early years policy makers internationally. However, the proposal to introduce IELS, which will test 5-year-olds on a range of standardized measures, has been met with dismay, controversy and extensive criticism concerning the lack of consultation with the field of early childhood (Pence, 2016). Urban and Swadener (2016) acknowledge the importance of international collaboration and information sharing in helping to enhance early childhood systems around the world but express their concern that these necessary opportunities for meaningful and informative international level collaborations are increasingly being replaced by universal standardized assessment of children, decontextualized comparisons, and, as a consequence, ranking of countries. They argue given the demonstrated challenges to reliability and validity

221

of these kinds of decontextualized standardized assessments, and the field’s subsequent resistance to using them, any results garnered from this exercise will be largely meaningless and they call for a change of direction. Dalli and White (2017) caution against ending up with a kind of ‘global ECEC’ that fails to acknowledge the vast diversity that exists in each policy and practice context. While we may all agree that universally every child should benefit from equal access to early years provision, this does not mean it should be generic in nature within or between contexts, as this would fail to meet the diversity of children’s needs. These calls for a more meaningful contextualised approach are important, as we have seen with the existing PISA data based on 15-year-olds that in spite of the significant criticisms of this data and its limitations its existence still acts as a damaging comparative tool and negatively impacts on countries’ policy decisions (Stack and Sutherland, 2017). We would join our colleagues above in expressing concerns about assessments of the quality of early years provision, like IELS, that ignore context and are likely to fail to spot potential in young people, in both their flawed execution and the distraction that they provide to educators to focus on outcomes rather than engaging in high-quality, flexible contextualised provision that widens opportunities for learners rather than narrows them. Identifying and meeting the needs of a diverse range of young learners requires considerable skills. Press and Mitchell (2014, pp. 237–238) argue that policy must also recognise this complexity and provide support for ‘informed professional engagement and reflection’. The question of what qualifications, professional development and opportunities for reflection are necessary for early years educators has been the subject of much debate. Sumsion (2017) in discussing the Australian Government’s Productivity Commission Report into Childcare and Early Childhood Learning (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2014) reports

222

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

how the consequence of the Commission’s unwavering position that there was a lack of evidence that under threes require more than minimally qualified educators, repositioned infants and toddlers from ‘learning from birth’ to ‘waiting to learn’, and revived historic divisions between education and care. Gibbons, Stratford and White (2017) tax themselves with the question as to whether early education professionals should have a specific early childhood teaching qualification. In addressing this question, they cite the OECD Starting Strong II (2006) report which found that internationally there was no dominant model for professional qualifications in this area, and argued that this may be due to a focus on care rather than education. Gibbons, Stratford and White argued that we need to think a lot more broadly than this and that the early years educators’ role is far more than just ‘caring’. They proposed the need to see an early years provider’s engagement as a collaborative teaching and learning relationship with the young child and their family, and that well-being must be understood in an educational and pedagogical sense. This broader perspective to us would again seem important if early years educators are going to be adequately skilled in addressing the needs of gifted young children. Although researchers such as Stoeger (2006), Hodge and Kemp (2006), Walsh, Hodge, Bowes and Kemp (2010) Sutherland (2008, 2012) and Kaplan and Hertzog (2016) are doing much to raise the profile of gifted young learners, there is still limited research in this area. While undoubtedly many of the recent developments in early years policy and practice would be ideal for supporting young gifted learners (see for example ‘Getting it Right for Every Child’ in Scotland), connections are not always explicitly made, and thus early years practitioners are left to make these connections for themselves and develop appropriate support. This is problematic if the early years setting is operating a deficit-driven model of education where the emphasis is on those children who struggle,

with the assumption being that those who are gifted will succeed irrespective of support. To appropriately support gifted young children in early years settings, we must break away from traditional views of ability that often assumes different groups of children require vastly different forms of support. Instead we will argue that a reframing of the relationship between early years more generally and gifted education is required if we are to provide an optimal start for gifted young children. In the next section, we will discuss different early years curricular frameworks that are currently in place internationally and how these might support early learning and gifted learners. It will demonstrate the challenges and benefits of bringing research, policy and practice from both early years and gifted fields together to provide the best support for gifted young learners.

CURRICULUM FRAMEWORKS Given the shifting international focus to the early years, with policy initiatives emerging that turned this rhetoric into reality, attention naturally began to turn to the curriculum. While curricula were driven by an increase in interest internationally, they were none-the-less developed within individual countries, and as such grew in ways that took account of the local context. Before examining examples of curriculum frameworks and considering how, and if, they allow for the support of gifted young learners, we will examine the idea of curriculum. The term curriculum has its roots in the Latin word ‘currere’ meaning to run or to proceed. The term curriculum was used as far back as 1576 and was linked with a desire to bring some kind of order to the educational process. The English term first became linked to the idea of a course of study when in 1633 the University of Glasgow in Scotland referred to a course of study as ‘curriculum’. There is no one definition of curriculum but often it refers to the learning that is planned and guided by school. Kerr (1968 cited in

Building Knowledge Bridges

Kelly, 1999, p. 10) describes curriculum as ‘All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school’. The two key terms here are ‘guided’ and ‘planned’. In practical terms this translates into curricula: • which may be articulated on paper (purpose, aims, content); • which may be seen in action (practice) • which may be experienced (learner perspectives); • where there may be a potential gap between ‘planned curriculum’ and ‘received curriculum’; and • which may take the form of both formal/informal curricula.

It also encompasses ‘the hidden’, such as behaviours, values and knowledge. Knowledge might refer to subject knowledge that has become valued by cultures and society. Equally, knowledge might emerge from an individual’s understanding of the world and their place within it, the skills and abilities that a person requires to function within society or knowledge that might relate to social standards (Schiro, 2013). These slightly differing views of knowledge in turn link to different ideologies about the purpose of education. Kohlberg and Mayer (1972) identified three Western educational ideologies that can be linked to different developmental theories: • A romantic ideology reflecting a maturational view; • A cultural transmission ideology reflecting a behavioural view; • A progressive ideology reflecting an interactionist, constructivist view.

Each of these ideologies takes a different stance towards the learner. A romantic ideology views the child as the key player, with child initiated activities being the core element of learning. A cultural transmission model has as its key aim the passing on of a body of knowledge from one generation to

223

the next. Finally, a progressive ideology views knowledge as being embedded in society and community, and it is the interaction of the child with these aspects that will drive learning forward. Eisner and Vallance (1974), working particularly in the field of art education, suggested five ‘conceptions’ of the curriculum: 1 Curriculum as the development of cognitive processes; 2 Curriculum as technology – i.e. relating to a structured approach to the organisation and construction of the curriculum based on an ‘efficiency’ approach, focusing on models of behavioural objectives, measurement and a focus on competency-based teaching; 3 Curriculum as self-actualisation – i.e. as a means to personal development and personal achievement; 4 Curriculum for social learning; 5 Curriculum for academic rationalism – i.e. focusing on the actual content, based on the view that intellectual growth comes through the study of the ‘worthiest’ subjects and materials.

More recently Schiro’s (2013) model of curriculum ideologies suggested that there are four basic conceptualisations, which overlap with some of Eisner and Valance’s suggestions: • • • •

The scholar academic curriculum; The learner-centred curriculum; The social reconstruction curriculum; The social efficiency curriculum.

When considering ‘curriculum’ for gifted and talented, these competing curricula conceptualisations will influence what and how gifted young children are taught. There is little agreement within the literature as to features and functions of an early years curricula, although there is agreement that they ought to focus on the child’s interests and needs (see for example Bertram and Pascal, 2002). There is recognition that children’s interests and needs are wide-ranging and unlikely to be uniform. Educators are tasked with the role of engaging learners through

224

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

their interests, and much of the literature suggests that this is done through play and is linked to ideas of a learner-centred curriculum. This is not unproblematic, as we shall see in the next section, and Hedges, Cullen and Jordan (2011, p. 187) argue that ‘the focus on play may have discouraged teachers from more analytical interpretations of children’s interests’. If this is indeed the case, then there are implications for how educators will meet the needs of gifted young learners, regardless of the apparent recognition that learners are different, and there are implications for the implementation of an adopted curriculum model. In the late 1990s some early years curricula caught the attention of policy makers and practitioners and aspects of ‘curriculum borrowing’ ensued. Two examples of widely used and highly regarded curricula within the early years are Te Wh¯ariki (MoE, 1995), an early years curriculum framework developed in New Zealand, and Reggio Emilia (Malaguzzi, 1996), a framework developed in Northern Italy. These approaches have their roots in socio-cultural theory (Rogoff 1998) and are underpinned by social constructivist notions of learning. The ideas in these frameworks were soon reflected in early years curricula across the globe, and the crossover between curricular frameworks internationally can clearly be seen. In addition to curricula that focused specifically on early years provision, we also began to see more holistic curricula that purported to focus on a seamless progression through the developmental and educational stages and levels including the early years. For example, Curriculum for Excellence, which was implemented in Scotland in 2010, was designed to ‘achieve a transformation in education in Scotland by providing a coherent, more flexible and enriched curriculum from 3 to 18. The term curriculum is understood to mean – everything that is planned for children and young people throughout their education, not just what happens in the classroom’ (Education Scotland, 2010).

The Te Wh¯ariki early years curriculum in New Zealand states that its aim is to help young learners to grow up as competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society (MoE, 1995). To achieve this, the curriculum provides a framework of principles and strands, but importantly each setting is encouraged to take these principles and strands, and, in partnership with parents and extended families and communities ‘to use them to weave a curriculum wh¯ariki that is specifically designed for their children’. Te Wh¯ariki received an update in 2017 and it includes a unique indigenous curriculum pathway for children in K¯ohanga Reo (a K¯ohanga Reo is an early childhood education and care (ECE) centre where all education and instruction is delivered in the M¯aori language) alongside a bicultural pathway for children in early childhood education. The updated curriculum aims to enable early learning services to collaborate with parents and wh¯anau (extended family and communities) to provide a rich curriculum that reflects local priorities and interests. Nuttall (2013, p. 2) talks of how ‘The language of Te Wh¯ariki is not one of risk, vulnerability and competition. It speaks, instead of opportunity, respect and relationships’. Given the focus within this curriculum on the importance of culture and context, on diversity and differentiation, and on the inter-relationships between education and family, it becomes clear why those interested in gifted young learners often proffer this curriculum that celebrates the uniqueness of the individual and their context as a good model. As already discussed earlier in the chapter, the Reggio Emilia curricular approach emerged after the Second World War when a community decided they wanted a different future for their children, and that to achieve this they had to start at the beginning and invest in their early childcare provision. Forty-five years later in 1991 the American

225

Building Knowledge Bridges

magazine Newsweek described one of the nurseries in Reggio as the best in the world, which led to an immediate influx of researchers, psychologists and educators trying to interpret and import the approach (Stack, 2013). Interestingly though, educators within Reggio are resistant to the need for longitudinal evidence, outcome measurements, and efficacy evaluations based on external criteria, and instead see research as the daily critical questioning and co-construction of knowledge which they engage in personally with the children under 6 in their care (Dodd-Nufrio, 2011). They believe that it is more important to support and celebrate the young children’s present than focusing on predicting their unforeseeable future. Within this approach young children are encouraged to explore their environment and express themselves through all of their available expressive, communicative and cognitive languages. Classrooms are organised to support a highly collaborative problemsolving approach (Edwards et al., 1998). This stance is in diametric opposition to those of standardised assessment and provision and constantly leaves the door open for opportunities to identify and challenge an individual child’s needs rather than labelling them once and forever. Rather than having a specific early years curriculum, the Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland aims to provide a coherent 3–18 framework. In doing so it aims to alleviate issues of transition between the educational levels that have historically been deemed as problematic, such as the repetition of activities young children have long ago mastered which puts them at risk of being turned off learning (Koshy, Mitchell & Williams, 2006), and opens up the boundaries to age and stage. It emphasizes that teachers at all stages need to plan rich, challenging, meaningful learning experiences. They need to know each child well as an individual, and understand what their needs and talents are. There needs to be: challenge and enjoyment, personalisation and choice, relevance and progression

in learning (Education Scotland, 2010). Meeting the needs of gifted young children is congruent with the above aims. So, on a surface level, it would appear that gifted young learners should be well catered for within this kind of curricular provision. However, policies and frameworks are dependent on effective implementation. In 2006, Koshy and Robinson’s review of the literature argued that of all the children with ‘special needs’, younger gifted children are the group most frequently ignored, not just in the UK but internationally. While there may be many reasons for this – for example, a belief that these children are ‘clever’ so will get on in spite of us, identification procedures that capture specific information but do not necessarily look at the child holistically, etc. – a deficit-driven view of special education has perhaps particularly contributed to them being overlooked. Where schools and education systems focus on ‘children who cannot’ then those deemed to be successful in learning will not merit specific support or interventions. It is for this reason that we have been working on a model (See Figure 17.1) that seeks to both challenge and change this rhetoric by supporting practitioners’ pedagogical engagement in knowledge and understanding of both gifted and early years research.

Young Learner Gied Young Learner Pedagogy

Figure 17.1  Developing teacher understanding of gifted young learners through pedagogical engagement

226

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

This model is rooted in four key principles and beliefs: 1 The early years educator is a key figure in the development of curriculum and pedagogy and is already the holder of knowledge, skills and dispositions that support young learners. 2 Early years policies and approaches are supportive of gifted young learners when implemented by skilled and knowledgeable early years educators. 3 Early years policies and approaches are generally congruent with gifted young learners. 4 Early years settings offer the opportunity to create optimal learning environments where young children and educators together can discover and develop learning dispositions.

Key to achieving the aims of this model is the synthesis of relevant developments and ideas from a variety of disciplines and initiatives and making them accessible and engaging to those involved in early years provision.

PUTTING THIS ALL INTO PRACTICE As discussed earlier in the chapter, early years settings are increasingly charged with providing education and care, and this can be a delicate balance for staff as they seek to develop the child holistically. Early years educators often report they feel inappropriately ‘equipped to work with children with learning difficulties’ (Clough & Nutbrown, 2006, p. 64), and Sutherland (2011, p. 2) suggests that it is ‘reasonable to assume that similar findings would emerge for staff working with highly able children’. Thus, working with staff at all points of their career, long professional development is crucial if we are to develop confident knowledgeable educators. Teacher education and development are of transnational concern and interest and are the focus of international organisations and research groups (see for example, Association for Teacher Education in Europe, International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement). The ideas generated internationally filter through to policy and practice

in individual countries. In this section, we will examine how international ideas and government policies filter through to practice in early years provision. We will consider what it might mean for settings to actively pursue the inclusion of gifted young children through a curriculum and pedagogy that have at their heart the ethos of inclusion. Through vignettes this section will demonstrate how settings must interrogate every aspect of their practice and be alert for opportunities to create challenging learning experiences for the children in their care. The selection of case studies included here are based on children with high ability whom we have met in nurseries and early years settings across the years, each of whom has stayed in our memories for different reasons (pseudonyms have been used in all cases to protect the anonymity of the children). These case studies demonstrate the diverse ways in which high ability may be encountered in the early years and some of the challenges which both children and educators face as they begin this phase of their learning journey. You may recognise similarities with children in your own setting. These scenarios are designed to help you think about issues that may arise and your response to them.

Vignette 1 – Badriah Badriah started nursery at age 3. She is the older of two children in her family. Soon after Badriah joined the nursery, staff were aware that Badriah was able to read but she was also incredibly shy, and often had difficulty relating to her peers and to staff. She had difficulties with eye contact and although her language was quite advanced she rarely initiated conversation with others. When staff spoke to her parents they were keen that staff would support Badriah in developing her social skills as they were aware this was important to her all-round development. Her parents already knew of her reading ability although they had not shared this information

Building Knowledge Bridges

with the nursery when enrolling Badriah as they were anxious about how this may be perceived, the very last thing they wanted was to be considered as ‘pushy parents’. They were really pleased with the nursery’s proactive approach and encouraged that they had quickly and independently identified these areas for development. Badriah’s parents were providing language and reading stimulation at home and were confident that this aspect was already being well addressed, but they were keen for the nursery to support Badriah’s developing social skills. One year later Badriah was a contented and confident child who appeared very willing to interact with her peers and was comfortable with, and securely attached to, adults in the setting. When engaging in a reading task she was able to read at a high level with comprehension and intonation. Her social cues and ability to articulate her thoughts and engage in fluid conversation were also well in advance of her chronological age. During Badriah’s first year at nursery, staff and parents had clearly provided Badriah with excellent support in progressing her social skills, but staff expressed some anxiety at how to continue to support her accelerated cognitive and language development. As reading is not routinely part of the early years preschool curriculum, staff were particularly concerned about their ability/expertise in this area and were concerned that they might use the ‘wrong’ approach when developing her reading skills.

Reflection The above scenario highlights some important issues. Nursery/kindergarten staff do not always hold a degree in teaching and as such they can be confident about their ability to address the developmental and social needs of children, but some may feel less confident when thinking about cognitive ability. This is evidenced in this vignette in the idea that there is a right and wrong way to teach reading. There is no one approach to the teaching of reading (Wyse & Goswami, 2008), so

227

there is no right or wrong way to approach this, as such, but early years educators’ lack of confidence can paralyse them into inactivity. There are things we know are important to the reading process such as onset and rhyme, phonological awareness, exposure to print, and so there are many things a nursery/ kindergarten can do to support young children who show an interest in reading or who can already read. Primary/elementary schools do not hold the keys to teaching reading, but it might be useful for nurseries/kindergartens to talk to any associated primary/elementary schools about how they approach the development of reading. This way the nursery/ kindergarten can develop activities that complement the work done in primary/elementary school, and this should mean that the child will not repeat activities when they go to school but instead the school can build on the work undertaken in nursery/kindergarten The fact that Badriah can access for herself texts that an 8-year-old would be reading suggests that her cognitive ability, reasoning skills and comprehension are well advanced. It is likely she will bring these advanced skills and abilities to other tasks. Nursery/ kindergarten staff need to ensure that they plan for opportunities across the curriculum which allow these advanced abilities to be used and developed. This is not just about considering reading material across the curriculum, but is also about developing opportunities for advanced reasoning and critical thinking across all activities. There is a danger that if the nursery continues to work on areas that require social/emotional development on the assumption that the cognitive ability will develop unaided, Badriah may indeed become bored and frustrated. It is acknowledged that children develop at different rates and will have peaks and troughs in their learning and may even appear to plateau at certain points; nonetheless, it is important that nurseries look at a learning profile for Badriah and then plan to progress learning at all points on that profile. We completely accept that it is a constant

228

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

challenge for staff in nursery to think up innovative, engaging activities for children who have been in the setting for some time, but this is where sharing good practice across other early years settings and with primary school partners can be hugely helpful. As practitioners, we need to think about creative ways to use the materials on offer – we need to be careful not to always go for the obvious. Asking open ended questions can allow children to use their own knowledge and feelings to demonstrate the depth of their learning. It offers young gifted and talented children wonderful opportunities to explore, discover, reflect and wonder. This in turn leads to more complex knowledge and greater sophisticated thinking. It is crucial that we build in time to talk to the child and find out what they would be interested in learning more about. Discovering what children know about certain topics can go some way to ensure that they do not end up in a repetitive cycle of learning. This is common practice in many early years settings and so adapting this to find out the learning desires of gifted and talented children is an easy step to make. Regardless of fears about ability to teach reading, nurseries and kindergartens need to make sure there are a variety of reading materials on offer – fiction, non-fiction, magazines, leaflets, dictionaries, encyclopaedias, notices. Not only does this allow the gifted reader, such as Badriah, to progress but it also allows children to develop an awareness of literature. Having a reporting back time when the child can share what they have been learning can also be useful in developing their social skills as well as extending participation and engagement to learners of different abilities.

Vignette 2 – Peter Peter had just turned 3 when we met him and had a challenging home background, with his parents’ substance abuse having played a

significant part in the first three years of his life. The family were receiving substantial support from social services. The open door policy of the nursery/kindergarten meant that they too were able to offer the family support and advice. Peter was physically small for his age and had quite a poor pallor. When in nursery/kindergarten, staff worked with Peter to ensure he developed strong inter- and intrapersonal skills through a range of activities. At first, he was not a child the nursery/ kindergarten had identified as demonstrating high ability. He was very quiet and did not participate in a hands-on fashion, although he made relevant comments about activities from time to time as he observed from ‘the edge’. Staff were anxious to ensure that he developed resilience and life skills as life was likely to remain challenging for Peter for the foreseeable future. They were pleased to see him engaging in tasks and they started to think about his cognitive ability when planning. They were concerned that they had not really thought about his cognitive development in as much detail as his social and emotional development.

Reflection As a result of working with Peter, staff began to think about the able underachiever and of how life experiences impact on the manifestation of ability. Gifted underachievers are often at even greater risk of being overlooked by the education system. While many staff felt confident about identifying less able children, they reported that they still had difficulty in knowing how to identify gifted and talented young children and particularly gifted and talented young children who were underachieving. Added to this is the difficulty that the culture within some settings and communities does not accept or value high achievement in all areas of the curriculum. When we are thinking about ability it is important to recognise that we are often assessing the latent ability of an individual child. That means we need to identify children with the potential to achieve and not just

Building Knowledge Bridges

those who are already ‘flying high’. If we are adopting this model then it is likely that there will be children who demonstrate significant discrepancies between their latent ability and their predicted performance. Staff meetings offer opportunities to question attitudes, beliefs and assumptions about gifted young learners. Staff in this context realised that they had, often inadvertently, lower expectations for children from challenging circumstances. In addition, they began to recognise that they had been concentrating on social and emotional development at the expense of cognitive development. Staff realised that they needed to develop social and emotional competencies while at the same time challenging ability through learning and play. Scaffolding learning for children will allow the adult to demonstrate appropriate ways of dealing with situations, and the task for the educator is to ensure that they: • offer appropriate and targeted support; • support and develop the child’s self-concept; • design tasks where children can work independently as well as together; • help children to experience the joy that comes with experiencing learning.

Ability has no regard for social status, and so while life experiences can mask ability it is the educators’ job to see beyond the issues and look for ways of supporting and nurturing learning. Within the nursery/kindergarten setting this might mean ensuring that care and education work hand in hand, thus meeting the holistic needs of children. While settings cannot change life circumstances they can influence how children meet and engage with life circumstances.

Vignette 3 – Meryl Meryl was 5 and had just started formal school. She had been reading since she was 2 years old and had a good grasp of the addition and subtraction of numbers up to 100.

229

Meryl had enjoyed the play-based curriculum on offer in the nursery/kindergarten as it took account of her interests and development. When Meryl transferred to primary/elementary school her parents had assumed the learning would become ‘more formal’, and were concerned that the school were proposing building on the play-based curriculum established in nursery/kindergarten. The school invited Meryl’s parents to visit the school and to talk to the teachers about the planning and preparation that went into lessons for the children.

Reflection Play is often assumed to be for ‘young children’ and once they leave nursery/kindergarten the ‘real work’ starts. However, there are countless opportunities to develop engaging, meaningful real-life learning experiences through play. One example of this is demonstrated through forest schools. Forest schools aim to encourage and inspire young people through constructive outdoor experiences. Teachers in this context were able to show how Meryl would continue to develop her advanced reading and mathematical skills through a series of carefully crafted lessons. While Meryl was able to play alongside her age peers in the outdoor setting, she also undertook activities that allowed her to be challenged and to learn new skills. For example, she undertook complex calculations as part of the den building activity, during which she used her knowledge of rounding numbers to routinely estimate the answer to a problem, then, after calculating, she decided if her answer was reasonable. She was then encouraged to share her solution with others. During discussions about outdoor temperature she learned about numbers less than zero. She was able to investigate how these numbers occur and are used in different situations. As a result of the den building activity, Meryl became very interested in animals that build dens. She researched this using both books and the internet. This research activity resulted in Meryl reading complex

230

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

texts. Her teacher worked with her to develop skills in note taking. She then organised these under suitable headings to help her u­ nderstand the ideas and information. She presented her findings to the class. Staff in the school valued play and had systematically thought about how play can provide rich learning opportunities. They were aware that the role of play is not always fully understood and so they offered workshops and talks for parents so that they could explain the importance of play. Through good communication between home and school, the school was able to share how they would continue to challenge Meryl in her learning. They were able to explain that sometimes that might happen in a more ‘formal way’, with Meryl sitting at a desk; however, they were also able to demonstrate the learning that had occurred during play, and provide examples of how the playbased approach had resulted in Meryl learning things beyond what they might have planned for her, even knowing she was particularly able at mathematics. For example, the idea to look at numbers less than zero came from Meryl. The teacher had not planned to look at this, but as a result of Meryl’s interest, the teacher planned a series of lessons where they looked at negative numbers. Play in the early years is a vital aspect of the cognitive, social and emotional development of young children. Rushing to undertake formal learning might stifle the creativity and curiosity so readily found among young learners. Crucially, staff in the school also recognised that play offers an opportunity for interaction with the adult. This interaction allows for the necessary cognitive input, but where the adult is involved in group play situations they can also model selfesteem, emotional well-being and resilience. Hopefully what these vignettes have succeeded in demonstrating is that supporting young gifted learners requires a multi-­dimensional approach, aw well as how, with careful planning, settings can develop practices and pedagogies which ensure that supporting learning for all remains at the forefront of their work.

CONCLUSION We believe that to develop best practice for gifted and talented young children in the 21st century it will be important for the field of gifted education to engage and work across traditional research divides. We have tried in this chapter to prioritize the key issues in early years and to demonstrate how gifted and talented young children are present within the current legislative and pedagogical approaches to early years, should policy makers and practitioners choose to recognise this. Creating opportunities within early years that allow young children, including gifted young children, to flourish, develop and experiment calls for reciprocal relationships between the child, the educator, the family, the community, policy makers and researchers. While each of these groups may come with different experiences, knowledge and desires, it is through collaborative, dynamic interactions between all stakeholders that constructive bridge building will result. The model we are developing seeks to advance one aspect of this bridge building. Moving beyond learning outcomes, it strives to encapsulate the social, cultural and localised contexts where learning is situated. We argue that in this way, early years educators can better understand the, sometimes complex, needs of gifted and talented young learners. Crucially, the synthesising of research and practice from early years and gifted education allows the practitioner to interrogate pedagogical approaches in ways that drive forward change in the curriculum. As we have seen within this chapter there is much good practice in early years and gifted education research and practice on which to build this reciprocal relationship. At the same time there remains much to learn about the ways that successful bridge building will result in stakeholders working together to shape and influence each other and ultimately develop practice and provision for young gifted learners that will move us towards a more sustainable and equitable world.

Building Knowledge Bridges

REFERENCES Australian Government Productivity Commission Report, (2014) https://www.pc.gov.au/ about/governance/annual-reports/2014–15 [accessed May 2018] Barazzoni, R. (2005) Brick by Brick: The History of the ‘XXV Aprile’ People’s Nursery School of Villa Cella. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children. Bertram, T. & Pascal, C. (2002) What counts in early learning? In O. N. Saracho and B. Spodek (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on Early Childhood Curriculum. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 241–259. Clough, P. & Nutbrown, C. (2006) Inclusion in the Early Years: Critical Analyses and Enabling Narratives. London: Sage. Dalli, C. & White, E. J. (2017) Policy and pedagogy for birth-to-three year olds. In E. White & C. Dalli (eds), Under-three Year Olds in Policy and Practice (Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Crossdisciplinary Insights and Innovations). Singapore: Springer, Singapore, 1–15. Department of Education and Science (DES) (1972) Education: A Framework for Expansion, Cmnd, 5174 London: DES. Dodd-Nufrio, A. T. (2011) Reggio Emilia, Maria Montessori, and John Dewey: Dispelling teachers’ misconceptions and understanding theoretical foundations. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(4), 235–237. Education Scotland (2010) Curriculum for Excellence. [online] https://education.gov. scot/scottish-education-system/policy-for-scottish-education/policy-drivers/cfe-(buildingfrom-the-statement-appendix-incl-btc1-5)/ What%20is%20Curriculum%20for%20 Excellence? [accessed 27 October 2017]. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998) The Hundred Languages of Children: Advanced Reflections. Greenwich: Ablex Publishing Company. Eisner, E. & Vallance, E. (1974) Introduction – five conceptions of curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (eds), Conceptions of Curriculum, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Gibbons, A., Stratford, R., & White, E. J. (2017) A ‘good life’ for infants in early childhood education and care? The place of well-being in

231

ECEC curriculum, pedagogy and policy. In E. White & C. Dalli (eds), Under-three Year Olds in Policy and Practice (Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations). Singapore: Springer. Harms, T., Clifford R. M., & Cryer, D. (2005) Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, Revised Edition, Updated. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. HC Deb, 13 July 1807 vol. 9 col. 798, https:// www.parliament.uk/business/publications/ hansard/commons/ Hedges, H., Cullen, J., & Jordan, B. (2011) Early years curriculum: Funds of knowledge as a conceptual framework for children’s interests. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(2), 185–205. Hodge, K. A. & Kemp, C.R. (2006) Recognition of giftedness in the early years of school: The perspectives of teachers, parents and children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 164–204. Ikegami K. & Grieshaber S. (2017) Reconceptualising quality early childhood education: What does Soka education have to offer? In M. Li, J. Fox & S. Grieshaber (eds), Contemporary Issues and Challenge in Early Childhood Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: New Frontiers of Educational Research. Singapore: Springer. Kamerman, S. B. (2006) A Global History of Early Childhood Education and Care: Background Paper Prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007 Strong Foundations: Early Childhood Care and Education. UNESCO. Kaplan, S. & Hertzog, N. (2016) Pedagogy for early childhood gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 39(3), 134–139. Kerr, J. F. (1968). The problem of curriculum reform. In J. F. Kerr (Ed.), Changing the curriculum (pp. 13–38). London: University of London Press. Kelly, A. V. (1999) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice (4th edn). London: Paul Chapman. Kohlberg, L. & Meyer, R. (1972) Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42(4), 449–496. Koshy, V. & Robinson, N. M. (2006) Too long neglected: Gifted young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 14(2), 113–126.

232

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Koshy, V., Mitchell, C., & Williams, M. (2006) Nurturing Gifted and Talented Children at Key Stage 1 (DfES Research Report No. 741). Notts, UK: DfES. Malaguzzi, L. (1996) The right to environment. In T. Filippini & V. Vecchi (eds), The Hundred Languages of Children: The Exhibit. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children. Ministry of Education (MoE), New Zealand (1995) Te Wh¯ariki – Guidelines for Developmentally Appropriate Programmes in Early Childhood Services. Wellington: Learning Media. Nuttall, J. (ed.) (2013) Weaving Te Wh¯ariki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s Early Childhood Curriculum Document in Theory and Practice. Wellington: NZCER Press. OECD (2001) Starting Strong I. Paris: OECD. OECD (2006) Starting Strong II. Paris: OECD. OECD (2015) Call for Tenders. International Early Learning Study. Paris: OECD. Pence, A. (2016) Baby PISA: Dangers that can arise when foundations shift. Journal of Childhood Studies, 41(3), 54–58. Press, F. & Mitchell, L. (2014) Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care: Implications for policy? In L. Harrison & J. Sumsion (eds), Lived Spaces of Infant-Toddler Education and Care: International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development. Dordrecht: Springer. Rogoff, B. (1998) Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (eds), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 2, Cognition, Perception and Language. New York: John Wiley, 679–744. Schiro, M. (2013) Curriculum Theory: ­Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stack, N. (2013) Making a case for early ­intervention: The role of developmental neuroscience. In L. H. Wasserman and D. Zambo (eds), Early Childhood and Neuroscience – Links to Development and Learning. Series: Educating the Young Child, 7. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 157–170. Stack, N. & Sutherland, M. (2017) Identifying highly able pupils is a tall order. Times Education Supplement, March. Stoeger, H. (2006) Identification of giftedness in early childhood. Gifted and Talented International, 21, 47–65.

Sumsion, J. (2017) Provision for ‘under 3s’ in Australian early childhood education and care policy commitments: A metaphorical canary in the coal mine? In E. White & C. Dalli (eds), Under-three Year Olds in Policy and Practice (Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations). Singapore: Springer. Sutherland, M. (2008) Developing the Gifted and Talented Young Learner. London: Sage. Sutherland, M. (2011) The early years educator: A key contributor to effective practice for highly able young children. TalentEd, 27, 1–11. Sutherland, M. (2012) Gifted and Talented in the Early Years: A Practical Guide for 3–6 Year Olds (2nd edn). London: Sage. UNESCO (1961) International Bureau of Education, Organization of Pre-Primary Education, 1961 Survey, Geneva; International Bureau of Education, Geneva and UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO (2006) Cross-National Compilation of National ECCE Profiles. Geneva: UNESCO International Bureau of Education. Urban, M. & Swadener, B. B. (2016) Democratic accountability and contextualised systemic evaluation: A comment on the OECD initiative to launch an International Early Learning Study (IELS) http://www.eurochild. org/fileadmin/public/04_News/Members/ RECE_OECD_IELS_statement.pdf [accessed November 2017]. Walsh, R., Hodge, K. A., Bowes, J. M., & Kemp, C. R. (2010) Same age, different page: Overcoming the barriers to catering for young gifted children in prior-to-school settings. International Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 43–58. Williams, R. (1958) Culture and Society 1780– 1950. London: Penguin. Wong, M., Wang, X. C., & Li, H. (2010) Accountability and quality early childhood education: Perspectives from Asia. Early Childhood and Development, 21(2), 163–166. World Bank (2003) Global Directory of Early Childhood Development Projects (English). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Building Knowledge Bridges

Wotipka, C. M, Jarillo Rabling, B., Sugawara, M., & Tongliemnak, P. (2017) The worldwide expansion of early childhood care and education, 1985–2010. American Journal of Education, 123(2).

233

Wyse, D. & Goswami, U. (2008) Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading. British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 691–710.

18 Engineering the Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Case Study of the Process of Change in Education Joseph S. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis

I never perfected an invention that I did not think about in terms of the service it might give others … I find out what the world needs, then I proceed to invent. (Thomas Alva Edison)

INTRODUCTION We define engineering as the art of converting ideas into structures that are practical and useful for the convenience of persons whom the ideas and structures are intended to support. Inventors dream about doing great things. Engineers build them. If you can tune into the application of your ideas, and set practical goals so that your vision is an expression of that purpose, then outcomes flow much more easily. This chapter is about the engineering we have conducted over the years to help make it easier for teachers and administrators to implement the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Every model designed to develop gifts and talents in young people is a ‘story’ – a

technological invention that begins with an idea, generates research designs, and proves its worth in the real world of schools, classrooms, and the lives of the young people that gifted education programs are designed to serve. The storyteller’s hope and the engineer’s tools can create the plan or model that will bring cohesion and understanding to what otherwise might seem like a series of disconnected and unrelated parts. It’s one thing to come up with an idea about improving a school practice but quite another to engineer the day-to-day practices, teacher training requirements, and categorically recommended resources that will make the model work in the real world. Most importantly, for sustainability to take place over an extended period, the teachers who are expected to use the model must view it positively. It should instill in teachers the same kind of enjoyment, engagement, and enthusiasm for learning that we expect to instill in our students.

A Case Study of the Process of Change in Education

This chapter summarizes our plans over the past several years to make our Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) (Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997, 2014) one of the most widely used and sustainable approaches in gifted education in the world. It should be noted at the outset that the model was developed to be used with Renzulli’s Three Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli, 1978, 2005). Following a brief overview of the mission and purpose of the SEM, we will discuss the practical aspects of our engineering work that have enhanced the popularity of the SEM.

THE MISSION OF THE SEM The mission of our SEM approach is to change the culture of schools by broadly applying the pedagogy of gifted education and our philosophy of enrichment and talent development to more students. The SEM provides enrichment for all students to help them identify their interests and talents and enable some students to move into more advanced talent development opportunities. We do not believe that ‘… all children are gifted’, but we do believe in advanced experiences for highly capable and talented students, and in special grouping arrangements that place students together for advanced instruction and interest opportunities. Our goal is to place highly trained gifted education/ enrichment specialists in every school in the world. We believe in accelerated learning opportunities, advanced courses, and special opportunities for young people whose learning profiles warrant special opportunities, resources, and encouragement. The SEM focuses on what we do with students in learning situations rather than how we group them and move them around. We also believe that ‘A Rising Tide Lifts All Ships’, meaning that enrichment opportunities provided to more students will lead to a more enjoyable, creative, and engaging learning climate for both students and their teachers.

235

The SEM has three general goals for all students: Enjoyment, Engagement, and Enthusiasm for Learning (we call these goals the 3 E’s) (see Figure 18.1). We all know from our own experiences that anything we enjoy doing promotes higher engagement and that enjoyment and engagement in learning produce both higher achievement and a positive attitude about the act of learning itself. Learning is more enjoyable when we like what we are learning and we therefore work harder and derive greater pleasure from what we are doing when we learn something new. Our research shows that when the 3 E’s are working well, students not only like school better, they have increased school achievement (Baum, Renzulli, & Hébert, 1994; Delcourt, 1993; Hébert, 1993; Reis, Eckert, McCoach, Jacobs, & Coyne, 2008; Reis, McCoach, Little, Muller, & Kaniskan, 2011; Reis & Renzulli, 2003; Renzulli & Reis, 1997). Our SEM philosophy embraces the goal that students’ love of learning, just like the other basic human emotions (joy, sadness, love, trust, compassion, fear, surprise, and contempt) cannot be directly taught, let alone internalized, through structured lessons or ‘social and emotional’ learning worksheets. We cannot ‘teach’ investigative and creative

Figure 18.1  The goals of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model

236

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

mindsets and character development in the same ways we teach math or reading. The love of learning results when we provide young people with direct experiences in individual or group work that focuses on selfselected products and projects about which they already have some passion, or when we can facilitate the passion and task commitment that are necessary for high levels of creative productivity. It is from these experiences that strong emotions emerge in a natural way. The ultimate outcome from the SEM ‘brand’ of learning is based on a theory of knowledge (Renzulli, 2016) designed to promote an investigative learning mindset, an orientation toward applied knowledge and thinking skills, and a focus on using one’s knowledge and thinking skills to engage in acts of creative productivity. All learners are capable of attaining these goals although they may range from modest outcomes (e.g., a third grader who publishes her first original poem in the school newspaper) to Nobel Prize winning accomplishments. These general goals are, of course, guided by a series of more practical and specific teaching strategies that are described in more depth in our latest edition of the SEM (Renzulli & Reis, 2014).

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE SEM AND ITS UNDERLYING THEORIES The Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model (SEM) (Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997, 2014), is a product of almost four decades of research and field-testing, and is based on the previously developed Enrichment Triad and Revolving Door Identification Models. The SEM has been implemented in school districts worldwide, and extensive evaluations and research studies indicate the effectiveness of the model, which Van Tassel-Baska and Brown (2007) called one of the megamodels in the field. Prior research has found

that the model is effective at serving highability and gifted and talented students in a variety of educational settings, and works well in schools that serve diverse ethnic and socioeconomic populations (Reis & Renzulli, 2003; Renzulli & Reis, 1994). The SEM provides enriched learning experiences and higher learning standards for all children through three goals: developing talents in all children; providing a broad range of advanced-level enrichment experiences for all students; and providing advanced followup opportunities for young people based on their strengths and interests.

HOW THE SEM WORKS In the SEM, a talent pool of 15%–20% of above-average ability/high-potential students is identified using a variety of measures, including but not limited to achievement tests, teacher nominations, assessment of potential for creativity and task commitment, as well as alternative pathways of entrance (self-nomination, parent nomination, etc.). Students in SEM schools or programs receive several kinds of services. First, interest, learning styles, and product style assessments are conducted with students, using Renzulli Learning (https://renzullilearning. com/). Each student creates a profile that identifies his or her unique strengths and talents and teachers can identify patterns of students’ academic strengths, interests, and product and learning styles in what we consider to be comprehensive assessment rather than looking only at cognitive abilities. These methods are used to both identify and create students’ interests and to encourage students to develop and pursue these interests in various ways. Learning style preferences assessed include projects, independent study, teaching games, simulations, peer teaching, programmed instruction, lectures, drill and recitation, and discussion. Product style preferences include the kinds

A Case Study of the Process of Change in Education

of products students like to do, such as those that are written, oral, hands-on, artistic, constructed, displayed, dramatized, or service and multimedia oriented. Note that this approach is exactly what has been adopted by recent trends such as maker spaces and genius hours. The second Service Delivery Component is Curriculum Modification through a process we call Curriculum Compacting (Reis, Renzulli, & Burns, 2016). This differentiation process, which is provided to all high-achieving students, enables classroom teachers to modify the regular curriculum by eliminating portions of previously mastered content when students show content strengths. Research on compacting has consistently demonstrated that academically talented students can have up to 50–75% of their regular curriculum eliminated or

237

streamlined to avoid repetition of previously mastered work, guaranteeing mastery, while simultaneously substituting differentiated and more appropriately challenging activities (Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich, & Purcell, 1998). Compacting enables teachers to document the content areas that have been compacted and the alternative, more interesting and engaging work that has been substituted. The third Service Delivery Component is Enrichment Learning and Teaching, with the three interrelated types of enrichment in The Enrichment Model (Renzulli, 1977). The Triad Model (depicted in the lower section of Figure 18.2) is the curriculum/instructional focus for all learning activities in the SEM, and is designed to encourage creative productivity on the part of students by exposing them to various topics, areas of interest, and fields of study; and to further train them to apply

Figure 18.2  Overview of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model

238

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

advanced content, process-training skills, and methodology training to self-selected areas of interest. Accordingly, three types of enrichment are included in the Enrichment Triad Model. In order for enrichment learning and teaching to be applied systematically to the learning process of all students, it must be organized in a way that makes sense to teachers and students, and the Enrichment Triad Model can be used for this purpose. The Enrichment Triad Model emphasizes the interaction between and among three types of enrichment in a way that maximizes the potential of each of the respective types of enrichment. Our goal here is to avoid the hodgepodge of random and disconnected enrichment practices. In the SEM, Type I Enrichment (General Exploratory Experiences) and Type II Enrichment (Group Training Activities) are made available to all students. Type III Enrichment (Individual and Small Group Investigations of Real Problems) is made available to students as a result of highly favourable responses to Types I and/or II enrichment, or, as the diagram in Figure 18.2 points out, students can enter Type III from positive reactions to regular curriculum topics or out-of-school experiences. The pedagogy around which the Enrichment Triad is built can be applied to almost any learning situation, including even those based on a highly prescriptive standards-dominated curriculum.

CHANGES IN THE SEM OVER TIME Although the SEM has remained relatively stable over the years, new components and degrees of emphasis have been added over the years as a result of ideas and experiences provided by the many users of our model. The success of Enrichment Clusters in the SEM has caused us to recommend the enrichment cluster component of the SEM as the starting point of new programs. This development is also consistent with our current

emphasis on infusing more enrichment into the regular curriculum (Reis, 2016). Finally, with more thinking skills and general enrichment taking place in the clusters and the regular curriculum, we recommend that the gifted education specialists spend the majority of their time working with students on advanced Type III Enrichment projects. Another major change that has been added to the SEM is the development of and research on a program that produces computer generated individual strength based student profiles called Renzulli Learning (Renzulli & Reis, 2007; Field, 2009; Swicord, Chancey, & Bruce-Davis, 2013). These profiles include information about interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression, as well as achievement information. A search engine then scans approximately 50,000 high-engagement enrichment resources and matches appropriate resources to each student’s profile. Teachers can also use the search engine to find enrichment activities that can be infused into any and all regular curricular topics. During the last decade, the SEM has been used as the core to develop several Renzulli Academies for high potential and talented students in urban areas in the United States, focusing on the pedagogy described in this chapter. These schools have been successful at ensuring academic achievement as well as providing many opportunities for creative productivity (Reis & Taylor, 2011). Also, several additional new SEM resources have been published or are currently in press. A series of shorter books targeted on specific components of the model and selected subject areas focus on implementing the SEM philosophy in Science (Heilbronner & Renzulli, 2015) and Technology (Housand, Housand, & Renzulli, 2017) and in Social Studies and Mathematics (due in the coming year). Additionally, books providing updates of the Curriculum Compacting (Reis et  al., 2016) and Enrichment Cluster (Renzulli, Gentry, & Reis, 2013) are also available.

A Case Study of the Process of Change in Education

Finally, in schools and districts using the SEM, we continue to use the term gifted as an adjective, referring to high potential in a particular area of human performance and almost always to a criterion or comparison group (e.g., ‘she is a gifted writer for her age or when compared with other fifth graders’). Synonyms frequently found when the word ‘gifted’ is used as an adjective are also adjectives that usually take an object (e.g., superior mathematician, advanced reader, innovative designer, exceptional artist, persuasive speaker, compelling writer), all words that are popular when we talk about the types of services that we advocate for development in special programs and opportunities. Indeed, we even use the word as an adjective when we refer to the field as ‘Gifted Education’, and remind ourselves of the root word – that a gift is something to be given rather than a state of being. A gift is also something received. If a young person has received the potential for superior performance in a particular area, then the gift giving and receiving cycle is enhanced when the school provides the opportunities, resources, and encouragement to convert that potential into gifted behaviors.

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO ENGINEERING A RESPECTED AND SUSTAINABLE MODEL Over the years many people have asked us about the reasons for the popularity of our SEM approach. While there is no easy answer to this question, an over-simplification might be four conditions that have guided the engineering aspects of our work during the past four decades.

Practice Leads to Research and Then to Theory We believe practice should be the starting point that drives research and subsequent

239

theory development rather than the other way around. A teacher(s) does ‘something good’ in the classroom that promotes The 3 E’s. Is it the artistic magic of this particular teacher or can other teachers in other classrooms replicate it? What resources and training are needed to study replication possibilities? Do we need to develop an interest assessment questionnaire to make this practice easier to implement? How will we evaluate the effects of the intervention? These questions lead to research studies that have been a major part of our work and the necessary academic respectability that decisions makers always ask (‘Show me the research …’) when considering programming options. It is the reason that we have published our work in highly respected professional journals and have made this research readily available and free to consult on our website at the University of Connecticut [http://nrcgt.uconn.edu].

Common Goals/Unique Means Far too many school improvement models have become so structure-, prescription-, and compliance-driven that they seldom achieve sustainability. In schools using highly structured approaches teachers often feel that their professionalism has been taken away from them, that they must essentially follow someone else’s ‘script’, and therefore they cannot make creative contributions to what goes on in their own classrooms. Long lists of statedictated standards, highly structured forms for lesson planning, and endless teacher evaluation rubrics have resulted in a generally disheartened profession and teachers who feel as though they lack any form of ownership in what goes on in their own schools. Most innovations fail because we know more about what we are against than what we stand for. They also fail because: (a) they are imposed on teachers ‘from above’ without opportunities for teachers to participate in the decision-making process; and (b) they

240

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

are so excessively prescriptive that teachers may actually be reprimanded for not following rigid prescriptions, especially if the prescriptions overly standardize their work with students. One teacher told us that the highly prescriptive model dictated by their administration ‘… was lobotomizing the profession’. We have attempted to avoid these pitfalls in two ways. First, we have asked that focus and discussion groups among faculty and administrators take place in order to see if the SEM is something they would like to explore on an experimental basis; and we ask the faculty to establish a Schoolwide Enrichment Planning Team. Membership is voluntary. When consensus is achieved subsequent discussion and feedback is used to begin the planning and implementation process and to make arrangements for professional development. We have also let teachers and administrators know from the start that they will have major decision-making opportunities so long as whatever they decide is consistent with the common goals of the model – the 3 E’s mentioned above. Our experience demonstrates that Enrichment Clusters are the most effective starting point for an SEM program because they allow teachers to use Triad pedagogy in their own creative ways. At this point, some teachers may need individual coaching or support because it may be difficult to break away from traditional instructional habits. These practices are often based on the traditional unit and lesson plans approach that have been ingrained into their modus operandi, undoubtedly the result of previous training, top-down dictates, or years of using restrictive learning models. The ‘Innovation Graveyard’ is filled with failed programs that have factored out teachers’ interests, imagination, creativity, and passion for helping students reach their individual potentials because of an enthusiasm for a particular topic or project. Some of the highly prescriptive programs have even billed themselves as being ‘teacher proof!’

The most important advantage of our Common Goals/Unique Means approach to program development is that teachers in any given school develop ownership and can take pride in what they have developed. You don’t get rid of something you built yourself and that you put your own energy and imagination into. And, as mentioned above, it is from these creative opportunities for teaching in Enrichment Clusters that many creative ideas have been shared with others using the model. No two SEM schools or programs are or should be identical but there are common elements that exist in all good SEM programs. We believe that ‘… all roads lead to Rome [The 3 E’s] but there are many ways to get to Rome’.

Communication with Our Major Consumers The Practice-Research-Theory Cycle is an approach that has worked for us because the ultimate consumers or end-users of our work have been education practitioners (mainly teachers and administrators) and ultimately students in school learning situations. Like all academicians, there is a need to gain respect among the scholarly community, but the number of articles in refereed journals or presentations at prestigious research conferences, while important for academic respectability, are only important as part of the practice-research-theory cycle for making changes in schools and classrooms. Our SEM planning guides (e.g., The Compactor and the Type III Management Plan) are tools that guarantee integrity to the types of enrichment specified by the Triad Model, and they have been as important to us as the ideas that underlie these service delivery components. Although we have contributed some major theories and models to the field, all of the theories had their origins in first-hand experiences from our years in the classroom and the countless brilliant teaching practices that we have observed over the years used by people with whom we have had the opportunity to work.

A Case Study of the Process of Change in Education

These practices usually resulted in one or more research studies to provide the empirical support for the replicability that is necessary in the evidence-base orientation so pervasive in education. The research enabled us to advocate or make suggestions for practice and needed additional research, ultimately leading to the formulation or re-examination of a theory (or model) that would both guide practice and generate additional research. Theories or models should not remain static and ours have not! Rather, new developments in technology and both research and practice should be blended into models, so long as the mission or vision for the model’s existence remains essentially the same, in our case the 3 E’s. We have attempted to achieve the consumer communication part of SEM engineering by providing an almost endless array of practitioner oriented books, articles, chapters, laminated teacher guides, lists of how-to books, websites, and briefs that give teachers the practical know-how of implementation skills. An interesting side note of this approach is that teachers have commented that it is these practical materials that have helped them ‘make sense’ of the theories. Theory is often more comprehensive when learned ‘backwards’ from the practice, and we believe that, as the great philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other’.

Professional Development (PD) The single most important component we have developed to engineer the influence of the SEM is to provide four types of professional development (PD). The centerpiece of this component is our annual summer Confratute program, which began in 1978 and has served approximately 35,000 teachers and administrators over the years. The ‘secret ingredient’ of Confratute has been a faculty consisting mainly of highly experienced practitioners that are ‘doing SEM’ on a regular basis rather than professorial ‘talking heads!’

241

Keynotes and special topic sessions by persons with innovative ideas that can enhance the 3 E’s are certainly a part of the program; however, our core faculty is charged with the responsibility of demonstrating rather than just talking about the kinds of hands-on learning we recommend. And, as a result of feedback, we implemented an Administrators/ Principals Academy at Confratute because our participants told us that if their principal wasn’t ‘on board’ making a transition to the SEM was much more difficult. A second part of our PD component is onsite training, and to this end, we have employed a special SEM Outreach Coordinator to help interested educators in schools and districts assess their needs and develop a plan for faculty and administrator training. We also help to organize community resources, providing individual and small group coaching, and maintain evidence-based examples of student accomplishments. Since we believe that ‘… seeing is believing’, a third part of our PD is arranging for interested school personnel to visit schools with demographics similar to their own. We often recommend this visitation component early on in the process, although it is always preceded by conference calls and sharing short overview pieces about the model. Reading about and participating in PD have certainly had an impact, but in many cases the ‘icing on the cake’ has been actual exposure to a successful program. We are grateful to the innovative institutions who have participated as Visitation Schools and SEM Model program visitation sites. We have learned that the most important factor in the success and sustainability of a model is teachers who are thoroughly knowledgeable and dedicated to the mission, tools, and teaching strategies that define the parameters of the model. In our SEM pedagogy, we believe we must unshackle teachers from standardization if talent development is to thrive. It is for these reasons that we have integrated the common goals/unique means into our own professional development practices.

242

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Working Smarter, Not Harder The technology-based Renzulli Learning System (https://renzullilearning.com/) is undoubtedly our biggest leap forward in providing teachers with the tools to apply the SEM pedagogy to all of the services that are integrated into the SEM model. Even though an emphasis on differentiation and personalization are usually cited in overall efforts to make schools more responsive to the individual needs of all students, in most cases, differentiation is not implemented or consists primarily of content modifications. These modifications are obviously necessary accommodations; however, true personalization and differentiation require that we look at the other characteristics of the learner mentioned above. The challenge is, of course, for teachers to find the time to gather and analyze information about more comprehensive learner profiles and appropriate resources for each student. The Renzulli Learning System (RLS) was purposefully designed to address this challenge. As noted, differentiation, although a noble goal, simply does not happen as often or as well as it should in all schools (Reis, Gubbins, Briggs, Schreiber, Richards, Jacobs, & Renzulli, 2004). Firmender, Reis, and Sweeny (2012) recently conducted research that examined the range of reading fluency and comprehension scores of almost 4000 students across the country, finding that an incredibly wide range of reading comprehension levels exists across all students, with a 9.2 grade level span of reading levels in grade 3, 11.3 in grade 4, and 11.6 in grade 5. How can fifth grade teachers differentiate reading instruction when reading levels span almost 12 grades in their heterogeneous classrooms? The steps below illustrate using the RLS to differentiate. Step 1: Strength Assessment Using the Electronic Learning Profile. This includes a computer-based diagnostic assessment that creates a profile of each student’s academic strengths, interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression. The online

assessment, which takes about 30 minutes, results in a personalized profile that highlights individual student strengths and sets the stage for step 2 of the RLS. The profile acts like a compass for the second step, a differentiation search engine that examines thousands of resources that relate specifically to each student’s profile. Step 2: Enrichment Differentiation Databases. The differentiation search engine matches student strengths, interests, and learning preferences to an enrichment database of approximately 50,000 enrichment activities, materials, resources, and opportunities for further study that are grouped into several categories: Virtual Field Trips; Real Field Trips; Creativity Training; Critical Thinking; Summer Programs; Projects and Independent Study; Online Classes and Activities; Research Skills; Contests and Competitions; Research; Fiction and Non-Fiction Books; and How-To Books. Step 3: The Wizard Project Maker. A special feature of the Renzulli Learning System is a project organization and management plan for students and teachers called ‘The Wizard Project Maker’. This guide allows teachers to help students use their web-based explorations for original research, investigative projects, and the development of a wide variety of creative undertakings. This management plan is designed to help students complete a Type III enrichment experience, the highest level of enrichment described in the Enrichment Triad Model. Step 4: The Total Talent Portfolio. The Renzulli Learning System (RLS) incorporates an automatic compilation and storage of all student activity from steps 1, 2, and 3 into an ongoing student record called the Total Talent Portfolio (TTP). A management tool allows students to evaluate each site visited and resource used, students can complete a self-assessment of what they derived from the resource, and if they choose they can store favorite activities and resources in their portfolio. This feature allows easy-return-access to ongoing work. The TTP ‘travels’ with

A Case Study of the Process of Change in Education

students throughout their educational career. It can serve as a reminder of previous activities and creative accomplishments that they might want to include in college applications. The RLS is designed to be an aid to busy teachers who seek the tools for effective and meaningful differentiation and personalization. Research on the use of the RLS (Field, 2009) found that the high engagement that emerged from use of RLS resulted in higher achievement, improved self-concept and selfefficacy, and more favorable attitudes toward school and learning.

CONCLUSION No matter how great an idea, the talent and resources available, or the amount of energy put into something, attempts to make change in schools and implement a model such as the SEM take time and effort. None of the above engineering implementation processes occurred overnight, as they required years of writing, reflecting, visiting schools, and talking with administrators, teachers, students, and parents. They also required planning, grant writing, conducting research projects, building relations with individuals and school districts, and perhaps most importantly, finding people who are courageous enough to buy into things that challenge the status quo and the established orthodoxy of the field. Courageous educators must be willing to expend the time, energy, and creativity to implement something new and different and these front-line individuals are the true heroes in the SEM. They are far from the ivory tower, and they have challenged state guidelines, regulations, recalcitrant administrators, and angry parents who initially believed that expanding services would take away from the opportunities of their ‘truly gifted child’. Similarly, our reception in general education has been mixed. Many people in general education have told us that we and our SEM

243

have no place in general education due to our gifted education backgrounds. Fortunately, this attitude is changing and the general education establishment has begun to embrace the idea that our brand of pedagogy (thinking skills, creativity training, problem-based learning, and opportunities for creative/productive pursuits) should be made available to all students. In a 2008 report entitled 21st Century Skills, Education & Competitiveness, the authors stated: Public education has traditionally thought of higher level thinking as the purview of talented and gifted programs, while the teaching of basic skills was geared toward those on a trade track in high schools. Now, the focus must be on making sure all students have a broad array of these skills in addition to strong grounding in core subjects. Our understanding that everyone needs to critically think and problem-solve has been heightened when you look at what success will require in the global economy. (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008, p. 27)

Our field must expand its focus from students who demonstrate traditionally high potential on IQ and achievement tests to other students who have high potential and talents but who may not be traditionally identified. Our field has something to offer general education and we should extend and heighten the role that gifted education can and should play in the future of education. And most importantly, this also means that many students that traditional gifted education programming has overlooked will have an opportunity to develop their potentials. The types of change we have attempted to make with the SEM take patience and tolerance. William James once said, ‘Any new theory is first attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it seems to be important – so important that its adversaries claim that they have discovered it themselves’ (1907:11). We have had more than our fair share of criticism regarding the SEM. Some people in gifted education have accused us of ‘giving away the family jewels’ (i.e., recommending

244

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

thinking skills, creativity, and enrichment opportunities for larger groups of students, and in some cases all students). Change is never complete in complicated organizations like schools. We have been working on the SEM for more than forty years and are proud of the flexibility and changes that have occurred during this time period and excited about what the future holds. Changes in culture, society, and the dramatic growth in new technologies will enable us to continually re-examine and evolve practices that have sustained and guided our work.

openness to experimenting with the creative ideas generated by our colleagues and the teachers who are using the model. Our goal is to help children and young adults find his or her diverse gift, whether that gift be academic, artistic, practical, or dedicated to improving human relations. That is why SEM schools are places for talent development. And we hope that students who attend those schools have a sense of hope that comes from enjoying what they do in school each and every day and believing that it will make their lives better and happier.

In Conclusion: Focus, Simplicity, Momentum and Energy

REFERENCES

Over the years we have learned many strategies for effectively engineering SEM programs, beginning with keeping the model as down-to-earth and practical as possible and always looking at suggested program components from a ‘teacher-feasibility’ point of view. We are proud of the widespread use of the SEM around the world that has contributed to a momentum that we do not take for granted. Momentum is difficult to initiate and easy to lose. Momentum requires focused energy directed toward program maintenance, reflective examination about what is working and not working, and where changes need to be made. When all is said and done, the major focus of the SEM is to create a learning environment that appeals to all students and is designed to promote a school climate and culture that makes every, student, teacher and administrator invested in the 3 E’s mentioned earlier. The effectiveness of the SEM cannot be attributed to our ideas and work alone. Rather, we acknowledge the research contributions of many of our colleagues and the practical ideas and applications of the thousands of teachers and administrators with whom we have worked over the years. Our most important contribution has been and continues to be our

Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hébert, T. P. (1994). Reversing underachievement: Stories of success. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 48–52. Delcourt, M. A. B. (1993). Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining energy, interest, and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 23–31. Field, G. B. (2009). The effects of using Renzulli Learning on student achievement: An investigation of internet technology on reading fluency, comprehension, and social studies. International Journal of Emerging Technology, 4(1), 29–39. Firmender, J. M., Reis, S. M., & Sweeny, S. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms: the need for differentiated reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 3–14. Good, T. L. (2018). 21st Century Education: A Reference Handbook. California: Sage. Hébert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16(1), 22–28. Heilbronner, N., & Renzulli, J. S. (2015). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model in Science: A Hands-on Approach for Engaging Young Scientists. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Housand, A. M., Housand, B. C., & Renzulli, J. S. (2017). Using the Schoolwide Enrichment Model with Technology. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

A Case Study of the Process of Change in Education

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Way for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York, NY: Cosimo. Reis, S. M. (Ed.) (2016). Reflections on Gifted Works: Critical Works by Joseph S. Renzulli and Colleagues. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Reis, S. M., Eckert, R. D., McCoach, D. B. Jacobs, J. K., & Coyne, M. (2008). Using enrichment reading practices to increase reading fluency, comprehension, and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 101(5) 299–314. Reis, S. M., Gubbins, E. J., Briggs, C., Schreiber, F. J., Richards, S., Jacobs, J. K., Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 309–338. Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. M., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462–501. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Education International, 18(1), 15–40. Reis, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Burns, D. E. (2016). Curriculum Compacting: A Guide to Differentiating Curriculum and Instruction through Enrichment and Acceleration (2nd edn) Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Reis, S. M., & Taylor, M. M. (2011). From high potential to gifted performance: Encouraging academically talented urban students. Gifted Child Today, 33(4), 28–38. Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(2), 123–129. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A Guide for Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

245

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd edn, pp. 217–245). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S. (2016). The role of blended knowledge in the development of creative productive giftedness. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 4(1), 13–24. Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M, & Reis, S. M. (2013). Enrichment Clusters: A Practical Plan for Real-world Student-driven Learning (2nd edn). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Comprehensive Plan for Educational Excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 7–20. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A How-to Guide for Educational Excellence (2nd edn). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J.S. & Reis, S. M. (2007). A computerized strength assessment and internet based enrichment program for developing giftedness and talents. In K. Tirri (Ed.), Values and Foundations in Gifted Education (pp. 141– 155). Peter Lang: Bern. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A How-to Guide for Educational Excellence (3rd edn) Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Swicord, B., Chancey, J. M., & Bruce-Davis, M. N. (2013). ‘Just what I need’: Gifted students’ perceptions of an online learning system. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Open. Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342–358.

19 TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social Context: A Universal Framework for Developing Thinking Skills and Problemsolving Across the Curriculum Belle Wallace and Harvey B. Adams

INTRODUCTION: EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE TASC FRAMEWORK – THINKING ACTIVELY IN A SOCIAL CONTEXT The early development of TASC needs to be understood within the following political and social perspective. The basic TASC Framework was developed by Wallace and Adams in KwaZulu/ Natal (South Africa) during the years 1985 to 1994 when Apartheid systematically segregated the country along racial lines. However, the University of Natal defied the national government and declared its admission policy as open to all students regardless of race. However, the university was unable to recruit Black students because the quality of their segregated schooling was inferior, and very few students would qualify for university entrance.1

Throughout the 1980s, the region which now comprises the province of KwaZulu/ Natal was in a state of low-level civil war involving the Inkatha Freedom Party led by Chief Buthelezi supporting the traditional Zulu king and tribal chiefs, the African National Congress (ANC), which although banned worked under the banner of the United Democratic Front (UDF), and the South African Nationalist Government. This struggle eventually culminated in the release of Nelson Mandela in 1990 and the first democratic elections in 1994. Through the 1990s, the turmoil continued as the new fledgling Government of National Unity endeavoured to establish a new social system (Wallace & Adams 1993; Wallace & Eriksson, 2006). Until 1994, KwaZulu was a Black ‘selfgoverning homeland’ which consisted of mainly rural settlements of subsistence farming together with low socio-economic settlements outside of the ‘white’ towns and

Thinking Actively in a Social Context

cities. In 1984, approximately 67% of learners were attending school, and the high levels of school dropout and failure in the Senior School Certificate at 17+ years indicated severe ‘underachievement’ amongst Black students. Only 1% of the initial year group gained a level of matriculation which would allow them entry to university. Students who did manage to gain a place at a university were grossly ‘under-prepared’ and many failed their first year of tertiary study (Dostal & Vergani, 1984; Vos, 1986). South African education lay firmly within Freire’s ‘banking’ paradigm (Ramos, 1974). Rote learning and repetition characterized overcrowded, ill-equipped classrooms. Many teachers were grossly under-prepared, both with regard to pedagogy and subject knowledge. The school syllabus had fixed content firmly rooted in a Western paradigm that had little reality for Zulu learners – comprehension topics such as ‘defrosting a refrigerator’, or the history of the castles of Europe, had no significance for learners living in simple brick or mud huts without electricity and running water. Vygotsky’s thinking on the power of literacy to enable or to deny access to learning and life opportunities is well known (Vygotsky, 1978; Rogoff, 1998). In KwaZulu, the language of instruction was English, while the home language of the students was Zulu. Since many parents worked away from home, many students were cared for by aunts and grandmothers whose English was sparse and colloquial. And although positive selfconcept is an essential component of learner motivation, the fundamental processes of learning interactions depend on how learners receive, understand and communicate through language, which also empowers the processes of thinking. We make sense of the world through language, which establishes our cognitive map of processes and meanings. Moreover, our language and cognitive development is inextricably bound up with our emotional development and from the

247

earliest exchanges of language, our sense of self and our emerging identities are reinforced (Krashen, 1981; Omaggio, 1986; McLaren, 1993; Dromi, 1993).

SETTING UP THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK FOR TASC It was in this political, social and educational situation that Wallace and Adams received funding from an international company to set up the Curriculum Development Unit within the University of Natal. Initially the research project was funded for three years, but in practice the research and development continued for 14 years, culminating in the commissioning of a series of English as Second Language books, incorporating TASC principles, for learners across Grades 0 to 13 (Wallace et al., 1996). The immediate aim of TASC was to identify groups of more able students and to lift their achievement to a high matriculation standard to enable access to tertiary education. An additional aim was to develop their leadership skills, so preparing them to take an active part in the long-awaited ‘new South Africa’. Due to the passive rote learning prevalent in schools, Wallace and Adams focused on developing a wide range of thinking and problem-solving skills to promote the students’ self-esteem, independence and autonomy. They worked within a repeating spiral framework of collaborative action research, using a constructivist approach which engaged pupils, teachers, educational psychologists and parents in reflective discussions of the aims and progress of the research. Vitally, they worked from a framework of skills the learners already had: namely, strong powers of memory due to their rich oral culture, well developed group listening skills, ease of, and enjoyment in, co-operative learning and high motivation to learn as a means of self-development.

248

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

The TASC Project began with an initial group of 28 mid-secondary school students identified by their teachers as amongst the ‘most able’; this rather crude assessment being based on the fact that these students were ‘high achievers’ when compared with other students. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, Wallace and Adams also needed to begin by working with students who had a reasonable command of English, since their own command of Zulu was elementary and they wanted to work in an additive bilingual paradigm, mediating purpose and meaning through the students’ home language and then translating into English, the language of school learning. As they gained confidence and greater fluency in Zulu, the Project was extended to involve groups of students in primary and other secondary schools. The Project came to be known as ‘TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social Context’; its name evolving from a series of workshops where the students and their teachers identified the problems they faced in both home and school. The development of thought and action was dynamic and symbiotic – the one refining the other through reflective discussion. Although the students articulated their need for a more relevant curriculum, they prioritized their immediate need to manage their current studies. Generalizing from these vivid and often emotional discussions, the following tenets of TASC emerged: • Thinking: Although all learners can think, there is a vast range of formal thinking tools and strategies that need to be developed for successful school learning, which requires a range of skills needed for formal learning. Moreover, potentially very able learners, once they have acquired a range of thinking tools, can cope independently with complexity of depth and breadth. • Actively: Learners need ownership of their learning; they need to be involved in decision-making about how and what they learn; and they need to discuss both their immediate and long-term goals.

• Social: Co-operative learning is powerful in its mediatory function; learners need to learn with and from each other; whilst they also learn to work independently. • Context: Learners need to start learning in a context that is practical and related to real life so that they can bring their own knowledge into the learning situation. As learners develop mastery, they move into deeper, more abstract contexts, but these contexts are still related to their own world and level of understanding.

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING OF TASC The theoretical underpinning of TASC evolved directly from the work of Vygotsky: namely that social and cultural transmission and construction of knowledge is the fundamental vehicle of education, and runs parallel with the vital role of mediation for understanding and mastery. The mediator leads the learner through the stage of not understanding to the stage of understanding, the process of leading them through the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). Through co-operative, interactive learning, pupils negotiate language and meaning, internalizing concepts and gaining conscious control over their thoughts and actions. As they develop these understandings, they form language and thinking tools for further learning: the role of the teacher is to scaffold the task until learners become independent. Modelling thinking behaviour and thinking language is another Vygotskian influence in TASC: the teacher demonstrates, verbalizes and facilitates the active learning situation. A further element underpinning TASC is the requirement to develop selfesteem and self-regulation through relevant context, constant success even in small stages, and positive assessment that feeds forward to further learning (Bandura, 1982; Eggen & Kauchak, 1997).

Thinking Actively in a Social Context

The work of Robert J. Sternberg (1985, 1997; Sternberg et  al., 2001) had a dominant influence on the range of thinking skills and strategies encompassed within TASC. Sternberg proposes that ‘intelligence’ consists of three interrelated aspects: • The contextual sub-theory in which intelligence is viewed as mental activity directed towards the adaptation to, selection of, and shaping of realworld environments relevant to life. • The experiential sub-theory which proposes that intelligent performance on any task requires the ability to deal with novel tasks, and the ability to automatize the processing of information. • The componential sub-theory that specifies the strategy for information processing, i.e. ¡ the executive (meta)processes that are used to plan, monitor and evaluate strategies used in problem-solving; ¡ the performance components used to carry out the task; and, ¡ the knowledge acquisition components that are used to learn how to solve problems in the first place.

All three components outlined above, are interactive and need to be trained in parallel. Many theorists stress the importance of metacognition, but the particular influence of the seminal work of Campione et al. (1984), Borkowski (1985) and Sternberg (1985) is particularly evident in the development of the TASC Framework. Metacognition is viewed as an essential component of intelligent behaviour used throughout life; as a process of generalizing effective thinking strategies, transferring strategies to other contexts; and, as a key link between intelligence, self-knowledge and self-regulation. Through the process of metacognition, learners reflect upon their learning, crystallizing and automatizing thinking skills and processes, and transferring these to other situations. Problem-solving is the key to effective learning and involves reflective processes of creative, analytical and practical action and thought (Hacker et al., 2009).

249

TEACHING AND LEARNING PRINCIPLES OF TASC The teaching and learning principles of TASC evolved as Wallace and Adams engaged the students in solving the real-life problems that impeded their learning. Teachers and students reflected collaboratively on the most effective thinking and problem-solving strategies they used and generalized these strategies into effective management of their studies. Through constructive discussion, the following principles emerged: • Derive, trial, refine and adopt a generalized working framework of universal problem-solving, through collaborative action research and evaluation, solving problems relevant to learners, thus giving them ownership and understanding of the problem-solving processes. • Negotiate and use relevant language for thinking and problem-solving: naming strategies and skills appropriately to enable reference to and later recall of these strategies in further problemsolving. • Model relevant thinking strategies, then provide experiences for learners to use those strategies and perceive themselves as successful problemsolvers. • Give attention to motivational aspects through positive reinforcement of thinking and problemsolving behaviour. Define and celebrate the criteria for success. • Use co-operative, interactive teaching and learning methods, with learners working in small groups. • Encourage self- and group-monitoring, evaluation and reflection on success, ways of improving and opportunities for transferring skills and strategies to other contexts.

OUTLINE OF THE TASC PROBLEMSOLVING PROCESSES OF TEACHING AND LEARNING The processes of the TASC Problem-solving Framework can best be described as a flexible spiral of sub-processes that are

250

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Figure 19.1  The basic TASC Framework © Belle Wallace. (2002) Teaching Thinking Skills across the Middle Years. pps 16 &. 17 (with permission from Taylor and Francis).

Thinking Actively in a Social Context

251

252

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

simultaneously cognitive, emotional and metacognitive. The stages are sometimes cyclical, sometimes sequential, and sometimes recursively flexible as the situation demands. Learners evolved the nature of the TASC Framework through active, practical, everyday problem-solving activities on issues which they identified as problematic, for example: • How to locate sources of electricity in order to do their school homework at night: usually they studied under the street lights. This was negotiated with the local community by offering to give Zulu and English lessons to younger students in the church hall in exchange for the use of the church building which had electricity. • How to get school books for further study. This was resolved when students organized themselves into choirs and gave concerts at local celebrations in return for small donations. The students also negotiated with the ‘White’ librarian in the nearby town that the library would be available for them on a Saturday morning. They were surprised at the ease with which this was negotiated once they had gathered the selfconfidence to make the approach.

In addition, the students went on adventure weekends to an outdoor youth centre where they built tree houses to sleep in, created bridges to cross gorges and made ropes from reeds to swing a path through the forest. They also spent residential weekends at the University of Natal, where the emphasis was on discovering personal strengths and talents, organizing concerts, dances, debates and drama productions. The students enthusiastically enjoyed solving a wide range of practical problems that gradually eroded their feelings of ‘learned helplessness’. During and after each completed activity, they reflected on and extrapolated the successful thinking and action strategies they had used, and discussed how they could transfer and regularly use the same strategies both in their daily lives and formal school learning. Gradually the Framework for Thinking Actively in a Social Context evolved out of

the experiences of the practical problems solved by the students, and encapsulated a wide range of teaching and learning principles for developing thinking and problem-solving skills. The early formative and simplified outline of these principles is given below: • First Gather and Organize what you already know about the topic or problem situation. Then decide how and where you can find out more information. All learners have a store of previous knowledge and learning and they need to recognize this and actively draw on and use prior learning. This stage brings into the working memory a range of ideas and knowledge ready for action. • Clearly Identify what the problem actually is by stating it simply as: ¡ Goals – What am I trying to do? ¡ Obstacles – What is preventing me from doing it? ¡ Potential solutions – Decide on the criteria for success and work towards that.

Many learners in situations of disadvantage and frustration are overwhelmed by emotions of anger and injustice which are all-consuming, and which render them passive (or aggressive) against seemingly overwhelming circumstances. To take control over the situation requires thoughtful, planned and sustained action with a degree of courage. • Generate ideas together with others; think of many possible ways of solving the problem without pre-judging the value of them. Hitch-hike on to other people’s ideas, think laterally, think creatively, accept all ideas without contradiction. All learners are creative, but many are unaware of the creative potential they have because they rely on being ‘told’ what to do. • Decide on the best ideas and outline a possible course(s) of action, plan the stages systematically and discuss who is responsible for carrying out each stage. Taking responsibility for personal decision-making and consequent action is fundamental to self-actualization and self-efficacy. • Implement the ideas by putting the decision(s) into action, monitoring progress and adjusting plans as necessary.

Thinking Actively in a Social Context

• Evaluate progress and successes throughout the project, judged against the agreed goals, obstacles and solutions discussed at the Identify stage. If necessary, backtrack and reformulate ideas and plans previously agreed upon. • Communicate and share ideas throughout the whole project and celebrate the successes. Share successes with the wider community and discuss the stages and processes of overcoming obstacles and achieving goals. The reinforcement and celebration of successes should never be underestimated as a part of the learning to learn process. • Reflect and Learn from Experience – discuss the success of strategies that were used, evaluate the quality of the group interaction. Reflect on how the successful strategies can be transferred to other situations, including school. Discuss changes that need to be made in any future project to make the whole action more effective and sustainable.

The 28 students in the first pilot TASC project all gained the highest matriculation results ever achieved amongst Black students in KwaZulu/Natal in their Senior School Certificate. All students were well-qualified to obtain bursaries and engage in further education. Consequently, the Department of Education and Training (responsible for Black schools) invited Wallace and Adams to train the teachers to use TASC in five boarding schools that they had set up for more able students.

EXTENSION OF THE TASC FRAMEWORK IN THE UK On returning to the UK in 1998, Wallace continued to develop the TASC Framework, but in the context of a ‘developed’ environment of dense, urban UK cities populated with multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-lingual families. This environment was quite different from the ‘developing’ semi-urban, rural environment of KwaZulu Natal. However, many of the classroom problems were echoes of the conditions in the schools

253

in KwaZulu. Teachers reported that learners were trying to learn in their second language; that the content of the UK national curriculum ignored cultural differences; that the syllabuses were overloaded with content; and increasingly, due to societal change, families were becoming fragmented, with the consequent turmoil in learners’ emotional and social development. Wallace renewed her long association with Maker (University of Arizona), who had been working with urban, disadvantaged, multilingual and culturally different populations, and had developed the concept of multiple human abilities known as DISCOVER (see Chapter 20 for detail of DISCOVER) (see also Gardner, 1983). Maker also proposed that there are six types of problem-solving, ranging from closed to open. Consequently, Wallace and Maker combined their knowledge, research and practice (Wallace, Maker, & Cave, 2004). Working nationally as president of NACE (National Association for Able Children in Education, UK), Wallace introduced the TASC Framework to schools in order to provide a framework for developing problem-solving and thinking skills with differentiation of learning activities in both depth and breadth for more able learners. In addition, combining TASC and celebrating multiple abilities enabled both learners and teachers to identify their skills and talents across and beyond the curriculum. In 1998, Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, England) had commissioned Freeman (1998) to analyse the research and practice with regard to the more able. The findings reported that there was significant evidence that the provision for more able learners was not satisfactory in the majority of English schools. As a result of the Ofsted report, teachers were eager to learn strategies that would improve provision for more able learners, and TASC was presented as a well-researched strategy that promotes inclusive but differentiated opportunities for all learners. However,

Emotional/ Spiritual

Linguistic/Verbal

Mathematical

Scientific

Mechanical/ Technical

Visual/Spatial

Auditory/ Musical

Movement

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

In pairs, practise throwing (underarm and overarm) and catching (2 hands, 1 hand, other hand) small balls.

Listen to music in assembly and join in with the daily hymn. Name the family each instrument comes from.

Use a branching key to sort a set of minibeasts.

Develop and refine written methods for TU x U. Identify multiples of numbers.

Spelling test and dictation. Collect compound words.

Identify the five pillars of Islam and the significance they hold for Muslims.

With your partner, decide on questions and answers posed by the branching key.

Play small-sided games of rounders.

Add percussion to a calypso rhythm.

Attach textured lid to Isabella box base. Use wooden strips and the toolbox to build an Isabella box.

Solve problems involving multiplication.

Explain when each type of written presentational skill is used.

Type 2: Clearly defined; Select method; Correct answer

Find pathways at different levels across the hall, travelling in a variety of ways – with different body parts leading.

Compare the 18th- and 20th-century maps of Grantham.

Use reference books to research and record food chains. Which is the longest food chain you can find?

Order containers based on their estimated volume. Check and record volumes.

Write a report of the services available in each of the settlements seen in the video ‘Village, Town and City’.

Write a diary entry about the visit to the zoo.

What goes into my body? Discuss. Group responses into different categories.

Type 3: Clearly defined; Create method; Correct answer

Source: Wallace, Maker and Cave (2004, p. 81), with permission from Taylor and Francis.

Figure 19.2  Planning for the 10 multiple abilities, learning modes and activities

Social

1

Type 1: Clearly defined; Known method; Correct answer

Using what you already know about the rules and skills used in cricket, make up your own version of the game.

Experiment with a range of pencils to copy the textures that they can see and feel.

Evaluate advertisements for their impact, appeal and honesty. Summarize a paragraph by identifying the most important elements and rewording briefly.

Review your time in Year 4 to include with your annual report.

Having identified an example of a high-quality finish on an Isabella box, present a product evaluation.

Type 4: Clearly defined; Create method; Best answer; Specified criteria TASC

Add colour to the textured lid of an Isabella box.

Devise your own branching key to sort a set of animals.

Identify and discuss social and moral issues in ‘Bill’s New Frock’.

Design a mind map to show all the things you think you have to keep safe from.

Explain in words, pictures or drama what happens when our bodies have too much of something.

Type 5: Clearly defined; Unknown method; Best answer; Own criteria TASC

Compose a short piece of music on keyboards as a background to a cartoon.

Explore papier mâché, Modroc, fabric, string, textured gels, pasta and seeds in creating textures.

Invent a product and persuade people to buy it.

Type 6: Not clearly defined; Unknown method; Best answer; Own criteria TASC

Thinking Actively in a Social Context

there were challenges to be overcome in introducing TASC across the curriculum to schools. Often, the overload of content ‘to be covered’ in the UK national syllabuses had developed a ‘stand and deliver’ style of teaching, and teachers needed to accept that a mixed ability class of learners need differentiation of their learning tasks, thus giving them ownership of their learning at a level appropriate to their development. The ‘Gather and Organize’ stage of the TASC Framework provides the opportunity for learners to reveal what they already know and the ‘Identify’ and ‘Generate’ stages provide the opportunity for learners to suggest their own questions for exploration and enquiry. Combined, these three stages provide the key to assessing learners’ varying levels of development and depth of knowledge, thus allowing for differentiation of the depth and breadth of learning activities. Another challenge was to persuade teachers that the ‘Decide, Implement and Communicate’ stages of the TASC Framework provide opportunities for learners to work creatively using their strengths across the full range of human abilities while also implementing and communicating their ideas and new learning. One of the key factors in the ‘Evaluate’ stage of TASC is that learners evaluate their own and others’ work and, finally, the ‘Learn from Experience’ metacognitive stage allows learners to reflect on the ‘what, why and how’ they have learned. This metacognitive stage crystallizes the skills and knowledge that have been learned and enables the recall and transfer of these skills and knowledge into new contexts. The next stage in the development of the extended TASC Framework was to reassure teachers that the direct teaching of skills and knowledge was still necessary alongside TASC problem-solving activities. Wallace adapted Maker’s research into six types of problem-solving activities to meet the requirements of the UK national curriculum. See Figure 19.2 for an example of TASC/DISCOVER planning for the six types

255

of problem-solving for 10-year-olds in a UK junior school. Activities 1 to 3 enable learners to acquire the basic knowledge and skills they need for carrying out Types 4 and 5 as TASC problem-solving activities; Type 6 learning activities give learners full creative ownership of the TASC problem-solving process, and the opportunity to express their gifts and talents using their particular strengths.

EVALUATION OF THE TASC ACTIVITIES IN SCHOOLS During the academic year from September 2005 to July 2006, follow-up studies were carried out in a wide range of UK primary schools in the local education authorities of Barnsley, Berkshire, Hampshire, Kent, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. Three hundred and fifty schools supplied their evaluations of the impact of their TASC work, which were derived from qualitative teacher and pupil responses to TASC projects that had been developed from topics taken from the English National Curriculum. In addition, a range of quantitative evaluations were carried out based on the assessment levels outlined by the UK National Curriculum guidelines. The following characteristics were common throughout the teacher assessments: • Motivation, Independence and Engagement – teachers reported that pupils’ motivation and engagement with the learning tasks were increased to the point where they hardly needed to intervene in the learning activity. The TASC Framework supplied a structure which all learners were keen to engage with, and the teacher’s role became that of a facilitator rather than an instructor. • Self-esteem, Enjoyment and Success – There was general consensus that the children enjoyed their work, and entered fully into the celebration of their success. • Diminished Anti-social Behaviour, and Increased Socially Acceptable Behaviour –There was unanimous agreement that there had been positive change in pupils’ emotional and social behaviour.

256

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

General Comments from the Teachers The following comments are examples of teachers’ experiences of working with the TASC Framework (Wallace, 2009): ‘The atmosphere in the school is very different now. The National Standard Attainment Tests, (SATs) only look at Literacy and Numeracy, so we do practise that. But we have discovered those children who are very able across the full spectrum of human abilities.’ ‘Our very able children on the ‘gifted’ Register [for language and mathematics] have exceeded all our expectations. We realized that they were just coasting. We have been amazed at what they have been able to do! But we have extended our concept of ‘more able’ and now we celebrate every child.’ ‘It is so much more exciting to work in the TASC way because the children respond better. You still have to do the background planning but we share the planning with the children now, and they can understand what is possible and what is not feasible. Their questioning skills have leapt in depth and breadth!’ ‘Our Standards in SATs have been the highest ever, and we think it is because the children are so motivated and on task. We still have to be concerned about our SATs results but we are going for the thinking first!’

FINAL EXTENSION OF THE TASC FRAMEWORK As far back as 1988, Kenneth Baker (then Minister of Education) required UK schools to organize five days a year to receive inservice training to improve their school practice. Since then teachers have been bombarded with ‘new’ strategies purporting to improve teaching and learning, and to develop learners’ problem-solving and thinking skills. At many training days, teachers asked for guidance to sort out the many strategies available and to understand ‘the big picture’. Wallace responded to this request and produced a diagram (Figure 19.3) showing the big picture of how the ‘bits’ of problem-solving and thinking skills dovetailed into a coherent whole (Wallace, 2001).

SOME EXAMPLES OF TASC DEVELOPMENTS Currently, the TASC Framework is widely used across English, Scottish and Welsh schools with publications at Primary, Early Years and Secondary levels (see Wallace et  al., 2001, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2008, 2009a, 2009b).

TASC in England Joy Mounter (personal communication, 26 May 2017): TASC, Thinking Actively in a Social Context (Wallace, 2001) has become an important and integral part of my work with children, young people and adults. As a theory it has inspired the children I work with to feel active participants in their journey as knowledge explorers, collectors and creators. Challenging, understanding and finding their place in an education system that has been ever constricting over the last 20 years, they feel inspired as equal participants. TASC has been introduced to children 8 years and older who have participated in the workshops coordinated by Paul Thomas as part of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institutions programme for children and young people (https://brlsi.org/). The programme of workshops run once a month and began five years ago. Each child is given a folder for their notes, etc. and a copy of TASC is included for their reference. Another part of the programme, called BRLSI Researchers, has run for teenagers for the last three years. Over the course of almost a year they experience what it is to be ‘real researchers’ each researching a question of personal interest, within a time frame, in a disciplined manner with a valued outcome. They are supported by doctoral and postdoctoral students and learn to work in a research group and are introduced to research skills along the way. The ‘disciplined manner’ of scientific research the young people and the students are introduced to is the Framework of TASC. The ‘valued outcome’ is the creation of an academic poster and a presentation to friends and family and at a conference to a wider audience in the university. They also reflect on what they have learned and contribute to a report and publication on the web. Details are on http://www.spanglefish.com/youngbrlsi ([email protected])

Thinking Actively in a Social Context

TASC in South Africa Debby Evans: Education Consultant and TASC Trainer (personal communication, 24 May 2017): I have used the TASC Framework in schools, communities, Adult Learning and Early Child Development settings (ECD) as well as in corporate contexts, over the last 20 years. The Midlands Community College in KwaZulu Natal (South Africa) has an intake of 120 postmatriculation students who spend a year in an Upgrading programme in Maths and Science in order to improve their points for access to tertiary studies in degrees needing these subjects. The Zenex Foundation, Investec and the HCI Foundation are amongst sponsors who place emphasis on the necessity to inculcate strategies for critical thinking in the curriculum we offer. TASC is included in the Career Guidance/Life Skills course, and involves students in a Community Problem-Solving Project that is initiated at the end of the second term, which the students actively implement during the July vacation. The Mpofana Primary Schools’ Reading Project (SA) consists of a series of Training Workshops for teachers from 26 rural/peri-urban schools. It has been planned in collaboration with the Department of Basic Education and Cambridge University Press. Using the TASC Framework and a selection of appropriate reading resources, Foundation and Intermediate Phase teachers are encouraged to think through all the factors affecting the very poor reading performance of learners in South African schools. Participants are guided to use the stages of the TASC problem-solving Wheel to apply critical and creative thinking strategies to enhance their classroom practice. Workshops are held twice a month which gives the opportunity for decisions to be taken on what activities to implement immediately, and for communication, reflection and feedback to be shared at the following session. The workshop materials and teacher guidelines are aligned to the National Curriculum Statement for Grades R-12. ([email protected])

TASC in the Netherlands Marij Persons, facilitator and coordinator at DOEN, Vught (personal communication, 2 June 2017): During my work with gifted children, I have been using the TASC wheel for over fifteen years. I work as a teacher in one-day-a-week classes for highly

257

gifted elementary school children of different ages, ranging from 4 to 12 years. Five days a week, 20–25 children attend a full day class grouped by age. The classes are based on themes that last about eight weeks, such as Communication, Power and Rules, the Brain. The students use the TASC Wheel to systematically gain more knowledge on the subject as well as to practise their executive skills. I have found that working with the TASC Wheel has been very valuable for children with high abilities. Recently, together with my colleague Caroline Speekenbrink, I have developed TASC as a fan deck with instruction blades for each step of the TACS Wheel, to clarify the requirements and goals of each step. The specific instructions and icons vary for the different age groups: for young learners, for example, the mindmap of the youngest students has to contain four large branches that each contain at least two small branches, whereas the oldest students need to compose six large branches with four small branches each. In subsequent steps, students formulate learning questions, state possible means to find answers, find information and formulate answers, reflect on the process, and present their work to the group. We have experienced that the use of the TASC fan decks helps gifted students to follow the steps of the TASC Wheel in a structured and guided way. The gifted students learn how to address tasks, how to persevere, how to collect and process information, how to structure their thoughts, how present their findings and how to reflect on their work. ([email protected])

Websites featuring TASC Introduction to TASC 2015, online video, Sage Publications Ltd, London, viewed 7 August 2017: http://sksagepub.com/video/ introduction-to-tasc and http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0261429408024 00302 Suffolk County Council (UK): http://www. suffolklearning.co.uk/3-11-learning-teaching/ science/gifted-talented Prepared by Craig Dyche-Nichols: Thinking Actively in a Social Context: https://www.tes. com/…/thinking-actively-in-a-social-contextwheel-guide-6321271 Thinking Actively in a Social Context (TASC) with pupils (uploaded by Jack Whitehead): https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=hH2-5xexbAQ

Evaluate

Communicate

What are we trying to do? What resources have we got? How much time do we have? What kind of plan will we need? How are we going to organize our groups? How will we know if we have succeeded? What are our success criteria? How will we know if we have done a good job? Does everyone understand the key words/ vocabulary? How many different ways could we do this? Any suggestions? And even more ideas? What is possible with our resources? What is possible in the time we have? Who can we ask for help? Where can we find out? What are the pros and cons? Think about cause and effect – What will happen if …? Which is the best way? Why should we do it this way? How will we decide? Who is doing what? Is our plan working? Do we need to change anything? Are we working well as a group? Is everyone working? Are we making good use of our time? Have we achieved our success criteria? Differing opinions? How well did we compromise? What did we achieve? What would we do differently next time? Which was the best bit? Why? What do I know to be true now? Was there a problem we couldn’t solve? Why? How will we record this? Who should we tell about this? How can we explain? What media will we use? How can we make it interesting? How can we share our understanding? How will we know they understand? How can I engage my audience?

These are the basic thinking skills critically necessary for further learning: they are the essential foundation phase building bricks. Language: verbal labels establish the first brain networks.     Verbs, adverbs and adjectives develop primarily through experiential activities and hands-on learning.     prepositions drive thinking: words for direction, space, position, time, place.     comparing and contrasting (same and different) lay the groundwork for grouping and classifying.     words for comparative and superlative such as big, bigger, biggest, are the necessary language tools for ranking and putting things in order. Mathematics: concepts for number, shape, weight, size, volume, length and breadth, area form the essential understandings of mathematics. Social and emotional development establish positive self-concept and self-esteem. Rich experiential learning uses all the senses and feeds the brain. Experiential learning across human abilities helps learners to discover their potential. Learning through play activities is the natural way. Teacher modelling and mediation through activity-based learning. Collaborative talk is the essential learning and teaching interaction.

Implement

Basic thinking skills

Decide

Has anyone got any experience of this? What do we already know? What don’t we know? What questions could we ask? What do we know about this that is fact or true? What do we still need to find out? How/where will we find out? How do we make links and group ideas together? How will we present our information?

Generate

Key Questions

Identify

Gather and Organize

TASC

Questioning, Basic and Advanced Thinking Skills (1)

What have we learned to do? What have we learned about ‘how’ we did it? What have we learned about working together? How would we think differently next time? What have we learned about how we learn? How can we use what we have learned elsewhere? How good are our evaluations? What learning strategies/tools have I used?

Learn from Experience

Collecting Selecting Organizing Grouping Distinguishing Defining Prioritizing

Creative connections Logical connections Mindmapping Thought showers Bubble charts Research skills Venn Diagrams List making Concept cartoons Deliberate mistakes

Basic thinking skills evolve into advanced thinking skills

Useful tools and strategies for learning and thinking Flow charts Cycle diagrams Decision trees Itineraries WALT (We are learning to) WILF (What I am looking for?) KWHL grid (What do you know? What do you want to know? How did you get there? What have you learned?) 5 Whys and How? (What? Why? Where? When? Who? How?)

Questioning Deciding success criteria/goals Interpreting Synthesizing Re-phrasing Refining Comparing and contrasting

Identify

Figure 19.3  Extended TASC Framework

Gather and Organize

TASC

Strategies and Tools for Thinking (2)

Creative Connections Thought showers 5 Whys and How? Fishbone diagrams (Cause and effect) Thinking Hats – (White – facts, information Red – feelings, emotions Black – being cautious Yellow – being positive, optimistic Green – new ideas Blue – big picture Philosophy for Children

Generating ideas Hypothesizing Questioning Comparing and contrasting Seeing cause and effect Predicting consequences Thinking laterally/ divergently

Generate

Logical Connections Fishbone diagrams Diamond ranking – ( 9 issues) Pros and Cons SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Compare and Contrast Cause and effect Consider All Factors Nominal group techniques Votes

Clarifying Reasoning Disagreeing Justifying Revising ideas Reaching consensus Making decisions Discussing/debating Reaching consensus

Decide

Group organization techniques Individual roles and responsibilities Planning grids Expert roles Skills identification Collaborative skills ‘Unsticking’ strategies Fact or Opinion charts Observation charts Pause points

Organizing Reviewing Monitoring Questioning Hypothesizing Rethinking Adapting Persevering

Implement

5 Whys and How? ‘DIGA’ charts (Describe, Interpret, Generalize, Apply) ‘Parking Lot’ Plus, Minus, Interesting Marking ladders WILF Peer group monitoring Rating Snowballing Envoying 3 stars and a wish Traffic lights Next Time cards

Evaluating Understanding the self as a learner Questioning Assessing Judging Appraising Valuing

Evaluate

Recording across the multiple human abilities, e.g. through language, mathematics, science, visual/ spatial, physical/ movement auditory/musical, mechanical/ technical social/emotional/ spiritual ICT Displays, exhibitions Publications Newsletters Concerts Performances

Describing Articulating Synthesizing Summarizing Expressing ideas and opinions Sharing Demonstrating

Communicate

KWL grids Peer modelling Question ladders Thinking Hats ‘Next time’ cards DIGA’ (Describe, Interpret, Generalize, Apply)

Making connections Understanding connections Transferring into other contexts Consolidating Assessing learning process

Learn from Experience

260

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

CONCLUSION The initial aim of the TASC development project was to research a framework for the explicit teaching of problem-solving and thinking skills; to then identify groups of potentially able but underachieving students, and, through Vygotskian mentorship, to lift their achievement so that they would qualify for tertiary education. It soon became evident that these groups of students, although potentially very able, needed real, practical experience of solving everyday problems and gaining self-confidence by generating and celebrating their successful solutions. They also needed experience in using a wide range of thinking strategies, which would constitute a repertoire of tools which they could transfer to other situations. Wallace and Adams realized that TASC teaching and learning principles needed to be embedded in primary schools, and Wallace continued the work at primary level, culminating in the writing of a school series of second-language texts incorporating TASC principles and strategies. Returning to the UK in 1998, Wallace, as president of NACE, introduced TASC into schools wishing to improve their practice with regard to more able learners. Living in a more complex schooling system, Wallace was able to work with teachers and learners, extending the TASC Framework and also widening the definition of ‘more able’ and ‘gifted’ to include all curriculum activities. The TASC Framework consists of a series of processes of thinking, emulating expert thinkers, but broken down into a series of manageable stages that learners can recognize and use. It is a universal and adaptable framework that needs to be embedded in contexts relevant to learners’ cultures and levels of development, be that in the rural environment of KwaZulu Natal or an urban environment in the Western world. We live in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world and the rising generation, more than

ever before, will need to assess the value and significance of these changes and increasing complexity. All young people need an education that gives emphasis to real-life problemsolving: an education that teaches them how to think rather than how to memorize content for the test. And when we consider the potentially very able, many of whom will be future leaders across all walks of life: the challenge to politicians, educators and parents is to rethink and radically change the essential purposes of the school curriculum.

Note 1  In order to describe with clarity the political and social system operating during the days of Apartheid, it is necessary to distinguish between ‘Black’ South Africans and ‘White’ South Africans.

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. Borkowski, J. E. (1985). Signs of intelligence: strategy generalisation and metacognition. In Yussen, R. S. (Ed.), The growth of reflective thought in children. New York: Academic Publications. Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., & Bryant, N. R. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Implications for individual differences and learning. In Rogoff, B. & Wertsch, J. (Eds.), Children’s learning in the ‘zone of proximal development’ (New Directions for Child Development, no. 23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dostal, E. & Vergani, V. (1984). Future perspectives on South African education. Occasional Paper No 4. Institute for Future Research, University of Stellenbosch. Dromi, E. (1993). Language and cognition: A developmental perspective. In Dromi, E. (Ed.), Language and cognition: A developmental perspective. Volume 5. Norwood, NJ, USA: Ablex.

Thinking Actively in a Social Context

Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (1997). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms, 2nd edn. New Jersey: Merrill. Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the very able: Current international research. London: The Stationery Office. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. New York: Routledge. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon Press. McLaren, P. (1993). Schooling as a Ritual Performance. London and New York: Routledge. Omaggio, A. C. (1986). Teaching language in context: Proficiency oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Ramos, M. B. (1974). Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In Damon, W. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 679–744). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume. Sternberg, R. J., Nokes, K., Geissler, P. W., Prince, R., Okatcha, F., Bundy, D. A. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: A case study in Kenya. Intelligence, 29, 401–418. Sternberg, R. J. & Spear-Swerling, L. (1996). Teaching for thinking. Washington, DC: APA Books. Vos, A. J. (1986). Aspects of education in KwaZulu. Paedomenia. Journal of the Faculty of Education, University of Zululand, 13(2).

261

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallace, B. (2001). Teaching thinking skills across the primary curriculum. London: Taylor and Francis, Routledge. Wallace, B. (2002). Teaching thinking skills across the early years. London: Taylor and Francis, Routledge. Wallace, B. (2003). Using history to develop thinking skills at key stage 2. London: Taylor and Francis, Routledge. Wallace, B. (Ed.) (2009). TASC International: Thinking Actively in a Social Context: Theory and practice. Gifted Education International, 24(2 & 3). Wallace, B. & Adams, H. B. (Eds.) (1993). Worldwide perspectives on the gifted disadvantaged. Oxford: AB Academic Publishers. Wallace, B. & Bentley, R. (2002). Teaching thinking skills across the middle years. London: Taylor and Francis, Routledge. Wallace, B., Cave, D. & Berry, A. (2009a). Teaching problem-solving and thinking skills through science. London: Taylor and Francis, Routledge. Wallace, B. et al. (2009b). Raising the achievement of all pupils within an inclusive setting. London: Routledge. Wallace, B. & Eriksson, G. (Eds.) (2006). Diversity in gifted education: International perspectives on global issues. London: Routledge. Wallace, B., Maker, C. J. & Cave, D. (2004). Teaching problem-solving and thinking skills: An inclusive approach. London: David Fulton Publishers. Wallace, B. et  al. (1996). Language in my world. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta Educational Publishers. Wallace B, Cave D, Berry A, (2008) Teaching Problem-Solving and Thinking Skills through Science. London: Taylor and Francis.

20 Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration C. June Maker and Randy Pease

INTRODUCTION: WHY DID WE DEVELOP REAPS? In our increasingly interdependent, complex, constantly-changing world, old solutions to problems no longer serve individuals or societies. New solutions, created from new perspectives and with the interdependent nature of our physical and social world as a key consideration, are essential to our survival as a human race. Such new solutions are essential to our ability to understand, value, and respect individuals from cultures different from our own and our ability to respect and cultivate a world that can sustain our lives. Thus, the focus of the Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving (REAPS) is on solving problems in local, regional, national, and international settings; problems that students know are impacting their lives and their futures. REAPS was created as a way to serve gifted students in a variety of types of programs and settings: general classrooms,

pull-out programs for gifted students, special classes for gifted students, after-school and summer programs for gifted students, and special schools designed for the gifted. As Dorothy A. Sisk (in this volume) has described and documented with many examples, gifted students often are passionate about changing their world; but not just changing it to make it different – changing it to make it better! They see injustices, they understand interdependence, they seek fairness, they are creative, and they are capable of gathering incredible amounts of information and applying their knowledge to create new ways of addressing persistent or new problems. The three teaching models that make up REAPS, Problem Based Learning (PBL), Thinking Actively in a Social Context (TASC) and Discovering Intellectual Strengths and Capabilities while Observing Varied Ethnic Responses (DISCOVER), were combined because they (a) have problem solving as a key component, (b) have evidence for their success when used with gifted students, and

Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration

(c) build upon and develop the characteristics of gifted students (Maker et  al., 2015). The Prism of Learning (Maker, 2016), a new theory of the domains of ability, emerged from years of research with performancebased assessments of creative problem solving based on Gardner’s (1983) Theory of Multiple Intelligences and Sternberg’s (1997) Theory of Successful Intelligence. The Prism has similarities to both, but also differs from both theories, most notably in the inclusion of spiritual/ethical and mechanical/technical as domains of ability. When combined, these four models provide a way to implement the principles of curriculum design for gifted students recommended by Maker and Schiever (2010) and supported by extensive literature in the field; thus, REAPS can be considered a comprehensive, evidence-based teachinglearning model (Maker et al., 2015; Maker & Schiever, 2005). Although the model was developed specifically for gifted students and designed based on their characteristics and needs, we believe, and have found over the years of implementing it, that it works well with students in general classroom settings. In many cases, by observing students’ engagement with the model, teachers have recognized students as gifted whom they might not otherwise have noticed (Sylva & Scobie-Jennings, 2017). They also have seen students develop leadership skills and demonstrate abilities in cooperating with others (Alhusaini, Alamiri, & Maker, forthcoming). Because methods for identifying gifted students are not perfect, and because testing situations may not be the best settings for identifying exceptional talent, the use of a model such as REAPS in the general classroom can facilitate learning for all students as well as enable the recognition of those who have exceptional learning strengths.

HOW WAS THE MODEL DEVELOPED? The key to developing any practical teaching approach that has a base of evidence for its

263

use is collaboration: collaboration between practitioners, researchers, students, and parents. The two authors of this chapter have collaborated since 1992 in the development of the DISCOVER curriculum and assessment model and since 2006 in the development and evolution of the REAPS model. Randy invited June into his classroom or school (when he was a curriculum supervisor) to try out new ideas, and June invited Randy to participate in research, writing, and the development of identification methods and curriculum designs. We learned from and with each other. For example, when we were modifying the REAPS model so it would be more appropriate for young children, Randy was teaching third grade. We planned lessons together or separately, and often taught together. If one of us was in front of the class managing a learning experience, and the other saw that it needed to be done differently, the other would ask to take over the class. No justification was necessary and no feelings were hurt! We knew that the other had seen something or had an idea that was different and probably better than what had been planned or was going on. This mutual respect is essential in a collaborative relationship. The DISCOVER model evolved over a period from 1992 to 2000 in three funded research projects (Maker, 2001). After being introduced to the TASC model (Wallace and Adams, in this volume), we realized our work could benefit greatly by combining DISCOVER and TASC so that we had a model focusing on the problem-solving process in a step-by-step way because this would benefit both children and teachers. Teachers would have a structure to follow and students would learn a valuable, validated process that would be useful to them in the future. Maker worked closely with Belle Wallace to implement DISCOVER and TASC in two elementary schools in the UK (Wallace, Maker, Cave, & Chandler, 2004); and Randy and June implemented the two models in a summer program at a multicultural, lowincome school in Tucson, AZ (Maker &

264

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Pease, 2008). Next, a scientist with experience implementing PBL in international contexts to teach health-care professionals how to control malaria, convinced us of the value of PBL, so, with the assistance of graduate students from Taiwan, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, we added PBL in a workshop for Korean teachers of students gifted in math and science (Maker & Zimmerman, 2008). The Korean teachers implemented the model in their classes (Jo & Ku, 2011). The next step was to try REAPS with younger children and in general classrooms, so we partnered with a superintendent of a school district in the Navajo Nation to provide teacher workshops and assist teachers in implementing the model. One of the teachers collaborated with her students to choose a problem they believed was important in their community, and they developed many innovative solutions while learning important curriculum content (Reinoso, 2011). When Randy returned to the classroom after being a curriculum supervisor, he contacted June to see what they could do together. The timing was perfect! We decided to implement REAPS in his third-grade classroom at a school near the university. This enabled us to include graduate students in the education of the gifted, both as interns learning more about teaching gifted students and as researchers learning to design and conduct studies on the effectiveness of teaching approaches. Together, we wrote a chapter describing the teaching units and methods we developed and implemented together (Maker, Zimmerman, Gomez-Arizaga, Pease, & Burke, 2015c). We wrote journal articles about children’s perceptions of the model (Gomez-Arizaga, Bahar, Maker, Zimmerman, & Pease, 2016), our experiences with 3-D model building (Maker, 2013), and the use of concept maps in facilitating problem solving as a part of REAPS (Zimmerman, Maker, Gomez-Arizaga, & Pease, 2011). The next international collaboration was with one doctoral student at the University of Arizona and one at Monash University who

were friends from Saudi Arabia. Together they designed and implemented an action research project, in collaboration with teachers and administrators at an elementary school in Saudi Arabia (Alhusaini et  al., forthcoming). In this project, teachers were asked about their perceptions of the model, and children’s creativity in comparison with that in experimental classrooms was evaluated, showing that teachers were positive about the impact of the model, and that children’s creativity was significantly higher in the experimental classrooms. From 2013 until the writing of this chapter, we have been collaborating with educators in other settings: • introductory science classes in a summer program in a Navajo Nation high school (Maker, 2016); • two science classes during the regular school year at a high school in Tucson, Arizona, serving a multicultural population consisting of a majority of students from Mexican-American backgrounds; • introductory science classes at a high school serving a majority of M¯aori and Pasifika students in New Zealand (Sylva & Scobie-Jennings, 2017); • a special program for gifted students in another high school serving a majority of M¯aori and Pasifika students in New Zealand (Sylva & Scobie-Jennings, 2017); • teachers of the gifted in the Catholic Education system in Sydney, Australia; and • a long-term partnership with a principal, assistant principals, teachers, parents, and students in a public elementary school in Sydney, Australia, that serves a multicultural, multilingual population (Alhusaini, 2016; Wu, Pease, & Maker, 2015).

Examples of implementation of the model are in the next section and results of the research are included in the final section of the chapter.

HOW DO YOU DO IT? The ways teachers implement REAPS vary with the setting and population. However,

Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration

several aspects of the model are important in any context, so we will describe these as well as give examples of the different ways teachers have used the model.

(1) Choose or Help the Students Choose a Problem that is Real to Them If the teacher chooses the problem, she or he needs to think of the macro concepts (big, interdisciplinary ideas), principles, discipline-based concepts, and facts students will learn while investigating the problem and designing solutions. Also important is making certain the problem is one that is developmentally appropriate for students; one that is relevant to their lives. For instance, with the Grade 3 students in Tucson, we implemented REAPS as a part of the science curriculum. Some of the problems were to design a water park in which water is conserved and earth materials are used, design a water collection system for the school, and reduce the use of plastic in the community and at home. The Grade 6 teacher in the Navajo Nation school facilitated the students’ choice of a problem. They chose alcoholism because they considered it to be a significant problem in the community and one that touched their lives in important ways (Reinoso, 2011). In a high school science program during the summer, students wrestled with the problem of desertification (the process by which fertile land becomes desert, typically as a result of drought, deforestation, or inappropriate agriculture) on the Navajo Nation (Maker, 2016).

(2) Decide on ‘Stakeholder Groups’ or Perspectives that are Important in Solving the Problem No real problem can be viewed from only one perspective, so students need to learn

265

how different groups might perceive the problem differently, as well as how they might develop and support solutions created from different perspectives (i.e., different kinds of involvement in the problem situation or different ways of looking at the problem). Ultimately, incorporating multiple perspectives in problem solving helps students learn to integrate these points of view in the development of solutions that can benefit all parties. When the Navajo students created solutions to the alcoholism problem, the groups included the following: (a) victims of an alcohol-related accident; (b) a teenage boy who grew up in a dysfunctional family and later died in an alcohol-related accident; (c) community advocates; (d) behavioral health services; (e) Navajo law enforcement officers; and (f) bootleggers who sell alcohol illegally on the Navajo Nation. A different type of perspective was included in the development of a water collection system for an elementary school in Tucson. In small groups, students designed collection devices for different parts of the school. However, they worked together to survey various members of the school community to determine attitudes toward different methods for conserving water at the school.

(3) Follow the TASC Wheel, Including Elaborations When Needed to Help Students Follow a Problem-solving Process that can Result in Developing Creative and Effective Solutions (Wallace and Adams, in this volume) Students gather and organize information about the problem, identify the problem from their stakeholder perspectives, generate solutions, develop and apply criteria to decide on the solution(s) to implement, implement the solution(s), evaluate their implementation (including either developing new criteria or applying the same criteria developed to decide

266

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

on the best solution), communicate their solution(s), and then reflect on their learning.

(4) Use the DISCOVER Curriculum Model Principles at the Appropriate Steps of the Problem-solving Process One of the principles of the DISCOVER curriculum model (Maker, 2001; Maker & Schiever, 2005) is to incorporate hands-on learning whenever possible. At the gather and organize step of TASC, collecting real data related to the problem is essential. For instance, students involved in creating water collection devices observed sections of the school to see how water was draining from the roof. Navajo students used an interesting website to give mice increasingly larger doses of alcohol and observe their behavior. This research and observation helped them understand the effects of different levels of alcohol in the bloodstream. Other principles are integrating the cultures and languages of the students, using group activities and choice, encouraging self-selected formats for products, using flexible pacing, focusing on interdisciplinary themes, integrating visual and performing arts, and encouraging development of the self. Another example of the use of two of these principles is encouraging the development of self-selected products, especially those involving visual and performing arts, during the implement and communicate steps of TASC as described in item 6 that follows.

(5) Use the DISCOVER Problem Continuum of Closed, Semiopen, and Open-ended Problem Situations to Structure Problemsolving Experiences of Different Types during REAPS The DISCOVER Problem Continuum (Maker et  al., 2015) provides a guide for

teachers to make certain they are including a variety of types of problems as they guide students through the TASC process. For instance, if learning factual information or how to do certain procedures such as water testing is important, closed problems need to be posed. Moving students (and teachers) from the ‘comfort’ of solving problems with known solutions to the discomfort of not knowing if their solutions are appropriate includes having experience in solving semi-open problems. For instance, when Navajo high school students in the summer program were solving the problem of desertification, in their stakeholder groups, they were asked to make inferences about which problems related to desertification were important to their stakeholder groups and which problems their stakeholder groups could have an impact on solving. The stakeholder groups included the following: (a) farmers, ranchers, and sheepherders; (b) the Navajo Nation grazing committee; (c) local residents; and (d) the Environmental Protection Agency. The overall problem to be solved during a REAPS experience needs to be an open-ended problem: one that is either defined by the teacher, teacher and students, or the students themselves; one that has no specified methods for developing a solution, and one that has many appropriate solutions. For example, the key question posed to the students involved in the desertification problemsolving experience was ‘How can desertification be slowed, stopped, and even reversed on the Navajo Nation?’ (Maker, 2016, p. 14). Although the overall problem has been defined by the teacher, each stakeholder group has to define the problem that is appropriate for it to solve from its own point of view. Once defined, no correct or specified methods, and no correct or best solutions exist; and teachers must not attempt to steer students toward their favorite methods or solutions.

Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration

(6) Incorporate the 10 Abilities (Auditory, Bodily/ Somatic, Emotional, Linguistic, Mathematical, Mechanical/ Technical, Scientific, Social, Spiritual, and Visual/Spatial) in the Prism of Learning Model (Maker, et al., 2015; Maker, 2016) at Various Steps in the Problemsolving Process The TASC steps in which this is most important are implementation of the solution and communication to an audience. One of the important principles in curriculum design for gifted students is to encourage ‘self-selected formats’ for products. When students can choose the format of their solutions and presentations, they can develop needed skills and can also focus on areas of passion and interest. When presenting as a group, for example, a student interested in technology or one who needs to develop skills in applying technology can design a PowerPoint presentation, another student can make a movie, another can write a song, and another can write a report. A student interested in public speaking can deliver the presentation. When designing solutions, a similar process can occur. One can write a plan, another can develop a flow chart showing the steps in the implementation of the plan, another can create a 3-D model of the solution, and another can work out the mathematical implications of various solutions, demonstrating the value of the one chosen. Another interesting product is a play. Having students role-play the various stakeholders involved in implementing a solution can help both those playing the roles and those watching to understand the complexity and perspectives of everyone involved.

WHAT ARE SOME THINGS WE HAVE LEARNED FROM OUR COLLABORATIONS? One of the important things we have learned is that for a teaching/learning model to be

267

successful, it has to be flexible and dynamic, but retain its overall structure. Being flexible means that teachers can and must make decisions based on their own interests, skills, and willingness to ‘let go’ of their control of students’ learning and decision-making. An example of the flexibility for teachers to make decisions based on their interests and skills is that REAPS can be implemented in any content area. If a teacher is interested in and passionate about the problem to be solved, the teacher will be more excited about what students are doing, and often will know more about the topic than about areas that are not of personal interest. REAPS often is used in science because of the interests of students and its acceptance in science education; however, it is equally appropriate in other areas. One Grade 1 teacher introduced a REAPS problem in history. Students had to decide whether to demolish a historic site (a one-room school) to make way for a parking lot. In a Grade 1 classroom recently, students chose to solve the problem of loneliness on the playground. In grades 3 and 4, students designed a playground for the school in an area that had not been previously used. They used mathematics concepts and skills in addition to social science and engineering/ design in developing their solutions. In Grade 6 classrooms, students selected gender bias in magazines; each group wrote articles and edited a magazine that was free of or challenged gender stereotypes. Another example of the flexibility built into the model is for teachers to decide whether to choose the problem situation for students (based often on the content dictated by state and local standards) or to allow and encourage students to choose a problem they are passionate about solving. The second alternative is an example of letting go of control. Not only does this alternative require the teacher to let go, but it requires administrators who are willing to allow teachers the freedom to go beyond the required curriculum if that occurs during the problem-solving experience. In the examples above, some

268

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

teachers chose to define the overall problem and allow the students to define the problem from the perspectives of their stakeholder groups, and others chose to encourage students to think about what problems exist in their worlds, and, as a group, choose the one of most interest as their REAPS problemsolving experience. Being dynamic means that the teaching model must evolve over time as practitioners and researchers learn more about its implementation and its effectiveness. Changes may be needed to enable teachers to use it in their classroom settings, and changes may be necessary to improve its effectiveness. One example of the need for a teaching model to evolve over time as well as be flexible is implementation in different countries and cultures (Alhusaini, et  al., forthcoming). In Saudi Arabia, unlike the USA, students in early grades have different teachers for different content areas. To adapt the model, teachers met with the researchers twice a week to develop together methods of adapting the model to the new culture and environment. Many changes were needed in the usual teaching methods and school environment so that essential aspects such as group work and use of outside resources such as the Internet were possible. Teachers used REAPS in three academic subjects every day, with students first mastering the content of a teaching unit and then designing projects for the remainder of the week. When teachers first implemented the model, the students solved different problems in each content area. However, after three weeks of using this approach, teachers decided to choose one project that would contain all academic subjects, thus integrating the learning across content areas. Another modification, necessary because of time constraints, was that students did not present to external audiences or their peers at the communicate step. They wrote about their solutions and posted them in the hallways at the school. Another change the teachers made was to include students of varying intellectual abilities in each group

rather than having all the identified gifted students together in one group. Teachers also learned they needed to help students acquire skills for working effectively in groups. One way they did this was to identify specific roles for each student in each group, and another was to change the composition of the groups each week. In a different cultural context, teachers in New Zealand implemented REAPS in M¯aori and Pasifika cultures (Sylva & ScobieJennings, 2017). An important adaptation in this setting was to involve the local Iwi (members of their tribe, their cultural community) and Hapu (kinship group, clan) in selecting the problems students would solve. In one of the communities, the Iwi and Hapu decided that the Grade 9 students should study water quality in the Kaipara Harbor and the relationship between water quality, seagrass, and snapper populations. In the other community, they focused on Pipi populations in the Whangarei Harbor. Local Iwi felt that an emphasis on environmental issues was important for their young people. Giving such respect to the community ensured that an authentic partnership was developed between educators, parents, and community leaders. This partnership contributed to the students understanding that the problems they were solving were important to the welfare of their local community, including parents, siblings, extended family members, and tribal leaders. In contrast to the implementation in Saudi Arabia, students in New Zealand presented their solutions to their larger communities, demonstrating again the importance their culture placed on this collaborative relationship. This also is an example of the use of the DISCOVER curriculum principles in implementation of the model: integrating the cultures and languages of the students. Another aspect of the dynamic nature of the model is in the way we learned to adapt the TASC model (Wallace and Adams, in this volume). While retaining the structure and philosophy of the model, we learned that we needed to add some components because of

Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration

the ways we were implementing it. TASC was designed to be used in a variety of instructional settings, so its structure allows for flexibility and adaptation. In most cases, we incorporated strategies from the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model developed by Sydney Parnes (1992) and his colleagues and used in many programs for gifted students. Because of our strong belief in hands-on learning and collecting real data about the problem, several additions were made at the gather and organize step. After students listed what they knew about the problem, what they needed to know, and some sources of information, they collected data; these data were not limited to what they might find in books or online. It included conducting surveys in the school, interviewing key individuals, conducting appropriate tests such as water quality, and in some cases, designing their own experiments to generate answers to their ‘need to know’ questions. One example of an addition to this step was in the program in Mexico. Before deciding on the problem to solve, students took walks around the local area and collected trash. They then analyzed the trash to determine what was the most important problem (i.e., what kind of trash was most often found in the environment?). At the communicate step, the entire community was invited to listen to students’ presentations about the problem and their proposed solutions. Because we are using TASC in solving open-ended, complex problems, students need additional strategies to use at the identify step, because defining the problem is essential to the remainder of the process. One example of an addition we made was to ask students to (a) write at least three statements of the problem to be solved from their stakeholders’ perspective, (b) develop criteria to evaluate the statements, and (c) after the problem statement was chosen, write as many questions as possible to guide their brainstorming at the generate step. Often, the class as a group developed the criteria for evaluating problem statements and these same criteria were

269

used to evaluate and choose questions that would guide their brainstorming when they generated solutions. Developing criteria as a group enables the teacher to assist students and make certain they understand how to write good questions to guide their thinking. Using the guidelines from CPS, students are asked to begin each question with the phrase ‘In what ways might we …’, to make certain the question is open-ended and has a focus on ways to solve the problem. They then select the question that best meets the criteria they have chosen. A similar modification is in the development of clear criteria for evaluating the possible solutions created at the generate step. One way to make certain important content and skills are learned in the context of solving the problems is for the teacher to require that students include certain criteria in both choosing their solutions and evaluating their implementation. In their small groups, students can add two or three criteria specific to their group or problem. When evaluating solutions, students are instructed to focus on one criterion at a time, and evaluate each solution on that criterion before moving to the next criterion. Parnes and his associates (1992) found, for example, as we did, that students and teachers alike often have a favorite solution, and because they have already decided it is the best, will give it the highest ratings without considering its weaknesses unless they compare all solutions across each criterion (Maker & Schiever, 2005). Finally, we incorporated pre-assessments and post-assessments of individuals into the gather and organize and learn from experience steps of TASC. During our development of REAPS in Navajo Nation schools and in the university-based school in Tucson, we experimented with the use of concept mapping as a way to gather information about the students’ levels and types of understanding of the concepts to be learned during the REAPS problem-solving experiences (Zimmerman et al., 2011). Concept maps helped us understand the students’ levels of development of

270

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

expertise (Sternberg, in this volume). Our perspective, like Sternberg’s is that intelligence is not a stable or static trait. It develops over time (Sternberg, 1999). Concept maps provide a way to assess the degree to which students’ ways of thinking about concepts are similar to or different from the ways in which experts think about those concepts and their interrelationships. Experts, for instance, have a more differentiated and hierarchical organization of concepts than novices (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981). Important to understand is that concept maps are not the same as mind maps. They are very different. Students are given a list of concepts, told to make a hierarchical map with the biggest ideas on top, and asked to put words (verbs) on the lines that connect two concepts, making a statement about the relationship between the concepts. By analyzing students’ concept maps, teachers can determine which concepts need to be emphasized and what problem-solving experiences may need to be added to help students develop their understandings of the complexity of concepts and their interrelationships. We learned something very interesting as a result of implementing the model over a five-year period in Randy’s classroom and comparing this with implementation in other classrooms. We found that younger children (Grades 1, 2, and 3) seem to have very little difficulty with ‘problem finding’. They are quite willing to think of problems they would like to solve, and do not seem to care if these problems are the ones teachers think they should be working on! As students continue in school, they tend to rely on the teacher to tell them what they should be learning and the problems they need to solve. We believe this trait is developed over time as students participate in teacher-directed learning from year to year. During the five years we implemented REAPS, Randy had an opportunity to continue working with some of his students for a three-year period. He agreed to follow his entire class from Grade 3 to Grade 4, and the following year to have a Grade 4/5

combination class. The students in Grade 5 were in his classroom for three years, and participated in REAPS all three years. By the time they were in Grade 5, he did not have to help them structure any problems. They told him what they wanted to study! We concluded that their participation in REAPS prevented them from developing the usual trait of relying on the teacher to make decisions about what to learn. In the school in Australia, we have seen a similar pattern. Many of the students have participated in REAPS for several years in a row, and are now comfortable and competent in finding problems they want to solve.

CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE SOME THINGS WE HAVE LEARNED FROM OUR RESEARCH? Perhaps the most important thing we have learned from our research is that students enjoy their engagement in solving real problems (Gomez-Arizaga et  al., 2016; Sylva & Scobie-Jennings, 2017; Wu et  al., 2017). They do not enjoy it because it is easy. They enjoy it because it is challenging, engaging, and relevant. As an integral part of the research design in the studies in the USA, Australia, and New Zealand, students were interviewed about their perceptions of the REAPS model and its use in their classrooms. In two of the projects, students answered questions about REAPS and drew themselves and their classrooms during REAPS. In the other project, students participated in focus groups about their experiences (Sylva & Scobie-Jennings, 2017). In the Grade 3 classes in the USA, 96% of the students described their experiences during REAPS using terms such as ‘fun’, ‘exciting’, ‘cool’ and ‘neat’. When asked what activities they liked the most, 76% described ‘doing things’ such as building models and making things (Gomez-Arizaga et  al., 2016). They saw these activities as important because of

Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration

the learning that occurred as well as the fun they had. When asked what they did not like, 29% said there was nothing they did not like. Other students (25%) mentioned writing as something they did not like and 17% mentioned the lack of time to complete activities and lack of cooperation among group members. In their drawings, 81% of students drew classrooms that were student-centered rather than teacher-centered and 75% drew themselves as active learners. Students interviewed at the school in Australia (students from Grade 1 to Grade 6) had similar perceptions (Wu et al., 2015). They learned content related to the problems they were solving; learned important processes related both to the content and to working together in groups; appreciated being given choices; enjoyed their learning during REAPS; had fun creating models and building things; and although they preferred to work in teams, they disliked uneven distributions of work and arguments among group members. An important outcome of this research was that student responses confirmed that certain elements considered important by the developers of REAPS were also perceived as important by students: active learning, creativity development, and certain principles for differentiation of content, process, products, and learning environment. At the high school level, in New Zealand (Sylva & Scobie-Jennings, 2017), students involved in the focus group interviews indicated that using a local context helped them connect with science content (‘that’s our ocean’, p. 7) as well as the issues faced by members of their communities. Another indicator of their interest was that they said they would like to have had more time to consider, implement, and mobilize the support they found when they made presentations to a local primary school (‘we’ve got to get them to do something and ensure that they’re really useful, but we need a plan for what we want’ p. 7). These comments seem to indicate that REAPS allowed them to work on real life projects that ‘make our school or

271

community a better place’ (p. 7). Several students expressed an interest in becoming more involved in science at the university level and possibly exploring careers related to the environment. Students appreciated having their presentations to the community evaluated at the end of the unit rather than taking a written test. They believed the skills needed for presentations were different from those needed when taking a test. Teachers have expressed positive attitudes about REAPS. In New Zealand (Sylva & Scobie-Jennings, 2017), teachers described their usual ways of teaching as covering a topic in general terms and using specific examples from time to time. However, the implementation of REAPS changed that. They started from a specific example and students learned about this topic through their examination of the example in detail from different stakeholders’ perspectives. At first, the teachers were concerned about the change, but later, they identified it as a strength of the model. In fact, they decided to do less pre-teaching of environmental topics and get into the REAPS problem solving quickly. They could see that all topics they usually taught were covered during the REAPS units. Teachers saw the movement from teacherdirected learning to more student-directed learning as a major positive change. They believed that a key component in the engagement of the M¯aori boys was that they took a ‘hands-off’ approach, telling the students they would support them and assist them, but that students needed to tell the teacher what kind of support they needed and come up with their own ideas. The teacher could help them shape the ideas and find ways to implement them, but the ideas needed to be their own. Teachers believed that the group work enabled M¯aori boys to be more engaged than when working alone. Teachers, parents, and community members alike saw the use of stakeholder perspectives as a valuable part of the learning process: educators were ‘investing in the future’ (Sylva & Scobie-Jennings, 2017, p. xx) of the community by helping

272

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

students understand the many different perspectives involved in addressing local issues, especially when managing resources. In Saudi Arabia, teachers of science, religion, and math were asked to describe their teaching experiences when using REAPS (Alhusaini et al., forthcoming). Four themes were identified in the teachers’ essays: (a) explanations of the action research approach; (b) descriptions of the benefits of the REAPS model in Saudi Arabia; (c) discussions of the challenges of implementing the REAPS model; and (d) descriptions of the traditional teaching method. Most important for this discussion are their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of implementing REAPS. All the teachers agreed that use of the model was beneficial in students’ learning. Some of the benefits they saw from the teachers’ point of view were giving students the freedom they need, treating students both as individuals and members of a group, and assisting students in teaching themselves. Benefits to students included actively participating in discussions, not becoming bored, learning to work in groups, developing leadership skills, developing responsibility, improving problem-solving skills, and creating better social relationships. Challenges they faced when implementing the model included overcoming limitations imposed by the small classroom spaces; dealing with parent complaints about buying materials to assist students in their problem-solving process; helping both parents and students understand this different approach to learning; managing large class sizes; and finding the extra time needed for preparation for group work. Other important learnings are about the impact of participation in REAPS on students’ general creativity, scientific creativity, and understanding of the complexity of concepts and their interrelationships. In Saudi Arabia, after participation in REAPS for a nine-week period, scores on general creativity, the Test of Creative Thinking – Drawing Production (TCT-DP), for students

in the experimental group (M = 28.52, SD = 10.04) were significantly higher (t [61] = 4.57, p < .001) than scores of students in the comparison group (M = 17.09, SD = 9.81) (Alhusaini et al., forthcoming). In Australia, in our first study, we evaluated the impact of short (four months) and long (10 months) durations of participation in REAPS on the development of students’ creative problem solving in science and their general creativity (Alhusaini, 2016). We found that students’ overall scores on the Test of Creative Problem Solving in Science (TCPS-S) were significantly higher (p = .001) after participation in REAPS for 10 months rather than four months. The most significant differences were in originality and elaboration of problems and solutions. We also found that the increases in general creativity were not significantly different in the two durations. In Tucson, students’ scores on several aspects of concept maps were significantly different (.05 level) from pre-tests to post-tests: accuracy (number of correct propositions), convergence (the relationship between the expert’s concept map and the student’s concept map), and examples (Zimmerman et al., 2011). We are currently analyzing data from several other studies in Australia. For example, we have interviewed teachers, administrators, and parents about their perceptions of REAPS, observed all teachers and analyzed these observations. We will then compare students’ gains on pre- and post-measures of creative problem solving in math and science across teachers with different levels of fidelity of implementation. We are preparing a manuscript about the teachers’ perceptions of the model. Interviews with parents are continuing. A study in progress is administering concept maps every year so we can track the development of students’ understanding of the complexity of concepts and interrelationships. Please contact us in the future to find out what else we have learned!

Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving: An International Collaboration

REFERENCES Alhusaini, A. A. (2016). The effects of duration of exposure to the REAPS model in developing students’ general creativity and creative problem solving in science (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from the ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (Order No. 10113271). Alhusaini, A., Alamiri, F., & Maker, C. J. (2017). Adapting the REAPS model to develop students’ creativity in Saudi Arabia: An exploratory study. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gomez-Arizaga, M., Bahar, K. A., Maker, C. J., Zimmerman, R. H., & Pease, R. (2016). How does science learning occur in the classroom? Students’ perceptions of science instruction during implementation of the REAPS model. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 12(2), 1–24. Jo, S. & Ku, J. (2011). Problem based learning using real-time data in science education for the gifted. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 263–273. Maker, C. J. (2001). DISCOVER: Assessing and developing problem solving. Gifted Education International, 15(3), 232–251. Maker, C. J. (2013). Model-building: A practical way to develop creativity in gifted students in regular classroom settings. Inspire: The Gifted Education Magazine for Educators. 9, 10–14 (English); 15–19 (Chinese). Maker, C. J. (2016). Recognizing and developing spiritual abilities through real-life problem solving. Gifted Education International, 32(3), 271–306. Maker, C. J. & Pease, R. (2008). DISCOVER and TASC in a summer program for gifted students. Gifted Education International, 24(2–3), 323–328. Maker, C. J. & Schiever, S. W. (2005). Teaching/ learning models in education of the gifted (3rd edn). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

273

Maker, C. J. & Schiever, S. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd edn). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Maker, C. J. & Zimmerman, R. H. (2008). Problem solving in a complex world: Integrating DISCOVER, TASC, and PBL in a teacher education project. Gifted Education International, 24(2/3), 160–178. Maker, C. J., Alhusaini, A. A., Pease, R., Zimmerman, R. H., & Alamiri, F. Y. (2015). Developing creativity, talents, and interests across the lifespan: Centers for Creativity and Innovation. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 5(2), 83–109. Parnes, S. J. (Ed.) (1992). Source book in creative problem solving: A fifty-year digest of proven innovation processes. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press. Reinoso, J. L. (2011). Real-life problem solving: Examining the effects of alcohol within a community on the Navajo Nation. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 288–299. Sylva, K. & Scobie-Jennings, E. (2017). Ruamano project: Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving. Investing in educational success: Teacher-led innovation fund final project report. (TLIF-025) Ministry of Education, Auckland, New Zealand. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. First Agency Publishing. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(4), 359–375. Wallace, B., Maker, C. J., Cave, D., & Chandler, S. (2004). Thinking skills and problem-solving: An inclusive approach. London: David Fulton Publishers. Wu, I-C., Pease, R., & Maker, C.J. (2015). Students’ perceptions of Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving. Gifted and Talented International, 30(1–2), 106–121. Zimmerman, R.H., Maker, C. J., GomezArizaga, M. P., & Pease, R. (2011). The use of concept maps in facilitating problem solving in earth science. Gifted Education International, 27(3), 274–287.

21 Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners: Authentic, Augmented and Actualized Places and Placements Gillian Eriksson

INTRODUCTION A discussion on technology in education faces the dilemma: by the date of the publication, ‘current’ technology tools, said to transform learning, quickly render themselves commonplace or even redundant. In addition, the notion of ‘technology is just a tool’ oversimplifies the vast range of possible devices, APPS, games, communication platforms, social media, digital texts and materials, learning management systems and educational products that are available to teachers and educators. Emerging technology, such as virtual or augmented reality, once the domain of research organizations or specialists, is now available via mobile devices to anyone who can afford the latest smart phone, tablet or wearable device. The newest smart phone can now superimpose virtual images onto real background in live video – an evolution that is set to transform education. The core question remains: how to create learning places that are relevant and challenging for

gifted learners, either physically, psychosocially or through a continuum of actual to virtual reciprocal reality systems.

THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ON METHODS OF TEACHING GIFTED STUDENTS Pre-Internet Methods Technology has transformed industry and innovation since the First Industrial Revolution of the 18th century, when mechanization was initiated through steam and water power, with the resultant education focused on the skills needed for workers, with a wide gap between this and the economic elite’s classical education. In 1901, the First School for Gifted Children was opened in Massachusetts. In 1921 Lewis Terman initiated a longitudinal study of 1500 gifted children. In 1922 Hollingworth started a

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

special class for gifted students, leading to the Speyer School in New York. Schools made widespread use of educational films and audio-visual text. Developing into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1954, electrification enabled mass production, consumption and assembly lines. This ‘factory’ model impacted education by stipulating core subjects, specific predefined goals, mass testing and standardization of the curriculum under strict authoritarian control (Schwab, 2016). The advent of the calculator (1967) began the debate around technology use in classrooms, while language laboratories and computer-assisted instruction emerged. The Sputnick era (1957) ushered in a concern to develop talent, and in 1974 the US Department of Education Office of Gifted and Talented was set up (Rimm et al., 2018).

Impact of the Internet The Third Industrial Revolution, 1969 through the 1980s, introduced mainframe computers, personal computers, email and computer automation. In 1988, the US Department of Education (USDOE) passed the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act, targeting underserved gifted children and establishing the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented in 1990. At this time, prior to the internet, a program for gifted students, the ‘Forecasting Network’, was implemented (Eriksson, 1988) at the Schmerenbeck Centre, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, with four levels of guided enrichment activities and composite responses in newsletters distributed with the next higher level. The last level guided students into research on authentic problems for a real audience: one 13-year-old student addressed how to overcome racial prejudice in this Apartheid era, and interviewed key political and ethnic leaders, analysis of which she presented to the Institute for Race Relations. Research on the impact of this intervention showed a significant impact on

275

the self-efficacy of the students who completed the final product, and one variable, the number of social interactions engaged in developing the outcome, showed significance as a predictor. With the initiation of the internet in 1990s came the widespread use of online textbooks and learning management systems. Schwab (2016), founder and Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), clarified the Fourth Industrial Revolution as the fusion of new technologies into the physical, social, digital and biological systems impacting education. This system-wide innovation enables fields such as brain research, nanotechnology, 3D printing, mobile networks, smart phones and tablets, artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). Learning is now accessible with speed, power, and with an extensive accumulation of information, challenging the recipient to engage, contribute, interact and produce. Live online interactions, video streaming and social media platforms have allowed for global and instant connections, crowdsourcing, and empowering individuals across the world. Questions of access, information rights, legitimacy and ownership have led to increased tracking, monitoring, security and ethical concerns. The Theory of Disruptive Change (Christensen, Johnson and Horn, 2010) evolved with the need to ‘disrupt’ inadequate technologies in traditional, prescribed and authoritarian systems in education to make them affordable, accessible, capable and responsive. Teaching and learning is transformed through Disruptive Innovations, such as overcoming standardization and regulation through individualized learning, studentcentric technologies, computer-based learning, learning beyond the school curriculum and student production. For example, the Unschool of Disruptive Design, a global education project currently operating in 37 countries, states its mission as to ‘Disrupt the status quo, find unique and evocative ways to solve complex real-world problems, and

276

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

catalyze solutions by deeply connecting with, and learning to love the messy problems that surround us’ (Acaroglu, 2016).

Critical Issues – The Digital Divide The digital divide particularly impacts special populations of gifted students, whose economic disadvantages, linguistic challenges and cultural differences do not provide equal access to hardware, mobile technologies or mediated experiences at home. Authors have pointed to how emerging technologies can have positive results with gifted girls in science (Heilbronner, 2009) and with twice-exceptional students (Belcastro, 2005) using virtual learning environments and assistive technologies for increased functional reading, writing, speaking and presentation. Carr (2010) has questioned whose knowledge is promoted online in his examination of the impact of the internet on cognitive processing in the brain and how students think and learn. He describes the control of information by large technology corporations (Google, Yahoo, Bing, AOL, Facebook) that promote sites in terms of popularity, profitability and promoting commercial products. He points out the dangers of superficial browsing (‘The Shallows’) that leads to a shallow skimming of content, while advocating the reflection and sustained concentration needed for critical thinking and deeper learning. In discussing skills needed for success and which are foundational to excellence, Gardner (2007) identified ‘Five Minds of the Future’: disciplined; synthesizing; creative; respectful; and ethical. The last relates to diversity, equity, social justice and the rights of marginalized groups, as well as the responsibility to make wise decisions and act ethically.

Transformation through Online Learning What knowledge and whose knowledge should form the basis of the curriculum is

constantly redefined to be culturally responsive. Traditional library spaces are being transformed into collaborative and interactive learning centers with an array of technologies. Learning Management systems include multiple content, presentation formats, social media, individual tracking, analysis and e-portfolios, and sophisticated evaluation and data analysis. Open source materials are available free through MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), with expertgenerated content, provided largely by core academic universities. The European Schoolnet Academy (that includes 30 Ministries of Education) offers MOOCs for teacher professional development; their MENTEP course offers five levels of Progressing technology for digital competence. The Kahn Academy provides free coursework across core subjects linked to standards, and currently has 10 million users per month around the world, in 29 languages. Audio and visual channels, such as YouTube and TeacherTube provide an extensive collection of documentaries, displays, demonstrations and public presentations. The most widely used videos are TED TALKS, and TED-Ed clubs, which include presentations by many highly gifted learners on a broad range of topics, themes and issues – very relevant as role models, but also for research and showcasing creative productivity at a young age.

Creating Digital Spaces for Positive Development The question arises how to design digital spaces that can have a positive impact on the development of gifted learners. The Positive Technological Development Model (Bers, 2012) assists educators in designing beneficial digital experiences with features that provide a rich technological environment. Bers extends the evidence-based Six C Model of Developmental Assets by Lerner et  al. (2012) that encompasses competence,

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

confidence, caring, connection, character and contribution and aligns them with the 6C’s of positive behaviors supported by technology that comprise content creation, creativity, communication, collaboration, community building and choices of conduct. Bers describes how virtual environments, social media and gaming can be used for exploring ethical, moral and social issues and developing appropriate conduct to examine its impact on the community (a digital ‘playground’ versus a virtual ‘playpen’). Table 21.1 extends this approach to a Framework for a Gifted Curriculum.

EMERGING TRENDS – CONCEPTS OF PLACE – VIRTUAL SCHOOLS Where learning takes place ranges from physical locations to virtual reality systems, with cyclical and continuous movements between them. Virtual reality embeds a concept of place whereby the ‘suspension of disbelief’ allows the individual to fuse the virtual space with individual scenarios for interaction (Dieker et  al., 2013). The

277

K12 International Academy has students around the world learning online, and offers the Advanced Learner Program with acceleration and enrichment. Virtual Schools for the Gifted are developing worldwide with enrichment and acceleration centers for gifted students offering independent and collaborative learning, such as: the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth; Stanford University Education Program for Gifted Youth; and the University of Warwick IGGY Global Network. Renzulli and Reis (2005) developed the Renzulli Learning System that identifies the interests, learning and expression styles of individual learners in a unique profile, then infuses individualized resource matching and schoolwide enrichment and acceleration activities, while providing monitoring, assessment and evaluation for teachers and administrators to meet standards.

Issues of Placement The widespread use and extensive dependence on technology in schools, or ‘Screen Schools’, has been criticized by Clement and Miles (2017) – teachers who have analyzed

Table 21.1  Framework for positive development of the gifted using technology 12C Model for Positive Design (Bers, 2012)

Extended into a framework for a gifted curriculum

Content creation to develop Competence

Gifted students are adept at developing and producing projects, digital curation with digital stories, musical scores, photography and animation, websites and games to demonstrate and extend their learning Gifted students use the methods of practicing professional to create their own APPS, languages, innovations and inventions, developing efficacy Working in clusters and teams, taking on group roles and sharing ideas and solving core problems that impact others engages them in working effectively and developing empathy Local and global connections both online and through multimedia allow for interactions and a sense of community as many global digital projects foster citizenship linking gifted students around the world. Gifted students address key issues and problems, examine and design ways to solve these problems, choose relevant solutions and implement these in action that will impact real audiences Personalized learning allows students to examine critical and moral issues, make choices and decisions and direct their own learning and examine and reflect on its impact through self-evaluation and development of e-portfolios.

Creativity to build Confidence Communication to support Caring

Collaboration to foster Connection

Community-building to promote Contribution Choices of conduct to develop Character

278

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

the crushing of curriculum content into social media, video, websites and software, with resulting passive consumption, dependence on screen-time in students (‘digital addiction’), and observed distracted, disengaged, bored, underachieving, alienated learners (‘dumbing down’). They define the ‘technology enhanced superkid’ as a myth, pointing out data that show that students spend an average of seven hours in front of screens each day. An initiative of The Foundation for Excellence in Education (2014) in the USA, Digital Learning Now advances policies to create a high-quality digital learning environment for all students, with skills to succeed in the future. Their 2014 Report used 10 elements of High Quality Digital Learning to evaluate State policies and practices, clarifying how technology is being used effectively for both enrichment and acceleration, to develop competencies and innovative thought, and for educational reform and accountability.

Technology Integration for Meaningful Learning Environments The International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE, 2017) has identified technology standards in terms of seven dimensions with indicators as a road map for teachers that focus on: the learner (improve student learning by professionalism and research); the leader (support student empowerment and equitable access); the citizen (model rights and foster contributions); the collaborator (authentic learning to solve problems locally and globally); the designer (principles to design meaningful learning environments); the facilitator (nurture student ownership and creative production); and the analyst (assessment data). The Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) (FCIT, 2017) offers an effective model for use with gifted learners by describing how

teachers can use technology to set increasingly advanced intellectual demands and enhance learning for K-12 students. The TIM uses five interdependent characteristics of meaningful learning environments (MLEs): active, collaborative, constructive, authentic and goal directed (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, and Marra, 2003) across five levels of technology integration (entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion and transformation). For gifted students, the transformative level of technology integration and the upper two levels of characteristics are most relevant: the authentic level (using technology to do problem-solving on key issues); and goal directed (using technology to research data, plan activities, monitor progress and evaluate results – relevant for independent investigations of real problems). At the highest level of transformation and goal directed learning, students engage in ongoing metacognitive processes on connected purposes supported by technology tools.

RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY USE IN GIFTED EDUCATION In an extensive review and analysis of peerreviewed articles that used empirical research regarding the use of technology in gifted education, Periathiruvadi and Rinn (2012) selected 23 articles using NAGC Pre-K-12 Gifted Education Programming Standards strands to identify major themes. Emerging themes included: attitudes to technology; computer-aided instruction; technology to meet socio-emotional needs; assessments; planning; learning environments. Several studies described the benefits of online learning: Olszewski-Kubilius and Lee (2004) reported a preference in gifted adolescents to study particular areas at their own pace, advance, gain Advanced Placement credit and do extra coursework. In a survey of teacher attitudes to technology, despite limited professional development, Shaunessy (2007)

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

demonstrated their use of tools for software applications, project-based learning, inquirybased learning, student products and differentiation. Their recommendations for further research included: the impact of technology on students’ socio-emotional needs; how to use the internet and tools in the curriculum in positive ways; the use of technology-based assessments; providing learning environments; and professional development.

Technological Giftedness Siegle (2004) has described ‘technological giftedness’ in three types: programmers, experts at the design and construction of computer languages and operations; interfacers, with expert knowledge of both software and hardware with a wide consumer knowledge; and fixers, experts at maintaining the equipment and creating the technology. Recommended strategies include: assessment of proficiency in computer programming and languages; and behavioral rating scales and evaluation of technology products and performances. The Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS, Renzulli et al., 2003) include a Technology Scale based on: expertise using technology, interest and initiative in using technology, mentoring others in technology, and creative integration.

Principles of Technology Use in the Gifted Curriculum The impact of new technologies on Gifted Education has been described by Eriksson (2013, 2015) in terms of 6Ps: • Power – Learners are empowered in goalsetting, information gathering, deconstructing, reconstructing for personal relevance. Teachers facilitate, guide, motivate, monitor and act as catalysts; • Person – Learner needs and abilities can be assessed and learning adapted, modified or

• •

•

•

279

extended to individualize and customize (Renzulli Learning System); Places – Learning environments include demonstrations, experiments, simulations, virtual field trips, games, virtual schools, augmented learning; Processes – Progressing from computer-aided instruction to computer-based instruction to computer-facilitated creative productivity (data analysis software, presentation tools, websites); Productivity – Integration of the arts and sciences for design, composition, communication, presentations and product generation (enrichment clusters); Projections – Transforming the process of constructing knowledge through robotics, artificial intelligence, global networking, global curricula, powerful visual storytelling.

Actualized Learning Places How spaces are structured and used for learning reflects prevailing philosophies about education and meaningful learning environments (MLEs). Emerging concepts of place show how spaces can be redefined to facilitate personalized learning on demand, fusing physical and virtual spaces.

New Architectural Designs that Reflect Philosophies In many parts of the world, the traditional school building reinforces an authoritarian structure, with rows of desks in rows of classrooms, and teachers receive and transmit the prescribed curriculum irrespective of the student’s individual perspectives. With a change in the philosophy of education that focuses on constructivism, the design of schools has been transformed from fixed, inflexible largely square classrooms to physical spaces that are versatile, flexible and encompass every shape found in nature (Table 21.2). Many of these key principles support strategies relevant for gifted learners, and allow for personalized learning plans. These

280

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 21.2  Principles impacting school architectural design of learning spaces • Flexible classroom layout and design – digital displays with seating grouped around tables, easels, or displays to allow for cooperative or group learning or project development • Deconstructing the square – learning spaces that use curves, circles, cubicles, pods, or wide angles, and whole school designs that encompass wheels, trees, ships, shade-cloth, observation decks • Flexible furniture that can move or be adjusted for different purposes – chairs on wheels, with rolling seats, or standing computer consoles, or carpeted areas with beanbags, cushions or couches for comfortable reading or discussions • Creative designs in visual and digital displays on walls, floors, windows and table-tops where students interact or use virtual reality headsets in open areas that allow exploration • Fusion of outdoors and indoors according to purpose – doors and walls that can be opened to integrate spaces, patio areas with wooden walkways for seating, garden spaces with fountains, fresh drinking water • Infusion of cultural perspectives in colors, landscaping, art installations, graphics and schools’ themes, logos, central missions. • Contemplation spaces that may reflect cultural or ceremonial reflection (Maori concept of Marai), or areas for overcoming conflict or addressing discipline issues through reflection (such as a peace room), often controlled by student leaders • School spaces or living areas structured around distinct communities with their own unique identity that provide a sense of belonging, the school ‘family’, or ‘home (‘Whānau’ in New Zealand). • Performance areas and areas for school museums, exhibits, product displays, science fairs • Transparency of walls, windows, open spaces, where all classes and people can be seen at each level. • Community connections or community-based learning, and schools used for community centers • Ecological schools for sustainability and effective use of resources – alternative energy sources, growing own food, purification of water, recycling and maker-spaces for creative use of materials. • Integration of the administrative spaces with teaching and learning spaces where Principals and Deans use the same spaces as teacher groups, reflecting the empowerment of teachers and students • Student ownership and engagement in maintaining spaces – student creative artwork, constructions, graphics become permanent displays as student groups contribute to serving their future schoolmates • Seamless integration of technology throughout the campus, with campus WIFI, and spaces for engagement, social interaction and learning integrated with books, materials, 3D printers and resources for accessing information • Restricted access, safety and security in the perimeter and across each learning area with both visibility and monitoring of teachers and students both digitally and visually at all times

principles are implemented in three schools at three levels (primary, middle, secondary) in Auckland, New Zealand, that have transformed learning spaces to reflect educational philosophies, cultural perspectives, student engagement and achievement – with acceleration and enrichment for gifted learners and individual learning plans. At the elementary level is Freemans Bay Primary School (‘Engage, Empower, Enrich’). This diverse, urban school (420 low-income students) has being rebuilt to accommodate a large Maori population (full Maori language immersion of the NZ curriculum), with spaces (Whaˉnau Ata) for Maori that require removing shoes, quiet and order, and other flexible areas for other ethnic groups. The principal does not have an office, but shares spaces with teachers

and parent and community groups. The curriculum includes personalized learning, passion projects (inquiry learning in community projects), e-learning and specialist learning. Personalized learning plans include an extensive review of student demographics, data, assessment and achievement. The school uses BYOD, where teachers and students are connected to e-learning and develop digital citizenship and skills (e.g. Khan Academy; Hour of Code; Mathletics). Students are engaged in applying the levels of competence to each learning task, taking responsibility for their own learning and clarifying their own progress to their teachers (with assistance and facilitation). Manurewa Intermediate (800 low-income students, 37% Maori, 45% Pacific Heritage) won the Prime Minister’s Supreme Award

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

for Excellence in 2017. This was a school with low achievement and major discipline issues, underachievement and high drop-out rate, that was transformed philosophically and renovated physically, so that the spaces reflect the school’s mission ‘Adventurous risk takers; persistent focused achievement’ (Prospectus). Factors that have promoted equity and excellence include: effective school leadership; engagement with the community in the Community Center; culturally and personally responsive curriculum; collective capacity and professionalism of teachers; internal evaluation, inquiry and knowledge building. There is an area for enrichment and acceleration for gifted learners who work on problem-solving and community projects. Outdoor spaces include a peace garden, a native medicinal garden, an edible garden, a worm farm, and wooden walkways, seating areas, an Adventure Playground, outdoor learning areas and sports fields. Supportive technology includes programs such as Digital New Zealand; EPIC; Kahn Academy; Google Classroom; LMS. At Albany Senior High School (ASHS) (800 students), the principal is actively engaged in the daily lives of the students and democratic principles of student engagement and choice impact every aspect of the school. ASHS’s mantras state: ‘It’s not IF you are bright, it’s how you are bright’ and ‘We will always be a new school’. Teachers use Professional Inquiry to examine the effectiveness of their teaching. A school visit reveals open plan areas where students cluster around units and computers, with areas that extend for specific purposes such as art, science, media, robotics. The school curriculum includes GATEWAY – placement for work experience in the community one afternoon per week in an area of student interest. For advanced and gifted learners, the Impact Projects connect learners with local businesses or agencies, and are facilitated by Massey University. These authentic products develop student ownership, substantial learning beyond the classroom, quality

281

products, participation and contribution to the community.

Place-Based Education (PBE) One aspect of the principles stated above is field-based experiences: community projects; service learning; creative projects (The World Beach Project); research in the environment; or mentors or internships in social agencies. This facilitates higher level research or creative productivity where authentic problems can be addressed that impact communities and add to an increasing knowledge locally. Definitions of Place-Based Education (PBE) show the need to address a connection to authentic learning. Place-Based Education (PBE) is an approach to learning that takes advantage of geography to create authentic, meaningful and engaging personalized learning for students. More specifically, Place-Based Education is an immersive learning experience that ‘places students in local heritage, cultures, landscapes, opportunities and experiences, and uses these as a foundation for the study of language arts, mathematics, social studies, science and other subjects across the curriculum.’ (Center for Place-Based Learning and Community Engagement, 2017)

Gruenewald (2003) examined this concept of place in terms of social justice, formulating the ‘Critical Pedagogy of Place’ that criticized the colonial focus of place-based programs which excluded indigenous and marginalized perspectives in the curriculum. Two key principles needed to be addressed: decolonization, the awareness of privilege and the needs of the oppressed; and reinhabitation, or the opportunity to address critical issues and restore social, cultural and ecological sustainable systems. Place-Based Education can be synchronous in a physical environment (building, community, fieldexperience) or asynchronous in a virtual environment. It includes personalized learning with students empowered to make choices

282

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and design their own learning according to their interests and needs. At Hood River Middle School (2017) in Oregon the benefits of PBE in terms of increasing achievement in math, science and language on the standardized assessment have been demonstrated.

AUTHENTIC LEARNING In clarifying the ‘Modern Curriculum’, Kettler (2015) defines four levels: Curriculum as a Course of Study; Curriculum as Standards; Curriculum as Learning Design; and Curriculum as Authentic Engagement. The latter takes place in authentic tasks when students are engaged in co-curricular, extracurricular and independent studies connecting directly with other students, mentors and in internships. At the highest level of the Technology Integration Matrix (FCIT, 2017) is the Authentic Transformative Level, which links learning with the world beyond the classroom, with real contexts both locally and globally.

Focus on Creative and Critical Thinking about Real Problems In explaining how Enrichment Clusters can provide a ‘time and place for Authentic High-End Learning’ Renzulli, Gentry and Reis (2004) define Authentic Learning in the following terms: The essence of inductive or high-end learning is the application of relevant knowledge, thinking skills, and interpersonal skills to the solution of real problems. It involves finding and focusing on a problem, identifying relevant information, categorizing and critically analyzing that information, and synthesizing and effectively communicating the results of an investigation or creative endeavor. (p. 73)

Students in the cluster take on roles as firsthand investigators using the methods of professionals. One of the goals of gifted programs is the generation of creative

productivity through authentic products that impact an audience (Renzulli, 2004). A wide range of online resources and applications address different stages in this process: initiating an idea for a project; creative thinking activities; problem-solving; creative products and presentations; exhibitions and communication. Ideas for innovation and invention can stimulate productivity using applications such as Inventionland. Platforms are available for funding the development and promotion of creative projects and products (crowd-funding sites), such as Indiegogo; Kickstarter; GoFundMe.

Integration of the Physical, Digital and Biological Domains The field of technology is bridging the physical and biological worlds with wearable devices: smart watches for instant communication and information; mobile earpieces; Google glasses; smart clothing to control body temperature; a range of assistive devices for disability; armbands for monitoring physical activity and collecting health data. Emerging technologies known as Human Enhancement Technologies (HET) will in the future enhance memory, communication, sensory awareness, speed of thinking and problem-solving. The Pew Research Center reports on research (Masci, 2016) clarify how new technologies are not only transforming medicine to enhance inefficient abilities and healing, but will also be used to enhance regular human abilities to make people smarter, stronger and healthier (in ways only speculated on in media and literature). They point out the ethical questions surrounding ‘designer children’; the future of education must address the ethics of nanotechnology in the internal world and then enhancements to the curriculum in the external world. Young children are already thinking and inventing wearable devices. To manage his own allergies, Gary Leschinsky, a third grader, invented a wearable device,

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

the A-Watch, to detect early symptoms of an allergic reaction like itching, rash, increased heart rate and sweating, with a compartment for medication and GPS for location (CTY, 2017). At 18, while still at school, having studied advanced robotics in an engineering internship with the Harvard Biodesign Lab, Simone Braunstein designed a surgical device to restore the sense of touch for surgeons (previously not available) with a gripper, a control glove and a control board, winning the 2016 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair Award for Robotics and Intelligent Machines (CTY, 2016).

Addressing Stereotypes and Misconceptions The infusion of multicultural principles into gifted education requires engagement with others who experience diverse lifestyles, ethnicities, cultural perspectives and viewpoints to challenge preconceptions. Perspectivebased learning uses differentiated content with real-world perspectives; a rationale for meaningful learning; personal relevance; ownership; the methods of practicing professionals; a curriculum of practice. Robinson (2015) describes a program that uses realworld perspectives with gifted students entitled ‘Who Cares?’ The benefits of this approach show in its effectiveness in challenging gifted learners to explore academic content by forming authentic connections to real professionals, understanding their unique perspectives, and addressing core issues relevant to the topic or interdisciplinary theme.

Making Connections Globally New technologies allow for direct contact with key experts, artists, cultural performances, experimental sites and research in the field so that students can hear first-hand accounts and engage in discussions on a range of problems and critical issues. The

283

UCF Project, Interactive Expeditions INTX (2010), provides a mobile satellite system connected to an LMS, linked to students online; one project linked an ethnic African drummer on the beach in Cape Town, South Africa, with students from an inner city school in Orlando, Florida, who replicated the rhythms within their classroom. Many online networks and global partnerships are available to gifted students: CPAW (Computer Pals Across the World); ePals (ePals Global Community); iEARN (International Education and Resource Network).

Education for Peace and Conflict Resolution The use of problem-based learning to address complex issues of power, ethnic conflict, violence and war, sustainability and use of resources and other critical global problems has been addressed in many programs. A high school teacher in Richmond, Virginia, John Hunter (2013), developed the World Peace Game, a construction-based game with toy figures in a 3D construction set up in a classroom space that simulates countries at war (World Peace Game Foundation). Students work in teams from each nation, and take on the roles of professionals and debate ethnical issues, communicate, collaborate and negotiate, and battle with opponents to tackle complex problems. Students are engaged in conflict resolution, developing creative and critical thinking skills, and explore options for solutions and become aware of the consequences of their actions. Hunter states that ‘The World Peace Game is about learning to live and work comfortably in the unknown’ (Hunter, 2013).

AUGMENTED LEARNING Augmented learning (AL) combines both the real world and mediated learning with a

284

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

range of simulations and technologies to inform, engage and extend the curriculum. When content is presented through virtual experiential landscapes in AL, gifted students have an array of possible places with new learning environments to challenge their own thinking, learning and productivity. A wide choice of virtual field trips, experiments, demonstrations, simulated games based on historical events, simulated experiences (such as the Everglades Experience) are easily accessed. With the expansion of online learning and educational networks and systems, the use of avatars and simulations is a challenging option, not only for social networking but also for classroom discussions, interactions, explorations and demonstrations.

and government); Ref Seek (more academic results in depth); Wolfram Alpha (computations); DMOZ (Open Directory Project where volunteers hand-pick relevant websites with AOL). Media literacy needs to be introduced into the curriculum and include online ethics, time-management, preventing addiction to online games, awareness of digital footprints and development of digital identities and digital citizenship, and appropriate language and internet use (Eriksson, 2013; Baker, 2016). Tools such as TurnItIn to determine plagiarized content are now commonplace, and sites such as SNOPES play an important role in determining accurate and authentic data.

Simulations in Learning Mediated Content Search engines control information, are used for obtaining data, reviewing multiple sources, selecting and developing a collection of reliable and relevant websites, enabling analysis of core concepts, theories and applications, storage and retrieval, and deconstructing the information gathered. Most prevalent here are Google Applications: Google Classroom and Scholar; KidRex (safe search mode); Kidtopia (safe for elementary); and Google Geo Teachers Institute on using tools such as Google Maps, Google Tour and Google Earth within the curriculum. Less well-known are projects such as the Google Art Project and the World Wonders Project, hosted by the Google Cultural Institute, a collaboration with museums, cultural institutions and archives from around the world, allowing online access to artworks, cultural treasures, world heritage sites, digital exhibitions. One of the issues with search engines is finding sufficient depth in the links; multiple search engines for specific disciplines can help students find more academic information at a higher level of thinking. These include iSEEK (editor reviewed results from universities, institutes

The use of a virtual reality setting for teaching and learning has been explored by several projects relevant for gifted students. In this context, participants adopt or create avatars of themselves, and enter the setting to engage with other educators, teachers or learners who are active at that time. This process involves creative thinking and design, risktaking, exploration and problem-solving. Conferencing and presentations can be hosted at sites within the simulated world of Second Life, such as the Global Virtual Meeting for Gifted Education that maintains a repository of presentations. This platform can use problembased learning to engage individual or teams of gifted students for investigations, skill development, language practice and independent learning. The Shambles site includes ways in which Second Life is being used in classrooms around the world.

Simulated Teacher Education Teachers can now be trained in a safe mixed reality setting where they can interact live in simulations with learners as avatars, and explore classroom interactions, practice strategies and manage behaviors. TLE TeachLivE™

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

is a collaborative project between the University of Central Florida College of Community Innovation and Education and The Institute of Simulation and Training. Teachers enter a virtual classroom where there are avatars as learners, who have personalities and behaviors typical of students for that age, and who can interact with the teachers live, demonstrating diverse backgrounds, interests, various ability and achievement levels, connected to ‘interactors’. The TLE TeachLivE™ classroom simulator is currently being used at over fifty educational sites around the world to prepare pre-service and in-service teachers using virtual students, and can be modified for culture, language and context (Dieker et  al., 2013). A virtual simulated gifted classroom has been created for Project ELEVATE (a Javits USDOE grant), based on five real case studies of diverse gifted learners, to train teachers to identify and serve low-income students and English learners (Eriksson, 2015). The case studies include different levels of achievement (high achiever/not identified as gifted; over-achiever; underachiever), levels of giftedness (highly and profoundly gifted), and immigrants from four different countries who are from marginalized populations. Eriksson, Bai and Lukens (2017) have demonstrated the significant impact of using this simulation on teacher perceptions of the Culturally, Linguistically and Economically Diverse Gifted (CLED .01) and Teacher SelfEfficacy (TSES.04) within five low-income treatment schools (35 teacher leaders; 190 teachers) in Central Florida. In addition, the percentages of students identified for gifted services from diverse populations rose significantly (126% for Economically Disadvantaged Gifted; 120% for English Language Learner Gifted; 96% for Black Gifted; 90% for Hispanic Gifted).

Robotics and Coding The use of robots in the classroom is becoming commonplace, cheaper and more

285

accessible as the technology becomes more sophisticated and easier to program. Robotics has long attracted gifted students to robot war games, where teams of students invent their own robots and battle with other robots – developing collaboration and problem-solving skills. Robots such as Dot, Dash and Cu can be used to teach simple coding to elementary students and can be integrated into any subject area or used for interdisciplinary themes in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). More advanced robots include Lego Mindstorms EV3, where students can construct the actual robot using Lego pieces, and then code the robot to address core problems. As more sophisticated robots enter both the workplace and home, so they will enter the school buildings, completing automated tasks but also more demanding tasks. Engaging with robots who have Advanced Artificial Intelligence, providing extensive information but also interpreting human emotion, is now possible, but questioned in terms of ethics and security (Papert, 1993).

Actual Constructions and Augmented Technology The integration of STEM into the curriculum for gifted learners has been boosted by the popularity of the Makerspace movement that integrates technology with hands-on construction in a real space. Constructionism is the hands-on application of the educational philosophy of constructivism within an actual learning environment, thereby democratizing learning and equalizing socioeconomic and linguistic challenges (Papert, 1993). Learning characteristics of gifted students can be integrated, such as independence, focused attention, research, development of their own unique interests and products, engaging in design questions with intellectual peers to address social and environment issues. Students learn to explore, discover and construct unique products or inventions, using a

286

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

range of recyclables and resources. This includes problem-based learning by examining how things work and having students create their own prototypes for innovative designs and 3D constructions. These products serve to motivate innovative thinking and develop skills for effective design and product development. Related to this trend is the availability of 3D printing and online design software or Applications; teachers are being trained to integrate them into effective curricula for gifted learners. Key principles (Kurti et  al., 2014) for designing effective Makerspaces include: invite curiosity; inspire wonder; encourage playfulness; celebrate unique solutions; failure is fine; breaking things to find out how they work is good; collaboration is good. A full curriculum guide for teachers on how to implement this approach and set up a Makerspace for Education has been developed by Roffey, Sverko and Therien (2016).

relevant problem-based simulations, and supports teachers (TeacherQuest). A creative use of gaming is having students create their own games: LittleBigPlanet 2 on Playstation allows students to use handmade characters, and to critique each other’s play; Pixel Press Floors (iPad) allows users to hand draw levels on grid paper called ‘glyphs’ which are transformed into digital games; Portal 2 uses physics puzzles and allows players to develop levels or ‘test chambers’. Teachers also need to be cautious about the obsessive addiction some learners have toward online gaming; the Center for Internet Addiction provides resources and a rehabilitation program. In South Korea, government measures have been introduced to curtail the detrimental effects of internet use and access to inappropriate games, as well as address addiction to gaming for children; educational programs have been developed for teaching children the ethical and safety issues around internet use and addiction to online gaming (Family Online Safety Institute).

Gaming How AR games can take hold of popular culture was demonstrated in the Pokemon Go craze; the APP uses a GPS to locate a physical site and superimposes a virtual character so that the person using a smart phone APP has to walk into that physical space to ‘catch’ the character – with increasing levels of challenge. Teachers and students can now use an open source platform, ARIS, to design their own game, whereby they can download a map or satellite image of a real place (such as a university campus) and locate specific virtual information at a specific place (say a fountain) where they can pose questions and create online links, or a video that students download, answer, and store. Not only are they in a physical place, but they are then interacting in a virtual place with content and other gamers at the same time. The Institute of Play shows the effective use of gaming for engaging learners in

New Technologies An emerging technology used in the film industry and defense simulations is digital cloning, where individuals are recreated as moving avatars or holograms that can then become digitally interactive. This has great potential for recreating heroes, such as the Holocaust survivors, who then interact with learners, and give first-hand accounts of major events. When gifted students ‘meet’ and interact with the greatest achievers, artists, scientists, designers, field experts and mentors, they learn their disciplines and the practices of professionals. Open Education Resources (OER) provide free access to digital materials and online repositories of materials and programs (housing over 50,000 high-quality resources); their Commons allows teachers to connect in a global network focused on curriculum improvement and access free textbooks and materials, and

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

create and share themes, classroom ideas, lessons plans and projects at all levels of education.

EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS FOR GIFTED LEARNERS: INNOVATIVE CURRICULUM DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR PRODUCTIVE LEARNING Gifted students embrace new technologies seeking greater depth and complexity, rapid pacing, an interdisciplinary focus, access to open source materials and exposure to the methods of practicing professionals (Eriksson, 2013, 2015; Housand and Housand, 2012, Housand et  al., 2016; Renzulli and Reis, 2005). The use of multiple technologies to meet these challenges needs to be infused throughout their curriculum in a fluid, asynchronous context that extends beyond the core learning into individual, autonomous learning and selfdiscovery. New technologies enable a comprehensive identification of needs, interests and abilities, and an individualized, customized differentiated curriculum (Eriksson,

2013). Table 21.3 shows five different perspectives of how students can be placed to achieve this objective.

EMERGING AND FUTURE TRENDS Case Studies of Technological Giants: Elon Musk; Seymour Papert Two world innovators at the heart of technological transformation, were both born and raised in Pretoria, South Africa before emigrating to the United States – the MIT Scientist Seymour Papert, and the engineer, inventor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Their early characteristics show a love of science and engineering, an attention to detail, advanced technical knowledge, a passion and persistence to explore goals and complete innovative projects, risk-taking, and putting visionary dreams into action – demonstrating characteristics of highly gifted students (Eriksson, 2015). They are both critical of traditional, standardized and prescriptive education and have similar views about the

Table 21.3  Placement for gifted learners viewed from five perspectives PP

EP

Physical or Administrative placing Educational Placing (or Plans)

NP

Normative Placing

CAP

Cognitive or Affective Placing

VAP

Virtual or Augmented Placing

287

Buildings, clusters within or across classrooms; special classes: cross grade, special, magnet, honors, advanced placement, after-school; special schools, dual placements, mentorships, internships, community or clubs. Identification (screening, testing, surveys and observations, Revolving Door, Talent Pool, Talent Development, Schoolwide Enrichment, Advanced programs); curriculum compacting, curriculum extension, range of services, counseling and individualized curriculum content goals (individualized education plans for twice-exceptional learners). Data driven assessments, standards or grades; comparisons with peers in community or cultural context, competitions and awards, achievement levels. Maximizes challenges in advancing intellectual demands, complex content, increased intensity of focus, higher-level thinking, problem solving, independent investigations and research, self-direction and self-evaluation, creating authentic products. Technology tools, online courses and programs, MOOCs, APPs, gaming, robotics, devices, social media, mediated research, networks.

Sources: Eriksson (2016); Renzulli and Reis (2004, 2005); Rimm, Siegle and Davis (2018)

288

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

nature and future of learning, especially related to concepts of Place and Space. Elon Musk (1971–) was raised by his father, an engineer and mother, a nutritionist and model. Being exceptionally advanced, he started school early at Waterkoof Preparatory School, read extensively and wanted to explore space. When he was 11, he took computer classes, attended lectures at the University of the Witwatersrand, and at 12 taught himself coding, writing and selling his first computer program ‘Blaster’. He hated school and experienced extreme bullying while at Bryanston High School. At Pretoria Boys High, he graduated with distinctions in Science and Computer Science. At 17, to avoid compulsory military service during Apartheid, he moved to Canada to study Economics and Physics at Queens University. Admitted into doctoral study at Stanford University he left after two days when he and his brother started Zip2, and later Paypal. He became the CEO of Tesla (2004); SpaceX (2002); Solar City (2006); Neuralink (2016, brain–computer interfaces); OpenAI (2017, security from Artificial Intelligence). His future predictions include colonizing Mars by 2040; solar power as the main source of energy by 2033; mainstream driverless cars by 2037; and Artificial Intelligence will outperform humans by 2040, challenging safety by 2024 (Vance, 2015). A critic of conventional schooling, he created a school ‘Add Astra’ (‘To the Stars’) in a large house with creative spaces for a small group of high ability children of SpaceX employees. In interviews he describes the school as studentcentered, skill-based, experiential, individualized and project- and problem-based – children work on deconstructing machines to see how they work, and grow vegetables in a sustainable garden. His belief in First Principles and the Scientific Method supports experimental and experiential learning through games and play and matching learning to children’s abilities and passions.

To meet the challenges of a future that is unknown requires a set of dispositions and skills needed to confidently face new problems, and imagine and put into action solutions in the best interest of humanity for sustainability of the planet. A knowledge of technology and engagement to the service of human goals holds hope for a future that is both natural and enhanced, with brain and human interface for a positive development. (Elon Musk interview, Beijing Television 2015)

Seymour Papert (1928–2016) grew up on the outskirts of Pretoria, South Africa in a rural community amidst local African Bantu people. His father was an entomologist who took the family on field research throughout South Africa. This early place-based learning made it difficult for him to conform to regular schooling; he liked to play with machines, stating that he ‘fell in love with gears’ as a child, and aimed to ‘turn computers into instruments flexible enough so that many children can each create for themselves something like what the gears were for me’. He developed a passion for learning through scientific thought and explorations; recalling his favorite teacher’s advice: ‘Thou shalt invent three theories every day before breakfast and throw them away before dinner’ (Papert, 1993, p. 58). He studied Philosophy (B.A. in 1949) and Mathematics (PhD 1952) at the University of the Witwatersrand. An anti-Apartheid activist, he then did research in Cambridge, UK before studying with Jean Piaget in Geneva, Switzerland. Piaget’s focus on the cognitive development of children and how they construct meaning influenced his thinking when he joined MIT, where he taught until 1996. He developed the theory of Constructionism, whereby children would construct mental models of their world and learn through experimentation and play as they set about solving challenges and problems. Central to this philosophy is discovery and experiential learning in the real world and the use of computer programs in online environments through play; play is seen as

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

providing the best connections to core concepts for solving problems. He was part of a team that established the first Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and the MIT Media Laboratory. With Feurzeig and Solomon, Papert designed the programming language LOGO in 1967, where children could interact with robotic creatures, play with drawings, and complete challenges and activities – a program tested and used with gifted children who attended the Schmerenbeck Centre in the 1980s. He later collaborated with LEGO and developed the game Mindstorms and the robot LEGO Mindstorms (EV3). His concern with inequity led to his work with the One Laptop per Child Project, providing laptops to poor children in 40 countries. An extensive set of videos and manuals is available from the LOGO Foundation for teachers’ use. Papert (2012) clarified his vision of the Schools of the Future in an interview with Paulo Friere. He viewed schooling as oppressive and conservative, and as inhibiting creative and innovative thought, and points to the end of traditional schooling with the use of new technologies to short-circuit the accumulation of experience and construct knowledge. Technology will displace school and the way we have understood school. Of course there will always be, we hope, places where children will come together with other people and will learn but I think that the very fundamental nature of school in this process is coming to an end. The goal of educators is to think about new ways of relating to children, in the triangle between the adult and the child and knowledge.

CONCLUSION: FUTURE SCHOOLS Gifted learners are constantly engaged and interacting online as they move through

289

physical places and virtual spaces. Kurzweil (2005) predicts an integration of man and machine with instant access to vast sources of information, opinions, problem-solving strategies and skills to provide precise answers beyond the need to memorize where learning is a lifestyle. Salman Kahn (Jacobs, 2014) projects a vision of schools of the future: greater depth of knowledge; increased collaboration with key repositories, museums and universities; access for learners all around the world (the One World Schoolhouse); interactive learning experiences. Shirley and Hargreaves (2012) project into a Global Fourth Way of school transformation wherein the integrity and autonomy of the professional teacher is supported (the 1960s’ First Way); the equity and accountability is maintained (the 1980s’ Second Way); and data-driven assessment and collaboration across spaces is encouraged (the 2000s’ Third Way). This transformation takes the best from innovation, equity and excellence, and collaboration to inspire teachers and students to create dreams of personal futures that are individualized and globally sustainable. We are challenged in a world with fluid and expansive technologies to create both external and internal learning places that inspire that very spirit towards brilliance and to embrace our futures. Well, in the ancient world, the word ‘genius’ was not so much used about individual people, it was used about places, and almost always with the word loci. Genius loci meant ‘the spirit of a place.’ And we all know what that intuitively means. … A little bridge crossing a stream with a pool at the back of it and a willow hanging over the pool; that place would be said to have a genius loci. But a more sophisticated understanding would be that it’s this weatherfront of all of these qualities that meet in that place. So I think it’s a very merciful thing to think of human beings in the same way – that is, your genius is just the way everything has met in you. (White, 2016).

290

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

APPENDIX I List of Online Resources, Applications and Programs Section

Source

MOOCS

Harvard and MIT – edX: Stanford University – Coursera: https://www.coursera.org; Udacity: https:// www.udacity.com; Open University UK – FutureLearn: https://www.futurelearn.com; Open Universities Australia: Open2Study: https://www.open2study.com Kahn Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/about Ted Talks: https://www.ted.com/talks/browse; TedEd: http://www.youtube.com/TEDEd Teacher Tube: http://www.teachertube.com/videos

Video TED Talks You Tube Libraries Media Literacy

Advanced Online Programs

Technology Standards

Gaming

Simulations

Place-Based

Computers in Schools

BiblioTech: http://bexarbibliotech.org; National Center for Creative Learning: http://www.gifted. uconn.edu/semr/about/talented-readers.html; Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/ collections/ Turn it in: http://www.turnitin.com; Scopes: http://www.scopes.com Florida Virtual School: http://www.flvs.net; John Hopkins CTY program: http://cty.jhu.edu/; Stanford University: http://epgy.stanford.edu; Berkeley Science Explorations: http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/ SegwayEd/; Harvard at Home: http://athome.harvard.edu/; NASA: http://quest.nasa.gov/ IGGY: https://www.iggy.net/ K12 International Advanced Learner Program: http://www.icademy.com/academics/advancedprograms. Duke University Talent Identification Program (TIP): http://www.tip.duke.edu; Stanford Gifted and Talented: https://giftedandtalented.com; Virtual School for the Gifted: http://www.vsg.edu.au/; Renzulli Learning: http://www.renzullilearning.com ISTE Standards: http://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators Google: http://www.google.com; http://www.kidrex.org; http://www.googleartproject.com; http://www.google.com/culturalinstitute; Interactive Expeditions: http://intxlab.cah.ucf.edu/intx-news.html; Arizona Technology Integration Matrix: http://www.azk12.org/tim; Florida Center for Instructional Technology http://fcit.usf.edu/ matrix/digitaltools.php Institute of Play: http://www.instituteofplay.org/; Center for Internet Addiction: http://netaddiction.com/online-gaming; The Grid: https://fosigrid.org/ south-korea Family Online Safety Institute: https://www.fosi.org/ ARIS Game: http://www.arisgames.org World Peace Game Foundation: https://worldpeacegame.org/ Global Center for Gifted: http://gcgtc.com/events/virtual-events; 4th Global Virtual Meeting in Gifted Education in SecondLife (2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5P_fF2fC5Y:: Shambles: http://shambles.net/secondlife: USC Institute of Creative Technologies: https://www.lifenaut.com/; TeachLivE: http://teachlive.org/about/about-teachlive Center for Place-Based Learning and Community Engagement: http://www.gettingsmart.com Makerspaces: http://www.makerspaceforeducation.com/; http://www.makerspaceforeducation.com/ curriculum-guide.html Open Education Resources Commons: https://www.oercommons.org/ One Laptop per Child: http://one.laptop.org/ Schools in Auckland, NZ: Freemans Bay: http://www.freemansbay.school.nz/freemans-bay-school Manurewa Intermediate: http://www.manurewaint.school.nz Albany Senior High: http://www.ashs.school.nz Enviroschools website: http://www.enviroschools.org.nz MIT Media LOGO: http://el.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/ European Schoolnet Academy: http://www.europeanschoolnetacademy.eu

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

REFERENCES Acaroglu, L. (2016) Disruptive Design: A Method for Activating Positive Social Change by Design. Disrupt Design. Retrieved from: https://www.disruptdesign.co/the-disruptivedesign-method Baker, J. (2016) Media Literacy in the K-12 Classroom, 2nd edn. ISTE, International Society for Technology in Education. Beijing Television Interview (2015) Elon Musk created own school for his 5 kids. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?time_continue=3&v=STt0dpgn900 Belcastro, F. (2005) Applications of electronic technology to rural gifted students who are blind or visually impaired. Information Technology and Disabilities E-Journal, (11)1. Bers, M. U. (2012) Designing Digital Experiences for Positive Youth Development: From Playpen to Playground. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Center for Place-Based Learning and Community Engagement (2017) Retrieved from http://www.gettingsmart.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/02/What-is-Place-BasedEducation-and-Why-Does-it-Matter-3.pdf Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W. and Horn, M. B. (2010) Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Clement, J. and Miles, M. (2017) Screen Schools: Two Veteran Teachers Expose How Technology Overuse Is Making Our Kids Dumber. Chicago, IL: Chicago Review Press. CTY – Center for Talented Youth (2016) Q&A with Simone Braunstein, CTY alumna and roboticist. Awesome CTYers, July 29, 2016. Retrieved from: https://cty.jhu.edu/about/ awesome-ctyers/q-a-with-simone-braunstein-cty-alumna-and-roboticist CTY – Center for Talented Youth (2017) CTYer Gary Leschinsky invents wearable device for allergies. Awesome CTYers, 15 March 2017. Retrieved from: http://cty.jhu.edu/about/ awesome-ctyers/ctyer-gary-leschinskyinvents-wearable-device-for-allergies

291

Department of Education (2014) MOOCs: Opportunities for their Use in Compulsory Age Education. Cairneagle Associates, UK Government, 16 June, 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications Dieker, L., Grillo, K. and Remlakhan, N. (2013) The use of virtual and simulated teaching and learning environments: Inviting gifted students into STEM careers through summer partnerships. Gifted Education International, 28(1), 31–35. Eriksson, G. I. (1988) A Study of the Creative Productivity of High-Ability Students Mediated by Locus of Control and Self-Efficacy Through a Forecasting Network Intervention. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut Eriksson, G. I. (2013) Virtually there: Transforming gifted education through new technologies, trends and practices in learning, international communication and global education. Gifted Education International, 28(1) 7–8. Eriksson, G. I. (2015) A comprehensive plan for authentic integration of technology in gifted education. In H. E. Vidergor and C. R. Harris (Eds.), Applied Practice for Educators of Gifted and Able Learners. Sense Publishers, 269–302. Eriksson, G. I., Bai, H. and Lukens, J. (2017) Assessing the Effectiveness of English Learner Excellence Evolving through Advanced Teacher Education Program. Presented at the National Association for Gifted Children Convention, Charlotte, NC, 11 November 2017. Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) (2017) The Technology Integration Matrix. College of Education; University of South Florida. Retrieved from: https://fcit.usf. edu/matrix/matrix/ The Foundation for Excellence in Education (2014) Digital Learning Now Initiative Report (2011–2015). Retrieved from: http://excelined.org/2014DLNReportCard/ Gardner, H. (2007) Five Minds for the Future. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business Press. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8OlKSNQAIU Getting Smart (2017) What Is Place-based Education and Why Does It Matter? Available at: http://www.gettingsmart.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/02/What-is-Place-BasedEducation-and-Why-Does-it-Matter-3.pdf

292

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Gruenewald, D. A. (2003) Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for placeconscious education. AERA, 40(3), 619–654. Heilbronner, N. (2009) Jumpstarting Jill: Strategies to nurture talented girls in your science classroom. Gifted Child Today, 32(1), 46–54. Hood River Middle School (2017) Place-Based Learning: Giving Kids a Sense of Belonging. Hood River Middle School. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/school/hood-rivermiddle-school Housand, B. C. and Housand, A. M. (2012) The role of technology in gifted students’ motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 706–715. Housand, A. M., Housand, B. C. and Renzulli, J. S. (2016). Using the Schoolwide Enrichment Model with Technology. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc. Hunter, J. (2013) World Peace and Other 4th Grade Achievements. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Interactive Expeditions INTX (2010) Interactive Cultural Transect. University of Central Florida. Retrieved from http://www.interactiveexpeditions.com and http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=oUz4noSeEwM ISTE, International Society for Technology in Education (2017) Standards for Global Learning in the Digital Age. ISTE-NETS. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx Jacobs, E. (2014) The Evolution of the School of the Future: Interview with Salman Kahn. Guest Author, January 2014. TED Ideas. Retrieved from: http://ideas.ted. com/2014/01/15/salman-khans-ted-talkignited-the-conversation-about-onlineeducation-why-hes-doubling-down-on-theschool-of-the-future/ Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J. L., Moore, J. and Marra, R. M. (2003) Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Pearson. Kettler, T. (Ed.) (2015) Modern Curriculum for Gifted and Advanced Academic Students. Waco, TX: NAGC and Prufrock Press. Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L. and Fleming L. (2014) The philosophy of educational makerspaces, Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 8–11. Kurzweil, R. (2005) The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York, NY: Viking Press.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., et  al. (2012) The Positive Development of Youth: Report of the Findings from the First Eight Years of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. Tufts University Institute for Applied Research. Masci, D. (2016) Human Enhancement: The Scientific and Ethical Dimensions of Striving for Perfection. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/ essay/human-enhancement-the-scientificand-ethical-dimensions-of-striving-for-perfection/ Olszewski-Kubilius, P. and Lee, S. (2004) Gifted adolescents’ talent development through distance learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 7–35. Papert, S. (1993) Mindstorms – Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Basic Books. Papert, S. (2012) Seymour Papert and Paulo Freire debate technology and the future of schools. Video posted on YouTube by Norm Friesen, 16 May 2012. Retrieved from: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V-0KfBdWao Periathiruvadi, S. and Rinn, A. N. (2012) Technology in gifted education: A review of best practices and empirical research. JRTE. ISTE, 45(2), 153–169. Retrieved from: http://www. iste.org/jrte Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–7. Renzulli, J. S. and Reis, S. M. (2005) A technology based program that matches enrichment resources with student strengths. University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education, Storrs, CT, USA, Renzulli Learning Systems, LLC. Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M. and Reis, S. (2004) A time and a place for authentic high-end learning. Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A. 62, 73–77. Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., Gavin, M. K., Siegle, D. and Sytsma, R. (2003). Four New Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Indianapolis, IN. Rimm, S., Siegle, D. and Davis, G. A. (2018) Education of the Gifted and Talented, 7th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Robinson, L. P. (2015) Who Cares? Using Realworld Perspectives to Engage Academically Gifted Learners. LEARN NC: UNC Chapel Hill

Designing Dynamic Learning Spaces for Gifted Learners

School of Education. Retrieved from: http:// www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/every-learner/ 6682 Roffey, T., Sverko, C. and Therien, J. (2016) The Making of a Makerspace: Pedagogical and Physical Transformations of Teaching and Learning. Curriculum Guide. University of British Columbia. Retrieved: http://www.makerspaceforeducation.com/curriculum-guide.html Schwab, K. (2016) The Fourth Industrial Revolution. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group. Shaunessy, E (2007) Attitudes toward information technology of teachers of the gifted: Implications for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 119–135. Shirley, A. and Hargreaves, D. (2012) The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

293

Siegle, D. (2004) Identifying students with gifts and talents in technology. Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 2–3. Smith, G. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 584–594. Vance, A. (2015) Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future. New York, NY: Ecco, Harper Collins. Wattchow, B. and Brown, M (2011) A Pedagogy of Place: Outdoor Education for a Changing World. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Publishing. White, D. (2016) The Conversational Nature of Reality. Interview conducted by Krista Tippett. On Being. Transcript of Interview. Retrieved from: https://onbeing.org/ programs/david-whyte-the-conversationalnature-of-reality/

22 How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence that Benefits Highly Able Students to Enter Top Research Universities Ian Warwick

INTRODUCTION: EQUAL ACCESS TO EXCELLENCE On the brink of the new Millennium, the cyber punk writer William Gibson expressed an interesting idea: ‘The future is already here; it’s just not very evenly distributed’.1 By which he meant that the future itself will be characterized by inequalities in education, power and resources in similar ways to the present, determined in part by how those inequalities manifest today. Teachers try to promote equal opportunity, inclusive classrooms and schools, whilst recognizing that equality is still elusive. Treating everyone the same, or offering equal access to learning, might suggest that equal access means that everyone receives the same education. A more precise application of even distribution is needed. If what is on offer does not connect with a learner’s individuality, then whatever level of potential they might possess is artificially impaired by any insistence that

everyone is the same. If the learning experience matches the capacities of the learner, they will stand a chance of maximizing whatever potential they might have. Even distribution is not about standardized provision, but rather, personalized or differentiated, provision. This is exactly why differentiation is so important in classrooms. It challenges the idea that all children are the same and encourages all educators to teach to the edges rather than to the middle; it promotes student-centred, self-paced, alternative routes; it’s about excellence for all – for every learner, in the ways that each individual learner finds and defines excellence. But the reality is very different. Individual schools may seek to define excellence in ways that make sense to them, and to their students. But the system overall suggests that these definitions vary too wildly to be in any way comparable. And they produce results which demonstrate that a two-tier class system is very much in the ascendency in education. For some students, their future

How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence

is certainly already here. For others, the highest of ambitions can be sacrificed on the altar of convenience. As Goethe said: ‘If you treat people as they are, you will be instrumental in keeping them as they are. If you treat them as they could be, you will help them become what they ought to be’.2 It is essential to look closely at the issues that underpin inequality, to explore what is being done well and what needs to be done better, and to promote strategies that appear to work in very different learning environments.

UNDERACHIEVEMENT AND UNFULFILLED POTENTIAL Three prestigious independent schools and two elite sixth form colleges produced as many entrants to Oxford and Cambridge as 1800 state schools and colleges across England combined. Over 1600 state schools did not send a single student to Oxbridge.3 Pupils from independent schools are five times as likely to get places at Oxbridge as their peers educated in the state system, despite a high-profile drive to widen access to top universities. Figures published for the first time by the Department for Education show that one in 20 pupils from the fee-paying sector goes straight into the universities of Oxford or Cambridge at the age of 18. This compares with just one in 100 of those from state schools.4 Such national data has revealed that hundreds of schools year on year fail to produce any students suitable for any of the elite universities. Almost a quarter of England’s sixth forms and colleges produced no students with the top A-level grades sought by leading institutions. Why are we seemingly happy to write off so many schools? Or, more specifically write off the thousands of students who will never have the chance of attending a top research university. Even if it is conceded that many students may not have wanted to go there, there will be hundreds who would perhaps have liked the opportunity.

295

REPORTS AND RESPONSE Recent Ofsted reports (Office for Standards in Education) from 20135 and 20156 looked at how students in non-selective state schools make decisions about university applications and what support they need to be successful. The reports make the incontrovertible point that schools must work with families more closely, particularly the families of first-generation university applicants and those eligible for free school meals, to overcome any cultural and financial obstacles to university application. The support and guidance provided to students when they were thinking about, and applying for, university varied in quality, accuracy and depth in the schools that Ofsted surveyed, with a lack of up-todate, in-school intelligence about applications. Although most of the schools considered themselves to be providing good support and guidance, around half of them accepted any university as an option and did not have aspirations that their students should aim to apply to leading universities. But this is only a part of the problem. The Chief Inspector of Schools at the time of these reports, Sir Michael Wilshaw said in his 2016 HMCI (Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector) commentary that what they found painted a bleak picture of underachievement and unfulfilled potential. ‘Thousands of our most able secondary-age children are still not doing as well as they should … [due to] a culture of low expectations and a failure to nurture high ambition and scholastic ­ excellence’.7 From London Gifted & Talented’s experience worldwide, this is not a problem only in nonselective UK education, and drawing attention to the issue is not just about how we meet the needs of the most able. How able students experience their schooling is an indicator of how well or otherwise schools meet the needs of all children – as these trenchant remarks from Wilshaw makes clear: How well the brightest children are doing will usually be among the very first questions an

296

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

inspector asks the school leadership team at the start of the visit. This is because inspectors know that if provision for this group is good, it is likely that other groups of pupils are also being well served. Conversely, if the most able pupils are not being stretched, that will alert inspectors to the possibility that things may be going wrong elsewhere … What is most depressing is that the brightest children from disadvantaged backgrounds are the most likely not to achieve their full potential.8

UK SQUEAMISHNESS Why is there what appears to be a wilful neglect of highly able students in some schools in the UK? Could it be that the UK appears to have developed a squeamishness about recognizing and developing high-ability students? In classrooms, the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. But meeting the legitimate needs of able students still carries with it that faint whiff of elitism, that sense of a ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ deficit model and concerns about the ‘Matthew’ effect of accumulated advantage – to those that have, more shall be given. There is still the often spoken belief that high ability students don’t really deserve the resources because they have natural advantages and so they ‘can’t fail’. Except of course they do fail. All too frequently. And worldwide, on an industrial scale. Even those ‘heavily supported’ able students with ‘snow plough’ parents often go off the rails, or misunderstand the demands being made of them or the degree of difficulty of the exam, or assume that because they might be top of their class they will automatically get the top grades they need. But we all know that these students are just the tip of the iceberg. The straightforward reality is that the very children who need some of the greatest support because they are smart but disadvantaged are precisely the able students who are most likely to underachieve. They don’t attend cultural events, don’t hear the right words spoken at

home, don’t have their parents (or anyone else) helicoptering in when they start to slip and slide. They are the ones we need to support the most in school, or their talent will be squandered, their aspirations abandoned and their future blighted. Ofsted suggest that these are the children who are not getting the support they require, not getting access to the pupil premium and not achieving anything like their potential. This is the core of the equity agenda as well as being the most powerful argument to get colleagues genuinely engaged.

THE FIERCE URGENCY OF NOW Learning delivers us to ourselves. This happens when we learn from books or a teacher and in how we subsequently apply and build upon what we have read or heard. When the learning has impact, it becomes part of an everlasting present tense. It is not a fleeting experience. It will always have an immediacy; it will always be there. The writer Graham Swift says that narrative may be written in the first or third person singular, but once it ‘happens’ to the reader it becomes, implicitly, first person plural.9 Learning is like that. It can be third person – shaped and driven by a teacher or an examination syllabus – or it can be first person – arising from the social and emotional needs of individuals, but once the learning has happened it becomes part of who ‘we’ are in the widest possible sense. What able students encounter in or because of the classroom experience thus becomes part of themselves and by implication part of our collective understanding of who we are in relation to one another. Horace’s phrase ‘in medias res’ (in the midst of things) is key. Effective learning is an immediate and intense experience – and as teachers we often find ourselves not on the outside looking in, but in the middle of what we are learning. In recent times, for instance, particularly in the media, historians

How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence

almost always recount the events of the past in the present tense. This is not affectation, but rather a recognition that the stories from history – just like the backstories from science, or mathematics, or any school subject – exist in a perpetual ‘now’. All this leads us to our first principle to explore: our students’ need for an excellent learning experience is urgent and immediate. What do we mean by excellence? When London Gifted & Talented10 asked able students in a prominent independent school this question they were less than complementary about what they saw as their school’s priorities: too much teaching to the requirements of examinations; too much reinforcement; too many practice papers; a culture dominated by the fear of getting things wrong and, most of all, a pervasive cynicism about ‘playing the game’ – by which they meant that the means (what they were given to learn) ended up as being entirely about the ends (the exam or the university interview) – an absence of tangents, a curtailing of curiosity and a focus on answers to the detriment of questions. When teachers (in another high achieving state school) were asked the same question, their focus was not the same at all. Top of their list was how well they understood and how they had found ways to comply with the exact expectations of the examination syllabus. This for them was what urgency and immediacy meant. This anxiety – and there is no other word for it – suggests that much of what happens in the classroom is not about ‘now’ but rather some future test. Much of what the teachers added to their list concerned their students’ inability to handle criticism, their lack of resilience – and their impenetrability in general. This brings us to a second principle: do we talk about and seek to provide a dynamic in our subject (and whole school) that is responsive, enabling and energetic? Has the examination syllabus – or political directives or league tables – become our default position? Is pretty well everything we do, and allow our students to do, measured in terms

297

of relevance to some future assessment? There is a significant difference between déjà vu and vuja de. Déjà vu experiences in the classroom would be when students meet all new learning experiences as though they have seen them before. This would help to explain those teacher criticisms of lacklustre students who cannot take criticism and are anything but resilient. Vuja de encounters in the classroom would be with familiar materials but approaching and responding to them in a new way. This is exactly what those independent school students mentioned earlier talked about when they described what they really wanted from their learning experiences: more questioning, increased opportunities for independent thinking and an exposure to new options to discover the potential of a topic or a subject. It is up to us to question the default. This is all a way of saying that the dynamic of a subject needs to be about its potential breadth, its inherent opportunities for students to acquire knowledge, develop understanding and learn and practise skills, but even more – to do all these things in exceptional ways – in ways that neither the teacher nor the student expected. Once hooked by this idea of a subject dynamic students tend to become more independent, are better able to work with concentration, have greater resilience and seek out new opportunities for learning.

A FEW PARADOXES OF TEACHING The forces on teachers can be both contradictory and crippling. As a result, we can often challenge and doubt the very nature of what we are doing. Should it be to get a struggling student to floor level targets, or to inspire a highly able student to think like an expert? Outside influences can be very powerful. We are susceptible on a daily basis to exam board nihilism, to government performance diktats or to bite-sized reductionism. These pressures often mean that we are willing to

298

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

accept short-term performance from students rather than focus on long-term scholarship – and take ‘refuge’ in easy, learned answers. These are outcomes devoutly to be resisted. Teachers are expected to scaffold learning, but this may have the effect of taking the difficulty (and therefore the interest) out for the more able. Interventions to support may be limited to simplification, so that all learners can ‘keep up’; with a focus on receptive understanding, when productive use is required. Research on the value of a thinking pause in discussion appears to be at odds with the requirement for pace, which can lead us to come to the rescue too quickly, or to accept first responses too readily. We know that knowledge delivered without uncertainty, without the need for our learners to think is unlikely to be remembered. As Blake commented, ‘Without contraries, there is no progression’.11 More able learners need to be given the opportunity for sustained engagement with a task, to be placed in situations that expose them to ambiguity, yet the requirements for clarity in planning may limit opportunities for doubt. How do we plan for student choice and provide spaces for them to think? Knowing about things allows us to open the universe a little more, to expand beyond our horizons. Effectively managed and delivered, that knowledge will remain part of who the learner is. How do we make this happen, and what is more, how do we persuade our colleagues that such an endeavour offers to return us to what excited us about our subjects in the first place, and at the same time make us all better teachers? There is a general agreement that all learners, not just the most able, need to experience challenge on a day-to-day basis and have a range of personal strategies which support their engagement and progress. In many ways, effective teaching for the more able is about providing opportunities to make useful mistakes, but this is not the same as simply creating opportunities to fail. Much of our work since 2004 has been around what we

called high challenge – low threshold learning, exploring the interaction between what challenge looks like and how we offer that challenge in ways that are accessible to more able students with diverse needs. This raises the practical question of how we provide support for learners without negating the intended challenge within the activity. Alberto Manguel says that the essential art of teaching is to recognize that a teacher … can help students discover unknown territories, provide them with specialized information, help create for themselves an intellectual discipline, but above all … establish for them a space of mental freedom in which they can exercise their imagination and their curiosity, a place in which they can learn to think.12

If teachers fail to challenge through offering that space of mental freedom, students will tend not to take themselves too seriously. Passivity or an unwillingness to put their heads above the parapet is demonstrated in many ways – a reluctance to question, the expectation of support, the need to be entertained as payment in advance for effort. On top of this, peer pressure lurks like a sniper just beyond the threshold so that learners become unwilling to go over the top into a land of risks, uncertainties and mistakes, however useful they might (eventually) prove to be.

TEACHER EXPERTISE So how can we address all this in the classroom, without killing ourselves with overpreparation, or our students with either boredom or over-anxiety? One of the first findings of our studies is that teacher expertise is quite simply the key.13 What helps students to love a subject and to want to study it further? ‘Off piste’ lessons that go beyond the syllabus requirements inevitably create a sense that there is so much more to learn, which is vitally important for igniting an able student’s passion, thirst and enjoyment for

How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence

learning. Finding ways to take learners beyond the confines of the syllabus is critically important. When learning for learning’s sake and learning as its own reward start to become the norm, this lays the foundations for building a culture of scholarship that our more able students need if they are to survive and thrive at the highest level of study in school and beyond. It is also critically important in such off piste excursions, that we refine the way we use questions, that we look at the purpose as well as the types of questions we ask, so that students are continually being engaged and making progress in their learning. The questions we ask and the questions we seek from our able students need to be both cognitively challenging and able to progress students’ understanding. This needs to happen as a matter of course so that higherorder, open-ended questions are used to create opportunities to fully open learning. As a result, we need to understand the purpose and function of any subject we teach as fully as we can to help our students develop their own clarity and passion. Expertise is more than the quality and quantity of what we know. It is also hidden inside the more specialized ways of thinking that become the language of instruction that we use and share. We are obliged to be Vygotsky’s, ‘more knowledgeable other’14 ready and willing to provide learners with the necessary linguistic fingerprint of words and ideas so that they might have the equipment they need to answer the challenging ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions we throw at them. Every teacher needs a thorough understanding of his or her subject and must know how to communicate that understanding. The quality of our teaching is likely to be one of the most important factors in how much our students learn and without doubt we need more intellectual heft in the profession, based on the simple principle that no one can teach what they don’t know. Highly educated teachers tend to choose material that is more rigorous and challenging and are less threatened by student questioning.

299

There are big ideas and troublesome knowledge in every subject domain that only an expert teacher can deliver to students. All of this expertise takes time to acquire and at present, certainly in the UK, there is little requirement for staff to refresh their subject knowledge regularly as they move through their careers. But without this, our students’ own journeys to subject mastery are likely to be damaged. All of the above questions have formed the core of our research over the last few years.

THE MAYORAL EXCELLENCE PROJECT With funding from the Mayor of London’s Schools Excellence Fund, we worked with Christ the King College to establish a fouryear cross-sector (state and independent school) research partnership between seven London state schools and four high-profile independent schools to identify the teaching and learning strategies that make the difference for the most able students to get into Oxbridge and other top research Universities.15 We wanted to investigate how top independent schools managed to create the right conditions regarding attention to the individual student, shaping the outlook of both students and their teachers, and inculcating the belief that students will get there. A key element was to put teachers at the heart of our research, to collaborate, to share and to develop each other professionally. We established subject specific networks run by the teachers for teachers to provide space and opportunity for dialogue. As well as increasing teachers’ understanding of how best to support our most able students to work to A* level, we wanted to build their professional confidence levels to put all of the resultant strategies into action. All participating teachers undertook two one-day research visits to each other’s schools so that state school teachers made visits to independent schools and vice versa. During both visits, every

300

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

teacher observed lessons of their specialist subject being taught, with a focus on teaching (and resources), learning and engagement and classroom management. The second visit also included opportunities to speak with able students and their teachers. In Phase 2, a number of interventions were trialled with highly able students that were devised based on what we had learnt from the data about the practices and approaches that make the difference for high-level achievement at Key Stages 4 and 5 (students aged 14–18 years). Our analysis of almost 300 sets of research notes written by our teachers led us to identify approaches that were being highlighted as successful. When added into the research that London Gifted & Talented have been conducting across five other Independent State school partnerships, along with the five-year programme we undertook across all London secondary schools for the London Challenge, the following 21 approaches have emerged as significant.16

FOCUS ON LONGER-TERM NARRATIVE ARCS How Do We Encourage Students to Plan for Learning? For every unit or topic, we need to approach long and shorter-term planning with clear ideas about how we want students to develop a genuine understanding of content and how that fits in with how they see our subject area. Sometimes this will be through single, episodic lessons, and at other times this essentially needs to be developed across a series of lessons that might take a number of weeks. We need to ensure that our students don’t see learning as a lesson-by-lesson series of easily obtainable learning objectives, but rather see the wider long-term arc across a series of lessons or even across a term or year. Particularly for our more able students, a longer narrative

arc means teachers have an increased opportunity to think deeply about the pace of teaching and learning – from the outset of the school year, and in every lesson (and beyondlesson work), setting a pace that genuinely challenges students and moves their learning on rapidly by capitalizing on every possible opportunity for widening their understanding. It also means the chance to think about pace of recall, and how we can ensure that our students are able to secure and consolidate their understanding.

MODEL ACADEMIC LANGUAGE How Do We Establish Clear Expectations Regarding Precision in the Use of High-level Subjectspecific Language? We don’t have to spell the power of language out in mini-lectures or inspirational posters on the wall; we simply have to model it through high-level quality immersion in the subject-specific language we use in our daily teaching. The way that we demonstrate and encourage language use – both in and out of lessons – is key. By our own appropriate use of academic and subject-specific language, we can encourage students to do the same. Make academic and subject-specific language the norm by modelling precise language use all the time, and by pointing out that excellence is a habit, and that we become what we consistently do. Try to get your students accustomed to using language well and spelling accurately with good punctuation at all times. Lower-level academic language skills often hold back high-ability students and we can undermine the significance and point of high-level subject specific language by dumbing down our own language in class using simplified synonyms. When we are clear in our expectations regarding the accuracy and precision of the technical language we use, we are making it clearer that

How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence

precision is expected and that it is crucial to feed a higher level of thought and debate.

TALK ABOUT WHAT SUPPORTS POSITIVE SELF-CONCEPT How Do We Ensure Students See Work and Achievement as Necessary for Self-esteem, not Vice Versa? Students need to realize that the effect of achievement on self-concept is stronger than the effect of self-concept on achievement. They must believe that the surest path to positive self-esteem is to succeed at something which they originally perceived would be difficult. We must teach students that grappling with challenges is more important than any amount of easy success, but this becomes a complicated and messy message if we only really reward their successes. Students need to learn how to do ‘hard stuff’, to start to feel good about themselves as scholars and there is a danger that every time we ‘steal their struggle’17 we also take away a chance for them to build confidence. They must learn to do hard things to feel good about themselves, and we short-circuit the opportunity for them to build self-confidence by accepting their second best. The best way to help students feel that they are succeeding is to help them to actually achieve on their own, but in addition our interactions with them can help to smooth the way for this process. Talk about your own less than perfect learning journey to expertise to let them know that you too needed to go through barriers and that your current confidence has come from an original position of doubt and uncertainty. They see themselves as apprentices and the role of the master in this circumstance is to expose their ignorance to them, so that they understand that they need to keep going to address it.

301

ESTABLISH DISTINCT LEARNING AND EXAM PREPARATION PHASES How Do We Separate ‘Feeding’ from ‘Weighing’ the Pig? One of the biggest concerns in many schools is that due to a fixation on national league tables, too much time is spent working out what students know by testing them continually rather than teaching them what they need to understand to achieve top grades in the first place. Many schools have begun to clearly separate the learning and testing phases, interleaving them as needed. In the learning phase, efforts should be focused solely on developing students’ subject knowledge and understanding by nurturing their intellectual curiosity through opportunities for discursive and exploratory learning and high-level problem-solving and risk-taking. Once they have achieved a level of motivation and knowledge then testing becomes useful, as it brings to mind information they don’t know which causes learning to take place. By practising answers students are required to bring to mind information, as well as practising skills such as essay writing, which serve to strengthen memory and learning. Once students have read through how you have marked their work, they should aim to re-draft part or all of it. This will let them know what they are being tested on and what the exam board regards as top-grade answers, even if these are below the standards of understanding that they have currently achieved.

CONSOLIDATE AND ACCREDIT PREVIOUS LEARNING How Do We Establish What Our Students Already Know? Unless we start from where our students already are, we run the risk of boring them senseless by repetition of already mastered

302

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

knowledge and concepts. This level of boredom has been highlighted by a great number of schools who have conducted interviews with their most able students, as well as also being highlighted by our surveys. On the other hand, students’ poor prior knowledge, together with lack of rigour and knowledge in some GCSE courses (General Certificate of Secondary Education), combine to form a weak foundation for progression to A-level (Advanced post-16) learning. Quickly mapping what a class already knows, by using simple techniques such as ‘most difficult first’, helps to highlight where the pinch points might be regarding any new learning we are embarking upon. Correcting the misconceptions, confusions and misunderstandings from previous learning is critical and helps to provide a solid foundation for future progression. By anticipating and correcting likely student misconceptions, interrogating and challenging their responses, we let them know that previous students have embarked on similar journeys and that we are aware of the inevitable challenges and mistakes that are likely to occur.

CLARIFY WHAT TARGETS ARE MEANT TO ACHIEVE What Do Appropriate Levels of Progress Look Like for the Learner, and How Do We Transmit that Awareness? We need to be very careful about the setting of target grades to ensure that they become markers of potential not barriers to progress. The anticipated impact is to highlight a commitment to achievement and to clarify what we expect from our students in the medium term. But many teachers in our surveys are now wondering whether the ‘overuse’ of target grades may let the achievement of target grades prematurely put a ceiling on learning potential. Peer

group influence needs to be highlighted and deconstructed to clearly assert to our students what is required to achieve the top grades and to give them a road map of how to get there. It is essential to explore national versus local standards as students often believe that what happens in their classroom is an indicator of what the national standards require. As a result, there is a huge danger of limited self-fulfilling prophesies, as students rarely seek acknowledgement beyond their school. They may have little idea therefore of what excellence looks like outside of their limited outlook and experience. The shock often hits them at external examination time or when they first encounter other highly able students at university from very different learning environments.

ESTABLISH THE RELEVANCE OF YOUR SUBJECT How Do We Ensure that Students Understand What Our Subject Is There To Do in the World? We often make a classic hindsight bias assumption when we believe that it will be obvious to our students why they are putting in all this effort for our classes. We need to explain what function our subject performs and what delights it contains for future study, as this is often not clear to our students. By focusing on explaining what our subject gives to the world and what it is there to explain or offer we allow learners greater autonomy and choice. Students need to have these explicitly explained so that they can make the emotional leap necessary to engage fully with what and why we are teaching them. In hundreds of school surveys we’ve conducted able students regularly comment that they want to know why things are being studied, what they mean and where they are going next. This allows them a greater sense of progression and

How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence

an insight ‘behind the curtain’ of our teaching intentions. In turn this promotes a greater independence and maturity in their responses and engagements.

TEACH TO THE TOP AND GO ‘OFF PISTE’ How Do We Make Explicit what Skills and Behaviours are Required of Our Learners to Achieve Beyond the Top Grades? If we see able learners as being experts in development, we have to come clean about the fact that becoming an expert is about challenge and struggle within our subject area. It is important to teach outside of the exam requirements and explore the core of your subject. By setting higher levels of challenge and stretch in the tasks we set, in the questions we ask, in the expectations we have of how much our students will cover in and beyond our lessons we can change their perception of what is possible for them to achieve. We need to teach through deliberately and explicitly demanding tasks and utilizing real-world problems. We need to explore what features of our subject allow students to properly investigate and research and thereby set up issues and problems that experts in our subject face and deal with. It is very powerful to trial research questions and new technologies if appropriate as often as possible and give the students the role of expert in co-development.

DEFINE APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF PROGRESS What Does It Look Like for the Learner, and How Do We Transmit that Awareness? How do we ensure that we as teachers know what we’re aiming for? How do we

303

let students know what the indicators of excellence are if we don’t explicitly point them out to them, and indicate whenever they fall short? It is essential to explore national versus local standards as students often believe that what happens in their school is an indicator of what the national standards require. They don’t have the opportunities that we teachers have of seeing what happens in other schools, nor do they have a clear understanding of the wider school system and the influences that may bring on results. Peer group influence needs to be highlighted and deconstructed to clearly assert to students what is required to achieve the top grades and to give them a road map of how to get there.

DON’T REWARD ‘SECOND BEST’ STUDENT ENDEAVOURS How Do We Enable Students to Properly Commit to Excellence? Our students need an understanding of what the ethic of excellence looks like, with its ‘manifesto for craftsmanship’ in schools. Across a school there needs to be a consistency that insists that if a piece of work isn’t ‘perfect’ (as good as it can possibly be from that student) it isn’t really finished. We need to also commit to training all of our students on how to offer fair and honest feedback to one another. We also ought to demonstrate that any feedback is more useful and effective if questions are used to highlight where work needs to be improved, rather than bald statements that run the risk of simply provoking a negative impact. If students learn to depersonalize any commentary and to simply add phrases such as ‘so that’ and ‘in order to’ to any suggestions (in order to explain why the change needs to happen and to make explicit how the work will benefit) then the likelihood of acceptance by the recipient is greatly improved. Students must then get used to formally redrafting their

304

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

own work, preferably after extensive and regular peer reviews and then more public critique sessions across a class.

CHANGE THE PACE How Do We Help Students to Understand the Correct Sequencing of Events, Questions and Resources? Teachers need to set a pace that genuinely challenges the most able students and moves their learning on. Boredom is an all too frequent feeling for the most able students that we teach, based on constantly being asked to revisit concepts already mastered. But teachers also need to be able to recognize when the pace should vary. There is a very real danger that some teachers see pace as synonymous with speed of response or completion rather than more subtle rearrangements and resequencing of tasks. High-ability students have told us they need pockets of time to consolidate and check their understanding – and that they need teachers to check that this is happening. What students do outside the classroom in terms of preparation and homework impacts strongly on progress in class, and school students understand this. This becomes clearer when we as teachers insist on our own commitment to reading and their commitment to completing set work, driven by their passion for learning and our high expectations.

INVESTIGATE A VARIETY OF NARRATIVES What Is the Currently Successful Story Behind our Subject and Why? In order for our students to have a clearer understanding of our subject, it is important

to explore how it has developed over time and why changes happened when they did. All subjects change over time in terms of their focus, and the ways in which they are regarded. This enables us to introduce to our students the early thinkers and experts whose versions of reality were the currency before the current reigning narrative they know took over. It is vital to locate and explain the texts that have helped to shape our subject and show how they are part of its ‘back story’. This raises the issue of where our subject may be going and what still remains to be discovered in the future. This establishes why our students may want to progress their studies in our subject area if they choose to investigate it further at University.

NORMALIZE EXTENDED RESPONSES How Do We Encourage Our Students to Develop their Own Chewing Muscles? Teachers often complain of compliance and lack of engagement, with students offering undeveloped and safe responses to questions. It is important to ensure students are routinely expected to give extended, reasoned answers and are at least given the opportunity to have to defend their viewpoint against rigorous criticism. In order to achieve this we must take the safety stabilizers off by counteracting the tendency of students to want everything spoon-fed and ‘bite sized’. When students review a topic, passive techniques such as simply reading and highlighting texts have been found to be quite ineffective. We should ensure that students extend their understanding by transforming information into different formats. The whole point of learners seeing themselves as potential developing experts is that they need to grasp the essentials of a subject but also to understand its greater complexities in order to feel how difficult and potentially frustrating becoming a subject scholar can be.

How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence

GIVE FEEDBACK ON BEST WORK ONLY Why Are We Wasting So Much of Our Time being Proofreaders for Our Students? Students will learn nothing from any of our detailed commentary on their work unless it is at the very top end of what they can do. If it isn’t their best work handed in, then they themselves, with a little thought, can easily make the required changes. Giving students that sense of ownership and responsibility for the development of their work also engages them in the process of improvement. They really need us only when they are in the gap – or liminal space – between knowing and not knowing something. We need to give students the time and encouragement to remain in liminal space for as long as is necessary as this is precisely where they are more likely to make cognitive changes and master new concepts, rather than simply mimicking what they think we want them to say.

ENSURE FEEDBACK BECOMES SPECIFIC DIRECTED WORK FOR THE RECIPIENT Why Do We Tend to Believe that our Commitment to Marking will Automatically be Reciprocated in Kind by our Students? If we provide feedback only at the end of learning students don’t have any meaningful opportunities to act on it. Unless we give them embedded and clearly directed time in class in which they are required to act on our feedback then all of that time we have spent marking may well be wasted and will have little visible impact. We must plan time within lessons or schemes of work where students act upon and consolidate the comments and feedback that we give them. As

305

students easily forget or even ignore feedback it also helps to actively get students to write their previous ‘feedforward’ targets on any new work. Students therefore have the highlighted deficit from the last piece of work visible and in their minds when working on their new piece.

DELIBERATELY SET UP PRODUCTIVE FAILURE How Do We Keep Raising the Bar for Our Students? Until we make the high-level most challenging demands explicit we will never really know whether our students would have been capable of reaching the highest standards. In reality, we might all be guilty in that some aspects of our teaching actually make it less likely that students are able to demonstrate what they are really able to do. By scaffolding their work too clearly we can undermine expectations and restrict the ranges of response that our students could potentially develop. If we focus on continually making our deliberately signposted and increasingly challenging demands clear and are raising the bar through rigorous feedback to their extended and reasoned answers then we have an opportunity to see what they are really capable of achieving. At the same time we need to teach them to expect and deal with failure. Only in this way can we begin to ensure that it is seen as productive failure by our students.

EXPLAIN THE NOTION OF DESIRABLE DIFFICULTIES How Can We Teach Students to Take Personal Responsibility and to Persist in the face of Obstacles? Learning only really happens when we are subjected to cognitive strain, deliberately

306

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

designed difficulty, as that is when we are required to fully concentrate. Introducing certain difficulties into the learning process can greatly improve long-term retention of the learned material. In psychology studies thus far,18 these difficulties have generally been modifications to commonly used methods that add an additional hurdle during the learning or studying process. As argued by David Didau, strain is generally regarded as unpleasant and so we unconsciously try to avoid it. By routinely teaching around the obstacles we mislead our students into believing in an easy road to success. It becomes less bumpy when students accept that they are supposed to think hard, pay attention and struggle. Getting it wrong is not failure but progress, and only when students are forced into failure do they fully understand this. Too many able students seem to think that effort is only for the inept, which can quickly lead to ‘imposter syndrome’, where a child never really believes that they are clever and thereby become way too reliant on externally given accreditation.

PLAN IN AMBIGUITY, COMPLEXITY AND DOUBT How Do We Encourage Confusion Endurance with the Security that Students Sometimes Need? Puzzlement is a powerful way to enter into an enquiry. We need our students to actually engage with the stimulation of wrestling with unforeseen obstacles and problems, particularly if this involves anomalies that undermine comfortable assumptions. They need to know, and their teachers need to understand, that education is not only about finding the answers; just as exciting is finding the questions. We need to concentrate on what our subject still cannot answer and to understand

why by examining why things are still uncertain. It helps to design deliberate disorientation into your lessons to enable students to become de-familiarized and have to cope with (and make sense of) these experiences. Expose students to novel situations that might deliberately threaten their security and self-esteem and offer them the opportunity to make disparate connections and to apply existing knowledge to new challenges. Only then will they feel a genuine enjoyment of ambiguity, complexity and uncertainty, speculating on what isn’t there, what remains to be discovered.

FOCUS ON THRESHOLD CONCEPTS Where Are the Knotty Bits in our Subject and How Can They Best be Presented to Students? It is a significant move to get students to think about what elements are critical and transformative to learn in a subject. But these tricky threshold concepts19 that underpin our subject need to be offered to students in a form that doesn’t short-circuit their own thinking. Many of these concepts are complex and therefore progress will be messy rather than smooth and linear, and that gives us the greatest trouble in communicating them to classes without compromising their integrity and challenge. It has been argued that we learn most from the moments that jar, not from the moments that gel. In addition, the focus on the jarring moments will help us to strip back content and be less dependent on the constant changes to the curriculum. It is difficult for able students to genuinely appreciate what excellence and scholarship might look like if we insist on feeding them only the less complex elements. Instead we need to talk explicitly about subject mastery and not gloss over the big issues in our subject.

How to Create and Sustain a Culture of Excellence

SHARE WHAT MAKES YOU EXCITED What is Emotionally Engaging about Your Subject and Why is it Meaningful? Students tend to apprentice themselves to us. It is sometimes easier to stretch and accelerate our more able students than it is to keep them on the journey with us. As teachers, we sometimes forget our love for our subject and that we have become experts. We get used to ‘explaining’ key concepts and the more difficult areas of our domains but we neglect to explain to our students what it is that we found emotionally engaging about our subject in the first place – why we chose to study it. So it is really helpful to use personal anecdotes, stories and epiphanies in our classroom to support our students to understand why it is meaningful. That includes making it clear that there are moments when we still get excited about our subject and why that happens by modelling genuine curiosity in our reactions to recent events or questions. It also means that we should explain to students what helped us to ‘get’ our subject, our own learning histories and where our sense of security and expertise comes from.

ESTABLISH A TRANSFORMATIONAL CULTURE How Do We Encourage Students on the Road to Expertise? Critically, we can only do this by not being the only thinker and questioner in the classroom. We need to normalize and rigorously reinforce scholarship and try to make academic achievement and a love of learning more socially desirable. We need to celebrate expertise and mastery and normalize intellectual debate, specifically by talking about learning and studying as a reward in themselves. Even very simple ideas such as having

307

students carrying reading books with them everywhere they go can boost their notions of personal possibility and scholarship. There are numerous aspects to any student’s home life that can cause barriers to success but by immersing them in a world that celebrates academic learning, a school classroom culture can chip away at self-doubt. An effective school culture ensures that students are reminded of ‘the best that they can be’ in form rooms, corridors, lessons, assemblies and in every interaction with a teacher. The well-timed public support, the one-to-one conversations and positive parental feedbacks can also help to shift doubts by helping them to see themselves as high-achieving students, doing well and wanting to do even better. Once a student sees that they are capable of achieving excellence, it can be and often is transformational. They never see themselves in quite the same way again.

Notes 1  Gibson, W. (30 Nov 1999) ‘The Science in Science Fiction’ on Talk of the Nation, NPR (Timecode 11.55pm). 2  As quoted in My Country Vol. 2, No. 3 (September 1968) by Litchfield Historical Society, p. 23 3  https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2016/02/Oxbridge-Admissions01.02.16.pdf (retrieved 21st August 2017). 4  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10928169/Private-school-pupils-fivetimes-as-likely-to-go-to-Oxbridge.html (retrieved 21st August 2017). 5  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ are-the-most-able-students-doing-as-well-asthey-should-in-our-secondary-schools (retrieved 19th August 2017). 6  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ the-most-able-students-an-update-on-progresssince-june-2013 (retrieved 19th August 2017). 7  https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ hmcis-monthly-commentary-june-2016 (retrieved 21st August 2017). 8  https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ hmcis-monthly-commentary-june-2016 (retrieved 20th August 2017). 9  https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ mar/11/rereading-graham-swift-novelist-mothering-Sunday (retrieved 20th August 2017).

308

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

10  Warwick, I. and Stephen, M. (2015) Educating the More Able Student: What Works and Why. London: Sage 11  Blake, William (1986) The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 12  Manguel, A. (2015) Curiosity. New Haven and London, Yale University Press. 13  ‘How Can Teachers Become Specialists in their Subjects?’ In James, D. and Warwick, I. (Eds.) (2017) World Class: Tackling the Ten Biggest Challenges Facing Schools Today (pp. 15–26). London: Routledge. 14  Ibid. 15  https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/educationand-youth/education-and-youth-publications/

lsef-teaching-resources/christ-king (retrieved 22nd August 2017). 16  Warwick, I. and Speakman, R. (2018) Redefining More Able Education: Key Issues for Schools. London. Routledge. 17  Rimm, S. (1986) Underachievement Syndrome: Causes and Cures. Watertown, WI: Apple Publishing. 18  Bjork, R. A. (1994) ‘Memory and Metamemory Considerations in the Training of Human Beings’. In J. Metcalfe and A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 19  Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F. and Smith, J. (Eds.) (2008) Threshold Concepts Within the Disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publications.

23 Meta-analysis of 26 Forms of Academic Acceleration: Options for Elementary (Primary) and Secondary Learners with Gifts or Talents Karen B. Rogers

INTRODUCTION In 2004, A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students was published – the first international report on the status of academic acceleration options for gifted learners (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Until that time, there had been 20 literature reviews or syntheses on the effects of acceleration, but no single attempt had managed to collect all studies, beginning with the first study in 1867, to determine the overall impact on bright students. In this twovolume document, all research up to 2004 had been included, both in general chapters about acceleration practices and specific practices of acceleration and their specific academic, social, and psychological impact on gifted learners. This landmark publication had an almost immediate impact on gifted education around the world. Consternation was rampant! Why hadn’t the world known

about this in all the previous decades? Research efforts began in several countries after this report was disseminated. This author received funding from the same foundation that funded the Nation deceived report, for example, to study the reasons why administrative leaders in Australia do not consider making academic acceleration a part of their policy. The results of that study (Gross, Urquhart, Doyle, Juratowitch, & Matheson, 2011), published long after the initial data collection, suggested that administrators and teachers perceived a variety of difficulties with acceleration due to beliefs that (1) placing students with older peers keeps them from socializing appropriately; (2) acceleration is not needed when a school has appropriate enrichment experiences in place; (3) acceleration becomes a burden for gifted students who are already highly challenged and heavily engaged in co-curricular school activities; (4) secondary students often have university coursework offered in

310

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

high school so additional accelerative options are unnecessary; (5) school timetables do not allow for accelerative options to occur; (6) acceleration alienates and isolates the gifted student from his or her mainstream peers; (7) acceleration should be a last resort for a gifted student; and (8) administrators and teachers do not know the ‘best way’ to accelerate a gifted learner, even when they know there are several choices. As the researchers pointed out, attitudes toward acceleration had become more positive since the previous Australian survey was conducted (Vialle, Ashton, Carlon, & Rankin, 2001), but accelerative practices had not increased substantially from previous rates. In 2015, the follow-up report to A nation deceived (i.e., A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students) was published. The research in the decade in between these two reports was updated to determine if there had been changes in policy or beliefs across that period. Consistent across these reports, especially within the two Belin-Blank Center publications, was the conclusion that the category of acceleration option that will be most successful with a gifted learner is dependent upon the interaction of the learner’s cognitive functioning levels, learning strengths, personal characteristics, interests inside and outside of school, and general attitudes toward learning and school. A learner without the positive intrapersonal catalysts, described by Gagné (1985) as those listed above, is not likely to be ‘cured’ academically, socially, or psychologically through forms of grade-based acceleration (shortening the number of years in K-12), no matter what his or her level of ability may be. If the catalysts are there, however, this same learner may improve in academic achievement overall, if provided with direct daily challenge beyond grade level in his/her specific academic talent area (subjectbased acceleration). A learner who is selfdirected, motivated to learn ‘new’ things, and who works well beyond grade level in most

academic areas might benefit equally well from more than one accelerative option in either the grade-based or subject-based categories of acceleration. Since the landmark 2004 publication of A nation deceived, the most recent US State of the states reports (2009, 2013, 2015) have shown some increase in the number of states that mandate acceleration as a state-wide practice. In Minnesota, for example, the mandate requires that every school district will include a statement in its gifted program policy on the forms of acceleration the district will provide (e.g., early entrance to kindergarten, dual enrollment, grade skipping). Despite this increase in US acceptance and attention, what is not known is (1) whether or not there is general district acceptance that academic acceleration must be individually considered, child by gifted child in its use, and (2) whether the research that has documented this increase in attention has been positive and robust. The issue of treating acceleration as a diagnostic-prescriptive decision for a singular and unique gifted or talented learner was undoubtedly enhanced by the large body of informative studies that support a variety of accelerative forms. It is critical that being able to interpret academic, social, and emotional effects of accelerative forms and looking on them as a menu of management options are important first steps in determining the ‘best’ form of acceleration for individual learners with gifts or talents. The Iowa Accelerative Scale (IAS) has proven reliable and valid for predicting the success of an individual acceleration decision (Assouline, Colangelo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, Forstadt, & Lipscomb, 2009; Forstadt, Assouline & Colangelo, 2007; Lipscomb, 2003). The purposes of this chapter are to: 1 Ascertain whether the more recent research studies of academic acceleration have contributed new data on the most viable forms of acceleration for learners with gifts and for learners with talents. 2 Determine which forms of acceleration have resulted in the greatest academic, social, and

Meta-analysis of 26 Forms of Academic Acceleration

affective gains for learners with gifts or talents and at what school levels the gains are most significant. 3 Conclude whether or not the previous metaanalyses performed by Rogers (1992, 2004, 2008) and others (e.g., Kulik & Kulik, 2004; Steenbergen-Hu & Moon, 2011) have been supported with equivalent effects in the most recent meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY To update the previous meta-analysis by Rogers, the results of six previous metaanalyses or best-evidence syntheses were the foundation for the research synthesized here. As Table 23.1 shows, fairly consistent conclusions have been produced by each synthesis effort, even when only partial data sets were selected and analyzed for specified purposes. Rogers, for example (1992, 2004) analyzed each of 19–23 defined forms of academic acceleration separately, based only on those studies of each form of accelerative option. Kulik and Kulik (1984, 2004) combined several forms of acceleration to obtain a more general effect size, while Kent (1992) focused only on the social and emotional impact of acceleration for elementary students. Steenbergen-Hu and Moon (2011) analyzed comparison studies only, ranging from 1984 to 2008, in determining a single effect size across any form of academic acceleration. For this analysis update, two additional collections of acceleration study data were collected. First, a 2006 research grant from the Institute for Policy and Research on Acceleration (IRPA) at the Belin-Blank Center at the University of Iowa allowed for an update to the previous meta-analyses conducted by Rogers (1992, 2004). A brief synopsis of this research was reported in the IRPA Wallace Proceedings Symposium in 2008. The update reviewed in the remainder of this chapter provides details of that analysis, beyond the Wallace presentation itself,

311

and further includes all additional studies that have been conducted for each of the identified accelerative options since 2008, through to 2014.

PROCEDURE FOR THE STUDY UPDATE Seven database searches were undertaken to cover the years, 1990–2014. All research citations produced during this period from ERIC, PsychINFO, Dissertations and Theses, Sociological Abstracts, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Education FullText, and Academic Search Premier were collected. ‘Gifted education’ and ‘academic acceleration’ were the general search terms applied to each electronic database, in addition to the respective thesauri for each database that suggested other keywords involving acceleration provisions and practices. To be included as a research study in the current synthesis, the manuscript, published or unpublished, had to report the author’s method for systematically collecting quantitative data about the purposes described in the study. Additionally, each report had to describe a recognizable study design, but designs were not limited to experimental and quasi-experiment or comparative studies only: case study observations with preand post-data, pre-experimental designs, as well as correlations, regression, and survey designs were also included. Each research study had to yield dependable, quantitatively summarized results, either descriptive or inferential. In some cases, the findings of several instruments were described as a single outcome, such as math achievement, in which case the results were pooled to compute a composite Effect Size result. Finally, the accelerative option described in each study had to have been used with gifted/talented learners, with specification about how the subjects were identified. Through this procedure, a total of 22 forms of the original

312

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 23.1  Summary of meta-analytical syntheses 1984–2010 Study

Methodology

Study #

Academic ES

Social-emotional ES

Study Types

Kulik & Kulik, 1984

Analysis of comparison studies of accelerants (As) and nonaccelerants (NAs)

26

0.88

Popularity .03 Adjustment −.03 School attitude .07 Subject attitude −.02 Vocation .17 Extracurricular participation −.13

Rogers, 1992

Analysis of all studies of gifted accelerants 1862–1990

380

0.50 (grade based) 0.46 (subject based)

0.14 (grade based) 0.21 (subject based)

Kent, 1992

Analysis of S-E studies that focused on elementary learners, 1928–1987

23

Not reported

0.13 (short-term) 0.28 (longitudinal) 0.15 (telescoping) 0.14 early entrance 0.12 grade skipping

Kulik, 2004

Analysis of 26 comparison studies of accelerants with same age or older age like ability peers

0.80 (same age NA peers) −.04 (older age NA peers)

Rogers, 2004

Analysis of all quantitative studies of gifted accelerants,

205 S-B options 103 G-B options

0.40 G-B options 0.38 S-B options

0.28 (same age NAs on SM −0.17 (same age NAs on S-A 0.29 (older age NAs on school SM −0.38 (older age NAs on S-A None reported in this analysis

Published, unpublished. Did not include pre-experimental case studies or correlational studies Inconsistencies among studies of each S-E factor. Published, unpublished, including case studies, correlational Consistent effects from study to study Published, unpublished, including case studies, correlational Inconsistencies depending upon type of acceleration Published, unpublished. Did not include pre-experimental case studies or correlational studies

38

0.40 0.14 (comparisons with (comparisons with same age H-A same age H-A peers) peers

Steenbergen-Hu Analysis of & Moon, comparison 2011 studies 1984– 2008 for H-As

Published, unpublished, including case studies, correlational Published, unpublished. Did not include case study effects (pre-post, preexperimental)

Source: Adapted from Rogers (2015) Notes: SM = motivation for school learning; S-A = self-acceptance; S-B = subject-based acceleration options combined; G-B = grade-based acceleration options combined; HA = high ability

Meta-analysis of 26 Forms of Academic Acceleration

23 forms of academic acceleration were found to have been quantitatively researched during this period of time, adding 42 studies since the 2008 IRPA best-evidence synthesis report.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION The majority of the qualifying studies reported quantitative results that could be reduced to the metric of Effect Size. In general, the calculation requires the subtraction of the mean achievement of the control group from the treatment group’s mean achievement. This remainder is divided by the pooled standard deviation of the two groups, i.e., Mexperimentalgroupgain – Mcontrolgroupgain / SDpooled (Glass, McGaw & Smith, 1981). For studies reporting correlations, Effect Size was calculated by dividing the square root of 1-r2 into 2r. Hedges g was used to combine the mean effect sizes across studies for a single overall effect size for academic, social, and emotional, respectively, because this formula weights for sample size using the formula (Hedges, 1981). In some cases, the findings of several instruments were described as a single outcome, such as math achievement, in which case the results were pooled to compute a composite Effect Size, using Strube’s (1991) calculation. Effect Size can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In general, most meta-analysts recognize an Effect Size of .30 or higher as being of practical significance to classroom practice. According to Glass, McGaw, & Smith’s (1981) interpretation, an Effect Size of .30 would suggest the grade equivalent improvement in a given outcome for one group of about three additional months of achievement of the experimental group over the control group, or would suggest that the experimental group was that much further into the school year’s teaching efforts. This could suggest that were the current teaching

313

effort to continue for three years, the experimental students would be a full school year ahead of their equally able controls. In this meta-analysis, +0.30 to +0.44 was interpreted as a moderate effect, while ± 0.45 was interpreted as a strong effect. When effect sizes are reported for social or emotional outcomes, one interprets ES in terms of how much additional growth on a measure of a social or emotional factor was found. For example, if a learner had scored a 50 on the initial measure, e.g., measure of social maturity, an effect size of 0.10 reported would indicate an improvement of score to 54, an ES of 0.30 would suggest a post-test score of 62, and an ES of 1.00 would suggest a post-test score of 84 (Coe, 2002).

RESULTS Effects of Subject-Based Acceleration Options In the previous meta-analysis, Rogers (2008) found 20 forms of subject-based acceleration, defined as those forms of acceleration that allow a gifted student to go beyond grade placement or age level in access to advanced content in a specific subject area. Each of these 20 are described in Table 23.2. Table 23.3 shows the numbers of quantitative studies for each of these subject-based acceleration options for the years between 2008 and 2014. In some cases this has resulted in effect sizes considerably different from the ones reported in Rogers’s previous syntheses. As can be seen, mean academic effect sizes are strong for accelerated/honors classes, AP classes, on-line classes, honors classes at university, IB programs, and Saturday enrichment classes. Strong effects for social adjustment outcomes are shown for mentorships only. Psychological effects were strong for accelerated/honors high school classes and home schooling. A fairly equal number of options produced moderate academic effects,

314

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 23.2  Definitions of subject-based and grade-based acceleration options Subject-based Acceleration Option

Definition

Accelerated/Honors High School Classes

Advanced students are regrouped for curricula that extend and move more rapidly through general to advanced education outcomes. These courses may also be offered as College-in-the-Schools programs offered on the high school site, usually by a local university. Programs are provided on a university campus as a residential program or as a Governor’s School, for which students can complete both high school and college courses simultaneously as part of their program of study. Students take Advanced Placement classes in specific content areas and take external national exams to attain advanced university standing in those content areas. Students are pre-assessed on their previous knowledge and skills in a specific content area. The student is then allowed to bypass previously learned content and skills, focusing rapidly on deficient areas. Replacement challenges are provided to fill in the learner’s time. Co-curricular, academically-oriented programs allow students to work at their limits against others with similar talents for local, state, national, or international standing. Students enroll in on-line, advanced, often individualized courses during the school day in lieu of courses on the school site. A learner attends classes in more than one building level during the same school year. For example, a Year 8 student attends high school for part of the school day and middle school classes for the remainder of the day. One variation, Postsecondary Options, allows high school students to enroll in university level work for part of their day. Another variation is Correspondence Courses, allowing a learner to work with outside materials, provided by a university or other organization in lieu of the regular grade-level curriculum. The learner would be given credit for learning in this area by the school system. Students take a test to ensure mastery of the content area in order to place them at a higher content level; this is often offered as a course placement option at the university level (e.g., CLEP program). Students take televised or Skype courses from their home school along with students from other sites enrolled in the same course. A student is allowed with an assessed readiness to perform school work to enter kindergarten or 1st grade 1–2 years earlier than the usual beginning age. A student studies at advanced levels outside of the regular school, often using an external, commercial or community-based accelerated curriculum. Advanced courses are offered to gifted students upon entering university programs as full-time students. The student is provided with a structure for studying a topic of interest or talent on his/her own during the school day, in lieu of the regular curriculum of the school. Student works at own pace through continuous progress content and skill outcomes, regardless of age or grade placement in school. Students participate in full college-level curriculum in high school, receiving advanced standing at selected universities if they score highly on the IB diploma examinations. A high school student who has exhausted all the high school curriculum in his/her talent area connects with a community or university ‘expert’ who oversees the students’ studies and learning over the course of a year, usually outside of school time. Students attend weekly all-day class in advanced subject area across an entire year.

Accelerated Residential High School Advanced Placement Courses Compacted Curriculum

Competitions

Computer On-line Courses Concurrent/Dual Enrollment Classes

Credit by Examination

Distance Education Courses Early Entrance to Kindergarten or First Grade Home Schooling Honors Classes at University Independent Study Individualized Acceleration International Baccalaureate Program Mentorship

Saturday Classes on University Campus Single-subject Acceleration

A gifted learner bypasses the usual progression of skills and content mastery in one subject where talent has been observed. (Continued)

Meta-analysis of 26 Forms of Academic Acceleration

315

Table 23.2  Definitions of subject-based and grade-based acceleration options (Continued) Subject-based Acceleration Option

Definition

Summer University Classes

Student attends a 1–6 week summer enrichment program, working on advanced subject matter and often receiving credit in the home school. High talent students (in a specific subject) when scoring highly on the SAT or ACT while in middle school are allowed to participate in high-school-level courses, often on college campuses, outside of regular school time. Student enters college as a full-time student with or without completion of high school diploma, matriculates to university a minimum of 1 year earlier, participating in full-time academic work there. A learner bypasses 1–2 grade levels, either in tandem or in separate years across the K-12 system. A student or group of students progress more rapidly through the curricula of several grade (year) levels. A middle school student, for example would complete the three years of middle school in two years. Learners of all ability levels are placed in a classroom that ‘covers’ two years’ curriculum, such as a 1–2 classroom. This works best when the younger students are the most able one in the class and can access both years of the curriculum. Learners of all ability levels are placed in a classroom undifferentiated by grade or year levels. Students work through the curricular materials at a pace appropriate to individual ability and motivational levels. Students complete the four years of high school and four years of university in four years. A variation would be an individualized progression, K-16, not necessarily only occurring during the secondary years of school.

Talent Search Programs

Early Admission to University

Grade Skipping Grade Telescoping (Vertical Grouping) Multi-Grade/Combination Classes

Non-Graded/Multi-Age Classroom

Radical Acceleration

while two options showed moderate social effects, but psychological effects were moderate for five acceleration options. Slight academic effects were found for three options, and two options showed slight socialization effects and psychological effects were found for two options, respectively.

Effects of Grade-Based Acceleration Options In previous work, Rogers (2008) identified six forms of grade-based acceleration, all of which allow learners to progress more quickly through the general K-12 curriculum, leaving the system anywhere from 1–4 years earlier than normal age-grade lockstep systems provide. Table 23.2 includes descriptions of each of these acceleration options as well. Table 23.4 summarizes the type of effects, number of studies, number of effects,

and mean effect sizes for the combined quantitative research studies found between 2008 and 2014. The number of studies for these options increased by four since the 2008 total of 11 was reported. There were no new studies reported on grade telescoping, multigrade classrooms, and non-graded classrooms since Rogers’s earliest work in 1992. The older effect sizes are included in Table 23.4 as noted by the asterisks for these three options. Amongst the newer forms studies, there were strong academic effects for grade skipping and radical acceleration, and a moderate academic effect for early admission to university. For social effects, grade skipping was rated as moderate and early admission to university and radical acceleration showed slight effects. Moderate psychological effects were found for all three more recent gradebased acceleration options. Although it is unlikely that comparing the combination of grade-based forms and the combination of subject-based acceleration

316

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 23.3  Mean effect sizes for subject-based acceleration options Acceleration Option

Type of Effect

Number of Studies Number of Outcomes Mean Effect Size

Acceleration/honors high school classes

A S P A S P A S P A P A P A P A S P A P A S P A A S P A S P A A S P A S P A

3 1 5 2 2 5 16 1 5 1 1 5 3 11 2 5 4 5 1 1 2 1 2 2 6 2 2 4 1 2 1 13 6 13 11 5 10 6

Accelerated residential high school on university campus Advanced Placement classes

Compacting Computer on-line courses Dual/concurrent enrollment Early entrance to K-1

Home schooling Honors classes at university

Individualized acceleration International Baccalaureate program

Mentorship

Saturday classes on university campus Single subject acceleration

Summer university courses

Talent Search program

forms holds much validity, considering the permutations of delivery of each form across time, an attempt was made to determine if there were optimal times for grade-based or for subject-based acceleration to take place, as well as which, general category of acceleration, shortening the time spent in the K-16 system (i.e., grade-based acceleration), or providing access to advanced subject

6 2 9 5 3 11 40 2 10 18 1 21 7 32 3 8 6 11 1 2 7 1 9 6 18 4 4 9 2 2 1 27 8 51 19 7 32 21

+0.69 +0.11 +0.60 +0.29 −0.27 +0.07 +0.60 +0.01 +0.19 +0.20 +0.17 +0.72 +0.24 +0.41 −0.04 +0.30 +0.20 −0.20 +0.42 +0.82 +0.56 +0.38 +0.37 +0.25 +0.70 −0.08 +0.03 +0.22 +0.71 +0.16 +1.56 +0.42 +0.07 +0.35 +0.43 +0.31 +0.40 +0.34

outcomes beyond actual grade of age placement in school (i.e., subject-based acceleration) were more efficacious. In general, there was no difference between the general academic effects of subject-based and grade-based acceleration. Both categories produce moderate academic effects when all the forms’ effect sizes are averaged, but grade-based acceleration produces stronger

317

Meta-analysis of 26 Forms of Academic Acceleration

Table 23.4  Mean effect sizes for grade-based acceleration options Acceleration Option

Type of Effect Number of Studies Number of Outcomes

Mean Effect Size

Early admission to university

A S P A S P A A A S P

10 4 6 5 4 3 10 2 8 1 4

23 6 16 8 4 3 14 3 8 3 3

+0.23 +0.18 +0.35 +0.67 +0.34 +0.42 +0.35 +0.29 +0.43 +0.31 +0.65

A S P

4 4 4

5 10 12

+0.61 +0.18 +0.24

Grade skipping

*Grade telescoping (vertical grouping) *Multi-grade/combination class *Non-graded/multi-age class

Radical acceleration

Notes: * No recent studies; previous Effect Sizes reported here. A = academic effects, including achievement, time on academic task, subsequent choice of advanced courses, grade point average, academic competency measures, perceptions of challenge, school satisfaction, concept attainment, clarity of instruction, honors/awards, scholarships received, intellectual efficiency, school aptitude, grasp of main idea, information processing speed, perceptions of school climate, success on exams, number of university credits awarded, school/subject aptitude, academic progress, education level attained, educational/ career aspirations, college graduation age, sense of preparation for advanced coursework, college ranking, PhD received, adult income, patents received. S = socialization effects, including social cognition level, social maturity, engagement/leadership in organizations, co-curricular participation, friendship, peer acceptance, socialization, social presence, family harmony, social confidence, introversion or extraversion, social skills level, level of social problems, perceptions of social interference in learning, perceptions of parent/social support, level of social interaction, social self-concept, level of competitiveness, perceptions of popularity. P = psychological effects, including perceptions of appeal and meaning of academic effort, task commitment, trait anxiety, positive/negative emotions, perceptions of well-being, self-efficacy, self-regulation levels, worry, attitude toward subject, satisfaction with teachers, life satisfaction, global self-worth, cheer, seriousness, mood levels, independence/ autonomy, self-acceptance, flexibility, mental health, self-concept, self-confidence, stability, self-worth, mental attention, conduct, sense of integration, responsibility, persistence, distress, perceptions of relevance, perceptions of difficulty, locus of control, academic interest, motivation to learn, perceptions of readiness, priorities, intellectual satisfaction.

(moderate) socialization and psychological effects. In looking at the different school levels (primary/elementary, middle school, high school), grade-based acceleration was strong, while subject-based acceleration was moderate. All academic, socialization, and psychological effects were moderate at middle school. For high school learners with gifts or talents, both grade-based and subjectbased options were strong, but only psychological effects were strong for grade-based acceleration. The remaining socialization and psychological effects were slight for both subject-based and grade-based acceleration. As promised, Table 23.5 designates which of the 26 forms of acceleration are likely to

produce the ‘best’ results for learners with gifts and for learners with talents. Although all of them are effective for talented learners, none are most effective for gifted learners only, who may not have identified their areas of strength or passion yet, or are multitalented but not yet focused on a singular area. The checks indicate that some studies included identification of students as having ability (by using a measure of ability) and some studies included studies only of students who were performing on achievement tests at high levels. For those acceleration options that identified using either measure or both measures, both the gifts and talents columns were checked.

318

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 23.5  Match of acceleration options to gifts and talents Acceleration Option Accelerated/Honors High School Classes

Beneficial to Gifts ü

Accelerated Residential High School

Beneficial to Talents ü ü

Advanced Placement Courses

ü

ü

Compacted Curriculum

ü

ü

Competitions

ü

Computer On-line Courses

ü

ü

Concurrent/Dual Enrollment Classes

ü

ü

Credit by Examination

ü

Distance Education Courses

ü

ü

Early Admission to University

ü

ü

Early Entrance to Kindergarten/First

ü

ü

Grade Skipping

ü

ü

Grade Telescoping

ü

Home Schooling

ü

ü

Honors Classes at University

ü

ü

Independent Study

ü

ü

Individualized Acceleration International Baccalaureate Program

ü ü

Mentorship

ü ü

Multi-grade/Combination Classroom

ü

ü

Non-graded Classroom/Multi-age Classroom

ü

ü

Radical Acceleration

ü

Saturday Classes on University Campus

ü

Single-subject Acceleration

ü

ü

Summer University Classes

ü

ü

Talent Search Programs

ü

ü

CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The research on academic acceleration since 2008, as reported here, provides educational decision-makers with a large, research-based menu of accelerative options that may result in substantial academic achievement and positive social and psychological growth for learners with gifts or talents. Of the 20 subject-based acceleration options, 14 promise at least moderate mean effect sizes academically, socially, or emotionally. For the six grade-based acceleration options, four showed strong or moderate academic effects, three showed moderate psychological

effects, and two showed strong to moderate socialization effects. What was promising about this most recent meta-analysis was the remarkable focus on social and psychological outcomes, which was not present in earlier syntheses of research. This may help the public overcome the ‘myths’ of social maladjustment and psychological problems, which may have kept educational decisionmakers from considering more of their brightest students for some form of acceleration in the past. The quality of research in the years since 1992 seems to have focused more on quantitative data and away from the qualitative results that were more prevalent before 2008.

Meta-analysis of 26 Forms of Academic Acceleration

To be precise, for the 2008 report, approximately one-third of the studies located were qualitative, but between 2008 and 2014, approximately one-tenth of the studies were. There are still some concerns about the quantitative designs used in recent years, however. Very large databases have served as the student populations under study, for dual enrollment, International Baccalaureate, and Advanced Placement studies, in particular. For several other options, such as compacting, non-graded classrooms, mentorships, individualized programming, home schooling, and Saturday classes, the focus has been primarily on academic effects at the elementary/primary level, with little focus on the social and emotional issues involved in such decisions. At the high school level, more studies need to be conducted on academic, social, and emotional effects for accelerated/ honors classes and residential high schools to feel confident about the results reported in this synthesis. The numbers of gifted and talented students researched regarding the impact of acceleration practices is quite extensive in recent years. With recent access to NELS data, as well as university admission records as sources for data, the sizes of studies have increased substantially. Across the subjectbased acceleration options, 50,660 students were studied (not counting their comparison groups), while 2811 students were studied regarding grade-based acceleration options during this same time period. Although the research on academic acceleration is substantial, an important caveat needs to be repeated. Decisions about both subject-based and grade-based acceleration should be formulated on more than the research alone. It is possible that an individual gifted or high talent learner may not match the settings or contexts in which these studies were conducted. There is no question that every bright or high performing student is unique in some ways, as is almost every district, state, or country school system. It is important that decision-makers collect

319

adequate supplementary information about an individual learner’s cognitive functioning levels, learning strengths, learning preferences, and interests/involvements inside and outside of school. With these additional data, the ‘best’ decisions for meeting the learner’s educational needs through some form of acceleration provided at the right time and in the right place will most likely be made.

REFERENCES Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., LupkowskiShoplik, A., Forstadt, L., & Lipscomb, J. (2009). Iowa Acceleration Scale manual: A guide for whole-grade acceleration, K-8. Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTasselBaska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (Eds.) (2014). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Coangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.) (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Templeton National Report on Acceleration. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association. Exeter, UK. https://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ documents/00002182.htm Forstadt, L., Assouline, S., & Colangelo, N. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) in determining the appropriateness of whole-grade acceleration. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Gifted Children, Minneapolis, MN. Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112.

320

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gross, M. U. M., Urquhart, R., Doyle, J., Juratowitch, M., & Matheson, G. (2011). Releasing the breaks for high-ability learners: Administrator, teacher, and parent attitudes and beliefs that block or assist the implementation of school policies on academic acceleration. Sydney, AU: University of New South Wales, GERRIC. Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. Kent, S. D. (1992). The effects of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted elementary students: A meta-analysis. Unpublished dissertation. UMI# 9316362. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C–L. C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409–425. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (2004). The comparative effects of academic acceleration and ability grouping. Paper presented at the biennial International Wallace Symposium for Talent Development. Iowa City, IA. Lipscomb, J. M. (2003). A validity study of the Iowa Acceleration Scale. Unpublished dissertation. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa. Rogers, K. B. (1992). A best-evidence synthesis of the research on acceleration options for gifted learners. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & Ambroson, D. L. (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 406–409). Unionsville, NY: Trillium.

Rogers, K. B. (2004). The academic effects of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M.U.M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Volume 2 (pp. 47–58). Templeton National Report on Acceleration. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Rogers, K. B. (2008). Academic acceleration and giftedness: The research from 1990 to 2008: A best-evidence synthesis. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, D. Lohman, & M. Marron (Eds.), Iowa poster proceedings. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Rogers, K. B. (2015). The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis update. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & J. VanTasselBaska, (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence-based educational interventions to inform policy and practice for America’s brightest students. Volume 2 (pp. 1–11). Iowa City, IA: Belin & Blank Center, University of Iowa. Steenberger-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39–52. Strube, M. J. (1991). Multiple determinants and effect size: A more general method of discourse. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 1024–1027. Vialle, W., Ashton, T., Carlon, G., & Rankin, F. (2001). Acceleration: A coat of many colours. Roeper Review, 24(1), 14–19.

24 What Works Better than the Rest? The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners Janna Wardman and John Hattie

INTRODUCTION: WHY DO MANY GIFTED CHILDREN NOT BECOME GIFTED ADULTS? Globally, decisions on making provisions for the gifted are often based on myth not evidence. This chapter challenges the myths by presenting 30 years of meta-analyses on ability grouping, enrichment and acceleration for gifted learners. Evidence from around the world suggests that up to 20 percent of our gifted students may exit early from schooling with few or no qualifications; we are calling them our ‘lost gifted’. Why do so many gifted children not become gifted adults? Child prodigies are at the extreme end of the ability scale and very few become gifted adults (Winner, 2014). If we assume that identification procedures are accurate, then figures suggest widespread lack of appropriate curricula provisions to challenge and engage the wide spectrum of gifted students. Like Goldilocks, our gifted students require

curricula provisions that are not too hard, not too soft, but just right, for them as individuals. Hattie (2009) compiled a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses, consisting of over 60,000 studies relating to educational achievement. These studies consisted of contributions by the student, home, teacher, teaching approaches, school and curricula. The difference each contribution made to educational achievement was listed in order of effectiveness. Meta-analysis is a systematic statistical synthesis of many studies and converts the findings of the studies into a common metric, namely the effect size, thus allowing comparison and aggregation across studies. An effect size of less than .2 is small in education, .4 is average and greater than .6 is large. Hattie (2009) referred to .4 as the h-point, that is the hinge-point, above which is the ‘zone of desired effects’ (p. 19). Educational strategies, therefore, need to be compared to examine which are most effective. It is important to not only examine what leads to successful

322

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

learning, but to see what works better than other strategies/interventions/contributions. The process of determining effect size and the latest meta-analyses results will be given later in the chapter as we discuss provisions for gifted learners.

UNDERSTANDINGS OF TERMS There is no common definition of giftedness, and this is often cited as a deficit. It has, however, allowed different communities to choose their own definitions. It could be argued that there is no global definition of what characteristics, for example, make a good rugby player, but the lack has not hindered the development of appropriate provisions for individuals to achieve eminence in sport. Similarly, many physicists cannot agree on defining electricity or magnetism, but would never therefore conclude that these phenomena did not exist. Although differing understandings of characteristics of giftedness may not be a hindrance, differing definitions of provisions for the gifted in education, however, have the potential to be divisive, controversial and confusing. This contributes to a ‘Tower of Babel’ effect in terms of limiting effective communication between interested parties. A lack of a common understanding of the terms used within gifted education can confuse the issue and slow down or halt the process of delivering the appropriate provision.

Ability Grouping Probably no topic evokes more passion and contentious debate than ability grouping. One form of ability grouping is known as tracking; this is the practice of sorting groups of learners according to a general measure of their level of ability at a certain stage. As students mature, the variance of abilities between subject areas can expand, but in this

system, they remain in the same track or class group through schooling, regardless. This is sometimes referred to as homogeneous grouping as opposed to heterogeneous grouping, in which all ability levels are represented. Tracking is also called streaming in some countries; although in others this term refers only to academic/vocational divisions in programing. Another form of ability grouping is within a heterogeneous class, according to broad bands of ability in individual subject areas. This is most common in primary/elementary schools, particularly in mathematics and reading. It is less contentious than tracking, as it acknowledges that a student may have differing abilities in different subject areas. Clustering is a form of grouping commonly utilized in gifted education in primary/ elementary schooling, where small groups of gifted students are placed within mixed ability classes. The success of the strategy depends on the level of differentiation offered and the skills of individual teachers to cater for individual needs. Biddick (2009) observed: In reality, over-stretched teachers cannot deliver a full-time differentiated program to one of thirty children in their care. Cluster grouping represents an inclusive and school-wide organizational model with all the advantages, but none of the disadvantages of full-time homogeneous provision for these students. (p. 85)

Biddick’s focus was on the positive academic effect of clustering in terms of facilitating differentiation of the curriculum for the gifted students. There are, however, significant social and emotional benefits from clustering. Clustering can ameliorate some of the challenges by giving gifted students access to likeminded peers. Flexible grouping is another term for provision which acknowledges that gifted students may need to move up into a different group from time to time and caters not only to their academic needs, but also their social and emotional development. In summary, there are many forms of ability grouping for gifted students. Some, like

The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners

tracking, are easy for schools to administer; while others, like clustering and flexible grouping, are problematic for schools in terms of timetabling and the allocation of teachers. The challenge of what is easiest for the school, versus what is best for gifted students, is discussed later in the chapter.

Enrichment Enrichment has been described as a horizontal extension of the curriculum, compared to acceleration, which can be described as a vertical extension. There is considerable global variability in what passes for enrichment programs for the gifted. They range from online programs for mathematics or coding (e.g. Khan Academy) to withinschool withdrawal or pull-out programs that may or may not enrich the learning of the gifted. It would appear that despite excellent enrichment provision being available in some areas, the ‘Mickey Mouse’ enrichment that Stanley so disparagingly referred to, is still prevalent. Stanley (1979) classified enrichment as four types: ‘Busy work, irrelevant academic enrichment, cultural enrichment and relevant academic enrichment’ (p. 1). Busy work is described as additional repetitive work, which only encourages a student to work slower. Cultural enrichment includes for example, museum trips, which, it is argued, should be available to all students, not just the gifted. An example of relevant academic enrichment is where a student who has mastered the Year 3 curriculum is permitted to study the Year 4 curriculum. That could also be termed acceleration. Despite Stanley’s words being almost forty years old, they still apply as a description of enrichment options today. They cover the range of ‘useless’ to ‘somewhat useful’, to ‘very useful’. When averaged out, the result of enrichment options is around the hinge point in effect size. Some enrichment programs may produce the desired effect for moderately gifted students, but for most, like Little Bear’s

323

chair, the provision of enrichment alone will be insufficient for a gifted Goldilocks.

Acceleration Academic acceleration refers to progress through schooling at a rate faster than usual. Acceleration comes in many forms: full-year acceleration (called grade-skipping in the US) is when the student moves into the class a year (or more) ahead. This enables the student to work and socialize with their abilitypeers rather than be retained with their age-peers – with whom they often have little in common. Other forms of acceleration include curriculum compacting/telescoping (e.g., two years are covered in 18 months). The option of single subject acceleration has become more common in secondary schools in some countries. With this provision, students gifted in, for example, mathematics are permitted to study the level ahead of their age group for that subject only. For other subjects, they remain with their age-peers. For those who are concerned about the potential social and emotional effects of acceleration, this minor adjustment to the pace of curriculum delivery may be more palatable than full-year acceleration. Dual enrolment with tertiary education is another form of acceleration. Students, especially in the senior years, may be given the opportunity to enroll with a university for some of their subjects. This enables study at a higher level than that available at secondary school, but sometimes the purpose is to broaden the subject range of the gifted student, or to achieve university credits ahead of time, which in turn may shorten the time spent in gaining an undergraduate degree. Despite the cost of starting to pay tertiary fees earlier than usual, this provision is popular and successful in the areas where it is permitted. Globally, acceleration strategies are rarely utilized, with most systems preferring ability grouping and/or some form of enrichment. Policy statements, however, usually do not

324

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

rule out the option of acceleration, often stating that it is acknowledged that a combination of the two approaches (enrichment and acceleration) benefits gifted students. In practice, however, planned programs of accelerative options are the exception rather than the rule in schools around the world. In terms of a common understanding, it is necessary to ask first about the details of the provision under discussion. For example, with ability grouping, is it predominantly an enrichment, or acceleration type ability grouping? It could be argued that flexible ability grouping is subject acceleration by another name. Pull-out programs are usually discussed under enrichment provisions, but they could also be viewed in terms of ability grouping. If the gifted students are grouped together but no further adaptation to the curriculum is offered in terms of enrichment or acceleration, then the ability group is simply a label or marketing tool; an ornament, suggesting special provision, where none exists.

WHAT WORKED IN THE PAST? PROVISION FOR THE GIFTED THROUGHOUT HISTORY In China’s Tang Dynasty (c. 618 BC), child prodigies were summoned to the Imperial Court for special education; later in the times of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, student performance determined their placement level and the time taken to graduate, so acceleration in multiple areas was commonplace. For over 2000 years, withdrawal programs (albeit of the extreme variety), ability grouping, and acceleration for gifted learners have all been utilized. What has changed in the last 150 years is the number of students going through the school systems. By the early 20th century in many Western developed countries mandatory school attendance, coupled with increased immigration and children no longer being required to work, had led to increased enrolment and graduation rates. A rigid

age-grade placement structure or ‘social placement’ soon became the norm, primarily as an administrative restriction to control the passage of the growing number of students. Age-grade grouping is, in the history of education going back over two thousand years, a relatively recent phenomenon. In the history of formal education going back over two thousand years, it is only in the last 150 years that administrative restrictions have been put in place to retain gifted students with their age-peers. It is important to examine the attitudes that prevail within the culture and the time in history. In current times, the dichotomy of the experiences of those gifted in sport as opposed to academic giftedness is often mentioned in the literature. Some countries recognize a ‘tall poppy syndrome’, which is the practice of cutting down to average anyone who stands above the rest. This perspective does not extend to sport. The battle between the claim of elitism and belief in egalitarianism permeates discussion around provisions in schools for the academically gifted. The egalitarian ethos of schools and their communities often challenge special provisions for the gifted if they are perceived as being offered at the expense of those at the lower end of the ability spectrum. Some teachers and school administrations may be philosophically opposed to gifted provisions due to perceptions of fairness, or that those who are not in the gifted programs may feel ‘left behind’. There is no such perception in sport. In many countries around the world, provisions in sports for those children who display early talent are successful at producing eminent sportspeople in adulthood. With the academically gifted, it is largely a matter of chance as to whether a gifted child will have access to appropriate and continued provisions, to enable them to reach their potential. In many countries, current curricula provisions are not producing eminent adults. The results of the evidence-based research on what provisions work best are not being heeded. As McBee (2004) observed: ‘Research results often do

The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners

not make it to the classroom where they can improve practice’ (p. 52).

RETENTION There are two notions of retention; in one the student is ‘held back’ or repeats a year. The other notion is when a gifted student is ‘held back’ with their age-peers. The literature on the first notion of retention, namely that of repeating a year, is unequivocal on the negative effects; students who are held back a year often exit schooling. The meta-analyses show that retention is the strategy with the worst negative effects at -.17 (Hattie, 2015). Although retention in the form of being ‘held back’ is not often associated with gifted students, the literature suggests that when gifted students are not permitted to progress through the curriculum at their own pace, the effect on them is the same as retention. They suffer negative consequences, for example: boredom, lack of motivation, decrease in achievement and, in many cases, early exit from school. One reason given for gifted children not becoming gifted adults is because they may become so bored with being retained and held back to average, they rebel, or simply disengage from learning. The ‘lost gifted’ are the gifted students who disengage with school work and exit early, with no, or minimal qualifications.

THIRTY YEARS OF META-ANALYSES Meta-analytic reviews were originally invented by Glass (1976) and revolutionized the method of literature reviewing; they introduce a common denominator (the effect size) such that influences can be compared. Ability grouping and retention can set the scene for discussing the meta-analysis more specifically for gifted students. There have now been 14 meta-analyses published on

325

ability grouping across all abilities based on 500 studies, 1369 effects and an average effect of .12; which ranks 214 out 250 in the latest codex of 1500 meta-analyses. Ability grouping for gifted students has an effect size of .30, which is below the hinge point (Hattie, 2015). Retaining students back a year has been the focus of nine meta-analyses, 255 studies and 3127 effects with an average effect of -.17, which ranks third last of the 250 effects. Ability grouping makes little difference to student learning, whereas retention is among the most systematic negative impacts on learning. When the equity issues are added to these negative impacts on achievement, it is hard to see any reason for perpetuating them (Oakes, 2005). Oakes, Gamoran and Page (1992) found that too many low-track classes are deadening, noneducational environments, and tracking limits ‘students’ schooling opportunities, achievements, and life chances’. (p. 20) Teachers and students came to understandings about how to not push each other too hard so that they could both cope; low tracks were used as ‘holding tanks’ for students with the most severe behavior problems; and teachers focused on remediation through dull, repetitious seatwork (Camarena, 1990; Oakes, 2005). Moreover, minority students and low socio-economic students were seven times more likely to be identified as lowability than as high-ability students (Loveless, 1999). Retention is more invidious, as close to 80% of retained students in the US are African-American or Colored. The negative effect is across nearly every subject (Jimerson, 2001), attendance is lower, and the negative effect compounds over subsequent years (Holmes, 1989) – being retained one year almost doubled a student’s likelihood of dropping out, while failing twice almost guaranteed it. What these students need is specific attention to the reasons why they are considered for retention, and the last thing they need is more of the same teaching, curricula, activities and peer interactions!

326

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

META-ANALYSIS FOR GIFTED There have been five meta-analyses on Ability Grouping for gifted students, three meta-analysis on Acceleration, and four on Enrichment. Overall, there are 936 effect sizes from 440 studies, and, overall, Acceleration (d = .68) is more effective than Enrichment (d = .53), and both are double the effectiveness of Ability Grouping of gifted students (d = .30). See Table 24.1. Ability Grouping for Gifted Students. A major difference between ability grouping for gifted students compared to regular students is, more often than not, the curriculum is much more tailored to these able students, and there is drift of the most effective teachers to these classes. Hence the work is more challenging and there is a faster pace of instruction (Goldring, 1990; Kulik & Kulik, 1984a; Vaughn, Feldhusen, & Asher, 1991). Acceleration. By far the most successful implementation for gifted students, acceleration comes in many forms. Typically, it involves students skipping a grade, but there is also telescoping, curriculum compacting, and advanced placement. The major effect is that the students are working with similarly able students, at a more challenging curriculum. Kulik and Kulik (1984a, 1984b) found that accelerated students surpassed the performance of non-accelerated students of an equivalent age and intelligence by nearly one grade level (d = .88). It is also hard to find any negative, indeed there are positive effects on social attributes (Goldring, 1987), and accelerated students were no different in

their rates of participation in school activities (Kulik, 2004). There are three major dimensions on which acceleration is premised: the pacing of introducing material is faster; peers are more alike in reacting to similar challenges; there is access to more challenging curricula. The most recent meta-analysis by Steenbergen-Hu and Moon (2011) found high positive effects on high-ability learners’ academic achievement and social-emotional development. They concluded that accelerants equal or surpass non-accelerants in selfconcept, self-esteem, self-confidence, social relationships, participation in extracurricular activities, and life satisfaction. Steenbergen-Hu, Makel, and OlszewskiKubilius (2016) reviewed the past 100 years of research on acceleration, and found that accelerated students significantly outperformed their non-accelerated same-age peers (d = .70) but did not differ significantly from non-accelerated older peers (d = .09). Outcomes of these meta-analyses showed that acceleration appeared to have a positive, moderate and statistically significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Steenbergen-Hu et  al. suggested that ability grouping was more prevalent than accelerating and this may be because education administrators may have perverse incentives to avoid acceleration. For example, although acceleration can often actually save schools money because students spend fewer years in school, it can also cost schools money. Like Wardman (2017), Steenbergen-Hu et al. claimed that as school funding is often based on student numbers, systems save and schools lose this year’s funding. Further, in

Table 24.1  Summary of meta-analyses of provisions for the gifted No. m.-analyses Ability grouping for gifted students Acceleration Enrichment Total

No. studies

5

125

3 4 12

75 240 440

No. people No. effects

4,340 36,336 40,676

d effect size

Se Standard error

202

0.30

0.06

165 569 936

0.68 0.53 0.51

0.18 0.02 0.09

The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners

these days of accountability, accelerated students retained with their same-age peers can boost average test scores, regardless of whether these students are learning. Lee, Levin and Soler (2005) reviewed the evidence of Accelerated Schools for all students: why, they ask, should these major positive benefits only be for gifted students. At its heart, acceleration is based upon a deeper and more engaging learning approach for all. The effect sizes were substantial across all studies (d = .77 across all subjects). Lee, Levin and Solar concluded that the overall record for Accelerated Schools suggests that when implemented, the results are positive and strong; however, implementation is a challenge in a school culture that emphasizes remediation and test preparation in contrast to a focus on fuller student development through enrichment. Enrichment. Enrichment involves activities meant to broaden the educational lives of gifted students. The effects are not as high but far superior to ability grouping of gifted students. It is hard to find studies where enrichment provides superior results over accelerative methods: at best, enrichment may only defer boredom (George, Cohn, & Stanley, 1979). There are many forms of enrichment and one of the more common is Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment program (Feuerstein, 1980). These programs aim to teach critical thinking skills via a series of 13 to 15 instruments to be completed in one-hour lessons three to five times a week for two to three years (Howie, forthcoming). Shiell (2002) reviewed the effects of Feuerstein’s programs and the overall effects on achievement was d = .26, while Romney and Samuels’ (2001) meta-analysis found a d = .35 effect on achievement.

MYTHS VS EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH Myths abound in gifted education; they persist and retain their impact to the extent that Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) has devoted two issues

327

to dispelling the myths, with the latest in 2009. In 1982, the journal focused on ‘demythologising gifted education’. In 2009, a panel confirmed that all 15 of the myths identified 18 years earlier were still prevalent.

Differentiation In terms of the impact of curricula provisions, the myth prevails that differentiation in the regular classroom is sufficient for gifted students, because they are supposedly one homogeneous group and therefore ‘easy’ for teachers to cater for. Understandably this myth puts a lot of pressure on teachers who find within-class differentiation impossible to maintain, especially at secondary level where individual teachers guide up to 180 students on a daily basis and statistically have just nine minutes a week for each student. Some believe it is convenient, but unfair, for school administrations to put the burden of individualizing the programs of learning onto classroom teachers, when there is much that can be achieved if a school-wide approach is considered. Delisle (2015) commented that when it comes to differentiation, teachers are either not doing it at all, or feel guilty because they realize they are ‘teaching to the middle’. Either way, it is clear that differentiation is a promise unfulfilled. To say Delisle’s commentary provoked debate is an understatement. Many contributors discussed whether time restraints and lack of resources for individual teachers did preclude adequate provision of within-class differentiation for the gifted. Delisle was arguing for gifted students to be grouped in classrooms by their readiness to learn and alongside their intellectual peers. It is unfortunate that claims of elitism and even racism were made in the ensuing furor.

Teachers on Acceleration It is hoped that raising the topic of acceleration will not provoke a similar reaction,

328

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

because acceleration is a provision where myths predominate. One myth is that teachers are inherently ‘against’ the practice of acceleration. Wardman (2009) collected quantitative and qualitative data from 455 New Zealand secondary school teachers and found a high level of support for full-year acceleration, which is considered the most contentious of accelerative strategies. Representative was a heartfelt written comment from a teacher: ‘I wish I had been accelerated instead of being bored witless!!’

Emotional Outcomes with Acceleration Another myth is that emotional harm will eventuate if children are accelerated ahead of age-peers. This is a particularly insidious claim as this fear often precludes accelerative strategies being offered by schools. We have not been able to find a single research study that shows significant social or emotional harm being caused by the provision of acceleration. There are the reported staffroom war-stories of ‘I knew a student who …’, but the research evidence is missing. Wardman’s (2015) findings on a study of 12 students who had been full-year accelerated at a secondary school in a low socio-economic area, found no evidence of emotional harm. To the contrary, the report was of ‘an extra year of life’, which gave them more options; for example, completing double or second degrees. Three of the parents believed that if their children had not been accelerated, they would have become so bored with the pace of the curriculum, that they would have exited school early, and the students agreed. This comment is from an accelerated student who entered university at 16 and obtained a double degree in law and science before the age of 21: If I had had to do another two years at high school I would have been bored shitless since I was bored in [final year] anyway … When I’m bored I play up

all the time … It was good not having to stay an extra two years at high school. I probably would have torched the place. (Wardman, 2017, p. 243)

Social Outcomes with Acceleration Rogers (2015) confirmed in her investigation of research syntheses that academic acceleration resulted in significant academic gains and small to moderate social and emotional gains for gifted students. Gross (2004) reported that profoundly gifted students in her study who were not provided with the opportunity to accelerate, suffered from social isolation as they were locked in agegrade classes with no intellectual peers. In those who were permitted to accelerate, Gross observed: ‘In every case, the young people who have been radically accelerated have found both outstanding academic success and the “sure shelter” of a warm and supportive friendship group’ (p. 281). Alice, a student in Gross’s study, claimed that it was only when she reached university that she found her ‘intellectual home’. There is such a sense of belonging … such a joyful interaction. It’s not just being interested in the same things; it’s being passionate about the same things. When one has known deep loneliness and social isolation, the affection and acceptance of friends become especially important. When one differs from one’s age-peers so profoundly and in so many respects, intellectually, academically, emotionally and in one’s interests and values … friendship can be difficult to achieve or sustain. (p. 280)

The concern that accelerated students will feel left out as they are too young to go through the milestones of getting a driving licence, and being allowed to drink alcohol in public bars has also been disclaimed. Almost all the participants (Wardman, 2015) were 16 years old when they progressed to university and therefore had to wait two years before they could enter a university bar. They claimed it was not a problem as their friends

The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners

understood the situation and so they would socialize in homes instead of in bars. Regarding the rite of passage of obtaining a driving licence, most opted not to obtain a licence even when they were old enough to do so, as they found that being a passenger and paying ‘petrol money’ to the car owner, a much more economical option than the expense of car ownership (Wardman, 2017).

Outcomes for Parents The fear of losing a year of childhood is also mentioned in the literature. The parents in this study (Wardman, 2015) reported that they had instead gained an extra year of their children as young adults as they found that the acceleration made them more mature and responsible than their age peers. One parent reported that losing a year of the teenage years was not such a bad thing! It should be noted, however, that all but one of the students in this study opted to attend the university in their home town, so at least for the first year of their studies they remained living at home. Only one opted to move to another city and begin the life of a student away from home at age 16. During their secondary schooling the parents realized that their children’s interactions with teachers had been mixed. The families wanted to dispel the myth that all teachers enjoy teaching gifted learners. There were some teachers whom they described as ‘legends’; other teachers were less enthused with the daily challenge of gifted students. The students said they did not choose those subjects with those teachers for their senior years, if the teachers had shown negativity towards the student’s abilities in their junior years.

Outcomes for Principals Some principals argue that they do not want to lose a year of these students, as this leads to a loss of their year’s income. Accelerating

329

these students would mean their success was not included in the school’s performance measures for the maximum number of years. This is discussed in the next section in terms of the impact on the league tables of schools. Finally, we also considered the myth that gifted children will do well regardless; that the cream always rises to the top. One parent in the above study (Wardman, 2015) reported that she had a much older son she described as bright but he ‘got lost … dropped out of school age 15 and spent the next 15 years [between short-term jobs and periods of unemployment]’. Our numbers of ‘lost gifted’ are evidence of current provisions failing our gifted learners.

THE IMPACT OF CURRICULA PROVISIONS: WHAT WE DO VS WHAT WE SHOULD DO The evidence around the world is that pullout enrichment options and within-class ability groupings predominate provisions for gifted students in primary/elementary settings. At secondary level, it would appear that globally, tracking or streaming is the main provision offered in schools. None of those provisions are supported by the evidence-based studies.

Acceleration The research supports accelerative options. No discussion on current curricula provisions of accelerative options for gifted could exclude the comprehensive US report: A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students (Assouline, Colangelo & VanTasselBaska, (2015); Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska, & Lupkowski Shoplik, 2015). The two volume report is the followup to the hugely successful report, A Nation

330

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Colangelo, Assouline & Gross, 2004). There is no clearer example to illustrate what we do, versus what we should be doing, to provide for gifted students. The report in 2004 was designed to effect change, and it did in many countries around the world, but not apparently in the US. In the intervening ten years, Colangelo reports: ‘only nine states have policies explicitly permitting acceleration of gifted students’ (2015, p. 44). Plucker explained the lack of progress in implementing academic acceleration: ‘We’ve had our decade and we are starting to see the needle move a little bit on acceleration’ (2015, p. 13). Nothing has happened in the intervening ten years in the US regarding the strategy of acceleration that has been significant enough to turn ‘deception’ into ‘empowerment’; but it appears that the authors felt that the readers of the 2015 report will be ‘empowered’ to take up the challenge. In many other countries, the challenge regarding accelerative provisions has been taken up and some progress has been made in heeding the evidence-based studies.

School Leaders and Administrations Sir Ken Robinson (UK) compared current schooling systems to a conveyer belt, with the product (children), processed according to batch number – their date of birth. This system of being locked into age-grade progression was designed for a different time in history, when the focus was on dealing with the increased numbers progressing through the new schooling system. Today, the focus could be on individuals and their needs, rather than what most conveniently fits in with a processing system. Instead, we could be considering provisions designed to cater for gifted individuals as we did in previous times in history. The myths, however, prevail and to date many parents, teachers and school leaders/administrators do not want to take the

‘risk’ of opting for accelerative provisions for gifted, and instead opt for what is perceived as the administratively ‘safe’ options of enrichment pull-out provisions, or withinclass differentiation, or tracking/streaming. Professional development in gifted education is not yet widespread in schools. Often the number of staff who have had any training with regard to giftedness is limited, and this also contributes to the lack of knowledge of the evidence-based studies in school settings. Currently administrators may believe that by naming as ‘accelerant’ the top stream of a year group and by providing that group with some enrichment programs (with the aura of advantage from the label ‘acceleration’), that the needs of all gifted students are being met. The short-termism often experienced by gifted programs in schools was explored in Wardman and Hattie (2012). As a retiring principal explained: ‘If the new principal also was not ‘on board’ with the direction, then the [gifted] program would probably not be sustained’. Gifted programs are often used as ornaments or baubles; some people have called them ‘tacked on frills’. As such, they can be added or withdrawn, and therefore gifted programs can lack sustainability if not embedded in the school. What is missing in most of the existing studies is an investigation of the dual role of school leaders/administrators. The duality is what is best for the school as a whole, versus what is best for the individual student. If the administrators of a school agree to the provisions of full-year acceleration, then these students progress through the school in a shorter time. Not only does the school lose a year (or more) of government and parent funding, but also the school loses their potential school leaders a year early. It has been observed that some school leaders/administrators do not, therefore, see this provision as in the best interests of the school. The solution reached by some schools is to allow subject acceleration only in a few subjects, but not full-year in all subjects. Single

The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners

subject acceleration may sufficiently challenge moderately gifted students or those whose gifts are in only one subject area, but if Goldilocks is gifted across a range of subjects, then she will still be bored. When gifted students achieve excellent university entrance grades in their chosen subjects a year early, they are required to ‘pick up’ additional subjects to enable them to have a full timetable in their final year at school. The grades the students earn in their extra year at secondary school may not be relevant for their chosen tertiary course, but the school has not allowed them to sit all their subjects at university entrance level a year ahead so they have, in reality, been retained. They have not been allowed a planned program of provision to enable them to proceed to university a year early and so shorten their time at secondary school. In many countries, schools’ exam results are published in the popular media annually in the form of a league table. If gifted students are retained for an extra year in their school, their excellent double harvest of exam results may boost their school’s rating in comparison to other schools. So, the students have been permitted just enough acceleration to bolster their school’s results, but as they have not been permitted a full-year acceleration, they cannot proceed to tertiary education a year early. This barrier to acceleration could be mitigated by schools celebrating and advertising their programs of accelerated courses in preparation for tertiary education, instead of relying on grades earned while students wait to progress. It is necessary to investigate what provisions each student wishes, as some will want to progress to tertiary education (or another pathway) early; but some will want to remain at school for the full allotted time. It is up to the individual.

SO WHAT? Let us look at what doesn’t work. Retention is one of the few provisions that has a negative

331

effect size – meaning that students’ outcomes go backwards. Why are we so keen to hold students back, and too often reluctant to let them move ahead of age-peers to enable them to work and socialize with ability peers? The support allocated to any provision is vital to its success. For example, if fullyear acceleration is offered, but the manner in which it is implemented is simply to put the students in the class a year ahead, then it is unlikely to have the same success as a supported program of acceleration. An academic mentor is required to ensure that the challenges met by accelerated students are minimized and their faster pathway through school is planned and supported. It is worth noting that if students proceed through schooling faster, that will mean fewer teachers are required. A saving for the country as a whole, but teachers are wary about any provision which has the potential to lead to job losses, even if the numbers are minimal. What is the impact of getting it wrong? The end result is that gifted students do not reach their potential to become gifted adults. As stated earlier, if school administrators and parents were more aware of the risks of retaining students with age-peers – those of boredom and disengagement – they might look again at the gains to be made by offering acceleration to selected students. The ‘lost gifted’ are the numbers of gifted students who are so bored by the pace of the curriculum and being retained with their age-peers, that they leave school early with no or minimal qualifications. The ‘lost gifted’ are not counted in the league tables of schools’ results.

CONCLUSION: WHAT NEXT? As long as schooling systems around the world are basing their decisions on myths, and not on the evidence of research studies covering decades, then gifted children will continue to miss their potential for becoming

332

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

gifted adults. In answer to our original question asking why many gifted children do not become gifted adults, it could be concluded that given the mismatch of provisions and efficacy, it’s a wonder that any gifted children become gifted adults. The evidence is so unequivocal in terms of support for acceleration, that it has been suggested as appropriate provision to engage students who are ‘at risk’. It is not only gifted students who have become disengaged with learning due to the slow pace of curriculum delivery in some systems. If disengaged students of varying abilities can be inspired by a faster pace of learning, then it could be seen that an acceleration approach is more appropriate than a remediation approach. Gifted Goldilocks requires appropriate challenge and engagement with learning to reach her potential for becoming a gifted adult. The provision of acceleration could be offered to hundreds of thousands of moderately and profoundly gifted students around the world. One result would be a saving in education budgets as the strategy does not require additional funding: on the contrary, it results in considerable savings. More importantly for parents and the gifted students, being permitted to proceed with ability peers rather than being retained with age-peers, mitigates the risk of becoming one of the ‘lost gifted’.

REFERENCES Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., & Van Tassel-Baska, J. (Eds.) (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Vol. 1 Iowa City, IA: The Belin-Blank Center. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., & VanTasselBaska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (Eds.) (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Vol. 2 Iowa City, IA: The Belin-Blank Center.

Biddick, M. (2009). Cluster grouping for the gifted and talented: It works! [Electronic Version]. APEX, 15, 78–86, from www.giftedchildren.org.nz/apex/ Camarena, M. (1990). Following the right track: A comparison of tracking practices in public and Catholic schools. In R. N. Page & L. Villi (Eds.), Curriculum differentiation: Interpretative studies in US secondary schools (pp. 159–182). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Colangelo, N. (2015). Educating the educators. In S. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTasselBaska, & A. Lupkowski Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1, pp. 43–46). Iowa City, IA: The Belin- Blank Center. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s students: The Templeton national report on acceleration (Vol. 1, 2). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center. Delisle, J. (2015, January). Differentiation doesn’t work. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/ 2015/01/07/differentiation-doesnt-work. html?cmp=eml-contshr-shr-desk Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy, grades K-12: Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. George, W. C., Cohn, S. J., & Stanley, J. C. (1979). Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8. Goldring, E. B. (1987). A meta-analysis of classroom organizational strategies for gifted education programs. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Goldring, E. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 313–326.

The Impact of Various Curricula Provisions for Gifted Learners

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children. London, UK: Routledge. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1),79-91. Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research policies on retention (pp. 16–33). London: Falmer Press. Howie, D. R. (forthcoming) The systemic and inclusive whole school use of the Feuerstein approach. In S. W. Chng and S. H. Seng (Eds.), Advances in mediated learning experience: Technology, neuroscience and sociopedagogic perspectives. Kim, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline & M.U.M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s students: The Templeton national report on acceleration (Vol. 2, pp. 13–22). Iowa City, IA: BelinBlank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, College of Education. The University of Iowa. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1984a). Effects of accelerated instruction on students Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 409–425. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1984b). Synthesis of research on effects on acceleration instruction. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 84–89. Lee, J. C., Levin, H. & Soler, P. (2005). Accelerated schools for quality education: A Hong Kong perspective. The Urban Review, 37(1), 63–81. https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland. ac.nz/10.1007/s11256-005-3562-6 Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. McBee, M. T. (2004). The classroom as laboratory: An exploration of teacher research. Roeper Review, 27(1), 52–59. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven & London. Yale University Press.

333

Oakes, J. Gamoran, A., & Page, R.N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp.570–608). New York: Macmillan Plucker, J. (2015). What’s happened in the past decade? In S. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1, pp. 13–15). Iowa City, IA: The Belin-Blank Center. Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of gifted and talented learners. Executive summary. Research-based decision making series. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Rogers, K. B. (2015). The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.) A nation empowered, Volume 2: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press. Romney, D. M., & Samuels, M. T. (2001). A meta-analytic evaluation of Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment Program. Educational and Child Psychology, 18(4), 19–34. Shiell, J. L. (2002). A meta-analysis of Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment. Unpublished PhD, The University of British Columbia. Stanley, J. C. (1979). The study and facilitation of talent for mathematics. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development (pp. 169–185). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Steenbergen-Hu, S. & Moon, S. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 39–53. Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. DOI: 10.3102/0034654316675417

334

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(2), 92–98. Wallace, T. A. (1989). The effects of enrichment on gifted students: A quantitative synthesis. Unpublished PhD, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL. Wardman, J. (2009). Secondary teachers’, student teachers’ and education students’ attitudes to full-year acceleration for gifted students. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(1), 25–36. Wardman, J. (2015). Full-year acceleration at high school: Parents support the social and

emotional challenges of their children. Gifted and Talented International, 29(2), 49–62. Wardman, J. (2017). Full-year acceleration of gifted high school students: A 360° view. In N. Ballam and R. Moltzen (Eds.), Giftedness and talent: Australasian research. New York: Springer. Wardman, J., & Hattie, J. (2012). Administrators’ perceptions of full-year acceleration at high school. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21(1), 32–41. Winner, E. (2014) Child prodigies and adult genius: A weak link. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118367377.ch15

25 Continuum of Differentiation Sandra N. Kaplan

INTRODUCTION A gifted student reading a text that is two years beyond his or her current grade level is an example of differentiating the curriculum using ACCELERATION. A gifted student studying Revolutions leading to the rise and fall of ideas, technology and civilizations over time in conjunction with the study of the core curriculum social studies unit on the American Revolution is an example of differentiating the curriculum through ENRICHMENT. A gifted student working with an engineer from the community to redesign structure of the freeway system to withstand expanding traffic problems and potential earthquake damage is an example of differentiating the curriculum using MENTORSHIPS. An elementary gifted student attending advanced mathematics classes at the high school each day is an example of differentiating the curriculum through ACCELERATION or ADVANCED STUDIES. A gifted student provided with classroom time to pursue his or

her interest in geology by conducting an independent study is an example of differentiating the curriculum through both ENRICHMENT and ACCELERATION. A gifted student receiving computer assisted instruction in science is an example of differentiating the curriculum through both ACCELERATION and ENRICHMENT. These examples indicate that the multiple meanings and implementation of differentiation of the curriculum is thought to be both broad and diverse (Kaplan, 2001).

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES TO DEFINITIONS OF GIFTED AND DIFFERENTIATION The original definitions of educational verbiage are often associated with words that have singular and simplistic definitions. For example, the word ‘gifted’ initially was perceived to be defined by the single definition of

336

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

‘a student that is smart’ and the word ‘differentiation’ was defined with the simple phrase ‘to modify the curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of students’. Over time, both experience and education have facilitated the educators’ awareness and understanding that these terms have multiple definitions and that they are consistently redefined by research, contexts, and experiences. As noted in contemporary literature and practice, the term ‘gifted’ has gone through evolutionary changes, affecting the need to correspondingly redefine the term ‘differentiation’ as it relates to educating gifted students. Changes in curriculum and instruction also have affected the meaning and implementation of differentiation. New meanings provide the opportunity for new implementation and new implementation outlines the opportunity for new experiences for both teachers and gifted students.

can be responsive to differentiate the core, rudimentary or basic curriculum for students of varying abilities in the classroom. Used appropriately, the Continuum of Differentiation can be used to uncover or identify potential, talent and/or ability when all students are given access to travel the continuum. Teacher B considered utilizing the Continuum of Differentiation with the entire class. Noting the differential in intellectual demand, intellectual economy or necessity of time, and intellectual satisfaction derived from each curriculum learning experience on the continuum, Teacher B assigned all students in the class to either work alone or in pairs or groups to the appropriate type of tasks on the continuum. The learning experiences on the continuum also can become a non-traditional form of identification of abilities that otherwise would have been dormant or gone undetected. Basically, the Continuum of Differentiation can be used to identify as well as accommodate giftedness in students.

Continuum of Differentiation The concept of a Continuum of Differentiation enables educators to design and practice differentiation as fluid rather than fixed phenomena. The Continuum of Differentiation presents a set of differentiated alternatives encompassing varied levels of difficulty, acknowledges different types of gifted abilities, and encourages expressions of personal and academic talents and interests. Offering alternatives to differentiate the curriculum requires a shift in implementation from selecting a single mode of differentiation for all gifted students within a given context to be taught and learned over a given time frame, to selecting a particular mode of differentiation for each gifted student in a given context taught and learned within a specifically designated individualized time period. Because the Continuum of Differentiation is designed to accommodate a range of curricular methods to challenge teaching and learning, it also can be used to differentiate for all students in a heterogeneous classroom. Progression on the continuum

Setting the Context for Implementation The implementation of the Continuum of Differentiation is dependent on the teacher’s need to use a variety of data sources to affect the decisions required to match a mode of differentiation to each gifted student. The data sources can be informal or formal, formative or summative. Importantly, the data has to reveal significantly the reason to match and to justify the mode of differentiation to each gifted learner or to small groups of gifted students. The teacher is consistently asking: ‘What academic and personal evidence justifies the match between the differentiated curricular choice and the gifted student?’ While standardized data provides a perspective on the mode of differentiation and the gifted student, multiple types of assessment data enrich understanding of the most appropriate differentiated match to implement within and over time for the gifted student.

337

Continuum of Differentiation

Gifted students will need an orientation to the selected curricular choice of differentiation. Comments from gifted students have indicated their lack of clarity about the purposes of engaging in differentiated curricular experiences. These comments sometimes are derived from a lack of information and/or misunderstanding of the ‘what and the why’ of the dimensions of the differentiated experience provided to the gifted student. ‘This is unfair’ and ‘This is too much work’ are some of the comments that underscore addressing the meaning and intent of the selected differentiated curricular experience.

of these two definite concepts: continuum and ‘modes of differentiation’. The concept of a continuum to present a collection of differentiated curriculum options is analogous to the concept of constructing a pathway or trajectory of experiences that offer alternatives to differentiate to the specific rather than the general traits of giftedness. Traditional differentiated curricular experiences primarily have been designed to accommodate gifted students as if they represented a common set of traits. The Continuum of Differentiation attempts to recognize and respond to the individualistic characteristics that distinguish giftedness within diverse cultural, economic, linguistic and academic groups. The Continuum of Differentiation also acknowledges the concept that giftedness is not static; the traits of each gifted learner can and do change over time. To accommodate this factor, the Continuum of Differentiation

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONTINUUM OF DIFFERENTIATION Success for the Continuum of Differentiation also requires facilitating teachers’ understanding

Reinforce

Redefine

Link and elaborate content and

 Individualization

of the learning experience

skills under study to prior

 Personalization

(thinking skill, content,

knowledge or newly researched

 ‘Circle’ a defined segment



areas.

resource, product) with different purposes or



Refine



Reference the learning of a ‘big

activities to clarify meaning

idea’, generalization, principle or

and/or achieve mastery.

law that overreaches all disciplines.

Prioritize the segments or elements of the learning



framework

and practice to achieve meaning and/or mastery.

Situate what is under study in an intra- and/or inter-disciplinary

experience to allocate time 

Study the basic curriculum in different contexts: time, place, people, philosophy

Figure 25.1  The Continuum of Differentiation

338

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

defines and categorizes differentiated opportunities from ‘readiness’ to ‘expert’. This requires teachers of gifted students to select and place them with respect to their level of need, interest and/or abilities. It also enables gifted students to move along the continuum to experience various modes of differentiation in accord with their changing levels of development and achievement (Figure 25.1). The Continuum of Differentiation was not articulated as a substitution for the many and varied ways that differentiation of curriculum has been defined for gifted students. It has been created with the anticipation that it can present a more comprehensive and continuous reference to differentiate for these students. The continuum displays the options for educators to examine continuous movement to differentiate from the simple to the more complex, from what is anticipated to attend to all gifted students, to what is anticipated for one gifted student. The important criteria to differentiate for gifted students will be the movement they can experience over time at different levels of differentiation on the continuum. Determining the relationship between the gifted student and the assigned level of learning experience designated on the Continuum of Differentiation could necessitate different forms of teacher/student interactions. Each of these forms of interaction attempts to facilitate the gifted student’s abilities to understand how and why the learning experience in which the student will be engaged is a ‘good match’. The ‘good match’ can be a result of single or multiple factors such as interest, time, future aspirations, and ability. Without understanding the connection between self and the learning experience, the gifted student can perceive the situation as threatening and worthless.

DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES Reinforce The term ‘Reinforce’ is anchored in the traditional learning vocabulary referenced to

the idea of noting a student’s need and addressing it in alignment with the appropriate and multiple methods by which that student learns. Referenced to the Continuum of Differentiation, ‘Reinforce’ becomes a term to differentiate curriculum by sanctioning different ways to learn or practice segments in the basic or rudimentary curriculum in alignment with the nature of the traits of each student’s giftedness. Too often, gifted students are limited in the form and number of learning experiences available to them to show progress or attain mastery. Such limitations restrict the academic development of gifted students and, importantly, often reside in the belief that to be gifted exonerates the student from practice or the art of practicing in a form that is other than a redundant activity. The concept of ‘Reinforce’ is often not associated with concepts of differentiation because it is not typically aligned to the category of learning that extends a gifted student’s opportunity for challenge. In essence, ‘to reinforce’ does extend the opportunity to be challenged in order to learn something well. A concomitant outcome of the Reinforce portion of the Continuum of Differentiation is to introduce students to the art of practice and the joys that can be associated with practice. Biographical and autobiographical information regarding the success of gifted individuals often states the personal values and achievements derived from implementing and appreciating practice. The learning experience labeled ‘circling a segment …’ is basic to the concept of reinforcing or the idea of approaching an identified learning need in different ways over time: oral, written, illustrative, etc., to challenge the student’s abilities to attain mastery. How many times the particular learning is circled is not valued as much as how many different approaches the student can apply to gather different perspectives on an important facet of what is to be learned. ‘Circling’ is dependent on the activities and time designated for the student to evidence achievement.

Continuum of Differentiation

The learning experience labeled ‘Reinforce …’ requires the teacher and gifted student to work collaboratively to conduct an evaluation of the facets of the basic or fundamental curriculum. This assessment determines the most needed versus least needed segment of the learning experience the gifted student must practice in order to be challenged and subsequently achieve mastery. As an integral feature of the Continuum of Differentiation, ‘prioritization …’ is considered to be a form of differentiation that exemplifies differing the opportunities for learning in alignment with the needs, interests and abilities of the gifted student.

Refine The term ‘Refine’ is intended to refer to define a type of differentiated curricular experience that extends or branches out from the basic or regular curriculum, which it is anticipated that gifted students have already achieved, to alternative curriculum experiences appropriately aligned to the nature of giftedness. Each of the options identified under this category of the Continuum of Differentiation expand the core or basic curriculum by connecting to other areas of study through intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary opportunities. Whether the gifted student selects to extend or connect the core or regular curriculum to a self-selected interest, talent or ability, or defines a more formal interdisciplinary study, the main purpose of the ‘Refine’ section of the Continuum of Differentiation is the opportunity to expand the core curriculum. The concept of expansion is not to be misunderstood. Expansion and replacement are not considered to be synonymous. Some discussions of differentiation appear to ignore the core, basic or rudimentary curriculum. The credibility of the concept of ‘Redefine’ is predicated on its relationship to the core, basic or rudimentary curriculum. It is the core that formulates the foundation for the reason and design to

339

‘refine’ as a form of differentiation for gifted students.

Redefine The term ‘Redefine’ in the Continuum of Differentiation is interpreted as enabling the gifted student to have the opportunity for an individualized or personalized experiences. While these terms often are interpreted as synonymous within the Continuum of Differentiation, they are independently defined. Individualization refers to the opportunity to engage students in a learning experience that has specified elements relevant to the individual gifted student’s needs, interest, and/or abilities. Adjustments in curriculum elements such as skills, subject matter, products and resources, personal adjustments such as time, and social adjustments such as mentorship, collegiality, and team interactions are all entities that constitute the strategies to individualize for a gifted learner. While individualization modifies the basic or fundamental curriculum to some degree to respond to the individual gifted student, personalization is not dependent on any facet of the core or basic curriculum. Personalization is provided to gifted students with the understanding that the content, skills, resources and products are responsive to the needs and abilities the gifted students have selected for self-study. Independent study has traditionally been included within the options of differentiated curriculum for gifted students. The articulation of an independent study often includes the opportunity for self and/or guided choices for gifted students in the selection of the topic, definition of the study questions, and the determination of resources and products. Independent study is classified within the category of Individualized and/or Personalized differentiation as it addresses a more personal and specialized approach to challenge the learner. Within the basic independent study design, there are three options labeled from simple to complex. The first

340

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and simplest area within the independent study to challenge the student is to conduct a ‘Proportional Study’ – a study defined by the utilization of a given set of prompts or keywords that alter the nature of the questions under study. These prompts, such as context, proof, motive, translate, original, judgement, impact, and process, are new prompts (2015) added to the existing set of Depth and Complexity prompts (California Department of Education, 2015). A question such as ‘What are the different types of animals present within different environments?’ can be rewritten at a more sophisticated level of investigation by including an appropriate collection of the prompts: ‘What proof can verify that there is a relationship between animals and the context in which they live?’ A second level of sophistication within the construct of an independent study is titled: ‘Influential Study’. This area of inquiry within the independent study requires the learner to engage in the study

of how political, social, economic, cultural, and technological factors affect the topic and questions the gifted student is pursuing. Finally, a third alternative or stage in designing independent study as an individualized or personalized option on the Continuum of Differentiation is titled: ‘Comparative Study’. This type of study requires the gifted student to select a second topic of study within or outside the same subject area or discipline in order to respond to how these topics are the same or different with respect to time, causes, and effects. Each of the options demands a different type of analysis about the topic under independent study. The decision regarding which option should be made available to the learner is dependent on the readiness for the challenge each option offers the gifted student (Figure 25.2). Changing the options to differentiate curriculum also demands changing teacher/student roles regarding curriculum design. As the curricular options to differentiate shift

Figure 25.2  Continuum of Differentiation: Teacher/student roles

341

Continuum of Differentiation

from amending the basic or fundamental curriculum to individualizing the curriculum for gifted learners, there also is a shift in the roles of the teacher and student in the selection and design to differentiate curriculum dimensions. In the progression of determining the differentiated options, the teacher’s role becomes less dominant and the student’s role assumes more priority and authority. This shift allows for both independence of learning and independence of personal action; both of these forms of independence are central to becoming an independent learner (Figure 25.3). The depiction of the various relationships between the core and the differentiated curriculum options in Figure 25.4 illustrate how the relationship between these entities changes along the continuum. The diagrams have been drawn to show how the core curriculum (the circular feature) becomes less significant over time as the differentiated curriculum (the rectangular feature) becomes more dominant. In reality, the final segment of the Continuum of Differentiation also shows that the differentiated curriculum could be

Reinforce

Side-by-side

depicted as a sole feature when defined by the differentiated options of individualization and/or personalization. Decisions affecting the gifted learner are dependent on two basic factors: readiness and perspective. Readiness reveals the appropriate developmental level of the gifted student in two aspects: what (curriculum) is needed to be learned and how (instruction) it should be learned. The basis for these decisions can be derived from placement on the continua where the gifted student’s instructional needs can be met.

CONCLUSION The design and presentation of the concept of a Continuum of Differentiation fulfills many purposes. Primarily, the Continuum of Differentiation exemplifies the fact that there is a need to accept a set of alternatives to recognize and respond to the gifted student’s needs, interests and abilities. Essential to this set of alternatives is their graduated presenta-

Refine

Intersections

Redefine

Inclusion

or

Figure 25.3  Continuum of Differentiation: Relationships to core or basic curriculum

Continuum of Instruction Introduction

Application

Practice

Transfer

Individualization

Figure 25.4  Intersection between the continua: Differentiation and instruction

342

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

tion from simple to complex, from concrete to abstract, from teacher-directed to studentcentered. Each of the components that constitute the Continuum of Differentiation recognize and respond to differential levels of ‘challenge and readiness’. Basically, the philosophy undergirding the Continuum of Differentiation is the fact that the gifted students’ need for a challenge emerges over time and necessitates opportunities that correspond to their evolving needs, interests and abilities. The curriculum for gifted students must be introduced with clarity within professional staff development activities. However, just providing staff development is insufficient to successful implementation of a curriculum for the gifted. The Continuum of Differentiation requires a targeted set of staff development sessions within the context of a plan of action. This means that staff development sessions must be clearly defined by objectives that are expected to be translated into classroom practices. In summary, to differentiate the curriculum for the gifted it is essential to: • Match the needs assessment data that answer the questions about the nature and needs of these students;

• Match the program prototype selected to administer or implement the gifted program; • Match the competencies and the knowledge of the teachers of the gifted responsible for implementing the curriculum; • Mach the expectations for both the general and gifted educational programs and reinforce rather than isolate gifted students from the basic educational program; • Match the understandings and interests of the parents of the gifted; and • Match the gifted students’ expectations for their current and future educational aspirations. (Kaplan, 2001, pp. 156–l57)

REFERENCES California Department of Education (1995). Differentiating the core curriculum and instruction to provide advanced learning opportunities. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Kaplan, S. (2001). Layering differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. In F. Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.) Methods and materials for teaching the gifted, pp. 133–158. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.

26 The National Mentoring Program in Israel: A Model for Developing Leadership among Highly Gifted Students R a c h e l Z o r m a n , M e n a c h e m N a d l e r, Pnina Zeltser and Zipi Bashan

INTRODUCTION The focus of this chapter is to examine what is known about the manifestations of giftedness and leadership among youth, and to demonstrate how the practice of mentoring can enable gifted youth to become leaders. Thus, the following questions will be addressed: 1 What defines giftedness and leadership and how do they compare between youth and adults? 2 Is the practice of mentoring effective in promoting leadership among gifted youth, as shown in the National Mentoring Program in Israel? 3 To what extent can highly gifted youth work as creative problem-solvers? What implications can be drawn from the Israeli experience for a model of mentoring to enhance leadership among gifted youth?

GIFTEDNESS AND LEADERSHIP AMONG YOUTH AND ADULTS Most researchers agree that giftedness may be defined as the ability to perform in an

extraordinary manner or to produce knowledge in various talent areas that are valued by our society (Zorman, 1998). However, giftedness in youth often denotes the potential to reach remarkable attainment, which is usually manifested in intellectual ability to consume knowledge in an effective manner (Zorman et al., 2016). The realization of potential follows a developmental trajectory, in which, according to the talent development model proposed by Subotnik et al. (2011), potential matures into ability, which leads in favorable circumstances to achievement, which may then be acclaimed as eminence. The above conceptualization of giftedness is similar to one of the common definitions of leadership as extraordinary achievement, or performance that advances or changes the professional and/or the social community (Rachmel & Zorman, 2003; Sisk, 2015). In her review of definitions of leadership, Sisk (2015) notes that there are several components that are common to all of the definitions of leadership. These include effective

344

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

interpersonal skills, self-confidence, general and task-specific knowledge and skills, and environmental features such as organizational structure. In his review of the literature on the leadership education of gifted and talented youth, Mathews (2004) notes that both youth and adult leaders work to attain a goal that enhances a professional content area or a social community. However, youth leaders work more often as part of a group that is not very hierarchical in structure, and leadership appears to flow within the group. In contrast, adult leaders usually lead individually, promoting a vision for the future and often solving problems by utilizing a hierarchical organizational structure. Mathews observes that these differences may reflect the situational context of youth leaders, who function mainly as volunteers in short-term projects, whereas adult leaders function mainly in work situations. Thus, it seems that production of new knowledge or extraordinary performance is not enough. In order to become a leader, a gifted person needs to acquire interpersonal skills, and function in a setting that encourages leadership to emerge. Consequently, gifted young people need to gain experience and skills that will enable them to chart their path of leadership. Mathews (2004) concludes from the literature review that most researchers indicate that the following traits of gifted youth leaders may be honed through instruction: interpersonal skills, perceived self-confidence and a sense of efficacy, together with an appropriate knowledge base, and verbal ability, especially among younger children. More specifically, Sisk (2015) states that in order to develop leadership ability among gifted students, it is important to foster certain individual, group and community values. Individual values may be developed through self-reflection, and small group discussion, enhancing consciousness of what motivates gifted students to take action, as well as providing opportunities for them to follow their learning passions. The enhancement

of group values includes collaboration with others to build a shared purpose, and learning to express one’s point of view while listening and considering others’ perspectives. Community values may be honed through service projects that may bring about some change in the community, while emphasizing the inter-dependence of community members and a sense of citizenship.

The Effectiveness of Mentoring in Promoting Leadership among Gifted Youths At the conclusion of his review of various studies of leadership education, Mathews (2004) asserts that ‘mentoring seems to offer a means of enrichment appropriate for the needs of gifted students’ (Mathews, 2004, pp. 104–105). In his book on wise leadership, Winblad (2009) concurs by promoting the importance of a relationship with a mentor to provide support in the process of enhancing a commitment to self-growth through pursuing one’s interests in depth; self-reflection on what it means to lead; openness to learning from one’s experiences and from those of others; and devising ways to encourage others to succeed. Throughout history, the practice of mentoring has been shown to be one of the most effective methods for supporting highly gifted individuals in their quest to realize their potential and become leaders in their fields of interest (Zorman, 1993a; Zorman et  al., 2016). Mentoring was practiced as a favored method of instruction by the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Socrates who mentored Plato, and Aristotle who mentored Alexander the Great, by using dialogue and encouraging their mentees to construct their own knowledge. Mentoring was institutionalized in the middle ages with the establishment of highly acclaimed universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge in England, which

The National Mentoring Program in Israel

produced leading figures, including Isaac Newton (a mathematician and physicist from Cambridge, a major figure in the scientific revolution), Charles Darwin (a biologist from Cambridge, who developed the theory of evolution) and Peter Medawar (a biologist from Oxford, the father of organ transplants). (Zorman et al., 2016). Mentoring has been shown to be an effective practice with gifted students (Bisland, 2001; Clasen & Clasen, 2003; Purcell et al,, 2001; Siegle & McCoach, 2005), contributing to their cognitive, social, emotional and vocational growth (Casey & Shore, 2000; Zorman et  al., 2016). It has been particularly empowering for underserved populations such as women (Zorman et al., 2016), twice exceptional gifted students (Shevitz et al., 2003) and gifted Asperger syndrome students (Bianco et  al., 2009). Mentoring with these populations provides them with role models and capitalizes on mentees’ strengths, enabling them to develop a ‘can do’ attitude and to pursue their passions and interests. A seminal article by Grassinger et  al. (2010) provides a conceptual analysis of the components of effective mentoring as a first rate pedagogical approach combining the features of the ‘Learning Triad of modeling, instruction and provision of learning opportunities with ‘the ‘Big Four’ effective learning processes (improvement-oriented learning, individualization, feedback and practice)’ (Grassinger et  al., 2010, p. 8). Similarly, in Jewish tradition, the principle of ‘educate the child according to his path’ (Proverbs, 22:6), attributed to King Solomon, forms the foundation of tailoring education to the child’s style, interests and needs. Thus, if the above features are integrated into the mentoring process in a holistic manner, they can help create the special bond, the knowledge, skill and lifestyle sharing between mentor and mentee. This, in turn, enables them to create a dynamic relationship, enhancing the realization of young people’s giftedness and leadership.

345

THE NATIONAL MENTORING PROGRAM IN ISRAEL The discussion in the previous sections forms the conceptual framework for the National Mentoring program in Israel. The program was founded in 2009 by the Division for Gifted and Outstanding Students in the Ministry of Education and implemented by the Henrietta Szold Institute. This program was described in the article titled ‘The National Mentoring program in Israel – challenges and achievements’ (Zorman et  al., 2016). Formative evaluation was presented for the first three cohorts of young participants. In this chapter, an updated version of program design and implementation will be described. This version has changed in certain aspects, especially in fusing leadership development with mentoring. Furthermore, the results of formative evaluation of the program and its accomplishments will be presented for five cohorts of participants, providing a richer and more robust portrayal of program effectiveness.

GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The main goal of the program is ‘to cultivate future leaders in various talent areas’ (Zorman et al., 2016, p. 176). This goal was formulated in line with the emphasis of the Division for Gifted and Outstanding Students on the importance of enhancing gifted students’ sense of responsibility to utilize their talents to contribute to others in the community, in their region, and in their country. The above goal is expressed in the following objectives: 1 Providing opportunities for highly gifted learners to engage in in-depth professional investigation of specific topics of interest and passion, leading to research publications or products at an exceptional level.

346

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

2 Introducing highly gifted students to possible careers which may enable them to realize their potential. 3 Exploring ways to utilize their skills and knowledge to contribute to the community in a meaningful manner.

Creating the Match between Young Scholars and Mentors The first component of the program consists of creating the pairs of mentors and young scholars in various content areas. This component is represented in Figure 26.1 in the shape of an inverted pyramid, beginning with the pool of all gifted students in the top and narrowing down gradually, as the process of matching gifted students with specific mentors progresses. This matching process is comprised of four steps:

Dissemination of Information

Screening

Identification

Final Matching

1 Information dissemination: The Division of Gifted and Outstanding Students in the Ministry of Education invites all schools to recommend tenth and eleventh grade highly gifted students for the program. At the same time, program staff provide details of the program in meetings with educators, parents and gifted students all over the country. Extra effort is made to provide information about the program in the geographical and social periphery in order to provide this rare opportunity to enhance the realization of potential for gifted students from these sectors. The program website contains a more detailed description of the program, the type of gifted students that we are looking for, as well as abstracts of the work of all young scholars in previous cohorts. The Szold Institute issues parent consent forms, student autobiographical questionnaires and teacher recommendation forms. 2 Screening: The program director, coordinator and educational counselor then evaluate student autobiographical questionnaires and teacher

   

official letter presentations website materials to candidates – questionnaire, recommendations

  

evaluating questionnaires and recommendations screening interviews mentor bank

 

committee interview task performance



committee decision

Figure 26.1  The process of creating pairs of mentors and young scholars in the National Mentoring program (2–3 months)

347

The National Mentoring Program in Israel

recommendations according to the following criteria: • Revealing a passion for delving into interest areas in depth; • Thinking creatively; • Asking questions; • Thinking critically; • Integrating new knowledge effectively; • Seeking challenges; • Exhibiting persistence in working on tasks of interest; • Showing willingness to deal with ethical and social aspects of issues. (Zorman et al., 2016) Following the above evaluation, candidates are invited to an individual screening interview with the committee and are asked to bring a sample of their work. During the interview, they are asked questions relating to their interest areas, as well as to various personality attributes, such as the willingness to invest time and effort to commit to work on a research project in their area for a full year. The committee decides which candidates are to proceed to the next step, which is the identification interview with the potential mentor. The committee chooses potential mentors in the candidates’ areas of interest from a mentor bank which was created by the Szold Institute. The mentor bank includes more than 100 highly accomplished professionals from various disciplines in higher education, in research institutes and in industry, as well as acclaimed performers in the arts. These professionals are also experienced in working with gifted youth, which is vital for creating a relationship enhancing talent and skills and promoting leadership. 3 Identification: This step involves an individual identification interview with each of the candidates, which is performed by the program coordinator, the educational counselor, and the potential mentor. Before the interview, each

candidate receives a task designed by the potential mentor, relating to the candidate’s interest field. During the interview, the candidate and the mentor discuss the task, and the committee asks more questions relating to each candidate’s cognitive and personality attributes. 4 Final matching: The last step is performed between mentors and young scholars, whilst the committee reviews the information gleaned from candidates’ autobiographical questionnaires, teacher recommendations, screening and identification interviews, and task performance.

As a result of this process, 83 pairs of young scholars and mentors were formed into five program cohorts. As Table 26.1 indicates, 54% of the young scholars were males and 46% were females. However, it is interesting to note that in the third and the fifth cohorts, most of the young scholars were females (56% and 80%, respectively). It cannot be determined, as yet, whether these findings indicate a change in trend, or just chance fluctuations in gender. More cohorts are needed in order to define a change in gender balance. More than a third (36%) of the young scholars lived in the geographical or social periphery.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: FUSING LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INTO THE MENTORING PROCESS In line with the components of leadership common to all of the definitions of leadership surveyed by Mathews (2004) and Sisk

Table 26.1  Young scholar characteristics in the first five cohorts of the National Mentoring program (n = 83) Cohort Total

Males

Females

First (17) Second (18) Third (18) Four (15) Fifth (15) Total (83)

12 (71%) 12 (67%) 8 (44%) 10 (67%) 3 (20%) 45 (54%)

5 (29%) 6 (33%) 10 (56%) 5 (33%) 12 (80%) 38 (46%)

Geographical or social periphery 7 (41%) 9 (50%) 5 (28%) 3 (20%) 6 (40%) 30 (36%)

348

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

(2015), the National Mentoring program creates a structure which fosters knowledge and research and problem-solving skills in various talent areas, while cultivating interpersonal skills, as well as self-confidence and self-reflection. These, in turn, enhance individual, group and community values, culminating in accomplishing professional tasks and commitment to lead activities utilizing one’s knowledge and skills to advance the community. Figure 26.2 displays two main program components which fuse talent development with skill and commitment development for a full year, with continuous support and feedback provided by program staff. The development of knowledge, research and problem-solving skill in various interest

areas is accomplished through individual meetings of mentors with young scholars at least twice a month for a total of ten hours. In industry, young scholars work one day a week with a mentor and with his/her team. The regularity of meetings ensures continuity and enables the cultivation of the mentoring relationship. During the meetings, each pair chooses a specific area for study and research. They explore these areas by focusing on certain research questions or topics in the visual and performing arts. They proceed to investigate these in depth and create products in the visual and performing arts, and/or conduct research, analyzing and discussing results and reaching conclusions. The interest areas of the young scholars are quite varied. As Table 26.2 shows, most Talent Development

Skill & Commitment Development

Implementing community activity & Planning final product

Final conference

Continuous Support & Feedback

Planning community activity

Skill building

Individual meetings at least twice a month for a total of ten hours

Opening conference

Figure 26.2  The Implementation of the National Mentoring Program in Israel (12 months) Table 26.2  The talent areas of the young scholars in the first five cohorts of the National Mentoring program (n = 83) Talent areas/cohort total First (17) Second (18) Third (18) Four (15) Fifth (15) Total (83)

Exact and life sciences 9 (53%) 12 (67%) 11 (61%) 8 (53%) 9 (60%) 49 (59%)

Social sciences and the humanities

Art, music, dance and film

5 (29%) 2 (11%) 4 (22%) 6 (40%) 3 (20%) 20 (24%)

3 (18%) 4 (22%) 3 (17%) 1 ( 7%) 3 (20%) 14 (17%)

The National Mentoring Program in Israel

of the work (59%) focuses on topics in the exact and life sciences; close to a quarter (24%) of the work is performed on topics in the social sciences or in the humanities; and 17% focuses on art, music, dance or film. Activities which develop leadership skills and commitment are included in the program, aimed at fostering individual, group and community values. These activities include an opening and a closing conference, which are held with all of the program stakeholders, and three group meetings with the young scholars held during the year of program implementation. The opening conference provides a more detailed description of the program, and clarifies expectations with the young scholars, their parents and mentors. During the conference, young scholars from different parts of the country become acquainted with one another and the sense of a group begins to emerge. Moreover, they create a ‘contract’ with their mentors, forming the general structure of their mutual project, establishing milestones and a timetable to reach these milestones. A session is also held with the young scholars’ parents to address their concerns and to discuss ways of supporting their sons and daughters on this unique journey. The skill-building meeting is held with the young scholars about two months after the opening conference. They engage in group building and interpersonal skill activities, discussing issues relating to their individual projects, such as effective time and stress management, and dealing with frustration. They also hone their critical thinking skills by discussing strategies for meaningful reading of academic literature and for conducting and presenting research. Young scholars meet again about half way through the program to discuss progress in their individual projects, as well to plan a community activity. They brainstorm ideas for community activities and decide collectively how to implement them in small groups. As an example, young scholars in the fifth cohort chose to plan and implement

349

workshops for sixth-grade students in three topics: film, emotions and language. They divided into three groups, each having a group leader in charge of organizing the activities and maintaining communication between group members, who come from different parts of the country. They proceeded to discuss how to integrate each young scholar’s interest area in one of these topics and planned the workshops. Two months before the end of the program year, the young scholars meet to conduct the community activity and to plan the final products of their individual projects. In the example of the fifth cohort, in the first half of the meeting, the young scholars conducted workshops on film, emotions and language with grade six students. Each of the young scholars facilitated part of the workshop and clearly enjoyed their work with the students, who were attentive and participated enthusiastically. In the second half of the meeting, the young scholars discussed ways to conclude their individual projects and summarize them in academic posters and in abstracts of their work, to be presented in the final conference. The final conference is held at the end of the program year and is intended for the whole cohort, their mentors, parents and interested educators. Those who have completed an art project, such as an animation or feature film, or dance, present it in video, others present a poster session. Program staff prepare a book for each cohort, consisting of a report on the ‘story’ of the cohort – the matching process of young scholars and mentors, program implementation, and the results of the formative evaluation of the program and abstracts of participants’ work. During the final conference, several representatives of the young scholars and their mentors relate their experiences in the program, relaying the meaning of mentoring, and of planning and leading community activities. Other young scholars, from different interest areas, present their completed projects to the audience, discussing both methodology and results.

350

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

All of the above activities are planned and implemented by the program director, the coordinator and an educational counselor specializing in working with gifted students. They are available to supply continuous support and feedback to all program participants, including young scholars, their parents, and mentors. The educational counselor also offers individual counselling, as needed. Program staff provide the link portrayed in Figure 26.2 between talent development and skill and commitment development.

FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM Data about progress toward goal and objective fulfillment in the program are obtained by surveying young scholars three times a year, at the beginning, middle and end of the program. Mentors are also surveyed at the end of the program. As indicated above, the goal of the program is to cultivate leadership in various talent areas. The goal is expressed in three measureable objectives assessed at the end of the one-year program. Evidence collected in the first five cohorts relating to objective fulfillment is presented below:

Objective 1 Objective 1: Providing opportunities for highly gifted learners to engage in in-depth

professional investigation of specific topics of interest and passion, leading to research publications or products at an exceptional level. Several facets of this objective were measured, as follows.

Young scholars’ rate of program completion A total of 79 out of 83 young scholars, constituting 95% of the young scholars, completed the program. Only four young scholars did not complete the program in the first five cohorts. Three young scholars dropped out in the first cohort because they felt a sense of strain in their attempt to integrate work on their individual project with their school work and one left in the fourth cohort because of health reasons.

Young scholars’ perception of program contribution to curiosity and knowledge Table 26.3 presents findings of young scholars’ agreement (on a five-point scale ranging from 1 – do not agree to 5 – agree to a very great extent) relating to their statements of what they had gained from the program. Almost all (96%) agreed to a great or very great extent that the program helped them gain a lot of knowledge, by reading about their topic and learning on their own, and by conducting research facilitated by their mentors. In the words of some of the students: ‘The meetings with the mentor helped me acquire lots of knowledge and skills in this

Table 26.3  Young scholars’ perceptions at program completion regarding the contribution of the National Mentoring program in the first five cohorts (n = 79) Statement/ cohort total

I gained a lot of knowledge in the program

The program enhanced my curiosity considerably

The program enabled me to become familiar with the work style required in the content area

The program enabled me to think about my future career

First (14) Second (18) Third (18) Four (14) Fifth (15) Total (79)

13 (93%) 18 (100%) 17 (94%) 13 (93%) 15 (100%) 76 (96%)

12 (86%) 12 (67%) 10 (56%) 12 (86%) 13 (87%) 59 (75%)

12 (86%) 17 (94%) 16 (94%) 13 (93%) 13 (87%) 71 (90%)

11 (79%) 15 (83%) 13 (72%) 10 (71%) 10 (67%) 59 (75%)

The National Mentoring Program in Israel

area’. More specifically, ‘the work with the mentor enabled me to delve in depth into the topic of investigation and design an original methodological synthesis of approach to this topic’. Other students noted that they learned how to perform academic research. One said that he ‘learned a lot from the specific research performed and about research in general’. Another reported that she learned how ‘to write an academic work and express concepts and thoughts in a more effective way’. Table 26.3 also indicates that three quarters (75%) of the young scholars agreed to a great or very great extent that the program enhanced their curiosity considerably. Some students reported that ‘the more we read and investigate, the more questions arise and they foster curiosity again and again’. One student remarked that: Throughout my research I attempted to re-examine the basic methodological assumptions that I made in light of the evidence. I am certain that the final product is not a product of exclamation points, but rather of deep questions regarding my assumptions and some of the research literature on the topic.

Thus, the findings regarding the first objective of the program point out that some of the components which are essential for talent realization actually exist in the program.

Extraordinary achievements of young scholars One of the unique aspects of the National Mentoring program is that at the end of only one year, all young scholars produce, with the guidance of their mentor, an academiclevel product demonstrating creative problem-solving. As Table 26.4 shows, more than half (61%) of program participants reached extraordinary professional achievements. Close to a third (32%) of the young scholars who completed the first five cohorts of the program, chose to enroll concurrently in their fields of specialization or in related fields, in universities and research institutes,

351

while still in high school. Twenty percent of the young scholars continued to work with their mentor on a joint project after program completion. Close to a quarter (22%) of the young scholars published their work in professional journals, while 18% presented their work in professional conferences in Israel and abroad. Eighteen percent of the young scholars participated in national and international Olympics, and 18% participated in various other competitions, winning medals and high honors. Eighteen percent of the young scholars developed practical applications, such as patents in autonomous cars, software to analyze medical data, or works of art and social comics which were exhibited in galleries, animation and feature films which were played in festivals, and musical compositions and arrangements which were played in concerts by professional orchestras. In summary, it appears from the findings presented above that the National Mentoring program is succeeding in creating a nurturing environment which promotes creative problem-solving and leadership in various talent areas. At present, a longitudinal follow-up of young scholars has begun to ascertain the long-term effects of the program.

Objective 2 Objective 2: Introducing highly gifted students to possible careers which may enable them to realize their potential. As shown in Table 26.3, almost all (90%) young scholars agreed to a great or very great extent that the program enabled them to become familiar with the work style required to do research or to produce work in the talent area which they explored. Some of the students noted that ‘participation in the program exposed us to a new way of working – reviewing relevant literature, designing and performing experiments, analyzing results, and writing scientific text’. One of the students remarked that

352

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 26.4  Extraordinary achievements of young scholars in the first five cohorts of the National Mentoring Program (n = 48)* Type of achievement

N of young scholars

Examples of achievement

Advanced study in academic institutions

25 (32%)

• Graduate level studies in physics and chemistry at the Weizmann Institute and at Tel Aviv University • Academic studies in major universities in Israel in mathematics, science, social sciences, humanities and music, in line with the areas of areas of interest pursued in the program • Expanding the research • Summarizing research results in articles for publication • Presenting research in psychology, linguistics, history, biology, and brain science in professional conferences in Israel • Presenting research on the interface between man and machine, on integrating art with mathematics, and in psychology, in international conferences in the USA, in England and in Holland • Publishing research in linguistics and history in professional journals in Israel • Publishing research in mathematics, science, the interface between man and machine, and psychology in professional journals abroad • Receiving medals in computer science, chemistry and brain science in Olympics in Israel • Receiving medals in physics, chemistry, mathematics, brain and computer sciences in international Olympics • Winning prizes in the competition for ‘young scientists and developers in Israel’ • Winning prizes in mathematics competitions in Israel • Winning first prize for research on the holocaust from the Massuah Institute for Holocaust Studies. • Representing Israel in the Intel – ISEF competition in the USA In the sciences: • Developing software and analyzing medical data in major hospitals in Israel, enabling doctors to predict risk for diabetes and cardio-vascular diseases for various populations • Researching mathematical patterns in art for developing effective interface design of future cars and aircraft • Developing an algorithm for interface between man and machine for future cars and writing a patent on it with the mentor In the arts, music and film: • Exhibiting paintings and social comics in art galleries • Playing original musical compositions and arrangements in concerts with professional orchestras • Presenting animation and feature films in various film festivals

Continued research with mentors 16 (20%) Presentation of research in professional conferences in Israel and abroad

14 (18%)

Publication of research in professional journals in Israel and abroad

17 (22%)

Participation in Olympics in Israel 14 (18%) and abroad

Participation in competitions in Israel and abroad

14 (18%)

Developing practical applications 14 (18%) and/or actual products in the arts

Note: *Several young scholars attained extraordinary achievements in multiple categories.

The National Mentoring Program in Israel

the work style is very different from school. It is much more professional, with structures that are, on the one hand, very systematic, and on the other hand, opening us to enormous possibilities for research and information sources. I learned that laboratory research is not very exciting as it seems from the outside. Rather, it includes a lot of hard, laborious work. However, the satisfaction of designing research and receiving results is so immense, that I think it is worth it.

Furthermore, Table 26.3 also shows that three quarters (75%) of the young scholars agreed to a great or very great extent that the program enabled them to consider future careers related to the research which they performed. Many of the students remarked that ‘the program exposed us to new research areas that we never encountered before, and we found that we liked them’. One student noted: ‘I realized that I enjoy the scientific research process and I would like to continue this in my academic studies and future career’. Another student stated that ‘the program made me think about this interest area as the area that I would like to specialize in, which I never realized until now’. Other students talked about the program as strengthening their desire to develop a career in the interest area that they researched in the program. For instance, one student stated that ‘my exposure to the world of medicine in the program increased my motivation to study and practice medicine in the future’. Another student noted that ‘I always had the desire to study the brain. This program helped me realize how much I want to do research in this field and how much it interests me’. Another student declared that ‘my mission is in particle physics. I enjoyed so much working in this field in the program and I realized that this is what I would like to do in the future. I have no doubt that I will continue to delve into this field and love it long after I complete the program’. Thus, the findings regarding the second objective of the program also indicate that the program promotes exploration of actual

353

careers in various talent areas through firstrate hands-on experience.

Objective 3 Objective 3: Exploring ways to utilize their skills and knowledge to contribute to the community in a meaningful manner. This objective was introduced in the fifth cohort. All of the young scholars in this cohort participated in group activities promoting leadership skills and commitment. Moreover, all of the young scholars planned and implemented the community activity very thoughtfully. They noted that they ‘learned a lot on how to present activities in a fun and interesting manner’ so that it was ‘enjoyable to teach students who want to study and show interest’. Observations of the activities indicated that the sixth-grade students who participated in the activities thoroughly enjoyed them. Furthermore, feedback from their teachers indicated that they talked about their experiences afterwards and said that they comprised some of the best highlights in their studies. Thus, it seems that the skill building and community activities promoted the ability of young scholars to lead projects in their fields of talent for the benefit of others.

THE IMPLICATIONS FOR A MODEL FOR MENTORING GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS The National Mentoring program was presented at several international conferences. Educators from several countries expressed interest in implementing such a program in their countries. A group of educators in the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education had recently begun to implement a similar mentoring program, and discussed structural

354

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and pedagogical issues with program staff in Israel.

CONCLUSION: STRUCTURAL AND PEDAGOGICAL PRINCIPLES ENHANCING EFFECTIVENESS Several key structural rinciples and pedagogical practices, which emerge from the National Mentoring Program in Israel, seem to be critical in creating a mentoring program enhancing achievement and leadership. The structural principles relate to program components that are essential for such a program and to the process of identifying young scholars and matching them with suitable mentors. These principles include: 1 Creating opportunities for fusing talent development with skill and commitment to contribute to others. The program needs to include regular meetings between individuals and mentors in their work environment, at least twice a month for ten hours over a full year. This is essential to enable young scholars to comprehend what it is like to do research and produce new ideas and knowledge, or to develop a work of art, using cutting edge methods and equipment. Moreover, at the same time, young scholars need opportunities to hone their study and time management skills as well as strengthen their commitment and motivation to deal with challenges both in terms of their research projects as well as in their work with the community. This is essential to enhance group cohesiveness, to work on values important for leadership, and to plan together and implement activities contributing to the community. 2 Providing continuous support to young scholars and mentors. Since the focus of the program are teenagers, who are in the midst of developing their personal identity, it is important to provide them with professional assistance to cope with the challenges involved in engaging in such an intensive process of research; and to help them hone their skills and maintain their motivation to complete work and implement community activities. Furthermore, some of the mentors may also need help in dealing with the challenges of working with highly gifted students who need to

bridge wide gaps in knowledge and skills to complete a project. Therefore, a skilled educational counselor and program coordinator is needed. 3 Designing a process to ensure best fit between mentors and young scholars. Since the starting point of the program is the specific interest areas of the young scholars, it is important to zero in on these interests through autobiographical questionnaires and teacher recommendations, and to interview the young people to discuss their interests and assess their level of commitment to engage in an intensive research project. Therefore, the program needs to have some means of disseminating information to create a candidate pool. There also needs to be some form of screening interview to explore candidates’ interests and commitment level, which, in turn, leads to a search for the ‘right’ mentor. Finally it is necessary to match the candidates with a prospective mentor through an identification interview. 4 Establishing a mentor bank. Since the program caters to various interests and talent areas of young scholars in different geographical areas, it is imperative to create a mentor bank. This bank may consist of leading professionals in various talent areas from universities, research institutes, and industry, as well as noted professionals in the arts. These individuals need to be accomplished in the talent fields, as well as have experience in working with teenagers.

The pedagogical practices presented below relate to best practices of strategies to work with young scholars to enhance leadership. These practices include: 1 Flexibility of individual work with young scholars. In our program, each pair of young scholar and mentor created its own ‘contract’ of expectations, and chose the work strategies that were right for them. Some mentors provided the young scholars with lots of materials to read before zeroing in on a new topic of research, while others involved them with ongoing research. Some mentors invited young scholars to attend academic courses, or to join their research team part of the time, while others worked with them one-on-one all of the time. 2 Experiential workshop-style group meetings with young scholars. Skill and commitment enhancement were developed through group games

The National Mentoring Program in Israel

and discussions, where all cohort members had the chance to express themselves and to feel a sense of belonging. Discussions were had about meeting challenges, developing persistence, and enhancing motivation and self-confidence. Moreover, students developed their own activities for the community, brainstormed ideas, and designed and implemented activities in small groups. 3 Engage participants in academic writing. All of the young scholars were required to produce an academic poster, as well as an academic summary of their work. This was important to help them become familiar with academic reporting of research. 4 Provide and receive feedback systematically. Young scholars provided feedback regarding their work and their relationship with their mentors through questionnaires three times a year. Mentors provided feedback from their perspective through questionnaires at the end a year. This feedback was important for formative evaluation. Young scholars, mentors and parents were also encouraged to contact program staff whenever they encountered a problem or needed individual support.

In summary, we suggest that the structural and pedagogical principles gleaned from the experience of implementing and evaluating the National Mentoring program in Israel, provide the essential components of a model for mentoring which enhances achievement and leadership among gifted high school scholars.

REFERENCES Bianco, M., Carothers, D. E., & Smiley, L. R. (2009). Gifted students with Asperger syndrome: Strategies for strength-based programming. Intervention in School & Clinic, 44(4), 206–213. Bisland, A. (2001). Mentoring: An educational alternative for gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 22–25, 64. Cakir, L., & Kocabas, I. (2016). Mentoring in gifted student’s education and a model suggestion. Educational Process: International Journal, 5(1), 76–90.

355

Casey, K. M. A, & Shore, B. M. (2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22(4), 227–230. Clasen, D. R., & Clasen, R. E. (2003). Mentoring the gifted and talented. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (eds), Handbook of gifted education (3rd edn, pp. 254–267). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Grassinger, R., Porath, M., & Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: A conceptual analysis. High Ability Studies, 21(1), 27–46. Mathews, M. S. (2004). Leadership education for gifted and talented youth: A review of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(1), 77–113. Purcell, J. H., Renzulli, J. S., McCoach, D. B., & Spottiswoode, H. (2001). The magic of mentorships. Parenting for High Potential, 22–26. Rachmel, S. & Zorman, R. (2003). Gifted students as path breakers. The Israeli experience. Gifted and Talented International, 18(1), 36–43. Roach, A. A., Wyman, L. T., Brookes, H., Chavez, C., Brice-Heath, S., & Valdes, G. (1999). Leadership giftedness: Models revisited. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(1), 13–24. Scharmer, O. (2009). Ten propositions on transforming the current leadership development paradigm. Amherst, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Shevitz, B., Weinfeld, R., Jeweler, S., & BarnesRobinson, L. (2003). Mentoring empowers gifted learning disabled students to soar! Roeper Review, 26 (1), 37–40. Siegle, D. & McCoach, D. B. (2005). Extending learning through mentorships. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (eds), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd edn, pp. 473– 518). Waco, TX: Prufrock. Sisk D. A. (2015) Developing leadership through global awareness and global learning. In: H. E. Vidergor & C. R. Harris (eds), Applied practice for educators of gifted and able learners (pp. 391–428). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), pp. 3–54.

356

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Winblad, P. (2009). The wisdom of leadership. California: Lighthouse Hill Press. Zorman, R. (1998). A model for adolescent giftedness identification via challenges (MAGIC). Gifted and Talented International, 13, 65–72. Zorman, R. (1993a). Mentoring and role modeling programs for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & A. H. Passow (eds), International

handbook of research on giftedness and talent (pp. 727–741). Oxford: Pergamon. Zorman, R. (1993b). The life-stage mentoring model for the gifted. Gifted International, 8(1), 4–8. Zorman, R., Rachmel, S., & Bashan, Z. (2016). The National Mentoring program in Israel – challenges and achievements. Gifted Education International, 32(2), 173–184.

27 Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners with Exceptional Potential for English-language Learning Aranzazu M. Blackburn and Susen R. Smith

INTRODUCTION In order to contextualise the discussion that follows, this chapter situates multiculturalism in Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI) are the traditional custodians (around 3% of the total population), while waves of multi-ethnic migration from over 200 nations across the world have added to the cultural mix since British colonisation in 1788. Consequently, 33% of Australia’s current population of nearly 25 million people were born overseas, of which, almost 18% had arrived after 2011, and now 75% identify with an ancestry other than Australian. While largely monolingual with English dominating, there are over 300 different languages spoken in Australian homes, with more than 21% speaking a language other than English (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). After English, the next most

common languages spoken at home are Mandarin, Arabic, Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Italian. These statistics highlight the rich cultural diversity of Australian society and provide the rationalisation for exploring bilingualism from an Australian context. Gifted English-Language Learners (GELLs) as a group of students are among the potential beneficiaries of an increasing worldwide focus on student diversity and changing attitudes towards catering for diverse learning needs. With their exceptional potential for English-language learning a hallmark of their broader academic capabilities, attention is being drawn to how to best meet their learning needs as they progress through schooling and beyond. A greater understanding of their capacities and the challenges they face can lead to diminishing barriers to their learning and the development of better-informed curriculum decisions and provisions.

358

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

THINKING NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY With the growing influence of migration, globalisation, and other geopolitical forces, as well as advances in science, communications, and associated technologies, the world is increasingly adopting English as its default lingua franca across many domains, and research in the field of GELLs echoes this trend almost exclusively. Whilst the term English as a Second Language (ESL) is frequently used, what is missing from the conversation is the lack of agreement on a universal term for the identification or labelling of students immersed in the process of acquiring the language of instruction that is not their mother tongue, and when it is not necessarily English, either. Furthermore, with over half the people in the world being native speakers of more than one language, and bilingualism and multilingualism the norm in many populations (Fromkin, Rodman, Hyams, Collins, & Amberber, 2005), the imposition of the term second as driven by historical factors from Englishdominant monolingual countries also needs to be re-examined. There is no global consensus yet as to the most appropriate terminology to define learners with exceptional potential for English-language learning. In Australia the current terminology used to describe the linguistic background of English-Language Learners (ELLs) is EAL/D, or English as an Additional Language or Dialect. Globally, other terminology used includes ESL, or English as a Second Language, EFL, or English as a Foreign Language, and ESOL, or English for Speakers of Other Languages; however, Matthews (2014a) has cautioned against the use of these terms for describing the students themselves and has suggested reserving the acronyms for the description of specific programming and services. The term LEP (Limited English Proficient) is still used in the United States (Mulé, 2010); however, as it implies a deficit-centred approach it is

less familiar outside the US legal system. As the focus is also on gifted students in this context, gifted English-language learners, or GELLs will be used in this chapter. While GELLs may have some similar characteristics to mainstream ELLs, they will also display characteristics of giftedness and/or talents as identified by different English-speaking countries’ policies on the identification of gifted students. Most gifted education policies in the Australian context have adopted Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) 2.0 (Gagné, 2008, 2009). Gagné’s DMGT details different domains of giftedness and GELLs may exhibit any of the characteristics identified within one or more domains of giftedness. An accurate identification process would elaborate specific characteristics of individual GELLs. Regardless of domains or labels, no student population is a homogenous group, and, likewise, homogeneity is not represented in either mainstream ELLs or GELLs. In fact: Different English-dominant countries (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia) have received and continue to receive students from diverse countries and cultures as a response to unique social, historical, and political antecedents, including legal and illegal immigration, slavery, transportation, colonialism, geographical proximity, political persecution and exile, war and invasion, and a host of other push and pull factors. (Blackburn, Cornish, & Smith, 2016, p. 339)

Research categorises these diverse populations into different ELL cultural and linguistic divisions, including whether the student is an immigrant, indigenous, or of migrant heritage but born in the English-speaking country (ACARA, 2011; Begay & Maker, 2007; Yoon & Gentry, 2009). This is evident in GELLs research on groups such as AsianAmericans (Kao & Hébert, 2006; Yoon & Gentry, 2009), and Hispanic-Americans, with a further subdivision of the last group into Puerto Rican-Americans and MexicanAmericans (Cline & Schwartz, 1999). With population diversity in terms of social,

Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners

linguistic, and cultural variances on the rise it is becoming increasingly more difficult to create and define fixed categories.

GIFTED ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ ADVANCED CAPABILITIES GELLs have demonstrated abilities within and across multiple domains that are beyond those of their mainstream ELL peers. Generally, GELLs have also been described as excelling in the rate and speed of their acquisition of English (Castellano & Robertson, 2014) and in the development of higher levels of psychosocial skills (Reis, Colbert, & Hébert, 2004). The interrelationship between these two abilities has implications for how curriculum and provisions for this group of students should be developed (Smith, 2017). A key capacity of GELLs often mentioned in the literature is their accelerated progress in the acquisition of English, leading to the demonstration of Englishlanguage proficiency earlier than mainstream ELLs, and eventually, bilingualism (e.g., Castellano & Diaz, 2002b; Matthews & Castellano, 2014). Whilst no studies exist to date comparing the rate of progression between the two groups of students, the accelerated rate at which GELLs switch from one language to another, as demonstrated through the modes of speaking, reading, and writing, reflects gifted behaviour (Granada, 2002). Furthermore, the opportunities to use two languages for learning and processing new information in bilingual environments have been found to heighten learning (Green, Spivey, Ferris, Bernal, & Izquierdo, 2011). This linguistic advantage is, of course, heavily dependent on entry points into the English-based education system as well as the type and duration of English-language instruction and support. Research has, in fact, indicated that being exposed to English

359

from an early age creates the opportunity for students to develop early bilingualism and native-like proficiency in English (Hamers & Blanc, 2000), even if their exposure to English only begins when they start school around age five. Research has also demonstrated that being bilingual from an early age enhances the development of social cognition skills, executive functioning, and metalinguistic awareness due to the experience of manipulating and processing more than one linguistic system (Kalashnikova & Mattock, 2014). Accelerated student progress in the acquisition and flexibility of use of English is not only heightened in GELLs, but is also paramount to their overall learning and progress at school. As well as their accelerated progression in the acquisition of English, GELLs have been reported as possessing positive psychosocial characteristics, such as a strong self-belief, independence, determination to succeed, seeking new challenges, inner will, and a deep appreciation of cultural diversity (Reis, Colbert, & Hébert, 2004; Sisk, 2015), despite on-going negative teacher perceptions to the contrary (Matthews, 2014b). Access to support systems, including networking with like-minded peers (regardless of cultural or linguistic background); supportive adults, including teachers and parents; and the opportunity to participate in special programs, honours classes, enrichment programs, appropriately challenging advanced classes, and extracurricular activities, all contribute to the development of resilience in GELLs. Ultimately, the key capacity of GELLs is not only their ability but also their motivation and commitment to learning English quickly, accurately, and efficiently as part of their journey towards ongoing academic success (Sisk, 2015). Learning English is generally not perceived as an end, but rather as a means to an end. They understand not only its communicative function but also its utility for the acquisition of new learning (Blackburn, 2016).

360

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

CHALLENGES FOR GIFTED ENGLISHLANGUAGE LEARNERS Identification Issues The identification of gifted students of all ages and from all types of backgrounds is a topic that has attracted a vast deal of research, with several publications dedicating entire volumes to its exploration. A 2000 edition of Roeper Review, for example, published 12 articles in a single volume that considered the then current trends in gifted education in nine countries, with approaches to identification featuring heavily (Milgram, 2000). More recently, in a 2011 review of his 1978 article, Renzulli made a number of recommendations for the improvement of the identification of gifted students, including those from minority groups. These changes included prioritising the use of school-level norms over amalgamated national or state norms and developing a weighting system to help achieve equity due to the disproportional emphasis on test scores compared to creativity or task commitment (Renzulli, 2011). With regards to GELLs, identification has been less researched and is more complex. There are findings that support alternative approaches (e.g., Kogan, 2001); however, their poor application continues to receive criticism (Esquierdo & Arreguín-Anderson, 2012). Identification of GELLs has also been especially problematic due to reliance on functioning in the English language (Castellano, 2002), as it is mostly through the communicative modes of speaking and writing that students have the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. The poor understanding of the linguistic functioning of GELLs in the language of instruction may point to either a lack of awareness or a lack of prioritisation on behalf of policy-makers and educators with regards to their interpretation of the expression of giftedness, consequently perhaps contributing to the under-identification of GELLs.

As contemporary trends show a shift away from the emphasis on categorical definitions of giftedness towards the adoption of a talent development perspective (Matthews, 2014a; Pfeiffer, 2012), multiple identification strategies that are culturally appropriate are required (Erwin & Worrell, 2012). These strategies were among the proposals featured in a 2012 special edition of the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, that also showcased several new measures and tools for identification of giftedness such as the Distance from Privilege Measures (Kerr et  al., 2012) and Aurora (Kornilov, Tan, Elliott, Sternberg, & Grigorenko, 2012). In Australia, schools and systems that use Gagné’s DMGT 2.0 are better positioned for developing processes not only for the identification of gifts in students, but also for making arrangements for talent development for all gifted students, including GELLs. By focusing on the developmental process within the model a greater range of abilities and talents can be identified and catered for.

Teaching and learning through english In monolingual contexts where bilingual education opportunities are not available to GELLs, success for this group of students can be impeded where teaching and learning occur only through English. Indeed, students have self-identified their disadvantage compared to English-speaking students, particularly with regards to acquiring sufficient English to communicate clearly their learning through the written medium, with grammar highlighted as the greatest barrier (Blackburn, 2016). Students in Blackburn’s study were also acutely aware that compared to their English-speaking peers they were at a disadvantage by having to access the curriculum through English and demonstrate their knowledge in and of English. Despite their rapid rate of acquisition of English being considered a strength, students

Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners

perceived a lack of special consideration for their learning needs. Recommendations for the support of GELLs in learning through English include immersing students in curricula that allow the learner to engage freely with concepts and generalisations in any language whilst acquiring the necessary vocabulary and engaging in the usage of the English language (Granada, 2002). Kitano and Espinosa (1995) also noted that practices from bilingual education programs, such as the on-going development of knowledge and skills in the first language and its transfer into the second language, were found to be efficacious. Indeed, according to Granada (2002), ‘the gifted curriculum should support language acquisition in general, without having the learning of English as its focus’ (p. 139).

Acculturation and socio-cultural barriers Much of the current literature on migration and ethnic identity has paid attention to the process of acculturation, highlighting the central role of the migrant’s maintenance or rejection of his or her ethnic culture in the acculturation strategy adopted after immigration (Nesdale, Rooney, & Smith, 1997). Research into bilingual students and cultural identity has supported the assertion that students on the whole have positive experiences from being born into and belonging to another culture (Fielding & Harbon, 2013; Sisk, 2015). The causal impact of migrant ethnic identity on the acculturation process itself post-immigration has received less attention; however, research in this area has indicated that being of migrant status per se is associated with greater psychological disturbance than if the individual had remained in his or her country of birth (Kuprinski, 1984). Cultural values and cultural identity have always been considered important parameters for GELLs. Rance-Roney (2004) noted that as part of the development of their personal identity, GELLs have tended to engage in the

361

formation of a new interstitial identity as the lifelong process of acculturation continues. The term interstitial is applied to the ‘changing historical, political, and geopolitical narratives’ (Sheth, 2014, p. 76) experienced by individuals who engage in the acculturation process. As GELLs deal with a multiplicity of identity facets not only with regards to their identity as gifted individuals but also to their cultural identity, this process has significant implications for these students. It is not surprising, then, that gifted ELLs in their adolescent years face psychological challenges in determining and developing their interstitial identity. Despite the establishment of a hybrid understanding of ethnicity (Lee, 1995) where students have access to identification as dual nationals (e.g., styling themselves as Chinese-Americans), a greater challenge is faced by GELLs in countering the effects of feelings of isolation and lack of acceptance and their impact on self-esteem. On the whole, however, the self-esteem of ethnic adolescents has consistently been reported to be positively related to their ethnic identity (Phinney, 1992) and adds to their sense of agency. GELLs often encounter socio-cultural barriers not only in their identity formation, but also in their education. As well as the challenges of learning in, about, and through English, GELLs often express their frustration not only with trying to acquire sufficient command of the English language to participate fully in the curriculum, but also in understanding the socio-cultural context of their own learning. They are keenly aware that the language and content of curricula are significantly oriented towards the dominant language and culture, and they perceive assimilationist intents therein despite the considerable inclusionist efforts of recent times (Blackburn, 2016). Recommendations for more culturally diverse and culturally inclusive curricula have been made (Garcia, 2002; Sisk, 2015). Sisk (2015) and Gay (2010) have reinforced culturally relevant

362

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

pedagogy that is validating, comprehensive, multidimensional, empowering, transformative, and emancipatory to meet the diverse needs of students.

Underachievement Underachievement in general gifted populations has been noted by Reis (1998) as being a frustrating challenge for both teachers and parents. It has been even more of a concern for populations of GELLs, where other personal and situational and environmental factors have come into play. Factors with a potential to result in underachievement for GELLs include poor time management and task avoidance, psychosocial stressors, and linguistic and socio-cultural differences, identified in the literature and by students themselves (e.g., Blackburn, 2016; Dixon & Moon, 2006). Time management and task avoidance are concepts expressed as key concerns by GELLs that have the potential to lead to underachievement. For some students, poor time management skills and task-avoidance behaviours impact on their learning and progress, despite being able to see the potential increase in output (higher grades, for example) if these skills were improved. Common adolescent distracters, such as television, music, movies, social media, and video games act as impediments (Blackburn, 2016). Interestingly, gifted adolescents have identified a preference for temporary diversions over purposefully procrastinating (Shaunessy & Suldo, 2010). The social-emotional functioning of gifted adolescents has received less attention in educational research, though aspects such as high excitability and sensitivity (Piechowski, 2003) and perfectionism (Margot & Rinn, 2016) have been explored. Cho and Yoon (2005) considered the psychological wellbeing of gifted Korean adolescents, whilst Shaunessy and Suldo (2010) investigated the levels of perceived stress behaviours of gifted

adolescents in International Baccalaureate programs. Specific to GELLs, Rance-Roney (2004) identified that for some students significant psychosocial stressors included trying to comply with parental expectations, managing workloads, and exams. For others, psychosocial stressors have emerged as a result of forced cultural transitions due to the effects of migration, an everincreasing global phenomenon (de Block & Buckingham, 2007). GELLs are also at risk of boredom and poor engagement due to an insufficiently challenging curriculum and a lack of opportunities to engage with like-minded peers. These students are also at risk of developing low self-efficacy, displaying insufficient perseverance, and not capitalising on strategies for constructively dealing with problems. Family dynamics, and adolescence may also contribute negatively (Rance-Roney, 2004). Other barriers to learning resulting in underachievement stem from achievement being measured in the language of instruction, and through a differing cultural worldview. Indeed, GELLs themselves have acknowledged the contribution of predominantly linguistic and socio-cultural differences to their underachievement. Some students have recognized that they were not achieving to their fullest potential because of linguistic limitations (Blackburn, 2016). The difference between mother tongue capability and English as the language of instruction creates a language barrier that may mask GELLs’ real potential, with underachievement as the end result. This, in turn, may further highlight their language difficulties, rather than their giftedness.

Under-representation Inadequate identification processes have had a negative follow-on effect for GELLs in accessing appropriate levels of educational support. The disadvantages have been evidenced in the under-representation of GELLs

Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners

in gifted programs in mainstream schools and their overrepresentation in special education programs (Davis, 2009; Matthews, 2006). These placement issues still occur because often teacher prejudice and misconceptions derived from misunderstanding their true capabilities and the focus on perceived deficits produce misdiagnoses. Combined with selective referrals, deficitbased paradigms, and a lack of multiple criteria and multiple data sources, the end result is often inappropriate placement and underrepresentation in gifted education programs (Brice & Brice, 2004; Ford, 2013). The prominent gap in support services for GELLs should be alleviated with increased representation of GELLs in gifted education programs. This can only be achieved with more equitable identification processes using multiple techniques that recognise students’ diverse strengths, and lead to purposefully designed and relevant curriculum and pedagogy that reflect cultural and linguistic diversity (Briggs, Reis, & Sullivan, 2008).

CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY FOR GIFTED ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LEARNERS GELLs have been identified as having specific learning needs that both overlap and yet are distinct from both ELLs and gifted students’ needs. The need for differentiated curriculum and pedagogy to meet both GELLs’ advanced language-learning capacities in non-native language contexts, and accelerated learning through English language are emphasised.

Instructional Models and Provisions Generally Personalised learning intends to meet the needs of all learners and depends on ‘both effective teacher differentiation of a set curriculum to address diversity of learner needs,

363

and the development of independent learner capacities’ (Prain et  al., 2013, p. 656). Accommodations for student diversity in Australia, specifically for those with a disability, gifted and talented students, and EAL/D students have been mentioned by ACARA (2016) in the Australian Curriculum and build upon existing practices in schools. Recommendations from ACARA with regards to curriculum adjustments have focused on drawing from learning area content at different levels, adjusting the learning focus by using general capabilities and/or cross-curriculum priorities, and developing individual learning goals (ACARA, 2016). With regards to recent practices in Australian schools for gifted students, a sample of these practices was identified in a 2011 study (Gross, Urquhart, Doyle, Juratowitch, & Matheson, 2011). Data collected from educators through 211 self-administered survey questionnaires indicated that the most implemented measure for gifted students, as reported by 84.6% of respondents, was ‘enrichment, extension of content in regular mixed ability classes’ followed by ‘provision of beyond grade level curriculum in specific talent area’ (68.6%) and ‘flexible performance grouping within the classroom for differentiated tasks’ (66.7%) (p. 18). In this survey, placement in an Opportunity Class or Selective High School (specifically for identified gifted students) was reported by 19.0% of respondents. Tomlinson (2004) and Winebrenner (1992) have published works on differentiation in the general classroom for gifted and talented students, describing practical in-class and wholeschool programs and strategies. In Australia specifically, Smith (2009, 2015, 2017), Munro (2013), and Jarvis (2013) have focused their research and practice on differentiated curriculum and pedagogy. They have provided strategies that link to the diverse needs of the broader gifted education population, including GELLs. Differentiation practices have also been endorsed by the NSW Department of Education (NSW DET, Curriculum K-12

364

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Directorate, 2004b), and are evident in policy documents relating to the education of gifted and talented students (NSW DET, Curriculum K-12 Directorate, 2004a). Findings from the United States have indicated that competing priorities, including meeting the agenda of high-stakes testing for accountability purposes, have placed pressure on teachers in terms of teaching practices (Hertberg-Davis, 2009). Furthermore, teacher resistance to differentiation, misunderstandings about its practice, unrealistic expectations about teacher education, capacity to differentiate well, and underlying beliefs prevalent in the school culture that gifted students will succeed regardless, have all contributed to the misconception that the needs of gifted students are being appropriately met in mainstream classrooms (Hertberg-Davis, 2009). Despite its global acceptance as a key strategy for meeting the needs of all gifted students, differentiated instruction as a wellpractised type of accommodation is a topic that has caused some controversy. This dissonance is in the main part owing to its varied interpretation and irregular application to the field of gifted education (Adams & Pierce, 2009). Differentiation in its broader sense, though, incorporates all those strategies, programs, and provisions that are needed to meet individual student needs (Smith, 2017). For example, we espouse that acceleration, extension, differentiated instruction, grouping, and special provisions come under the broader umbrella of differentiating curriculum and pedagogy for gifted learners. It is not surprising then, that among other practices that have been advocated for meeting the needs of gifted learners, Neihart (2007) cited numerous investigations and reviews that explored the academic benefits of arrangements such as acceleration and ability grouping.

Improving student support to develop competency in english There is a powerful drive by both students and teachers for students to acquire sufficient

English to be able to unlock their potential and to achieve a sense of belonging in the new cultural environment (Sisk, 2015). The priority of the acquisition of English for GELLs cannot be overstated as the key element in the academic success of these students. Teachers of GELLs have acknowledged a sense of urgency in assisting GELLs to develop their English competency for full participation in the Australian education system and have described teaching methods and approaches they have used in their endeavours (Blackburn, 2016). Linguistic theory has suggested that the development of competency in an additional language begins with the student’s first language, where reading and writing skills, strategies, rules, and attitudes in many cases have already been well established (Harley, Cummins, Swain, & Allen, 2000). Validating a student’s L1 therefore is a considered approach that teachers need to undertake to assist in the development of proficiency in an additional language. Ford and Trotman (2001) noted that culturally responsive teachers had the skills to build upon the students’ home languages and to validate and accommodate language transition. Teachers could also support the use of the important skill of code switching – the insertion of an utterance from one language into the sentence of another when a speaker may not have immediate or automatic access to the necessary vocabulary (Auer, 2002; Hamers & Blanc, 2000). The interlingual positioning of many students also contributes to the formation and development of their interstitial identity and has implications for teaching. In acknowledging the skills these learners bring, as well as recognising them as ‘bi- or pluri-lingual learners who communicate translingually across the languages they use, and who have different literacy learning needs’ (Freebody, Morgan, Comber, & Nixon, 2014, p. 5), new teaching and learning alternatives can be explored. A continued awareness on the part of all educators, not only EAL/D teachers, of

Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners

the linguistic capital students bring with them from the knowledge of their L1 can assist teachers to develop more refined Englishlanguage programs that support students to achieve significant levels of English competency as a result of their learning journey. Research has also indicated that teachers who are more critically informed about migration and acculturation can better provide for the enrichment of the language and literacy development of ELLs (Darvin & Norton, 2014; Sisk, 2015). Indeed, by affirming that ELLs come with valuable transnational knowledge and skills ‘teachers can help migrant students claim more powerful identities from which to navigate investments in the language practices of their new classrooms and communities’ (Darvin & Norton, 2014, p. 116). Teacher education for greater understanding, as well as the employment of teachers from non-English-speaking backgrounds, has the potential to contribute positively to the development of a student’s cultural identity (Sisk, 2015).

DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY FOR GIFTED ENGLISHLANGUAGE LEARNERS Following accurate identification, the education system needs to present GELLs with an appropriately challenging curriculum. In some instances, students in Blackburn’s (2016) inquiry shared their thoughts and opinions about the appropriateness of the curriculum in meeting their learning needs, one being the need for a challenging curriculum. Indeed, the aim of differentiation is to meet the parallels of advanced language capacities with immersion in a non-native language context, including accessing (accelerated) learning in other fields/domains through English language. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of various differentiation strategies and the degree of satisfaction from gifted students and their parents have not

365

been adequately measured in Australia, identifying this as an area that would benefit from further exploration. Amongst various pedagogical approaches suitable for both gifted students as well as ELLs, the opportunity for gifted students to develop, use, and explore higher-order thinking skills has been acknowledged by educators as being purposeful for the continued learning of GELLs. Development of higher-order thinking skills has also been recommended for the general gifted student population in numerous educational models (e.g., VanTassel-Baska, 2008; Smith, 2015) and reflects good pedagogy for all students, not just the gifted. Broader curricular and co-curricular offerings that allow GELLS to explore their interests, utilise their strengths, and demonstrate their gifts and talents regardless of language competency have been found to be most satisfying for GELLs and have been noted by Smutny (2012) to be appropriate teaching strategies. Indeed, extended enrichment opportunities are considered a staple of some gifted education models (e.g., Renzulli & Reis, 2003; Smith, 2017). Extended learning opportunities for gifted students can also include authentic work experiences, service learning, and early and continued career exploration that allow students to explore new interests in a richer and deeper way and expose them to mentors and role models (Rakow, 2011). Kanevsky (2011) compared the preferred ways of learning of gifted and non-gifted students and found that gifted students preferred more complex content, pursuing their own interests, and determining the format of their product. The provisioning of curricular and extra-curricular activities for gifted adolescents has also been found not only to nurture creative potential but also to develop independent self-directed learning (Rakow, 2011). These types of provisions have a positive effect on student self-confidence, communication skills, and thinking skills (VanTassel-Baska, Feng, Quek, & Struck, 2004), and school leaders have been

366

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

instrumental in providing these opportunities for gifted students. These types of community resources have also been described as invaluable in the literature with regards to programs for the gifted (Davis & Rimm, 2004) and have been found to be of benefit to ELLs also, particularly when interacting with adult experts from a range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Castellano & Diaz, 2002a). These links are also considered a key aspect of the mentoring process, a strategy recommended for gifted students (Grassinger, Porath, & Ziegler, 2010). Students who participated in Blackburn’s (2016) inquiry not only reported a strong desire to acquire English quickly, they also valued and acknowledged opportunities that were created for them in order to extend their gifts and talents, regardless of their level of competency in English. While much of the literature has addressed interventions for primary-school-aged children (Sampson & Chason, 2008), and some aspects span the whole learning continuum through formal schooling and beyond (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2008), it is thought that curriculum and services for gifted adolescents are under-researched (Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008). Explorations of curriculum features highlight how a challenging and meaningful curriculum combined with a positive classroom pedagogic experience ‘transforms it into something that represents a learning opportunity for the student and therefore something worth being motivated to pursue in the first place’ (Little, 2012, p. 703). Many of the students who participated in Blackburn’s (2016) study were indeed keenly exploring curricular and extra-curricular experiences. Opportunities for gifted students to demonstrate leadership in particular capacities is also supported by the literature (Blackburn, 2016; Scribner, 2004). In such an environment, interpersonal as well as intergroup mechanisms are more likely to become more completely actualised and individual

personalities have the potential to emerge more fully (Chernyshev, 2013).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS: ‘BEST FIT’ CURRICULUM OPTIONS Bilingualism with giftedness can result in high academic achievement if supported by educators and policy-makers alike (Green et  al., 2011). So, a final overview will be provided here about some ‘best fit’ curricula for learners who have advanced Englishlearning capabilities beyond those of other ELLs, but language proficiency is still a barrier. Such support should encompass multidimensional identification processes and differentiated curriculum and pedagogy that addresses the duality of GELLs’ advanced language capacities with immersion in a nonnative language context, while accelerating learning in other areas of giftedness through English language.

Teacher Contributions Overall, teacher professional learning to alleviate misguided perspectives about provisions for GELLs, increases understandings of migrant students’ needs and acculturation in relation to language development (Darvin & Norton, 2014; Hertberg-Davis, 2009), while the use of strength-based assessment and multiple techniques within identification processes that reflect bilingual students’ needs is recommended. Culturally-sensitive teachers would develop programs that validate GELLs’ literacy competency in L1 to facilitate the development of proficiency in an additional language, such as English, and then, assist language transition by encouraging code switching between languages (Auer, 2002; Ford & Trotman, 2001; Freebody et  al., 2014; Harley, Cummins, Swain, & Allen, 2000). These are the foundations for

Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners

enabling the acquisition of an English proficiency that promotes learning, enables successful achievement, and nurtures talent potential (Sisk, 2015).

CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGIC REQUIREMENTS Consideration should be given to: • The use of culturally-appropriate identification processes, with assessment tools translated into the GELLs’ heritage language, that gain a holistic understanding of the GELLs’ bilingual proficiency, strengths, and potential (NSW DET, 2004a; Erwin & Worrell, 2012); • Immersion in English and bilingual contexts to use two languages together to enhance learning (Green et al., 2011); • Acceleration across disciplines and different domains of giftedness using the English language (Blackburn, 2016); • Enrichment programs that focus on conceptbased learning to develop higher-order thinking skills, potentially providing additional challenge that GELLs seek (Kanevsky, 2011; VanTasselBaska, 2008); • Interest-based learning through extra- and cocurricular provisions, such as project-based learning or inquiry learning that can provide more complex content and choice of products, as well as empowering learning processes and encouraging autonomous development while scaffolding vocabulary development, and using language relevantly and contextually (Kanevsky, 2011; Smutny, 2012); • Authentic service-based learning addressing real issues, with products in one or more languages and interactions with real audiences; • Developing on-task strategies and time-management processing (Dixon & Moon, 2006); • Mentoring and collaborative learning in small groups with like-minded peers to facilitate the above learning opportunities (Grassinger et al., 2010); • Assessment in the GELL’s heritage language and multiple assessment techniques that are culturally relevant.

367

CONCLUSION: IMMERSION IN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE CONTEXTS Flexible grouping should be practised for all gifted students, including GELLs. As English-language development is fostered most effectively through regular interaction with native-English-speaking peers, flexible grouping has been suggested as a matter of course. Many gifted ELLs find these interactions especially helpful in advancing their own English-language proficiencies. Indeed, ‘for the learner who already is intrinsically motivated, access to advanced learning opportunities will enable rapid progress in acquiring English language skills and their associated content knowledge’ (Matthews, 2014b, p. 114). More research is needed on identification processes and differentiated instruction and pedagogy specific to GELLs (HertbergDavis & Callahan, 2008). Use of the aforementioned strategies in practice could be enhanced with longitudinal research on their influence on understanding bilingualism, developing potential, and future achievement. After all, future student success is the goal of any program or research for bilingual GELLs.

REFERENCES Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Differentiation. In B. Kerr (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of giftedness, creativity and talent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, DOI: 10.4135/ 9781412971959.n112. Auer, P. (2002). Introduction: Bilingual conversation revisited. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity (2nd edn). New York, NY: Routledge. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017). 2016 Census: Multicultural. Retrieved from http:// www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/ Media%20Release3

368

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). Student diversity. Sydney, Australia: ACARA. Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/ curriculum/student-diversity Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011). English as an additional language or dialect teacher resource. Overview and EAL/D learning progression. Sydney, Australia: ACARA. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/ verve/_resources/English_as_an_Additional_ Language_or_Dialect_Teacher_Resource_ 05_06_12.pdf Begay, H., & Maker, C. J. (2007). When geniuses fail: Na Dene’ (Navajo) conceptions of giftedness in the eyes of the Holy Deities. In S. N. Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 127–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Blackburn, A. M. (2016). Meeting the educational needs of gifted and talented Englishlanguage learners in Australian secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New England, Armidale, Australia. Retrieved from http://e-publications. une.edu.au/1959.11/19902 Blackburn, A. M., Cornish, L., & Smith, S. (2016). Gifted English language learners: Global understandings and Australian perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(4), 338–360, DOI: 10.1177/0162353216671834. Brice, A., & Brice, R. (2004). Identifying Hispanic gifted children: A screening. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(1), 8–15. Briggs, C. J., Reis, S. M., & Sullivan, E. E. (2008). A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 131–145. DOI: 10.1177/0016986208316037. Castellano, J. A. (2002). Renavigating the waters: The identification and assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students for gifted and talented education. In J. A. Castellano & E. I. Diaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students (pp. 94–116). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Castellano, J. A., & Diaz, E. I. (2002a). Introduction. In J. A. Castellano & E. I. Diaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students (pp. xii–xxvi). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Castellano, J. A., & Diaz, E. I. (Eds.). (2002b). Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Castellano, J. A., & Robertson, R. (2014). Talent development, language development, and writing skills. In M. S. Matthews & J. A. Castellano (Eds.), Talent development for English language learners: Identifying and developing potential (pp. 15–46). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Chernyshev, A. S. (2013). Actualization of leadership potential of socially gifted children (experimental approach). In Y. P. Zinchenko, E. L. Grigorenko, & E. Poeppel. (Eds.), V Congress of the Russian Psychological Society 14–18 February, Moscow, Russia (Vol. 86, pp. 188–191), DOI: 10.106/j. sbspro.2013.08.548 Cho, S., & Yoon, Y. (2005). Family processes and psychosocial problems of the young Korean gifted. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27(2), 245–261, DOI: 10.1007/ s10447-005-3184-4. Cline, S., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Diverse populations of gifted children: Meeting their needs in the regular classroom and beyond. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2014). Social class, identity and migrant students. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 13(2), 111–117, DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2014. 901823. Davis, G. A. (2009). New developments in gifted education. In L.V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1035–1044). New York, NY: Springer. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th edn). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. de Block, L., & Buckingham, D. (2007). Global children, global media: Migration, media and childhood. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners

Dixon, F. A., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of secondary gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Erwin, J. O., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). Assessment practices and the under-representation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 74–87, DOI: 10.1177/ 0734282911428197 Esquierdo, J. J., & Arreguín-Anderson, M. (2012). The ‘invisible’ gifted and talented bilingual students: A current report on enrollment in GT programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(1), 35–47, DOI: 10.1177/0162353211432041. Fielding, R., & Harbon, L. (2013). Examining bilingual and bicultural identity in young students. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 527–544, DOI: 10.1111/flan.12051. Ford, D. Y. (2013). Multicultural issues: Gifted under-representation and prejudice – learning from Allport and Merton. Gifted Child Today, 36(1), 62–67, DOI: 10.1177/1076217512465285. Ford, D. Y., & Trotman, M. F. (2001). Teachers of gifted students: Suggested multicultural characteristics and competencies. Roeper Review, 23(4), 235–239, DOI: 10.1080/02783190109554111. Freebody, P., Barton, G., & Chan, E. (2014). Literacy education. In C. Leung and B.V. Street (Eds.), The Routledge companion to English studies (pp. 419–434). New York, NY: Routledge. Freebody, P., Morgan, A.-M., Comber, B., & Nixon, H. (2014). Collaborative literacy research: A middle years project. Literacy in the middle years: Learning from collaborative classroom research (pp. 1–14). Newtown, Australia: PETAA. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Hyams, N., Collins, P., & Amberber, M. (2005). An introduction to language (5th edn). South Melbourne, Australia: Thomson. Gagné, F. (2008). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.eurotalent.org/Gagne_ DMGT_Model.pdf Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In B. MacFarlane, & T. Stambaugh, (Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The

369

festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 61–80). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Garcia, J. H. (2002). Research directions for bilingual gifted education. In J. A. Castellano & E. I. Diaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students (pp. 282– 289). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Granada, A. J. (2002). Addressing the curriculum, instruction, and assessment needs of the gifted bilingual/bicultural student. In J. A. Castellano & E. I. Diaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students (pp. 133–153). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Grassinger, R., Porath, M., & Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: A conceptual analysis. High Ability Studies, 21(1), 27–46, DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2010.488087. Green, F., Spivey, S. P., Ferris, L., Bernal, E. M., & Izquierdo, E. (2011). Our diversity, our treasure: Connecting Worlds/Mundos Unidos gifted and talented dual language immersion program. In J. A. Castellano & A. D. Frazier (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education: Understanding our most able students from diverse backgrounds (pp. 287–303). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Gross, M. U. M., Urquhart, R., Doyle, J., Juratowitch, M., & Matheson, G. (2011). Releasing the brakes for high-ability learners: Administrator, teacher and parent attitudes and beliefs that block or assist the implementation of school policies on academic acceleration. Sydney, Australia: GERRIC, UNSW. Retrieved from https://education. arts.unsw.edu.au/media/EDUCFile/Releasing_the_Brakes_Overview_A4__Nov2011.pdf Hamers, J. F. & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd edn). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Harley, B., Cummins, J., Swain, M., & Allen, P. (2000). The nature of language proficiency. In B. Harley (Ed.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 7–25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to

370

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251–253, DOI: 10.1177/0016986209346927. Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. M. (2008). A narrow escape: Gifted students’ perceptions of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 199–216, DOI: 10.1177/ 0016986208319705. Jarvis, J. (2013). Differentiating learning experiences for diverse students. In P. Hudson, (Ed.), Learning to teach in the primary school (pp. 52–70). Port Melbourne, Vic.: Cambridge University Press. Kalashnikova, M., & Mattock, K. (2014). Maturation of executive functioning skills in early sequential bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(1), 111–123, DOI: 10.1080/13670050. 2012.746284. Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What type of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279–299, DOI: 10.1177/0016986211422098. Kao, C., & Hébert, T. P. (2006). Gifted Asian American adolescent males: Portraits of cultural dilemmas. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(1), 88–117. DOI: 10.1177/06235320603000105. Kerr, B. A., Multon, K. D., Syme, M. L., Fry, N. M., Owens, R., Hammond, M., & RobinsonKurpius, S. (2012). Development of the distance from privilege measures: A tool for understanding the persistence of talented women in STEM. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 88–102, DOI: 10.1177/0734282911428198. Kitano, M.K., & Espinosa, R. (1995). Language diversity and giftedness: Working with gifted English language learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(3), 234–254. DOI: 10.1177/0162353290501800302. Kogan, E. (2001). Gifted bilingual students: A paradox? New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kornilov, S. A., Tan, M., Elliott, J. G., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Gifted identification with Aurora: Widening the spotlight. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 117–133, DOI: 10.1177/ 0734282911428199.

Kuprinski, J. (1984). Changing patterns of migration to Australia and their influence on the health of migrants. Social Science and Medicine, 18(11), 927–937. Lee, R. A. (Ed.). (1995). Other Britain, other British: Contemporary multicultural fiction. London, UK: Pluto Press. Little, C. A. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 695–705, DOI: 10.1002/ pits.21621. Margot, K. C., & Rinn, A. N. (2016). Perfectionism in gifted adolescents: A replication and extension. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(3), 190–209. DOI: 10.1177/1932202X16656452. Matthews, M. S. (2006). Working with gifted English language learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Matthews, M. S. (2014a). Advanced academics, inclusive education, and English language learners. In M. S. Matthews & J. A. Castellano (Eds.), Talent development for English language learners: Identifying and developing potential (pp. 1–14). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Matthews, M. S. (2014b). Motivation and the academically able English learner. In M. S. Matthews & J. A. Castellano (Eds.), Talent development for English language learners: Identifying and developing potential (pp. 101–123). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Matthews, M. S., & Castellano, J. A. (Eds.). (2014). Talent development for English language learners: Identifying and developing potential. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Milgram, R. M. (2000). Talent identification and development: An international perspective. Roeper Review, 22(2), 76–77, DOI: 10.1080/02783190009554005. Mulé, M. (2010). Language access 101: The rights of limited-English-proficient individuals. Clearinghouse Review, 44(1 & 2), 24–31. Munro, J. (2013). Teaching gifted students: A knowing and thinking-based framework for differentiation. Seminar Series Paper No. 227, Centre for Strategic Education, East Melbourne, VIC. Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(4), 330–341, DOI: 10.1177/ 00169826207306319.

Capacities, Challenges and Curriculum for Australian Learners

Nesdale, D., Rooney, R., & Smith, L. (1997). Migrant ethnic identity and psychological distress. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(5), 569–588, DOI: 10.1177/ 0022022197285004. New South Wales Department of Education and Training, Curriculum K-12 Directorate. (2004a). Policy and implementation strategies for the education of gifted and talented students. Sydney, Australia: Author. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/ policy-library/associated-documents/polimp. pdf New South Wales Department of Education and Training, Curriculum K-12 Directorate. (2004b). Gifted and talented education. Extract from Support package: Curriculum differentiation. The Kaplan model. Sydney, Australia: Author. Retrieved from https:// docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/pdf/ gifted_talented_education_module5_primary. pdf Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Current perspectives on the identification and assessment of gifted students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 3–9, DOI: 10.1177/ 0734282911428192. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176, DOI: 10.1177/ 074355489272003. Piechowski, M. M. (2003). Emotional and spiritual giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd edn, pp. 75–88). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., Keefe, M., Lovejoy, V., Mow, L., Sellings, P., Waldrip, B., & Yager, Z. (2013). Personalised learning: Lessons to be learnt. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 654–676. DOI: 10.1080/ 01411926.2012.669747. Rakow, S. (2011). Educating gifted students in middle school: A practical guide (2nd edn). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Rance-Roney, J. A. (2004). The affective dimension of second culture/second language acquisition in gifted students. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted

371

education (pp. 73–85). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Reis, S. M. (1998). Underachievement for some – dropping out with dignity for others. Communicator: The Journal of the California Association for the Gifted, 29(1), 19–24. Reis, S. M., Colbert, R. D., & Hébert, T. P. (2004). Understanding resilience in diverse, talented students in an urban high school. Roeper Review, 27(2), 110–120, DOI: 10.1080/02783190509554299. Renzulli, J. S. (2011). More changes needed to expand gifted identification and support. The Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 61, DOI: 10.1177/003172171109200813. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The schoolwide enrichment model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd edn, pp. 184–203). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Sampson, J. P., & Chason, A. K. (2008). Helping gifted and talented adolescents and young adults make informed and careful career choices. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 327–346). New York, NY: Springer. Scribner, S. L. (2004). Gifted student leaders. Leadership for Student Activities, 32(6), 20–21. Sheth, F. A. (2014). Interstitiality: Making space for migration, diaspora, and racial complexity. Hypatia, 29(1), 75–93, DOI: 10.1111/ hypa.12075. Shaunessy, E., & Suldo, S. M. (2010). Strategies used by intellectually gifted students to cope with stress during their participation in a high school International Baccalaureate program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 127–137, DOI: 10.1177/0016986209355977. Sisk, D. (Ed.). (2015). Accelerating and extending literacy for diverse students, New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Smith, S. R. (2009). A dynamic ecological framework for differentiating the primary curriculum. Gifted and Talented International, 24(2), 9–20. Smith, S. R. (2015). A dynamic differentiation framework for talent enhancement: Findings from syntheses and teacher perceptions.

372

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24(1), 59–72. Smith, S. R. (2017). Responding to the unique social and emotional learning needs of gifted Australian students. In E. Frydenberg, A. Martin A. & R. Collie (Eds.), Social and emotional learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific: Perspectives, programs, and approaches (pp. 147–166). Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-98110-3394-0_8. Smutny, J. F. (2012). Teaching gifted English language learners: Tools for the regular classroom. Gifted Education Press Quarterly, 26(3), 3–7. Retrieved from http://www.giftededpress.com/GEPQSUMMER2012.pdf Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Differentiation for gifted and talented students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2008). What works in curriculum for the gifted. Keynote address at the Asia Pacific Conference on the Gifted, Singapore, July.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., Quek, C., & Struck, J. (2004). A study of educators’ and students’ perceptions of academic success for underrepresented populations identified for gifted programs. Psychology Science, 46(3), 363–378. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2008). Curriculum and instructional considerations in programs for the gifted. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 347–365). New York, NY: Springer. Winebrenner, S. (1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press. Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121–136, DOI: 10.1177/ 0016986208330564

28 Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa Jacobus G. Maree

INTRODUCTION: WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO WRITE ABOUT GIFTED EDUCATION IN AFRICA? THE PARTICULAR NEEDS OF AFRICAN GIFTED LEARNERS Today, more than ever before, sub-Saharan Africa has to contend with endemic poverty, socio-economic deficiency, and unemployment (Maree, 2017a, 2017b). Impoverished gifted learners often experience numerous challenges such as resource-scarce backgrounds and inferior teaching and learning, lack of parental support, little incentive and motivation to realize their potential, and being taught in a language that is not their mother tongue, with all the negative effects this can have on the development of critical thinking, the recognition of opportunities, and the realization of creative potential. The result of growing up in such circumstances is often reflected in the way they dress, the resources they are able to access, and the

reserved manner in which they frequently conduct themselves. For various reasons, educators often fail to differentiate between the outward appearance and behaviour of these learners and their potential (Peterson, 1997). Begoray and Slovinsky (1997) contend that such learners can be compared to ‘pearls in shells’, that is, very difficult to discover. As Desmond Tutu (2007, p. 206) states: Where you have children who are particularly gifted, it would be criminal not to want to develop their potential to the highest possible extent. We are not looking for uniformity. We want to ensure that every child has a basic education, but we mustn’t make a virtue of mediocrity. We must produce the best possible children in every possible sense.

This view is supported by Bar-On (2007, p. 137), who contends that environments in which the academically gifted are deprived of the opportunity to blossom ‘hide, if not bury, many gifted individuals, compounding

374

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

the human tragedy that they evoke’. The environments alluded to by Bar-On are characteristic of those across Africa, and he asks: ‘Have we lost another Abraham, Jesus, Nostradamus, Spinoza, Mahler, Kafka, Pissarro, Marx, Freud or Einstein who may have significantly contributed to human existence and [hu]mankind?’

EFFECT OF SUBSUMING THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUALLY GIFTED IN THE COLLECTIVE All communities and cultures apply unique norms to ensure their continued existence and growth. Cultural factors and what is regarded as community priorities will influence the kind of giftedness that will be valued and promoted by that community. If, for example, people are required to flee from wild animals, climb trees quickly, cross dangerous rivers, identify plants that are safe to eat, then the skills related to these abilities will be promoted to ensure the survival of the community. Although there is some correspondence between the conceptualizations of intelligence and giftedness in different parts of Africa, no generally accepted definition of these concepts exists. Giftedness is often considered a creative combination of features that include aptitude (the cognitive view), respectfulness and obedience (the values view), and trustworthiness and care for others (the emotional-social view) (Serpell, 1993; Mpofu, 2002; Sternberg, 2007). Ruzgis and Grigorenko (1994) maintain that ‘orthodox’ African conceptualizations of intelligence and giftedness tend to emphasize the fostering of interpersonal (as opposed to intrapersonal) relationships and harmony. Put differently: emphasis is placed on promoting the well-being of the group rather than that of the individual, leading to the subsuming of the individual in the group. Mohlala (2000) contends that African learners who do well

academically often fear discrimination by being too conspicuous among their peers. Some gifted learners prefer, for example, not to have their examination marks shown on notice boards.

UNDERSTANDING HOW INTELLIGENCE IS DEFINED IN AFRICA: SHIFTING PERSPECTIVES (MAREE, 2017a) Gardner (1999), distinguishes between the following nine intelligences: verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, musical/rhythmic, spatial, bodily/kinaesthetic, naturalistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and existential. Sisk (2002) believes this list is incomplete and proposes a tenth intelligence (spiritual intelligence), which she defines as ‘a deep self-awareness, not simply as a body, but a mind-body and spirit’ (p. 209). These intelligences manifest also in Africa, but the recontextualization of their explicit meaning is essential if one wishes to determine their relevance in African contexts. In this regard, Ngara and Porath (2004) argue that culturebased factors can mask certain forms of giftedness in Africa, which are often considered natural attributes (p. 205). Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell’s (2012) general definition of giftedness is accepted for the purposes of this chapter: giftedness indicates exceptional performance in a given field area and is developmental in nature. Initially, potential is a key criterion for giftedness, but later actual achievement is the main yardstick and, ultimately, eminence is used to decide whether a person is gifted or not. At every stage of development, intellectual as well as psychosocial variables determine whether a person can be described as gifted or not; however, these variables are not constant and should be nurtured with care. Giftedness thus refers to exceptional intellectual prowess that develops over time. Whereas some people demonstrate

Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa

intellectual giftedness at an early age and achieve eminence in later life, others do not go on to achieve success later in their lives (Maree, 2017a).

CONCEPTUALIZING GIFTEDNESS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF UBUNTU, ISINTI, AND UJAMAA Three philosophies or ideologies in particular exemplify African culture and Afrocentrism, which is the response to international perceptions of African people and their unique contribution to humanity and civilization (Maree, 2017a): • Ubuntu (Zulu): a term that denotes relatedness, compassion, benevolence, and appreciation for others’ self-respect in the context of community, nature, and universality; • iSinti (Zulu): the view that people’s individual identity can be understood and accomplished only in the collective identity of other people. It holds that all people are members of an extended, large family (Nussbaum, Palsule, & Mkhize, 2010); and • Ujamaa (Swahili): a term that denotes the extended family, that is, brotherhood, sisterhood, and familyhood or collectivism. People become people only within and owing to other people and the community (Cranford, 1999; Ibdawoh & Dibua, 2003).

It is therefore clear that African culture values and acknowledges giftedness that bolsters or advances families’ and communities’ best interests or the common good. Individuals thus tend to be subsumed (‘sacrificed’) within the collective. To better understand what is meant by ‘giftedness’ in Africa, it is important first to consider the significant differences between the intellectual values esteemed in agricultural communities and those esteemed in school contexts. These differences arise because different communities in different cultures set and adhere to their own unique and timehonoured standards and values which ensure

375

the continued survival and development of such communities and cultures. The differences in values can be seen, for example, in how schooling was regarded from a traditional African perspective as opposed to how it was seen from a Western perspective (Maree & Van der Westhuizen, 2009). Before the colonization of the continent, activities such as dancing, singing, drawing, and traditional rites of passage were used by African elders to prepare young children for their distinct gender roles in later life settings in society. However, the advent of colonization and formal schooling dramatically changed concepts of education (Sifuna, 2008). For instance, the way in which intelligence was defined by Africans in the past differed significantly from the way it was defined in formal educational (school-based) settings. According to Mpofu (2002), research has shown that Zambian and Kenyan views on intelligence, for example, are not consistent with traditional Western views of scholastic achievement. The practical manifestation of intelligence regarded highly by rural Africans is often not applicable in school-based settings. Conversely, well-educated (literate) communities conceptualise intelligence in terms of achievement in school-based contexts often not applicable in rural settings. Mpofu (2002) states that the upshot is that schools today typically focus on ‘academic’ as opposed to ‘practical’ intelligence. Unsurprisingly, therefore, ‘standard’ activities promoted and valued in sub-Saharan African schools tend still to mirror mainstream Western intellectual values and viewpoints (Serpell, 1993; Serpell & Boykin, 1994). The stereotyping of gender roles in African cultures also influences the definition of giftedness. Whereas boys/men are encouraged to explore their surroundings and to participate in tough physical games, girls/women are dissuaded from doing so because such activities are considered the domain of men. Consequently, in many rural areas in particular, girls/women are not actively encouraged

376

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

to follow gateway subjects such as mathematics and physical science. This strongly influences enrolment patterns at tertiary institutions (few women enrol, for instance, for engineering) and shapes the growth of economies negatively.

PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES VALUED IN RURAL AFRICAN CONTEXTS In addition, many children in rural regions (mostly girls but boys too) are compelled to stay at home often to take care of young brothers and sisters as well as other family members while their parents work in distant cities. These children are expected to prepare food, do the washing, and execute a wide variety of other ‘adult’ duties. At the same time, they are often expected to attend school and achieve satisfactory results. Boys in rural areas (and in many cases, girls too) often have to look after their parents’ cattle, sheep, horses or donkeys, and goats when they arrive home after school and over weekends. Culture-related factors often exert a powerful influence on learners’ career choices as some careers are traditionally the preserve of either men or of women. Men are, for instance, not allowed in the kitchen in many cultures. Grinding maize meal, harvesting, hoeing fields, cooking and catering, building houses, cleaning and maintaining the house in general remains the domain of women. At the same time, taking care of the livestock, hunting, fishing, roofing (thatching), and ploughing remain by and large the domain of men.

HOW IS GIFTEDNESS MEASURED IN AFRICA? There is little consensus on how gifted learners’ capacity to achieve success should or can best be promoted. Likewise, not enough information is available on how the success

they can potentially achieve in life should or can best be predicted. Madge (1979) showed in her research that measured cognitive intelligence cannot reliably or conclusively determine people’s likelihood of success in their lives. Goleman (1996, p. 34), too, contends that people’s intelligence quotient (IQ), or scores in aptitude tests, explain only about 20% of the variance in the success they will achieve in their later lives. Maree, Elias, and Bar-On (2009) confirm that superior intelligence and/or aptitude and/or school marks on their own are no longer considered reliable predictors of success in general. Salovey and Mayer (1990), Goleman (1996), and Bar-On (2003), who coined the term ‘emotional intelligence’ (which includes the ability to manage emotions, to get on well with oneself and with others, to adapt to change, and to manage stress), maintain that a complex arrangement of interconnected factors, including emotional-social intelligence, contribute to exceptional achievement in life. Bar-On (2007) asserts that approximately 30% of the variance in work-related accomplishment is determined by one’s emotional intelligence (EI). Wagner’s wide-ranging meta-analysis (1997) showed that cognitive intelligence accounts for only 6% of work-related accomplishment. It then follows that emotional quotient (EQ) is responsible for five times more variance than IQ where this specific type of accomplishment is concerned. Emotional(-social) intelligence should therefore be included in all discussions on giftedness in Africa. This also means that strategies to advance learners’ EQ and bolster their sense of self, their (career) resilience, and their emotional wellbeing should form part of programmes for gifted learners. This approach is backed up by the findings of Colangelo and Assouline (2000), Greene (2003), and Maree and Beck (2004), who have shown that gifted learners, despite being largely academically/intellectually independent, often demonstrate a need for career counselling that includes spiritual and emotional-social well-being counselling.

Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa

Research findings in other countries in Africa are consistent with those mentioned above. For example, even the results obtained using intelligence tests with good psychometric properties – developed and standardized in Zambia and administered to gifted Zambian students – did not correlate positively with scholastic success at school (Kathuria & Serpell, 1999; Ngara & Porath, 2004). Sternberg et  al. (2001) arrived at similar findings in their research. Quantified practical intelligence measured by the Raven’s matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998) in Kenya also did not correlate positively with academic success. Only a handful of learners from affluent environments are ever assessed specifically with a view to establishing giftedness, and the situation is so much worse in disadvantaged contexts, where virtually no learners are ever assessed. According to Renzulli (2005, p. 80): The Achilles heel of gifted education has been its inability to adequately include children who do not fall into nice, neat stereotype[s] of good test takers and lesson learners – ethnic minorities, under achievers, children who live in poverty and young people who show their potential in nontraditional ways.

DEARTH OF ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS AND INTERVENTIONS FOR PREDICTING THE SUCCESS OF AFRICAN GIFTED LEARNERS Most of the imported North American and European strategies, questionnaires, and tests do not meet the needs of the vast majority of African cultures and socio-economic groups (Munro, 2011), although they have been used in Africa for many decades. This has led to a shortage of valid and reliable instruments for assessing IQ and aptitude in Africa and has further confounded the question of the best predictors of academic success on the continent.

377

Some of these imported instruments and techniques can be adapted, standardized, and successfully implemented in African countries, as has been the case with, for example, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th edition) and the Self-Directed Search. This, however, does not negate the urgent need for research on designing and developing strategies and tests in and for Africa (Oakland, Wechsler, & Maree, 2013). Until such time this has been addressed satisfactorily, educationists and psychologists will need to think innovatively when drawing on existing knowledge, assessment instruments, and associated strategies to identify gifted students and predict academic and other success in life. This perspective is consistent with Maree and Ebersöhn (2006) and Pfeiffer’s (2015) view that it is neither sufficient nor advisable to rely on academic achievement alone to ‘measure’ giftedness. Nor can it be assumed that exceptional measured ‘cognitive’ intelligence or aptitude is either the most important indicator of giftedness or the most reliable predictor for educational and career success.

REFERENCE TO GIFTEDNESS IN NATIONAL PLANS AND WHITE PAPERS ON EDUCATION IN AFRICA As dealt with in earlier publications (Maree, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2017a, 2017b) special programmes for intellectually gifted learners have received scant attention in Africa and also elsewhere in the world in recent times. Kurup and Maithreyi (2012) contend that ‘a huge challenge for democratic countries is to balance their commitment to equality in policy formulation while paying special attention to the gifted’ (p. 216). They add that revealing the often hidden capability of disadvantaged gifted learners would require interdisciplinary studies that look at their psychological development in a socio-historical context;

378

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

personality variables such as poor self-esteem … that may be a barrier to the expression of creativity and talent; and sociological and culturally valued traits and their cognitive manifestations to understand whether intelligence is differently defined among these cultures. (pp. 219–220)

At the same time, a lot of time, money, and effort are invested in promoting sport-related achievements and empowering gifted sportsmen and sportswomen. The following comment by an anonymous political figure reflects the view that appears to be held by many educationists: ‘Gifted students have already received so much, they do not deserve any additional attention because their chances of eking out a decent living are so much better than the chances of less intellectually gifted learners’. This, despite the fact that millions of disadvantaged gifted learners across the world are never given the opportunity to construct themselves and their careers properly. In fact, not a single African country has a national plan or programme for the education and development of gifted learners. Moreover, no special provision is made for the unique needs of gifted learners in schools. It is consistently argued by public schools in particular that gifted learners do not require special education or any other special attention by education departments. Likewise, white papers on education across Africa say little about giftedness issues in education. Kamau (2005) and Sambu, Kalla, and Njue (2014) recently called on the Kenyan government to ‘develop a curriculum that can be used to teach gifted and talented children, and one that will also be a more practicaloriented curriculum’ (Sambu et  al. 2014, p. 243). They also requested the government to provide training programmes for educators on how to deal with the particular needs of gifted and talented learners. In 1986, a blueprint was published on the education of gifted Nigerian learners, yet little has occurred since then to suggest any meaningful change in the situation of these learners. Adelodun (2010) contends that the blueprint overemphasizes the importance

and relevance of intellectual accomplishment as an indicator of giftedness. The minimum qualifications of teachers of the gifted are also not specified, and a woefully deficient set of criteria for the identification of giftedness in learners is proposed in the document. Oluseyi and Olujide (2014) reminded the authorities of the importance of education for the gifted in a third-world developing country like Nigeria. In South Africa, the recommendations of the Education White Paper 6 on Special Needs Education: Building an Inclusive Education and Training System (Department of Education, 2001) are meant to be implemented over a period of 20 years. In the white paper, the South African National Department of Basic Education sets out the policy and practices of special needs education, yet nowhere is there any mention of gifted students and gifted education. However, inclusivity is accentuated and giftedness is recognized as an exceptionality in the Guidelines for Inclusive Teaching and Learning document (DoE, 2010; see also Oswald & De Villiers, 2013). This document endorses differentiation in the classroom and recommends differentiation as a means of managing the unique needs of gifted learners. While this suggests that the education department appreciates the importance of accommodating gifted learners in classrooms, in reality nothing has changed since the publication of the document. The following passage (DoE, 2010, p. 6) suggests a lack of understanding and concern regarding education for the gifted: The same activity can be taught to a class with learners who have diverse needs ranging from those with intellectual disabilities to those who are gifted, by differentiating what is taught, how it is taught and how the learners demonstrate that they have achieved the learning outcome.

The document continues: Participatory and collaborative learning gives learners experiencing barriers opportunities to learn to contribute to tasks and activities at a level

Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa

appropriate to their level of development. Highly gifted learners will contribute differently, according to their strengths and interests. Joint planning, discussion and reflection will stretch some learners and add value to the learning of all participants. (p. 68)

This somewhat vague and impractical statement raises the question as to whether the education authorities understand the situation in our schools or really care about what is actually happening on the ground. In summary: the professed acknowledgment of the importance of promoting giftedness actively in public schools has not brought about any noticeable and verifiable changes in how giftedness is managed and gifted learners are treated in South African classrooms. As so often is the case with the introduction of new education philosophies, serious misalignment occurs between (a) the theorizing about and (b) the actual planning and execution of strategies to achieve certain outcomes. Contrary to what is stated in the Guidelines for inclusive teaching and learning document (DoE, 2010), there is neither any reference to giftedness nor any suggestion that giftedness is regarded as a special needs category in the Draft Policy on Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS) (DoE, 2011, 2014). What makes this oversight particularly unfortunate is that this policy was rolled out as part of the implementation of the South African government’s Education White Paper 6, which was meant to facilitate the construction of an inclusive education and training system in South Africa.

SPECIAL PROVISION FOR GIFTED LEARNERS IN SCHOOL-BASED SETTINGS IN SOUTH AFRICA Very little is happening in South Africa and Africa generally. One exception is Radford House (a private primary school for roughly 100 gifted learners in Johannesburg) which adapts national curricula to meet the learners’

379

needs as well as the school’s aims (emphasizing individual abilities and focusing on the process rather than the content of learning) (Kokot, 1999a, 1999b). Another institution where provision is made for the special needs of intellectually and creatively gifted learners is the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in Johannesburg, which broadens the SA national curriculum while focusing on overall leadership development, technology, and e-learning. Likewise, the Academy for Mathematics, Science and Technology (Cape Town), which has international links and receives funding from USAid, strives to ‘cultivate mathematicians, doctors, astronomers and engineers’ (Essop, 2004, p. 14). In the public schooling sector, more than 550 schools have been designated by the South African government to promote advanced tuition in mathematics and the physical sciences in an attempt to boost the exceptionally poor achievement of learners in these two gateway subjects (Buthelezi, 2012). Whereas, in the past some provision (albeit minimal) was made for the accommodation of gifted learners’ needs in school-based settings, today such accommodation is virtually non-existent. At the end of the previous century, Kokot (1998) labelled the situation of gifted education in South Africa as ‘not encouraging’ and ‘dismal’, mainly because of the new government’s seeming desire to demolish all infrastructure created to meet the needs of gifted learners. The overhasty and poorly planned introduction (and subsequent dismantling) of outcomes-based education (OBE) served only to exacerbate the situation. The attainment of much-vaunted OBE outcomes such as problem-solving and critical thinking skills did not happen, especially in impoverished teaching contexts characterized by large classrooms, inadequate teaching-learning material, and a general environment that did not advance optimal learning and development. The introduction of the principle of inclusion in South African classrooms sparked hope that gifted learners, too, would be ‘included’ and

380

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

their unique needs catered for in mainstream education. Carrim (2002, p. 3) views inclusion as a ‘means to an end – the creation and the maintenance of an inclusive society. It is ultimately about the transformation of society and its formal institutional arrangements, such as education’. This definition mirrors the commonly held view that inclusion means more than just learners with disabilities in standard classrooms. Inclusion should also be regarded as a way to overcome the many barriers to learning as set out in the 2002 White Paper on Special Educational Needs. It seems logical to suggest that giftedness (and the accompanying need to make provision for the unique needs of the gifted) meets the criteria for inclusion in the list of traits that deserve special attention. Naicker (2000, pp. 9–10) argues that ‘special education theory is located within a functionalist paradigm and is concerned with learners who experience learning breakdown as well as those who have gifted behaviours … either enrichment or acceleration could be used to ensure that the gifted learner is not neglected’. This comment underscores the view that giftedness, too, warrants due attention in classrooms. However, there appears to be little agreement on how giftedness should be accommodated and catered for in inclusive contexts. In fact, today, very few teachers make practical provision for the accommodation and promotion of giftedness in classrooms. At best, only a handful of compassionate teachers ever allow gifted learners to work at their own pace or ever devise special strategies for the benefit of gifted learners in their classrooms. Kearney (1996) adds that gifted learners have very few opportunities to interact with their intellectual peers in an inclusive system which largely ignores the social and academic advantages of homogeneous groupings (Maree, 2017a).

that were successful a few years ago often no longer serve their intended purpose. The globalization of information communication technology (ICT), industrial development, and transformation at different levels, as well as increasing unemployment, particularly in developing countries, are posing serious challenges to the theory and practice of career psychology and career counselling. Helping people choose careers, design meaningful lives, and contribute to society is not easy. Guichard et al. (2012) argue that career counsellors have to integrate new information into existing assessment and intervention strategies and models on an ongoing basis if they wish to remain of value and use to clients wanting to design successful lives. Numerous contextual factors at the micro-, meso-, and macro-level influence people’s career-life stories (Maree, 2010) and have played a role in the development of life design counselling (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). Life design counselling can help people shape, design, reshape, and redesign their lives, and appears to be especially useful in meeting the needs of gifted learners. Its aim is to help people become more (career) adaptable, employable, and resilient, and, ultimately, to see meaning in their work and discover a sense of purpose (Maree, 2012, 2017a, 2017b). Life design counselling does not replace other career counselling models; rather, it supplements ‘the vocational guidance of modernity and the career education of high modernity with the career counselling of postmodernity’ (Savickas, 2011a, p. 9).

CAREER-LIFE COUNSELLING FOR GIFTED STUDENTS

Maree (2017a) states that schools across Africa have failed to address the distinctive needs of gifted African learners from disadvantaged backgrounds who have little knowledge or family experience of what careers are

Theoretical approaches to career counselling and their associated intervention strategies

CAREER-LIFE COUNSELLING FOR GIFTED LEARNERS FROM DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS

Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa

available to them. National departments of basic education in Africa (and elsewhere in the world as well) have shown little interest in remedying this situation over many decades. Only a small percentage of gifted learners’ parents can afford to have their children assessed by career counsellors – the vast majority of gifted learners (those in informal settlements, in deep rural areas, and in townships) stand little chance of undergoing such assessment. Some put the percentage of learners in South Africa who do not receive career counselling at over 90%. Most of these learners have limited knowledge and family experience of what careers are on offer, and consequently enter tertiary training institutions unprepared for tertiary studies, a situation that gives rise to a cycle of disadvantage: growing up in poverty – little career guidance – failure to actualize potential and sustain decent work – inability to design successful lives – raising own offspring in poverty. Consequently, every year, South Africa and Africa as a whole are losing thousands of gifted learners who could have gone on to make significant contributions to society – learners with the potential to become Nelson Mandelas, Desmond Tutus, and Mother Teresas. Exposing all learners to contemporary, advanced career counselling can help overcome this tragic shortcoming. By giving innovative, up-to-date career construction counselling to these learners, career counsellors can identify gifted learners in a valid and trustworthy manner. Such counselling can also support and inspire these learners to ‘construct’ themselves and find meaning and a sense of purpose in their lives – a key need often expressed by such learners (Maree, 2013a, 2015c). Pope (2013) argues that test developers have routinely failed to consider cultural relevancy when tests and associated interventions are redesigned and standardized in developing country contexts. Acknowledging local learners’ cultural ties during career counselling inevitably enhances their career adaptability, resilience, and employability, enabling them to acquire the

381

‘know-how’ needed to deal with sweeping global changes and career-life transitions. Such acknowledgement empowers them to ‘survive’ and sometimes even ‘flourish’ in rapidly changing times. Implementing and integrating ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ approaches in career counselling can help career counsellors acknowledge and confirm local learners’ cultural ties. In South Africa, ‘career education’ and ‘career guidance’ in particular are often used interchangeably, although ‘education’ implies a far wider range of activities than ‘guidance’. Law (1996, p. 211) maintains that ‘we are educating when we try to help people to question, explore and understand what is happening’, and this takes place through a designed process where a ‘scheme of work’ outlines the material to be covered. Guidance, on the other hand, is more restricted to individual career decision making – Mtolo (1996) refers to career guidance as information giving and advising. Such guidance evolved from the various traditional approaches (e.g. the traitfactor approach) of matching the person to an occupation. The move away from these approaches provided the impetus for the development of career education.

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE, CAREER EDUCATION (CAREER GUIDANCE), AND CAREER-LIFE COUNSELLING (LIFE DESIGN) A global paradigm shift has taken place in career counselling over the past few decades. The ‘shift’ has been from drawing on ‘objective’ data obtained by implementing a quantitative (positivist) approach in relative isolation, to augmenting the quantitative information with ‘subjective’ data obtained by using qualitative (narrative or storied) assessment and intervention strategies. This shift is linked to the following trio of

382

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

theoretical approaches: (a) vocational psychology; (b) vocational development; and (c) life design counselling, which draws on life and career counselling. The latter is generally considered the first coordinated counselling theory and a significant advancement on Super’s (1990) and Holland’s (1997) theories of vocational behaviour and development (Savickas, personal communication, 13 March 2013). Depending on the context in which any career counselling service is rendered, a distinction can be drawn between the following three types of associated interventions. The aim of vocational guidance is to find the best ‘fit’ between a person’s unique traits and the requirements for a particular job; the aim of career education is to advance a person’s occupational development; and the aim of career counselling is to help people design successful lives where they can make social contributions. All three interventions are beneficial for the specific outcome they seek to achieve (Savickas, 2011a). Life design is based on eliciting people’s career-life stories and helping them construct, deconstruct, reconstruct, and co-construct these stories. Negative stories are converted into positive stories; pain-filled stories are transformed into stories of triumph and inspiration; and stories of defeat are transformed into stories of victory and accomplishment. This approach also equips career counsellors with the proficiency to identify giftedness, and, most importantly, with the skill to devise strategies to help gifted learners, in particular, to excel. These learners typically help and inspire others who are suffering what they themselves have ‘suffered’ (see Maree, 2013a, 2015c). Savickas (2011a, 2011b) argues that our response as career counsellors can no longer be confined to providing vocational guidance and/or career education in comparative isolation. He maintains that career counselling should be administered in a way that rekindles people’s trust in a future that is worthwhile and that warrants living for. To achieve this outcome, we as career counsellors

need to draw on the life design counselling approach, with its rigorous theoretical framework and assessment and intervention strategies that provide us and our clients with the means to cope with insecurity and uncertainty. This approach mirrors the worldwide move from a ‘self-actualizing’ style of counselling to a life design approach based on career and self-construction. The general aim of life design counselling is to elicit people’s distinctive career-life stories and, in doing so, uncover and discover how they make meaning in their lives, and help them establish or strengthen a sense of purpose in their careerlives. Staunton (2015) endorses Savickas’ (2011a) view that life design counselling is the most relevant and meaningful career counselling approach because it is ideally suited for those seeking career counselling in the 21st century.

THE IMPORTANCE OF INTRODUCING A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH TO CAREER-LIFE COUNSELLING FOR AFRICAN GIFTED LEARNERS Many authors have spoken out against the uncritical use of North American and European career counselling theory and practice in developing countries, and have called for research on methodologies that are more harmonious with the conditions in less advanced countries (Lopez Levers, May, & Vogel, 2011). Alika and Egbochuku (2009) as well as Metz and Guichard (2009) argue that local cultural, educational, gender, and socio-economic factors should be considered in order to make career counselling more appropriate and relevant in developing countries. Maree (2017b) has consistently maintained that some models, strategies, questionnaires, and tests developed in North America and Europe can be modified, standardized, and successfully implemented in developing countries. However, at the same time, research should be conducted in local

Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa

contexts to design and conceptualize theoretical approaches and practical implementation strategies and interventions (including questionnaires and tests) for use in developing continents such as Africa. The situation in South Africa, as described below by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA, 2010) is typical of the situation elsewhere in Africa, even where the negative effects of apartheid were not experienced: The history of [the] development and use of psychometric measuring devices, instruments, methods and techniques in South Africa ha[s] been tainted by the legacy of segregation which influenced certain stereotypical attitudes and culturally insensitive and inappropriate interventions. As a result, very few tests are available that have been developed and applied with the necessary appreciation of cultural and other diversity concerns with a view to standardizing same for all South Africans. (p. 1)

An Integrated Qualitative and Quantitative Approach to Career Counselling The need to accept and implement an integrated qualitative and quantitative approach to career counselling has been brought about by the disappearance of predictable work environments – a need encapsulated in the Xhosa proverb Xa umculo litshintsha ngoko wenza umdaniso (when the music changes, so does the dance). The qualitative approach, in particular, draws on the notion of career as story and the importance of eliciting people’s careerlife stories. To elicit these stories successfully, it is necessary to promote narratability (the ability to tell one’s career-life story clearly), which in turn promotes autobiographicity (the ability to draw on one’s career-life story when life imposes changes on one’s life). Together, narratability and autobiographicity promote adaptability (the ability to cope with changes in oneself and in one’s situation), intentionality (the intention to design a successful life) (Hartung, 2013), and, ultimately, the ability to make social contributions.

383

The integrated approach expedites the identification of gifted learners and is well suited to help them advise themselves and draw on their own strength to choose appropriate careers, construct themselves adequately, and make meaningful social contributions (advance the common good). The ‘new’ approach to career counselling is built on the promotion of reflexive construction (articulation of career-life stories), deconstruction (‘unpacking’ or uncovering the real meaning of these stories), reconstruction (helping clients overcome stumbling blocks, overcome ‘stuckness’, and transforming painful stories into tales of hope and inspiration), and co-construction (clients and counsellor working together to advance clients’ stories) (Savickas, 2011b). Since African culture is closely associated with storytelling and listening to the stories of others, the new approach is particularly suited for use in African contexts. This ties in with what was said earlier about Ubuntu, iSinti, and Ujamaa (Nussbaum, Palsule, & Mkhize, 2010).

Drawing on Central Careerlife Themes to Instil a Sense of Purpose and Meaning in African Gifted Learners Successive economic waves have led to fundamental changes in the world of work over the past few decades. Hartung (2013) maintains that the theory and practice of career counselling have progressed through three distinct theory and intervention waves: ‘The first wave concerned matching people to jobs. The second wave concentrated on managing worker and other life roles over the life span. The third wave involves contemporary models and methods focused on making meaning through work and relationships’ (p. 16). Krumboltz and Chan (2005, p. 351) emphasized the need for career counsellors to accept and celebrate change and to prepare their clients to do the same by remaining open-minded and adapting to changing circumstances:

384

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Expecting people to decide on a lifetime career and commit to that choice is a formula for personal disaster. Circumstances change, economic cycles have their booms and busts, technology advances, and people’s interests change over time. Remaining ever open-minded is the smartest way to adapt to change.

These authors all agreed that career counsellors should adopt an integrated approach to career counselling. In addition to administering and interpreting interest, personality, and aptitude tests and other quantitative datagathering instruments and techniques, they should elicit and analyse clients’ autobiographies and carefully weave together their many micro-stories into a grand macro-story. Their role is thus to help clients to: • interpret their interests, abilities, interests, and values; • identify their key career-life themes; • construct themselves and choose and construct their careers; and design successful lives.

This approach has been shown to help clients facing career-life crossroads reclaim a sense of self-respect, improve their sense of self and identity, and rekindle a sense of hope in their lives by recognizing and actualizing central career-life themes. This is key to empowering clients to design their own holding environments so that they can ‘hold’ (support, strengthen, comfort) themselves when they face crossroads. Clients are helped to acquire and/or enhance their sometimes inhibited inclination and ability to transform challenge into opportunity, feelings of hopelessness into feelings of hopefulness, and to convert a felt minus (a sense of failure) into a felt plus (a sense of forward thinking and movement; success) (Adler, 1956; Savickas, 2011a, 2011b).

The Unique Career-life Counselling Needs of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged African Gifted Learners Most impoverished gifted learners live in resource-scarce environments with limited

access to books and other reading material, recreational opportunities, and educational and emotional support. Research over many decades reveals that, given the opportunity, they can generally overcome their developmental obstacles. Obtaining their life stories through qualitative assessment instruments (in addition to standardized tests) and integrating the ‘stories’ and ‘scores’ offers counsellors a better chance to understand the nature of the obstacles and to plan intervention strategies to overcome them (Maree, 2014a, 2014b). From a career counselling point of view, Brown (2002) and others suggest that learners with low socio-economic status (SES) are far less likely to choose appropriate fields of study and associated careers and to actually succeed in these careers. Their inadequate knowledge of the world of careers negatively affects and restricts their choice of careers. Not having had the opportunity to develop a proper sense of self (career-life self-identity – knowing who they are), they often lose the will to achieve self-completion and also the hope that the situation may one day change. In addition, as found by Levin and Gati (2015), their own insight into their abilities and potential is often negatively biased and imprecise. Eliciting their career-life stories can give them a more positive, accurate sense of self and of what is possible in their careerlives. To achieve this aim, they need updated information about the occupational world and help in understanding that their ‘scores’/ marks in standardized tests and examinations should be interpreted dynamically. It is important to bear in mind that gifted learners are driven largely by what they believe is possible and what is not, and by the degree to which they believe they have the capacity and the confidence to achieve in given fields of study and associated careers.

CONCLUSION: FUTURE PERSPECTIVE What is happening in the field of gifted education across Africa today is neither in the

Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa

interests of the gifted nor in the interests of the collective, which could benefit greatly from the contributions of the gifted. Ironically, it seems that by ignoring the needs of gifted learners in an effort to promote the broad interests of the collective, it is the collective that loses out in the long run. At the very least, it is essential to regard gifted education as a form as special education and to make specific provision for the training of prospective teachers on how to meet the special needs of gifted learners in our schools. What does the future hold for gifted learners in South Africa and Africa as a whole? Tragically, the future looks bleak, with research indicating that the provision of gifted education in Africa has come to a virtual standstill. There is seemingly little political will to provide the special education needed to meet the idiosyncratic needs of gifted learners. Rather, the needs of gifted learners appear to be sacrificed on the altar of promoting the interests of the collective. The efforts to uplift sports people in South Africa, for example, are highly commendable, but it is equally important to implement strategies to ensure that gifted learners receive their fair share of attention. The potential benefits of such strategies are incalculable. In regard to the question as to how the career counselling needs of gifted learners in South Africa and Africa as a whole can best be met, an integrated approach to career counselling, as advocated in this chapter, shows much promise. It can enable career counsellors to identify the potential and needs of gifted learners and also promote authoring of their career-life stories in a way that can help them choose and construct careers themselves and design successful lives in which they can make social contributions for the benefit of the collective. From an educational-psychological perspective, doing so is urgent and crucial. From a constitutional and children’s rights perspective, doing so will meet the inalienable rights of all gifted learners.

385

REFERENCES Adelodun, G. A. (2010). A critique of the blueprint on education for the gifted and talented persons in Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 69–73. Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler (H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher, Eds.). New York: Basic Books. Alika, H. I., & Egbochuku, E. O. (2009). Vocational interest, counselling, socio-economic status and age as correlates of re-entry of girls into schools in Edo state. Edo Journal of Counselling, 2(1), 9–16. Bar-On, R. (2003). How important is it to educate people to be emotionally and socially intelligent, and can it be done? Perspectives in Education, 21, 3–16. Bar-On, R. (2007). The relationship between emotional intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Education International, 23(2), 136–150. Begoray, D., & Slovinsky, K. (1997). Pearls in shells. Roeper Review, 20(1), 45–49. Briggs, K. C., & Briggs Myers, I. (1995). Looking at type and careers. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (2nd edn, pp. 37–43). New York: Freeman. Brown, D. (Ed.). (2002). Career choice and development (4th edn). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brown, W. F., & Holtzman, W. H. (1974). Survey of study habits and attitudes (SSHA). Form H. Pretoria, South Africa: HSRC. Buthelezi, N. (2012). Inside efforts to turn the tide on South Africa’s poor maths and physical science performance. Engineering News. Retrieved from http://www.engineeringnews. co.za/article/inside-efforts-to-turn-thetide-on-sas-poor-maths-and-science-performance-2012-08-03 Carrim, N. (2002). Inclusion in South African Education. Institute of Development Studies, Discussion Paper no. 2 Colangelo, N. & Assouline, S. G. (2000). Counselling gifted students. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds),

386

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 595–607). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. Cranford, P. (1999). Julius Nyerere: Reflections on the legacy of his socialism. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 33(1), 137–152. Department of Basic Education (DoE). (2010) Guidelines for inclusive teaching and learning document. Pretoria, South Africa. Government Printer. Department of Basic Education (DoE). (2011). National Curriculum Statement: Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement. Draft Policy on Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer. Department of Basic Education (DoE). (2014). Draft policy on screening, identification, assessment and support. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer. Department of Education. (2001). Education White Paper 6, Special Needs Education: Building an Inclusive Education and Training System. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer. Du Toit, L. B. H. (1992). Manual for the Jung Personality Questionnaire (JPQ). Pretoria, South Africa: HSRC. Essop, P. (2004). Super academy opened for talented learners. Die Burger, 22 January, 14. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. Greene, M. J. (2003). Gifted adrift? Career counseling of the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 25(2), 66–72. Guichard, J., Pouyaud, J., de Calan, C., & Dumora, B. (2012). Identity construction and career development interventions with emerging adults. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 52–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb. 2012.04.004. Hartung, P. J. (2013). Career construction counseling. In A. Di Fabio & J. G. Maree (Eds.), Psychology of career counselling: New challenges for a new era (pp. 15–28). New York, NY: Nova Science. Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). (2010). Policy on the classification

of psychometric measuring devices, methods and techniques. Pretoria, South Africa: HPCSA. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Hyerim, S. M, Stack, N., Badia Martín, M., Blumen, S., Nguyen, Q. A–T., Wormald, C., Maakrun, J., & Ziegler, A. (2015). A crosscultural study of possible iatrogenic effects of gifted education programs: Tenth graders’ perceptions of academically high performing classmates. High Ability Studies, 26, 152–166. Ibdawoh, B., & Dibua, J. I. (2003). Deconstructing Ujamaa: The legacy of Julius Nyerere in the quest for social and economic development in Africa. African Journal of Political Science, 8(1), 59–83. Kamau, R. W. (2005). A study of measures used in the identification of gifted and talented children in three districts of Kenya. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya. Kathuria, R., & Serpell, R. (1999) Standardization of the Pangamuntu Test – a nonverbal cognitive test developed in Zambia, Journal of Negro Education, 67, 228–241. Kearney, K. (1996). Highly gifted children in full inclusion classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.hollingworth.org/fullincl.html Kokot, S. J. (1998). Fulfilling potential: Options for educating gifted learners in South Africa. Research Report, UNISA, April 1998. Kokot, S. (1999a). Help: Our child is gifted! Guidelines for parents (2nd edn). Johannesburg: Radford House. Kokot, S. J. (1999b). Discovery learning: Founding a school for gifted children. Gifted Education International, 13(3), 269–282. Kokot, S. J. (2005). A neurodevelopmental approach for helping gifted learners with diagnosed dyslexia and attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD). Africa Education Review, 2(1), 130–146. Krumboltz, J. D., & Chan, A. (2005). Professional issues in vocational psychology. In W. Walsh & M. L. Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (3rd edn, pp. 347–370). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa

Kurup, A., & Maithreyi, R. (2012). A review of challenges in developing a national program for gifted children in India’s diverse context. Roeper Review, 34(4), 215–223. Law, B. (1996). Careers education in a curriculum. In A. G. Watts, B. Law, J. Killeen, J. M. Kidd, & R. Hawthorne (Eds.), Rethinking careers education and guidance: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 210–232). London: Routledge. Levin, N., & Gati, I. (2015). Imagined and unconscious career barriers. A challenge for career decision making in the 21st century. In J. G. Maree & A. Di Fabio (Eds.), Exploring new horizons in career counselling: Converting challenges into opportunities (pp. 167–188). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. Lopez Levers, L.L., May, M., & Vogel, G. (2011). Research on counseling in African settings. In E. Mpofu (Ed.), Counseling people of African ancestry (pp. 57–74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Madge, E. M. (1979). The intelligent use of intelligence tests. Education Bulletin, 23(2), 54–62. Maree, J. G. (2010). Using early memories in career-story interviewing. In J. G. Maree (Ed.), Career counseling: Methods that work (pp. 167–199). Cape Town, South Africa: Juta Academic. Maree, J. G. (2012). A (guided) meta-reflection theory of career counselling: A case study. South African Journal of Higher Education, 26, 670–690. Maree, J. G. (2013a). Using a combined quantitative-qualitative approach to career counselling for a student in the natural sciences: A longitudinal case study. In A. Di Fabio & J. G. Maree (Eds), Psychology of career counselling: New challenges for a new era (pp. 239–264). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Maree, J. G. (2013b). Latest developments in career counselling in South Africa: Towards a positive approach. South African Journal of Psychology, 43, 409–421. Maree, J. G. (2014a). Poverty and life designing. In L. Nota & J. Rossier (Eds.), Handbook of the life design paradigm: From practice to theory (pp. 233–248). Boston, MA: Hogrefe. Maree, J. G. (2014b). Creating a sense of hope: The essence of career construction for life designing in a developing country context. In

387

M. Pope, L.Y. Flores & J. Rottinghaus (Eds.), The role of values in careers (pp. 213–232). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Maree, J. G. (2015c). Value of an integrated, qualitative + quantitative approach in facilitating positive psychological assessment: A case study. In R. Ferreira and K. Stanz (Eds.), Psychological assessment in the South African context (pp. 132–153).). Cape Town, South Africa: Juta. Maree, J. G. (2017a). Gifted education in Africa. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), APA Handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 131–142). New York, NY: American Psychology Association. Maree, J. G. (2017b). Life design counselling. In G. Stead & M. Watson (Eds.), Career psychology (3rd edn) (pp. 105–118). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik. Maree, J. G., & Beck, G. (2004). Using various approaches in career counselling for traditionally disadvantaged (and other) learners: Some limitations of a new frontier. South African Journal of Education, 24(1), 80–87. Maree, J. G., & Ebersöhn, L. E. (2006). Demonstrating resilience in a HIV & AIDS context: An emotional intelligence perspective. Gifted Education International, 21(2), 14–30. Maree, J. G., Elias, M. E. & Bar-On, R. (2009). Emotional intelligence, giftedness, creativity and talent. In Kerr, B. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent (pp. 320– 322). New York, NY: Sage. Maree, J. G., & Van der Westhuizen, C. N. (2009). From human to humankind: Facilitating global awareness among the gifted. Gifted Education International, 27(1), 54–62. Martin, C. R. (1995). Looking at type and careers. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Metz, A. J., & Guichard, J. (2009). Vocational psychology and new challenges. The Career Development Quarterly, 57, 310–318. Mohlala, S. C. (2000). The identification of gifted in an under-resourced rural area. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Pretoria, South Africa: University of South Africa. Mpofu, E. (2002). Indigenization of the psychology of human intelligence in Sub-Saharan Africa. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online readings in psychology and culture (Unit 5, Chapter 2), Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western

388

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, USA. Retrieved from https://univofpretoria.on.worldcat.org/atoztitles/link? sid=sage&iuid=264278&aulast=&date= 2002&atitle=Indigenization+of+the+psychology+ of+human+intelligence+in+Sub-Saharan+ Africa&aulast=&title=Online+readings+in+ psychology+and+culture& Mtolo, M. Z. (1996). Tertiary students’ perspectives on secondary school career education: A consumer perspective. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg. Munro, J. (2011). Identifying gifted knowledge and learning in indigenous cultures: Africa and Australia. In W. Vialle (Ed.), Giftedness from an indigenous perspective (pp. 24–31). Sydney, Australia: Australian Association for the Gifted and Talented. Naicker, S. M. (2000). From apartheid education to inclusive education: The challenges of transformation. International education summit for a democratic society. Ngara, C., & Porath, M. (2004). Shona culture of Zimbabwe’s views of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 189–209. Nussbaum B., Palsule, S., & Mkhize, V. (2010). Personal growth African style. Johannesburg, South Africa: Penguin. Oakland, T, Wechsler, S., & Maree, J. G. (2013). Test use with children across cultures: A view from three different countries. In K. F. Geisinger (Ed.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology (pp. 231–257). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Oluseyi, A. D., & Olujide, F. O. (2014). Education of the gifted/talented students in Nigeria: A justification. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(3), 9–11. Oswald, M., & De Villiers, J-M. (2013). Including the gifted learner: Perceptions of South African teachers and principals. South African Journal of Education, 33(1), 44–64. Owen, K. & Vosloo, H. N. (2000). Differential Aptitude Tests. Form S. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. Peterson, J.S. (1997). Bright, tough, and resilient – and not in a gifted program. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 97(8), 121–136. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Pope, M. (2013). Social justice. In M. L. Savickas (Ed.), Ten ideas that changed career development (p. 9). Broken Arrow, OK: NCDA. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 2: The Coloured Progressive Matrices. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). Applying gifted education pedagogy to total talent development for all students. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 80–89. Ruzgis, P. M., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1994). Cultural meaning systems, intelligence and personality. In R. J. Stemberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 248–270). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211. Sambu, M. C., Kalla, J. S., & Njue, S. W. (2014). Educating learners identified by teachers as gifted and talented in primary schools in Wareng District, Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 11(1), 232–245. Savickas, M. L. (2011a). Career counseling. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Savickas, M. L. (2011b). Reshaping the story of career counseling. In K. Maree (Ed.), Shaping the story – a guide to facilitate narrative counseling (pp. 1–3). Boston/Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. Serpell, R. (1993). The significance of schooling: Life-journeys in an African society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Serpell, R., & Boykin, A. W. (1994). Cultural dimensions of cognition: A multiplex, dynamic system of constraints and possibilities. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving (pp. 369–408). New York, NY: Academic Press. Sifuna, D. S. (2008). Wither African indigenous knowledge? The case of primary education in Africa from colonialism to globalisation. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.inst.at/ trans/17Nr/9-3/9-3_sifuna.htm Sisk, D. (2002). Spiritual intelligence: The tenth intelligence that integrates all other intelligences. Gifted Education International, 16(3), 208–213.

Career-life Counselling for the Gifted in Sub-Saharan Africa

Staunton, T. (2015). Mark Savickas and life design – theories every careers adviser should know. Retrieved from https://runninginaforest.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/marksavickas-and-life-design-theories-everycareers-adviser-should-know/ Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness, Roeper Review, 29(3), 160–165. Sternberg, R. J., Nokes, K., Geissler, P. W., Prince, R., Okatcha, F., Bundy, D. A., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: A case study in Kenya, Intelligence, 29, 401–418. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on

389

psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 176–188. Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown, L. Brook & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (pp. 197– 261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tutu, D. (2007). A reflective conversation with Archbishop Tutu. Gifted Education International, 23(2), 202–206. Van der Westhuizen, C., & Maree, J. G. (2006). Some thoughts on the training of teachers of gifted learners. Gifted Education International, 21(2/3), 201–217. Wagner, R. K. (1997). Intelligence, training, and employment. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1059–1069.

29 Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts through Living Theory Research Jack Whitehead and Marie Huxtable

INTRODUCTION Talents, gifts and education are all valuesladen words. Living Theory research is a research paradigm in which each practitioner accepts responsibility to research their practice to generate their values-based explanations of their educational influences. These are values-based explanations of their influences in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of the social formation they live and work in (Whitehead, 1989, 2018). An  explanation of educational influence is given by the educational-practitioner in terms of the ontological and relational values that emerge and are clarified in the course of their research. These values also serve as the standards by which the educational-practitioner holds themself to account in practice. We are taking our ‘values’ to be that which gives meaning and purpose to our lives, whereas ‘beliefs’ are what we believe to be true. The distinction between values and beliefs is important and can be confused and

conflicting. For instance, my values may be those of an emancipating, inclusive, egalitarian society: a society where each person accepts their responsibility for developing and gifting talents and knowledge to enhance their own well-being and the common good. A society where each person’s gifts are equally valued and we each exert our power with, not over, others, recognizing, ‘I am because we are and we are because I am’, represented by ‘i~we~i’ (Huxtable and Whitehead, 2016). However, some people may believe that ‘some are born more equal than others’ as Galton did. Galton lived in the Victorian days of empire, class and predetermined futures. He is credited with originating the notion of ‘intelligence’ (White, 2006), which is still the basis of many notions of gifts and talents in Western-dominated education, globally. Galton was a man of his time, a time when it was accepted that the British ruling classes were born to rule Britain and the world, with the support of the subordinated classes and

Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts

nations, as expressed in the Victorian hymn, still sung today: The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high or lowly, And ordered their estate. (‘All Things Bright and Beautiful’ by Mrs Cecil Frances Humphreys Alexander, 1848)

Galton’s values and beliefs were aligned and integrated with ideas on evolution, drawn from his cousin, Charles Darwin, and the emerging notions of statistics and individual human differences, which contributed to his development of the notion of intelligence. This was presented, and accepted, not as speculation but as a matter of fact, that we all possess different degrees of an ability that is innate, intellectual, general and limited. The belief follows that more value is attached to those ‘born to rule’ with their talents and knowledge. With the rising power of the industrial capitalists at the time, it is not difficult to conjecture that they saw the gifts of the talents and knowledge associated with the growth of industrialization, such as those of science, technology and finance, as more valuable than others, believing that gifts were not to be freely given but should carry a price. However such values and beliefs are somewhat out of place in a 21st-century world struggling with the complexity of realizing societal values that are the obverse to those of Galton’s autocratic, exclusive meritocracy. We now have the scientific, technological and financial means to meet the basic needs of all humans. What we have still to learn is how to create a world in which humanity cannot simply survive but flourish as humans behaving humanely. What we offer in this chapter are examples of how professional educational-practitioners have developed talents and knowledge as gifts for the flourishing of humanity through engaging in Living Theory research as CPD (Continuing Professional Development). In the process they offer their students exemplars and support to do the same in their lifelong educational journey. As we learn how to contribute to the creation of a world in

391

which humanity can flourish, we have been influenced by the ideas of Barry Hymer (2007; Hymer, Whitehead, Huxtable, 2009) on gift creation. Crompton shows how an individual’s values can also be conflicting, ‘Values are the aspects of people’s identities that reflect what they deem to be desirable, important, and worthy of striving for in life (Crompton 2010, p. 9). He offers two broad categories of values, those that are ‘intrinsic, self-transcending’ and those that are the opposite, ‘extrinsic and self-serving’. Each person has many values by which they judge the value of what they do. Sometimes they recognize themselves as living contradictions, or find themselves in situations where their values are contradicted. In those situations the struggle for the professional educational-practitioner is to understand the contradictions and how to live their life-affirming and life-enhancing values as fully as possible, and in the process develop and offer talents and knowledge as gifts that contribute to an academic and professional knowledge base. The knowledge gifted is their living-educational-theory. This comprises an account by the educational-practitioner of ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ they did what they did. The account includes clarification of their embodied expression of their values, which emerge in the course of their research and form their explanatory principles and standards of judgement. We are working from the premise that you share our belief that the values at the core of education, as a life-long process, rather than a time- and place-limited event, are those that are concerned with the flourishing of humanity; humanity as a species and humanitarian values. Ginott (1972) shows the implications in practice: On the first day of the new school year, all the teachers in one private school received the following note from their principal: Dear Teacher, I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no man should witness:

392

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Gas chambers built by learned engineers. Children poisoned by educated physicians. Infants killed by trained nurses. Women and babies shot and burned by high school and college graduates. So, I am suspicious of education. My request is: help your students become human. Your efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled psychopaths, educated Eichmanns. Reading, writing and arithmetic are important only if they serve to make our children more human. (p. 317)

We believe it is very important that teachers as educational-practitioners are clear about what makes their influence in learning educational. Reiss and White (2013) come to a similar conclusion when they begin their book, An Aims-based Curriculum: What are schools for? In very general terms, their aims are the same as those of a home with children. The task of both institutions is two-fold and simplicity itself, to equip each child: • to lead a life that is personally flourishing, • to help others to do so, too. (p. 1)

As we live we cannot help but have an influence in our own learning, in the learning of others and the learning of the social formations within which we live and work. We believe that teachers tend to do to their students (whatever their age) what has been done to them. Trained teachers tend to train, instructed teachers tend to instruct. The continuing professional development (CPD) of teachers has increasingly been limited to improving their ability to train and instruct as craft worker, executive technician or within a limited notion of ‘professional’ (Winch, 2013). Training and instruction are important, but what is missing is CPD that engages teachers educationally in their learning, so they then engage their students educationally in their learning. Some people’s values and beliefs appear to be set very early in life, while for others, experience and circumstances appear to have a far greater influence, either to change or deepen them. For example, Sanja Mandarić (2011), working with Branko Bognar and Moira Laidlaw on her Living Theory

research, wanted to improve group work in her lessons. She came to see that she had children working on the same table but not working together. As her research progressed she came to realize that her values were those of an autocratic rather than a democratic classroom. As her values shifted she developed her talents and knowledge to realize more democratic values in her classroom; her classroom culture changed and her pupils’ educational and curriculum learning improved. In making public her account of her Living Theory research she shows how she not only continually develops her practice but also fulfils her responsibility as a professional. Professional educators have two responsibilities: (a) to continually strive to develop their talents as educational gifts to their students; and (b) to contribute to an educational knowledge base for the growth of the profession. Their curriculum comprises both the ‘given’ and their ‘living’ curriculum. The ‘given’ curriculum, with pre-planned outcomes, is that determined by others and is usually associated with the acquisition, and sometimes application, of knowledge that is created by others. The ‘living’ curriculum (Whitehead, 1999) is one that evolves for each individual along his or her life-long educational journey. Jane Spiro describes how she came to recognize the value of the talents and embodied knowledge she created in her story, ‘I and Fellow Traveller’ (Spiro, 2008) and describes the pedagogy of her supervisor that helped her create and successfully submit her living-theory doctoral thesis. Living Theory research gives meaning in practice to CPD as continual; professional; development, by enabling each person to recognize, develop and offer talents and knowledge as educational gifts to enhance their own life and learning and that of others. The progress of each person through their evolving living curriculum is enhanced by creatively and critically engaging with the content of given curricula, the content of which can comprise discrete skills and knowledge, field and discipline knowledge and theories.

Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts

We believe professionals are responsible for researching their practice: We do research to understand. We try to understand in order to make our schools better places for both the children and the adults who share their lives there. (Eisner, 1993, p. 10)

We go further than Eisner and say that we do research to try to understand and create valid values-based explanations of our educational influences in learning in order to make this world, and not just our schools, a better place to be, for all. This chapter is based on the assumption that enhancing professionalism in education depends on the creation and evolution of a professional and academic knowledge-base, comprising the researched embodied knowledge of educational-practitioners. We offer Living Theory research as a way forward for teachers, and other professional educationalpractitioners, to express their educational responsibilities by continually researching their talents, embodied knowledge and practice to enhance and explain their educational influences, and gift their valid accounts to a global educational knowledge base. We begin this chapter by briefly introducing Living Theory research and where you can find out more. We then illustrate our meanings and the implications of Living Theory research as transformational CPD with examples of Masters and Doctoral programmes that have contributed to the creation of a profession of educators in different cultures and fields. In Gifted Education International (GEI) 2013, 29(3) and 2016, 32(1), we developed an argument for working with notions of talents, gifts and education as values-laden concepts, concerned with each person taking responsibility for learning to develop talents and knowledge, and offering them in their living-educational-theory as an educational gift. We argued that this enabled people to live life as fully as possible to benefit themselves, others and us all. In this chapter we extend these ideas into the development of

393

Living Theory pedagogy for transformatory CPD. By pedagogy we mean the art and science of developing educational influences in learning. We illustrate how educationalresearchers can be supported to develop through their ‘living curriculum’, and draw insights from the content of ‘given curricula’, to recognize, develop and offer their talents and knowledge as educational gifts. In doing this they draw on the field and academic literature and educational knowledge base they are contributing to. We want to emphasize the mutuality in Living Theory pedagogy. This is the mutuality of individuals learning from and with each other in the generation of their living-educational-theories. We conclude by considering the implications for the educational-researcher of contributing to Living Theory research as a social movement. These implications include the development of their empowering metacognitive abilities, the enhancement of their future educational influence in their own learning, the learning of others (such as colleagues and students), and the learning of the social formations they live and work in (such as schools, organizations, communities), and developing and offering talents and knowledge as educational gifts for the flourishing of humanity.

INTRODUCING LIVING EDUCATIONAL THEORY RESEARCH The idea of a living-educational-theory was first put forward by Whitehead (1985) from an analysis of his educational development, and clarified in his most referenced paper (Whitehead, 1989). A living-educationaltheory is an individual’s explanation of their educational influences in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social formations. As more researchers began to create their own living-educationaltheories, the idea of Living Theory research developed to enable professional

394

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

educational-practitioners to see themselves as researching within, and contributing to, a research genre, a discipline of educational enquiry (Whitehead, 1999), a school of research or a research paradigm. This is important, as it is the context within which a gift of knowledge is offered that enables others to recognize, value and work with it to develop their talents and knowledge as educational gifts. When Whitehead began his educational theory research at the University of Bath in 1973, it was unusual to explore the implications of asking, researching and answering the question, ‘How do I improve what I am doing in my professional practice?’ and to generate an educational theory in which ‘I’ existed as a living-contradiction. It was unusual to think that practitioners could be knowledge-creators and make valuable, original contributions to educational knowledge by making public their embodied knowledge as educators. It was also unusual to include ‘I’ as a living-contradiction within educational theory generation and testing, because the dominant logic at the time, the logic that determined what counted as ‘rational’, conformed to the Law of Contradiction, first put forward by Aristotle. This Law eliminated the possibility that two mutually exclusive statements such as ‘I am free/I am not free’ could be true simultaneously. In the 1960s this law was used by Popper in answering his question, ‘What is Dialectic?’ Popper (1963) rejected dialectical claims to knowledge as, ‘without the slightest foundation. Indeed, they are based on nothing better than a loose and woolly way of speaking’ (p. 316). Whilst both Popper (1963) and Marcuse (1964, p. 105), accepted the view that logic is the mode of thought appropriate for comprehending the real as rational, Marcuse, as a dialectician, rejected Popper’s rationality on the grounds that: In the classical logic, the judgment which constituted the original core of dialectical thought was formalized in the propositional form, ‘S is p.’ But

this form conceals rather than reveals the basic dialectical proposition, which states the negative character of the empirical reality. (Marcuse, 1964, p. 111)

The living-logics (Whitehead, 2013) that distinguish the rationality of a living-educationaltheory enable insights to be drawn from the explanations in propositional and dialectical theories without denying the rationality of propositional and dialectical theories. The logics of Living Theory research are grounded in the kind of decision that is the acceptance of my commitment to personal knowledge. Having decided that, I must understand the world from my point of view, as a person claiming originality and exercising his personal judgement responsibly with universal intent (Polanyi, 1958, p. 327). You can access many examples of educational-practitioners who are recognizing, developing and offering their talents and knowledge as educational gifts in their Masters units and dissertations and in their Doctoral theses from http://www.actionresearch.net. There are many other examples, for instance papers in the Journal of Living Theories, freely accessible from http://ejolts.net/archive.

IMPLICATIONS OF LIVING THEORY RESEARCH AS TRANSFORMATIONAL CPD WITH THE SUPPORT OF A LIVING THEORY PEDAGOGY We propose a notion of CPD for professional educational-practitioners that is more than occasional courses intended to develop skills and transmit notions dominating the field. Using Renzulli and Reis’ (1997) idea of three types of learning opportunities we show how Living Theory research can offer transformational CPD comprising all three types of learning opportunities. There is no intended hierarchy or order of engaging in these learning opportunities, but rather  there is a multidimensional fluid

Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts

relationship between them. These opportunities are developed by an educationalpractitioner as they create their own CPD programme by engaging in Living Theory research. The virtual world now offers much more than has been possible before in terms of material and opportunities for you to extend your cognitive range and concern (type 1) and acquire knowledge and skills (type 2) with Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), webinars and other accredited and unaccredited courses with pre-planned learning outcomes. What is more embryonic is support and opportunities for knowledge-creating researchers to behave as an expert (type 3). We mean this in the sense of researching a question of personal interest, in a disciplined manner, within a time frame, with valued outcomes, to create explanations of educational influence, as contributions to a professional and academic knowledge base. Teachers engaged in Living Theory research critically inquire into their practices to improve their knowledge of a discipline, such as science, their skills and talents as instructor etc. (Winch, 2013) and as educator. They look for where they experience themselves as living contradictions and/ or feel they are not doing as well as they might; they imagine possibilities for improving what they are doing, collect data to help them understand what they are doing and the influence they are having in learning, and use this data as evidence in support of knowledge claims and for creating explanations of why they do what they do. Explanations go further than descriptions as they include reasons in terms of the educational-practitioner’s ontological and relational values as their explanatory principles and standards of judgement. The work of Belle Wallace (2008) creating and gifting TASC (Thinking Actively in a Social Context) offers one research method that has been employed by many practitionerresearchers (e.g. Huxtable, 2008, 2012) internationally.

395

Living Theory research is transformational because it is concerned with the alignment of intellect, values and expressions of embodied knowledge in practice. Living Theory research is appropriate for all ages and stages, as is the use of research methods such as TASC. As the teacher engages in Living Theory research they offer an authentic example for their students of educational learning. Joy Mounter (2007) shows the transformational influence Living Theory research as CPD had on her classroom practice, and on the learning of her 6/7-year-old pupils’ learning as she introduced them to TASC and invited them to research their learning with her. The videos show three of Joy’s pupils critiquing TASC to create their own learning theory. You can access these short videos from: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=hH2-5xexbAQ, http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ti4syOrIDdY and http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=LSqg1phEEaM Joy’s account (Mounter, 2007) has given many educators (internationally) pause for thought as they recognize the amazing talents and knowledge children are capable of creating and offering as educational gifts to enhance their own learning and that of others. Later, as a head-teacher, Joy shows the transformational influence of Living Theory research as CPD on her own learning and that of her staff and school community (Mounter, 2012). Sally Cartwright (2008) and her 16/17-year-old students offer an example of the transformational nature of Living Theory research’s influence on the learning of young people engaged on an accredited course; an Advanced Extended Project qualification. You can learn more from the video of the young people presenting to regional strategy managers beginning with the first, accessible from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= GK1uLrb7aAs&t=2s&list=PL68BFC36A 0791E85F&index=1. One of Sally’s students later, as a doctoral student, joined the BRLSI

396

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Researcher project (http://www.spanglefish. com/youngbrlsi) to help others to get a taste of what she had benefited from. By making public their legitimated Masters work on the web (see for example http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/mastermod.shtml), publishing in journals, such as GEI, and drawing on their living-theory research in the course of their daily work, the educational-researchers contribute to the development of a professional and academic educational knowledge base for the flourishing of humanity. We supported both Joy and Sally to create and offer accounts of their living-theories as they worked on their Masters. At the heart of our support through a Living Theory pedagogy is our focus on empowering the student to recognize, value and work with what excites them and the life-affirming values that gives their lives purpose and meaning. We want to stress that whilst we are doing this with our students, we are also researching our Living Theory pedagogy in order

to improve our practice and to continue to evolve our own living-educational-theories. Developing as Masters and Doctoral educators (Whitehead & Huxtable, 2016), acknowledged by university accreditation at Masters and Doctoral level, gives educational-practitioners’ knowledge legitimacy and status. Meeting the academic and scholarly criteria for accreditation helps to ensure their explanations are valid and rational and there is appropriate integration of insights developed as they creatively and critically engage with the academic and field literature. By engaging in Living Theory research throughout their Masters programme, a teacher is able to progress their living curriculum by critically and creatively engaging with the contents of the given curriculum for each of the Masters modules and their dissertation. The given curriculum is constituted by the contents of the Masters units of the accrediting institution, such as the Masters unit below on Gifted and Talented Education that we tutored at the University of Bath:

Gifted and Talented Education Masters Module  Through this unit you will critically explore the field of gifted and talented education to inform your own understanding and development of gifts and talents as educationally influential and inclusive concepts to improve your professional practice. You will expect to develop and offer your own educational talents and knowledge as gifts to the benefit of your students/colleagues and your institution/organization. In the process of researching your values-based practice to improve it you will create multimedia accounts that help you understand, enhance and communicate your educational influences in learning. In the spirit of an inclusive approach to gifted and talented education you will expect to offer, as a gift to the professional knowledgebase, the maximum 6,000-word account on the web at http://www.actionresearch.net.

Aims As you research to improve your practice you will be supported to: • Critically analyse and evaluate different perspectives on the concepts of gifts and talents in educational contexts; • Critically analyse and evaluate local and national policies; • Critically examine the validity of developing inclusive provision, practice and theory to enhance talents, knowledge and gifts educationally; • Critically analyse and evaluate the basis on which valid judgements of educational influence on learners learning to develop and offer talents as gifts can be made; • Enquire into the educational influences of educators in their own learning, the learning of their colleagues and pupils, and the learning of their organization and/or communities; • Contribute to the knowledge base of effective practice in the field through values-based research.

Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts

397

Learning outcomes You will be supported to learn how to: • Analyse and draw on different theoretical perspectives and practical understandings of talents and gifts to enhance your educational theory and practice; • Analyse the educational implications of local and national policies on the education of learners in relation to the concepts of equality of educational opportunity and the development of gifts and talents that contribute to the flourishing of humanity; • Critically evaluate research on gifted and talented education in terms of educational influences in the learning of pupils and/or students; • Collect, analyse and interpret data with colleagues and pupils/students in order to make valid judgements on the educational influence on learners’ talents, knowledge and gifts; • Produce a validated account of your educational influence in the development of learners’ talents, knowledge and gifts.

The unit will address the following issues: • Theoretical perspectives and practical understandings of gifted and talented education; • School, local authority and government policies on gifted and talented education; • The value judgements implicit in different perspectives on the education of children to develop talents, knowledge, expertise as gifts, particularly in relation to inclusive approaches to education; • Systemic influences on the learning of pupils developing gifts and talents. • The use of action research methodologies in the improvement of educational practice and the development of educational knowledge.

Assessment In the unit, participants will be required to undertake a small-scale Living Theory research project in which they will research an attempt to improve the education of pupils developing talents as gifts with the overall aim of producing a maximum 6,000 word validated explanation of the educational influences on the learning of pupils’ developing gifts and talents. Multi-media explanations using digital technology will be encouraged.

Various resources, such as ‘The Bluffers Guide’ (Whitehead, 1995), were made freely available to support Living Theory researchers developing their research. Living Theory researchers bring to their research and professional enquiry a wealth of practical and embodied knowledge, and they have extensive data to draw on. To support Living Theory research requires an understanding of the processes through which the teacher recognizes, values and develops their talents as an educational-practitioner and how they can validate and evolve their embodied knowledge as an educational gift. These processes rest on a decision, as Polanyi puts it, and we it think worth repeating: ‘… to understand the world from my point of view, as a person claiming originality and exercising his (or her) personal

judgement responsibly with universal intent’ (Polanyi, 1958, p. 327), and on the belief that ‘Everyone has an aptitude for something. The trick is to recognise it, to honour it, to work with it’ (Shekerjian, 1991, p.1). Living Theory is a multidimensional and relationally dynamic and continual process. An early problem faced by a Living Theory researcher’s supervisor or tutor is how to keep a focus on the requirements of the accrediting university while enabling the student to develop their own voice. In common with other professional enquiries and practitioner-research, Living Theory research includes critical and creative engagement with academic, practitioner and field literature. Supervisors need to specifically seek to support and extend the researcher’s

398

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

engagement with the literature concerned, not just the disciplines of education but also with educational research, including the most recent innovations in the development of educational theory, practice and knowledge. Living Theory researchers are continually involved in writing and gathering multimedia data. Much of this writing is draft writing, for example, reflections as they draw insights from literature they have critically and creatively engaged with, developing their methodology and methods, research diary entries, blogs, vlogs, and documents produced for their workplace. They also continually gather multi-media data and create multimedia narratives. Much of the writings, including draft writing, become a source of data. Periodically Living Theory researchers create fuller, more ‘readerly’ multimedia narratives, to present, for instance, to their employer, peer validation groups, at conferences, and as submissions to journals. They look for critical, constructive responses to help them validate and progress their practice, research and ability to communicate their knowledge as it evolves. Validating a living-theory account involves testing the claim to knowledge, evaluating the claim, and asking how can it be improved and strengthened. Members of a validating group (usually between three and eight peers) might include, for instance, others in their learning community and other practitioner-researchers who are interested in contributing to the discussion. Often reviewers, colleagues and conference-presentation audiences offer responses that, in addition to offering a critique of the research, also help the researcher strengthen their account, and in this sense are contributing to validation. Validating Living Theory research entails asking others to offer responses to the following questions: • What more is needed for the reader to be clear about the ontological and relational values that form my explanatory principles and living standards of judgement? • What more is needed for my description and explanation of my educational influence in my

•

•

• •

•

own learning, the learning of others and the learning of the social formations within which I live and work, to communicate comprehensibility? How do I deepen and extend my understanding and communication of the normative background of my practice and research, including the intra-, inter- and extra-personal context, including the sociocultural and historical contexts? How could I strengthen the evidence I use to justify my claims to know my educational practice and the educational influence I am having in my own learning, the learning of others and the learning of the social formations I live and work in? How could I enhance the authenticity of my account, thus showing I am living my values as fully as possible over time? How can I further develop my account and practice by critically and creatively engaging with a range of literature in order to learn from and position my research and its contribution to knowledge? How can I improve my engagement with the literature and show how it shapes my thinking, including approaches to research, methodology and methods, theoretical framework, and my dissemination to relevant audiences in suitable formats and language?

It is important that a constant focus is maintained on the original contribution to educational knowledge that the practitioner-researcher is creating as they research their educational practice to improve and explain it. Part of this contribution is in clarifying their ontological and relational values as they emerge in practice and form their explanatory principles and standards of judgement in fulfilling the academic requirements for accreditation at Masters or Doctoral level. The titles of the works by some of those who completed the ‘Gifted and Talented Education Masters Module’ with us, listed below, exemplify our claim that engaging in Living Theory research is transformational CPD. They show the educational influence they have in their own learning and in the learning of students and colleagues. They can all be accessed from http://www.action­ research.net/writings/mastermod.shtml.

Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts

Sonia Hutchison (Chief Executive, Carers Service): My gift of authenticity as a leader. Sheila H. (Community worker): How do I continue to improve my practice while continuing to live my values of inclusion and equality, to ensure that learning is a positive and engaging process, enabling talents and gifts to unfold as a natural part of the learning journey, particularly for learners who are disadvantaged by cultural, emotional and physical barriers to learning? Amy Skuse (KS1): How have I developed my own personal views of Gifts and Talents in education and how does this influence what I do in the classroom? Gary Williams (Primary Head): Who’s kidding who? How can I use my interpretation of the story of gifts and talents to help children interpret their own? Claire Formby (Primary Deputy-head): How can I improve my practice as an educator to offer learners a creative and challenging curriculum which enables everyone to identify and develop their own talents and which also makes space for the nurturing of relationships to enable individual growth in understanding and self-esteem? Louise Cripps (Primary Head-teacher): How can I clarify my responsibility as a Headteacher as I provide opportunities to enable all children in the school to create talents? Joy Mounter (Primary Deputy-head): How can I work within the government’s perspective of ‘Gifted and Talented’ but still remain true to my own living values? Kate Kemp (Excluded Children worker): How have I come to recognize and develop my talents which are my gift to my colleagues and pupils? Nina Clayton (KS1 class-teacher): How am I using my own understanding and development of gifts and talents to promote the learning of children? Sally Cartwright (KS3/4/5): How can I enable the gifts and talents of my students to be in the driving seat of their own learning? Vicky Tucker (Special School): A response as to how my involvement with the Gifted and Talented programme initiated by Bath and North East Somerset has made me re-assess my living educational values and beliefs, thus influencing my delivery and provision for the SEBD students with whom I work. Ros Hurford (KS2): How does using philosophy and creative thinking enable me to recognise and develop inclusive gifts and talents in my pupils?

399

The following living-theory Doctoral theses show the development of doctor educators working in a range of international contexts and universities. To be awarded a Doctorate each researcher has had to make an original contribution to knowledge. In this process they have developed and gifted their talents and knowledge to extend the professional and academic knowledgebase. All and more can be accessed from http://www.action­ research.net Sadruddin Bahadur Qutoshi, University of Kathmandu, Nepal: Creating living-educationaltheory: A journey towards transformative teacher education in Pakistan This living-theory focuses on transformative teacher education and research practices in Pakistan, with reflexivity, inclusive logics, multiple genres and perspectival language as multiple ways of knowing. It employs a Multiparadigmatic Design Space (MDS) that includes an engagement with the paradigms of Interpretivism, Criticalism, Postmodernism and Integralism. Elizabeth Wolvaardt, University of Pretoria, South Africa: Over the conceptual horizon of public health: A living theory of teaching undergraduate medical students This living-theory challenges the notion that public health is over the conceptual horizon of medical students. A range of conceptual horizons are analysed to how they obscure meaningful engagement with medical students around public health. The living-theory justifies a claim to be living values of care and agency. It is offered as a form of meaning making to help others to look over their own conceptual horizons in search of wholeness. Delysia Timm, Durban University of Technology, South Africa: Towards the biochemical nature of learning and its implication for learning, teaching and assessment: A study through literature and experiences of learners and educators This living-theory uses both autobiography and auto-ethnography in an evidence-based explanation of the operation of the biochemistry in the researcher’s and others’ learning. The evidencebased explanations include the emotions of joy, love and fun activating the whole-being-learning that occurs in personal, spiritual and educational human learning. The thesis also describes a

400

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

living-educational-theory as one where human learning happens when there is joy-filled love and love-filled joy within a safe community of practice. Anat Geller, University of Bath, UK: Within dialogue and without: How has ‘being in the unknown’ become a value in my developing as a better dialogical educator? This living-theory is concerned with ‘I’ as an early childhood pedagogy instructor, an IsraeliJew from a Hebrew-speaking culture, working mainly in three educational frameworks in three cultures: an Israeli-Arab college which is predominately Muslim; secondly, as director of a course for Druze care-givers on the occupied Golan Heights; and, thirdly, as pedagogy instructor in an academic Teachers’ Training College that is affiliated with the Zionist Kibbutz movement, servicing the multicultural and multinational sectors of the Israeli society. Eden Charles, University of Bath, UK: How can I bring Ubuntu as a living standard of judgment into the academy? Moving beyond decolonisation through societal re-identification and guiltless recognition. This living-theory seeks answers to a question that focuses on ‘How I can improve my practice as someone seeking to make a transformational contribution to the position of people of African origin?’ Visual narratives are used to represent and help to communicate the inclusional meanings of these living standards of judgement. The narratives are focused on the work of a management consultant and include work with Black managers, the Sankofa Learning Centre for Black young people in London and living as a Black father. Swaroop Rawal, Coventry University in Collaboration with the University of Worcester, UK: The role of drama in enhancing life skills in children with specific learning difficulties in a Mumbai school: My reflective account This living-thesis is a reflective account of an action research project set in a drama classroom. It offers a multi-voiced patchwork text created and built imaginatively to re-present students and the researcher’s experience in the drama classroom. This research is concerned with a teacher’s capacity to recognize and realize the opportunities for learning in loving and caring for the students in an empathetic, compassionate, just and democratic classroom.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONALPRACTITIONERS OF CONTRIBUTING TO LIVING THEORY RESEARCH AS A SOCIAL MOVEMENT By Living Theory research as a social movement we mean a sustained, organized collective effort that focuses on social changes that are distinguished by educational influences that carry hope for the flourishing of humanity. The implications of contributing to Living Theory as a social movement include the development by each educational-practitioner of metacognitive talents and knowledge to enhance their future educational influence in their own learning, the learning of others, colleagues and students, and social formations. At the heart of such contributions is a commitment by each person to continually: • Research to live as fully as possible values and understandings that carry hope for the flourishing of humanity; • Research to deepen and extend empowering metacognitive talents and knowledge that are focused on enhancing future educational influence in our own learning, the learning of others, and in the learning of the local and global social formations we are part of; • Be open to recognizing, valuing and working with their own educational gifts of talents and knowledge and those of others, which contribute to a world in which humanity can flourish as a species living humanitarian values.

For example, Joy Mounter has moved from being a Head-teacher to working for an organization that offers CPD to schools, and is continuing to research to create her livingtheory doctoral thesis. Her provisional living-theory thesis title, is How can I contribute to the creation and enhancement of the educational influences of a community of learners, supporting each other and their own development? In the course of her work, such as lecturing and tutoring teachers on courses, creating a Masters programme, developing a

Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts

staff research group, Joy is mindful of researching to live her values as fully as she can in practice while asking: 1 How can I/we create a dynamic community of researchers, supporting each other and their own development (student and staff)? 2 How can I/we draw others into, and widen our research community? 3 How can I/we maintain our momentum as a research community and share our gifts? 4 As a diverse and evolving community, how can we maintain and strengthen the values?

She is currently meeting the third commitment as a member of a Skype doctoral research group, comprising educationalresearchers situated globally, and periodically updating her living-poster on the web as a member of a global community of educational-practitioners and submitting papers to journals as her doctoral research progresses. As we said, it is important that we ‘walk our own talk’. An example of our commitment in practice is how we support educationalpractitioners with their CPD accredited at Masters and Doctoral level. We submit papers to journals and conferences. For instance we cooperated in the organization of a workshop prior to a conference in Colombia, June 2017, ‘The 1st Global Assembly for Knowledge Democracy: Towards an ecology of knowledges’, (details on https:// knowle­ dgedemocracy.org). Jack is leading the workshop, ‘Living Theory Research in an Ecology of Knowledges’: The purpose is to converse with values-driven practitioner-researchers who want to enjoy a sense of connection with like-minded people and contribute to creating and spreading globally the influence of knowledge that carries hope for the flourishing of humanity. People not physically present in the workshop will be able to participate during the day via Skype. Those who cannot join the workshop on the day can contribute and have a presence through their living-posters. The session will be videoed and a report produced to add to the report for the pre-conference participatory workshop of the 4th February 2017 at:

401

https://knowledgedemocracy.org/2017/02/15/ report-on-the-carn-study-daypre-conference-workshop/. Further details on http://www.actionresearch.net/ writings/gakd/jwGAKDworkshop120617.pdf

We are extending our metacognitive talents and knowledge as we critically and creatively engage with the ideas of Epistemicide expounded by de Sousa Santos (2014), a keynote speaker at the 1st Global Assembly. The idea of ‘epistemicide’ is that a dominant group can ‘kill off’ the knowledges of a subordinate group. We believe that this is still being experienced by many, including practitioner-researchers as they seek to contribute to a professional and academic knowledge base dominated by researchers from the ‘disciplines’ of knowledge. Hirst (1983) acknowledges this ‘epistemicide’ when he writes about the error of the ‘replacement’ of practical principles by principles from the disciplines in saying that much understanding of educational theory will be developed: … in the context of immediate practical experience and will be co-terminous with everyday understanding. In particular, many of its operational principles, both explicit and implicit, will be of their nature generalisations from practical experience and have as their justification the results of individual activities and practices. In many characterisations of educational theory, my own included, principles justified in this way have until recently been regarded as at best pragmatic maxims having a first crude and superficial justification in practice that in any rationally developed theory would be replaced by principles with more fundamental, theoretical justification. That now seems to me to be a mistake. Rationally defensible practical principles, I suggest, must of their nature stand up to such practical tests and without that are necessarily inadequate. (Hirst, 1983, p. 18)

Many social scientists claim their research is informed by theories created in the disciplines of education, for instance, critical social theory. However, we haven’t yet seen the evidence that they have researched the process of asking and answering questions of the form, ‘How do I improve and explain my educational influence in learning?’ Hence

402

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

they have not offered, yet, a gift of their embodied knowledge showing how their own conceptual frameworks are influencing their educational influences in their own learning and in the learning of others. As a consequence, we are suggesting that they are imposing, deliberately or unwittingly, their own conceptual frameworks on others and maintaining the hegemony of traditional theories, practice and research. Many teachers, social scientists and others are faced with pressures to deny the value of generating and making public their embodied knowledge, as valued contributions to an influential educational knowledge base. By engaging in Living Theory research, educators in a variety of contexts have recognized where they were living contradictions and inadvertently extending the mind-numbing influence of the current hegemony over their current students and future generations, and subsequently developed educational practice more aligned to their life-affirming values and understandings. By continually researching our own practice we are trying to be vigilant so that we don’t unwittingly eliminate the knowledge of our students or others we work with. Whilst we understand de Sousa Santos’ focus on ‘justice against epistemicide’, we favour working to create and offer creative and generative knowledge. Mellett (personal communication) named the process ‘panepistemogenesis’, meaning a global movement of practitioner-researchers generating their contributions to knowledge in explanations of their educational influences in their own learning, and in the learning of the social formations that influence their practice and understanding with values that carry hope for the flourishing of humanity.

INTERIM CONCLUSION In this chapter we have shown education as a process through which we each can learn to develop talents and knowledge as gifts that

contribute to the flourishing of humanity; our own, each other’s, and local and global social formations. We developed an argument for working with notions of talents, gifts and education as values-laden concepts concerned with each person taking responsibility for learning to develop talents and knowledge as gifts which enable them to live life as fully as possible to benefit their self, others and us all. The ‘self’ is not an individualistic, self-serving ‘I’ but a relational, loving ‘i’, indicated by the phrase, ‘“i am because we are” together with “we are because i am”, which we represent as, i~we~i’ (Huxtable and Whitehead, 2016). We have presented an argument for teachers to recognize, develop and offer their talents as educational gifts through Living Theory research as core to their CPD to fulfil their responsibilities as professional educationalpractitioners. Those responsibilities include a responsibility to continually strive to improve their educational influence in their own learning, the learning of their students, colleagues and others, and the learning of the school, institution, community or organization they live and work in, and to contribute their values-based explanations of their educational influence they create in the process to evolving a global educational knowledge base. We briefly explored the consequences for the generation and gifting of educational knowledge, for the flourishing of humanity, of educational-practitioners working in contexts dominated by the Western Academy and capitalist forms of democracy, and the hope offered by contributing to Living Theory as a social movement. What now? We hope you will want to find out more or even embark on your journey to recognize, develop and offer talents as educational gifts through Living Theory Research, and in the process help your students and others to do the same. Travelling in company is more energizing and sustaining than travelling alone. Come join the journey in good company at http://www.actionresearch.net/ writings/posters/homepage220417.pdf

Recognizing, Developing and Offering Talents as Educational Gifts

REFERENCES Cartwright, S. (2008). How can I enable the gifts and talents of my students to be in the driving seat of their own learning? Gifted and Talented Master Module, University of Bath, UK. Retrieved 24 May 2017 from http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/ tuesdayma/scgandtnov08.pdf Crompton, T. (2010). Common Cause: The Case for Working with our Cultural Values. Retrieved 13 June 2028 from https://valuesandframes.org/resources/CCF_report_the_ case_for_working_with_our_cultural_values.pdf de Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. London: Paradigm Publishers. Eisner, E. (1993). Forms of understanding and the future of educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(7), 5–11. GEI (2013). Gifted Education International, 29(3). GEI (2016). Gifted Education International, 32(1). Ginott, H. (1972). Teacher and Child. New York: Macmillan. Hirst, P. (Ed.) (1983) Educational Theory and its Foundation Disciplines. London: RKP. Huxtable, M. (2008). Living Theory and TASC: A multidimensional, inter and intra relational, flowing knot of enquiry. Gifted Education International, 24(2/3), 190–203. Huxtable, M. (2012). How do I evolve livingeducational-theory praxis in living-boundaries? Thesis (PhD), University of Bath, UK. Retrieved 14 May 2017 http://www.actionresearch. net/living/mariehuxtable.shtml Huxtable, M. & Whitehead, J. (2016). How do we improve our contribution to the professional development of educational practitioners by enacting a self-study methodology? In Garbett, D., & Ovens, A. (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry. Herstmonceux, UK: S-STEP. Retrieved 17 May 2017 from http://www.castleconference. com/conference-history.html Hymer, B. (2007). How do I understand and communicate my values and beliefs in my work as an educator in the field of giftedness? D.Ed.Psy., University of Newcastle. Retrieved 25 May 2017 from http://www. actionresearch.net/living/hymer.shtml

403

Hymer, B., Whitehead, J. & Huxtable M. (2009). Gifts, talents and education: A living theory approach. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Mandarić, S. (2011). How I began to acquire the values of learner-centred teaching through Action Research.. In Kovačevic, D. & Ozorlić Dominić, R. (Eds), Action Research for the Professional Development of Teachers (pp. 303–314). Zagreb: Education and Teacher Training Agency. Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Mounter, J. (2007). Can children carry out action research about learning, creating their own learning theory? Masters Module, Understanding Learners and Learning. University of Bath. Retrieved 24 May 2017 from http://actionresearch.net/writings/tuesdayma/ joymounterull.htm Mounter, J. (2012). As a headteacher researcher how can i demonstrate the impact and selfunderstandings drawn from Living Theory Action Research, as a form of continual professional development in education? MA Dissertation, University of Bath. Retrieved 24 May 2017 from http://www.actionresearch. net/writings/module/joymounterma.pdf Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reiss, M., & White, J. (2013). An aims-based curriculum: The significance of human flourishing for schools. London: Institute of Education Press. Renzulli, J., & Reis, S. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how to guide for educational excellence. Connecticut: Creative Learning Press. Shekerjian, D. (1990). Uncommon genius: How great ideas are born. London: Penguin. Spiro, J. (2008). How I have arrived at a notion of knowledge transformation, through understanding the story of myself as creative writer, creative educator, creative manager, and educational researcher. Thesis (PhD). University of Bath, UK. Retrieved 22 May 2017 from http://actionresearch.net/living/ janespirophd.shtml Wallace, B. (2008). The early seedbed of the growth of TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social

404

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Context. Gifted Education International, 24(2/3), 139–155. White, J. (2006). Intelligence, destiny and education: The ideological roots of intelligence testing. London: Routledge. Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, how do I improve my practice? Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41–52. Whitehead, J. (1995). Advanced Bluffer’s Guide for Educational Action Researchers: Improving the quality of professional practice and creating living educational theories for cultural renewal. Retrieved 21 May 2017 from http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/ jack/95contents.pdf Whitehead, J. (1985) An analysis of an individual’s educational development - the basis for personally orientated action research. Published in Shipman, M. (Ed.) Educational Research: Principles, Policies and Practice, pp. 97–108; Falmer; London.

Whitehead, J. (1999). Educative relations in a new era. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 7(1), 73–90. Retrieved 18 May 2017 from http:// www.actionresearch.net/writings/CS4.htm Whitehead, J. (2013). A living logic for educational research. A presentation at the 2013 Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Sussex, 5th September. Retrieved 16 May 2017 from http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/ bera13/jwbera13phil010913.pdf Whitehead, J. (2018). Living Theory research as a way of life. Bath, UK: Brown Dog Books. Whitehead, J. & Huxtable, M. (2016). Creating a profession of educators with the livingtheories of master and doctor educators. Gifted Education International, 32(1), 6–25. Winch, C. (2013). What kind of occupation is teaching? Research Intelligence, 121, 13–14.

Part III

Global Responses to Emerging G&T Provision: Defining the Future John Senior

This section offers a highly stimulating and informative range of different perspectives on many of the central themes of this book, including the identification, definition, and developmental support of children and adults who demonstrate high ability through their gifts and talents. Our contributors also examine the larger economic, political and humanitarian issues regarding the gifted, able and talented. Hilary Lowe in ‘The Education of Highly Able Children in England: Challenges and Achievements’ (Ch 30), argues that at least two major areas of interest should be our concern: the economic contribution resulting from attending to the needs of the gifted, and their individual rights and legitimate expectations – and clearly, one does not exclude the other. Lowe reflects on the urgency of establishing sound and coherent responses to meeting the needs of all

children and those whom we recognise as gifted. Lowe examines recent policy developments relevant to the education of highly able learners in the English state school system, and found that while many highly able children do receive an education which allows them to participate in post-school opportunities, for a significant minority the evidence indicates underachievement for pupils. Lowe suggests that instead of a focus on ‘labels and definitions’, the focus should be on differentiating curricula to address diversity of need. Finarya Legoh, in ‘Creativity Competition for Gifted Students’ Communication and Self-Esteem Development’ (Ch 31), writes from an Indonesian perspective. She discusses the world-wide problem of provision and enablement for gifted learners and their teachers. The issues of differentiated

406

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

curriculum and the knowledge and skills of teachers required to deliver an appropriate curriculum to support gifted students within Indonesia is reflected in a global context. Differentiating the standard curriculum is an area Legoh discusses, as well as elitism and the random development of students’ skills and abilities. She concludes there is a need for teachers to have the skills to enrich and extend the set curriculum while diagnosing learners’ needs. Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar, Denise de Souza Fleith and Liliane Bernardes Carneiro in ‘Gifted Education in Brazil: Historical Background Current Practices and Research Trends’ (Ch 32) describe the challenging situation in Brazil where the school system serves over forty million students from low-income families, with many children attending school for less than four hours a day. The scarcity of programs specializing in the training of teachers teaching gifted and talented students, and a lack of action policy are challenging issues in supporting the gifted, their teachers and parents. While the country faces enormous financial and logistic challenges, some work is being done to provide for the gifted and their families. Altruism plays a large part in supporting gifted, twice exceptional children, and their socio-emotional development. The programs for disadvantaged gifted students supported by philanthropic organizations provide educational and professional support to these students, focusing on preparation to make a difference in their social and culturally impoverished surroundings, helping to decrease the social inequality that prevails in Brazil, and addressing the underrepresentation of girls in the available programs for the gifted. The development of creativity and innovation in schools is not a priority in the Brazilian school setting unless it is a part of sport or musical talent. The issues they discuss are concerned with providing a supportive and nourishing climate which is inclusive and addresses the person and their family needs while beginning to consider the

economic argument to support able children in their journey. Jiannong Shi and Pin Li in ‘New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China’ (Ch 33), write from a Chinese viewpoint, and they are clear in their vision and the need to support able students. Their policy stance and vision include utilising gifted education in the service of economic prosperity, and the need for increasing the numbers of engineers, scientists and other experts as an urgent national economic priority, underpinning gifted education provisions. The issues of what is considered ‘gifted’ and how we understand gifted education remain central regarding provision, whether from government-level thinking or from grassroots organisations. Utilising gifted education in the service of economic prosperity is also explored by David Yun Dai, ‘Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity’ (Ch 34), and ChingChih Kuo, ‘Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan’ (Ch 35). These writers discuss the need to increase the numbers of engineers, scientists and other experts as an urgent national economic priority. Interestingly the issues of what is considered ‘gifted’ and how we understand gifted education remain central to all discussions, whether at government-level thinking or at a ‘grassroots’ level. In addition to the vision of developing expertise for commercial development, Ching-Chih Kuo also discusses Taiwan’s desire to develop positive self-esteem and positive behaviours amongst the gifted and talented through developing international networks and strong, supportive, individual friendships. Ugur Sak, Bahadır Ayas, Bilge BalSezerel, N. Nazlı Özdemir, Ercan Öpengin and Şule Demirel in ‘Development of Gifted Education in Turkey’ (Ch 36) provide a picture of an integrated approach to planning and providing for the support of gifted and talented students in Turkey over three decades. Turkey sees a practical need to support the gifted and talented in planning for the country’s economic and political

GLOBAL RESPONSES TO EMERGING G&T PROVISION: DEFINING THE FUTURE

ambition to become one of the leading countries in the world. In Chapter 37, ‘Gifted Education in Europe’, Andrzej E. Sękowski, Barbara Cichy-Jasiocha, and Martyna Płudowska provide an analysis of European provision for gifted students, arguing that without sound educational policies and subsequently appropriate provision, there is no guarantee that ‘potential’ can become appropriately realised. Sękowski and colleagues argue that the need for a coherent and a unified approach is necessary in order for European countries to address the need for research-based collective initiatives to realise student potential. Don Ambrose in ‘Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization’ (Ch 38), addresses the issue of developing a coherent understanding of gifted education in a rapidly changing and developing global context. He states that whichever perspective or mixture of economic and philosophical beliefs are brought to an understanding of gifted education, one thing is clear, an interdisciplinary analysis of best practice is needed to manage the pressures of the 21st century. Ambrose presents an analysis of the global context, defined by complexity and uncertainty, which in turn leads to the question ‘How does gifted education become aligned with the complex nature of our fast-changing world?’ He concludes that new futures will require new and perhaps yet unknown gifts, talents and abilities to be realised and developed to address new challenges in the future.

407

Eva Gyarmathy and John Senior in ‘The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks’ (Ch 39), explore the view that given the rapid development of artificial intelligence and the challenge this presents to our pre-21st-century notions of what creativity is, careful analysis and rethinking is needed. The challenges of the 21st century include social, technological, economic and spiritual issues. The authors explore the question of whether all types of creativity can be programmed for an artificial intelligence, resulting in being able to learn to recognise an authentic creative act, given both the social repression of creative behaviours and increasingly rapid developments in the technologies of AI. They also examine the atypical neurological-based backgrounds regarding human creative thinking Ken McCluskey, in ‘Gifted Education: The Future Awaits’ (Ch 40), identifies several issues in gifted education, including: preserving the past selectively, embracing the future realistically, welcoming globalisation cautiously, seeking interdisciplinarity openly, valuing morality tangibly, creating a creative environment creatively, debunking myths about acceleration consistently, addressing the issue of IQ judiciously, and expanding enrichment inclusively. He suggests that in collaborating on research, partnering on service projects, sharing among and beyond ourselves and setting a meaningful course for the next leg of the gifted journey, we may in fact have a profound impact on increasing numbers of gifted and talented young people.

This page intentionally left blank

30 The Education of Highly Able Children in England: Challenges and Achievements Hilary Lowe

INTRODUCTION The English state school system represents 90% of the provision for 4–19-year-olds and has evolved into a highly diverse one, encompassing: • Community schools, controlled by the local authority and not influenced by business or religious groups; • Foundation schools and voluntary schools, which have more freedom than community schools to change the way they do things; • Academies, run by a governing body, independent from the local authority and which can follow a different curriculum (increasingly grouped into Multi Academy Trusts); • Free schools, a type of academy – a non-profitmaking, independent, state-funded school which is free to pupils who attend but which is not wholly controlled by a local authority; • Grammar schools, run by the local authority, a foundation body or a trust – they select all or most of their pupils based on academic ability (5% of pupils nationally) (DfE, 2017b).

This chapter uses the term ‘highly able’ (for the most part) to align more closely with the international context, with a particular focus on high achievement and attainment in the school curriculum. The term ‘highly able’ in the English education context does not carry a universally decreed definition, neither is there any requirement for schools to keep an official register of ‘highly able’ children. It can encompass the following: • High attainment as measured by national assessment and examination systems, for example the ‘higher standard’ at the end of primary schooling, Grade A/A* or new Grade 9 in the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) at the end of secondary education, A* in subjects at Advanced Level; • Special and advanced abilities in relation to peers, not necessarily validated by standardized and national tests. The Department for Education (DfE) and the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) tend to use the term ‘Most Able’, largely with reference to national measures of attainment and Ofsted surveys, but stop short of defining most able for individual schools.

410

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

The National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE), which was established in 1984 as an association of teachers concerned with meeting the needs of the more able, uses the terms ‘more able’ and ‘exceptionally able’. The former encompasses learners who are already achieving highly and those who may be underachieving or whose skills and knowledge may extend beyond the school’s measures of progress. Exceptionally able pupils are those deemed to have the capacity to achieve or perform at the very highest levels in relation to their peers. This is what may be termed an inclusive view, reflecting the NACE’s values and philosophy. Evidence from internet research, Ofsted reports and NACE members indicates that schools also use the varied terminology of ‘more able and talented’, ‘high achieving’, and less frequently, ‘high learning potential’, ‘high academic potential’, ‘high and advanced performers’ or ‘most able and exceptional’, with some schools still using the now ostensibly outdated terminology of ‘gifted and talented’. Whilst all state schools are accountable through inspection for the performance of their high attainers in English and maths in primary schools, and at GCSE in secondary schools, the lack of central mandates in all other areas pertaining to ‘more/most able’ means that there is widespread diversity in how schools define and identify their cohorts of able learners. In summary though, a high number of schools now take as starting points for designating their more able learners: • Those with high prior attainment as measured by public tests and assessment; • Those identified by teachers as more able in one or more subjects; • Those who may have been high attaining at some stage but may not currently be so; • The highest attainers in individual teaching groups; • Those who have shown high ability and high performance in spheres other than above; • Those deemed to have high ability but whose potential has not yet been realised because of barriers to learning.

Schools commonly ‘identify’ their able learners through: • On-going school-based, class assessments; • Teacher observation and judgment with reference to subject-specific criteria; • National test attainment data (SATS in English and maths at primary level and GCSE at age 16); • Overall progress; • Cognitive Ability Tests; • Tests such as YELLIS, MidYIS, ALIS (All tests available to schools are designed to measure student performance, potential and attitudes at different ages and stages of schooling); • Information from outside sources such as sport and creative performance.

Examples include one school which uses Cognitive Ability Tests (CAT) and teacher recommendations within the first term of Year 7 to identify a sub-group of Gifted and Talented students (approximately 10% of the school roll). Another school defines being ‘most able’ as having the top Average Point Scores at the end of the first three years of secondary education. These students will subsequently be expected to strive to achieve the highest ‘Attainment 8’ scores. (Attainment 8 is the average score obtained by a student for their best 8 GCSE results in specified subjects.) Yet another secondary school refers to students on the ‘more able and gifted register’ being identified by Key Stage 2 Standard Attainment Test (SATS) results and forming the top 10% of each year group based on combined English and maths scores at the end of primary schooling. Many schools refer to percentages of ‘more able’ pupils, ranging from 5% upwards of the school population (even to 40%), sometimes with ‘registers’ formally recording those in the top percentages. Such registers are not a statutory requirement and are internal to the school – other schools use ways of designating learners with high ability in systems used for monitoring pupils’ progress. Some schools articulate a very nuanced view of ‘more able’, stating that judgements about who is more or most able must take

The Education of Highly Able Children in England

account of, for example, the different rates at which young people progress through school and views on the ‘modifiability’ of intelligence and the impact of different factors on children’s development, as well as recognizing that good teaching will also allow ability to reveal itself, particularly for those learners with barriers to learning. The important thing for educational settings is to recognize that high ability and high attainment are not the same thing, whilst acknowledging that newly introduced assessment measures should allow for a clearer pinpointing of the highest attainers. Whatever terminology we use, we must allow ‘headroom’ for learners who, given the right circumstances, could be doing much better, as well as, for example, those children who arrive in schools with no previous records of attainment. Definitions and issues of ‘identification’ should not draw us away from the focal points of providing quality of provision and pedagogy, a range of opportunities, understanding of learners and their needs and monitoring the progress of all children. Strategies intended to develop and improve the education of highly able children are anchored in the social and historical context in which schools operate, a context affected by wider economic and cultural concerns

and views on how we best provide for individual differences in ability. These views are influenced by evidence emerging from disciplines such as the cognitive sciences (Willingham, 2009) and are complemented by proposals for pedagogical practices which might enable a wider group of children to become higher achievers (Allison & Tharby, 2015; Swann, 2012) (see Figure 30.1). Many highly able children in England do receive a high-quality education commensurate with their abilities, and leave school with all possible choices open to them for their future lives. Examples feature later in the chapter. However, there is evidence that too many able young people do not do as well as they should and are denied the life chances which should be open to them. Although there have been relatively few large-scale studies and even fewer longitudinal studies of highly able young people in the UK, reviews by Ofsted (2015a, 2017), by the Sutton Trust (2017, 2018; Allen, 2015) and the work of NACE with its extensive national coverage of schools, all paint a picture of under-achievement and unfulfilled potential alongside the success stories. Although the evidence has some limitations, the following picture has remained fairly static since 2012:

Figure 30.1  Summary of the cycle of enrichment and extension processes Source: Based on Allison and Tharby (2015)

411

412

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

• Approximately one-third of pupils with high prior attainment at the end of infant schooling (age 7) in state-funded, non-selective schools failed to secure the equivalent level at the end of primary schooling. • Approximately two-thirds of pupils in nonselective state secondary schools with a high level in SATS in English and maths did not achieve at least GCSE grade A in both those subjects. • Approximately 15% of learners who fall within the top decile on KS2 test performance (Allen/ Sutton Trust, 2015) do not achieve within the top quartile of GCSE performance (assessed via the Attainment 8 measure).

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector’s Commentary (Gov UK, 2017) attributes some of the above outcomes to: • Poor progression from primary school to secondary school, resulting in high attainers ‘treading water’ during the early years of secondary schooling; • A culture of low expectations combined with failure to nurture high ambition and scholastic excellence; • Inadequate monitoring of top-end challenge, particularly in groups of mixed abilities; • Disproportionate focus on the GCSE borderline pass grades at the expense of top A*/A grade achievement.

National data (eg Ofsted, 2015a) shows that most able students’ achievement appears to suffer even more when they make up a very small proportion of the school’s population. Moreover, the same evidence indicates underachievement of disadvantaged pupils (defined in England as pupils currently eligible for free school meals). The outcomes of the latest international comparisons studies (Jerrim, 2017; DfE, 2016b), the most recent schools’ performance data (DfE, 2018 and data on post-16 destinations and access to Higher Education (DfE, 2017a), all show continuing gaps between highly able young people and their international peers, and between the achievement of disadvantaged highly able young people and their more advantaged peers. A significant feature of the education context in England is what has been termed the

‘the long tail of underperformance’, meaning the relative underperformance of children with reference to national standards of attainment. It is unsurprising, therefore, that so much attention has been given by schools trying to improve achievement and standards at baseline levels and to ‘narrow’ the achievement gap. However, concerns about underachievement have increasingly acknowledged the so-called ‘excellence gaps’ created by the disproportionate representation of more advantaged children at the highest levels of achievement at all stages of compulsory education (Social Mobility Commission, 2016a, 2016b, 2017; DfE, 2017c). Underachievement and excellence gaps in schools contribute to the enduring issue of low social mobility, and this continues in higher education. Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are still less likely to attend university, and students from the poorest households are 55 times less likely than independent school students to attend Oxford or Cambridge. Access to education and job opportunities is an ongoing issue (Sutton Trust, 2017). Of course there are wider obstacles to social mobility in the UK, but they do not diminish the role of education as a bastion of excellence and equity, and a key player in driving social mobility. In summary, there is a diverse and wide spectrum in England regarding both the quality of provision for highly able young people and their educational outcomes. There is still much progress to be made, as evidenced by HMCI (2016), Ofsted (2015a and b) and the Sutton Trust (Sammons, Toth, & Sylva, 2015; Allen, 2015): • National data show that too many of the most able students are not receiving an education which meets their needs and are not achieving as they should. • Disadvantaged able learners achieve less well than their peers. • More able boys do less well than more able girls. Disadvantaged boys are most likely to be in the ‘missing talent’ group.

The Education of Highly Able Children in England

• There is not enough guidance for able learners on subject choices in schools. • Too many able learners fail to get into top universities. • Only one-third of bright disadvantaged learners took one or more ‘high status’ subjects in 2016/17 compared with two-thirds of advantaged learners. Highly able pupils receiving financial aid are far less likely to be taking GCSEs in history, geography, triple sciences or a language. • Teachers and teaching assistants are insufficiently prepared to teach the very able, and teacher supply problems, especially in the core academic subjects, exacerbate the issue. • Continuity and progression in learning across transitions is often not commensurate with learners’ ability. The evidence highlights a significant number of non-selective secondary school learners who had attained highly in both English and mathematics at the end of primary school failed to attain the top grades in these subjects at GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) 2016/17. • There is a significant geographical performance gap in English and maths at GCSE, between the most able in the Southern England and those in the North of England.

Despite the challenges outlined above, there is a growing number of schools in England making good or excellent provision for all their able learners and narrowing the excellence gaps, continuing the best aspects of a historic legacy of policy and provision which put the needs of highly able learners clearly in the spotlight. From the late nineties onwards, for more than ten years, there was a surge of development in the education of the highly able through a major national initiative, supported by billion pound funding. The main landmarks set out in Table 30.1. In March 2011, there was a decoupling of government from centralized direction and support for ‘G&T’, with a new direction for school improvement via a ‘self-improving school system’. This promoted greater autonomy for schools and increased school to school collaboration, in tandem with greater

413

accountability via inspection and school performance data. The current government was elected in 2015 on a manifesto that promised to ensure that all schools created more opportunities to extend the most able. The subsequent Schools White Paper of 2016 (DfE, 2016a), advocated ‘excellence for all’, identifying the most able as one of the groups neglected by the previous accountability system. It made the explicit commitment to ensure that all schools would extend their lowestattaining and most academically able pupils by supporting approaches aimed at boosting their attainment. It also promised that there would be further action to ensure that the Pupil Premium (targeted funding for schools to increase social mobility and reduce the gap in performance between disadvantaged pupils and their peers) was used effectively in all schools, for all children – including the most able. A new Initial Teacher Training (ITT) core framework was to include a statement that ITT providers should equip trainees to be able to inspire and provide extra challenge for the most able pupils. Whilst mirroring many of the aspirations to ‘excellence with equity’ of the gifted and talented paradigm of the nineties and noughties, the key drivers now in the education of the highly able are embedded in wider education and social policy, curriculum and assessment reform. The new National Curriculum in England (DfE, 2014) requires Ofsted Inspectors to pay particular attention to whether the most able pupils are making progress towards attaining the highest standards. Teachers are required to plan ‘stretching’ work for pupils whose attainment is significantly above the expected standard, with an emphasis on ‘closing the gaps’ of disadvantage. The mechanisms for development are no longer through government prescription, but through schools’ own improvement processes, school-to-school support and collaboration, including for research. Key support organizations include Multi Academy Trusts,

414

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 30.1  Enriching and extending high quality teaching and learning Mar 1999 Sept 2001 2002 From 2006 Mar 2007 May 2007 Aug 2007 Sept 2007 Nov 2007 2008 July 2008

Feb 2009 July 2009 Jan 2010 Mar 2010 Mar 2011

Excellence in Cities programme launched, including Gifted and Talented strand. White Paper, Schools Achieving Success, announces Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth. National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth set up at the University of Warwick, funded for five years. Schools required to record percentage of gifted and talented children on the annual January census returns. A new National Programme for Gifted and Talented Education (later rebranded as the Young, Gifted and Talented) launched. Funding over four years for nine Excellence Hubs formed by universities, schools and others to run summer schools and offer other provision. Contract with University of Warwick for National Academy ends. Young Gifted and Talented Learner Academy for 4–19-year-olds set up. National Champion for the Young Gifted and Talented Programme announced. Gifted and Talented becomes priority option for High Performing Specialist Schools, intended to be lead schools in a national secondary G&T network. Gifted and Talented strand of City Challenge announced with funding for three years to raise the attainment and aspirations of Year 10 pupils eligible for free school meals in London, the Black Country and Manchester. National Register of Gifted and Talented launched, but discontinued in February 2010. Government announces a move away from the centralized Young Gifted and Talented programme to more locally based activities; gifted pupils aged 14–19 from deprived backgrounds to be offered scholarships. The then Labour Government planned to offer pupils and parents guarantees, with every school required to confirm these to its gifted and talented pupils Contract for Young, Gifted & Talented Learner Academy programme ends. National Strategies expands its G&T provision. Funding for National Strategies ends. G&T materials transferred to an online National Archive; see http:// webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110812195502/http://nsonline.org.uk/node/288007). Funding for G & T, including High Performing Specialist Schools, re-routed through Dedicated Schools Grant revenue stream for schools.

Source: Adapted from Smithers and Robinson (2012)

designated Teaching and Research Schools, the Sutton Trust and NACE. The National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE) plays a significant role in its advocacy and support for school improvement for more able learners. The Sutton Trust, through its social mobility mission, provides summer schools and offers an intensive two years of support to bright, low- and middle-income students during the early years of secondary school. The Trust also offers guidance to students with regard to the GCSE subject choices that will lead to the A-levels demanded by leading universities. Organizations such as The Brilliant Club and Higher Education outreach provide enrichment; and Ofsted is unrelenting in its

focus on the more able, reflecting the ‘no holds barred’ rhetoric of the previous Chief Inspector of Schools HMCI, 2016), who repeatedly said that the nation’s economic prosperity depended on developing the talent of the next young generation of business leaders, wealth generators and job creators. The plans contained in the 2017 DfE paper Unlocking Talent, Fulfilling Potential, place improving social mobility squarely at the heart of education policy. The aim is to bring together a concerted approach to level up opportunity across the education system, including research and evaluation of effective approaches for the most able disadvantaged children, and prioritizing work with the most challenging communities.

The Education of Highly Able Children in England

As part of a wider aspiration to raise standards and achievement for all, and to align England more closely with the achievements of the world’s highest performing countries, attending to the educational needs of the highly able is enshrined in wide-ranging new measures. That is the context within which schools now plan and provide for all learners. There are many schools from nursery through to post-16 which have continued to make or are developing good provision for their more able learners. There are some beacons of excellence and innovation, and others who are now picking up the baton for their more able learners through the new accountability measures and assessment and curriculum reform. Many schools providing successfully for their highly able learners have found very effective support through the NACE Challenge Award Framework and Guidance, now part of the NACE Challenge Development Programme. The Programme provides a set of tools and services to support whole-school development and improvement in provision for more able learners, in the context of challenge for all. For schools at an entry or developing stage in provision for the more able, the framework provides a useful structure through which to identify strengths and priorities for improvement. It can be used to create an action plan that will move the school towards highquality provision. Schools with more developed provision for more able learners can use the framework to consolidate their understanding and practice. Their aims would be to extend existing provision, refine strategies for identification, and strengthen their improvement plans. Schools meeting all the criteria of the Challenge Framework may apply for accreditation through presenting evidence of how they meet the criteria for external validation by NACE Challenging Award. The Challenge Framework comprises detailed ‘quality’ descriptors which support schools in undertaking robust self-evaluation and producing informed, well-focused action planning. They help schools to:

415

• Create a whole-school ethos of high aspirations and expectations for all learners; • Achieve consistency in quality provision: wholeschool, phase and/or departments, and in day-today lessons; • Plan and implement developments in quality of teaching and learning, underpinned by an effective professional development programme; • Focus on partnerships with parents/carers, other schools and organizations to enrich and extend provision; • Develop or strengthen impact-focused leadership and management.

The Framework has a strong focus on day-today teaching and learning, and high expectations for staff and learners through: • Recognizing academic and wider abilities and talents; • Ensuring an inclusive approach to stretch and challenge; • Drawing strongly on learner and parent voice and satisfaction as part of school improvement; • Placing a strong focus on tackling underachievement and creating an ethos that raises standards for all; • Supporting important transition stages by providing a common approach.

One of the strengths of the Framework is the guidance given to schools about how to use it, how to involve school staff and learners, with links to resources and exemplars of what ‘good looks like’. Schools comment very favourably on how the Framework and guidance help them to focus on what really makes a difference for learners, in particular through the clear guidance on evidence of impact. Evidence provided from NACE ‘Challenge Award’ accredited schools and from Ofsted reports and case studies points to some of the defining features of those schools developing good and excellent curricular and wider support for their highly able students. At a whole-school level it is typical to find: • Strong leadership at all levels committed to improving standards for all and with a clear and steady vision for learning and achievement for all groups;

416

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

• Integration between all strands of school policies and practices; • High expectations and no cap on who can achieve, alongside a clear focus on those already demonstrating high achievement; • Early recognition and ‘profiling’ of learners’ individual strengths and development needs; • Broad, balanced, flexible and rich curricula, designed to open routes to the highest aspirations; • Flexible and principled grouping and organizational practices; • Evidence-informed practices and an ‘enquiry’ mindset amongst teaching staff; • Expert teaching underpinned by strong subject knowledge; • Confident use of formative assessment with active pupil involvement; • Tight checks on progress and swift interventions to accelerate learning; • Pupil voice to inform developments and learning; • Support to close attainment gaps, including the ‘excellence gaps’ between more and less advantaged pupils; • Effective staff development and collaborative practices; • Partnerships which support the school’s mission and curriculum; • Information, Advice and Guidance, taking account of the needs of the most able; • Deliberate development of learners’ cultural and social capital; • Effective transition arrangements, focused on progression and learning.

In summary, the success of those schools is built on the highest expectations for all learners, and a clear vision of how to raise achievement for all, confidence in determining the best approaches for individual learners, strong partnerships and an enriched and demanding curriculum. In such schools meeting the needs of highly able learners is central to all school planning, arising from the philosophy that ‘best practice for able pupils is best practice for all pupils’, based on the premise that the school needs to create opportunities that will enable all pupils to discover their talents. Schools successfully providing for the more able deploy in their classrooms many of

the ‘hallmark’ practices of good provision and practice for highly able learners, demonstrating active use of those pedagogies described in the literature as effective for high ­ability learners (see Hewston, Campbell, Eyre, Muijs, Neelands & Robinson, 2005). They anchor these securely in high-quality teaching and learning for all (Coe, Aloisi, Higgins & Major 2014; Husbands & Pearce, 2012; Hattie & Yates, 2013; Higgins et al., 2012) and in those approaches which are deemed to stimulate deeper learning and high-level performance (see Fullan, Quinn, & McEachen, 2017). Many of these classroom principles and approaches, including how to address ‘harder to shift’ challenges such as underachievement and exceptional ability, are captured in the following examples drawn from Challenge Award and NACE member schools, from national Teaching and Research Schools, Ofsted case studies (Ofsted, 2013, 2015a) and research surveys (Wallace, Fitton, Leyden, Montgomery, Pomerantz & Winstanley, 2007). The examples are from different schools with details of their good practice.

TRANSITION FROM PRIMARY TO SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR MORE ABLE LEARNERS An enduring feature of the education landscape is the importance of securing continuity and progression for all learners and an enduring challenge that of doing it for very able learners. It is a particular challenge for those schools which draw on a large number of ‘feeder’ primary schools and those who see an increasing number of children moving from other countries or areas and speaking languages other than English. The following case studies are representative of the expanding number of schools putting into place effective ways of managing successful points of transition for able learners.

The Education of Highly Able Children in England

A team that includes teachers and some of the most able students in Years 7, 8 and 9 develop an understanding of each of the Year 6 pupils due to transfer to secondary school. Staff members visit over 40 feeder schools to establish the students’ strengths, interests and needs. Students complete demanding literacy, numeracy and science activities on ‘taster days’ and subject-based ‘challenge booklets’ during the summer break. Leaders then set individualized and highly demanding targets based on information about each student. This is supplemented by the results of baseline assessments, cognitive, reading and spelling tests that are used to diagnose gaps in learning, potential and any previous underachievement. Close liaison with the primary schools ensures that the Year 7 curriculum builds on, rather than repeats, work completed at Key Stage 2. Homework tasks develop students’ higher-order thinking and reasoning skills and help facilitate substantial progress during Year 7.

A Transition Team of senior staff ensures curriculum mapping of English and maths across Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 to minimize overlaps of taught concepts. Observed good practice in teaching and learning in the primary schools is developed in the secondary with the aim of accelerating progress without causing gaps in children’s education. Curriculum planning allows Year 6 to access different subjects, for example Art and Design Technology, with children being taught French by specialist secondary school teachers and an accelerated reading programme to further challenge more able pupils. Children are also exposed to problem solving and reasoning, led by a maths specialist, to further challenge children’s mathematical thinking and reasoning.

SUPPORTING DISADVANTAGED ABLE LEARNERS Many schools are working hard to narrow the gaps in achievement between more and less advantaged learners, including the ‘excellence gaps’ described earlier. Examples of such strategies are: • Targeted intervention through a ‘Pupil Premium’ grant for children who are higher-level writers;

417

a homework club with specialist support where needed; specialist maths and literacy teaching for more able pupils in Years 4–6, including maths master classes; and the development of a peermentoring programme for reading and maths between Years 2 and 6. • A school is working with the Brilliant Club, an organisation which aims to widen access to top universities. Through weekly tutorials with a PhD graduate, 12 of the school’s most able Year 8 girls started to gain the knowledge, skills and ambition required to secure places at top universities; lead teachers for the more able support Year 6 children, making more than expected progress.

EXCEPTIONALLY ABLE LEARNERS The evidence strongly suggests that learners deemed to have what may be termed exceptional ability can be marginalised and insufficiently challenged and supported in schools. The following case studies show what schools can do for this arguable small but nevertheless important group of learners. • Exceptionally Able Students (EAS) in this school are often identified through displaying outstanding ability and skills in a particular subject area and then a achallenged by teaching through tasks to help them develop higher order thinking skills. • EAS are also following pathways which go beyond the GCSE curriculum. Learning independence and ‘flipped’ learning (whereby students acquire knowledge prior to lessons and then secure their understanding in class) have been particularly effective. Students all have access to their learning targets for the year on an online platform which allows students the flexibility to go above and beyond what is being taught through the school curriculum.

The Gifted STEM Programme (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths) provides the most able students with the opportunity to learn in ways that allow them to make the most progress in their learning, and to go far beyond the traditional National Curriculum. Students in the Gifted STEM

418

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Programme are fully integrated into the main school, and spend three days a week at the main Campus, going across to the STEM Centre for the co-curricular programme at the end of each day. These students spend the other two days of the week at the Centre following the Gifted Programme. There are opportunities for all students from the school to engage with an innovative and exciting co-curricular programme.

CHALLENGE IN EVERYDAY LESSONS The heart of getting it right for more able learners is in the everyday classroom through teaching and assessment commensurate with learners’ abilities. The following schools are making high quality provision for able learners in an ethos of challenge for all and with a belief in the ability of many children to achieve highly. In this school, English teachers plan together and produce high-quality stimulus and challenging activities for lessons. They adapt the materials by pitching their lessons at the most able and offering scaffolding of tasks for different abilities. This includes regular review of model answers for the most able so that they know exactly what to aim for. The English team invites all the families of Year 7 and 8 students to visit each term. At this popular event, families see different examples of work and get advice on how to support students. Parents of the most able see the work of other most able students and learn about the standards expected of class work and homework. They are given booklists to encourage wider reading and discussion. Progress by the most able students in English language has improved markedly over the last three years, resulting in a very high proportion gaining the highest grades at GCSE.

The Outstanding Pedagogy Project involves a group of teachers identifying an area of pedagogy that they wish to explore in order to pave the way for an eventual whole-school approach. The project has resulted in approaches to challenge involving: flipped classroom and self-evaluation; the use of SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome); investigation and enquiry strategies; advanced language and questioning;

and teaching to the top approaches to learning. ‘For a learner to be truly challenged we must ensure they do not stay in the confines of their abilities. We must take them outside of their comfort zone so that progress does not stagnate. Learning that it’s “okay to get something wrong” is a vital part of the development of all learners’.

This school consistently demonstrates: a classroom climate, conducive to good learning and hard work, together with high expectations, excellent subject knowledge and teaching expertise which leads to engaging, challenging and varied differentiation of activities promoting learning in depth and risk taking; questioning which challenges and probes pupils’ thinking; well thought through opportunities for pupils to talk about and explain their learning; well-planned and imaginatively used resources including ICT to develop independent learning; and a consistent marking and feedback policy which supports the pupils in making excellent progress in their learning through teacher feedback and metacognition.

WHOLE SCHOOL POLICY AND PROVISION The evidence points to the importance of embedding the highest expectations for the achievement of all learners, including those capable of the highest achievements, across all aspects of a school’s provision and policies and of course in planning and practice in the classroom. Such aspirations are exemplified by the following schools:

The High Achieving Pupils Policy is embedded in other school policies, including the Teaching and Learning Policy and Assessment Policy, securely underpinning high quality provision. Schemes of learning have integral support for able learners. All departments have striven to ensure able learners are provided with work to challenge them from the outset; high aspirations for provision and accountability are well planned, based on meticulous auditing of existing provision. The school tracking system embodies high expectations for all and is used consistently to monitor the progress of all students. All data is reviewed and discussed by a

The Education of Highly Able Children in England

range of different staff groups, including Governors who hold staff accountable for the progress of individual students, acknowledging ‘students here are not allowed to drift’. The thorough analysis of the cohort of ‘high achieving pupils’ also ensures that any student who is at risk of underachieving receives quick targeted intervention.

The following key features lead to excellent provision and outcomes for highly able learners: a specialist Senior Leader in the school for Challenge and Talent; aspirational targets set for all students – and achieved; teachers fully engaged in their own professional development; the Year 6/7 transition project and transition folders provide teachers in several departments with useful information about the incoming students and ongoing evidence of high level work; the use of MEGS and SEGS (minimum effort grades and stretch effort grades) contributes to the provision of individual challenge; the widespread use of higher order questioning encourages students to make connections and develop their responses; a ‘closing the gap’ record comprises improvement comments after major assessments have been completed.

CHALLENGE THROUGH ENRICHMENT Opportunities to deepen and broaden experiences and learning are beneficial for all young people, especially those whose everyday lives cannot provide such opportunities. Many schools put considerable energy and resources into the enrichment of their students’s education and the broadening of their horizons, as shown in the following examples. In this school the Extension Class programme provides very able students with access to additional learning experiences within the curriculum which aim to either deepen or broaden their thinking and awareness of areas of learning beyond the core curriculum. The school makes good use of many partnerships to develop learning opportunities for students. Enrichment provision is extensive with a plethora of clubs and trips and a myriad of competitions, in subjects ranging from Drama and Music to Public Speaking. The programme also enhances opportunities for students to develop

419

leadership and independent skills. Master classes are implemented from an early age to challenge the most able pupils. Those pupils identified as ‘more able and talented’ are encouraged to pursue their studies to the highest levels possible through a curriculum which allows the most able linguists in Year 8 to study German; early entry GCSE Humanities in Year 9; additional GCSE statistics in Years 11 and 12; Higher Project Qualification for KS3 and 4 pupils, Extended Project Qualification for Year 13 pupils; exchange programmes; extension materials within lessons; master classes; an annual summer school and a vast array of extracurricular opportunities. The school has also launched a programme for high-ability pupil premium pupils in Years 7 and 8 to ensure there is ‘no missing talent’.

The approach to the identification of more able learners in this school not only seeks to identify students with high ability but to provide a solid foundation to meet their needs. Profiling for provision is inextricably linked to the personalized practice in place for these learners across the curriculum and school life more broadly. The more able policy aims to ‘raise the aspirations of all pupils; to create high expectations of achievement for all pupils and to ensure that all pupils have opportunities to develop specific skills or talents’. Regular assessment of learners in different environments and situations mirrors the school’s belief that there is always room for learners to progress to a level where they are identified as having high ability in a particular field. A school database of more able learner profiles not only defines each learner’s ability in particular subjects, but also their skill sets and the optimum methods for working with them in the classroom. This database has become the backbone for improving provision and classroom practice.

CONCLUSION Despite the many challenges still to be addressed, there is a sound foundation of excellent provision in many schools in England for highly able learners and for all those capable of high achievement. We need to learn from and give support to these schools, and to grow capacity, extending networks of leading schools and practitioners.

420

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Importantly, we must evaluate what is already happening and undertake new and much needed research to deepen our understanding of high ability and the conditions for high achievement. One can hypothesize that we might be moving towards a much needed reconceptualization of ‘gifted’ education: perhaps a return to Borland’s (2005, pp. 13–14) suggestion that, instead of focusing on labels and definitions, we should ‘focus instead on differentiating curricula and instruction for all diverse students in our schools. In England a national mission remains: to develop and harness the talents of all young people through confident, well resourced schools, effective school improvement models, targeted and well promoted research and wider social and economic change.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank NACE colleagues and Challenge Award schools for the contributions they have made to this chapter.

REFERENCES Allen, R., 2015. Research Brief Missing Talent. The Sutton Trust, https://www.suttontrust. com/research-paper/missing-talent/ Allison, S., & Tharby, A., 2015. Making Every Lesson Count: Six Principles to support great Teaching and Learning. Crown House. Borland, H. J., 2005. ‘Gifted education without gifted children. The case for no conception of giftedness’. In J. R. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds), Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge University Press. Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., & Major, L. E., 2014. What Makes Great Teaching? Review of the Underpinning Research. Sutton Trust, https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/10/What-makes-great-teachingFINAL-4.11.14-1.pdf

DfE, 2014. National Curriculum in England: Framework for Key Stages 1 to 4, https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/ national-curriculum-in-england-frameworkfor-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculumin-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4 DfE, 2016a. Educational Excellence Everywhere, https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/508447/Educational_Excellence_Everywhere.pdf DfE, 2016b. International Comparisons of Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/ collections/international-comparisons-ofeducation DfE, 2017a. Destinations of Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5 Students, England, 2015/16, SFR 56/2017, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/651012/SFR56_2017_Main_Text. pdf DfE, 2017b. Types of School, https://www.gov. uk/types-of-school DfE, 2017c. Unlocking Talent, Fulfilling Potential: A Plan for Improving Social Mobility through Education, https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/667690/Social_ Mobility_Action_Plan_-_for_printing.pdf Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J., 2017. New Pedagogies for Deep Learning: Leading Transformation in Schools, Districts and Systems. Corwin Press. Gov. UK, 2017. https://www/compare-schoolperformance.sesrvices.gov.uk/ Hatti, J., & Yates, G., 2013. Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. Routledge. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, 2016. HMCI’s Commentary: Most Able Pupils. Ofsted, https://www.gov.uk/government/ speeches/hmcis-monthly-commentary-june2016 Hewston, R., Campbell, R. J., Eyre, D., Muijs, R. D., Neelands, J. G. A., & Robinson, W., 2005. A Baseline Review of the Literature on Effective Pedagogies for Gifted and Talented Students. (Occasional Paper 5). National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, Coventry. Higgins, S., Kokotsaki, D., & Coe, R., 2012. Teaching and Learning Toolkit. Education Endowment Foundation, https://education

The Education of Highly Able Children in England

endowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidencesummaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/ Husbands, C., & Pearce, J., 2012. What Makes Great Pedagogy? Nine Claims from Research. National College for School Leadership Jackson, Y., 2011. The Pedagogy of Confidence: Inspiring High Intellectual Performance in Urban Schools. Teachers’ College Press. Jerrim, J., 2017. Global Gaps. Sutton Trust, https://www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/ global-gaps/ Montacute, R., 2018. Potential for Success Fulfilling the promise of highly able students in secondary schools The Sutton Trust, https:// www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/ potential-for-success-schools-high-attainers/ NACE Challenge Award, http://www.nace. co.uk/challenge-award National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE), www.nace.co.uk Ofsted, 2015a. The Most Able Students: An Update on Progress since June 2013, https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/ the-most-able-students-an-update-on-progresssince-june-2013 Ofsted, 2015b. Key Stage 3: The Wasted Years? https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459830/ Key_Stage_3_the_wasted_years.pdf Ofsted, 2017. Ofsted Annual Report 2016/17: Education, Children’s Services and Skills, https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofstedannual-report-201617-education-childrensservices-and-skills Sammons, P., Toth, K., & Sylva, K., 2015. Subject to Background. Sutton Trust. Smithers, A., & Robinson P., 2012. Educating the Highly Able. Centre for Education and

421

Employment Research, University of Buckingham. Social Mobility Commission, 2016a. Ethnicity, Gender and Social Mobility, https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/579988/Ethnicity_ gender_and_social_mobility.pdf Social Mobility Commission, 2016b. State of the Nation 2016: Social Mobility in Great Britain, https://www.gov.uk/government/up loads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/569410/Social_Mobility_Commis sion_2016_REPORT_WEB__1__.pdf Social Mobility Commission, 2017. State of the Nation 2017: Social Mobility in Great Britain, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662744/State_of_the_Nation_ 2017_-_Social_Mobility_in_Great_Britain.pdf Sutton Trust, 2017. Social Mobility 2017, https://www.suttontrust.com/researchpaper/social-mobility-2017-research/ Swann, M., 2012. Creating Learning without Limits. McGraw-Hill Education. Wallace, B., Fitton, S., Leyden, S., Montgomery, D., Pomerantz, M., & Winstanley, C., 2007. Raising the Achievement of Able, Gifted and Talented Pupils within an Inclusive Setting. NACE/London Gifted and Talented. Willingham, D. T., 2009. Why Don’t Students Like School? Wiley. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ school-and-college-performance-tables-inengland-2016-to-2017 March 2018 Ofsted, 2013 The Most Able Students Are they doing as well as they should be in nonselective secondary schools?

31 Creativity Competition for Gifted Students’ Communication and Self-Esteem Development Finarya Legoh

INTRODUCTION: EDUCATION FOR GIFTED STUDENTS IN INDONESIA Indonesia defines giftedness as high achievement in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic or leadership activities, or achievement in a particular field such as mathematics, music or science (Munandar, 1995). According to Escobedo and Herrera (2013), a gifted person is someone who demonstrates an exceptional level of performance in one or more areas of expression. Some of these abilities are general and can affect the broad spectrum of the person’s life, such as leadership skill or the ability to think creatively. The term giftedness provides a general reference to this spectrum of abilities without being specific or dependent on a single measurement (Escobedo, 2013). In school learning, it is necessary to plan the education of gifted students differently from ordinary learning. According to research, gifted students like a challenging

environment in order to realize their ability optimally: otherwise, they can underachieve due to less challenging learning environments (Semiawan, 1997). Indonesia does not have any special schools for gifted students, although efforts to create an education service for the gifted were initiated in 1974 (Sukarso, 2007). Then, scholarships were given to high achieving youths in low-income families. In 1984, the Research and Development Unit of the Ministry of Education and Culture pioneered the service for gifted students from all backgrounds. In 1993, the Ministry published a policy with regard to schools of excellence. Then accelerated learning programs were pioneered in 1998 by testing selected talented students in two private schools, under the direction of the Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education. The students who passed the tests were awarded scholarships as well as special bonuses (Sukarso, 2007). In 2003, the Law Number 20 issued by the Indonesia National Education System

Creativity Competition for Gifted Students’ CommunicatioN

was released. The Law stated requirement to provide special education for gifted students in order to optimize their potential growth into young adults who are knowledgeable, capable, creative and independent (Budhiarti, 2013). Consequently, some schools considered opening special acceleration classes for gifted students, in order to nurture their high intellectual ability. Students with special intelligence require a different or higher-level curriculum from their peers. This is arranged through three paths: acceleration, enrichment and extension. The acceleration program allows students who have high intelligence and extraordinary ability to complete their education in a shorter period of time than the usual time allocated (Davis and Rimm, 1998; Hawadi, 2004). The test criteria used to recruit potential students in acceleration programs uses three test components: intelligence, creativity and task commitment, as identified by Renzulli (1977) in the Three Ring Conception model. Enrichment means to expand knowledge, information, understanding, application, thinking processes, strategies and skills, attitudes and self-esteem, toward high-level abstract thinking and performance at a complex level. These aspects can be achieved through several kinds of extension activities, such as field excursions, study in selected topics and individual or group research projects. In-depth activities can be conducted through Information Communication Technologybased learning, focused learning centers, self-study contracts, mentoring, competitions, and resource-based learning. In the learning dedicated to the gifted, the standard competency of content that currently exists for regular students should not be adopted. Instead, the content must provide opportunities for students to construct their own knowledge and learning experiences. The content should also include the development of social and context competence. Roy (2016) indicates that learning should be designed to suit the character and personality of the student. If a student has a specific gift,

423

the learning should be designed according to the domain’s knowledge and processes. Such special attention is not intended to discriminate, but merely to provide educational programs to suit the needs of gifted students. Through the implementation of ‘special gift education’, it is expected that potentials that have not been developed optimally will emerge and grow, and the students will be able to reveal their best performance. Currently, the education strategy promotes a standard curriculum for all students. However, gifted students need to be engaged and socialized with other gifted students so that they do not feel exclusive, thus avoiding the possibility of them feeling superior (Munandar, 1995). If no attention is given to differentiate students with regard to skills, interests and talents, then excellence will arise randomly and depend solely on the students’ interest and motivation. The problem that teachers face is the knowledge of how to modify the standard curriculum into appropriately challenging content that matches the intelligence of the advanced learner. This requires the teacher to be highly professional in diagnosing learners’ needs and capable of enriching and extending the set curriculum (Semiawan, 1997). While the Government carries out extended debates with regard to general policy and curriculum strategies for gifted students, a series of extracurricular programs have been developed and national and international competitions have been established for primary and secondary students. This chapter describes the efforts that have been made by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) together with China, Japan and Korea with regard to planning extra-curricular activities in science and technology. All member countries are encouraged to adapt the program to suit their particular cultural needs. The program presents challenges that require creative problem-solving addressing relevant humanitarian and environmental problems. One of the programs

424

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

is called the Junior Science Odyssey, which Indonesia adopts nationwide.

CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTED STUDENTS Primary school teachers are encouraged to identify potentially gifted learners from an early age, observing characteristics including: • Curiosity – boundless curiosity, which is not easily satisfied with the answers that they get from most adults. This characteristic sometimes makes adults impatient or even confused when they have to answer searching questions. • Language skill – a tool of socialization and the basis for intelligence development. Often intellectually gifted children show rapid language development, early reading, and a quick memory for new vocabulary. • Creativity – identified through their play activities; for example, in complex games that include shapes or constructions, drawing and writing. • Interests – unusual with a fast pace of learning, manifesting independence and strong inner motivation. • Leap in intellectual development – with a tendency to be perfectionist. (Sayekti, 2013; Sumida, 2016)

Factors Affecting Giftedness Sayekti’s research (2013) specifies many factors that could influence the development of gifted students, such as: • Hereditary factors – the ‘embryonic seed’ which determines the development of intelligence, creativity and personality. • Environmental factors – strong family influence, especially a family that provides books, computer, games and musical instruments. Also highly educated parents can provide useful attention (Hawadi, 2004). • Societal factor – the response to giftedness which can have a positive or negative influence.

Sayekti (2013) and Roy (2016) affirm that talent in science encompasses both genetic

and environmental factors, resulting in obsessive questioning for deeper answers to scientific and environmental issues.

GIFTED STUDENTS’ EDUCATION IN INDONESIA Currently, the National Education policy supports the following: • Equal opportunities for all children to develop their potential; • Use of tests that are standardized and adjusted to the condition and culture of Indonesia; • The curriculum for gifted students’ should be specifically programmed, i.e. separated from the regular curriculum to meet their particular needs, especially the development of social skills and self-esteem; • Teachers need special training in order to understand the needs of gifted students so that they are able to determine the goals and objectives of learning, assist in the formation of students’ values (life, moral, social), choose learning experiences, determine teaching methods/strategies, and, most importantly, become a model of behavior for students (Munandar, 1995). • The various cultures in Indonesia need to be respected with regard to gender, ethnicity, religious, social and economic conditions. • Specific education programs for gifted students include: ¡ Enrichment – the provision of opportunities and additional learning facilities that have intensive depth and breadth. ¡ Acceleration – gifted children complete the regular education program in a shorter period of time. ¡ Segregation – opportunities are created for extra-curricular courses for groups of highly able students (Sayekti, 2013).

PROBLEMS OF GIFTED STUDENTS IN INDONESIA The Law Number 20 of 2003 outlining the National Education System has affirmed that students with an intelligence level above

Creativity Competition for Gifted Students’ CommunicatioN

average are called gifted; they need special education to support their superior talents or potentials. Under this Law, it is clear that the national education system strongly supports the provision of educational programs for gifted students. Both public and private schools have developed accelerated programs to provide special education for gifted students. Nevertheless, there are still many problems encountered by gifted students in Indonesia in obtaining educational services (Ulfah, 2015). The problems are various, ranging from the perception of the public, the system of gifted education, the school management of the curriculum, and the lack of capability among teachers tasked with the education of gifted students (Sulipan, 2010; Ulfah, 2015). The most dominant problems are: • A public perception that gifted students can meet their own educational needs, and that if teachers can cover the content of the curriculum, gifted children do not need special attention. • Gifted students are commonly labeled as elite children of the high societal class. This is because most of the talented and gifted students come from the middle to upper social classes. The gifted students who are less fortunate due, for example, to poverty or negligence do not have the opportunity to actualize their abilities. • The educational curriculum in Indonesia is not sufficiently flexible for gifted students. The schools that do provide an accelerated program, often just condense the content. • Schools that aim to provide special education for gifted students do not have the same criteria for identifying giftedness. • Teachers are usually not trained to teach gifted students, and the school system often lacks programs for talented students.

A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO THE ENHANCE SELF-ESTEEM OF GIFTED STUDENTS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Initially, there was little interest in correlating science and technology (S&T) with

425

creativity, because S&T was considered rational, practical and observable, whilst creativity was perceived as somewhat vague and abstract (Roy, 2016). However, the science and technology projects fostered by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) together with China, Japan and Korea have challenged students and teachers to creatively solve environmental and humanitarian problems using science and technology. Additional aims include fostering both individual and team-work, and hopefully developing scientists of the future who are concerned with local and national problems (Lee, 2011). The students develop selfesteem and forge friendships which are lasting, and which allow them to continue networking with each other. In summary, the main purposes of the Odyssey program are: • To improve and globalize extra-mural education for children who are gifted in science through sharing ideas, knowledge and problem-solving skills; • To stimulate students’ intellectual curiosity through various experiences and experiments; • To provide students with opportunities to foster friendships and networks; • To motivate students to pursue careers in S&T.

Since its initiation, the program has been implemented nationally and internationally. The Junior Science Odyssey includes: general lectures and lectures related to the topic of S&T, poster presentations, laboratory skills assessment, team projects, laboratory work and presentation of results, cultural presentations and a workshop for teachers. Throughout the program, the students are encouraged to cultivate their self-esteem, to be leaders and collaborators both with their team and also with teams from other countries. A strong emphasis is placed on students communicating their knowledge and experiences so that people in the community can understand. We live in a scientific world and there needs to be understanding of scientific

426

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

investigations and processes (Kim, 2014; Claessens, 2013; Carrada, 2006; Royal Society, 1985). Schiele (2013) has stated that culture today is shaped by science, but scientific ignorance is still prevalent, hence the Junior Science Odyssey aims to create a strong and open relationship between S&T and society, and make S&T more accessible and exciting to young people and non-scientists. The implementation of the Junior Science Odyssey is circulated throughout the member countries. The first Odyssey was held at Brunei Darussalam in 2012, with the theme of ‘Tropical Rain Forest’. 9 countries with 63 junior-high-level talented students, plus 22 teachers and observers, participated in the event. All general principles, terms and conditions of the Odyssey had been intensely discussed before this event. In 2013, Busan in the Republic of Korea hosted the competition with the topic of ‘Science in Wetland Areas’. 75 students and 35 teachers and observers participated, from Brunei Darussalam, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and Korea, while representatives from Nigeria, Sweden and Chinese Taipei were also invited. Thailand organized the Junior Science Odyssey in 2014 at the National Science Museum, Pathum Thani. The theme was ‘Innovative Agriculture for Global Sustainability’. Only 42 students and 22 teachers and observers from 7 countries participated in the event, due to the political turmoil in Thailand at that time, which prevented several countries from sending their delegates. Nevertheless, the competition was enhanced with poster presentations that were related to the scientific problems of the students’ own countries. The title was ‘Innovative Agriculture for Sustainability in Your Own Country’. Students were asked to study the existing agriculture system in their own countries, then to suggest a better system for sustainable agriculture. The Indonesian team did a research project on subak, a unique traditional irrigation

system for the rice terrace fields of Bali, acknowledged by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as one of the world heritage cultural landscapes. Subak reflects the philosophical concept of Tri Hita Karana, the integrated territories of spirit, human world and nature. Rice is the gift of God; the subak system is part of temple culture; and the water network comes from the temple as the water resource management system to bring about the ecology of the rice terrace fields. The students transformed the system without abandoning the prevailing Tri Hita Karana concept by measuring the water intake required for a certain area and applying the system using distilled sea water in the coastal areas and spring water in the hilly areas. When Indonesia was hosting the Odyssey in 2015, all the ASEAN countries joined the event, plus Korea, China, Chinese Taipei and Sweden, making 14 countries altogether (4th APT JSO, 2015; APT JSO, 2015). The participants consisted of 81 junior-highlevel talented students plus 26 teachers and 17 observers. This was the largest number of participants compared to previous events. A special appreciation was given to Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos, as they were participating in the Junior Science Odyssey for the first time. The event was held at the Center for Research in Science and Technology, the main center for Indonesia’s research and development laboratories. The theme was: ‘Biodiversity towards an Innovative, Smart and Green Society’. Through this theme, it was intended to develop students’ awareness of cultural issues and threats. Such issues may contribute to students developing the proper attitude that S&T is an integral part of a better life (Legoh, 2015). The assignments in the program included three aspects: understanding-oriented, actionoriented (Wilgenbus, Faure & Schick, 2012), and S&T communication-oriented (Legoh, 2014; Legoh & Permatasari, 2016). The assignments involve the students in carrying

Creativity Competition for Gifted Students’ CommunicatioN

out scientific activities, building their capacity for problem solving, and enhancing their understanding of the phenomena involved. The understanding-oriented project in the investigation focused on analyzing factors that affect microalgae culture in raceway ponds, and involved chemistry, physics and biology. Innovation technology challenged students’ creativity in the making of microalgae cookies. The students were provided with information about the potential contents of microalgae, and asked to make cookies with measurements applied in practical cooking. This task deepened the students’ knowledge about microalgae while at the same time stimulating the students’ creativity to make healthy, delicious and presentable cookies with the perfect amount of ingredients and nutritional value in them. The action-oriented project required students to explore their indigenous native plants and their application within their own country. They investigated the advantages and uses of the plants by analyzing their contents, and they presented posters to show their findings under the heading ‘Potential Usage of Native Plants’. The third project was the investigation of ‘Smart Marine and Coastal Environment Technology’. The project focused on the problems in the sea, and how these could be solved whilst protecting the marine and coastal environment. The students had to consider the preservation of an ecosystem of biodiversity. Their ideas were disseminated through a science blog, as a Science and Technology communication-oriented tool, which had to be informative, persuasive and attractive. Although the designs and contents of the blog could be creative, they also had to be logical and informative (Red Team – APT JSO, 2015). In these circumstances, students learn to communicate, to share and discuss, using their imagination, creative ideas, opinions and knowledge. They are also faced with leadership, sharing and distributing tasks, featuring taking responsibility and managing

427

people. This approach requires the students to communicate to their team as well as to the public about their work, and to deliver their message in an understandable language. At the same time, they learn the beneficial use of Information and Communication Technology. The activities enable students to become confident in communicating their ideas for problem-solving and addressing global issues. The criteria for assessment were: quality of scientific content, teamwork, creativity, practical applicability, and benefits to society. All approaches were integrated within pleasant and comprehensive learning activities, which combined local knowledge with global problem-solving. In order to increase their knowledge of research and development in a coastal environment, the students visited the Indonesian research vessel Baruna Jaya IV. The ship is dedicated to oceanography and fishery research and development. The lectures were given on board by scientists; thus, students learnt about marine and coastal research projects as well as understanding the quality of work by scientists in the field. The time allocated for discussion and preparing the proposal was very limited, but students produced amazing concepts and proposals. They expressed their ideas on their blogs creatively and informatively. Judges were amazed that all the teams offered different ideas, for example one team offered a concept of marine fertilizer by applying iron fertilization to remove carbon dioxide from the ocean.

ASSESSING TALENT AND CREATIVITY It is important to get to know gifted youths individually because their excellence may be in different and specific areas of knowledge. During the national coaching for the Junior Science Odyssey competition one student was discovered to be excellent in mathematics but when he was a member of a team, his

428

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

approach was not outstanding. However, by coaching him with various examples and inquiries, his self-confidence increased and he began to think creatively. In contrast, another student immediately engaged in suggesting highly creative ideas. These two students worked together, complementing each other and sharing their strengths, so that they learnt from each other. In an action-oriented project, one team decided to explore the qualities of durian fruit skin, which is hard, thick and thorny, making up 79% of the whole fruit. The students investigated the chemical contents of the skin and found a creative way to use the skin to refine old, well-used, palm cooking oil, removing its impurities, so that the oil is able to be reused. The other idea presented was selected from the local wisdom of typical traditional Papua housing from the Dani tribe called Honai. The housing is built with the courteous human philosophy of the Dani tribe, to educate the young generation in respecting the legacy of their ancestors. Honai means one heart, one thought and one purpose. The dome-shaped design signifies the solidarity of tribes in protecting their traditional culture. The housing was traditionally constructed from local wood, with thick weeds woven for the roof. But although the Honai is ventilated, this is not sufficient, and inhabitants were prone to respiratory disease and lack of daylight. The group engaged in a project to build Honai using modern technology and more durable materials to make them suitable for holiday homes, whilst preserving and communicating the traditions of the Dani tribe. It can be seen that all students exhibited an appreciation of new solutions; the ability to identify gaps in information; the capacity to see or do things in differently; and the ability to creatively express their ideas, visually and verbally with the use of technology. We observed no differences between the Asian and the Swedish students’ intellectual and creativity capacities. The only difference

was that the Asian students were initially more reserved than the Swedish, but through team-work and discussion, the Asian students became more confident. To examine and assess students’ intellectual and creativity capacities, the organizers of the Science Odyssey developed projects based on students’ interests; with the teachers participating in the Science Odyssey carefully observing each student with regard to the fluency of their ideas, their willingness to change their methods, the quality of their divergent thinking, and their degree of persistence to complete the task. The science investigations were based on real problems, both local and global. Scientists with the appropriate expertise were engaged to deepen students’ knowledge, to encourage logical and creative thinking and to widen students’ perspectives within their field of exploration. Taber (2007 cited in Roy, 2016) talks about science as a human and collaborative activity for the benefit of society, and the aim of the Science Odyssey is to give the students experiences that allow them to work as real scientists and then to communicate their work to the community.

CONCLUSION The Law of the National Education System of Indonesia announced its intention to support gifted students: the aim is to develop self-esteem and potential by offering scholarship bursaries to universities. However, it is imperative to restructure the basic learning and teaching in the formal educational system: gifted students need to be provided with a curriculum that motivates them to take on challenges in science and technology. The mandate to develop an appropriate education system for the gifted is laid down by Law, but guidance on its implementation is not firm, so that policies and regulations

Creativity Competition for Gifted Students’ CommunicatioN

are left to the efforts of the schools that are interested. Teachers need to be trained to recognize gifted learners and to create appropriate learning challenges for these students linked to real-life problems. Those should be backed up with related policies and regulations, which, in turn, should provide an educational and social environment to stimulate students’ creativity and excellence in pursuing their future careers. The extra curriculum activities provide opportunities for some students to work in greater depth and breadth. The Junior Science Odyssey is a competition that inspires and encourages students’ multiple talents through challenges in science and technology. The competition trains them in scientific methods of enquiry, and, hopefully, the experience will inspire and prepare them to become proficient scientists. The application of Information and Communication Technology is included in the competition to motivate students in communicating their problem-solving work to the public. Attention is paid to the development of confidence and self-esteem. Qualified scientists are involved so that their inspiration will excite and encourage a deep interest in science and technology. Most of the students chose science as their main subject when entering the junior high levels, while several of students had the courage and passion to successfully continue their study in a science high school abroad. The students who have already entered universities have taken science or engineering as their main field of study. Throughout the program, the students are encouraged to cultivate their self-esteem, to be leaders and collaborators both with their team and also with teams from other countries. A strong emphasis is placed on students communicating their knowledge and experiences so that people in the community can understand them.

429

REFERENCES 4th APT JSO (2015). 4th ASEAN Plus Three Junior Science Odyssey. Retrieved from http://www.acgs-web.org/common/sub5/ sub5.html APT JSO 2015 (2015). Retrieved from https:// www.facebook.com/aptjso2015/ Budhiarti, Y. E. H. (2013). Anak Cerdas Istimewa. Kebijakan Pemerintah tentang Pelayanan Pendidikan bagi Anak Cerdas istimewa. Retrieved from https://oemahinspirasi.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/anak-cerdasistimewa/ Carrada, G (2006). Communicating Science, A Scientist’s Survival Kit. Community Research, European Communities. ISBN 92-79-01947-3. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from http://www.livingknowledge.org/fileadmin/Dateien-Living-Knowledge/Dokumente_Dateien/Toolbox/LK_C_Communicating_ Science_Kit.pdf (accessed March 2016) Community Research, European Communities. Retrieved from http://www.livingknowledge. org/fileadmin/Dateien-Living-KnowledgeDokumente_ Dateien/Toolbox/LK_C_Communicating_Science_Kit.pdf Claessens, M. (2013). Current Issues and Future Challenges for Science Mediation and Communication: What is the Status of Mediascience? In P. Baranger & B. Schiele (Eds), Science Communication Today, International Perspectives, Issues and Strategies (pp. 91–104). Paris: CNRS Editions. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S.B. (1998). Teaching the Gifted and Talented Children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Escobedo, P. S. (2013). Creativity as a Tool to Solve Problems, Thinking Outside the Box. Proceedings of Public Communication of Science & Technology (PCST) International Symposium. Jakarta: BPPT. Escobedo, P. S., & Herrera, C. R. (2013). Talent Development in Mexico: Challenge and Opportunities. In P. S. Escobedo (Ed.), Talent Development Around the World (pp. 253–269). Mexico: Secretaria de Rectoria, Universidad Autonoma de Jucatan.

430

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Hawadi, R. A. (2004), Akselarasi, A–Z Informasi Program Percepatan Belajar dan Anak Berbakat. Jakarta: Grasindo. Kim, H. S. (2014). Impediments to and Fundamentals for Communicative Effectiveness of Science. Proceedings of the KAST-ASM-IAP International Workshop on Science Literacy: Science Communication and Science Outreach (pp. 29–35). Seoul: Korean Academy of Sciences. Lee, S. C. (2011). APEC Mentoring Center for Gifted in Science and ASEAN Plus Three Center for the Gifted in Science. Paper presented at the International Symposium 2011 on Public Communication of Science and Technology – Science & Technology Communication through Cyberspace, Jakarta, Indonesia, 22–23 November 2011. Legoh, F. (2014). Emerging Science and Technology Competition through National and International Festivals. Proceedings of KASTASM-INSA-IAP International Symposium on SHER Communication in Asia with a Special Focus on Science Festivals (pp. 142–167). New Delhi: INSA. Legoh, F. (2015). Implementation of the 4th ASEAN Plus Three Junior Science Odyssey 2015 in Indonesia. Paper presented at the Meeting Forum of the ASEAN+3 Center for Gifted in Science, Jeju, Republic of Korea, 24–27 November 2015. Legoh, F., & Permatasari, D. R. (2016). Science Blog Competition to Encourage Young Students to Do Science Communication. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, Istanbul. https://pcst.co/archive/paper/2699 Munandar, U. (1995). Pengembangan Kreativitas Anak Berbakat. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta Nugroho. Red Team – APT JSO 2015 (2015). Marine Fertilization. Retrieved from https://aptjso4 redmarinefertilization.wordpress.com/ Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A Guide for Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented. Mansfield Center: Creative Learning Press. Roy, P. (2016). Creativity and Science Education for the Gifted: Insights from Psychology. In K. S. Taber & M. Sumida (Eds), International Perspectives on Science Education for the Gifted: Key Issues and

Challenges (pp. 13–26). London and New York: Routledge. Royal Society (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society of London. Retrieved from https://royalsociety. org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/ publications/1985/10700.pdf Sayekti, S. (2013). Permasalahan Anak Berbakat di Indonesia. Scientific Magazine Pawiyatan of IKIP Veteran Semarang, Special Edition of Dies Natalis. Vol: XX, No: 3, August 2013. Retrieved from http://download.portalgaruda.org/article.php?article= 251828&val=6766&title=Permasalahan% 20Anak%20Berbakat%20Di%20Indonesia Schiele, B. (2013). Five Things We Must Keep in Mind when Talking about the Mediation of Science. In P. Baranger & B. Schiele (Eds), Science Communication Today: International Perspectives, Issues and Strategies (pp. 305–318). Paris: CNRS Editions. Semiawan, C. (1997). Perspektif Pendidikan Anak Berbakat. Jakarta: Grasindo. Sukarso, E. (2007). Kebijakan Pemerintah tentang Pelayanan Pendidikan bagi Anak Cerdas istimewa. Retrieved from http://si-entong. blogspot.co.id/2007/12/kebijakan-pemerintah-tentang-pelayanan.html Sulipan (2010). Pengembangan Sumberdaya Manusia dan Pengembangan Sekolah: Pedoman Penyelenggaraan Program Cerdas Istimewa dan Bakat Istimewa Alselerasi. Retrieved from https://sulipan.wordpress. com/2010/06/22/pedoman-penyelenggaraanprogram-cibi-akselerasi/ Sumida, M. (2016). Scientific Giftedness in Japanese Society. In K. S. Taber & M. Sumida (Eds.), International Perspectives on Science Education for the Gifted: Key Issues and Challenges (pp. 13–26). London and New York: Routledge. Taber, K.S (2007). Enriching School Science for the Gifted Learner. London: Gatsby Science Enhancement Programme Ulfah, S. R. (2015). Optimalisasi Potensi Siswa melalui Kelas Akselerasi. Retrieved from https://www.kompasiana.com/syafitrirahmaniaulfah/optimalisasi-potensi-siswa-melaluikelas-akselerasi_55803a591497738f1c2cab8a White Team – APT JSO 2015 (2015). The Coral Patrol. Retrieved from http://coral-Patrol. blogspot.co.id/?m=1

Creativity Competition for Gifted Students’ CommunicatioN

Wilgenbus, D., Faure, C., & Schick, O. (2012). When the Earth Rumbles: A Project of Risk Education for the Primary School. A Teacher’s Guide, the English Edition. Malaysia: International Science, Technology & Innovation Centre (ISTIC).

431

Yellow Team – APT JSO 2015 (2015). Smart Marine and Coastal Environment: Conservation of Marine Wild Life. Retrieved from http://aptjso2015yellowteam.blogspot. co.id/?m=1

32 Gifted Education in Brazil: Historical Background, Current Practices and Research Trends E u n i c e M . L . S o r i a n o d e A l e n c a r, D e n i s e d e S o u z a Fleith and Liliane Bernardes Carneiro

INTRODUCTION Brazil is a vast country with 26 states and the Federal District. It is located in South America and is the fifth country in terms of land mass after Russia, Canada, China, and the United States. The country is divided into five regions, with great differences among them in people’s level of education and income. Portuguese is the official language of the country. Its population is estimated at 204 million inhabitants, most of them (85.43%) living in the urban areas. A continuous migration from the rural to the urban areas has been observed in the last decades. One characteristic of the country is the disparity of income among the various levels of the population. There is a concentration of income in a reduced proportion of the population, and the majority of people belong to a lower class. According to the Brazilian constitution, all children should complete nine years of elementary school, it being a Government duty to offer compulsory and

free education to all children during elementary school years. Recently, free and mandatory education was extended to three years of secondary education. The country faces many challenges in the educational field. One of them is the low quality of the public school system that serves predominantly low-income families, and covers over 40 million students (81.7% of the whole population of elementary and secondary school students). Most of the public schools are not well equipped and it is not rare for children to attend school less than four hours each day. The curriculum content to be covered during each school year is also very extensive, with too much data and information for students to learn. This situation impacts negatively on the students’ motivation and desire to attend school. School failure and truancy are also common, especially in high school. Recent data indicate a high dropout rate (50%), comparing students who completed elementary school to those who finished

Gifted Education in Brazil

high school (Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira, 2013). The teaching profession is not much valued, in contrast to the situation some decades ago, and the students who choose to study in the schools of education (Schools of Education are the university departments where future teachers are trained and prepared to be teachers.) are those with the lowest results in the exams for gaining entrance to higher education. These factors help to explain why Brazilian students are among those who present the lower results in the Program for the International Student Assessment (PISA). In 2015, for example, Brazilian students rated 63rd in science among students from 70 other countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016). There is a large number of private elementary and secondary schools for middle- and upper-class students, with an enrollment of over 9 million – 18.3% of the Brazilian students (Ministério da Educação, 2017a). These schools are, in general, better equipped and require the attendance of the students for a longer time, especially from the sixth grade. It is common for middle- and higher-class children to be enrolled in some extracurricular activities during part of the day, for example taking a second language class or engaging in sports. Their families are aware of the importance of schooling and they make an effort to offer the best to their children, looking for schools that provide the best conditions for the students to more fully develop their competencies and abilities. These families are also aware that it is necessary to have a very good elementary and secondary education in order to gain entrance to a public university, which is free of charge, besides having better qualified professors. The number of candidates applying to the best public universities is very high, especially in courses such as Medicine and Law (Empresa Brasileira de Comunicação, 2017).

433

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Education of the gifted in Brazil may be characterized by continuity and discontinuity in the governmental and non-governmental initiatives since 1924, when the first validation of intelligence tests in two Brazilian cities was carried out (Delou, 2007). The first educational policy including the need for provisions for the gifted was drafted in 1929, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, under the influence of two scholars who published the first three Brazilian books on giftedness (Leoni Kaseff, The Education of the Supernormals, published in 1931; Estevão Pinto, The State’s Duty in Respect to Attending to the More Able, 1932, and Educational Problems of the Gifted, 1933). It was also in 1929 that Helena Antipoff, a Russian educator and psychologist, arrived in Brazil, after studying in France and Switzerland, where she had conducted studies on intelligence and testing in the Laboratory Binet-Simon in Paris, and the Institute Jean Jacques Rousseau, in Geneva. After arriving in Brazil, Antipoff continued her research on gifted children, which resulted in several publications in the 1930s and 1940s, calling attention to the need for early identification of and educational services for the gifted, as, for example, The Super-normal, in 1933, and Ways to Help the Gifted, in 1942. In 1945, she initiated a program for the gifted in the Pestalozzi Society in Rio de Janeiro. She also founded, in 1962, an innovative school for teacher development in a rural area in the state of Minas Gerais, where services were also provided for children with different types of abilities and intellectual levels through studies in literature, performing arts and music. Ten years later, Antipoff initiated a new program to identify talented students, offering them opportunities to develop their creativity and talent (Alencar, 1986, 1989; Campos, 2003; Delou, 2007). It was in the 1970s that several important events occurred in respect of provisions for

434

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

the gifted. One of them was a national general law for education established by the federal government in 1971. This law stated explicitly that the gifted, besides those students with mental and physical deficiencies, as well as those who are behind in their schooling, should receive special treatment, according to the policy at the state level. In the same year, a team of American experts in gifted education came to Brazil at the invitation of the Brazilian Ministry of Education to serve as consultants. The team suggested the definition of ‘gifted’ and ‘talented’ of the Marland Report, taken as the US Office of Education definition (Passow, 1993). Besides adopting this definition in the Brazilian federal educational policy, the Ministry of Education sponsored the First National Conference on Gifted Children at the end of 1971. This conference gathered together educators from numerous Brazilian states and the most well-known Brazilian scholars in the field. Initiatives in favor of the gifted, such as their identification, special programs for the gifted and talented, and appropriate preparation of elementary school teachers to attend to the needs of highly able students were included in a document, with recommendations addressed to the Ministry of Education, prepared by the conference participants. Since then, policies in support of gifted and talented children have been presented in several documents from the Federal Government. One of them was entitled ‘Subsidies for Services Organization and Functioning of Special Educational Services – Area of Giftedness’ (Ministério da Educação, 1986) and another was entitled ‘The Hour of the Gifted: A Federal Education Council Proposal’ (Conselho Federal de Educação, 1987). This document outlined the basic principles of special education, presenting the definition and main characteristics of the gifted and methods of identification, as well as instructional models and practices for teaching the gifted. Another report outlining the federal education policies and guidelines for educating gifted and talented students was published by the Special

Education Office, Ministry of Education, in 1995 (Ministério da Educação, 1995). In this report, the term ‘high ability’ was added as a synonym to the term ‘giftedness’. In spite of these federal policies in support of gifted and talented education, little progress occurred in the provision of services for the gifted from the federal law in 1971 up to the beginning of the year 2000. In order to increase provisions for the gifted, the Ministry of Education established High Abilities/ Giftedness Centers of Activities in each of the 26 Brazilian states and the Federal District in 2005, aiming ‘to offer support to the educational systems through partnerships among governmental institutions, especially higher education institutions and state secretaries of education, non-governmental agencies and the community’ (Ministério da Educação, 2005, p. 33). Each center includes three units: one unit on provisions for the teacher, another on provisions for the student, and a third one on support to the family. The purpose of the center is, therefore, to provide educational conditions for meeting the needs of gifted students; in-service training for teachers to work with the gifted; support for families; educational resources; and technological equipment (Alencar, Fleith, & Arancibia, 2009; Ministério da Educação, 2005). Two years later, the Ministry of Education published a four-volume book covering all the main topics with respect to gifted education. These volumes were organized by two wellknown Brazilian scholars, with the contributions of a team of experts in the field (Fleith, 2007; Virgolim, 2007). These volumes were distributed to the Secretary of Education of all Brazilian states and are available online to any person interested in the field at no cost.

PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES FOR THE GIFTED In spite of the long trajectory in gifted education and educational policies for the gifted in

Gifted Education in Brazil

Brazil, the number of gifted students served by special programs is extremely low, especially taking into account the huge population of elementary and secondary-school age students (about 50 million students). A huge gap is observed between what is prescribed in the policies and what is observed in practice, not only in respect of provisions for the gifted, but also in respect of other facets of education. For example, about 2.8 million 4–17-year-old children are out of school, as stated in the Brazilian educational policies (Ministério da Educação, 2017b). However, it is important to highlight that programs for the gifted and talented are offered in several Brazilian states, especially since the 1970s, after the promulgation of a federal law set up guidelines and bases for elementary and secondary education. With the implantation of the High Abilities/ Giftedness Centers of Activities, new programs were initiated in the public school systems of numerous Brazilian states located in the five regions of the country. Most of them adopt as a theoretical framework Joseph Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness and his Schoolwide Enrichment Model, as well as Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence perspective, as was observed in a recent study (Carneiro, 2015) that mapped and assessed 50 programs for the gifted in Brazil. In most of the programs examined in this research, it was verified that attendance occurs weekly and lasts between three and four hours. Also, there is no fixed term or cycle of students’ attendance and they only participate while there is interest on their part. Among the 50 programs investigated, 62% were offered by the High Ability/ Giftedness Centers of Activities, generally with the partnership of higher education institutions, non-governmental agencies and other organizations. However, the number of gifted students who have benefited from these new services is very low. For example, only 82 gifted students were enrolled in the program of one center that began its activities in 2006 (Souza, 2016).

435

According to the data of the 2014 School Census, published by the Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (2017), there is no enrollment information about gifted students in basic education in 4258 (76.44%) of the 5570 Brazilian cities. Furthermore, only one gifted student was registered in the Census of 607 (10.9%) cities. Six cities reported having more than 300 gifted students enrolled in their schools. Thus, in 2014, there were only 13,308 gifted students enrolled in Brazilian schools, according to the School Census. This number corresponds to approximately .027% of the total enrollment in basic education. In Brazil, most gifted students are admitted to special programs through nominations made by their regular teachers. However, the majority of teachers have no information about the gifted and about services available to these students. Thus, many students go unnoticed, with no opportunity to develop their potential more fully. To be accepted in any program for the gifted, most students are evaluated by a special cluster of teachers who observe the students’ learning styles and identify their interests. Among the 50 programs investigated by Carneiro (2015), only 15 had psychologists on the work team. Consequently, the use of psychometric instruments that measure constructs like intelligence and creativity is not frequent. The boys are in the majority in Brazilian programs for the gifted. Carneiro’s results revealed an underestimation of female talents, probably due to the lack of training of teachers, who still observe girls through a stereotypical lens. The Brazilian programs prioritize the provision of activities, such as those aimed at socio-emotional development, curriculum enrichment, creative expression, problem-solving exercises, as well as artistic, verbal and written production. Very few programs offer vocational counseling and counseling services to help the gifted to deal with emotional and social problems. The teachers and managers of the programs for the gifted still resist the indication of school

436

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

acceleration as a pedagogical alternative to assist these students. Acceleration has only been taken as a learner’s legal right, but there is no legal regulation on the procedures of pedagogical implementation in order to comply with legal decisions. According to data obtained by Carneiro (2015), the managers’ responsibilities in the programs are varied and involve, for example, action planning for the implementation of assistance to the gifted and the search for material resources and partnerships, as well as the provision of an educational environment that is responsive to the educational needs of these students. Most managers and teachers reported that they have several years of experience in education, good professional training and have attended postgraduate courses. However, the study participants stated that there was some stagnation after their initial training, due to the scarcity of courses for continuous training, which would keep them informed about new research in the area of giftedness. The managers demonstrated a lack of confidence in the governmental agencies, mainly in the actions aimed at the investment in the area of giftedness, such as the support for the acquisition of material resources and professional training. This was observed more frequently among managers from public school programs, which are dependent on these agencies in relation to financing and administrative demands. Moreover, the government agencies do not require consistent program evaluation. The program evaluation is carried out internally by the managers themselves, and the tendency of these professionals is to consider the services provided to the gifted of great worth. The most well-known Brazilian programs for the gifted will be described as follows.

THE PROGRAM FOR GIFTED STUDENTS IN THE BRAZILIAN FEDERAL DISTRICT The enrichment program for gifted students in the Federal District was initiated by the

State Secretariat of Education in the public school system in 1976. In the first two years, 103 elementary school students were enrolled in the program. In 2000, the program was expanded to include preschool to high school students from the public education system as well as private school students. In 2005, with the establishment of the High Abilities/ Giftedness Centers by the Ministry of Education in all Brazilian States, the program was integrated into the Center in the Federal District. Since then, there has been a substantial increase in the number of gifted learners attended to, as well as an improvement in the identification methods and pedagogical practices with the purpose of meeting gifted students’ needs. Currently, the enrichment program for the gifted assists over 1500 gifted students from primary to secondary levels, who are enrolled either in public or private schools. The program aims at: (a) giving support to gifted students through enrichment tasks that provide opportunities to optimally develop their potentials and talent; (b) promoting social and emotional development; (c) preparing professionals to work with the gifted; (d) raising awareness in families and school communities about the program and its benefits; (e) building partnerships with higher education institutions for support in the attendance of the gifted. Enrichment activities are developed in different academic domains such as science, mathematics and literature. There are also provisions for special talents in the visual arts and theater. The encounters occur in resource rooms under the supervision of a tutor teacher, once or twice a week in the counter-round school. The students work in small groups or by themselves. Visits to museums, exhibitions and libraries are other activities that are carried out. A multiple criteria identification process is used (intelligence tests, creativity tests, rating scales and inventories, and teachers’ nomination). The students recommended for the program undergo an evaluation process carried

Gifted Education in Brazil

out by a multidisciplinary team during 4 to 16 weeks. Different aspects, such as task commitment, creativity and general and specific abilities, are evaluated. As part of the pedagogical interventions, the teacher utilizes verbal and written exercises and games, as well as problem-solving, memory, logic, and artistic activities that involve music, theater and visual arts. Tasks to develop social and emotional abilities, such as discussion of videos or texts about communication, self-concept, self-esteem, autonomy, leadership and ethics, are also put into practice (Alencar et al., 2009; PortoRibeiro, Carneiro, & Alencar 2016).

PROGRAMS FOR DISADVANTAGED GIFTED STUDENTS SUPPORTED BY PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATIONS Several educational and cultural programs for disadvantaged gifted students are developed by philanthropic organizations. One of them, named ‘Good Student’ initiated its activities in 2002 and is under the responsibility of the Good Student Brazilian Institute. Its purpose is to help outstanding low-income students to transform their potentials into competencies. The program provides educational and professional support to these students, focusing on preparation to make a difference in terms of their social and culturally impoverished surroundings, helping to decrease the social inequality that prevails in Brazil. Presently, over 1000 students are participating in the program in cities located in several Brazilian regions. Awakening Talent and Developing Talent are two programs for disadvantaged students that have been implemented by the Institute Rogerio Steinberg since 1997 in Rio de Janeiro. The first of them includes several educational and cultural activities in public schools and beneficent institutions with the objective of stimulating students’ learning and assuring their staying in

437

school and preventing them from dropping out, which is very common among students from poor areas. Sports, theater, dance and music classes, besides visits to museums and interdisciplinary projects, are some of the activities developed in the schools with the support of the Institute. Workshops for teachers are also organized in the schools with the purpose of promoting their personal and professional development. On the other hand, the Developing Talent Program aims to identify disadvantaged gifted students from the schools supported by the Institute, giving them a scholarship and assuring their participation in numerous academic and cultural activities, as well as preparing them for admittance into schools of excellence in Rio de Janeiro (Instituto Rogerio Steinberg, n.d.). Institute LECCA, also in Rio de Janeiro, gives support to disadvantaged gifted students through the Estrela Dalva Program. Its main purpose is to provide the economically disadvantaged gifted students from impoverished areas with a formal education that allows them to reach the highest levels of expertise consistent with their potential. The program aims to prepare the selected students to become adults able to participate productively as citizens in the life of their communities and in the wider Brazilian society. The program comprises numerous academic activities to develop critical and creative thinking as well as two years of preparing students to participate in the admission selection process for schools of excellence. After being admitted to these schools, the students continue in the program, with second language classes and participation in several extracurricular activities. The Social Institute for Motivating, Supporting and Recognizing Talent (ISMART), located in São Paulo, is another philanthropic organization that has developed numerous programs for low-income gifted youngsters since 1999 (Alencar et al., 2009; Guimarães, 2006; Instituto Social para Motivar, Apoiar e Reconhecer Talentos, 2016).

438

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Two of its programs are: (a) the Alicerce Program, in partnership with schools of excellence, and (b) the Scholarship for Talent for lower income students with outstanding academic performance. The Alicerce Program comprises two segments: the first is a two-year course to prepare the selected disadvantaged students for the admission exam to the schools of excellence, and the second is for the students who pass the exam, granting them a full scholarship and material support, complemented by a mentoring system for professional and personal guidance. In the Scholarship for Talent, besides the scholarship, as in the previous program, the selected students also receive material support and the assistance of a mentor. Students from any Brazilian city may apply to participate in the selection process. More recently, three new programs were initiated: ISMART Online; the Coaching Program; and the Profession Connection Program. All of them aim to ensure that disadvantaged gifted students have access to the necessary resources and opportunities to best develop their potential and be successful in their professional life, contributing to the social and economic development of Brazil.

THE TUTORIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR ACADEMICALLY TALENTED UNIVERSITY STUDENTS The Tutorial Education Program, originally named the Special Program of Training, is a program for outstanding higher education students. It was initiated in 1979 with the main purpose of improving the quality of higher education in Brazil through the preparation of high-level professionals for all segments of the work market, especially a university teaching career (Tosta et al., 2006). The program was initiated with 15 students from two universities. At present, there are 842 groups composed of four to 12 students

from 121 higher education Brazilian institutions (Ministério da Educação, 2017d). The students are selected during the second, third or fourth semester of their undergraduate studies. The main criteria that guide the selection process are high academic achievement and high interest and motivation in carrying out their studies. The students are organized into groups of, at most, 12 participants. Each group has a mentor, selected from among professors who demonstrate real interest in the program, high academic productivity, and a good relationship with colleagues and students. The mentor is responsible for organizing a program of activities and supervising the students. He/she also coordinates the students’ selection process, submits the group’s annual activities proposal to the university and to the Ministry of Education, and organizes data and information about the group activities to substantiate the annual report to be sent to the Ministry of Education, among other tasks (Alencar, Blumen-Pardo, & Castellanos-Simmons, 2000; Fleith, Costa Jr., & Alencar, 2012). The selected students receive scholarships and remain in the program throughout their undergraduate studies, as long as they demonstrate good academic performance and active participation in all the program activities. Other students may participate in the activities of the group as volunteers or collaborators. Since its beginning, the program has been evaluated several times by teams of consultants. The evaluation data point out a positive impact of the program on the students as well as on their university departments. Among other benefits to the students has been the significant development of the ability to work in a team, which is an important characteristic of any professional nowadays. The participation of other students in activities developed by the Tutorial Education Program has also been observed, as well as increased professors’ productivity, even among those who are not directly involved in the program (Tosta et al., 2006).

Gifted Education in Brazil

OBJETIVO PROGRAM FOR FOSTERING TALENT This is the most well-known program for gifted and talented students in the Brazilian private school system. It has been in development in the Objetivo Education Center, São Paulo, since 1972. Its purpose is to provide assistance to the students ‘who stand out because of curiosity, speed of reasoning or high academic achievement, revealing a higher potential than would be expected for their age group’ (Di Genio, 2002, p. 13). For many years, since its beginning, this program was supervised by Dr Erika Landau (1931– 2013), who was the director of the Young Persons’ Institute for the Promotion of Art and Science, in Israel. Dr Landau came from time to time to São Paulo as a consultant to the program. Initially, from 1972 to 1985, the selected gifted students were grouped into separate classes, complemented by an advanced study program. Since 1986, the gifted and talented students have participated in extra-curricular courses. The courses have as their goals the development of specific abilities and competencies, with the use of advanced technological tools and creativity development techniques, among others. The courses originally comprised two areas: Technology and Humanities – the former with the purpose of helping the gifted students become more familiar with technological advances and to find answers for technological problems, while the Humanities courses focused on the exploration of different experiences that in turn would lead to the development of creative and critical thinking, leadership abilities and communication skills. More recently, three different kinds of courses have been offered: general courses aiming to help students identify their abilities and interests; specific courses about a given topic; and personal relationship courses, with a focus on helping the gifted students to understand themselves, relate better with their peers, and accept their

439

personal differences (Alencar et  al., 2009). Interpersonal exchange and collaborative work are encouraged in the activities implemented in the courses. Furthermore, special attention is given to the gifted students’ affective development (Cupertino et  al., 2006). Besides the extra-curricular courses, the program offers a counseling service for the gifted students and their families. Workshops are also organized to give opportunities to parents and their children to work together in shared activities.

THE PROGRAM OF THE CENTER FOR POTENTIAL AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT The program implemented in the Center for Potential and Talented Development, located in Lavras, Minas Gerais, was created by Zenita Guenther, a former student and collaborator of Helena Antipoff, the Russian educator that initiated a program for disadvantaged gifted students in a Brazilian rural area in 1972. Since its beginning, in 1993, when the Center was founded, the program has provided educational support for gifted students from elementary to high school through enrichment activities in three areas: communication, social organization and humanities; research, science and technology; and creativity, personal expressions and skills. Interest groups are formed with five or more children that share a common interest. The students meet outside of regular school time for a two-hour period each week. Projects with a smaller number of students are also developed under the supervision of a mentor. Regular encounters with the participation of up to a hundred children are also organized around multidimensional topics (Cupertino et al., 2006; Guenther, 1995). To implement the program, the Center works in cooperation with the schools and the community. Each semester, a large number

440

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

of volunteer instructors are responsible for developing the activities with the students. They, as well as parents, are affiliated to the Association for Supporting Talent. This association gives material and human resources to the Center. Besides the educational support to gifted students, since 1994 the Center has also organized conferences on topics related to giftedness, with the participation of educators and scholars from Brazil and abroad. The methodology utilized in the program, entitled ‘Road to develop potential and talent’, has been adopted in centers of special education in several cities from two Brazilian states – Minas Gerais and São Paulo (Centro para Desenvolvimento do Potencial e do Talento, 2017).

RECENT BRAZILIAN STUDIES ON GIFTEDNESS Since the beginning of 2000, the number of empirical studies on giftedness has systematically grown in Brazil. According to Chacon and Martins (2014), this trend may be explained by the influence of non-governmental organizations as such the Brazilian Council for Giftedness founded in 2003, the increasing interest of researchers from Education and Psychology graduate programs, as well as national and international conferences on giftedness held in the country. This highlights the fact that most of the research has been confined to Masters theses or doctoral dissertations. A search through the governmental electronic database for theses and dissertations maintained by the Ministry of Education in Brazil identified 72 studies on giftedness between 2013 and 2016 (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, 2017). These research projects focused mainly on educational practices, identification processes, twice-exceptional students, teachers’ conceptions of giftedness, characteristics of the

gifted, and comparisons between gifted and non-gifted students. Checking the Brazilian journals’ databases, it was noticed that only 16 articles about giftedness – 13 empirical studies and three literature reviews – were published in the last four years. To illustrate the scenario of Brazilian research on giftedness, some of these studies will be briefly presented as follows. Dalosto and Alencar (2013), for example, investigated whether gifted students were being bullied within the school context. The sample consisted of 118 students whose age ranged from 10 to 20 years old, with 53% aged 12–14 years old. More than 90% of the participants stated that bullying is a widespread practice in schools. The students felt that the perpetrators bore the guilt for these practices and were mainly motivated by prejudice and ‘teasing’. The students pointed out recess time at school as the time when most of these incidents take place. It was found that gifted students witnessed, practiced and were the target of the different manifestations of bullying in their schools. Among the behaviors most often cited by the gifted students were aggressors ‘fooling with’ or humiliating the victims, gossip and intrigue, people throwing objects at others, exclusion from playing and name calling. The gifted students, as victims, revealed that they felt inferior in the face of the aggression and experienced shame and fear. As perpetrators, they reported that they felt supported by the group. A case study of a 5th grade male gifted student with Asperger Disorder was carried out by Guimarães and Alencar (2013). The results pointed out that the student had above average intelligence, high abilities in Portuguese, foreign languages, science, mathematics, computer sciences and drawing, as well as emotional and social impairments. They also revealed excellent academic performance, good adaptation to the regular classroom and high motivation for the activities carried out in the gifted program he attended. The findings indicated high expectations from

Gifted Education in Brazil

teachers and parents in relation to the student’s academic achievement. To investigate overexcitability – a tendency to react intensely and sensitively to one or more sets of stimuli – which is one of the main constructs of the Theory of Positive Disintegration (Dabrowski, 1970, 1973; Mendaglio, 2008, 2012; Piechowski, 2008), Oliveira and Barbosa (2015) developed a set of scales to measure overexcitability patterns. After they analyzed the main instruments that assess overexcitabilities, these scholars constructed 58 items which were analyzed by judges, followed by a pilot application in a sample of 18 elementary school students A high level of agreement among the judges and the pilot application data was obtained. Two hundred and sixty-three elementary school students participated in the second phase of the study which aimed to verify the psychometric properties of the instrument. The analyses resulted in five scales that measure five overexcitability patterns (psychomotor, sensual, imaginative, intellectual and emotional). The internal consistency values of the scales were considered adequate. Most items showed acceptable item-total correlation. Multidimensional structures were observed in psychomotor, sensual, and emotional patterns in the confirmatory factor analyses. Good indexes of adjustment to the models tested were obtained. This instrument has been used in recent studies with gifted students in Brazil (Oliveira, 2016). There have been very few Brazilian studies about acceleration. Maia-Pinto and Fleith (2015) conducted one of them. They investigated the perception of elementary school gifted students, who went through the process of acceleration when receiving early childhood education. Twelve students, 12 mothers and 10 teachers from regular classrooms plus five teachers from a program for gifted students were interviewed. The results indicated that academic acceleration was a successful intervention for students, and did not result in academic losses or socio-emotional difficulties in the following grades. Mothers

441

and students have evaluated acceleration positively, while teachers positioned themselves unfavorably in relation to acceleration, although they have not identified emotional or academic problems in their accelerated students. Teachers from both regular classrooms and gifted programs positioned themselves unfavorably in relation to acceleration. The arguments were associated with the possible adjustment problems of accelerated students in the following grades because of emotional immaturity, and the belief that acceleration generates academic difficulties in subsequent years or in other areas of knowledge. However, the teachers did not identify such problems in their accelerated students. Brazilian educational legislation protects the gifted, however, poses barriers to acceleration in the first year of elementary school; it does not define criteria for the adoption of this practice, nor does it provide other forms of acceleration. Fleith (2016) compared gifted and nongifted students with respect to the perception of classroom climate for creativity, family environment and motivation to learn. The 107 participants were 4th grade students. Among them, 41 attended a program for gifted children. Three instruments were administered: the Classroom Climate for Creativity Scale; the Evaluation of Elementary School Students’ Motivation to Learn Scale; and the Quality of Family Interactions Scale. Differences between the two groups were noted regarding the perception of a classroom climate for creativity and motivation to learn. Gifted students perceived themselves as being more creative in comparison to the non-gifted students. Also, it was examined whether there was a difference in the perception of the gifted considering classroom climate in the regular classroom and in the program for the gifted. In general, the participants evaluated the latter more positively. Non-gifted students showed higher extrinsic motivation in comparison to the gifted. Both groups evaluated the family environment positively.

442

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

It is noteworthy that, for the last 40 years, the topic that has interested Brazilian scholars the most has been creativity. Similar to trends in the United States (Sternberg, 2015), there have been hundreds of studies conducted on different topics related to creativity in Brazil, such as the effects of creativity training programs, obstacles to the expression of personal creativity, characteristics of teachers who facilitate and inhibit students’ creativity, obstacles to the promotion of creativity in the classroom according to principals, pedagogical coordinators and teachers from elementary to higher education. Numerous scales, checklists and inventories have been developed and administered to students, teachers and other members of the school staff in these studies. In spite of the increasing number of studies on creativity in the educational context, as well as books calling attention to the need to make elementary, secondary and higher education more creative, the development of creativity is not a priority in the Brazilian school setting. Numerous misconceptions on creativity are frequent among teachers and students, as well as pedagogical practices that inhibit the development of the students’ creative potential. Furthermore, the dominant institutional culture in many schools results in pressure being exerted against teachers who attempt to innovate in their school practice. Consequently, the loss of creative talent is a sad reality in the country (Alencar, 2007a, 2007b; Alencar & Fleith, 2009).

CONCLUSION: CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE OF GIFTED EDUCATION IN BRAZIL What predominates in gifted education in a country with such dimensions as Brazil, among other aspects, is a lack of knowledge and lack of organizational, institutional and pedagogical mechanisms for a more effective service for the gifted. However, we must

mention some of the movements that have been making progress and promoting visibility in the area, especially in the last two decades, such as: (a) the increase in enrollment numbers of gifted students in the School Census in recent years; (b) the exchange of information that has enabled research networks between Brazil and other countries; (c) the participation of Brazilian representatives on the executive committee of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (WCGTC); (d) the creation of the Brazilian Giftedness Council (CONBRASD). However, there is still a long road ahead. There are many challenges to be overcome yet. Among them, we highlight the following: 1 The scarcity of professional development programs: Brazil has few university-level teacher training programs focused on gifted education. Instead, teachers receive in-service training that may include courses offered through a university or other organization specializing in the needs of gifted and talented students, or training provided by other teachers or school staff with experience in gifted and talented education. Depending on access to experienced teachers, this approach can potentially result in instructional strategies for gifted children that are not sufficiently differentiated from regular classroom approaches and strategies. 2 The limited number of support services for parents of gifted children: As stated by Silverman (1993, p. 15), parents usually feel ‘puzzled as how to meet their [children’s] needs, and there is very little in the way of understanding or support in the community’. In general, parents’ concerns about school issues and the child’s social and emotional development remain unaddressed due to a lack of trained professionals to assist the family. 3 Resistance on the part of the school and the family regarding acceleration practices based on lack of information, preconceived beliefs and stereotypes. 4 The scarcity of educational programs for the gifted, specially taking into account the population of Brazilian children from 0 to 14 years of age. 5 Greater valorization of talent in sports – Brazil is recognized as the soccer country, for example – and in music rather than in academic areas.

Gifted Education in Brazil

6 Few educational opportunities for low-income gifted students and twice- exceptional children. 7 Underrepresentation of girls in the available programs for the gifted. 8 The lack of support from states and federal government with respect to the implementation of policies for gifted students. In some regions of Brazil the policies are on paper only. 9 The scarcity of research on giftedness, especially on some topics, such as underachievement, socio-emotional issues, parenting and family environment.

The generation and dissemination of scientific knowledge regarding the identification of gifted children and talent development need to be a priority in the agenda of gifted education in Brazil. Secondly, we need to provide professional development opportunities for teachers, educators and psychologists. Finally, the Brazilian public needs to be aware that gifted people need and deserve a supportive and nourishing environment. This is our hope for the future of gifted education in Brazil.

REFERENCES Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1986). Psicologia e educação do superdotado [Psychology and education of the gifted]. São Paulo: EPU. Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1989). Begabungsentwicklung in Brasilien. In H. G. Mehlhorn & K. K. Urban (Eds.), Hochbegabtenfoerderung International (pp. 13–19). Berlim: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. Alencar, E. M. L. S. (1993). Developing the potential of disadvantaged pupils in Brazil. In B. Wallace & H. B. Harvey (Eds.), Worldwide perspectives on the gifted disadvantaged (pp. 330–342). Bicester, UK: AB Academic Publishers. Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2007a). O papel da escola na estimulação do talento criativo [The role of school in the incentive to the creative talent]. In D. S. Fleith & E. M. L. S. Alencar (Eds.), Desenvolvimento de talentos e altas habilidades [Developing talents and high abilities] (pp. 151–162). Porto Alegre: ArtMed. Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2007b). Criatividade no contexto educacional: Três décadas

443

de pesquisa [Creativity in the educational context: Three decades of studies]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 23, 45–50. Alencar, E. M. L. S., Blumen-Pardo, S., & Castellanos-Simons, D. (2000). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Latin American countries. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 817–830). Oxford: Elsevier. Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2009). Criatividade. Múltiplas perspectivas [Creativity: Multiple perspectives]. Brasilia: Editora UnB. Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., & Arancibia, V. (2009). Gifted education and research on giftedness in South America. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1491–1506). London: Springer. Campos, R. H. F. (2003). Helena Antipoff: Razão e sensibilidade na psicologia e na educação [Helena Antipoff: Reason and sensitivity in psychology and education]. Estudos Avançados, 17, 209–231. Carneiro, L. B. (2015). Características e avaliação de programas brasileiros de atendimento educacional ao superdotado [Characteristics and assessment of Brazilian educational programs for the gifted] (Doctoral dissertation). University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil. Centro para Desenvolvimento do Potencial e Talento (2017). Centro para Desenvolvimento do Potencial e do Talento [Center for Potential and Talent Development]. Retrieved from https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centro_ para_Desenvolvimento_do_Potencial_e_Talento Chacon, M. C. M., & Martins, B. A. (2014). A produção acadêmico-científica do Brasil na área das altas habilidades/superdotação no período de 1987 a 2011 [The Brazilian academic-scientific productivity in the area of high abilities/giftedness from 1987 through 2011]. Revista Educação Especial, 27, 353–372. Conselho Federal de Educação. (1987). A hora do superdotado. Uma proposta do Conselho Federal de Educação [The hour of the gifted. A Federal Council of Education proposal]. São Paulo: CERED. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. (2017). Banco de teses e dissertações [Theses and dissertations

444

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

database]. Retrieved from http://catalogodeteses.capes.gov.br/catalogo-teses/ Cupertino, C. M. B., Guenther, Z., Delou, C. C., & Pérez, S. (2006). Diversity and gifted education: Four Brazilian examples. In B. Wallace & G. Eriksson (Eds.), Diversity in gifted education (pp. 158–164). London: Routledge. Dabrowski, K. (1970). Outline of the theory of positive dis­ integration. In K. Dabrowski, A. Kawczak, & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Mental growth through positive disintegration (pp. 17–26). London: Gryf. Dabrowski, K. (1973). The dynamics of concepts. London: Gryf. Dalosto, M. M., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2013). Manifestações e prevalência de bullying entre alunos com altas habilidades/superdotação [Bullying manifestations and prevalence among gifted students]. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 19, 363–378. Delou, C. M. C. (2007). Educação do aluno com altas habilidades/superdotação: Legislação e políticas educacionais para a inclusão [Education of the gifted: Legislation and educational policies for inclusion]. In D. S. Fleith (Ed.), A construção de práticas educacionais para alunos com altas habilidades/ superdotação [Building educational practices for gifted students] (pp. 25–39). Brasília: Ministério da Educação. Di Genio, J. (2002). Prefácio [Preface]. In E. Landau (Ed.), A coragem de ser superdotado [The courage to be gifted] (pp. 11–21). São Paulo: Arte & Ciência Editora. Empresa Brasileira de Comunicação. (2017). Medicina foi o curso mais procurado no SISU, resultado está disponível [Medicine was the most wanted major at SISU, results are available]. Retrieved from http://www. ebc.com.br/educacao/2015/06/mecinscreve-quase-12-milhao-de-candidatos-para-segunda-edicao-do-sisu-2015 Fleith, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). A construção de práticas educacionais para alunos com altas habilidades/superdotação [Building educational practices for gifted students]. Brasília: MEC/SEESP. Fleith, D. S. (2016). Creativity, motivation to learn, family environment, and giftedness: A comparative study. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 32, 1–9. Fleith, D. S., Costa Jr., A. L., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2012). The Tutorial Education Program: An

honors program for Brazilian undergraduate students. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 13, 47–53. Guenther, Z. C. (1995). A center for talent development in Brazil. Gifted and Talented International, 10, 26–30. Guimarães, C. (2006). Ismart – A catalyst for low income young talents in Brazil. Gifted Education International, 21, 69–72. Guimarães, T. G., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2013). Estudo de caso de um aluno com características de superdotação e transtorno de Asperger [Case study of a student with characteristics of giftedness and Asperger Disorder]. In D. S. Fleith & E. M. L. S. Alencar (Eds.), Superdotados. Trajetórias de desenvolvimento e realizações [The gifted: Development and achievements journeys] (pp. 109–120). Curitiba: Juruá. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2013). Educação básica [Basic education]. Brasília: INEP. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2017). Sinopses estatísticas da educação superior – graduação [Statistical notes of higher education]. Retrived from http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/ guest/sinopses-estatisticas-da-educacaosuperior Instituto Social para Motivar, Apoiar e Reconhecer Talentos. (2016). Projetos [Projects]. Retrieved from http://www.ismart.org.br/ projetos/ Maia-Pinto, R. R., & Fleith, D. S. (2015). Percepção de alunos superdotados, mães e professores acerca da aceleração de ensino [Perception of gifted students, mothers and teachers about acceleration]. Interação em Psicologia, 19, 187–198. Mendaglio, S. (2008). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration: A personality theory for the 21st century. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (pp. 13–40). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Mendaglio, S. (2012). Overexcitabilities and giftedness research: A call for a paradigm shift. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 207–219. Ministério da Educação. (1986). Subsídios para organização e funcionamento de serviços de educação especial. Área da superdotação [Subsides for services organization and

Gifted Education in Brazil

functioning of special educational services – area of giftedness. Brasília: MEC. Ministério da Educação. (1995). Diretrizes gerais para o atendimento educacional aos alunos portadores de altas habilidades/ superdotação e talentos [General guidelines to the eduational attention to the high abilities/gifted and talented students]. Brasília: MEC/SEESP. Ministério da Educação. (2005). Núcleos de atividades de altas habilidades/superdotação [High abilities/giftedness Centers of Activities]. Brasília: MEC/SEESP. Ministério da Educação. (2017a). Educação básica [Basic education]. Retrieved from http://portal.mec.gov.br/ Ministério da Educação. (2017b). Censo Escolar 2016: Notas estatísticas [2016 School Census: Statistical notes]. Retrieved from http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_ basica/censo_escolar/apresentacao/2017/ apresentacao_censo_escolar_da_educacao_ basica_%202016.pdf Ministério da Educação. (2017c). Censo Escolar 2014 [2014 School Census]. Brasília: MEC/INPE. Ministério da Educação. (2017d). Programa PET [PET Program], Retrieved from http:// portal.mec.gov.br/pet Oliveira, J. C. (2016). Elaboração, padronização e estudos psicométricos e de normatização de uma medida de sobre-excitabilidade [Elaboration, standardization and psychometric and normalization studies of a measure of over-excitability] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil. Oliveira, J. C., & Barbosa, A. J. G. (2015). Escalas de sobre-excitabilidade: construção e evidências de validade baseadas no conteúdo e na estrutura interna [Overexcitability scales: Construction, validity evidence based on content and on internal structure]. Psicologia Reflexão e Crítica, 28, 668–677. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 Results

445

(volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Passow, A. H. (1993). National/state policies regarding education of the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 49–68). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Piechowski, M. M. (2008). Discovering Dabrowski’s theory. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (pp. 41–77). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Porto-Ribeiro, M., Carneiro, L. B., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2016, March). A Brazilian program for gifted students: Historical roots and current practices. Paper presented to the 15th International ECHA Conference, Vienna. Silverman, L. K. (Ed.). (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love. Souza, G. C. J. P. (2016, September). A prática de atendimento do núcleo de atividades de altas habilidades/superdotação do Mato Grosso do Sul [Attending the gifted at the high abilities/giftedness Center of Activities in Mato Grosso do Sul]. Paper presented to the 7th National Conference of the Brazilian Council for Giftedness, Bonito, Brazil. Instituto Rogerio Steinberg. (n.d.). Você pode transformar vidas. Relatório social [You can transform lives. Social report]. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Rogerio Steinberg. Sternberg, R. J. (2015). Teaching for creativity: The sounds of silence. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 115–117. Tosta, R. M., Calazans, D. L., Santi, G. S., Tumulo, I. B., Brochado, K., Faggian, L. F., & Palazzin, V. (2006). Programa de Educacão Tutorial: Uma alternativa para a melhoria da graduação [The Tutorial Education Program: An alternative to improve undergraduate courses]. Psicologia para América Latina, 8, 1–8. Virgolim, A. M. R. (2007). Altas habilidades/ Superdotação. Encorajando potenciais [High abilities/giftedness. Encouraging potentials]. Brasília: SEESP/MEC.

33 New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China Jiannong Shi and Pin Li

INTRODUCTION Since entering the 21st century, ‘enhancing the ability of independent innovation, building an innovative country’ has become the major strategic policy of China. A large number of talented scientists, engineers and other experts are urgently needed. To meet this need, the country continues to increase its investment in education. The total amount of governmental investment in education in 2015 was more than ten times that of 2000 in Mainland China. At the same time, as gifted children are an important reserve force of first-class innovative talents, talent development has attracted increasing attention from government and the public. This has made it possible for different gifted programs to grow up rapidly since 2000. A systematic and scientific investigation into and education about giftedness in Mainland China started in 1978. A special class for gifted young adolescents aged from 11 to 16 years old was set up at the University

of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in 1978 (Xin, Si & Zhu, 1991; Shi & Xu, 2004; Zha, 2006). Many highly gifted adolescents were selected from all over the country and collected in a special class at the USTC (Xin, 1990; Zha, 1993; Liu & Zhu, 2001). Meanwhile, a national cooperative research group for supernormal children was set up under the leadership of Professor Zha, a psychologist at the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shi & Xu, 2004). The two things, the special class for gifted young adolescents and the Cooperative Research Group for Supernormal Children of China (CRGSCC), were evaluated as two milestones in the history of modern gifted studies in Mainland China (Shi & Xu, 1998, 1999; Shi & Zha, 2000). Although fruitful results were obtained in the field of gifted education in Mainland China from 1978 to 2000, some serious problems gradually emerged. By 1990, at least 13 key universities – including Peking University, Tsinghua University,

New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China

Xi’an Jiaotong University – had set up special classes for highly gifted adolescents. However, due to lack of theoretical and practical preparation, the tutors actually did not have enough knowledge or experience in how best to educate gifted intellectuals. Some of the gifted students enrolled in special classes in universities were not treated appropriately, and behavioral or psychological problems frequently appeared in them. Gradually more and more people came to realize that setting up special gifted classes in universities without theoretical knowledge, practical skills and training for teachers in gifted education is counterproductive. As a result, there are only two universities (the USTC and Xi’an Jiaotong University) that still have special classes for gifted adolescents; other special classes for gifted adolescents were gradually closed by the mid-1990s (Shi, 2002). Meanwhile, some experimental classes for gifted and talented children in middle schools were established under the banner of ‘gifted education’, but they were in fact facet of examination-oriented education or so-called ‘pseudo gifted education’. Unfortunately, the pseudo gifted education destroyed many gifted children’s learning motivation and confidence. Thus it can be seen that there are some misconceptions or misunderstandings of gifted education inside and outside the educational field. As exemplified in the previous paragraph, knowing the importance of gifted education is one thing, but knowing how to appropriately educate gifted and talented learners effectively is another matter. In order to practice good education for gifted individuals, educators must understand what these students need, and what is necessary for them to develop into mature members of society. In order to provide an appropriate educational theory and an educational methodology in Mainland China, Shi (2002) proposed the ‘Bio-Socio-Intellectual model’ (BSI) which emphasizes the fundamental nature of human beings and gifted learners. It is the starting point for teacher training

447

and curriculum design. From the perspective of the BSI model, Shi (2002) mentions three aspects that are critical in curriculum design to meet the needs of gifted students. The three aspects are: physical maturation or physical development; social maturation or social and interpersonal development; and mental maturation or intellectual development. It is argued that the BSI model has theoretical rationality and practical validity in Mainland China. In the present chapter, the authors will introduce some gifted programs which are based on the BSI model and developed after 2000.

A GIFTED PROGRAM IN KINDERGARTEN FOR YOUNG CHILDREN Since 1978, the Cooperative Research Group of Supernormal Children of China has carried out a systematic and scientific investigation on intellectually gifted children to learn about their psychological characteristics, development properties and the particularities and commonalities of development compared with ordinary children. On this basis, in 2004, the Development and Education of Supernormal Children, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, working together with Beijing Happy Time Kindergarten, set up experimental classes for supernormal children in the kindergarten and recruited 5-year-old supernormal children (Chen & Shi, 2008). Following the special classes for the gifted young in the University of Science and Technology of China, as well as gifted education in secondary and primary schools, this is another new attempt to study supernormal children and their education in Mainland China, and has achieved the goal of integrated and continuous development of supernormal children from kindergarten, primary and secondary schools to universities. After more than ten years of exploration

448

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and practice, great strides have been made and a wealth of experience has been gathered.

Why Carry Out Gifted Education of Young Children? The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) published the Pre-KGrade 12 Gifted Program Standards as early as 1998, which provides guidance and information about education for the Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted children. But in Mainland China, there still exists a lot of controversy over whether or not to carry out gifted education, and even more controversy with regard to young children. As gifted education has not yet gained protection and support from relevant laws and policies in Mainland China, many misunderstandings arise. Even many educators do not understand it, for they believe that gifted education of supernormal children is ‘destructive enthusiasm’, contrary to their own laws. Rousseau once said, ‘Our education begins with our lives’. In the early years of childhood, children’s brains and sensory organs develop rapidly and are very active. During this period, a favorable environment will stimulate their potential abilities to develop smoothly. Various educational activities from birth to pre-school are called early education. At this stage, we should pay attention to and discover children’s intellectual dispositions, teach them in accordance with their aptitudes and guide their actions according to circumstances. We should also take children’s thirst for knowledge seriously; satisfy it and inspire it, and again satisfy it. Repeat the process and the ability of children will constantly increase and develop. Early education has a significant impact on the development of both normal children and supernormal children. Normal children need early education that is scientific and appropriate, so do supernormal children (Shi & Xu, 2004; Eyre, 2009).

In real life, according to many parents of intellectually gifted children, the courses or activities in ordinary kindergartens, which are simple and boring for their children, fail to arouse their curiosity, or inspire their thirst for knowledge and satisfy them. Due to the science and necessity of early education for supernormal children as well as the wishes of parents for such education, the Supernormal Children Research Center of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences worked together with the Beijing Happy Time Kindergarten and established experimental classes for supernormal children in 2004 (Chen & Shi, 2008).

Teacher Training Teachers are a critical factor in gifted education in kindergartens, elementary schools and secondary schools, as well as universities. Mainland China is short of teachers specializing in gifted education. The Schools of Education or the Departments of Education in the normal schools in China mostly do not set up major courses with regard to the education of supernormal children (Shi & Zha, 2000). Usually gifted education teachers are drawn from the school’s existing teachers. The Beijing Happy Time Kindergarten especially emphasizes taking the characteristics of supernormal children and gifted education into consideration when choosing or cultivating teachers to educate supernormal children. Specifically, the following aspects about teachers are extremely important, the teachers should be young and energetic; there are no such concepts as ‘good child’ or ‘bad child’ in their minds. They are able to discover the strengths and weaknesses of different children in a timely manner and they can skillfully deal with children’s mistakes and put them on the right path rather than hurt their self-esteem. They are adept at creating a harmonious and lively atmosphere to stimulate children’s thirst for knowledge and curiosity. They have a better understanding of

New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China

children’s psychological development and they are good at teaching children knowledge, but better at teaching them to be honest. When handling issues of ‘individual students’, they prefer to search for the causes rather than draw superficial conclusions (Chen & Shi, 2008). In practice, the kindergarten invited experts from the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and other institutes to provide training courses for the school teachers concerning the cognitive characteristics, psychological characteristics, external manifestations and development of supernormal children. The school also sent some teachers to the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, to attend their postgraduate courses. In addition, the leaders and teachers of the kindergarten often participate in the educational conferences on supernormal children held both at home and abroad, learning about domestic and foreign advanced experience (Chen & Shi, 2008).

Courses In accordance with the view of the nature of human development and the BSI model put forward by Shi (2004), gifted education must take into consideration the physical development, social maturity and psychological development of children. In other words, each supernormal child should first have a healthy and strong constitution, followed by good social awareness, social adaptability and communication skills and social responsibility, as well as, finally, a highly-developed intelligence. Therefore, the curriculum should be designed and set up based on these three aspects, as mentioned above (Chen & Shi, 2008).

Natural physical activities In Mainland China, both parents and schools place great emphasis on the intellectual development of children. However, they focus on the height, weight, safety and

449

nutrition of the children in terms of physical development, but attach little importance to their general constitution and well-being. A healthy constitution and a strong body will lay a solid foundation for the overall or comprehensive development of the supernormal children in the future, which makes it a primary task to improve the children’s physical health level and fitness. Natural physical activities mean doing physical activities in a natural way. This was first put into practice in Beijing No. 8 Middle School (Gong & Cheng, 1998). It turned out that this notion is very good for gifted children’s physical maturity. The physical activities of the experimental classes, which include picnics, swimming, school trips and a variety of sports and games, are designed and carried out based on the laws of children’s physical development. The duration of the activities is also far longer than that of ordinary physical education sessions. This natural way of doing sports not only exercises the children’s bodies and enhances their physical fitness, but promotes their self-control and mutual cooperation.

Social activities The socialization of children is one of the most significant factors influencing their future development and adaptation. Thus the activities arranged for them must be tailored to their level of capability development and in combination with their life experiences. Actually, the natural way of sports mentioned above is beneficial to the social development of all children. In addition, the school has arranged a great many activities concerning children’s moral education, social responsibility and aesthetic development. For example, in traditional festivals like the MidAutumn Festival and the Double Ninth Festival, the children are told to make moon cakes or to draw pictures for their elders. Also, children and parents take part in various public service activities together, such as distributing the slogans made by themselves about environmental protection in the park,

450

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and explaining to people why they do that. The musical compositions and paintings of great artists are brought into the children’s daily life so as to foster their appreciation abilities. Children are also guided to discover the beauty of life and nature, thus developing their abilities to find beauty and to appreciate it.

significant role in the acquisition of language in the early years and in the acquisition of all knowledge in the future. For this purpose, children reading together and discussing issues with teachers or peers in the reading courses will help develop their reading habits and improve reading comprehension.

Intellectual activities To meet the special needs of intellectual development of supernormal children, except for some regular courses, the school has designed a variety of creative themed courses, thinking training courses and reading courses. A creative themed course is an activity course which is colorful and comprehensive, carried out in the form of games twice a month, and is aimed at cultivating children’s creative ability. All themed activities comprise some scientific experiments designed to foster children’s basic scientific literacy such as the ability to construct models for problems, raise questions and develop practical operation skills. The following points should be considered when selecting the themes of the activities to ensure their effectiveness. First, the activities must be closely integrated with the children’s daily life experience, and be adapted to their development levels. Second, the materials provided for the children should be rich and colorful, which can help children know about the world from different perspectives and solve problems in various ways. Third, the courses designed must be conducive to improving the interests of children. Fourth, the activities designed should inspire them to keep trying. Thinking training activities are designed to promote the memory and abstract logical thinking ability of supernormal children. In the thinking training activities, supernormal children often show unique perspectives and sharp observation ability, since their intellectual development level is far higher than that of their peers. The training of reading ability is also an important component of gifted education of children. Reading habits and skills play a

A NON-ACCELERATED GIFTED PROGRAM FOR A K12 SCHOOL In order to explore the 12-year non-accelerated gifted education system, in April 2005, Shi and his colleagues from the Research Center for Supernormal Children at the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, with the cooperation of Beijing Yucai School, launched the first 12-year program of gifted education in Mainland China (Liu, Gu, & Chen, 2008). Professor Shi clearly put forward the educational concept based on the BSI model and the overall educational goal of ‘fostering learned and cultured students’, aiming at not only cultivating young people with a wide range of knowledge, but more importantly fostering young people with a sense of social responsibility to their country and people, and who seek truth from facts with scientific reason. The school recruits only one experimental class each year with no more than 35 students, creating conditions for the teachers to focus on every child. Since the first grade, these students have carried out continuous course experiments and have been under observation until graduation from high school. The school strives to train these children to have high-quality talents with all-round development in mind, body and sociality.

Why Carry Out the Nonaccelerated Gifted Program? The establishment of the special class for the gifted young at the University of Science and Technology of China marked the prelude of

New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China

gifted education in Mainland China. Since then, more than a dozen universities have set up special classes for the gifted young. To meet the requirements of gifted education of supernormal children of different ages, a number of secondary schools and primary schools across the country have also carried out gifted programs. Primary and secondary schools mostly prefer the accelerated educational system, where students usually spend four years completing the eight-year courses of regular programs and enter university at age 13 or 14 (Zhou & Zha, 1986). Originally, for some supernormal children, it gives no ground for resentment that they learn fast and well, receive higher education, embark on scientific research and contribute their wisdom early to society. However, the misunderstandings of gifted education or the over-interpretations and excessive concerns of supernormal children from some schools, parents and the media in society have given rise to many problems. One of the problems is that most people consider gifted education as advanced education and they believe the purpose of gifted education is to make sure that children can start schooling earlier and enter university years in advance. Gifted education also gets a good write-up in the media. Therefore, the supernormal children have become a ‘magic weapon’ in raising the enrollment rates or as selling points for enhancing a school’s social reputation. In 2006, the media in Nanjing reported on a 13-year-old child prodigy named Liu Xin, even though the child himself and his parents have repeatedly stated he is actually 16, which, as a result, has greatly improved the enrollment rate of the middle school where the child studies (Liu, 2008). Another problem is that some schools have recruited students in the name of gifted education, but are actually providing an examoriented education, blindly pursuing the enrollment rates at famous universities. The schools and parents of children focus only on course education while ignoring children’s

451

physical and social development, which will surely create problems (Shi, Zhang, Chen, Duan, & Du, 2013). Wei Yongkang, born in 1983, was a child prodigy known to every household in Mainland China in the 1990s. He knew more than 1000 Chinese characters at the age of 2, mastered junior high school knowledge at the age of 4, went to the county-owned key middle school at the age of 8, entered a key university with good marks at the age of 13, and was admitted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences for successive postgraduate and doctoral programs. At the age of 19, he dropped out because of his poor self-care ability and because his knowledge structure did not fit the research model of Chinese Academy of Sciences. In his growth process, his childhood had been artificially changed because studying had occupied his life and he never made friends, read extra-curricular books or played with toys. His mother only asked him to study and took on all other duties for him. There was no chance for him to experience those beautiful, happy, warm, sad and complicated situations which were indispensable social ingredients for his healthy growth. Moreover, the accelerated educational system itself has two shortcomings that call for attention. An accelerated educational system means fewer courses. It is an effective system in mathematics and natural sciences, but less effective in the humanities such as social studies and literature, which require an indepth understanding matching students’ age and experience (Reis & Renzulli, 2004). Also the school-age years are of vital importance to children’s emotional and social development. The accelerated educational system is conducive to the full development of children’s intelligence; yet emotional and social development calls for special attention. In 1999, Moshe Zeidner and Esther Jane Schleyer studied more than 1700 Israeli supernormal children under the conditions of ‘accelerated education’ and ‘enriched education’ respectively and found that the latter showed a more positive sense of self-concept, a higher sense

452

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

of subjective well-being and a lower degree of test anxiety. Therefore, when we talk about the education of supernormal children, we first need a clear-cut basic concept. That is to say, gifted education is a kind of special education aimed at the essential features and characteristics of the physical and psychological development of supernormal children, achieving the best development of their physical, psychological and social qualities, not just advanced education (Shi, 2001). The accelerated educational system is merely one of the gifted education models. It is not unique and not the final goal. The non-accelerated educational system can promote children’s potential development, and is more beneficial to the emotional and social development of supernormal children.

Teacher Training As mentioned earlier, usually teachers of gifted education in Mainland China are drawn from the school’s existing teachers who have rich teaching experience. If the teachers are not well-trained and not given continuous guidance, deviation of practice in gifted education will readily occur. Supernormal children have extraordinary intelligence, a strong thirst for knowledge and achievement motivation, so it is not an easy task to be their spiritual and academic mentors, recognized, trusted and admired by them (Liu, 2008). A qualified teacher should not only master deep professional knowledge and teach the children in accordance with their aptitude, but also fully understand the characteristics of physical and psychological development and the particularity of supernormal children. Besides, s/he should have good personal psychological qualities and an ability in mental health education. This is a new subject to teachers. Gifted education, in fact, sets higher requirements for teachers in all aspects, i.e., the teachers will make more painstaking efforts (Liu, Gu, & Chen, 2008).

So, how to train teachers? The Supernormal Children Research Center of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, conducted a series of training programs for teachers in the following aspects. First of all, the teachers are trained to better understand the history and status of the development of gifted education both at home and abroad. Many developed countries have worked out educational programs and provided legal safeguards for supernormal children in particular. About 60% of the states in the United States, plus Korea, Indonesia, Israel, Singapore, Australia and other countries, as well as Taiwan, China and Hong Kong, have passed special legislation and established relevant research institutions. Also, they make research and educational plans for supernormal children, funded especially to guarantee the implementation of research and education. In contrast, Mainland China is obviously poor in the field of gifted education. Gifted education in China started in 1978 and advanced in hardship amid skepticism without corresponding legal protection and funding guarantees. Educators and researchers of gifted education have borne a great deal of pressure, including the academic pressure for students, concerns about their bodies, moral conduct and development of social capacity. However, gifted education, an important proposition for the strategy of strengthening the country through talents, provides educational methods fit for supernormal children to fully develop their intelligence, body and social skills. Denying the intellectual differences of children and mechanically emphasizing ‘equalitarianism’ will stifle these gifted children and fail to develop their potential, which may cause national as well as personal losses. Second, the teachers are trained to understand the definition of supernormal children as well as the basic concepts and methods of gifted education. Experts have provided the teachers with detailed information on the development process, cognitive structure, the classification and the different performances

New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China

of supernormal children. Thus the teachers will understand the individual differences of supernormal children and know how to teach them in accordance with their aptitude by recognizing and making use of the differences. By presenting their theory of learning, the experts put forward the basic methods of gifted education, including nourishing curiosity, meeting demands, interest cultivation, providing incentive and motivation and encouraging them to nurture their talent through self-study. During the training, the teachers have also raised a lot of questions, as follows: How can we make students clear about their learning motivation? How can we master and improve the creativity of students? How can we develop their good moral conduct and learning habits? How can we enable the educational concept of parents to be consistent with that of the schools? How do we solve the problem of individual differences? The experts discuss these issues together and inspire teachers to think about such questions as ‘Who are the students?’, ‘What is the role of a teacher?’ and ‘How can you be a good teacher?’ The experts believe that the best teacher is the one whose educational concept matches that of the students. Otherwise, the students will become weary of studying. In addition, the experts have taken some examples from typical cases of teaching to provide analysis and guidance for the teachers about how to deal with their and the students’ emotional problems. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, students who have emotional problems probably lack a sense of security or affection within the family, which causes them to lose control of their feelings. Positive emotions will generate motivation for learning, so in the teaching process, we should strive to create a positive atmosphere. Emotion is a process with signs and preludes. It can be released, controlled and adjusted if a problem is diagnosed in time. Beijing Yucai School not only invites psychology experts from the Chinese Academy of Sciences to provide training programs for

453

teachers, but has also invited some international education experts, such as Ms Christ Defty, a US expert in language education, as well as English education and teaching consultants from the International Language Center of Dartmouth College, and Dr Liu Xinming, senior advisor of Cambridge English Language Assessment. Some teachers with rich experience in experimental classes of supernormal children, have also been invited to provide the teachers in Beijing Yucai School with teaching and training programs and exchange ideas with them. These experienced teachers come from other schools that have conducted gifted education in Mainland China, including the Beijing Normal University High School, Beijing No. 8 Middle School and Northeast Yucai School. In addition, the school regularly asks the teachers of gifted to carry out different levels of public demonstration courses, and encourages teachers to pursue advanced studies for a Masters degree in psychology. The teachers are also given opportunities to study in other schools which have carried out gifted education in China, including Beijing No. 8 Middle School, Northeast Yucai School, Jiangsu Tianyi Middle School, etc. Moreover, the school selects teachers to participate in academic conferences on gifted education at home and abroad, including the World Conference on Gifted Children and the APFG Conference on Gifted Children, and compile special reports. In conclusion, the training of teachers of supernormal children incorporates the following aspects. The first is to train the teachers to master the characteristics of physical and psychological development, learning the needs and methods of education for gifted children. The second is to offer suggestions about evaluation and assessment to improve the course plan and to rethink and evaluate teaching. The third is to set examples for learning and publicizing excellent practical teaching experience. The last is to carry out discussions on gifted education and exchange ideas with others.

454

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Courses In the past, people did not understand gifted education, believing that the gifted class was just intended to create talents. However, a supernormal child is a certain type of child. We must first look at the supernormal children as a different kind of child and design the education and teaching activities to be consistent with their characteristics of physical and psychological development at different ages. In this way they will fulfill their developmental task, achieve their development goals and prepare for the next stage of development (Liu, Gu, & Chen, 2008). The courses of experimental classes for the gifted young are divided into basic courses and developing courses. The basic courses, which are an important part of the course system, are designed based on the national courses and class subject requirements, including Chinese, mathematics, English, science, fine arts, music and sports. The Beijing Yucai School has been exploring how to complete the national courses while paying attention to the individualized development of the students. When designing its courses, the school does not rigidly adhere to the teaching materials but flexibly integrates, deletes and adds content to meet the different needs of students. In the class, the students are the protagonists of activities such as personal speech, self-directed and acted drama and acting as teachers. In the developing courses, the design is based on the characteristics of the supernormal children, and these are the core of gifted education program. As the gifted students can accomplish the tasks of ordinary students with relatively little time and effort, they can use their energies for more colorful and challenging activities. The developing courses consist of social experience courses and elective courses. The purposes of social experience courses include student cultivation, physical training and mental training, which stretch students’ learning beyond the classroom. In this way, the students will broaden their horizons

personally and socially, strengthen their bodies, expand their thinking and develop in an all-round way. The social experience courses are scheduled on every Wednesday, lasting for half a day or a whole day, according to the different content. The social experience courses are designed and taught in such areas as observation experience, activity experience, puzzle experience, exercise experience and experience of socially useful activities. • Observation experience: The school has carried out a series of activities to guide students to observe, feel, comprehend and accumulate experiences, including visits to museums, movie theaters, universities and research institutions, and into modern enterprises. • Activity experience: The school organizes students to participate in choosing activities such as going shopping in supermarkets and book shops. They also encourage crafts like clay sculpture and ceramics and have taken part in an archaeological excavation. • Puzzle experience: Students participate in the ‘Labyrinth Indiana’ the computer game, ‘Orienteering, and ‘International STEAM educational activities’ (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics). • Exercise experience: Students go hiking, mountain climbing, swimming and running around the lake, etc. • Experience of socially useful activities: The students participate in socially useful activities to serve the community, including meeting students from the rural areas, Olympic volunteering service, etc.

These personal experiences help the students to exercise their body and spirit in the process of life perception and growth, which makes them more confident and more courageous to explore things. These activities organically combine sports, arts, history, geography, chemistry and other disciplines, making them more real and vivid. The activities also help to cultivate the children’s cooperative consciousness, and they learn that it is equally important to respect and care for their peers on one hand, and hope to gain

New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China

their respect and concern on the other hand. Moreover, the students can truly understand the significance of teamwork and understand its worth. Ten years of teaching practice have proved that the social experience courses are favored by students and parents. According to a survey which questioned nearly 200 students from three grades and six experimental classes, the social experience courses are selected as the favorite subjects, with 100 percent satisfaction from the parents. No security incident has ever occurred in hundreds of experience activities. Students have achieved sound development in body, mind and skills. The attendance rate of the experimental classes topped 99% in the flu season, far higher than that of the regular classes. The elective courses include nearly 30 courses in areas such as arts (performing arts foundation, singing skills, the introduction of Peking Opera, etc.), science and technology (building model airplanes and cars conducting scientific experiments, crafts, etc.), sports (football skills training, martial arts, bridge), language (Japanese, French), thinking training (innovative thinking training, game thinking training, etc.). Students are free to choose the courses they prefer and are provided with plentiful space so as to bring their creativity into full play.

Good Relations between Students and Teachers There is a Chinese proverb ‘qing qi shi, xin qi dao’. It means that a friendly relationship between a student and a teacher can make the student follow the teacher’s belief, and learn better from the teacher. Therefore, a good relationship between students and teachers is highly regarded in our program. Good relationships mean that they are developed in a spirit of democracy, equality, harmony and collaboration between student and student, and between students and teachers. Teachers and students respect each

455

other. In the classroom, students are encouraged to listen, to help each other, to raise questions, and to express themselves. They are also encouraged to make comments or suggestions on teaching activities. For example, ‘What do you think I should teach according to the text?’ Or ‘What should we learn from the text?’ In the normal school, teachers plan their lessons according to the guidelines of the textbooks. No students’ opinions are requested. Meanwhile, all teachers are expected to be concerned with not only the students’ academic progress but also their daily life and life outside school as well.

School and Family Cooperation Schooling is not an isolated matter; it is a systematic happening in a complex network between students, teachers, school, family, and the social environment. As an essential factor in their child’s schooling, the parents of supernormal children are encouraged to comment on the teaching arrangements and educational programs. Teachers are asked to communicate with the parents. Parents are invited to school to attend parents’ meetings. Normally, people may think that parents are invited to (in fact called to) school to attend parents’ meetings because of bad school performance or problem behaviour by their children. But in our program, parents’ meetings are a regular arrangement for establishing a good relationship between family and school. At the parents’ meeting, the parents are informed about what has been going on in school recently, and what is planned for the future.

THE ‘WINGS PROJECT’ In 2008, the Beijing Municipal Education Commission set up the ‘Beijing Adolescents Science and Technology Innovation Institute’

456

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

and started the ‘Wings Project’ for innovative talent cultivation in senior high schools. The ‘Wings Project’ has taken full advantage of the excellent educational and cultural, as well as scientific and technological resources in Beijing, ensuring that those outstanding high school students who have a brilliant learning capacity and great potential for innovation, can have chances to go into the laboratories in colleges and universities as well as scientific research institutes, and experience scientific research as well as being edified by the scientific spirit. In this way, they can ‘grow up with the guidance of scientists and fly in the sky of innovation’ (Luo, 2013a, 2013b). From 2008 to 2012, the ‘Wings Project’ focused on talent training in the scientific fields of physics, chemistry, biology, geography, mathematics and information technology. Since 2012, it has also paid a great deal of attention to the liberal arts, including politics, education and psychology, so as to cultivate innovative talents in an all-round way. At present, the project covers four interdisciplinary fields, comprising mathematics and information science; physics and earth sciences; chemistry and life sciences; and humanities and social sciences. The ‘Wings Project’ is different from other kinds of gifted education in Mainland China. First of all, it is the first project led and designed by the government for innovative talents. Beijing Municipal Education Commission introduced a series of relevant policies to provide institutional support and special funds for the smooth implementation of the project. Second, it is not the ‘enrichment type’ of approach, focusing on enriching the knowledge of supernormal students, nor the ‘acceleration type’. It is similar to the mentoring program, that is, scientific research tutors are assigned to outstanding children to guide them towards in-depth studies of topics of special interest.

Selection of Students Selection principles The ‘Wings Project’ mainly selects gifted students with innovative potential in senior high schools. The innovation potential embodies the four aspects of quality accumulation, innovation consciousness, spirit and ability (Luo, 2013a). • Quality accumulation, which means the accumulation of existing knowledge, skills, experience and other aspects, is a prerequisite for innovation. It mainly tests the level of knowledge, skills and practice that students are interested in, whether they have studied hard and whether they have a combination of scientific, technological and cultural literacy. • Innovation consciousness is an innovative personality trait which shows the self-awareness of creative activities. Therefore, it is the driving force of innovation. Innovation consciousness mainly tests students’ interests, hobbies, needs and motives, such as strong achievement motives, awareness of studying hard, thirst for innovation and knowledge. • Innovative spirit is an innovative individual psychology and a powerful guarantee of innovation. It mainly tests students’ ability to question, and think critically, their exploring and down-to-earth spirit, persistence and perseverance, as well as spirit of adventure, self-sacrifice, independence and collaboration. Innovative students usually do not blindly trust books and authority, but dare to question, are curious about the things around them, and are always seeking answers. • Innovation ability, the ability to know things as well as analyze and solve problems, is the decisive factor for innovation, mostly testing students’ abilities in terms of observation, judgment, memory, imagination, imitation, exploration, thinking, organization, coordination, self-study and communication.

Process of selection The selection process is open to all the students in senior high schools in Beijing. Students will be enrolled in the fields of mathematics and information science, physics and earth sciences, chemistry and life

New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China

sciences, as well as humanities and social sciences. The process of selection is as follows. 1 The applicant submits the application form. He must have attained a much higher level in one of the subjects mentioned above than his peers and provide testimonial papers of his specialty and experience of scientific and technological innovation, as well as honor certificates and other related materials. 2 School review and recommendation. The high school where the student studies will review the materials based on the application materials submitted by the student and the actual situation. The school will also examine the student’s performance inside and outside the classroom, their potential for cultivation, innovation awareness, scientific literacy and other aspects, so that students who have actual specialties, interests, and are of good character and show fine scholarship have the chance to be recommended, resulting in the creation of the ‘Students’ Recommendation Form for the Wings Projects’. Each demonstration high school may recommend five students and each non-demonstration high school one. 3 Submit the application materials. The school where the student studies then submits the student’s application materials to the county education committee for reference and review. Upon completion of the review, the ‘Students’ Recommendation Form for the Wings Projects in the County’ takes shape. And next all the students’ application materials in the county will be submitted to the office of the Beijing Adolescents Science and Technology Innovation Institute. 4 Qualification review. The Beijing Adolescents Science and Technology Innovation Institute will organize relevant experts to examine the qualifications of the students’ application materials, giving the results based on the review opinions of the county. 5 Interview selection. The office of the Beijing Adolescents Science and Technology Innovation Institute will organize relevant disciplinary experts, educational experts and psychological experts to interview the students who pass the qualification review. The interview selection not only examines the basic quality of the recommended students, but also examines their innovation consciousness, thinking ability, hands-on ability, expression ability and potential

457

for cultivation. A related evaluation of students’ creativity will be tested in the interview as well.

Training Mechanism The ‘Wings Project’ works jointly with high schools, universities and research institutes. The students’ schools, base schools, colleges and universities, as well as research institutes, jointly undertake the implementation of the project. The main task of the students’ schools is to send students to the ‘Wings Project’. Base schools mainly work with the laboratory for the implementation of the learning content of special subjects and guide the students to learn the basic knowledge of special subjects. They ensure that the students master the necessary basic knowledge and skills before going into the university and scientific research institutes to participate in scientific research. More than 160 laboratories in universities and research institutes in Beijing are selected as research bases for the students. In these laboratories, under the guidance of scientists, the students learn through practice by virtue of on-site resources of scientific research. At the same time, they finalize the topics, develop research plans, carry out research activities, write research papers and attend the thesis defense as well as report on and exchange their learning outcomes. Three tutors, respectively from the students’ school, base school and laboratory, are assigned to each student for joint cultivation. A two-way selection is adopted between students and the laboratories, and students are allowed to leave halfway.

Courses of the Base School The course system of the ‘Wings Project’ is developed and implemented by the base school, covering the fields of mathematics and information science, physics and earth

458

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

sciences, chemistry and life sciences, humanities and social sciences. The courses are mainly divided into four types: transitional courses; basic literacy courses; investigation and practice courses; and professional development courses (Su, 2011). • The transitional courses are aimed at helping the students fill in the gaps of necessary basic knowledge and theories so that students can smoothly carry out the study of selected topics. • The basic literacy courses can help the students master the basic scientific research methodology and improve their scientific literacy so as to gradually develop good research habits. • Developed jointly by the base school and laboratories, the investigation and practice courses allow the students to investigate the laboratories and carry out certain practices which are necessary supplements of scientific research in the laboratories. • The purpose of professional development courses is to deepen and expand the elective courses of existing subjects. Thus students can master the basic theoretical framework of the subjects from a deeper and broader perspective.

Take computer science as an example. Specific courses contain information science, Olympic programming, scientific DV production, artificial intelligence, animation design, network ethics, mobile phone software development, hacker attack and defense, and other courses suitable for students’ development and ability training. These elementary courses are in line with the university courses in computer science, which guide students to understand the historical background, development processes and new technology trends of computer science. On this basis, the courses regard the basic theoretical knowledge and programming of computer science as the starting point, so as to ensure that students in the secondary school have a basic understanding of computer science and can choose their favorite major, or incorporate their computer science knowledge and ability into the study of other majors (Jia, 2015.

In short, students of the ‘Wings Project’, according to their own specialties and interests, can choose subjects, decide on topics, make plans, study courses, carry out research, complete a thesis, and obtain course credits as required in senior high school. In this course system, the students’ learning methods have undergone great changes. Problem-based learning, interactive learning among students, learning based on the network resource platform and continuous ‘total immersion’ learning in laboratories have become the major learning methods for the students.

The Training Process of Scientific Research in Laboratories During the training process, lasting for a year and a half, the laboratories shoulder significant responsibilities, which is an important part of the chain of innovative talents cultivation. The cultivation processes in laboratories are as follows, taking one chemical laboratory as an example (Li, 2014): 1 Visiting the laboratory: The goal of the ‘Wings Project’ is to cultivate innovative talents. When training talents in a scientific way, we should help students decide on the research direction while respecting their interests. Therefore, when the students first visit the laboratory, we must show them its research direction and achievements, and emphasize the benefits of social development brought about by the scientific achievements. More students will be interested in these research directions through vivid images and detailed captions as well as exhibitions of achievements. 2 Participating in the discussion of the teacher’s research topics: The students participate in a specific research subject that the tutor is engaged in. They will be mentored by specially assigned people through a series of learning processes including checking information, reading literature, doing experiments, writing, etc. The research laboratory organizes the students to report every two weeks to summarize the progress of the research, share new literature and decide on the next research program.

New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China

3 Hands-on experiment: The biggest difference between a university scientific environment and the middle-school laboratory is that the scientific experiments produce results with uncertainty, which is the charm of scientific research. Many of the scientific experiments will face failure and one can never expect success overnight. Therefore, the students should be fully prepared for hard work in the process of scientific research. Students start from the basic operations when entering the laboratory. During the experiments, they must strictly observe the operating procedures and carefully record the experimental process, phenomena and data. The students must be faithful to the original data, never falsifying and modifying the data or results. Only in this way can they maintain the seriousness and precision of science. In addition, the research process is complex, so students are encouraged to think positively, raise questions, communicate and discuss with their tutors, thus gradually forming their own insightful opinions. 4 Writing the thesis: A thesis not only summarizes the experimental results, but also improves the understanding of the subject. It is the extraction and summary of previous work. Based on references and with the help of tutors, the students write the thesis from the aspects of the research purpose, the experiment, the results and discussion, and the conclusion.

459

of the ‘Wings Project’, among whom 25 students received in-depth interviews. Some problems, which included that the course structure of individual fields remained to be improved, the guidance time of tutors in individual laboratories was insufficient and the participation time of some students needed to be protected effectively, were found in the survey. But results showed that, on the whole, the cultivating method of growing up with the guidance of scientists had brought a positive impact on the scientific research interests, scientific research ability, and even the attitude towards life as well as future choices of the students (Fang, 2013).

Students’ research interests are aroused According to the survey, 89% of the students were willing to devote themselves to scientific research after training; 93.3% of the students had developed a strong interest in scientific research and 91.2% of them were more interested in their own subjects. For example, among the 152 students in the 2009 cohort who were admitted to the colleges and universities, 72 chose majors related to the research projects which they participated in for the ‘Wings Project’.

Achievements of Cultivation Since 2008, the ‘Wings Project’ has trained more than 1000 students, formed nearly 1000 copies of works concerning different research fields and directions, and published 13 collected papers of students, exerting a positive influence on a large number of other students. Moreover, it has gathered a group of enterprising educators, as more than 700 outstanding high school teachers with rich front-line teaching experience and 400 experts (including 30 more academicians) participated in the ‘Wings Project’. In 2013, the Beijing Municipal Education Commission entrusted a third-party social institution to independently develop an evaluation scale and interview tools. It conducted a survey which questioned 301 students

Students’ ability of scientific research has been improved Of the 301 students who participated in the questionnaire survey, more than 90% of them had preliminarily mastered the general approach to scientific research, understood the basic models of scientific research, and improved their ability in collecting materials and conducting hands-on experiments, and in logical reasoning and expression.

Students’ social development has been promoted The survey selected two indicators, which were psychological adjustment ability and hard-working spirit, to observe the social development of students. More than 90% of

460

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

the students thought that they had improved both. In the interviews many students also mentioned that participating in the ‘Wings Project’ and going through constant failures, as well as the baptism of defending one’s thesis, was a God-given learning experience difficult to get in school, and which led to their becoming more fearless; they became braver and stronger. The survey also found that some students had broader goals after participating in the ‘Wings Project’. Some believed they became more responsible, and some believed that the ‘Wings Project’ offered them a chance to experience different lives and had a positive impact on their future development.

CONCLUSION Previously we introduced some new theories, new explorations and attempts at gifted education in Mainland China since the 21st century. The BSI model suggested that gifted education should return to the education of the whole human being rather than adding a lot of utilitarian factors. Supernormal children and other children are the same, both needing balanced development of the body, sociality and intelligence. Only stressing one of these factors was unfavorable to their long-term development. Under the guidance of the Supernormal Children Research Center of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, the gifted education of children and the 12-year non-accelerated gifted education program have been carried out. Beijing Municipal Education Commission launched the ‘Wings Project’ for excellent high school students to grow up under the guidance of scientists and fly in the sky of innovation. This program of exploration filled in the gaps of gifted education in Mainland China. Although there still exists a huge gap between our gifted education and that of the Western countries’, scientists, researchers and educators who are

committed to gifted education and research on supernormal children never give up. They make unremitting endeavors to provide supernormal children with education resources and suitable methods to bring their potential into full play, and they have achieved remarkable results and breakthroughs. ‘My way ahead is long and I see no ending; yet high and low I will search my will unbending’ – thus they are portrayed in the old Chinese saying.

REFERENCES Chen, N. & Shi, J. (2008). Gifted Education in Kindergarten. In Jiannong Shi (Ed.), Growing Giftedness: Thirty Years’ Development of Gifted Education in China (pp. 155 –163). Beijing: Science Press. Eyre, D. (2009). Gifted and Talented Education. Major Themes in Education, Volume III. Fang, Z. (2013). ‘Wings Project’ in Beijing: An Exploration of New Paradigm of Cultivating Top-notch Innovative Talents. Primary and Secondary School Management 11, 7–10. Gong, Z. & Cheng, N. (1998). Identification and Cultivation of Supernormal Children – 12 Years Education Reform of Experimental Class for Supernormal Children in Middle School. In Zixiu Zha (Ed.), The Mystery of the Development of Supernormal Children: The Collection of Research on Psychological Development and Education of Supernormal Children in China in the Last Twenty Years (pp. 250–265). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House. Jia, Z. (2015). Students Growing Up with Scientists Around – On the Cultivation of Innovative Talents in the Beijing ‘Wings Project’. Teacher’s Journal 8. Li, C. (2014). Relying on the ‘Solar Project’, Play the Role of Key Laboratory in Colleges and Universities in the Innovation of Basic Education in Cultivating Talents, Guangdong Chemical Industry 41(6), 210–211. Liu, J., Gu, Y., & Chen, W. (2008). A Research on Gifted Education in Beijing Yucai School. In Jiannong Shi. (Ed.). Growing Giftedness: Thirty Years’ Development of Gifted

New Century Gifted Education in Mainland China

Education in China (pp. 143 –154). Beijing: Science Press. Liu, P. (2008). The 30 Years’ Development of Gifted Education and Experiment in High Schools Affiliated to Renmin University of China. In Thirty Years’ History of Gifted Education in China. Beijing: Science Press. Liu, Y. & Zhu, Y. (2001). Psychological Development and Education of Supernormal Children. Hefei: Anhui Education Press. Luo, J. (2013a). An Exploration of Cultivating Mode on Innovative Talents in Senior High Schools – Based on the ‘Wings Project’ in Beijing. Educational Research 7, 54–60. Luo. J. (2013b). High School Students Growing up with Scientists Around – Beijing ‘Wings Project’, the Exploration of Cultivating Innovative Talents at the High School Stage. The Education of Innovative Talents 1. Reis, S. M. & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current Research on the Social and Emotional Development of Gifted and Talented Students: Good News and Future Possibilities. Psychology in Schools 41(1), 119–130. Shi, J. (2001). Why Carry Out Gifted Education? A Journal of Modern Special Education 12, 5–8. Shi, J. (2002). Identifying and Educating Academically Gifted Children in China. Invited speech at International Conference on Education for the Gifted in Science (ICEGIS), Sept. 26–30, Busan, Korea. Shi, J. & Xu, F. (1998). The Developmental Trends and Issues of Study on Supernormal Children in China. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 30(3), 298–305.

461

Shi, J. & Xu, F. (1999). Recognizing the Gifted Children. Beijing: Esperanto Publishing House of China. Shi, J. & Xu, F. (2004). Developmental Psychology of Supernormal Children. Hefei: Anhui Education Press. Shi, J. & Zha, Z. (2000). Psychological Research on and Education of Gifted and Talented Children in China. In K. Heller, F. Moenks, R. Sternberg & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (2nd edition, pp. 757–764). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Shi, J., Zhang, X., Chen, N., Duan, X., & Du, X. (2013). Nurturing Gifted Learners in Mainland China: A Bio-socio-intellectual Perspective. Caise Review 1. Shi, J. (2004). Intelligence current in creative activities. High Ability Studies 15, 173–187. Su, S. (2011). Type Expansion and Course Value of Elective Modules – On the ‘Wings Project’ of Course Reform in Beijing Senior High Schools. Journal of the Chinese Society of Education 4, 33–36. Xin, H. (Ed.) (1990). Gifted Education. Beijing: People’s Education Press. Xin, H., Si, Y., & Zhu, Y. (1991). Pedagogy of Giftedness. Beijing: People’s Education Press. Zha, Z. (1993). Psychology of Supernormal Children. Beijing: People’s Education Press. Zha, Z. (2006). Psychology of Supernormal Children. Beijing: People’s Education Press (in English). Zhou, L. & Zha, Z. (1986). Research on Selection of Supernormal Children for a Special Class at Age 10. Acta Psychologica Sinica 4, 388–394.

34 Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity D a v i d Yu n D a i

INTRODUCTION Gifted education, as an addition or supplement to regular public education, has a relatively short history in Asia (Turkey may be an exception; see Sak et al., 2016). While the momentum and achievement are palpable and measurable (Dai & Kuo, 2016; Chan, 2017), some macro-level, structural problems also reveal themselves in the critical assessment of representative countries and regions. In Asian countries as well as in Western countries, some of the major challenges gifted education faces if it is to achieve its mission are: • how to give more educational attention to those with emergent gifts and talents who may or may not fit our standard image of gifted students and gifted criteria; • how to make schools a place where, instead of being confined to the regimen of age-graded schooling and uniform standard curriculum, a variety of talents can be identified and cultivated;

• how to integrate resources and harness technology for the sake of fostering talent development across school, home and community; • how to change the way schools define and assess student excellence and success so that the intrinsic value of talent and creativity, rather than extrinsic gains, is cherished.

Gifted education in Asia has, by and large, emulated its counterpart developed in the United States in terms of practical as well as theoretical traditions. For instance, the move from early IQ definition to the later adoption of a more pluralistic conception of gifted potential, such as theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), and from early selfcontained programs to later stratified efforts to reach out to more gifted and talented learners (e.g., the approaches used in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Turkey, among others; see Dai & Kuo, 2016). It is therefore helpful to look at how the United States developed a system that supports the gifted education endeavor. First, there has been a century of

Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity

interest in and research on topics of giftedness, talent, and creativity (see Dai, 2010; Shavinina, 2009), which lays a strong theoretical foundation for gifted education (albeit, in hindsight, of a debatable nature). Second, there has been a century of strong leadership on the national scene, typically provided by university-based scholars and education leaders, which provides broad vision and guidance at the theoretical, policy, and practical levels (Robinson & Jolly, 2014). Third, there is a well-developed infrastructure and grassroots initiatives supporting related endeavors, including, but not limited to: (a) organizations at local, state, and national levels that hold workshops, publish newsletters periodically, and coordinate efforts across schools; (b) academic and education journals and professional conferences that disseminate cutting-edge knowledge; (c) university-based centers (e.g., Johns Hopkins’s Center for Talented Youth) that provide educational and counseling services nationwide; (d) university graduate programs specialized in gifted education that train doctoral and Masters level students; and (e) federal and state government support, such as policy documents (e.g., Marland, 1972, Ross, 1993) and state laws, as well as government funding for research (e.g. the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program supported by the federal government; see Dai & Cai, 2013). In comparison, for most of Asia, because of the brief history of the topic, both theoretical preparation and infrastructure building for gifted education still leave a lot to be desired. This forms the backdrop for the focus of this chapter: a critical assessment of the state of gifted education in Asia in general, and in specific Asian countries in particular, with respect to two overarching issues: vision and capacity. Such an attempt is by nature exploratory and illustrative. For one, Asian countries are by no means homogeneous economically, socially, culturally, and educationally. Therefore, making sweeping generalizations is risky when diversity always exists among

463

Asian countries and cultures. For another, we are aiming at a moving target, so to speak. Asia is undergoing rapid economic and social changes; these changes include education systems and available resources. It is not unusual that conservative forces, institutional or cultural, are constantly on a collision course with the progressive movement and more liberal ideals. Thus, the chapter is intended to provoke thoughts rather than pass definitive judgments, highlighting major issues, hurdles, and problems we might have to deal with down the road. The assessment that follows could be biased and partial, not doing sufficient justice to some parts of Asia or not reflecting the current ongoing changes. The reader may consult Chan (2017) for a more descriptive review of gifted education in Asia. The present chapter as a critical assessment is evaluative by nature, albeit tentative and inconclusive.

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF IMPLEMENTATION HIERARCHY: VISION, INFRASTRUCTURE, CAPACITY, AGENCY, AND RESEARCH (VISCAR) In order to perform such a critical assessment, Dai (2016b) developed a conceptual framework of how vision and capacity are developed for gifted education in any country or region. The framework is mainly concerned with education programming and enactment in terms of an implementation hierarchy, indicating how a new idea in education becomes materialized and bears fruit in a social context. For presentation clarity, five basic elements can be identified along this hierarchy: Vision, InfraStructure, Capacity, Agency, and Research (VISCAR). Figure 34.1 shows how they work together as an implementation system.

Vision At the top of this implementation hierarchy is Vision. A vision of gifted education includes

464

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Vision to Inspire and Guide Programming

Infrastructure to Provide Tools, Resources, and Support Research to Develop, Guide, and Control

Capacity to Provide Diverse Learning Opportunities

infrastructure for gifted education includes, among other factors: (a) widely distributed university–school partnerships for mentorship, curriculum development, and teacher preparation; (b) information and educational technology for expanding capacity as well as enhancing quality; (c) a social network of support that permits the sharing and coordination of information and resources; and (d) a research and development (R&D) facility.

Agency to Enact Learning Experiences

Figure 34.1  A schematic representation of implementation hierarchy

a compelling rationale for, and the purposes of, gifted education provision, as well as an understanding of its theoretical and practical ramifications, such as how to make it scientifically compelling, socially equitable, and educationally productive (Dai, 2016a). The vision can come top-down from state leaders, but it can also arise in a bottom-up fashion (e.g., in a university professor setting up a center for talented youth, or a school principal envisioning school to be a place for talent development). At the policy level, vision often means the prominence of talent, excellence, and creativity as priorities in the education system. Socially and organizationally, vision means leadership at multiple levels (from the national government to local schools). However, unless there is some consensus in a society about a specific vision of gifted education as a worthy cause, its implementation will not be smooth, to say the least.

InfraStructure A vision can only be realized by building an Infrastructure that can practically support and implement the vision. Infrastructure is a support system that provides the necessary information, expertise, tools, resources, and organizational and logistic facilities. A solid

Capacity Capacity here refers to the capability of delivering a range of education provisions and services to gifted and advanced learners as the means of achieving the envisioned goals and missions. Capacity building in school mainly involves curriculum and pedagogical development and teacher training. As the implementation hierarchy (Figure 34.1) indicates, the stronger the infrastructure, the stronger the capacity to serve. For example, if secondary school teachers are left to their own devises, without university involvement in developing challenging curricula, without the instructional and technological support through workshops and external consultation as well as information technology, their capacity to offer advanced learning experiences to students (e.g., calculus, digital electronics, scientific research projects, or women’s studies) can be very limited.

Agency Different from the issues of capacity and infrastructure building, Agency refers to all the human agents directly and indirectly involved in the implementation process, who ultimately determine whether the endeavor will be vigorously pursued and come to fruition, or conversely, lose its integrity (e.g., fail to carry out the set mission) and become unsustainable. Agency involves individual or cultural beliefs, values, affects, and

Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity

motivations, implicit or explicit, which turn the vision into reality through action. Thus, agency for gifted education can come from teachers, students, parents, corporations, and other stakeholders of education. In instructional settings, the most important agency is provided by teachers working within a student–teacher partnership using appropriate pedagogies to produce student-directed experiences and outcomes.

Research As indicated in Figure 34.1, research apparatus, while part of the infrastructure, is placed more prominently in the implementation hierarchy as an overarching developmentguide-control mechanism. It is, as it were, the brain of the system. It supports a vision of gifted education by developing a solid foundation, guiding policy-making and programming, and controlling and optimizing the implementation by ensuring that capacity building is adequate to support the vision, and agency is mobilized to produce the desired outcomes. How do countries and regions reviewed in this chapter fare in light of this framework of implementation hierarchy? Although a scientific evaluation based on solid data collection awaits future research, forming an educated guess is made possible by evaluations of gifted education in specific countries and regions. We can index the five components in the following manner: (a) public policy articulation and strong leadership as indices of Vision; (b) university involvement and the presence of a well-coordinated social network of support as indices of Infrastructure; (c) the scope and quality of curriculum provisions as indices of Capacity; (d) levels of activity in promoting gifted education and cultural beliefs and values underlying the motivation to identify and cultivate the gifted and talented potential as indices of Agency; and (e) the presence (or absence) of systematic

465

research, basic, applied, or practical, as an index of Research. Based on this scheme, we can roughly identify which components have enabled the successful implementation of gifted education in a particular country or region, and which components significantly constrain or even impede its development and implementation. This assessment based on the VISCAR can yield a general picture of how well a region or country is currently faring. Dai (2016b) in ‘Looking back to the future: Toward a new era of gifted education’ (see also Dai & Kuo, 2016) gives a critical assessment of gifted education in nine representative countries and regions in Asia: Hong Kong, India, Japan, Mainland China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. Admittedly they are not representative of the entirety of Asia, as East Asia is over-represented (Hong Kong, Japan, Mainland China, South Korea, and Taiwan,). It should be noted, however, that the purpose of this critical assessment is to understand those countries and regions that have developed gifted education provisions. Therefore, since the presence of gifted education is more prevalent in East Asia (presumably because of the levels of economic development achieved in this region) than other parts of Asia, it takes center stage. This said, other regions of Asia are also represented (e.g., India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey). As indicated in Figure 34.1, the implementation hierarchy is a nested system, wherein one element can significantly constrain the effects of another. It is meaningful, therefore, to identify levers and weakest links in the implementation hierarchy. One way of using VISCAR for critical assessment of gifted education is to look at the possible discrepancies between Vision and Capacity; that is, leadership seems strong, but capacity cannot keep up. It appears, based on the critical assessment of the nine countries and regions (Dai & Kuo, 2016), that Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan seem to have reached a more ‘mature’ level

466

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

of development in gifted education, with no apparently weak components in the implementation hierarchy; in other words, Vision is supported and sustained by Capacity. The other countries and regions have at least some components of the VISCAR that are relatively weak, which implicates either a lack of strong leadership or a less than ideal support system (see Table 34.1). Leaders of some nations, such as Japan, are reluctant to advocate gifted education, even though its infrastructure is quite solid. As a result, infrastructure of gifted education is not well developed. We can see these higher-level components in the implementation hierarchy as top-down constraints. In contrast, leaders of other nations are pushing for gifted education quite aggressively (e.g., Singapore, Saudi Arabia or Turkey), and the research apparatus has developed quickly. However, infrastructure building and capacity development takes time, and may not be able to keep up with the national ambition and government initiatives. It appears that several Asian countries suffer from the lack of capacity and infrastructure. We may call this kind of situation bottom-up constraints. In the light of VISCAR, there seem to be significant hindrances to the growth of gifted education due to both top-down and bottom-up constraints.

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF GIFTED EDUCATION IN ASIA IN THE LIGHT OF 21ST-CENTURY OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES To be sure, assessment of gifted education purely based on such a broad-brush judgment can blind us to subtle but important differences in theoretical and practical orientations. In the following section, a more qualitative analysis is carried out, looking specifically at how these components in the implementation hierarchy function to facilitate desirable changes.

Vision Building and Theoretical Development In terms of vision and policy, there can be variations as to the nature of ‘gifts and talents’, and rationale for gifted education, what Dai and Chen (2014) identified as paradigms of gifted education. Borland (1989) suggested that gifted education typically appeals to two kinds of argument: a national resource or human capital argument, and a special education argument (see also Dai, 2011; Eyre, 2009). In Asian countries, a dominant vision has to do with economic and social developments in the region. For more developed countries such as Hong Kong and

Table 34.1  A tentative assessment based on the VISCAR framework for illustration purposes* Vision Hong Kong India Japan Mainland China Saudi Arabia Singapore South Korea Taiwan Turkey

+ – – – + + + + +

Infrastructure + – + – – + + + ?

Capacity + – + ? – + + + ?

Agency + + + ? + + + + +

Research ? – – – – + + + +

Notes: *The assessment is not based on rigorous scientific procedures, and therefore should only be interpreted as suggestive. ‘+’ indicates presence, ‘–’ indicates absence, and ‘?’ indicates uncertainty about the status

Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity

Singapore, due to the lack of natural resources, the human capital argument carries the day. For many Asian countries, especially aspiring or rising regional powers, gifted education is seen as an essential contributor to the talent pool, particularly in the science and technology fields. An exception is Taiwan, which takes a different tack, resorting to the special education argument. The human capital argument stresses the role of education in serving a national strategic interest, thus favoring a collective utilitarian orientation, more likely endorsed by countries eager to boost their economic competitiveness. In contrast, the special education argument stresses unique individual education needs, thus reflecting a client-based service orientation, more likely to be adopted by economically advanced countries whose concerns are to enhance the quality of education and life for everyone. Theoretically, the human capital argument better aligns with the Talent Development Paradigm, given its emphasis on creative contributions as longterm developmental outcomes and payoffs; and the special education argument better aligns with the Gifted Child Paradigm or the Differentiation Paradigm, given their emphasis on uniqueness and the special needs of individuals. An unexpected conundrum occurs when those developing countries in Asia eager to identify and cultivate the gifted and talented as a precious national resource endorse the Gifted Child Paradigm, which is meant to serve the needs of gifted individuals rather than serving a national economic and strategic interest. The reason for this misalignment is that the main theoretical resources Asian countries and regions used to build gifted education are drawn from the United States, where the Gifted Child Paradigm has been dominant, while the Talent Development Paradigm as a viable alternative emerged in 1990s and has gained momentum only in recent years (Dai, 2017a). A general observation in Asia is that sometimes strong leadership and advocacy for gifted education, often in a top-down fashion,

467

is not matched well with the theoretical groundwork that supports such an endeavor. For example, when the Chinese government launched a new national initiative on ‘cultivating creative talent’, many local school principals scratched their heads, trying to get a conceptual handle on who are the ‘creative talent’: how can we identify them, and how can we go about cultivating this talent? (Dai, Steenbergen-Hu, & Yang, 2016). As another example, the Hong Kong government developed a three-tier system, with the top 2 percent eligible for city-wide services, and a further two tiers receiving school-based enrichment services. The system is meant to broaden its service base, covering roughly the top 10 percent of students under the gifted education mandate (Tommis, 2016). However, such a stratified approach, though practically convenient, is not as defensible from a theoretical point view, since the system adheres to a static model of classifying students into the three tiers of giftedness. In comparison, although a similar three-tier service model, the Response-to-Intervention approach (Coleman & Hughes, 2009) reflects a more diagnostic approach, whereby if classbased interventions prove inadequate, then the resource room intervention is called into service. Although gifted education in Hong Kong is one of the best in Asia in terms of its organizational structure, the system appeals to a variety of sources of theoretical support, including multiple intelligence theories and the more traditional IQ-based exceptionality argument (Tommis, 2016). The compatibility of these theoretical arguments might send confusing messages to practitioners and parents alike. Current theoretical thinking supports a conception of the nature and development of human potential that is not only more pluralistic but also more dynamic and contextual, which means that educational practice should be more flexible and responsive to emergent gifted and talented manifestations (Dai, 2010). A contextual understanding of human potential and an emphasis on

468

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

nurture are deeply rooted in Asian cultures. However, these cultural beliefs and values are not reflected in conceptions of giftedness. In the global context of changes in the vision of gifted education, the traditional mode of gifted identification, classifying a group of individuals as ‘gifted’ by a fixed standard, often in a once-and-for-all fashion, is giving way to a more inclusive and flexible approach, with the recognition of the multi-faceted and evolving nature of human potential (Treffinger & Feldhusen, 1996). This approach sees human exceptional competence as contextually and dynamically shaped and manifested through interactions with the environment, and as becoming increasingly differentiated and integrated over time through development and education (Dai & Renzulli, 2008). The purpose of identification in the light of this new understanding is not to create a gold standard of ‘giftedness’ and find a litmus test that can distinguish the ‘truly gifted’ from the nongifted. Instead, identification is a practical diagnostic decision as to whether an individual is ready to pursue a particular academic challenge or suitable for a particular line of talent development. In many situations, identification-related decision-making is made on an individual-by-individual basis (e.g., subject- or grade-based acceleration, taking an Advanced Placement calculus course in high school, or pursuing independent study); no formal selection is needed when decisions can be made through selfselection and consultation. In the future, we shall see the function of a national policy as only providing general guidelines for identification (e.g., person-domain fit, and the identification-programming match); implementation details will be left to the discretion of local governments or school districts. Priorities in expenditure will be shifted from identification of ‘the gifted’ to developing the school’s capacity to provide a range of advanced learning opportunities for differentiated and advanced learning experiences (Peters et al., 2013)

It is unfortunate that gifted education becomes marginalized in the education reform discourse (e.g., in Taiwan, see Wu & Kuo, 2016), mainly because it is seen as irrelevant to school reform in general. However, when gifted education is envisioned in the way described above, as more accessible, it will become a force for education reform, moving the school out of its comfort zone, breaking the one-size-fits-all factory model of education, and making schools more responsive to 21st-century opportunities and challenges and more mindful of optimal individual development. Singapore seems to be moving in this direction, and we shall see more countries taking this path. By making gifted education open and accessible, this will avoid the nagging problem of being seen as privileging the already privileged (Margolin, 1994).

Infrastructural Building and Social Capital Not surprisingly, many Asian countries face the issue of not having sufficient resources, despite strong advocacy for gifted education. Financial resources being available for adding gifted education to the school’s agenda is one thing, but the lack of necessary curricular, pedagogical, and logistical support is a less tangible but nonetheless important constraint. In many ways, an old system simply cannot adequately handle a new mandate such as gifted education. Most of the time, simply treating gifted education as an added-on component is not effective; a new system of support is needed. In this sense, infrastructure building, including mobilizing expertise in higher education, organizing social support groups, and developing and harnessing innovative information technology, has added importance. Social capital, commonly defined as networks of relationships among persons and institutions in a society that allows that society to function effectively, is necessary for running an effective gifted education provision.

Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity

Historically, university professors and researchers, from Terman and Hollingworth to Stanley and Renzulli, were instrumental in creating education provision and psychological support to gifted and talented students (see Dai, 2017b). They represent an investment of intellectual capital (as part of cultural capital) essential for the sustainability of gifted education. American experiences show that universities can perform the following five functions for gifted education: • Conducting research and developing and refining theoretical frameworks, and identifying alternative educational strategies; • Providing national leadership through advocacy, policy deliberation, and knowledge dissemination; • Acting as both a direct service provider (delivering courses and programs) and a consultant, as in the case of many university-based centers on gifted education and talent development in the United States; • Developing new curriculum materials especially geared toward frontiers of knowledge and tailored to the need for more depth and complexity in education by advanced learners through university–school partnerships; • Facilitating teacher training and education, particularly in-service learning and development, making teachers better equipped to identify the educational needs of advanced students and explore new possibilities for promoting excellence.

The Asian experiences represented by the nine countries and regions show the same principle regarding these functions. For example, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea, which have the highest ratings in the implementation hierarchy (Table 34.1), are also ahead of others in extensive university involvement and leadership in the five areas mentioned above (see Wu & Kuo, 2016; Neihart & Tan, 2016; Cho & Lee, 2016). In places where university involvement is weak, gifted education can hardly survive, mainly because gifted education involves a set of advanced learning tasks, pedagogical tools, and technological support more challenging than basic education provides.

469

In addition to intellectual capital, infrastructure building for gifted education and talent development also involves significant support from various non-government organizations and social networks consisting of parents and other stakeholders. For example, the National Consortium for STEM Secondary Schools (NCSSS) in the United States integrates resources and expertise provided by universities, industry, teachers, and parents in providing advanced learning and mentorship experiences in STEM fields. Without such an organization, the provision of many out-of-school learning opportunities (e.g., taking university courses, working in prestigious science labs, and having mentorship experiences with university professors) is virtually impossible. By the same token, the widely distributed Talent Support networks in Europe (Csermely, 2015) involve not only the leadership of the European Council for High Ability (ECHA), but are predicated on educational resources being available outside of school. In many Asian countries, gifted education relies on government initiatives and funding. When the government shifts its priorities, social capital is lacking to provide a solid support system. The issue is particularly acute when countries such as Mainland China, India, and Saudi Arabia lack the kind of forceful grassroots initiatives needed to build a solid infrastructure. In addition to intellectual and social capital, the use of information technology can significantly enhance the accessibility of gifted education as well as transform the way we identify and cultivate gifts and talents (Chen, Dai, & Zhou, 2013). In this regard, South Korea is ahead of most countries in Asia (probably in the whole world as well) in building its technology-based information-sharing and service coordination mechanisms, a nationwide, governmentfunded Gifted Education Database (GED; see Cho & Lee, 2016). The system collects and provides timely information about relevant demands, and supplies these to policymakers, educators, students, and parents. The

470

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

homogeneity of the country apparently facilitates such an effort. In contrast, India (Roy & Kurup, 2016) and Mainland China (Dai et al., 2016), due to their population size as well as uneven economic and social development at provincial and local levels, may find such an undertaking too daunting to initiate.

CAPACITY BUILDING AND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT The success of gifted education depends on the quality of the programs and services educators provide that generate the desired learning experiences for advanced learners. Some measures are administrative in nature, such as various acceleration options involving education placement, and various kinds of online and off-line options facilitated by administrative functions. In a more strict sense, the issue of capacity goes beyond administrative or logistic facility; it involves two main factors: the designing of appropriate learning activities, and teachers who carry out these activities. In other words, capacity is more than merely how many students the system serves, with what delivery mode; it is mainly concerned with curriculum and pedagogy, and the agent that implements them: the teacher.

Curricular and Instructional Adaptations Chan (2017) identified a variety of programs and services provided in various Asian countries. Acceleration and enrichment are still the two main strategies. Beyond middle school, special schools for the gifted and talented are quite common (e.g., Japan, Mainland China, South Korea, Turkey; see Cho & Lee, 2016; Dai, et al., 2016; Matsumura, 2016; Sak et al., 2016 for respective countries). It can be argued that merely making some students proceed faster or earlier through the regular

school curriculum or placing them in special schools should not be automatically taken for granted as an adequate and appropriate curricular and instructional adaptation. What kinds of learning opportunities are offered and what exactly transpires in terms of the individual’s learning gains and growth ultimately determine the effectiveness of gifted education. The same can be said about enrichment experiences, which can also vary greatly, depending on how thoughtfully they are designed, and how well they are implemented. As the VISCAR framework indicates, on the one hand, capacity relies on infrastructure building, especially regarding the investment of intellectual capital; for example, who designs and orchestrates these activities, and who enacts and supervises them. On the other hand, capacity also relies on the general existing education infrastructure. A comparison of different countries in Asia can be instructive. In Saudi Arabia, the government adopted a pull-out, enrichment model, the Oasis Enrichment Model (OEM) as the main mode of gifted education. Heavily relying on such programs often means discrepancies between what identified gifted students receive in the pull-out programs and what they receive in the regular classroom. Since teachers in regular classrooms rarely differentiate their curriculum and instruction for gifted students, either because of other priorities and the lack of expertise in differentiation, or because of logistic and other practical constraints, there will be a lack of continuity in student learning and growth. In addition, it is also a big ask for the OEM teacher training program to turn teachers into highly competent gifted educators with a relatively short training program (Aljugharman, Nofal, & Hein, 2016). In contrast, Mainland China and Japan do not have specialized gifted education teacher training programs. However, the education infrastructure in these two countries is relatively strong as both countries have well developed teacher education systems. Training some teachers to teach more advanced students thus becomes much easier.

Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity

The Challenge of Changing Pedagogy A prevalent challenge for teachers in Asian cultures (and probably in all cultures!) is how to meet the new demands of teaching for skills important for living an effective life in the 21st century (e.g., critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration, or the 4Cs; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008). An emphasis on these skills coincides with the advocacy of a ‘gifted’ pedagogy (Reis, McCoach, Little, Muller, & Kaniskan, 2011), which features more prominently in a variety of inquiry-based instructional strategies, such as the use of project-based learning in student research work, independent as well as collaborative (Aulls & Shore, 2008; Dai, 2016). Teachers in Asian cultures are known to prefer a more didactic teaching style. Although the perception that this type of teaching encourages rote learning is to some extent discredited (see Wu & Kuo, 2016), it is safe to say that too much reliance on teacher-centered pedagogy with the teacher always acting as an authority figure regarding knowledge can relegate the student’s role to that of passively absorbing established knowledge, rather than actively inquiring into meaning and truth, and pursuing innovations that can make a difference in the world. Just as in the case of the United States, the heavy reliance on standardized testing for identification as well as academic achievement measured by standardized tests, further reinforces the didactic teaching style well entrenched in the Asian education systems (Neihart & Tan, 2016). If a central concern of gifted education is how to develop the modus operandi of a field of human endeavor, for example, facilitate an appreciation and understanding of how to feel, think, and act as scientists, mathematicians, historians, creative writers, artists, or film makers, then deep pedagogical change is needed (Dai, 2016b; Gee, 2007). It takes a significant amount of teacher education and teacher development to elevate such pedagogy to

471

state of art. In this regard, Asian countries, as well as countries all over the world, have a long way to go.

AGENCY AND BUILDING A CULTURE OF INNOVATION Ultimately, how people involved with and working for the gifted, including all stakeholders, implement and enact gifted education, ultimately determines how successful it can be. As pointed out earlier, in many Asian countries, as well as other places, gifted education is promoted and implemented in a top-down fashion. Such an approach can meet with obstacles when a vision of gifted education is not supported by local cultures in terms of values and priorities. For example, Asian countries are well known for their high academic achievement. Indeed, some even used the test results of the Programme for International Scholarly Assessment (PISA) as a benchmark for academic achievement (Finn & Wright, 2014). This kind of ‘schoolhouse giftedness’, as Renzulli (1986) named it, is of course important. However, the other kind of giftedness, ‘creative productive giftedness’, is equally or even more important. Zhao and Meyer (2014), using the PISA 2012 data and measures of entrepreneurialism (in terms of intent, self-efficacy, and action) obtained by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM; website: http://gemconsortium.org/), found that the national average of PISA total scores is negatively correlated with various indices of entrepreneurship. I replicated this finding with the PISA 2015 data (PISA reports available at the OECD website: http://www.oecd. org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm) and the more recent 2015–2016 GEM indexes. Negative correlations are consistent across indices, ranging from –.52 to –.73. Figure 34.2 shows the two results. To be sure, this finding should be interpreted with caution, as no causal inference can

472

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

PISAtotal 1800

PISAtotal 1800

1700

1700

1600

1600

1500

1500

1400

1400

1300

1300

1200

1200

1100 10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

capability PISAtotal and Perceived Entrepreneurial Capability R = –.67

1100 0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

TEA PISAtotal and Early-stage Entrepreneurial Activities R = –.63

Figure 34.2  Correlations between national average of PISA (measured at the age of 15) and national average indices of entrepreneurialism obtained from samples of working-age adults Note: Both measures are national averages.

be made. On a positive note, the high PISA performance characteristic of many East Asian countries means a firm commitment to education and academic success. Indeed, the collective agency can be considered strong in Asia in terms of highly motivated parents, teachers, and students. They represent a dominant cultural norm for academic excellence, which is highly conducive to a fruitful gifted education (Phillipson, 2013; Phillipson & Phillipson, 2016). However, the pattern is symptomatic of an issue prevalent in many Asian countries: academic success in school is seen as a stepping stone to social success in adulthood rather than a result of selfcultivation and self-actualization. In other words, the flip side of this collective agency is a utilitarian or extrinsic orientation, which deviates from the true spirit of education in general and gifted education in particular. The negative correlations suggest at least three tendencies not conducive to the goals of gifted education, particularly with respect to the development of creativity. First, the utilitarian academic orientation tends to focus on short-term gains, such as test scores, and may not produce long-term benefits such as developing personal interests

and the love of learning for its own sake. When a utilitarian orientation is prevalent, gifted education will lose an intrinsic education value other than providing a ticket to more prestigious schools or colleges. This is why, when reviewing gifted education in Taiwan, Wu and Kuo (2016) warn educators in Taiwan not to be trapped by credentialism: reducing the goal of gifted education to gaining credentials instead of focusing on intrinsic gains. Second, because of this outcome-driven mentality as well as loyalty to time-honored conventional school learning, particularly taking conventional tests, students and teachers alike learn to prefer highly structured learning environments where instructional guidance can be highly explicit and successful learning can be micro-managed. Ill-defined and controversial real-world problems with no ‘correct answers’ will be avoided. Over time, students will favor the safe route to success and avert risk taking and possible setbacks. Apparently, in Asian cultures, academic work is a safe route to success, and engaging in entrepreneurship is full of uncertainties and risks. However, this preference can significantly hinder personal creativity

Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity

(Zhao & Meyer, 2014). Academic tasks, with well-structured problems and learnable pathways to solutions are a good fit for Asian students at the cost of learning to deal with the uncertainties of real-world problems. Asian educators might eventually find that they are doing so well in putting kids ‘in the box’, so to speak, that once students are asked to think ‘outside the box’, they will be lost. In other words, knowledge becomes the prison of the mind, not power and freedom. Indeed, that Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to venture into some risky business would be seen as insane by many Asian parents. Third, when academic strivings become a means to social success, it is logical to achieve through conforming to established standards rather than through independence, even fighting against the ‘crowd’. However, a system of conformity tends to produce what can be called ‘excellent sheep’, not free thinkers, critical thinkers, and creators. Self-direction is discouraged when financial security and social prestige overshadow the intrinsic excitement of exploring the unknown and personal dreams. Taken together, I argue that these three tendencies hinder effective gifted education because this is not about financial success and social prestige; it is about bringing excitement and dreams to students’ life, to help students see new possibilities, not just for themselves, but for the human race. It is the core value of gifted education to push learners to be trail-blazers rather than merely followers or good lesson learners, to take risks and capitalize on uncertainties rather than play safe, to encourage learners to find their passion rather than following the conventional pathways to success. As a relevant anecdote, I had the opportunity to visit a selective science high school in New York City. Over 70 percent of the students were Asian American, who had obviously been admitted to the school through highly competitive scores on a city-wide admission test involving mathematical and verbal skills. The principal of the school, a

473

Chinese American, candidly told me that she was concerned that many Asian students (mostly second-generation immigrants) were too narrowly focused on academic study, too ‘obedient’ (e.g., afraid of asking questions, even voicing different perspectives), and lacking in personal initiative to pursue their own passions. Understandably, many countries, like China and India, straddle the industrial and post-industrial ages, and parents likely feel torn between treating the education of their children as a means to getting ahead and moving up, or finding meaning and happiness from what they learn and what they can be. The competition for limited educational resources and for getting ahead is more prominent in Asia than in European and North American countries (see Neihart & Tan, 2016). Cultural traditions in Asia further fuel such competition (consider the ‘Tiger Mom Syndrome’, characterized by the psychological control parents use to push their children; see Ng, Pomerantz, & Deng, 2014). To be sure, this kind of shifting focus from developing desirable personal qualities to treating education as a means of financial security and success is not confined to Asian countries and cultures. In the United States, such a trend also exists. Yang (2014) lamented the tendency in the United States to treat education as a pathway to quick money and financial success rather than to having a spirit of entrepreneurship and a vision of how to make a difference in the world. Yang called for restoring a culture of innovation, a tradition that helped produce Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk, among many others. We should also point out that on a positive note, the zeitgeist in Asia is changing in favor of building a culture of innovation. Economically it is happening in India, Mainland China, and many other countries. Based on the 2016 Global Innovation Index (website: https://www. globalinnovationindex.org/), Switzerland, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, USA, and Finland ranked numbers 1–6, and several

474

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Asian countries (Singapore No. 7, Hong Kong No. 11, South Korea, No. 14, Japan No. 19, and Mainland China No. 29) are among the second-tier economies in innovation. E-business, spearheaded by Alibaba, epitomizes the change. A change of culture is slowly but surely trickling down to education. In the global scene of education, Asian students undoubtedly shine, particularly in science and technology. A case in point is the Intel Science Talent Search, held annually in the United States. Each year, about 1700 high school students enter the competition for 18 categories of science by submitting their scientific papers (empirical or theoretical), 300 semi-finalists are selected for interview, and 40 finalists are selected to enter the final round of the competition for more than one million dollars of college scholarship. These finalists are labeled ‘the innovators of the future’. In my count of the finalists in the last three years (2014–2016), 59 percent of the finalists are of Asian descent (most of whom are of Chinese and Indian origin), compared to a population base of only 5 percent in the US population (data source: https:// student.societyforscience.org/intel-sts-2016finalists). A majority of these Asian students are second-generation immigrants. An educated guess is that they bring together the best of two cultures.

RESEARCH AND VISION OF GIFTED EDUCATION In the VISCAR Model, the component of Research, broadly defined, occupies a unique place. In a sense it is part of the education infrastructure because it relies on institutional support from universities, government, and funding agencies. However, as the ‘brain’ of the system, it serves an overarching role of orchestrating the endeavor of gifted education. Then, to what extent does research in Asian countries serve to develop, guide, and control the quality of gifted education in

Asia? We can ask two questions regarding research: how much is the investment of social capital in an economy, and how much is the investment of intellectual capital?

Social Capital Government priorities in education can change, and funding for research on gifted education is typically most vulnerable to economic downturns. For example, the federal government of the United States stopped funding Javits programs during the last world-wide economic downturn. In Mainland China, government funding for gifted education research and development (R&D) initiatives is more sporadic. The condition is better for other countries in which gifted education has legal status (e.g., Singapore, Turkey). In the United States, research on gifted education remains active not because the funding is sufficient (the opposite is the case) but because of the organizations and networks of university professors, various gifted education centers, and support from private foundations. The gifted education research community and apparatus could hardly hold without the organizational leadership provided by the National Association for Gifted Education (NAGC), with its social networks and journals and conferences, and to a lesser extent, by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Intellectual Vision As I alluded to earlier, the key role of a university in gifted education is not merely providing practical services but also intellectual vision along with its expertise. Money is an issue when conducting extensive research, but often more crucial is the lack of intellectual capital investment (including the belief that research and theory do not matter). Comparing Turkey and Mainland China illustrates the difference. Turkey has a

Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity

distinct national policy on gifted education. Furthermore, gifted education as a distinct field of research has to date featured in 17 university departments nationwide, resulting in a total of 134 Masters theses, 47 journal articles, and more than 300 conference presentations. In comparison, in China, intellectual capital investment is fundamentally hindered for institutional reasons. There is no single graduate program in gifted education among more than three thousand universities and colleges; there is no single academic journal in gifted education, and very few professors specialized in gifted education. The reason is simple: gifted education is not recognized in the university system as a legitimate, interdisciplinary field of scholarship and research. In addition, educational research has a short history in many Asian countries. The research apparatus in general is weak (e.g., in Mainland China; see Zhao, Beckett, & Wang, 2017). As a result, Asian countries tend to follow in the footsteps of Western traditions without doing strong groundwork of their own. With the momentum built up in Asia, we should anticipate developments of gifted education in Asia as a fertile ground for new theoretical insights, with conceptualization and methodology more suited to capturing the nature and development of gifts and talents. For example, Phillipson, Ziegler, and Stoeger (2013) used the Actiotope Model of giftedness to explain Asian experiences in gifted education. It is hoped that in the field of education in general, and gifted education in particular, East will meet West to create a synergistic power and complementary perspectives (Freeman, 2016; Phillipson & Phillipson, 2016), so that the East will make its share of theoretical and research contributions to gifted education. A precondition, of course, is that gifted education needs to take strong foothold in academia. Ultimately, to be viable, each country or region has to adopt a policy that reflects its educational priorities, and the need for research in this special area.

475

CONCLUSION The rise of Asia as an economic powerhouse is an undeniable reality. Can Asia also lead the way in education with respect to developing extraordinary human capital by nurturing talent and fostering creativity? The answer is that it has to if it aspires to developing a knowledge and creative economy, and not just working hard, for which Asia is known to the world, but ‘working smart’. Is Asia ready for the challenge? To be sure, the uneven economic and social developments both between and within Asian countries need to be reckoned with, and the implications for education policy understood. Specifically, for countries like China and India, the need for making education accessible to all and for making education instrumental in their economic and social development will coexist for a long time. For more developed economies, such as Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, the quality of education provided to each individual student will increasingly be a priority. It makes sense for more developed countries to adopt the ‘Differentiation Paradigm’ (e.g., Japan; see Matsumura, 2016) and for developing countries to adopt the ‘Talent Development Paradigm’ that better suits their needs (e.g., India; see Roy & Kurup, 2016). Both situations bode well for gifted education. For the past century, the Western world has led the way in almost every regard, from the invention of automobiles, computers, and the internet to the cutting-edge of science, legal systems, and popular culture, and along the way produced numerous top scientists, scholars, artists, and entrepreneurs. Can Asia also rise to the occasion to become a hub for scientific breakthroughs, technological innovation, and creative problem-solving? We see both the assets and the liabilities of Asian cultures in this regard. We also witness that in some aspects some Asian countries are starting to lead the pack (e.g., arguably South

476

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Korea), while others are still struggling to balance economic and educational priorities. Asian peoples are quite capable of hard work and producing stellar academic performance, as indicated by their performance on PISA and TIMMS. I argue that the creativity economy of the 21st century demands a cultural transformation of education worldwide (the way we think about the means and ends of education), and gifted education should be a force to promote such a change. A long-term vision is needed by the educational leadership at multiple levels to make committed efforts to nurture talent and encourage personal creativity, and to engage in sustained infrastructure and capacity building for that purpose. Whether the 21st century will be truly a Century of Asia is contingent on this endeavor.

REFERENCES Aljughhaiman, A., Nofal, M., & Hein, S. (2016). Gifted education in Saudi Arabia: A review. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 191–212). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education: The conceptual foundations for research as a curricular imperative (Vol. 1). New York: Erlbaum. Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press. Chan, D. W. (2017). Gifted education in Asia. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 71–84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. Chen, J., Dai, D. Y., & Zhou, Y. (2013). Enable, enhance, and transform: How technology use can improve gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(3), 166–176. Cho, S., & Lee, J. (2016). Gifted education in the Republic of Korea: Nurturing creativity of the STEM talented students. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia:

Problems and prospects (pp. 97–119). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Coleman, M. R., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted students within an RtI framework. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 14–17. Csermely, P. (2015, October). Cutting-edge research on talent development in Europe. Presentation at the Nuremberg Conference on Talent Development, Nuremberg, Germany. Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press. Dai, D. Y. (2011). Hopeless anarchy or saving pluralism? Reflections on our field in response to Ambrose, VanTassel-Baska, Coleman, and Cross (2010). Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(5), 705–730. Dai, D. Y. (2016a). Envisioning a new century of gifted education: The case for a paradigm shift. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century. New York: Routledge. Dai, D. Y. (2016b). Looking back to the future: Toward a new era of gifted education. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 295–319). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Dai, D. Y. (2017a). A history of giftedness: A century of quest of identity. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 3–23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. Dai, D. Y. (2017b). Envisioning a new foundation for gifted education: Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT) of talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 172–182. Dai, D. Y., & Cai, J. (Eds.) (2013). Gifted education in the USA. Hangzhou, Zhejiang: Zhejiang Education Press. Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide to theory-based, practice-focused research. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Dai, D. Y., & Kuo, C. C. (Eds.) (2016). Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, R. S. (2008). Snowflakes, Living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 114–130.

Gifted Education in Asia: Vision and Capacity

Dai, D. Y., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Yang, Y. (2016). Gifted education in Mainland China: How it serves a national interest, and where it falls short. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 51–75). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Eyre, D. (2009). Introduction. In D. Eyre (Ed.), Gifted and talented education (Vol. 1, pp. 1–22). London: Routledge. Finn, C. E., & Wright, B. L. (2014). Failing our brightest kids: The global challenge of educating high-ability students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Freeman, J. (2016). Cultural variations in ideas of gifts and talents with special regard to the Eastern and Western worlds. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 231–244). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyer. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Matsumura, N. (2016). Virtual gifted education in Japan. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 121–145). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Neihart, M., & Tan, L. S. (2016). Gifted education in Singapore. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 77–96). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Ng, F. F., Pomerantz, E. M., & Deng, C. (2014). Why are Chinese mothers more controlling than American mothers? ‘My child is my report card’. Child Development, 85(1), 355–369. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008). 21st century skills, education and competitiveness: A resource and policy guide. Retrieved online at http://www.p21.org/storage/

477

documents/21st_century_skills_education_ and_competitiveness_guide.pdf Peters, S. J., Matthews, M., McBee, M. T., & McCoach, D. B. (2013). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Waco, TX: Prufrock. Phillipson, S. N. (2013). Confucianism, learning self-concept and the development of exceptionality. In S. N. Phillipson, A. Ziegler & H. Stoeger (Eds.), Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 40–64). London: Routledge. Phillipson, S. N., & Phillipson, S. (2016). Lessons in gifted education from Asia. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 215–229). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Phillipson, S. N., Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (Eds.) (2013). Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope model of giftedness. London: Routledge. Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462–501. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, A., & Jolly, J. L. (2014). A century of contributions to gifted education: Illuminating lives. New York: Routledge. Ross, P. O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Roy, P., & Kurup, A. (2016). A critical assessment of gifted education in India. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 147–165). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Sak, U., Ayas, B., Bal-Sezerel, B., Opengin, E., Ozdemir, N. N., & Demirel-Gurbuz, S. (2016). A critical assessment of the education for gifted and talented students in Turkey. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 167–190). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

478

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Shavinina, L. (2009). A unique type of representation is the essence of giftedness: Toward a cognitive-developmental theory. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 231–257). New York: Springer. Tommis, S. D. (2016). The long view of gifted education in Hong Kong, 1990-2015 and beyond.. In D. Y. Dai, & C-C Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 3–32). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Treffinger, D. S., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the gifted, 19(2), 181–193. Wu, W.-T., & Kuo, Y.-L. (2016). Gifted and talented education in Taiwan: A 40-year journey. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 33–50). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Yang, A. (2014). Smart people should build things: How to restore our culture of achievement, build a path for entrepreneurs, and create new jobs in America. New York: Harper Collins. Zhao, J., Beckett, G. H., & Wang, L. L. (2017). Evaluating the research quality of education journals in China: Implications for increasing global impact in peripheral countries. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 583–618. Zhao, Y. (2016). The science and education of the individual. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 245–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Zhao, Y., & Meyer, H-D. (2014). High on PISA, low on entrepreneurship? What PISA does not measure. In H-D. Meyer, & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 267–278). Providence, RI: Symposium Books.

35 Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan Ching-Chih Kuo

INTRODUCTION Taiwan has a history of over 40 years of gifted and talented education. Many achievements have been made in identification and placement, teacher training, curriculum development, and researches. This chapter provides a general overview of the development of education for the gifted and talented in Taiwan, and concludes with relevant results as well as concerns and strategies that can be applied to improve the practices, quality, and effectiveness of gifted education

HISTORY OF GIFTED EDUCATION AND REGULATION IN TAIWAN Formal experimental programs in gifted and talented education were initiated in Taiwan in 1973 and have grown rapidly. The development of such programs was concentrated

around the period 1973–1978 and targeted elementary school students; these services were expended to the junior high school level in 1979 and to the senior high school level in 1987.

REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS The most important legal basis of gifted education is the ‘Special Education Act’ promulgated in 1984 (amended in 1997 and 2009). The so-called ‘giftedness/talents’ designated by this Act refer to ‘students with excellent potential or outstanding performance and, after being assessed and evaluated by professionals, [who] demonstrate the need for special education and related services’. The Ministry of Education (MOE) later announced a series of policies and strategies for gifted education, as shown in Table 35.1.

480

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 35.1  The implementation of gifted and talented education in Taiwan The Special Education Act (1984) The amended Special Education Act (1997)

The amended Special Education Act (2009)

Gifted education has been implemented in accordance with laws uniformly promulgated by the President or by the Ministry of Education, such as the ‘Special Education Act’ and ‘Enforcement Rules of the Special Education Act’. 1 The amended Special Education Act of 1997 expanded the categories of gifted/talented education from the original three categories to six categories. 2 ‘Regulations Governing the Early Admission and Academic Acceleration for Excellent Students’ was enacted in 1999; it provided 7 approaches to acceleration. 3 Centers or local governments provide financial support for mentorship, summer and winter camps, enrichment programs, resource classes, and independent study. 1 The Act has expanded the educational service from the preschool level to the university level. 2 Gifted education at the junior high school level can only be implemented through resource classrooms, enrichment programs and itinerant teaching services. 3 ‘Regulations Governing the Early Admission and Academic Acceleration for Excellent Students’ of 1999 were revised to provide five approaches: grade skipping; partial grade skipping; skipping a course in the customary academic sequence; subject acceleration; and advanced placement.

CONCEPTIONS AND THEORIES Based on the theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), the amended Special Education Act of 1997 expanded the categories of gifted/talented education from the original three categories of ‘general intelligence’, ‘scholastic aptitude’, and ‘special talents’ in 1984 to six categories: ‘superior intellectual ability’, ‘scholastic ability’, ‘visual and performing arts’, ‘creativity’, ‘leadership’, and ‘giftedness/talents in other areas’. The scope of gifted education in the 1997 Special Education Act was enlarged to include multiple intelligences, and services were implemented in both inner-city schools and remote rural schools. In 2009, the Special Education Act has further expanded the educational service from preschool to university level based on the concept of inclusive education. Related regulations include the ‘Regulations for Curriculum and Teaching Materials, and Methods of Special Education’ enacted in 1986, ‘Enforcement Rules of the Special Education Act’ enacted in 1987, ‘Regulations Governing the Early Admission and Academic Acceleration of Excellent Students’ enacted in 1999, ‘Evaluation Criteria for Handicapped and Gifted Students’ (enacted in 2002 and

amended in 2013), and ‘Enforcement Rules of the Special Education Act’ (enacted in 1987 and amended in 2013).

ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS Support for special needs in Taiwan can be found in the educational administration, as well as educational and academic institutions.

Educational Administration The administrative organization that promotes gifted education in Taiwan consists of the Department of Student Affairs and Special Education, the Ministry of Education; the K-12 Education Administration, the Ministry of Education; and the Education Bureaux of city and county governments. The primary responsibilities of the Department of Student Affairs and Special Education are policy planning, promotion and supervision of support services; those of the K-12 Education Administration and the Ministry of Education are to supervise and promote special education in national schools at the K-12 levels. At the local level, each Division of Special Education

Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan

of the cities and counties must be supervised by a consultant from the Special Education Advisory Board and the Identification and Placement Committee Board for students with special needs. Most schools have a Special Education Promotion Committee and/or a Special Education Unit in charge of special education affairs.

Support Systems Academic institutions such as normal universities or teachers’ colleges, special education centers at universities, gifted education resource centers in city and county governments, and parents’ associations all support strengthening the quality of gifted education. The universities provide a teacher training service, guidance, and consultation, and enhance teachers’ knowledge regarding how to teach gifted learners (as shown in Table 35.2). The resource centers offer information, assistance and training for special education and assist government agencies in improving education practices, policies, and services.

IDENTIFICATION AND PLACEMENT Identification Criteria In Taiwan, students can be identified as gifted and talented based on the following criteria (Presidential Order, 2009):

481

1 Superior in General Intellectual Ability: Superior intellectual ability refers to excellent potential and outstanding performance compared to peers in memory, comprehension, analysis, synthesis, reasoning, and evaluation. Students with superior general intelligence should meet the following criteria: a The intelligence test scores are two standard deviations above the mean or above the 97th percentile rank. b Students’ learning traits and performance must be documented and endorsed by professionals, teachers, and parents. 2 Giftedness/Talents in Scholastic Ability: Giftedness/talents in scholastic ability refers to excellent potential and outstanding performance in the linguistic arts, mathematics, social science, or natural science when compared to peers. Students with talents in scholastic ability should meet at least one of the following criteria: a Their specific academic aptitude achievement test scores are two standard deviations above the mean or in the 97th percentile rank or above; their learning traits must be documented and endorsed by professionals, teachers or parents. b They were awarded one of the first three prizes in an international or a national academic contest or exhibition. c They participated in a related academic seminar held by an academic research institute, exhibited excellent performance, and were recommended by the host Institute. d They have published research reports in academic journals and were recommended by professionals or teachers. 3 Giftedness/Talents in Visual and Performing Arts: Giftedness/talents in visual and performing arts refers to excellent potential or outstanding

Table 35.2  Teacher in-service training program Pre-service teacher There are a total of 13 university departments of special education in Taiwan. The training (1984–now) undergraduate program includes selective area courses in gifted education. Students who are interested in becoming involved in gifted education must complete at least 30 credits in gifted education before they can take the teacher certification examination. In-service teacher The qualified teachers of gifted students are required to complete 30 professional credits in training gifted education. In addition to the 30 credits, gifted education teachers are encouraged to attend free in-service training workshops, which are financially supported by city/county government and are operated every year by either city/ county gifted resource centers or special education centers at normal universities or teachers’ colleges.

482

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

performance compared with peers. Students with talents in visual and performing arts should meet one of the following criteria: a Their specific arts aptitude test scores are two standard deviations above the mean or in the 97th percentile rank or above; their learning traits are endorsed and documented by professionals, teachers or parents. b They have been awarded one of the first three prizes in an international or national art contest or exhibition. 4 Giftedness/Talents in Creativity: Giftedness/talents in creativity refers to the ability to produce new ideas, inventions or engage in problem solving. Students with talents in creativity should meet one of the following criteria: a They have creativity ability test scores two standard deviations above the mean or in the 97th percentile rank or above; their creative traits and performance are endorsed and documented by professionals, teachers or parents. b They have been awarded one of the first three prizes in an international or national invention or creativity competition. 5 Giftedness/Talents in Leadership: Giftedness/ talents in leadership refers to excellent potential and outstanding performance in planning, organizing, communicating, coordinating, decision-making, and evaluating. Students with talents in leadership should meet the following criteria: a Their leadership skills test or leadership style test scores are two standard deviations above the mean or in the 97th percentile rank or above. b Their leadership traits and performance are endorsed by professionals, teachers, parents or peers. 6 Giftedness/Talents in Other Areas: Giftedness/ talents in other areas refers to excellent potential and outstanding performance in body movement, the playing of a musical instrument, information science, or chess. Students with talents in other areas should meet the following criteria: a They were awarded one of the first three prizes in an international or national talent contest or exhibition. b Their special talent traits and performance are endorsed and documented by professionals, teachers, or parents.

ASSESSMENT TOOLS Assessment tools used in identification include intelligence tests, aptitude tests, achievement tests, performance assessment, creative and productive thinking tests, and other informal assessments, such as observational scales, recommendation letters, oral tests, competition records, and portfolio assessment. These tools may not be appropriate for twice-exceptional students or students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. In Article 41 of the Special Education Act 2013, local authorities and schools are required to reinforce diagnostic procedures and counseling services for gifted students with special needs and those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Thus, adjusting assessment procedures and using adaptive assessment tools for the culturally disadvantaged gifted and students are required.

FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE The Statistical Yearbook of Special Education of the Republic of China (Ministry of Education, 2017) reported 6463 gifted and talented students with general intelligence aptitude (accounting for 24.89% of all gifted students); 13,636 students with specific academic aptitude (accounting for 52.52%); 5709 students with an aptitude in visual and performing arts (accounting for 21.99%); and 154 students in other aptitudes (accounting for 0.59%), for a total of 25,962 students (p. 56). Among them, 6526 were elementary school students (p. 58); 8880 were junior high school students (p. 59); and 15,406 were senior high school students (p. 60). The frequency of occurrence rate is 0.8% at elementary school level, 1.1% at junior high level, and 1.3% at senior high level, respectively. The sex ratio is equal in the total population (M = 12,946; F = 13,016) (p. 69), but sex ratios varied in different categories, with

Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan

1.53 males for every 1.00 females in general intelligence (3903 males/2560 females) (p. 69), 1.25 males for every 1.00 females in scholastic aptitude (7582 males/ 6054 females) (p. 69), and 3.15 females for every 1.00 males in visual and performing arts (4334 females/1375 males) (p. 69).

PLACEMENT There are multiple placements for gifted and talented students, such as special classes, resource classes, community-based enrichment programs, school-based enrichment programs, itinerant programs, and acceleration. As the amended Special Education Act of 2009 focused on education in mainstream settings, gifted and talented education under junior high school level can be only implemented through resource classrooms, enrichment programs, accelerated programs, or itinerant teaching services (Figure 35.1). The data in the Statistical Yearbook of Special Education of the Republic of China, (Ministry of Education, 2017) show various existing programs and services up to senior high schools. The placement includes 5429 students in the art-talented class and resource

Acceleraon Special Classes Resource Classrooms Community-based Enrichment Program

483

room (accounting for 20.90%); 5293 students in self-contained gifted classes (accounting for 20.39%); 4982 students in the general intelligence resource room (accounting for 19.19%); 3866 students in the cross-class resource room (accounting for 14.89%); 2985 students in the gifted program (accounting for 11.50%); 1746 students in the non-categorical resource room (accounting for 6.73%); and 1661 students in the itinerant resource program (accounting for 6.40%). Among the art-talented class and resource room, there are 2557 students in the gifted class in arts (accounting for 9.85%); 2013 students in the gifted class in music (accounting for 7.75%); 629 students in the gifted class in dance (accounting for 2.42%); 102 students in the art resource room (accounting for 0.39%); 99 students in the music resource room (accounting for 0.38%); and 29 students in the dance resource room (accounting for 0.11%).

EDUCATION POLICY FOR GIFTED EDUCATION Gifted education in Taiwan encountered several challenges in the period 2006–2008. The policy of mixed-ability grouping was officially imposed when the National Education Act was amended in 2004, increasing the number of concentrated gifted classes without providing for adequate evaluation of content or quality, and increasing the misunderstanding about gifted education. A national conference on gifted and talented education was therefore held in 2007 to enhance the quality of gifted and talented education development.

Inerant Program

School-based Enrichment Program

Figure 35.1  Multiple placements for gifted and talented students

The White Book of Gifted Education and Action Plans The White Book of Gifted Education was released in March 2008 based on four key principles: providing appropriate and

484

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

adaptive educational opportunities; building up a differentiated learning environment for every student; offering abundant opportunities for cultivating multiple intelligences; and guiding students to become responsible and altruistic beings. Gifted education in the White Book, assuming adaptive education as its premise, proposes to reach the ultimate goal of holistic development, and aims to bring competency, cognition, and consultation into focus, with the hope of making every child a real ‘gifted person’ of high morality, high responsibility, and altruism. The White Book, drafted by professionals specializing in gifted education, administrative representatives, and practiced teachers, drew up strategies on seven dimensions of gifted education and action plans. The Chinese Association of Gifted Education (CAGE) and several professionals from normal universities, headed up by the author, were entrusted to implement these strategies with a six-year action plan (2008–2013). The scheme of the White Book is shown in Figure 35.2.

The action plans were implemented in terms of the relative degrees of urgency as short-term plans, intermediate plans, and long-term plans. The plans were related to: (a) the multidimensional identification and appropriate placement of gifted/talented students; (b) a school-based gifted education service; (c) criteria for gifted education teacher qualification and facilities; (d) professional standard criteria for gifted education teachers, (e) the provision of multiple identification tools and placement procedures for gifted and talented students with disabilities and/or with socioeconomic disadvantages; (f) the discovery of and consultation for students with other special talents; and (g) the advertisement of fundamental concepts of gifted education. A full review of present status and strategies were proposed leading to the following seven action plans, in order of priority (Ministry of Education, 2008). Among them, 35 plans were implemented between 2008 and 2013.

Figure 35.2  The scheme of White Book of Gifted Education

Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan

Action plan 1: Magnifying resource and teaching support systems 1 Amending related acts and regulations of gifted education; 2 Allocating more budget for gifted education; 3 Regulating the criteria for gifted education teacher qualification and facilities; 4 Planning and setting up the National Gifted Education Research and Resource Center, budgeting, and recruiting qualified personnel to promote gifted education in Taiwan; 5 Encouraging the local government agencies in charge of education to establish their own Gifted Education Resource Center, to promote regional gifted education 6 Designing empowerment program for parents of gifted students 7 Establishing longitudinal data so as to further provide the follow-up consultation

Action plan 2: Promotion of gifted education ideals with advanced media and technology 1 Advertising fundamental concepts of gifted education on media networks; 2 Conducting gifted education competency seminars and camps for parents and teachers to exchange experiences; 3 Producing audiovisual programs for gifted education case exchanges.

Action plan 3: High-quality multiple assessment and appropriate placement 1 Developing ‘Essentials on Evaluation and Identification of Gifted Students’ to meet the needs of the gifted; 2 Planning all kinds of placement plans to meet individual needs; 3 Formulating and carrying out acceleration programs for gifted students; 4 Proposing measures of discovering and counseling for students with high-level creativity, leadership, or other special talents.

Action plan 4: Differentiated curricula and holistic counseling 1 Establishing and evaluating the action plan of the school-based gifted education service;

485

2 Establishing and popularizing the e-learning platform on gifted education; 3 Designing a preschool gifted education enrichment program; 4 Designing a social service program for the gifted; 5 Establishing and popularizing an effective followup system for the gifted.

Action plan 5: Diversified teacher training and professional development 1 Regulating the training criteria for teachers of gifted education; 2 Designing and providing multidisciplinary training for teachers of gifted education; 3 Designing a gifted education empowerment program for general educational administrators to increase their professional knowledge in gifted education

Action plan 6: Discovery of disadvantaged gifted students and teaching with proper adjustment 1 Designing adjusted and multiple identification tools and placement procedures for the disadvantaged gifted to discover their potential; 2 Improving teachers’ professional competency, especially those teachers of disadvantaged gifted students; 3 Providing full support and carrying out the consultation programs for the disadvantaged gifted community.

Action plan 7: Professional evaluation and efficient supervision 1 Regulating assessment index for different categories of gifted education; 2 Establishing a longitude effective and institutionalized evaluation and supervision mechanism; 3 Encouraging all levels of schools to self-evaluate and set up either a recess system as a sanction mechanism or an incentive system for merited organizations and personnel.

486

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

THE FIVE-YEAR MEDIUM-TERM DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION The K-12 Education Administration of the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, has launched the five-year Medium-term Development Plan in Gifted and Talented Education (2015–2019), with the following goals: (a) providing a comprehensive support system for gifted students; (b) offering flexible identification procedures and multiple placements to meet the needs of gifted and talented students; (c) nurturing gifted and talented students and developing multiple talents; (d) enhancing in-service and preservice teacher training; and (e) increasing international exchanges. Several significant activities have been implemented, such as: the Super Summer Camp for junior and elementary school gifted students to cultivate friendship with other peers from different cities and counties; the Asia-Pacific Forum for Science Talent, presenting exceptional students with an exciting opportunity to broaden their international horizons; and the Young Scholars Program, designed to nurture the high academic potential of the gifted. The Medium-term Development Plan helps promote the development of local gifted education. Following the release of Central Government policies, the educational bureaux of cities (e.g. Taipei City, Kaohsiung City, and Taoyuan City) published their own White Book of gifted education to respond to local needs and to enable local partners to play their part. In an effort to enhance international exchanges and cooperation, since 2015 the National Taiwan Normal University has been entrusted by the K-12 Education Administration (MOE) to organize the AsiaPacific Forum for Science Talent. The event provides middle high school students with opportunities to get to know each other, showcase their talents, and work collaboratively. Targeted participants are middle high

school talented students who are aged 13–16 and who are studying or interested in science. Each participating country/region has been entitled to send a delegation consisting of up to six students and two teachers to join the Forum. The 2017 event attracted delegates from 15 countries and regions. This event had the theme ‘Imagination and Future Scientists’ and the program had an array of the following activities that highlighted this theme: 1 Student forum sessions which allowed the student delegates to engage in discussions related to science for social concerns, and familiarize them with the roles of global citizens; 2 The multinational team-based, hands-on project sessions allowed the student delegates to learn how to overcome language obstacles, collaborate with others, think creatively and complete the hands-on task; 3 The teacher forum sessions let the teacher delegates share ideas and show how to incorporate social concerns or imagination into teaching practices; 4 Cultural tours gave the student delegates an understanding of local culture, history and the natural environment.

Feedback from the events was very positive and the event enjoyed widespread coverage in media outlets. Taiwan as the host has also seen the value of raising its reputation and impact.

Curriculum and Instruction The gifted education curriculum in Taiwan includes a core curriculum and curriculum content that satisfies the special learning needs of the gifted. The core curriculum refers to core subject domains and a curriculum on an accelerated and streamlined level; in addition, affective courses, independent study, and courses in creativity or leadership training are designed to accommodate the needs of students with special education needs. A study of gifted and talented students

Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan

at various stages of education was carried out by the author from 2016 to 2018 with support provided by the K-12 Education Administration (MOE). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected during a three-year period. If given the opportunity to change, most of the gifted would choose to receive gifted education services again. Among the gifted elementary students (n = 179), more than 80% of them responded by choosing to maintain their gifted status because of the adaptive learning services and instruction that helped them develop more positive self-concepts, social skills, and future career paths. On the other hand, 14.5% of students responded that they would not choose the gifted course if given the opportunity to change, due to factors of negative personal development, the pressure of being gifted and talented, and the dilemma of balancing the general and gifted educational demands (Table 35.3). Among the gifted students at the junior level (n = 262), almost 90% of the students would choose to receive the gifted services again, not only because of the reasons listed above by the gifted elementary group, but also because of the opportunities given to the gifted, the consideration of economic impact, and meeting the expectations of their parents.

487

Only a few in the junior high group would refuse to choose the gifted course again (9.5%) due to factors of negative personal development, the dilemma of balancing the general and gifted educational demands, as well as the effects on fostering positive relationships among teachers and peers. Among the gifted students at the senior level (n = 195), very few students (5.1%) would refuse to enter gifted education, and 89.2% of the group would choose to be placed in gifted programs again. The reasons for accepting or refusing gifted education services were similar to those in the other two groups but the senior group noted that their gifted education experiences did not assist them in planning their future career path.

RECENT RESEARCH TOPICS Research Supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology In Taiwan, most research projects granted by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) have promoted special education by contributing to its theoretical foundations.

Table 35.3  Gifted student responses to instruction

Most popular courses Less popular courses Most popular activities Less popular activities Most benefits

Less benefits

Elementary level (n = 238)

Junior level (n = 288)

Senior level (n = 221)

Learning via project-based learning (61%) Special topics research (28.3%)

Creative thinking instruction (51.9%) Course on classical masterpieces (27%) * Extracurricular activities (46%) * Classroom games (36.3%)

Special topics research (38.5%)

* Classroom games (53.5%) * Extracurricular activities (49.2%) * Teacher instruction (50.3%) * Keynote talk (40.6%) * Hands-on learning activities (33.2%) * Extracurricular activities (29.9%) * Teacher instruction (34.8%) * Keynote talk (23.5%)

* Keynote talk (40.8%) * Teacher instruction (34.9%) * Hands-on learning activities (32.9%) * Group learning (27%)

Subject-specific inquiry-based curriculum (36.9%) * Extracurricular activities (40.5%) * Teacher–student discussion (26.7%) * Teacher instruction (39%) * Online learning (27.2%) * Teacher–student discussion (31.8%) * Group learning (25.6%)

* Keynote talk (30.8%) * Online learning (29.4%)

* Teacher instruction (27.7%) * Online learning (27.2%)

488

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

The statistics database show that during 2010–2017, the MOST has approved financing for 49 gifted-education-related projects to raise scientific and technological research and development standards in Taiwan. The funded projects span a wide range of topics and research questions, with regard to: discovering and nurturing culturally different gifted students; curriculum development of the mathematically and scientifically talented; a brain imaging study of gifted students; talent development; nurturing leadership and creativity; and professional development.

Research Supported by the Ministry of Education Both the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the K-12 Education Administration of the MOE support a number of grants or entrusted projects to promote gifted education development. Most of the projects addressed over the last eight years have been focused on the construction of different kinds of academic aptitude tests to identify gifted students; the construction of leadership tests to identify leadership talent; the development of modules for independent study and creativity; the development of teaching guidelines and examples for K-12 gifted education; and the establishment of a longitudinal follow-up network for gifted students.

Research Implemented by Masters Students and Doctoral Students In addition to the research supported by the Ministries, the National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan reports a total of 322 doctoral dissertations and Masters theses between 2010 and 2017 showing the research trends and achievements of gifted and talented education development in Taiwan. The top five

popular research topics are: characteristics of giftedness; educating the gifted; creativity; teaching the gifted; and the twice exceptional.

CONCLUSION: CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES Current Challenges Although Taiwan has made some remarkable achievements in gifted and talented education development, certain problems exist in implementing gifted education, such as strict identification criteria, a limited range of placement options, a lack of specific administrative staff in charge of gifted education, the discontinuity of gifted education between levels of education, and inadequate and limited curriculum guidance for supporting students with gifted and talented educational needs. The gifted education experiment became legitimized with the promulgation of the Special Education Act, but the amendments restrict further development; for example, debates about the use of placement measures for gifted students and widely varying interpretations of the special education programs. The MOE’s Scientific Steering Committee added new challenges, such as the low percentage of teachers with gifted education certificates; inadequate professional growth opportunities in science for elementary gifted teachers; insufficient administrative support; inadequate professional educational service for disadvantaged groups; inadequate course design; and lack of clear gifted education assessment indexes. A lack of government attention to gifted education can also be seen from the government expenditure on gifted and talented education. According to Article 9 of the Special Education Act (amended in 2014), ‘All the governments should develop the special education budget to the extent that it is not less

Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan

than 4.5% of the yearly educational budget in the central government, and not less than 5% in the local government. When the local government develops budgets, special needs education is the top priority’. Unfortunately, there is no government requirement for gifted education. The annual special education budget of the MOE in 2016 accounts for 4.56% of the total budget for education; the gifted education budget accounts for only 3.5% of the sum allotted to special education. In addition, the government spent its gifted education budget mainly on indigenous people and minority groups as well as on art and exceptional talent education (accounting for 88.73%); the remaining budget was spent on academic and vocational senior high education (accounting for 7.74%), administration and supervision by the Department of Student Affairs and Special Education (accounting for 1.32%), junior high, elementary school and preschool education (accounting for 1.27%), and special education (accounting for 0.94%). It is a tough and unfair budget for gifted education and gifted services.

Perspectives Solutions to the aforementioned challenges may include: (a) amending the Special Education Act and other related regulations by compiling suggestions from the public and those involved in promoting gifted education; (b) increasing the proportion of the budget for gifted education and requiring that a certain percentage of the gifted education budget be used to improve the quality of gifted and talented education; (c) improving communication between central and local government; (d) enhancing professional knowledge and administrative implementation strategies; (e) advertising the fundamental concepts of gifted education by using media and the internet; and (f) advocating the ideal and spirit of gifted

489

education, such as by breaking elite stereotypes and common myths related to gifted education, discovering multiple talents in people, and assisting students with special needs without labeling them. In order to meet the practical need of teaching in gifted education, schools may employ contractual teachers with special skills, but, in reality, a qualified teacher may not be well prepared to teach the gifted and a gifted education teacher may not have substantive subject-matter knowledge, especially in secondary school (Wu & Kuo, 2016). In view of this, both the K-12 Education Administration of the MOE and the Department of Teacher and Art Education are working together to provide funding not only for general teachers to attend education programs in universities and gain their teaching certificate in gifted education, but also for gifted education teachers to receive subject specialism training. This multidisciplinary training of teachers’ expertise, both in the subject course and special education, will ensure the connection of professional teacher training with demands in schools. The Statistical Yearbook of Special Education of the Republic of China (Ministry of Education, 2017), shows that the ratio of disadvantaged gifted students per 100 gifted students talented in general intelligence and academic aptitude is low (1.5 per 100 students) in elementary (81 persons), junior high schools (117 persons), and senior high schools (47 persons). Most of the disadvantaged gifted students suffer autism. It is important to focus on developing potentials and providing strategies to help those disadvantaged gifted to promote their achievements in positive ways. The strategies may include: (a) providing better education services; (b) designing adjusted and multiple identification tools and placement procedures for the disadvantaged gifted to discover their potential; and (c) enriching the gifted education support system, establishing suitable consultation services, and increasing

490

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

teachers’ professional knowledge in teaching and counseling so that the disadvantaged gifted can obtain suitably adjusted resources (Ministry of Education, 2017). In Taiwan, curriculum frameworks are open to wide interpretation, and there is no agreed common content in gifted and talented education; the criteria of teaching effectiveness remain to be clearly formulated, making transition between gifted and general education, as well as transition and continuity between schools problematic. Solutions to the current challenges in curriculum design and evaluation may include: (a) providing ideas and examples that help gifted education teachers understand instructional-design theories and develop the most suitable design for their school/course/student; (b) offering ideas and strategies to differentiate instruction; (c) utilizing teaching models to enhance continuity between general and gifted education; (d) organizing seminars in gifted education courses at each school to strengthen the continuity and collaboration between schools; and (e) establishing a professional community that shares expertise and works collaboratively to improve curriculum development. The challenges we face are daunting, but there are strategies to overcome them. We hope to more forward, to provide every child with equal respect regardless of culture, to advocate gifted education and services for the disadvantaged, to design open and fair multidimensional and multi-step identification criteria, and to provide services that allow each student to develop his or her potential and achieve full actualization.

REFERENCES Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. K-12 Education Administration, Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www. k12ea.gov.tw/ap/en_index.aspx

Kuo, C. C., Tsai, M. F., & Yu, H. P. (2017). ‘2016-2018 Report of Follow-up Study on Gifted and Talented Students’. Sponsored by K-12 Education Administration, Ministry of Education, Taiwan ROC. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University. Unpublished research report. Ministry of Education, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (1986). Regulations for Curriculum and Teaching Materials, and Methods of Special Education. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (1987). Enforcement Rules of the Special Education Act. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (1999). Regulations Governing the Early Admission and Academic Acceleration of Excellent Students. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (2002). Evaluation Criteria for Handicapped and Gifted Students. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (2008). The White Book of Gifted Education. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (2013a). Evaluation Criteria for Handicapped and Gifted Students. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (2013b). Enforcement Rules of the Special Education Act. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (2017). Statistical Yearbook of Special Education of the Republic of China. Taipei: Ministry of Education. National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan. Retrieved from https://etds. ncl.edu.tw/ Presidential Order (1984). The Special Education Act. Hua-Zong (Yi) Yi-Zi 6692 enacted and promulgated December 17, 1984. Presidential Order (1997). The Special Education Act. Hua-Zong (Yi) Yi-Zi 860011282 amended May 14, 1997. Presidential Order (2009). The Special Education Act. Hua-Zong-Yi-Yi-Zi 09800289381 amended November 18, 2009. Presidential Order (2013). The Special Education Act. Hua-Zong-Yi-Yi-Zi 1020012441 amended January 23, 2013.

Developments and Issues of Gifted Education in Taiwan

Research Grant Projects of Ministry of Science and Technology. Retrieved from https:// www.most.gov.tw/ Wu, W.-T., & Kuo, Y.-L. (2016). Gifted and talented education in Taiwan: A 40-year

491

journey. In David Yun Dai & Ching-Chih Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 33–50). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

36 Development of Gifted Education in Turkey Ugur Sak, Bahadır Ayas, Bilge Bal-Sezerel, N. Nazlı Ö z d e m i r, E r c a n Ö p e n g i n a n d Ş u l e D e m i r e l

INTRODUCTION National education is shaped by political, economic and ideological concerns. Any changes in state politics are reflected in educational reforms. Similarly, reforms in gifted education emerge simultaneously with changes in the political, economic and global goals of a country (Borland, 2003). The history of Turkey, similar to the history of other countries ruled by certain ideologies, is marked by attempts to reform the educational system. From the very beginning of the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923 to the present, reforms in the educational system related to the nation’s gifted and talented students have emerged and been shaped by the context of Turkey’s political, economic and universal goals. The periods of reform that have emerged in gifted education in the last 60 years are very meaningful. For instance, it was no coincidence that the first science high school was established in the 1960s at the time when the space race was

initiated by the US and Russia. The emergence of new steps in the education of gifted and talented students at specific critical points in history proves that these reforms were not considered and developed as a result of the needs and concerns of those students, but as a result of a global agenda for the country.

POLITICAL FOUNDATIONS OF GIFTED EDUCATION The early years of the Turkish Republic (1923–1940), can be viewed as a representation of the nation’s struggle with poverty. The country had just fought for and won its national independence, but at the same time lost its most qualified individuals. Turkey, on the one hand, was a country that accepted the principles of liberal economy; but on the other hand, it looked more like a socialist country that had state-governed investment

Development of Gifted Education in Turkey

politics. There were social and economic reforms in every field, from education to the overall appearance of the country and its citizens, including the dress code in public. In this period, reforms in education and culture were the first priority on the list of national goals. National education, from urban settings to the most distant rural locations, had to be reconstructed. In order to reform education, international experts, such as John Dewey, were invited to conduct studies all around the country. The governments’ political ideologies in Turkey have always influenced the education of gifted students. The opening of the first science high school in 1964, and the founding of the Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Council a year before, followed by the formation of full-time, selfcontained classes for gifted students in public schools was not a coincidence. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first spaceship, the Sputnik. After this date a new era started in the education of the gifted in the western world (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2007; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007). In this era, the new vision of the Turkish Republic was to be able to have a say in the international arena, more so than becoming rich and powerful within the country. No matter what ideological bases it may have relied on, starting the science high schools in Turkey was one of the most important steps in the education of the gifted. The number of these schools increased greatly, especially after the 1980s, when Prime Minister Turgut Özal’s government came into power. One of Özal’s missions was the ‘Big Turkey’ project. It was projected that as long as the agenda was pursued with no mistakes, by the beginning of the 21st century Turkey was supposed to be one of the ten greatest economies in the world. Özal believed that the 21st century would be the century of the Turks (Güzel, 2008). According to Özal, human power was the most precious resource of the county, and education was the best investment. This mantra was often mentioned in the National Development Plans in the time

493

of Özal’s government and those following. In the meetings of the Ministry of Education, it was noted that there was a need for special education for the gifted and talented. These decisions, especially after the 1990s, when the new regulations in the education of gifted students started, reflected the political necessities of the time.

THE VISION 2023 A new era in the education of gifted students started with the beginning of the 21st century. It began with the effects of the politics of the 1990s and gained momentum with strategic planning studies on gifted education between the years 2009 and 2013. For example, while no conferences were held on the education of the gifted and talented before the year 2000, between the years 2004 and 2017, a total of four national, five international and numerous local conferences were held. In comparison with the former assemblies of the Ministry of Education, those held in 2006 and 2010 featured more discussions on this issue. Before the 2000s only a few Science and Art Centers existed to provide special education for gifted and talented students in the entire country. Similarly, the number of science high schools established before 2000 was relatively small. Since then, the number has increased greatly. In the early 2000s, departments for gifted education offering Masters and PhD programs were established in universities. In addition, special education centers for gifted and talented children at universities started to open. During these years, the increasing awareness in the education of the gifted and talented attracted the attention of the private sector, resulting in opening special classrooms in private schools for gifted students. One of the basic reasons for the start of a new era in the education of gifted and talented students in Turkey is that the government of the period formulated the ‘Vision 2023,’

494

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

commemorating the 100 years of history from the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923 (TUBITAK, 2004). With the direction of this new vision, the government aimed to double the national income per person, and similarly to the former Prime Minister Özal’s government, aimed to make Turkey one of the top ten economic powers in the world. Within this vision, it was decided that gifted individuals would recieve special education, and the issue was brought up in the ‘Science and Technology Higher Counsel’ (BTYK) chaired by the Prime Minister. The BTYK, regarding this issue, considered the Ministry of Education accountable for its immediate operation (BTYK, 2009). As a result of this decision, in 2012, the Parliament also formed a commission of deputies to work on this subject. This commission worked on gifted and talented children’s education in Turkey and abroad for six months and issued a detailed report examining its current state in the country, issues and suggestions (TBMM, 2012). The second important effect of the Vision 2023 was developing a national strategic plan for the education of gifted and talented students. Between the years 2009 and 2013 the Ministry of Education worked on the national strategic plan in cooperation with TUBITAK and the universities in Turkey. It also organized one national and an international conference and many workshops with the intention of developing the national strategic plan. After these studies, in 2013 the BTYK produced the ‘strategic plan for the education of the gifted and talented 2013–2017’ (TUBITAK, 2013). The plan suggested that instead of one type of program, the education of these individuals should feature the implementation of multiple models, offering more individualized, intensive, enriched and differentiated programs according to students’ interests, skills, potential and needs. Specifically, issues regarding brain drain, inefficiency of identification tools and lack of experts in the field were highlighted, with a concern over not being able to implement the innovation

strategies carried out in the more developed countries (TUBITAK, 2013). The strategic plan had a late but an important effect on the practices of the Ministry of Education (ME). Before this plan, the ME was offering programs for gifted students only in Science and Art Centers. After the release of the plan, all state schools were mandated to start resource rooms or so-called ‘enrichment programs’ for gifted students. Additionally, The ME was identifying gifted students at fourth grade before the plan. The plan changed this regulation and the identification process started at first grade. The strategic plan for the education of gifted and talented students can be considered a milestone. It, first and foremost, created a great awareness in the institutions of the state, the private sector and parents, so much so that gifted education was discussed on all national TV channels and in newspapers for months. As a result of this growing awareness, the private sector started to pay more attention and invested in the education of gifted and talented students. The discussion up to this point about the reforms made in the education of gifted students in Turkey in the last 60 years supports the political view mentioned at the beginning of this section. That is, developments and innovations in the education of gifted and talented students in a country follow changes in the political, economic and global goals of the state.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF GIFTEDNESS The term ‘giftedness’ is a social construction (Borland, 2003; Hernândez de Hahn, 2000; Sternberg, 2007; Mandelman, Tan, Aljughaiman & Grigorenko, 2010; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius & Worrell, 2011). It is a label for a human quality that people consider extraordinary according to their social

Development of Gifted Education in Turkey

comparisons. That is, giftedness is rooted in ‘culture’. Even though giftedness and talent have strong cultural roots created in the last 2000 years in Turkish culture, there is no cultural point of view in the definitions of the Ministry of Education for gifted and talented students. That is because the official definitions were adopted mostly from the United States (Sak, 2007). Moreover, inconsistencies in these definitions and the contradictions with practice constitute big issues existing in the giftedness field.

DEFINITIONS AND THEORIES The definition of giftedness in Turkey has evolved from an intelligence-based conception to a talent-based conception over time. The term ‘giftedness’ does not exist in the Turkish language; the term ‘highly intelligent’ had been used in place of giftedness in schools until the Ministry of Education abandoned its use. Currently, it is accepted and popular to refer to high potential as ‘special talent’, whether or not one means high intelligence, high ability or giftedness. The evolution of this definition created two critical issues in the definition and identification of the gifted. Firstly, the definitions of the early years were formed based on the notion of general intelligence. However, in recent years the definition relies more on a wider perspective and includes domain-specific abilities. Another issue is the inconsistency between the definition and the identification of gifted and talented students. The first official definition of giftedness was made by the Ministry of Education in 1974. In this definition, someone having an IQ over 130 was accepted as gifted, and someone with an IQ over 120 was considered as talented (MEB, 1974). This definition, influenced by the notion of general intelligence, was based on a single score on an IQ test. The shift from a narrow definition of the gifted to a wider definition simultaneously took place

495

with the change in the notion of intelligence all around the world (Anderson, 2000). The definition of the Ministry of Education had a similar shift parallel to definitions in other countries. In 1991, the Ministry of Education used the term ‘talented’ instead of ‘gifted’, and defined talented children as those who demonstrate high performance in general ability or possess special talents compared to their peers (MEB, 1991). This definition did not include the term IQ, but, intelligence and talent in general were emphasized. In the following years, the definition was revised again and performance areas were pointed out. In 2006, for example, a gifted or talented person was defined as a person who demonstrates a high level of performance in ‘intelligence, creativity, leadership skills, arts, sports, and specific academic domains’ compared to peers of the same age (MEB, 2006). However, this definition contradicts itself because the domains and the processes in the definition are considered equally (Renzulli, 1978). According to the definition, a person can be highly talented in performance areas like ‘sports, arts, academic fields and leadership’, and/or cognitive processes like ‘intelligence and creativity’. In fact, individuals can be highly talented or highly creative in performance areas and not in intelligence. Finally, in the recent national strategic plan for the education of the gifted, the term ‘special talent’ was used instead of ‘highly talented’ and ‘gifted’, and the use of ‘high’ and ‘intelligence’ in the definition was abandoned completely (MEB, 2013). The theories of intelligence that the Ministry of Education has adopted in recent years had an important influence on changes in definitions and perceptions towards gifted students and gifted education. In the 20th century, the Ministry of Education accepted the notion of general intelligence and defined giftedness based on this notion. Later, in the 21st century, the Ministry accepted the Theory of Multiple Intelligences as the only truth (Sak, 2011a). There are a number of reasons that led to such a great impact in a short

496

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

time (Eryılmaz, 2011; Sak, 2011a). The first reason is that the theory led to a trade market. Books, education materials and trainings on multiple intelligences added an increased financial value to the education sector. In addition, undergraduate programs in faculties of education all around the country were totally redesigned in accordance with the Multiple Intelligences Theory. This, unfortunately, caused new graduates and teachers to perceive the Theory of Multiple Intelligences as an absolute truth. For instance, in a study on people’s perceptions of intelligence and giftedness (Sak, 2011a), it was shown that approximately 90% of students in the faculty of education believed that ‘people have more than one intelligence’. The reflection of the multiple intelligences approach on the field of gifted education is evident both in perceptions and in educational practices. Gardner (1983) claimed that all human beings possess more or less of all types of intelligence; however, some of them may be stronger or weaker in certain types, compared to others. This claim has created the understanding that there is a possibility for the existence of at least one domain in which a student can be gifted and/or talented. This understanding, in fact, is another reason for the Multiple Intelligences Theory being adopted in such a short period by society, the Ministry of Education, and teachers. This change in perceptions also resulted in the opening of social sciences high schools and sports high schools in Turkey. Contrary to its effect on definitions and school programs, the notion of multiple intelligences did not have a considerable influence on the identification of gifted students for gifted education programs. This contradiction resulted in an inconsistency between the definition of the gifted and the identification of gifted students. While the last definition of giftedness accepted by the Ministry of Education stated that it is possible to be talented in different domains, the Ministry keeps using IQ test results as the sole criteria for admission to gifted education programs

in primary and elementary schools. That is, these centers only accept and serve children who have a 130 IQ or above (Shaughnessy & Sak, 2013). In addition to the Ministry of Education, private schools offering special education programs for gifted students also select students based only on their IQ scores (Mammadov, 2012). These practices show that evolving conceptions about giftedness have not been transformed into practices in gifted education.

CULTURAL FOOTPRINTS IN PERCEPTIONS ABOUT GIFTEDNESS As reviewed in the preceding discussion, the giftedness definitions of the Ministry of Education have seen substantial changes in the last 50 years (MEB, 1974, 1991, 2006, 2013). However, none of these definitions have reflected Turkish society’s perceptions of giftedness, even though some types of talents have cultural references in Turkish culture and are considered to be more valuable than others (Demirel & Sak, 2011; Sak, 2007). For example, practical ability, rational thinking and leadership have been the most valued abilities throughout the history of the Turkish people. The cultural values of these abilities can be seen in Turkish narratives and folk tales, and even jokes. For instance, characters like Kelo˘glan and Nasrettin Hoca are symbols of high intelligence in Turkish narratives (Sak, 2007). Kelo˘glan is a character who is physically weak, but very strong and smart in tackling big problems by just using his practical ability skills, for which he is deemed to be the symbol of practical intelligence. Similarly, Nasrettin Hoca is a character who tackles real-life situations and issues by inventing reasonable, wise solutions and witty answers using irony and humor at the same time. Therefore, Nasrettin Hoca is considered as the symbol of reason in the Turkish culture.

Development of Gifted Education in Turkey

Turkish society also values leadership ability which is perceived to be a product of high intelligence. The importance of leadership has been expressed in written and spoken forms of epics as well as in contemporary research (Yardımcı, 2007; Ergün, 1998). For instance, Demirel and Sak (2011) investigated the importance of different types of talents in a study carried out with 601 people. In the study, the researchers presented 60 imaginary people with extraordinary talents based on Tannenbaum’s (1983) psychosocial classification of talents in four different areas (scarcity talents, surplus talents, quota talents and anomalous talents). Among these people with extraordinary talents there were those who invented the telephone, found treatment cures for cancer, the best artist in the world, the best musician, a maker of packsaddles, a blacksmith, and the leader of a war for independence. Among the talent types ‘the person who leads the independence war of the country’ was rated the highest by the participants. Demirel and Sak concluded that this result came from the fact that Turkish people fought an independence war in the last century, which was won by the great leadership of Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey.

ELITISM CONCERNS TOWARDS GIFTED EDUCATION Throughout history, while education was a birth right of children of aristocrat families in most parts of the world, it was practiced as an opportunity for everyone to advance, both in the Ottoman Empire and in the Turkish Republic (Erdo˘gan, 2010). Indeed, in the Ottoman Empire, a large number of scientists and grand viziers came from poor families (Sak, 2007). This practice, employed over years, led people to see gifted education as elitist, and therefore the Ministry of Education did not develop radical practices in gifted education. Full-time special classes started for gifted students in the 1960s were closed

497

down after a few years because of parents’ attitudes towards elitism and concerns held by the Ministry of Education (Akarsu, 2004). The Ministry of Education strongly supported early identification of and special education for gifted students in its reports about gifted education. However, it has not supported full-time programs, such as special classes and special schools, at the primary and middle school levels. It supports only resource rooms and Science and Art Centers, an after-school enrichment program for the gifted. According to the Ministry of Education, having special classes or special schools for gifted students in their early years results in labeling and segregation (Shaughnessy & Sak, 2013). Indeed, this belief was also pointed out in the most recent report on a strategic plan for gifted education. In the report, the Ministry advised that gifted students attend regular classes at the primary and middle school levels and only be offered after-school programs, in order to keep them from being isolated and labeled. The purpose of the suggestion was to ensure that the social and emotional development of gifted students would not be negatively affected, as well as to avoid creating an exclusive group in society (MEB, 2013). Additionally, in the plan, the term ‘special talent’ was preferred instead of ‘highly talented’, so as to avoid evoking elitism. The attitude of the Ministry of Education towards special classes or special schools in gifted education, as well as concerns over elitism in gifted education, have been one of the most powerful obstacles threatening progress in gifted education.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND SCHOOLS FOR HIGH ABILITY STUDENTS Gifted education in Turkey can be classified into three groups: special schools, special classes and after-school programs. Special schools are practiced only at the high

498

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

school level, and science high schools have been set up. After-school programs are offered mostly for primary and middle school students. Science and Art Centers run by the Ministry of Education and the EPTS (Education Programs for Talented Students) at Anadolu University are the most influential models of after-school programs. Special classrooms for gifted students exist only in private schools. Public schools do not have special classes for the gifted.

After-School Programs After-school programs are out-of-school enrichment programs for gifted and talented students operated by various institutions. The major and most widespread after-school program for gifted and talented students in Turkey is the Science and Art Centers run by the Ministry of Education. There are also research and educational centers on various university campuses, and other centers run by the private sector. We review Science and Art Centers and the EPTS (Education Programs for Talented Students) in detail as they are the most influential models of after-school programs in Turkey.

Science and art centers (SACs) The first SAC was established in 1995 as an after-school program to offer enrichment programs for gifted students after their regular school hours, thus avoiding segregating gifted students from their normal peers. As of 2017, there were 106 SACs around the country (MEB, 2017a). Students are selected for the SAC through three steps. The first step includes teacher nominations. In the second step, nominated students take a group intelligence test and those who score at or above a certain threshold are accepted for the third step evaluations. In the third step, they take an individually administered IQ test, such as the ASIS (Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale).

Students whose IQs are 130 or above are considered to be eligible for the SAC (Shaughnessy & Sak, 2013). However, not all identified students are accepted to the SAC because the number of students each SAC accepts is limited. Therefore, students with the highest IQs among eligible students are accepted to the SAC. Project-based learning and the development of special talents constitute the SAC education model (Baykoç Dönmez, 2004). Students go through five sequential programs: orientation, educational support programs, awareness of individual talents, development of special talents, and production of projects. The most important program of the SAC education is the project stage. This stage aims at developing students’ independent study skills and creative productivity. Students mostly work on social and/or science projects to find solutions for real-life problems. The SAC also has certain problems related to the identification system. Although the mission of the SAC is to develop special talents in students, the process of identification does not include the assessment of special talents; rather, it only uses group and individual IQ tests in the identification. Another problem of the SACs is that they do not have a standard curricular program. All of the centers around the country use different programs, depending upon their teachers’ preferences and capacities in the subjects they teach. Moreover, the duration of the five programs mentioned above varies from center to center (Shaughnessy & Sak, 2013). This inconsistency creates a huge discrepancy between the quality of the SACs. In addition, the SAC programs are disconnected from school programs. The disconnection makes it difficult for students to transfer knowledge from the SAC programs to school programs and vice versa. Lastly, no research has been done on the effectiveness of the SAC system, even though it has been 20 years since the first SAC was established; so there is no evidence about how attending the SACs has influenced

Development of Gifted Education in Turkey

gifted students’ academic achievement in their schools. Because of these drawbacks, parents are unsure about sending their children to the SACs.

EPTS (Education Programs for Talented Students) The EPTS is an after-school program established at Anadolu University in 2007. It offers enrichment and acceleration programs for fifth through eighth grade gifted students at weekends and in the summer. The EPTS has unique identification, curriculum and instruction models (Sak, 2009; 2011b, 2012, 2016). The identification system of the EPTS includes sample-based identification, domain-specific assessment of ability and multiple criteria in assessments, instead of norm-based and domain-general assessment. In the sample-based identification, students’ performance is compared with other students who apply for admission. In the norm-based identification, on the other hand, students’ performance is compared with a national sample. The EPTS Curriculum Model was developed based on an integration of the theory of successful intelligence and its teaching principles (Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000, 2007), and research on creativity and problem solving (Sak, 2009, 2016). The EPTS curriculum has two dimensions with four components. The first dimension includes analytical, creative and practical ability components. The second dimension is composed of a knowledge component. The analytical, creative and practical abilities make up the first-order abilities, which include 43 second-order broad skills. These broad skills are composed of more specific 153 third-order sub-skills (Sak, 2009, 2016). The knowledge component of the EPTS is composed of national standards at each grade level and used with the EPTS sub-skills for developing accelerated and enriched themes, units or lesson plans. A number of research studies have been carried out to investigate the effectiveness

499

of the EPTS Curriculum Model. In some studies, the EPTS Curriculum was used to teach sixth, seventh and eighth grade gifted students in an after-school program for gifted students at Anadolu University. The social validity of the EPTS or the students’ satisfaction with the program was found to be very high, and the mathematical creativity of the students was found to increase significantly after they attended the EPTS programs (Sak, 2011b, 2013). Other studies included investigations of the effectiveness of the EPTS on the development of the thinking and problem-solving skills of first, second and third grade gifted students who attended full-time gifted classes at the Anabilim Schools in Istanbul (Sak, 2016). Special programs for mathematics, Turkish, reading, social studies and science classes were developed at each grade level, using the EPTS Curriculum skills and national standards. The regular programs of all the courses were compacted and accelerated by 40%. In the remaining time, the EPTS programs were used as parallel programs to the regular courses. In these studies, students’ creative thinking and problem-solving skills in reading and mathematics were found to increase significantly. In brief, an important drawback of the after-school programs for gifted students in Turkey is that even though students attend these programs for years, they do not earn credits for their school courses or get any advantages in the admission process of entering prestigious high schools and/or universities. This drawback is one of the most salient reasons for students dropping out from these centers. They usually drop out at eighth grade to prepare for national exams to gain entry to a good high school. The Turkish educational system relies heavily on national exams for entry into good high schools and universities. This issue is the most serious threat for the sustainability of after-school programs for gifted students.

500

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Special Schools for Gifted and Talented Students In Turkey, special school models for gifted and talented students are implemented only at the high school level. This includes science high schools, social sciences high schools, and fine arts high schools, conservatoires and sports high schools. Students who successfully complete eighth grade are accepted to these high schools. The duration of the high school education is four years. The main goal of these high schools is to identify students who have special interests and talents, and to further develop these interests and talents, then to direct the students to the related fields in universities. There are special criteria in the selection of teachers for these high schools. They must be highly qualified and pass domain-specific and domain-general tests to teach at these high schools (MEB, 2017b).

Science and social sciences high schools The most prestigious of the special high schools is the science high school. Talented students spend a lot of time preparing for the entrance competition to these schools. In 1964, the Ministry of Education established the first science high school (MEB, 2017b). With the rapid economic growth beginning in 2000s, the number of science high schools increased rapidly, and 294 schools were established (MEB, 2017c); however, this increase also created disparities in implementation in these schools and the quality of education has decreased. The curriculum of science high schools focuses on math and science, and at least 37% of the credits students take at each grade have to be in science and math. In addition to these requirements, students have to complete final term projects in science or math to graduate from these schools.

Conservatoires, fine arts and sports high schools The first conservatoire was established in 1914; and by the year 2017 there were 31 conservatoires functioning within universities around the country. Some of them have middle school, high school and undergraduate and graduate programs; whereas some have undergraduate programs only. The middle school stage starts from the 5th grade with training in music and ballet. The high school stage starts at the 9th grade and includes music and stage arts (MEB, 2017c). These students have certain advantages when applying for conservatoires in universities. Students who successfully graduate from these schools can directly enter undergraduate conservatoires at the university their high schools are affiliated with. The first fine arts high school was opened in 1989, whereas sports high schools started to be established in 2012. As of 2017, there were 79 fine arts and 65 sports high schools (MEB, 2014). These schools do not attract enough students and this causes them to lower their admission criteria. As a result, these schools accept students who do not have special talents in fine arts or sports. The number of programs for gifted students has greatly increased recently, both in public and private schools. The increase in quantity and variety, however, does not necessarily guarantee an increase in quality. For example, as mentioned before, although the number of Science and Art Centers has multiplied in recent years, they still do not have a standard program. Furthermore, whether the real mission of private schools that have mushroomed in recent years is to offer high quality special education for gifted students or to create new financial resources for themselves is unclear. It is possible that we will be talking about some program corruptions for the gifted all around the country in the upcoming years.

501

Development of Gifted Education in Turkey

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN GIFTED EDUCATION The scientific study of giftedness is rather new in Turkey. The education for gifted and talented students has developed recently as a professional and scientific field, even though special education practices for gifted students go back to the beginning of the establishment of the country. Scientific studies in this field usually begin with a study of the book High Brain Power written by Mithat Enç in 1979 (Enç, 1979). This is the first scientific book written about gifted education in Turkey. The 1990s can be accepted as the launch of scientific studies with a few theses in gifted education. Since the beginning of 2000, there has been a substantial growth in scientific research in gifted education along with educational practices. We investigated the number of scientific studies and issues in gifted education through the use of national and international databases. We examined articles, Masters and doctoral theses published in Turkish from 1990 to 2017. We found 66 doctoral dissertations and 180 Masters theses written in this period. We also identified 227 articles published in national journals. Figure 36.1 shows

the number of studies by year. The findings showed that more than 90% of the studies were published in 2006 and after. The main reason for this substantial growth is the establishment of gifted education departments at Anadolu University and Istanbul University in the 2000s and the start of Masters and doctoral programs in these departments. Researchers from both universities published approximately 22% of the theses and 20% of the journal articles. Additionally, the employment rate of researchers in gifted education in universities increased year by year after the 2000s. This increase is reflected in the growth of scientific publications after 2010.

Trends in Research Table 36.1 shows the frequency of the studies’ subjects for articles, theses and dissertations. The most frequent subjects in the studies were related to guidance for gifted students (24.6%), educational activities (18.3%), characteristics of gifted people (18.1%), educational programs for the gifted (15.6%), and identification (9.6%). The least frequent subjects were found to be gender issues (0.4%), politics on gifted education (0.8%), and cognition of giftedness (0.8%).

Number of Publications

250 200 150 100 50 0 Master’s Theses Doctoral Dissertation Articles

19901995 4 0 0

19962000 5 0 0

Figure 36.1  Number of scientific studies by year

20012005 13 3 4

20062010 54 10 18

20112017 103 53 204

502

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Table 36.1  Scientific studies by subject (1990–2017) Theses & dissertations

Journal articles

Subject

N

%

N

%

N

%

Guidance Educational activities Characteristics Educational programs Identification Teachers Creativity Parenting Research syntheses Politics Cognition of giftedness Gender Total

72 47 31 37 30 8 9 6 3 3 1 1 248

29.0 19.0 12.5 14.9 12.1 3.2 3.6 2.4 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.4 100

45 40 55 37 16 15 5 5 4 1 3 1 227

19.8 17.7 24.2 16.3 7.0 6.6 2.2 2.2 1.7 0.4 1.3 0.4 100

117 87 86 74 46 23 14 11 7 4 4 2 475

24.6 18.3 18.1 15.6 9.7 4.8 2.9 2.3 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.4 100

The findings uncover trends among the researchers which reveal an overlap with government politics and priorities for the education of the gifted. Identification and programming in gifted education have the highest priority in the national strategic plan for the gifted (MEB, 2013). We found that the number of research studies in programming was relatively high (15.6%). Indeed, studies on programming together with educational activities (18.8%) constitute one third of all the studies. Table 36.1 shows that 74 studies were carried out on educational programs and 87 on educational activities for gifted students. Twelve of these studies are related to the effectiveness of the programs, whereas others are descriptive research. In four of the 12 studies, the effectiveness of the EPTS curriculum model as implemented in the Anabilim Schools and at Anadolu University was investigated. The fact that only two of the studies are about the effectiveness of the Science and Art Centers (SAC) run by the Ministry of Education is a noticeable finding. Although these centers are the most widespread programs, with more than 100 centers around the country, their effectiveness is almost unknown. Even though performance data is collected in about

Total

20% of the SACs, it is not used to generate a performance report for them (MEB, 2010). Moreover, we did not find any study on the effectiveness of the science high schools, social sciences high schools, conservatoires, fine arts and sports high schools, yet these schools provide the most services for talented students at the high school level. In our study, we found that almost 10% of studies were related to identification: however, the originality of these studies was relatively low. For example, almost 50% of these studies were related to test adaptations. That indicates that researchers in Turkey prefer adapting tests that were developed in other countries instead of developing original tests. The main reason for this comes from the lack of knowledge and experience among researchers in the identification of the gifted and the measurement of intelligence, as well as the insufficient number of leading scientists in the field. Moreover, in our investigation, we did not locate any studies related to the identification of science and art centers, science high schools, social sciences high schools and conservatoires, despite the fact that these centers and schools provide nationwide services for the gifted and talented. It is problematic that there is no scientific

Development of Gifted Education in Turkey

research and evidence collection regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of the centers and schools that select their students among millions of students nationwide. According to the findings, developing contemporary and original instruments for the identification of the gifted and researching the effectiveness of identification tools and methods currently in use are among the top priorities in research in gifted education.

Cultural Studies We found only three articles, two theses and three book chapters in international books related to cultural research in gifted education, of which only two were published in the Turkish language. Some of these reasons are personal and some are political. Firstly, the study of culture in gifted education is not a popular subject among researchers. Most researchers study program development and identification because these issues have been on the priority list for the Ministry of Education and so grants are readily available. This trend can be seen in the scientific research presented in Table 36.1. Almost 34% of studies involve educational programs and activities and about 10% of studies are related to identification. Cultural studies do not make even 1% of all the studies. A reason for the lack of cultural studies is the political factor. Even though Turkey ethnically is very rich, the only official language allowed in schools is Turkish. Different ethnicities are concentrated in certain regions. For example, the majority of the population in the North is Laz, whereas the majority in the east and southeast region is Kurdish. Turkish people live in the southern, middle and western parts of Turkey. This geographical fragmentation has created economic and educational disadvantages in regions where minorities mostly live. The fragmentation has caused the minorities in these regions to be highly politicized, and has been perceived by almost all governments as a threat to the

503

unity of the state. Therefore, research on ethnicities and culture in schools has not been supported by the government. The Ministry of Education does not allow studies related to ethnicity in schools, hence, cultural issues do not attract researchers.

CONCLUSION There are four main issues in gifted education in Turkey: policies, educational practices, staff development and scientific research. These issues are not totally disconnected from each other. A problem in one area can trigger problems in another. Inefficient policies on gifted education weaken staff development and obstruct curriculum practices; on the other hand, insufficient staff development lowers the quality of educational practices and scientific research. The number and quality of new implementations and scientific research in the field of gifted education is directly related to the number of researchers and academics working in this field. As mentioned before, until the last ten years, only a few educational practices were tried and few scientific studies were carried out in the field of gifted education. The main reason for this deficiency is the lack of staff and researchers in this field in higher education. As the number of scientists and researchers increases, scientific and educational production also grows. In the 2000s, with the increase in the number of university personnel, the amount of scientific research and innovative educational practices also increased. Therefore, we can forecast that the increasing number of personnel in universities will significantly increase scientific research and educational practices in gifted education in the near future. Although there are differentiated educational practices at the high school level for the development of the gifted and those with special talents, a similar variety does not exist at the elementary and middle school levels in

504

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Turkey. In fact, apart from the Science and Art Centers and a few resource rooms for gifted students, no special programs for gifted and talented children exist in elementary and middle schools affiliated with the Ministry of Education. The lack of programs for the gifted at the elementary and middle school levels is one of the most important problems in gifted education in Turkey. Waiting until high school to identify and educate gifted and talented children in Turkey remains an issue yet to be justified by the Ministry of Education. Turkey has always had a strong vision supported by government policies for the education of gifted and talented students; however, these policies have not been effective enough to create innovative implementations in this field. As the politicians change, the policies also change: the most detrimental aspect is that the impact of these policies has never really been reviewed or investigated. The Minister of Education has changed four times in the last ten years; and each of the appointees had different educational policies and priorities. In short, there is an overproduction of policies, none of which have been effective and sustainable. Fortunately, with the recent increase of societal and institutional awareness towards the education of gifted students, the government has prioritized this issue. Hopefully this will result in more vigorous and applicable policies in this field. The motivation that will be created by the emergence of these policies, and increases in scientific studies, educational practices and graduate programs in universities, all promise significant, optimistic and ambitious progress in the field of gifted and talented education in the coming years.

REFERENCES Akarsu, F. (2004). Üstün yetenekliler. In M. Şirin., A. Kulaksızo˘glu., & A. Bilgili (Eds.), Türkiye Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Kongresi

Seçilmiş Makaleler Kitabı [The book of selected articles of the Turkish Conference on Talented Children] (pp. 127–154). İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları. Anderson, K. (2000). Gifted and talented students: Meeting their needs in New Zealand Schools. Wellington: New Zealand. Baykoç Dönmez, N. (2004). Bilim Sanat Merkezleri’nin kuruluşu ve işleyişinde yapılması gereken düzenlemeler [Reforms needed in Science and Art Centers]. In M. Şirin., A. Kulaksızo˘glu., & A. Bilgili (Eds.), Türkiye Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Kongresi Seçilmiş Makaleler Kitabı [The book of selected articles of the Turkish Conference on Talented Children] (pp. 69–75). İstanbul: Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları. Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness: Gifted education without gifted children. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105–124). New York & London: Teachers College Press. BTYK. (2009). Bilim ve Teknoloji Yüksek Kurulu 18. ve 19. toplantı genelgesi [Publication of the 18th and 19th meetings of the Science and Technology Higher Counsel]. Retrieved from http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files//BTYPD/btyk/19/19btyk_genelge.pdf Demirel, Ş., & Sak, U. (2011). Yetenek hiyerarşisi: üstün yetenek türlerinin toplumsal de˘gerleri üzerine bir araştırma [Talent hierarchy: A research study on the social value of talent types]. Turkish Journal of Giftedness & Education, 1(1), 61–76. Enç, M. (1979). Üstün beyin gücü (High brain power). Ankara: Anakara Üniversitesi Yayınları. Erdo˘gan, İ. (2010). Üstün potansiyelli bireyler. In I. Erdo˘gan (Ed.), Milli e˘gitime dair [About national education] (pp. 71–72). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Da˘gıtım. Ergün, M. (1998). Altay Türkleri’nin kahramanlık destanı Alıp Manaş [Heroic epic of Altai Turks: Alp Manas]. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlı˘gı Yayınları. Eryılmaz, M. E. (2011). Yeni kurumsalcı örgüt kuramı perspektifinden ilkö˘gretim örgütsel alanında yaşanan kurumsal de˘gişim ve nedenleri (Theoretical changes and their reasons in the organization of elementary education). Middle East Technical University Studies in Development, 38(3), 241–274.

Development of Gifted Education in Turkey

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Güzel, U. (2008). Özalcılık [Ozalist]. İstanbul: Emre Yayınları. Hernândez de Hahn, E. L. (2000). Cross-cultural studies in gifted education. In K. A. Heller, E J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. E Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd edn, pp. 549– 561). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Giftedness in the Euro-American culture. In S. N. Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 377–412). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Mammadov, S. (2012). The education of gifted K-8 students in Turkey: Policy analysis and program evaluation. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Bo˘gaziçi University, Istanbul. Mandelman, S. D., Tan, M., Aljughaiman, A. M., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Intellectual giftedness: Economic, political, cultural, and psychological considerations. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 287–297. MEB. (1974). Özel e˘gitime muhtaç çocuklar hakkında yönetmelik. [Regulations about children with special needs]. Ankara: Milli E˘gitim Bakanlı˘gı. MEB. (1991). Üstün yetenekli çocukların e˘gitimi raporu [The report of education of gifted children]. Ankara: Milli E˘gitim Bakanlı˘gı. MEB. (2006). Özel e˘gitim hizmetleri yönetmeli˘gi [The policy of special education]. Ankara: Milli E˘gitim Bakanlı˘gı. MEB. (2010). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri iç denetim raporu [Science and Art Centers report]. Retrieved from http://icden.meb.gov. tr/digeryaziler/Bilim_Sanat_Merkezleri_ Ic_Denetim_Ra.pdf MEB. (2013). Özel yetenekli bireyler strateji ve uygulama planı (2013–2017) [Strategic plan on gifted education 2013–2017]. Ankara: Milli E˘gitim Bakanlı˘gı. MEB. (2014). Ecnebi memleketlere gönderilecek talebe hakkında kanun [The law about students to be sent abroad]. Retrieved from http://ogm.meb.gov.tr/yogm/mevzuat/kanun_ 1416_sayi.pdf MEB. (2017a). 2016–2017 Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri ö˘grenci tanılama klavuzu [2016–2017 Student identification guideline of Science

505

and Art Centers]. Retrieved from https:// orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_ 10/11093901_bilim_ve_sanat_merkezleri__ 20162017_kilavuzu.pdf MEB. (2017b). MEB mevzuatı [Ministry of Education statue]. Retrieved from http://www. meb.gov.tr/mevzuat MEB (2017c). Milli E˘gitim İstatistikleri örgün e˘gitim (1. Dönem) 2016/’17. [National Education Statistics Formal Education (1. Semester) 2016/’17]. Retrieved from http://sgb. m e b . g o v. t r / m e b _ i y s _ d o s y a l a r / 2 0 1 7 _ 03/31152628_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_ egitim_2016_2017_1.pdf Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180–184, 261. Sak, U. (2007). Giftedness and the Turkish culture. In S.N. Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 283–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sak, U. (2009). Üstün yetenekliler egitim ˘ programları [Education programs for the talented]. Ankara: Maya Akademi. Sak, U. (2011a). Prevalence of misconceptions, dogmas, and popular views about giftedness and intelligence: A case from Turkey. High Ability Studies, 22(2), 179–197. Sak, U. (2011b). An overview of the social validity of the Education Programs for Talented Students Model (EPTS), Education and Science, 36, 213–229. Sak, U. (2012). Üstün zekalılar: Özellikleri tanılanmaları e˘gitimleri. [The gifted: Their characteristics, identification, and education] (2nd edn). Ankara: Vize yayıncılık. Sak, U. (2013). Education programs for talented students model (EPTS) and its effectiveness on gifted students’ mathematical creativity. Education and Science, 38, 51–61. Sak, U. (2016). EPTS Curriculum Model in the education of gifted students. Annals of Psychology, 32(3), 683–694. Shaughnessy, M. F., & Sak, U. (2013). A reflective conversation with Ugur Sak: Gifted education in Turkey. Gifted Education International, 30(2), 1–9. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York, NY: Plume. Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Review, 29(3), 160–165.

506

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). Teaching for successful intelligence (2nd edn). Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. Tannenbaum, J. A. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. TBMM. (2012). Meclis araştırma komisyonu raporu [Commission report on gifted education]. Yasama Dönemi: 24, Yasama Yılı: 3, Sayı: 427. Ankara. TUBITAK. (2004). 2004 yılı ulusal bilim ve teknoloji politikaları: 2003–2023 strateji

belgesi. [National science and technology politics: 2003–2023 Strategy Document]. Retrieved from http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/ tubitak_content_files//vizyon2023/ Vizyon2023_Strateji_Belgesi.pdf TUBITAK. (2013). Üstün yetenekli bireyler strateji ve uygulama planı 2013–2017 [2013–2017 Strategic plan on gifted education for the gifted]. Retrieved from http:// www.tubitak.gov.tr/sites/default/files/10_ ek-1_ustunyetenekliler.pdf Yardımcı, M. (2007) Destanlar [The Epics]. Ankara: Ürün Yayınları. Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2007). The Germanic view of giftedness. In S. N. Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives. (pp. 65–98). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

37 Gifted Education in Europe Andrzej E. Sękowski, Barbara Cichy-Jasiocha and Martyna Płudowska

INTRODUCTION Worldwide, there is growing interest in the problems of gifted education and using the potential of highly able individuals. The general population places great hopes on those persons with regard to the development of science, technology and art and the improvement of all areas of social life, seeing talented individuals as a utility and a good investment for the future (Besjes-de Bock & de Ruyter, 2011). Effective identification and support of the development and education of the gifted are not only important for providing better social opportunities for those individuals, but also contribute to the level of national development (Łukasiewicz-Wieleba & Baum, 2015). An individual’s general and specific abilities (abilities and aptitudes), analysed in the context of human capital, are an important factor for economic growth, and investment in the development and education of gifted individuals is also an investment in improving the quality of life of society

(Kołaczek, 2002). Gifted education, apart from the scientific, educational and social dimensions, also has an important political meaning. National legislations and the various initiatives for the education of the gifted, on the one hand, have an impact on the degree to which the natural needs of these people are catered for, and, on the other, they determine the dynamics of social development and the direction of civilizational change. The growing interest in these matters has resulted in numerous theoretical proposals and analyses, a wealth of models of abilities, abundant research in psychology and other scientific disciplines, and a variety of inspirations for educational practice. It is also worth emphasizing that the problems of giftedness and gifted education are discussed in many specialist journals (cf. Dyrda, 2012). The aim of this present chapter is to analyse the educational policy and provision for gifted students in European countries. Although, with time, there are fewer and

508

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

fewer differences among the member states of the European Union arising from political divisions (Sękowski, 1992), these countries still do not form a unified system of educational provision (Sękowski & Łubianka, 2013). An analysis of the initiatives and actions undertaken by European countries for the education of gifted students shows that, in spite of the differences, most of these countries understand that above-average abilities do not guarantee above-average performance, and that pupils should be guided to be able to properly achieve their potential and use their gifts (cf. Mönks, 2012). The importance of environmental factors for the development of gifted students, including the widely understood school environment, is reflected in numerous models of giftedness (Sękowski, 2004). The problems of the abilities and achievement of gifted students are closely linked to the specific setting in which they learn and the requirements of the education system they are part of. The rich and varied forms of support for talented pupils are the upshot of seeking the best solutions to ensure comprehensive development of these students. Identification of a gifted student, optimization of the learning process, and selection of dedicated measures largely depend on what specific definition of the gifted student is adopted, what criteria are used to identify such a student, whether gifted students are qualified as comprising a special educational needs group, and whether they are found to require special or integrated education. Other important problems that should be addressed in a discussion of this subject matter are the specific educational measures used in each country, teacher training, and the activity of organizations for gifted students (EURYDICE, 2006). These issues will be discussed in the present chapter in relation to European countries, with each section being devoted to a different region of Europe: the West, the North, the South and the East. Of course, such a division, albeit real, gives rise to some problems connected with clear delineation of

the individual regions of the continent. In this chapter, the division is adopted for the sake of clarity of exposition.

WESTERN EUROPE According to a study entitled ‘Specific Educational Measures to Promote All Forms of Giftedness at School in Europe. Working Document’ carried out in 2006 by the Eurydice European Unit based in Brussels (EURYDICE, 2006), there are two terms that are most commonly used in Western European countries to denote children and adolescents who show giftedness; they are ‘gifted’ and ‘talented’, used separately or in combination. The countries which use these terms in their national definitions are the German-speaking Community of Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Liechtenstein. The term ‘gifted’ is used in Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Other countries refer to this population of young people with synonymous expressions such as ‘young person of high potential ability’ (the French Community of Belgium) or ‘young people of high ability’ (the Flemish Community of Belgium). The French use the term ‘intellectually precocious child’, and the Dutch describe such individuals as ‘youngsters with special talents’, or, in unofficial contexts, as ‘(highly) gifted pupils’. An interesting feature of the Eurydice report is the fact that it presents the criteria under which children and adolescents are classified as gifted. The most frequently used criterion is performance in aptitude tests or tests of potential ability. This classification criterion is used in the Germanspeaking Community of Belgium, Austria, Lichtenstein, Germany and France. The psycho-pedagogical criterion, which takes into account a student’s measured attainment, is employed in Austria and France. There are also countries which do not use classification criteria at all (the Netherlands, Luxembourg,

Gifted Education in Europe

the French and the Flemish Communities of Belgium). As for the aspects of development that are tested, educational institutions in the Germanspeaking and the French Communities of Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Lichtenstein take into account all aspects of development: interpersonal/emotional, psychomotor, intellectual and artistic; institutions in the Flemish Community of Belgium and in France focus solely on the level of general intelligence and cognitive abilities. The Germans believe cognitive intelligence to be the most important aspect of development, even though they take into consideration all of the above-mentioned spheres of development. In Germany, a gifted student is one with an intelligence quotient exceeding 130. In Luxembourg, the areas of development are not specified. In the literature of the subject, students who are highly gifted are often characterized as a group of individuals with special developmental needs who require self-actualization and self-fulfilment during the educational process. Legislation in France explicitly places gifted students in the population of those with special educational needs. In the German-speaking Community of Belgium and the Netherlands (in primary education), a classification like this is also applied in educational practice. In Liechtenstein and Germany, gifted and talented students are not included in the special needs group, but there are arrangements aimed at meeting their developmental requirements. Almost all Western European countries use educational measures to cater for the needs of individuals with marked potential ability at primary and secondary education levels. In France and Luxembourg, these solutions are introduced only by schools or within schools. In other countries, there are also non-schoolbased activities that are designed to help children and young people to learn. The educational measures used are classified into four categories. The first category is ‘more advanced and varied activities’.

509

They involve the use of a richer, more varied educational offer. More advanced and varied activities can be focused on the educational process, curriculum content or product (Limont, 2005). This measure is introduced both in primary and secondary education in the German-speaking, French and Flemish communities of Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria. In Liechtenstein this type of arrangement is only addressed to secondary school students. The second category of educational measures is ‘differentiated provision’, i.e. arrangements that allow learners to follow the curriculum at their preferred pace in accordance with their individual needs, while at the same time giving them a chance to develop ability in a specific field (e.g. sport or the arts). Such dedicated arrangements are used in primary and secondary education in the German-speaking, French and Flemish Communities of Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Austria. In Liechtenstein, differentiated provision exists at ISCED1 level 2 only and in Germany at ISCED levels 2 and 3. The third category of educational measures are ‘non-school-based activities’, organized by the school or by outside institutions. These activities include participation in clubs, competitions, summer schools, academic research and artistic activities. Non-schoolbased activities organized by the school or by non-school outside bodies are used in primary and secondary education in the German-speaking and French Communities of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria. In Liechtenstein, this educational measure only exists at ISCED level 3. One example of non-school based activities is the German organization Bildung & Begabung, which yearly organizes very attractive summer camps for gifted and talented children. The fourth category of educational measures is ‘fast tracking’. This allows students to complete the mainstream education path faster by attending normal classes and benefiting from other parallel arrangements such

510

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

as private schooling. Fast tracking is the most popular measure used in Western European countries. The literature distinguishes different types of fast tracking, including starting school early, ‘skipping grades’, acceleration in a single subject or assigning pupils to groups by academic ability (Limont, 2005). This measure has been introduced in primary schools in the German-speaking, French and Flemish Communities of Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Liechtenstein, and in secondary schools in all of the above countries except France and Luxembourg. There are many similarities that characterize gifted education in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. All three of these countries provide accelerated and enriched learning opportunities to gifted students (Reid & Boettger, 2015). There are also other measures which do not fit any of the four categories above. Examples include centres for gifted children and adolescents which allow them to develop their interests, as well as centres of scientific support for gifted students. These additional arrangements are used in primary and secondary education in the German-speaking and French Communities of Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Austria. In Germany, measures belonging to the category of ‘other specific educational arrangements’ are used at ISCED level 3 only. Worth mentioning are also some institutions supporting the education of gifted students in Western European countries. Examples include schools for gifted young people in Germany, such as the Sächsisches Landesgymnasium Sankt Afra, a stateowned school which offers individual education plans and supports the development of gifted students in a holistic way. Other important giftedness support institutions are The Centre for Innovation in Education, the Association Nationale pour les Enfants Intellectuellement Précoces (ANPEIP) in France, Gesellschaft für das hochbegabte Kind (DGfhK) in Germany or the Swiss association of parents of gifted children,

Elternverein hochbegabte Kinder (EHK) (Urban & Sękowski, 1993). An important component that has to be considered in an assessment of the measures that are taken in European countries to cater to gifted students is the problem of teacher training. The potential of children and young people can only be properly identified and stimulated when teachers are properly prepared to do this (Sękowski & Łubianka, 2015). The training of teaching staff should therefore be an important aspect of supporting the education of gifted and talented pupils (Croft, 2003; David 2011; Freeman, 2008; Reid & Horváthová, 2016). The issue of giftedness is included on a mandatory basis in initial teacher education for all ISCED levels in France and Austria. In the German-speaking Community of Belgium, giftedness is an obligatory subject only in teacher training programmes for ISCED levels 2 and 3. Giftedness is an optional topic in teacher training in the French and Flemish Communities of Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Liechtenstein. An integrated approach, in which the topic of giftedness is incorporated into other subjects, has been adopted in France. In Austria and Germany, giftedness is taught as a separate subject. In countries such as Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, this topic is not included in the official recommendations and the decision to acquaint student teachers with the problems of giftedness and the approaches to teaching giftedness is at the discretion of the institutions which provide training. Teachers in almost every Western European country can participate in in-service teacher training courses on gifted education. Such courses are organized in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and the Netherlands, in-service training is provided to teachers by the educational institutions in which they are employed, and in France in-service courses are organized on an ad hoc basis or as part

Gifted Education in Europe

of research on giftedness. For Liechtenstein, teacher education takes place abroad. A very important aspect of in-service teacher training are the teachers’ interpersonal skills and personal characteristics, as well as their attitude towards the education of students with high ability. Teachers should be involved in the cognitive and personal development of their pupils and make every effort to develop their motivation (Sękowski & Łubianka, 2015). National branches of The European Council for High Ability (ECHA) offer graduate programmes in gifted education. ECHA is a communications network created to promote the exchange of information on legal actions, research and educational regulations concerning giftedness among people interested in high ability (Urban & Sękowski, 1993). ECHA also publishes the journal High Ability Studies, dedicated completely to issues of giftedness.

NORTHERN EUROPE According to the EURYDICE report (2006), in Northern Europe, the words ‘gifted’ and ‘talented’ are the most common terms used to refer to young people exhibiting high ability. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the term ‘gifted’ is used in an intellectual or academic context, whereas ‘talented’ is used with reference to high ability in the arts and sport. Other terms used to describe the gifted in those countries include ‘able’, ‘very able’, ‘more able’, ‘highly able’ and ‘high ability’. In Lithuania, the term ‘talented’ is used in addition to ‘gifted’ in some contexts. In three Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway and Finland), no official term is used to refer to this group of students, which reflects the educational policy of those states as focused on promoting equality and discerning the potential for the development of all students without grouping them into categories. Other countries use synonymous expressions such as ‘children with special prerequisites’

511

(Denmark), ‘child possessing unusual talent or ability’ (Estonia), ‘exceptionally able student’ (Ireland) or ‘children displaying special potential ability in certain areas’ (Iceland). The criteria that are most frequently used for including students in the gifted category are performance in general-ability and specific-ability tests (the psychological criterion – used in England, Wales, Ireland and Lithuania), achievement, e.g. awards in competitions or competitive examinations (the psycho-pedagogical criterion – used in England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Lithuania and Latvia), and school performance. In a majority of Northern European countries, individuals are classified as gifted if they show exceptional achievement. There are also countries which do not use classification criteria (Denmark, Estonia, Iceland). As for the aspects of development that are covered by the criteria, Lithuania is the only country in which all spheres of development, including the interpersonal-emotional, the psychomotor, the mental and the artistic, are taken into account. In Denmark, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Iceland and Latvia, identification procedures do not embrace the emotional and the interpersonal spheres of development. In Ireland, the concept of giftedness is limited to general intelligence and cognitive abilities. In Finland, Norway, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Iceland, gifted students are not included in the special needs group. In the United Kingdom, some local authorities organize special-education support for the gifted. Almost all Northern European countries employ specific educational measures to cater for the needs of individuals with marked potential ability at primary and secondary education levels. Special arrangements are used even in those countries which do not include gifted individuals in the group of students with special educational needs. This state of affairs is the consequence of the specific educational policies pursued

512

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

by the individual states. Norway is the only Northern European country which does not use any special measures; the needs of gifted young people are catered for as part of mainstream education through an individual teaching approach aimed at developing the potential of all students. In Northern Europe, more advanced classes are more frequently offered in secondary schools (Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, the United Kingdom, Iceland) than in primary schools (Lithuania and Latvia). In Norway, lower secondary school students can choose subjects from the upper secondary school curriculum. In England, large funds are being allocated to the YG&T (Young Gifted and Talented) programme, which offers varied activities and modules for gifted students (Sękowski & Łubianka, 2013). In most Northern European countries, differentiated instruction is provided more often in secondary than in primary education. At the higher levels, education takes place in classes or institutions specialized in the arts or sport, while at lower levels of education, students are divided into groups according to their ability. In Denmark, differentiated provision exists only at secondary level. Lithuania, Sweden and Scotland do not use this measure in primary education. In Denmark, gifted dancers can attend the Royal Ballet School and gifted musicians can develop their talent in the Sankt Annae Gymnasium. There are also some private initiatives for supporting young people with marked ability, such as Gifted Children Denmark (Reid & Boettger, 2015). Non-school-based activities in primary education are used in Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Scotland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. In Sweden, this educational measure only exists at ISCED level 3. Among interesting non-schoolbased initiatives are ‘science camps for the gifted’ organized by the Danish Ministry of Education and summer universities supporting the development and education of highly able students (Sękowski & Łubianka, 2013).

Fast tracking (accelerated learning) is the most popular measure used in Northern European countries both in primary and secondary education (except for Ireland). Arrangements from the category of ‘other educational measures’ are applied in primary and secondary education in Denmark, Ireland, Scotland and the United Kingdom, and only at primary school level in Lithuania. In Finland, there are no non-governmental organizations supporting gifted students. Still, there exist interesting projects prepared especially for them. Examples include maths and physics classes organized at the University of Tampere. Estonia boasts the Gifted and Talented Development Center (GTDC) at the University of Tartu, whose aim is to support the development of students with a deeper interest in science. The GTDC also organizes national Olympiads in many disciplines. The Center for Talented Youth, Ireland (CTYI) organizes academically challenging enrichment courses and Saturday programmes for young people. An important role is also played by organizations founded at the initiative of parents of gifted students. Examples include the Gifted and Talented Network, Ireland (Mönks & Pflüger, 2005) and the Scottish Network for Able Pupils (SNAP). Some other important institutions for the gifted are the International Gateway for Gifted Youth (IGGY) in the United Kingdom, which supports specialists in gifted education, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE) and the London-based Brunel Able Children’s Education Centre. In the UK, social networking sites are also being developed for gifted students (e.g. Lernen Academy), whose aim is to bring together highly able young people and support their development and selfeducation (Dyrda, 2012). Initial teacher training in giftedness is compulsory at all levels of education in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Estonia. In Denmark, giftedness is taught on a mandatory basis only for ISCED levels 1 and 2. Optional

Gifted Education in Europe

courses on giftedness are offered to student teachers in Lithuania, Latvia, Iceland, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Usually, an integrated approach is used, in which the issue of high abilities is incorporated into the content of other subjects. This is the case in Iceland, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Estonia. In Latvia giftedness is taught as a separate subject. In Ireland, England, Wales and Lithuania, the decision to acquaint student teachers with the problems of giftedness and the choice of approach to teaching giftedness is at the discretion of the institutions which provide training.

SOUTHERN EUROPE In Southern Europe, ‘gifted/very gifted’ and ‘talented’ are the terms that are most frequently used to denote young people with marked ability. The former concept is used in Malta. The Greeks, Italians and Slovenians employ both of these concepts. The situation is different in this respect in Spain, in which the commonly accepted term is ‘pupil with high intellectual abilities’. In Portugal, in addition to the concept of a ‘gifted’ student, there exists the expression ‘pupils who demonstrate a capacity for exceptional learning attainment’, which is used in official documents. In some Southern European countries, although there exists a term used to describe a gifted student, the classification criteria are not defined. Examples of such countries are Greece, Italy and Malta. In Portugal and Slovenia, the identification of gifted students is based on both psychological and pedagogical criteria, while in Spain the decision as to which young person is talented is based solely on the psychological criterion of aptitude tests or tests of potential ability (EURYDICE, 2006). In most countries in this part of Europe all aspects of development are covered by these criteria, including the interpersonal/emotional, psychomotor, intellectual and artistic

513

aspects. Exceptions to this rule are Greece (which does not include the emotional/ interpersonal aspect) and Portugal (which omits the emotional, interpersonal and psychomotor spheres of development). Gifted students are included in the population of young people with special educational needs in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Slovenia. The situation is different in Malta and in Italy, where gifted children and young people are not classified as belonging to this category. In the latter country, no definition of pupils with special educational needs was developed until 2012, and the Ministerial Directive of 27 December 2012 does not include gifted students in this category (Profumo, 2012). An analysis of the educational measures aimed at catering for the needs of gifted pupils shows that all four types of educational measures included in the EURYDICE report are employed in primary and secondary education in Spain, Portugal and Slovenia. In Greece, highly able students have the opportunity to follow differentiated programmes only at ISCED levels 2 and 3, but they can avail themselves of non-schoolbased activities already at the first stage of schooling. In Italy, the situation is slightly different. In this country, there are no special regulations regarding the education of gifted students – it is assumed that the education system should provide all pupils with a certain standard of teaching and that further achievements depend solely on the student’s own abilities. The Ministry does not therefore make special arrangements for the education of gifted students, but allows early entrance (private schools) and grade skipping (Mönks & Pflüger, 2005). Malta does not use any of the educational provisions mentioned in the report. In most southern European countries, e.g. Spain, Portugal, Italy and Malta, the topic of giftedness and methods of working with students who display exceptional abilities are taught as optional modules in teacher training programmes or are not included in the official recommendations. These problems

514

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

are included in the initial teacher training curriculum on a mandatory basis only in Greece and Slovenia. As far as the teaching approach adopted is concerned, the situation varies from country to country in this part of Europe. In Spain and Italy, giftedness is discussed in a broader context, e.g. as part of other subjects. In Greece and Slovenia, this issue is addressed both in separate modules and in broader educational contexts. In two countries, Portugal and Malta, the topic of the education of highly able students is not included in official recommendations (EURYDICE, 2006). Southern European countries have organizations and programmes for supporting talented pupils. For instance, the Centre for Talented Youth Greece (CTY), at Anatolia College specializes in identifying gifted pupils, running talent development courses and organizing activities for gifted young people in different age groups (http://www. cty-greece.gr/en). In Italy, the AISTAP Association (Associazione Italiana per lo Sviluppo del Talento e della Plusdotazione), founded in 2010, is involved in the education of students with a high level of cognitive ability or talent in a particular field. A team of professionals working for AISTAP also offer counselling for parents of gifted children and support for teachers, as well as organizing summer camps (http://www.aistap.org/). Another Italy-based association is the ‘Stepnet’, a supporting network for the development of talent, emotions and potential, the aim of which is to bring together parents of gifted children, organize training sessions and seminars for teachers, sponsor summer schools for gifted children and promote knowledge about gifted students in Italian educational institutions (http://www.gift edness.it/en_association/giftedness_network. php). In Spain, numerous universities carry out research on giftedness. Spain also boasts the Centre for Talented Youth – Spain, which serves as an information hub for parents and teachers interested in the education of gifted children and adolescents. Also worth

mentioning is the Spanish journal Faísca Revista de Altas Capacidades, which publishes articles devoted to the abilities and education of the gifted (Mönks & Pflüger, 2005). Other institutions that work in support of gifted students include the European Council for High Ability (ECHA) and the European Committee for the Education of Children and Adolescents who are Intellectually Advanced, Gifted, and Talented (Eurotalent). These institutions are focused on bringing together academics and practitioners who work with gifted pupils and the organization of conferences, teacher training sessions and camps for gifted children and adolescents (Łukasiewicz-Wieleba & Baum, 2015; Sękowski & Łubianka, 2013).

EASTERN EUROPE An analysis of the terminology used in Eastern Europe to denote gifted children and adolescents suggests that ‘gifted’ and ‘talented’ are the most commonly used terms. Both of these concepts are used in Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. In Slovakia, ‘gifted/very gifted’ is the only term used. Hungarians, in addition to the word ‘talented’, use the expression ‘child with outstanding potential abilities’. A country that uses a slightly different naming convention is Romania, in which young people who display high ability are referred to as ‘pupils capable of high attainment’ and ‘pupils with outstanding abilities’ (EURYDICE, 2006). In Ukrainian literature on gifted education, the most frequently used terms are ‘a gifted student’ and ‘a gifted child or youth’ (Łukasiewicz-Wieleba & Baum, 2015). In Russia, the term ‘gifted’, as Zhilin notes in his 2011 work, was not used in official documents until as late as the beginning of the 21st century. This author also points out that teachers working with gifted pupils are more likely to use the term

Gifted Education in Europe

‘smart’, which they understand as denoting ‘children who want to study and are able to study’ (Zhilin, 2011, p. 17). An important aspect of identification of the gifted are the classification criteria used in the different countries. Psychological and psycho-pedagogical criteria are used in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. In Slovakia, none of these criteria are explicitly applied. Instead, a set of indicators of giftedness has been proposed, which includes statements such as ‘(s)he performs intellectual assignments happily’, ‘(s)he asks many questions, correctly uses a lot of words, has original ideas, is creative and has an original approach to problem-solving or ways of doing things’ (EURYDICE, 2006, p. 31). The psychological criterion is the only criterion used in the Czech Republic, and in Poland children are included in the gifted group on the basis of achievement and school performance. The EURYDICE report also takes into consideration the extent to which the individual states take account of the four aspects of development in their classification criteria, as an indication of how broad or narrow a concept of intelligence/ability they adopt. The intellectual aspects, mainly related to cognitive ability, and artistic aspects are taken into account in the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary. Note that Hungary is the only one among these countries that does not recognize psychomotor forms of intelligence. Interpersonal and emotional aspects of development are taken into account in three Eastern European countries: Romania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The recommendations of the European Parliament drafted by the Committee on Culture and Education of the European Union point to the necessity of making special arrangements for children with special educational needs, including highly gifted students (Limont, 2005). The legal regulations in each country differ, however, in terms of whether or not they include this group of students in the category of individuals with special educational needs.

515

Inclusion or non-inclusion, to some extent, determines whether these countries introduce special educational measures and provision for the gifted or not. The data provided in the EURYDICE report (2006) indicate that only two Eastern European countries, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, treat gifted children as students with special educational needs. Hungary is an example of a country where changes in the approach to the gifted have taken place in recent years. Gyarmathy (2013), discussing the legal aspects of gifted education in Hungary, observes that persons with high ability are now included in the group of pupils with special educational needs. In Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, even though the gifted are not included in the legal definition of pupils with special educational needs, there exist organizational and educational structures for the care and education of talented persons (EURYDICE, 2006). Another important issue in gifted education is the use of specific educational measures to cater to this particular population of students. Most European countries provide legal support for the gifted in regulations regarding the education system as well as through the activities of various types of organizations (Reid & Boettger, 2015). Data provided in the Working Document prepared for the European Union’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture (EURYDICE, 2006) show that specific school-based measures as well as non-school-based activities intended to facilitate learning are used in all Eastern European countries. In this part of Europe, more advanced or more varied activities are offered more often in secondary education (in all the Eastern European countries covered in the EURYDICE report) than in primary education (arrangements of this type are not used in Bulgaria and Romania). It is also worth noting that arrangements involving the use of varied teaching methods are always combined with other forms of provision. Differentiated provision and nonschool based activities are commonly used

516

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

educational measures in all Eastern European countries at all levels of education. Romania is the only country in Eastern Europe that does not offer differentiated instruction or non-school-based activities to primary school students. The possibility of completing the mainstream education path more rapidly is a popular arrangement in this part of Europe. Fast tracking exists in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania. In Ukraine, various types of measures are being introduced to support the development of talented pupils. A very popular form of enrichment are clubs. Ukrainians also organize competitive examinations (Olympiads) and contests in various disciplines as well as summer schools and camps for children and youngsters with high ability (Boczarowa, 2011). In Russia, for years, efforts have been made to support the development and education of gifted pupils. In this country, there are special schools for students with superior ability in science and mathematics/ logic. Children and adolescents who show ability in science are identified based on a screening procedure and are registered in special educational institutions. These institutions cooperate with universities to organize special activities, laboratories and summer schools for their students. There are also schools that cooperate with theatres and music halls to provide special forms of education for artistically gifted students – classes in music, ballet and drama. In Moscow, gifted children can also avail themselves of an educational programme called ‘Constellation’ (Dyrda, 2012). An analysis of data concerning teacher training in Eastern Europe shows that in most countries (Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic), giftedness and methods of working with gifted pupils are either taught as optional modules in teacher training programmes or are not mentioned in the official recommendations. Only in Slovakia and Hungary is this area of knowledge a mandatory component of the initial teacher

training curriculum. Most Eastern European countries take an integrated approach to teaching giftedness, incorporating it into broader subjects (Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria). In Slovakia, the problems of giftedness are taught as a separate subject, while in Poland and the Czech Republic the decision to acquaint student teachers with the problems of giftedness is at the discretion of the institutions which provide training (EURYDICE, 2006). Many Eastern European countries implement projects to support the development of talented pupils and have organizations specialized in catering to gifted children and young people. In the Czech Republic, two examples of such projects are the ‘Talnet’ project run by Charles University in Prague (Jankowska & Gajda, 2011) and ‘The Young Talent Program’, initiated by the American Fund for Czech and Slovak Leadership Studies, addressed to gifted young persons in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (Dyrda, 2011). In Slovakia, there is also the ‘APROGEN’ programme (Alternative PROgram for Gifted EducatioN), whose aim is to identify young people with high ability and support their development (Laznibatová, 2005). In Poland, the Ministry of National Education runs projects aimed at supporting talented pupils through enhancing the innovativeness of schools. Examples of such projects include ‘Year of Creativity and Innovation’, ‘Year of Talent Exploration’ and ‘A School with Passion’ (Limont, 2012). Significant support also comes from the Society of Creative Schools and the Polish Children’s Fund (Sękowski & Płudowska, 2012). In Hungary, there are strategic programs designed to cater to gifted students, such as the ‘National Talent Support Program’. Hungary also runs projects aimed at implementing specific measures in working with gifted students (e.g, Genius, Talent Bridges). Financial support for these and other initiatives is provided by the Hungarian National Talent Fund (Łukasiewicz-Wieleba & Baum, 2015). In Bulgaria, a number of

Gifted Education in Europe

foundations and organizations have been formed to cater for the needs of gifted and talented students. Among them are the Evrika Foundation, the St Cyril and St Methodius International Foundation, the ‘Future of Bulgaria’ Foundation, the Student Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science and Mensa-Bulgaria (Giza, 2013). In Romania, young people with high ability can receive support from the Romanian Consortium for the Gifted and Talented Children and Youth, a dynamic private initiative for the promotion and development of pupils capable of high attainment (Karnes & Stephens, 2009). Gifted education in the Ukraine is the focus of national programmes such as the ‘Program of Working with Gifted Youth’ and ‘National Program of Working with Gifted Youth’. Other programs include ‘Creative talents’ and ‘Children of the Ukraine’ (Boczarowa, 2011). In Russia, the National Centre of Creative Giftedness, formed by the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, is the initiator of schools for gifted children. Also worth noting is the activity of the International Intellect Club GLUON, which undertakes a variety of giftedness-promoting tasks such as dissemination of knowledge about talented pupils and the organization of competitions for talented young people (Boczarowa, 2011).

CONCLUSION As this short review shows, today, a wide variety of activities and measures are being implemented in the European countries to support gifted students. Nevertheless, the problem of the choice of an educational model for this population of students is still a matter of lively debate (Łukasiewicz-Wieleba & Baum, 2015). Traditionally, the approaches to gifted and talented education are divided into special provision and inclusive provision models.However, the experience of practitioners shows that the two strategies can be successfully combined, especially that the

517

goal is not only to meet the intellectual needs of gifted students, but to allow them to develop successful intelligence (Karelitz, Jarvin & Sternberg, 2010) and creativity (Freeman, 2016b). How a country answers the question of whether gifted young people should be educated together with less able peers or develop their talents in classes or schools specializing in working with talented pupils implies what range of educational measures it will use. While some European countries such as Italy and the Nordic countries promote the idea of providing equal educational opportunities to all students, there are also countries which adopt an elitist approach to gifted education, offering special opportunities for development to individuals with above-average abilities. An example of a country with a long tradition of creating special schools for gifted pupils is Russia. In this country, special schools for talented pupils, with more advanced and accelerated programmes, were opened already in the 1960s. A new type of school called ‘experimental schools’ or ‘authors’ schools’, created by teachers with their own methodological approaches, enabled talented young Russians to develop their intellectual potential (Zhilin, 2011). Examples of giftededucation-oriented institutions in Europe include the Academic Secondary School Complex in Toruń, Poland, run under the patronage of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (http://www.gimakad. torun.pl/), Sächsisches Landesgymnasium Sankt Afra in Germany (Dyrda, 2012), the School for Gifted Children and Grammar School in Bratislava, Slovakia (Laznibatová, 2016), Sir Karl Popper Schule in Austria (https://www.popperschule.at/english.html) or the Mensa gymnázium for gifted students in Prague founded by Mensa Czech Republic (Novotna & Sejvalová, 2003). In European countries which do not have special schools for gifted students, there are schools that are considered elite, as well as artistic or sports schools, which give young people the opportunity to develop their specific talents

518

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

(Dyrda, 2011; Łukasiewicz-Wieleba & Baum, 2015; Mönks &, Pflüger, 2005; Reid & Boettger, 2015). The analysis of the data on gifted education in Western, Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe leads to the general conclusion that most European countries tend towards adopting models of education that combine inclusive education with some selective measures. Of course, when considering the situation of highly gifted students, one should remember that this group is not homogeneous. And so, alongside pupils who achieve success in line with their possibilities and abilities, there are gifted students who are underachievers (Limont, 2005). This means that not only the school curriculum, but also the whole teaching process should take into account the diversity and the different specific needs of gifted students. The educational process should be aimed not only at the development of the students’ intellect, but also their whole personality, including motivation, creative activity and moral attitude. A look at human history shows that a significant role in it has often been played by people with disabilities, who, despite their handicaps, achieved academic or professional success due to their general, specific and creative abilities. According to Klinkosz, Sękowski and Brambring (2006), people with disabilities very often fail to use their potential to the full. The most common reasons for this state of affairs are the disabled students’ failure to recognize their own talent, a lack of adequate identification and support from teachers or family, educational neglect, and a negative paradigm that biases teachers to focus their attention on improving the functions affected by the existing disability. In such cases, too little attention is paid to the individual’s potential and strengths, i.e. their resources. Contemporary education systems should take into account the specific characteristics of disabled persons who show high potential ability by introducing appropriate forms of integrated education as well as

special-education programmes. An example of an organization that supports disabled people practically and financially is Stiftung zur Förderung körperbehinderter Hochbegabter (Foundation for the Promotion of Physically Handicapped Gifted) in Liechtenstein (Urban & Sękowski, 1993). In many European countries, there are special programmes aimed at helping gifted graduates with disabilities to find a job. The literature on the subject also mentions another interesting group of gifted students – gifted girls (Urban & Sękowski, 1993). In her article, Smutny (1999) discusses some of the difficulties faced by gifted girls. One example is women’s belief that they have to pay a high price for their talent, because they are treated differently by their peers from girls with average abilities. Gifted girls may also claim that talented boys are more likely to be encouraged by their school and family environment to develop their abilities. Research on gifted girls and women (Reis, 2002) has revealed many emotional and social difficulties, explains why many girls are unaware of their potential. Not all talented females experience the same problems, but studies of gifted girls and women have shown that they tend to look for the source of their difficulties in a combination of the following contributing reasons: dilemmas about abilities and talents; personal decisions about family; and the ambivalence of parents and teachers towards developing high levels of ability. Since the end of the 20th century, various directives have created a basis for equal provision and equal opportunities for women and men in Europe. These regulations also concern equal access to education. The individual European countries adopt various policy instruments to deal with the problem of (in)equality in education, but often they lack more general strategies for action. More precisely – according to the report Gender Differences in Educational Outcomes: Study on the Measures Taken and the Current Situation in Europe (EURYDICE, 2009), only a few countries take it as their aim to implement an

Gifted Education in Europe

effective legal regulation strategy regarding gender in education. In the European countries which have achieved success in working with gifted students, an important contributing factor has been the belief of the authorities that investing in the development of people with high potential will not only help education thrive but will also be a vast advantage to the prosperity of the whole country. Measures such as identification based on an egalitarian approach to giftedness, differentiated instruction, focusing on the needs of the most gifted students, recognition of gifted underachievers, proper teacher training, involving parents in effective collaboration, and the use of modern technologies (Freeman, 2016a) such as social networking sites, can play an invaluable role in supporting the gifted.

Note 1  International Standard Classification of Education

REFERENCES Besjes-de Bock, K. M., & de Ruyter, D. J. (2011). Five values of giftedness. Roeper Review, 33(3), 198–207. Boczarowa, O. (2011). Pedagogiczne wsparcie dzieci uzdolnionych w szkołach Polski i Ukrainy [Pedagogical support for gifted children in Polish and Ukrainian schools]. Cracow: Wydawnictwo AFM. Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 558–571). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. David, H. (2011). The importance of teachers’ attitude in nurturing and educating gifted children. Gifted and Talented International, 26(1/2), 71–80. Dyrda, B. (2011). Badanie systemu pracy z uczniem zdolnym. Raport z badania case study w Austrii, Czechach, Finlandii, Niemczech i Wielkiej Brytanii [A study of the system

519

of work with the gifted student. A report of a case study carried out in Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, and Great Britain]. Available at: http://bc.ore.edu.pl/dlibra/ docmetadata?id=463&from=pubindex&dirids= 1&lp=28 (accessed 4 May 2017). Dyrda, B. (2012). Edukacyjne wspieranie rozwoju uczniów zdolnych. Studium społeczno-pedagogiczne [Educational support of the development of gifted students. A social-educational study]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo ‘Żak’. EURYDICE (2006). Specific Educational Measures to Promote All Forms of Giftedness at School in Europe. Report, The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), Belgium, Brussels, European Union. Available at: http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/ specific-educational-measures-to-promoteall-forms-of-giftedness-at-school-in-europepbEC3212332/ (accessed 25 April 2017). EURYDICE (2009). Gender Differences in Educational Outcomes: Study on the Measures Taken and the Current Situation in Europe. Report, The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), Belgium, Brussels, European Union. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/120en.pdf (accessed 12 May 2017). Freeman, J. (2008). The Emotional Development of the Gifted and Talented, Conference Proceedings. Gifted and Talented Provision, London: Optimus Educational. Available at: http://joanfreeman.com/pdf/ free_emotionaldevelopment.pdf (accessed 11 May 2017). Freeman, J. (2016a). Possible effects of electronic social media on gifted and talented children’s intelligence and emotional development. Gifted Education International, 32(2), 165–172. Freeman, J. (2016b). Conflicts between high level academic success and creativity. Psychologia Wychowawcza, 51(9), 45–60. Giza, T. (2013). Praca z uczniem zdolnym w Bułgarii [Work with the gifted student in Bulgaria]. In: M. Jabłonowska (Ed.), Uczeń zdolny i jego edukacja. Koncepcje. Badania. Praktyka [The gifted student and his education. Conceptions. Research. Practice] (pp. 36–47). Warsaw: Universitas Rediviva.

520

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Gyarmathy, E. (2013). The gifted and gifted education in Hungary. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 19–34. Jankowska, D., & Gajda, A. (2011). Działania na rzecz wspierania rozwoju zdolności w wybranych krajach Europy [Measures for supporting the development of ability in selected European countries]. In: J. Łaszczyk & M. Jabłonowska (Eds.), Wokół problematyki zdolności [On giftedness] (pp. 18–30). Warsaw: Universitas Rediviva. Karelitz, T. M., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The meaning of wisdom and its development throughout life. In: W. Overton (Ed.), Handbook of Lifespan Human Development (pp. 837–881). New York: Wiley. Karnes, F., & Stephens, K. (2009). Gifted education and legal issues. In: L. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 1327–1341). New York: Springer Science. Klinkosz, W., Sękowski, A. E., & Brambring, M. (2006). Academic achievement and personality in university students who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(11), 666–675. Kołaczek, B. (2002). Dostęp młodzieży do edukacji. Zróżnicowanie. Uwarunkowania. Wyrównywanie szans [Access of young people to education. Diversification. Determinants. Equal opportunities]. Warsaw: IPiSS. Laznibatová, J. (2005). Uczeń zdolny na Słowacji – koncepcja opieki na postawie projektu alternatywnej opieki nad uzdolnionymi dziećmi [The gifted student in Slovakia – a conception of care based on the programme for alternative provision to gifted children]. In W. Limont & J. Cieślikowska (Eds.), Wybrane zagadnienia edukacji uczniów zdolnych. Uczeń-Nauczyciel-Edukacja [Selected issues in gifted education. Student – teacher – education] (pp. 107–122). Cracow: Oficyna Wydawnicza IMPULS. Laznibatová, J. (2016). Gifted education in Slovakia according to the programme APROGEN. ECHA News. European Council for High Ability, 30(1), 13–17. Limont, W. (2005). Uczeń zdolny. Jak go rozpoznać i jak z nim pracować. [Gifted students. How to recognize them and how to work with them]. Sopot: GWP.

Limont, W. (2012). Kształcenie uczniów zdolnych w polskim systemie oświaty – wybrane przykłady [Gifted education in the Polish education system – selected examples]. Paper presented at the international conference: Systemowe strategie kształcenia uczniów zdolnych droga edukacji ku przyszłości, 19–20 October 2012, Warszawa. Łukasiewicz-Wieleba, J., & Baum, A. (2015). Kompleksowe wspieranie uczniów uzdolnionych. Program WARS i SAWA [Comprehensive support for talented pupils. The programmes WARS and SAWA]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalnej. Mönks, F.J. (2012). Tworzenie europejskiej sieci współpracy w celu poprawienia jakości nauczania wybitnie zdolnych [Creation of a European cooperation network to improve the quality of gifted instruction]. Proceedings of the international conference ‘Systemowe strategie kształcenia uczniów zdolnych drogą ku edukacji przyszłości’ ORE, 19–20 October, Warsaw. Mönks, F. J., & Pflüger, R. (2005). Gifted Education in 21 European Countries – Inventory and Perspective. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen. Available at: www.bmbf.de/ pub/gifted_education_21_eu_countries.pdf (accessed 25 April 2017). Novotna L., & Sejvalová, J., (2003). Education of the gifted in the Czech Republic. In J. Mönks & G. J., Wagner H. (Eds.), Development of Human Potential: Investment into our Future. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the European Council for High Ability (ECHA) (pp. 116–119). Bad Honnef: Verlag Karl Heinrich Bock. Profumo, F. (2012). Measures for Pupils with Special Educational Needs and Local Organisations for School Inclusion. Available at: http://www.marche.istruzione.it/dsa/allegati/ dir271212.pdf (accessed 2 May 2017). Reid, E., & Boettger, H. (2015). Gifted education in various countries of Europe. Slavonic Pedagogical Studies Journal: The Scientific Educational Journal, 4(2), 158–171. Reid, E., & Horváthová, B. (2016). Teacher training programs for gifted education with focus on sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(2), 66–74.

Gifted Education in Europe

Reis, S. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues faced by gifted girls in elementary and secondary school. The SENG Newsletter, 2(3), 1–5. Sękowski, A. E. (1992). Problems of the education of gifted children in the countries of Middle East Europe. In F. J. Mönks, M. W. Katzko, & H. W. van Boxtel (Eds.), Education of the Gifted in Europe: Theoretical and Research Issues (pp. 104–117). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger B. V. Sękowski, A. (2004). Psychologiczne uwarunkowania wybitnych zdolności [Psychological determinants of giftedness]. In Sękowski (Ed.), Psychologia zdolności. Współczesne kierunki badań [Psychology of giftedness. Contemporary trends in research] (pp. 30–44). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Sękowski, A. E., & Łubianka, B. (2013). Education of gifted students in Europe. Gifted Education International, 31(1), 1–18. Sękowski, A. E., & Łubianka, B. (2015). Psychological perspectives on gifted education – selected problems. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 46(4), 624–632. Sękowski, A., & Płudowska, M. (2012). Support of the education of gifted students in Poland. ECHA News. European Council for High Ability (26) 2. Available at: http://news.echa.info/

521

uploads/Poland%20Sekowski,%20Pludowska. pdf (accessed 4 May 2017). Smutny, J. F. (1999). Gifted girls. Understanding Our Gifted. Open Space Communications, 11(2), 9–13. Urban, K. K., & Sękowski, A. E. (1993). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Europe. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & H. A. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 779–797). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Zhilin, D. M. (2011). Work with gifted children in Russia. Available at: http://dezhil.name/ pubs/2005-gifted_in_Russia.pdf (accessed 2 May 2017).

Websites http://www.aistap.org/ http://www.cty-greece.gr/en http://www.giftedness.it/en_association/ giftedness_network.php http://www.gimakad.torun.pl/ https://www.popperschule.at/english.html

38 Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization Don Ambrose

INTRODUCTION Giftedness is a surprisingly complex, multidimensional construct. It has resisted precise definition throughout most of the history of the field of gifted education and just when we think we have it figured out additional complexity intrudes. One way to understand this complexity and uncertainty is to derive insights from diverse academic disciplines and professional fields. Some of these insights can help us understand why giftedness is an elusive construct while other insights can help us refine and clarify some of its dimensions. This chapter is an attempt to accomplish some of that interdisciplinary exploration, clarification, and refinement. It begins with a discussion of the importance of macro contexts, specifically the ways in which they can influence our thinking about giftedness and talent development and some ways that they

invigorate, suppress, and distort the development of gifted young people. These macro contexts include the socioeconomic, ideological, cultural, and technological environments that shape the thoughts and actions of individuals, groups, and nations. Following this are examples of interdisciplinary projects that have informed the field in recent years. These projects include analyses of the impact of 21st-century globalization and the skills gifted and talented young people will need to navigate the complex environments of the near future. The analysis then turns to more in-depth discussions of the importance of borrowing from other disciplines to clarify, refine, and extend the conceptual foundations for gifted education and to enrich practical teaching strategies in the field. Finally, some recommendations for additional interdisciplinary work are provided, along with some concluding thoughts about the nature of giftedness and talent in the early 21st century.

Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization

THE IMPORTANCE OF LARGESCALE CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON GIFTEDNESS AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT Considering context is always important when exploring human development and abilities. For example, self-appointed school reformers and the dogmatic ideologues they influence ignore the powerful effects of socioeconomic conditions on child development (Berliner, 2009, 2011, 2012; Ravitch, 2010, 2013; Sondel, 2015). Consequently, they blame teachers, children, and schools for lack of performance on narrow, superficial standardized test scores instead of taking into account the fact that American students and educators must work within one of the two most unequal developed nations on Earth (Pickett & Wilkinson, 2015; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). It’s regrettable but at least somewhat understandable when reformers, policymakers, and citizens fall prey to this form of narrow-minded dogmatism but it’s less acceptable when academic researchers do the same. But academia is not immune to context-ignoring dogmatism. The field of cognitive science has included arguments between mechanistic scholars who prefer to confine cognition within the cranium and more contextualist scholars who like to consider cognition as an interplay between intracranial processes and environmental influences. One specific example of this dispute arose years ago when two prominent cognitive scientists argued over a metaphor of mind. Joseph Weizenbaum criticized Marvin Minsky for making the statement that the human brain is a ‘meat machine’ because the metaphor was misleading and demeaning and illustrated a ‘disdain of the human being’ (Weizenbaum 1995, p. 259). In essence, Weizenbaum saw Minsky’s metaphor as excessively mechanical, resistant to the holistic integration of human systems

523

and the influences of context. Since then, cognitive science has become more holistic and sensitive to contextual influences on the brain-mind system (see Barrett, 2011; Descombes, 2001; Thagard, 2008). After becoming more aware of the importance of contextual awareness on important phenomena such as the workings of the brain-mind system I began to explore revelations from various academic disciplines about the contextual influences shaping creative intelligence. For example, in one project I analyzed 89 theories and research findings from 29 different academic disciplines and professional fields, cross-referencing them with theories and research findings from creative intelligence fields (creativity studies, gifted education; Ambrose, 2009). In part, this initiative was an attempt to make gifted education and general education more contextsensitive. In another project (Ambrose & Cross, 2009) we brought together leading scholars from gifted education, creativity studies, sociology, philosophy, political science, and military history to reveal shaping influences on the ethical awareness of gifted, creative minds. In two other projects Robert J. Sternberg, Bharath Sriraman, and I engaged in a similar collaborative exploration with leading researchers intent on discovering the ways in which dogmatism infects individuals and groups (Ambrose & Sternberg, 2012; Ambrose, Sternberg & Sriraman, 2012). We found that this exploration revealed strong contextual influences on gifted individuals because high levels of intelligence do not inoculate individuals or groups from the pernicious influences of dogmatism (Elder & Paul, 2012). Another project brought together leading thinkers who analyzed the dynamics of creative intelligence through the lens of complexity theory, specifically the dynamics of the chaos-order hypothesis (see Ambrose, Sriraman, & Pierce, 2014). All of these explorations led to some more recent interdisciplinary projects. Based on

524

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

earlier collaborations, Robert J. Sternberg and I invited many of the leading scholars in creative intelligence fields to react to an interdisciplinary analysis of 21st-century globalization (Ambrose & Sternberg, 2016a, 2016b). Participants applied their impressive knowledge bases to an interdisciplinary synthesis portraying many of the contextual influences generated by globalization (Ambrose, 2016). The synthesis employed a three-dimensional model portraying societal trajectories on the surface of a metaphorical landscape. The trajectory from the early–mid 20th century illustrated a moderate level of progress over undulating terrain. Moving forward into the early 21st century the societal trajectory looked very different because as it moved forward it confronted a massive wave of change representing 21st-century globalization. The vertical dimension of the wave model represented success, both societal and individual, so the globalization wave presented societies and individuals with the possibility of greater success than ever achieved before. Metaphorically, the profound success on the model was represented by the top surface of the wave where macro-opportunities reside. These macro-opportunities included scientific networking, exponential knowledge growth, and cognitive diversity, among others. The scientific networking macroopportunity derives from an intriguing phenomenon in which the evolution of globalized technological networking is enabling unprecedented STEM innovation (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) (see Bozeman & Youtie, 2017; Nielsen, 2011). For example, a prominent mathematician was trying to solve a very difficult mathematical problem that had resisted solution attempts by leading mathematicians. In the polymath project the mathematician shared the results of his work online and invited contributors to weigh in on the problem. In a short period of time multiple insights from many contributors around the globe came together to generate a solution that was inaccessible to a

single genius-level mathematician (Nielsen, 2011). In other words, the synthesis of many pieces of micro-expertise enabled the group to exceed the capacities of the greatest, gifted individual mathematicians. This represents an enormous opportunity for STEM innovation in the years to come. A related macro-opportunity, cognitive diversity (see Page, 2007, 2010, 2017), is based on research in economics and complexity science showing that cognitively diverse teams consistently outperform homogenous teams, even when the latter possess superior intellectual ability. A team is cognitively diverse if it encompasses diverse theories and philosophical perspectives, backgrounds, and problem-solving heuristics. Among the implications of this macroopportunity are insights about the importance of interdisciplinary work in the 21st century. For example, leading scientists are beginning to recognize that international, interdisciplinary collaboration is the new way of doing science (Suresh, 2013). The enormous problems we face in the early 21st century are resistant to solution from within a single academic discipline (more on this later), so bringing together diverse, interdisciplinary teams might be a way, possibly the only way, we will survive and thrive in this complex, globalized environment. The exponential knowledge growth macro-opportunity arises from rapid advancements in information technology and the aforementioned scientific networking. These trends are spurring rapid knowledge growth in many academic disciplines and professional fields (see Arbesman, 2012; Motta, 2013; Zander & Mosterman, 2014). While this presents enormous challenges, it also gives us the potential to make the challenging leap to the crest of the globalization wave where we can capitalize on the other macro-opportunities and achieve unprecedented success. Exponential knowledge growth can become an important element in the leap forward in human cognitive evolution, making gifted minds even more

Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization

impressive while strengthening the creative intelligence of many others. While these macro-opportunities are impressive and provide considerable reasons for optimism, the flipside of globalization includes an array of daunting macroproblems that threaten our very existence. Thinking again about the massive globalization wave on the metaphorical model portraying conditions in the early 21st century, we can perceive the underside of the wave as it looms over us. While the macro-opportunities are high above us on the top surface of the wave they seem remote because we are looking into the space between the lower terrain on which we are standing and the underside of the globalization wave above us, which includes enormous macroproblems. If we cannot achieve the leap to the crest of the wave by making a quantum leap upward in our creative intelligence we will stay on the lower level and push further under the wave into the Hobbes trap, which is named after the pessimistic 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1985/1651) who argued that humans left to their own devices will create lives for themselves and for others that are poor, nasty, brutish, and short. We will suffer this miserable existence because our current level of creative intelligence is insufficient for grappling with the massive macroproblems hanging over our heads, which eventually will come crashing down on us. These macroproblems include environmental devastation and climate change, resource depletion, distortions of globalized capitalism and the severe inequality it generates, the erosion of democracies in the developed world, and the worst macroproblem of all – dogmatism. All of these are deemed macroproblems because they share three important characteristics. They are long term because they took decades or centuries to emerge and will take a long time to solve. They are international because they cannot be solved from within the borders of a single nation no matter how powerful. They are interdisciplinary because they cannot be

525

solved from within the borders of a single academic discipline or professional field. For example, of course we need climate scientists to solve climate change but we also need philosophers and psychologists to help us understand the shortsighted, dogmatic mindsets that enable otherwise intelligent individuals and groups to ignore the problem; economists to figure out ways to shift the economy toward clean energy while keeping it vibrant; political scientists to determine where the flaws in our governance systems are so we can achieve political action that will address climate change; and more. Very brief, thumbnail sketches of these macroproblems are provided in the next few paragraphs. More detail is available in Ambrose (2016). The macroproblem of environmental devastation and climate change has been building for decades because deregulated, globalized capitalism has been polluting our environment to the point where it has created an existential crisis (see Archer, 2009; Duménil & Lévy, 2013; Flannery, 2006; Friedrichs, 2013; Nordhaus, 2013; Pellow, 2002; Sherwood & Huber, 2010; Verchick, 2010). Climate change is raising sea levels, generating severe storms, desertifying large regions, and setting the stage for mass extinctions and widespread epidemics, as well as a massive environmental refugee crisis. Depletion of important resources such as minerals, fresh water, and arable land now represents another macroproblem (see Daly & Farley, 2010; Friedrichs, 2013; Klare, 2012; Prior, Giurco, Mudd, Mason, & Behrisch, 2012; Rockström et al. 2014). Consequently, extraction industries are encouraged to take larger risks such as deepwater drilling and mining in dangerous regions. Resource depletion also is heightening international tensions, causing nations to build up their military capacities in preparation for conflicts over scarce resources. The decades-long distortion of capitalism by neoliberal ideology, which makes potentially beneficial economic systems generate severe inequality and environmental

526

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

devastation, is another dangerous macroproblem. The deregulation of globalized capitalism has created a race to the bottom in which transnational corporations can seek out locations for their operations with the weakest environmental regulations and labor laws. This causes widespread pollution while creating a highly unequal, exploitative economy dominated by sweatshops and modern versions of indentured servitude. All of this distorts the aspirations of the privileged members of a very small, increasingly powerful elite, while weakening and crushing the aspirations of the vast majority (see Ambrose, 2011, 2012b; Arvidsson & Peitersen, 2013; Block & Somers, 2014; Harvey, 2010; Kasser, Cohn, Kanner, & Ryan, 2007; Kotz, 2015; Piketty, 2014; Stiglitz, 2010, 2012). Another looming macroproblem is one that most citizens in democratic developed nations thought was receding in a historical rearview mirror. Democratic governance is turning out to be more fragile than it seems on the surface. While democracy has been spreading around the world, making its way into some Third World nations, it has been eroding in many of the world’s developed nations (see Ackerman, 2010; Ambrose, 2005a; Hacker & Pierson, 2005, 2010; Harvey, 2006; Hasen, 2015; Klass, 2017; Snyder, 2017; Stanley, 2015; Wolin, 2008). As bizarre as it seems, radical, extremist factions including neoNazis are gaining traction, and plutocrats are manipulating national political systems, making it possible for totalitarianism to resurge in various locations around the world. The human inclination to fall prey to dogmatism could be the worst macroproblem because it causes or strongly contributes to the vibrancy of all of the other macroproblems. Dogmatism is shortsighted, narrowminded, superficial, rigid thinking (see Ambrose, 2017; Ambrose & Sternberg, 2012; Ambrose, Sternberg, & Sriraman, 2012; also see Ambrose & Cross, 2009; Ottati, Price, Wilson, & Sumaktoyo, 2015; Stanley, 2015). It causes major conflicts and human rights disasters up to and including

genocide because it justifies harmful acts in the minds of the perpetrators and generates extremist ideological polarization

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS REQUIRED FOR SURVIVAL AND SUCCESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY The preceding discussion included a few of the macroproblems facing us in the 21st century, but these examples are enough to reveal how challenging the upward leap in our collective creative intelligence must be to reach the crest of the globalization wave where we can capitalize on the macro-opportunities while avoiding the Hobbes trap. Based on the interdisciplinary analysis of globalization and its influences on creative intelligence (Ambrose, 2016) the following list of 21stcentury capacities has emerged: • Creative thinking skills and inquiry-based dispositions so we can investigate macroproblems and macro-opportunities and address them effectively; • Broad and deep proficiency across the subject areas, going far beyond the easily measured, superficial knowledge and skill in literacy and mathematics emphasized by school reformers; • Critical thinking skills and dispositions that will enable us to break free from dogmatic mind entrapment; • Interdisciplinary thinking that will enable the syntheses of diverse insights necessary for addressing macroproblems that refuse to stay confined within the borders of a single discipline; • Visual-spatial literacy that will enable the strongest STEM innovators to come to the fore; • Information technology skills so we can keep up with the rapid evolution of information technology and employ it for the solution of macroproblems. • Entrepreneurial and economic acumen so individuals and organizations can stabilize themselves and create productive niches in the shifting sands of economic globalization;

Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization

• Interpersonal self-discovery and a sense of purpose so individuals can discover their aspirations, develop their talents, and remain resilient in rapidly changing socioeconomic conditions; • Cognitive diversity within individual minds and groups so we will be able to produce innovations that will match the complexity of the macroproblems we face. • Interpersonal capacities, collaborative skills, and leadership so we can form effective teams that will be able to employ cognitive diversity when grappling with macroproblems. • Ethical insight and global awareness so we can minimize the chances that our creative actions in a complex world will cause severe harm to ourselves and others.

Educators of the gifted and talented always have strived to develop at least some of these capacities in the high-powered minds of their students, but given the macroopportunities and macroproblems presented by 21st-century globalization we need to redouble our efforts.

AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO CONNECTING MACROCONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES WITH GIFTEDNESS AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT As portrayed earlier, navigation through multiple academic disciplines and professional fields can reveal insights about creative intelligence (creativity, giftedness, talent) that are unavailable from within the confines of our own field. Such an approach is necessary for dealing with the complexities of the 21st century while also aligning us with the trend toward international, interdisciplinary collaboration (Suresh, 2013). This section includes examples of constructs from diverse disciplines that can clarify, refine, and extend conceptions of giftedness and talent development while strengthening the ways we can help students think more effectively in the midst of complexity.

527

Borrowing from Other Disciplines to Strengthen the Conceptual Foundations for Gifted Education When we begin to navigate through the conceptual terrain of diverse disciplines it’s remarkable how often we come across research findings and theories that can productively connect with gifted education. The four examples in this subsection illustrate some of those connections with theoretical and philosophical constructs in our field

Chronic stress and the distortion of aspirations in highly unequal societies The field of gifted education has paid some attention to socioeconomic deprivation and its oppressive influences on the gifted and talented (e.g., Ambrose, 2003, 2005b; Cross & Borland, 2013; Hebert, 2002; Latz & Adams, 2011; Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012; Van Tassel-Baska, 2010). But we can extend these analyses by drawing from literature in economics, sociology, and social epidemiology. One aspect of deprivation that gets insufficient attention within and beyond our field is the powerful influence of relative inequality in a society. While the poor in a developed nation might be somewhat better off in a materialistic sense than the lower classes in Third World nations, they actually can be worse off psychologically because they suffer from chronic stress arising from the importance of social comparison in a highly unequal society. If the vast majority of others around you are at similar levels of deprivation it doesn’t hurt much psychologically. But in a highly unequal developed nation ‘the consumption of the rich reduces everyone else’s satisfaction with what they have, by showing it off as inferior’ (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009, p. 222). The chronic stress caused by social comparison in highly unequal nations such as the USA doesn’t just impact the lower classes. It spreads throughout the society,

528

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

affecting everyone except a very small elite at the pinpoint apex of the steep socioeconomic pyramid. This form of chronic stress can persist throughout a lifetime and distort the discovery of aspirations and the development of talents for gifted individuals (see Ambrose, 2003, 2005a and b, 2013). It can cause gifted young people from poverty to feel unworthy and drop out mentally, thereby aggravating underachievement. It also can push them toward criminal behavior such as black-market entrepreneurship and gang leadership because they see no path toward success in a rigged system (see Fischer et al., 1996). Meanwhile, gifted young people from privilege get the message that hypermaterialistic, selfish vainglory is the ultimate goal in life and their aspiration development can become distorted along those lines. If the more unequal developed nations such as the USA became somewhat more egalitarian, like the social democracies of northern Europe, the problem of chronic stress and pernicious social comparison would diminish considerably. But inequality is heading in the wrong direction, becoming far worse due to the deregulated globalized economic system (Cabieses, Pickett, & Wilkinson, 2016; Piketty, 2014; Stiglitz, 2010, 2012; Pickett, & Wilkinson, 2015; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Consequently, our field needs to pay far more attention to it so we can understand and grapple with the distortion of aspirations, the misdirection of talents, and the magnification of underachievement.

Essentially, the model portrays a human economic decision maker as a highly rational participant in the economy who operates through the use of extremely accurate, complete information sets for selfish reasons (see Ambrose, 2012a, 2012b; Fleischacker, 2004; Fourcade, Ollion, & Algan, 2015; Madrick, 2011, 2014; Marglin, 2008; Quiggin, 2010; Stiglitz, 2010, 2012). The rational actor construct works very well as a guide for conceptual model building and empirical research in economics, but it doesn’t map well onto reality because humans are not nearly as rational as the model proposes. In addition, they seldom have anything close to perfect information sets to inform their decisions, and they tend to have at least some measure of altruism, which makes them unselfish much of the time. But even with these flaws, the rational actor model strongly influences the economy and encourages overconfident, selfish behavior. When we apply these insights about the flaws in the rational actor model in economics to the gifted and talented, problems become evident. Due to the powerful influence of mainstream economics in the globalized economy, gifted and talented individuals are pressured to become selfish economic operators and they become much less inclined to support government policies that help the less fortunate. In essence, the rational actor model exerts a strong vacuum effect, draining ethics and altruism away from gifted and talented young people as they make their way into adulthood (Ambrose, 2012a, 2012b).

Irrational rational actors

Moral particularism

Decades ago, mainstream economics created a dogmatic theoretical construct that distorts and harms the lives of billions throughout the world. It also strongly contributes to the severe inequality discussed in the prior section. In attempts to strengthen the accuracy and scientific credibility of inquiry in their field, economists came up with the rational actor model to represent the ways in which humans engage in economic behavior.

Investigation in ethical philosophy and political philosophy reveals some interesting dynamics about ethical behavior in the world. Humanity always has been plagued with conflicts that spin out of control and damage or end the lives of many. One phenomenon that generates and sustains these conflicts is the tendency for individuals and groups to align themselves with particularist morality.

Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization

An essential part of identity formation is the alignment of oneself with various identity groups (ethnic, religious, racial, national, etc.; see Gewirth, 1998; Koonz, 2003; Martin, 1997; Monroe, 1996, 2004, 2011; Moore, 2000). How firmly individuals align themselves with these groups determines whether they become particularists or universalists. A particularist strongly identifies with a group and most often will be at least somewhat kind, generous, and thoughtful toward members of those inside the group. However, they will view outsiders as threatening, dangerous, less worthy, or even less human, and will treat them accordingly by ignoring their needs, disparaging them, discriminating against them, or even engaging in violence toward them up to and including genocide. In contrast, universalists might favor members of their identity group somewhat but will not view outsiders as significantly less worthy, let alone as subhuman pariahs. Political philosopher Kristen Renwick Monroe (1996, 2004, 2011) discovered some of these dynamics when she studied ‘rescuers’ – individuals who risked themselves to save others from dangerous situations even when those rescued didn’t fit their identity group. On asking them why they rescued outsiders she would get a common response something like the following: ‘Why are you asking me that question? I had to do it. It was another human being’. So, in essence, some draw strong distinctions between ‘people like them’ and outsiders, whereas others erect much thinner barriers between those they identify with and outsiders. These insights from ethical philosophy and political philosophy are relevant to our conceptions of giftedness and talent development. We need to be aware of the differing identity dynamics between particularists and universalists when thinking about educating and mentoring the gifted and talented. If we ignore identity dynamics and ethics we might be strengthening the abilities of future monsters who will employ their creative thinking to come up with ways to severely harm

529

outsiders. Magnifying the ethical dimensions of gifted education could provide some insulation against this form of pernicious development because bright young people might be capable of the self-awareness necessary to determine that they have particularist inclinations, and they might be able to see the potential harm in those inclinations. At the very least they will be better able to understand how intelligent, gifted adult leaders can stir up a crowd and encourage hundreds, thousands, or even millions of followers to do devastating things to outsiders. Such awareness might strengthen their awareness and resistance if their nation begins a descent toward totalitarianism. For example, historian Eric Weitz (2003) found that national leaders pursuing utopian doctrines tend to promote a mix of extreme national and racial ideology. When a crisis arises such leaders use it as an opportunity to demonize specific national and racial groups to stir up the rest of the population in order to achieve the utopian, nationalistic ends they have in mind. They attempt to garner support from the majority by highlighting a common enemy that requires marginalization, punishment, or even destruction in order to strengthen the flourishing of the dominant group. Koonz (2003) showed how these dynamics played out in Nazi Germany, when Hitler’s charisma derived largely from his ethnic fundamentalism and utopian claims about the exceptional virtue of the Aryan race blended with demonization of the Jewish people. As evidenced by disturbing intergroup conflicts in today’s world, we have not moved beyond these inclinations so it’s important that gifted young people are prepared to recognize and address them.

The rapid, unpredictable, promising, dangerous evolution of 21st-Century technology Virtually all gifted young people will have to address the evolution of new technologies in the years to come. Those who pursue work in

530

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

STEM fields will be deeply immersed in these issues. Consequently, runaway technology is a macro-opportunity/macroproblem hybrid because it potentially has enormously positive and disastrous flip sides. For example, rapid advances in digital technologies are generating impressive new forms of economic productivity (Brynjolfsson & McAffee, 2014). Materials science, which includes nanotechnology (the science of engineering matter at the molecular and atomic levels) promises to bring forth unprecedented new products and services (Interrante & Chandross, 2014; Khan, 2012). Biotechnology promises to generate new forms of life and possibly increase food production to the point where famine is a thing of the past (Carlson, 2010; Harris, 2007; Rose, 2006). We also stand to benefit from new forms of green energy that could stave off looming environmental crises and mitigate climate change while creating large numbers of jobs in new sectors of the economy (Gallagher, 2014; Prentiss, 2015). The emerging science of synthetic biology essentially could transform the nature of our material world and generate a wide range of new products (Bonnet & Subsoontorn, 2012; Bonnet et  al., 2013; Kahl & Endy, 2013). There is even the possibility that innovations in artificial intelligence could revolutionize the employment market and spread prosperity throughout the global population, thereby working against the current pernicious trend toward increasing socioeconomic inequality (Terdiman, 2017). But technological innovation usually has both a positive and negative side. For over a century the use of hydrocarbons significantly strengthened the world economy but also accelerated environmental pollution and climate change (Klare, 2012). Biotechnology could lead to monopolistic monocrops that rob hundreds of millions of agricultural workers of their livelihoods around the world while pushing most of the economic gain into the pockets of just a few and creating devastating food shortages because

the ensuing lack of diversity in plant species would make crops far more vulnerable to disease (Gottwald, 2017). And humans may not be able to control developments in artificial intelligence, which could become a runaway system operating on its own in ways harmful to the human population (Bostrom, 2014). These high-potential positive and negative consequences of technological innovation will demand considerable insight, ethical awareness, and STEM expertise from the gifted adults of tomorrow. Gifted education will need to react accordingly, emphasizing the ethical dimensions of STEM learning while enabling students to delve deeply into the nature and nuances of these STEM trends.

Using Interdisciplinary Insights to Invent Teaching Strategies and Creative and Critical Thinking Processes While borrowing theories and research findings from multiple disciplines can clarify, strengthen, and extend conceptions of giftedness and talent development it also can inspire the invention of teaching strategies that generate new forms of creative and critical thinking as well as content mastery. After focusing heavily on the theoretical and research-based dimensions of interdisciplinary borrowing I started inventing various creative and critical thinking strategies and have been compiling them into a book manuscript (Ambrose, 2018). Here are brief descriptions of just a few of the many strategies.

Wild chaos, rigid order or highly productive complexity? One teaching strategy I created from a construct in a foreign discipline is the chaoscomplexity-order analysis process. The chaos-order hypothesis comes from the vibrant, interdisciplinary science of

Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization

complexity (see Ambrose, Sriraman, & Pierce, 2014; Langton, 1990; Robbins, 2012; Waldrop, 1992). Complex adaptive systems tend to oscillate along a continuum from extreme chaos toward extreme order with productive complexity in the middle. A few of many examples of complex adaptive systems include the global economy, animal populations in ecosystems, chemical reactions in laboratories, traffic patterns in Manhattan, the brain-mind system of a child, a classroom full of brain-mind systems, and a school system. When a complex adaptive system pushes into the excessive order portion of the continuum it becomes rigidly ordered and its behavior is very simple. When it pushes into the excessive chaos portion of the continuum the behavior is chaotic but simple because complex patterns don’t emerge. The behavior of the system becomes complex only when it approaches the edge of chaos in the middle of the continuum where chaos and order are in exquisite dynamic tension. For example, when a gifted child is excited about learning a new, unfamiliar concept the impressive processing capacities of the child’s mind provide some degree of order and the unfamiliarity of the new concept provides some chaos, putting the mind in dynamic tension between chaos and order. The result is a very exciting, highly motivating form of cognitive complexity. Based on these dynamics I turned the chaos-complexity-order continuum into a teaching strategy that can be applied to a wide variety of concepts in virtually any academic discipline. Here are a few examples of question prompts aimed at students investigating phenomena in STEM fields: • Some famous scientists are known for creating taxonomies (classification systems). Do they do this to pull scientific knowledge in one direction or the other on the chaos-complexity-order model? Explain your answer. • Explain the biological behavior of selected plants or animals in terms of the chaos-complexityorder model. Do some animals or plants appear

• • •

•

• •

531

to act in excessively chaotic, excessively ordered, or productively complex ways? How can laboratory skills help us build productively complex knowledge bases in chemistry? Choose a favorite app. How does it shift your mind along the continuum? Analyze the skills required for success in a STEM career. Do some of these skills help a scientist, mathematician, or engineer move inward from excessive chaos or excessive order toward productive complexity? If yes, how? Interpret current issues in biology (e.g., population growth, biomedical progress, ecological problems) through the lens of the chaoscomplexity-order model. What is it about learning mathematics that you find excessively chaotic? excessively ordered? productively complex? How will the evolution of artificial intelligence shift our civilization along the chaos-complexityorder continuum?

Using the strategy will encourage students to think more deeply about patterns they perceive in complex systems, while also prompting them to explore intriguing concepts and phenomena in the interdisciplinary field of complexity science.

Moral-legal analysis Another creative and critical thinking and teaching strategy is inspired by insights from the field of legal studies. Legal ethicist Meir Dan-Cohen (2002, 2009, 2016) is known for his analyses of the moral-ethical dimensions of the law. Based on this magnification of ethics I created a strategy in which individuals and groups can plot actions and events onto a square, with the horizontal dimension representing legality and the vertical dimension representing morality. So an action in the world that is both morally admirable and legal would go in the upper right-hand corner. An example might be the work of Doctors Without Borders, which brings altruistic physicians into remote Third World locations to help disaster victims (see Leyton, 1998). Conversely, an action that is extremely immoral and illegal (e.g., mass murder) is

532

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

plotted far into the lower left-hand corner. An action that is legal but extremely immoral (e.g., slavery in the Antebellum South) shows up in the lower right-hand corner. An action that is highly moral but illegal (e.g., the Satyagraha mass movement in which Mahatma Gandhi promoted illegal passive resistance against British oppression in India) is placed in the upper left-hand corner. Other actions are somewhat less extreme and will go in various locations between the outermost positions at the top, bottom, far right, and far left sides of the model. For example, some corporate lobbying in Washington DC would go somewhere in the middle of the vertical dimension because it’s somewhat unethical but not extremely so, while other lobbying initiatives would go near the bottom of the model because they are extremely unethical, rooted in corruption. Those initiatives would mostly be on the right-hand side of the model because some of the lobbying was done to ensure that these actions were considered legal. Emerging benefits of this creative and critical thinking strategy, which has been lightly field-tested at this point, include the nuanced judgment and rigorous debate it generates. One student or group might want to place a particular action in the lower righthand corner while another group might argue that the action should go up and to the left, for example. The uncertainty of the position of each action on the model represents the strong potential of the strategy.

Metapattern Analysis Biologist Tyler Volk (1995; Bloom & Volk, 2007) identified a number of meta-patterns that show up throughout the environment. These meta-patterns include spheres, sheets, tubes, borders, binaries, centers, layers, breaks, and cycles. I borrowed these metapatterns and set them up as analytic tools that gifted students can use while studying phenomena in diverse academic disciplines.

To illustrate the potential in this strategy, here are very brief descriptions of two of the nine meta-patterns, examples of how they show up in nature, and examples of how gifted students might use them to analyze a topic under study. • Spheres: This is the most efficient shape in nature for protecting the content of a system from outside influences. According to Volk (1995), ‘Whenever life needs to enclose, contain, and separate by minimizing contact with the environment, a sphere is often the answer’ (p. 12). Examples from nature include buds of flowers, seeds, plankton, and cellular structures. In terms of instructional application, a gifted student looks for ways the sphere metapattern appears in the political or cultural world and decides that American presidents often hide from external influences by surrounding themselves with cronies who think like them, thus creating a ‘bubble’ that sustains groupthink. The student concludes that the sphere (the bubble) serves its purpose by protecting the president and the inner workings of the administration from ‘the ionizing, lysing, dissolving, jolting, combusting, dispersing, bursting, rotting, eating, and crushing world’ (she borrows these words from Volk, 1995, p. 52). However, she also decides that this protection has a counterproductive effect by enabling the administration to feel safe enacting policies that harm it in the minds of the public over the course of several years, eventually resulting in an election failure. • Breaks: These are abrupt changes or discontinuities in systems. Examples from nature include the discrete stages that some organisms go through in nature, for example, chrysalis to butterfly, and egg to tadpole to frog. Another example is the discontinuous paradigm shifting that tends to occur in scientific fields. A gifted student applies the break meta-pattern to history by identifying sociopolitical revolutions such as the American and French revolutions of the late 18th century and the Russian Revolution of the early 20th century as breaks. The student also employs the concepts of power and pressure to clarify these historical breaks, concluding that a high level of pressure from discontent is necessary to overcome the power of an established regime to generate a historical break.

Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization

According to my early, informal field testing, periodic use of meta-pattern analysis will enable gifted students to develop the ability to find patterns of similarity in diverse fields during interdisciplinary excursions. This ability will serve them well when they engage in the international, interdisciplinary, networked science required of them by the complexity of 21st-century professional work, especially in STEM fields (see Bozeman & Youtie, 2017; Nielsen, 2011; Suresh, 2013).

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS It likely will be difficult to engage more scholars of gifted education in interdisciplinary work. First, such exploration can be immensely complex because it entails confrontation with large numbers of diverse constructs embedded within foreign epistemological frameworks. Second, it goes against the advice most academics in higher education received from their advisors when they were in graduate school: ‘Develop a specialization within your field. Don’t stray far from that or your work will become fragmented and it won’t be recognized’. Promotion and tenure requirements in universities favor candidates who become specialists in a particular topic within a domain. Consequently, interdisciplinary explorers find it harder to become prominent in their fields because their work represents multiple, scattered lights throughout the terrain of diverse disciplines instead of one focused light within the borders of a single field. In spite of these drawbacks, we need to engage in more interdisciplinary exploration if we are going to move the field forward, especially in the new climate of international, interdisciplinary collaboration.

REFERENCES Ackerman, B. (2010). The decline and fall of the American republic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

533

Ambrose, D. (2003). Barriers to aspiration development and self-fulfillment: Interdisciplinary insights for talent discovery. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 282–294. Ambrose, D. (2005a). Aspiration growth, talent development, and self-fulfillment in a context of democratic erosion. Roeper Review, 28(1), 11–19. Ambrose, D. (2005b). Contexts for aspiration development and self-fulfillment: International comparisons. Gifted and Talented International, 20(2), 60–69. Ambrose, D. (2009). Expanding visions of creative intelligence: An interdisciplinary exploration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Ambrose, D. (2011). Dysmorphic capitalism and the aberrant development of creative intelligence. In E. N. Shelton (Ed.), Capitalism in business, politics and society (pp. 119–130). Hauppauge, NY: Nova. Ambrose, D. (2012a). Dogmatic neoclassical economics and neoliberal ideology suppressing talent development in mathematics: Implications for teacher education. In L. J. Jacobsen, J. Mistele, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Mathematics teacher education in the public interest: Equity and social justice (pp. 83–97). Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age. Ambrose, D. (2012b). The not-so-invisible hand of economics and its impact on conceptions and manifestations of high ability. In D. Ambrose, R. J. Sternberg & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Confronting dogmatism in gifted education (pp. 97–114). New York, NY: Routledge. Ambrose, D. (2013). Socioeconomic inequality and giftedness: Suppression and distortion of high ability. Roeper Review, 35(2), 81–92. Ambrose, D. (2016). Twenty-first century contextual influences on the life trajectories of creative young people. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities (pp. 21–48). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. Ambrose, D. (2017). Interdisciplinary exploration supports Sternberg’s expansion of giftedness. Roeper Review, 39(3), 178–182. Ambrose, D. (2018). Instructional strategies for thoughtful, engaged, 21st-century learning. Book manuscript in preparation.

534

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Ambrose, D., & Cross, T. L. (Eds.). (2009). Morality, ethics, and gifted minds. New York, NY: Springer. Ambrose, D., Sriraman, B., & Pierce, K. M. (Eds.). (2014). A critique of creativity and complexity: Deconstructing clichés. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2012). How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking. New York, NY: Routledge. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2016a). Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2016b). Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. Ambrose, D., Sternberg, R. J., & Sriraman, B. (Eds.). (2012). Confronting dogmatism in gifted education. New York, NY: Routledge. Arbesman, S. (2012). The half-life of facts: Why everything we know has an expiration date. London, UK: Penguin. Archer, D. (2009). The long thaw: How humans are changing the next 100,000 years of Earth’s climate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Arvidsson, A., & Peitersen, N. (2013). The ethical economy: Rebuilding value after the crisis. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Barrett, L. (2011). Beyond the brain: How body and environment shape animal and human minds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Berliner, D. C. (2009). MCLB (much curriculum left behind): A US calamity in the making. Educational Forum, 73(4), 284–296. doi: 10.1080/00131720903166788. Berliner, D. C. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151. Berliner, D. C. (2012). Narrowing curriculum, assessments, and conceptions of what it means to be smart in the US schools: Creaticide by design. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), How dogmatic beliefs harm

creativity and higher-level thinking (pp. 79–93). New York, NY: Routledge. Block, F., & Somers, M. R. (2014). The power of market fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s critique. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bloom, J. W., & Volk, T. (2007). The use of metapatterns for research into complex systems of teaching, learning, and schooling— part ii: Applications. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 45–68. Bonnet, J., & Subsoontorn, P. (2012). Rewritable digital data storage in live cells via engineered control of recombination directionality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8884–8889. Bonnet, J., Yin, P., Ortiz, M. E., Subsoontorn, P., & Endy, D. (2013). Amplifying genetic logic gates. Science, 340, 599–603. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2017). Strength in numbers: The new science of team science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAffee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Cabieses, B., Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2016). The impact of socioeconomic inequality on children’s health and well-being. In J. Komlos & I. R. Kelly (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economics and human biology (pp. 244–265). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Carlson, R. H. (2010). Biology is technology: The promise, peril, and new business of engineering life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cross, J. R., Borland, J. H., & (Eds.). (2013). Social inequality in gifted education [special issue]. Roeper Review, 35(2). Daly, H. E., & Farley, J. (2010). Ecological economics: Principles and applications (2nd edn). Washington, DC: Island Press. Dan-Cohen, M. (2002). Harmful thoughts: Essays on law, self, and morality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dan-Cohen, M. (2009). Constructing selves. In D. Ambrose & T. L. Cross (Eds.), Morality,

Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization

ethics, and gifted minds (pp. 145–148). New York, NY: Springer. Dan-Cohen, M. (2016). Normative subjects: Self and collectivity in morality and law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Descombes, V. (2001). The mind’s provisions: A critique of cognitivism (S. A. Schwartz, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Duménil, G., & Lévy, D. (2013). The crisis of neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2012). Dogmatism, creativity, and critical thought: The reality of human minds and the possibility of critical societies. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higherlevel thinking (pp. 37–49). New York, NY: Routledge. Fischer, C. S., Hout, M., Jankowski, M. S., Lucas, S. R., Swidler, A., & Voss, K. (1996). Inequality by design: Cracking the bell curve myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Flannery, T. (2006). The weather makers: The history and future impact of climate change. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press. Fleischacker, S. (2004). On Adam Smith’s wealth of nations: A philosophical companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fourcade, M., Ollion, E., & Algan, Y. (2015). The superiority of economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 89–114. doi: 10.1257/jep.29.1.89. Friedrichs, J. (2013). The future is not what it used to be: Climate change and energy scarcity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gallagher, K. S. (2014). The globalization of clean energy technology: Lessons from China. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gewirth, A. (1998). Self-fulfillment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gottwald, F. T. (2017). Integrity at risk: Potentials and dangers of synthetic biology and how to govern with integrity. In L. Westra, J. Gray, & F.-T. Gottwald (Eds.), The role of integrity in the governance of the commons (pp. 23–35). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2005). Off center: The Republican revolution and the erosion of American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-takeall politics: How Washington made the rich

535

richer – and turned its back on the middle class. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Harvey, D. (2006). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital: And the crisis of capitalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hasen, R. L. (2015). Plutocrats united: Campaign money, the Supreme Court, and the distortion of American elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hebert, T. P. (2002). Educating gifted children from low socioeconomic backgrounds: Creating visions of a hopeful future. Exceptionality, 10(2), 127–138. Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan. New York, NY: Penguin. (Original work published 1651.) Interrante, L. V., & Chandross, E. A. (Eds.). (2014). Celebrating twenty-five years of chemistry of materials [special issue]. Chemistry of Materials, 26(1). Kahl, L., & Endy, D. (2013). A survey of enabling technologies in synthetic biology. Journal of Biological Engineering, 7, 1–18. Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Some costs of American corporate capitalism: A psychological exploration of value and goal conflicts. Psychological Inquiry, 18(1), 1–22. Khan, A. S. (Ed.). (2012). Nanotechnology: Social and ethical issues. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Klare, M. T. (2012). The race for what’s left: The global scramble for the world’s last resources. New York, NY: Metropolitan. Klass, B. (2017). The despot’s accomplice: How the west is aiding and abetting the decline of democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Koonz, C. (2003). The Nazi conscience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kotz, D. M. (2015). The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Langton, C. G. (1990). Communication at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emerge and computation. Physica D, 42(1–3), 12–37. Latz, A. O., & Adams, C. M. (2011). Critical differentiation and the twice oppressed:

536

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Social class and giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(5), 773–789. doi: 10.1177/0162353211417339 Leyton, E. (1998). Touched by fire: Doctors without Borders in a third world crisis. Toronto, Canada: McClelland & Stewart. Madrick, J. (2011). Age of greed: The triumph of finance and the decline of America, 1970 to the present. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Madrick, J. (2014). Seven bad ideas: How mainstream economists have damaged America and the world. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Marglin, S. A. (2008). The dismal science: How thinking like an economist undermines community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Martin, G. T. (1997). Eschatological ethics and positive peace: Western contributions to the critique of the self-centered ego and its social manifestations. In L. Duhan-Kaplan & L. F. Bove (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on power and domination (pp. 79–92). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi. Monroe, K. R. (1996). The heart of altruism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Monroe, K. R. (2004). The hand of compassion: Portraits of moral choice during the Holocaust. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Monroe, K. R. (2011). Ethics in an era of terror and genocide: Identity and moral choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Moore, B., Jr. (2000). Moral purity and persecution in history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Motta, E. (Ed.). (2013). 25 years of knowledge acquisition [special issue]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(2). Nielsen, M. (2011). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Nordhaus, W. (2013). The climate casino: Risk, uncertainty, and economics for a warming world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

Ottati, V., Price, E. D., Wilson, C., & Sumaktoyo, N. (2015). When self-perceptions of expertise increase closed-minded cognition: The earned dogmatism effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 131–138. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.08.003 Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Page, S. E. (2010). Diversity and complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Page, S. E. (2017). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pellow, D. N. (2002). Garbage wars: The struggle for environmental justice in Chicago. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2015). The ethical and policy implications of research on income inequality and child well-being. Pediatrics, 135(2), 39–47. doi: 10.1542/ peds.2014–3549E Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Prentiss, M. (2015). Energy revolution: The physics and the promise of efficient technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Prior, T., Giurco, D., Mudd, G., Mason, L., & Behrisch, J. (2012). Global transformations, social metabolism and the dynamics of socioenvironmental conflicts. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 577–587. Quiggin, J. (2010). Zombie economics: How dead ideas still walk among us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Knopf. Robbins, A. (2012). Playing along the porous edge of chaos and discipline: Pathways to the creative analytic process. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 32(3), 225–245.

Giftedness in a Context of 21st-Century Globalization

Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Allan, T., Folke, C., Gordon, L., Jägerskog, A., … Varis, O. (2014). The unfolding water drama in the anthropocene: Towards a resilience-based perspective on water for global sustainability. Ecohydrology, 7(5), 1249–1261. Rose, N. (2006). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sherwood, S. C., & Huber, M. (2010). An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 9552–9555. Snyder, T. (2017). On tyranny: Twenty lessons from the 20th century. New York, NY: Tim Duggan Books. Sondel, B. (2015). Raising citizens or raising test scores? Teach for America, ‘no excuses’ charters, and the development of the neoliberal citizen. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43(3), 289–313. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2015.1064505 Stanley, J. (2015). How propaganda works. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Free fall: America, free markets, and the sinking of the world economy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Suresh, S. (2013, October). To tap the world’s vast and growing potential for new ideas, we need new rules. Scientific American, 309(4), 60. Terdiman, D. (2017, August, AI superstar Andrew Ng is democratizing deep learning with a new online course. Fast Company.

537

Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany. com/40449797/ai-superstar-andrew-ng-isdemocratizing-deep-learning-with-a-newonline-course Thagard, P. (2008). Cognitive science. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (pp. 531–542). New York, NY: Routledge. Van Tassel-Baska, J. L. (Ed.) (2010). Patterns and profiles of promising learners from poverty. Waco, TX: Prufrock. Verchick, R. R. M. (2010). Facing catastrophe: Environmental action for a post-Katrina world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Volk, T. (1995). Metapatterns. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York, NY: Touchstone. Weitz, E. D. (2003). A century of genocide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Weizenbaum, J. (1995). The myth of the last metaphor. In P. Baumgartner & S. Payr (Eds.), Speaking minds: Interviews with twenty cognitive scientists (pp. 249–264). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wilkinson, R. G., & Picket, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London, England: Allen Lane. Wolin, S. (2008). Democracy incorporated: Managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Zander, J., & Mosterman, P. J. (Eds.). (2014). Computation for humanity: Information technology to advance society. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

39 The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks Eva Gyarmathy and John Senior

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM FORMULATION ‘… men of genius have no fiercer or more terrible enemies than the men of academies, who possess the weapons of talent, the stimulus of vanity, and the prestige by preference accorded to them by the vulgar, and by governments which, in large part, consist of the vulgar.’ (Lombroso, 1891, p. 36) And what happens, if and when the AI develops to be a genius?

Machines have been able for some time to write Bach-style chorales, and anyone today can create artistic pictures using simple software applications. Artificial intelligence today is capable of writing film scripts, personality analysis and creating organic chemistry formulas. Artificial intelligence can not only defeat chess players, but also Go masters and the best poker players, even though these games require a significant element of intuition. The concept of creativity failed to be clarified in the 20th century in a reassuring way,

but the challenges of the 21st century offer a new opportunity to do so. Achievements of artificial intelligence are showing creative value: and thereby beginning to question one of the last bastions of human uniqueness – the ability to act in a creative way. We can accept a machine being more intelligent than the cleverest human, since convergent thinking is conscious, it can be modelled and captured algorithmically. Creativity, in contrast, involves several unconscious processes, and this is the point at which the good performance of artificial intelligence poses a challenge, as well as an opportunity to analyse the concept of creativity and to rethink the place of human creativity. Artificial intelligence can unquestionably create new products. For example, AI can be trained to consider chemical compounds, substances, structures and their products and chemical reactions from an existing database; additionally, AI is able to predict new chemical reactions which were not present in the dataset. An open question is … how

The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks 539

similar are the mechanisms behind human and machine creativity, and are there are segments of human creativity that artificial intelligence is unable to achieve?

THE CONCEPT OF CREATIVITY FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES Guilford (1967) differentiated the convergent and the divergent approaches. On the convergent approach, the individual arrives at the solution of a problem and finds what appears to be the single correct result by narrowing down the possibilities through analysis, classification and the identification of relationships between various elements. Divergent thinking is more like a search. It uncovers alternatives, examines several possibilities and may thus lead to multiple solutions. In the creative process, the two types of thinking, convergent and divergent complement each other and are employed simultaneously or alternately in the foreground or background based on the task at hand. Artificial intelligence is capable of both performances, and additionally is capable of a more efficient performance than humans. Finding the ideal place and proportion of the two types of thinking is a challenge, but it is an algorithmic problem, and as such can be ‘mechanized’ as an artificial process. However, the Guilfordean concept of ability to invent came to appear in separation from its product as a creative attitude, as a creative mode of understanding and experiencing the world, and as a re-learning of the capacity for wonder (Fromm, 1959). Researchers came to regard the ability to create as a personality feature. In the case of artificial intelligence, however, this is for the time being an irrelevant factor, because being divergent from the normal does not require any mental energy from a machine. Conformity is not an issue as long as we do not program it into the machines.

The concept of creativity, despite its significant function with respect to mental health, has taken on a form that is difficult to employ in research. Gowan (1972) placed definitions of creativity on a continuum, from treating it as a conscious, rational functioning of the creative mind to treating it as a psychedelic phenomenon. According to Gowan, the process is controllable and uncontrollable at the same time: creativity can be activated consciously, and may also appear of itself as a hidden power. The more conscious-oriented a theory of creativity is, the easier it is to use it for an examination of the machine’s creativity, though it does not ensure the results’ value.

CREATIVITY AS A PROCESS The Stages Some researchers have tried to identify internal processes through a dissection of the creative process into its components. Wallas (1926), with Hadamard (1945) following later in his footsteps, divided the creative process into stages based on the steps of the classical scientific method (1. problem setting, 2. hypothesis, 3. research, 4. evaluation of the results): initiation, incubation, illumination, verification. Mednick (1962) emphasized the role of associations, especially in the incubation stage. At the same time, he also attributed great importance to personality. It has been experimentally proven that even apparently distant associations are influenced by the problem that occupies the person’s mind (Kowalski, 1960, cited by Mednick, 1962). One could argue that everything will remind a person of the problem he or she is engaged in. According to Melrose (1989), the creative process can only be broken down into stages artificially, but this makes it easier to define the very elusive process of the human effort for creation and to learn the steps of creative thinking.

540

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

The Role of Conscious and Unconscious Processing The analysis of the creative process itself indicates that ideas appear when we manage to switch off conscious processes and let our brains work, so to speak. Sleep, a relaxed state, or engaging in activities not connected to the topic at all helps the emergence of solutions. Barron (1968) analysed in detail the role of the unconscious in creation. The unconscious provides the material, which is chaotic like the dreams of psychotics. Consciousness then subsequently starts to work on the unordered material. Ideas generally do not become conscious, but relate to other ideas, emotions and symbols at the preconscious level. The real work begins when the individual needs to make the material communicable in a social setting through emphasis, selection and by defining the goal and the method. However, Barron puts less emphasis on the amount of prior work needed for the unordered material to be forthcoming and for the material to be unordered in the first place (see fragmentation). For chaos to arise, it is necessary to find contradictions and problems, as Parnes (1981) argued.

The Creative Process from the Perspective of Neuroscience Creative thinking can be linked to brain physiological events and physiological traits characteristic of the creative personality may be uncovered. According to Bergström (1986), during creative thinking, random discharges in the brain stem mix with information from the cerebral cortex and the mnemonic material of the limbic (emotion function) system, the result of which is new information, a new point of view, a new thought, a new understanding. Through this intermixing of old and new elements, a ‘cloud of possibility’ is formed. In the end, the strongest signal which suits the environment the best survives. If the brain stem input

is too strong, the result is confusion, akin to the effect of too much alcohol. If the input is too weak, it is unable to effectively mobilise the brain stem and events happen at most at an unconscious level. Average people try to avoid and lessen tension. The condition for creativity, however, is an ability to accept conflict and tension, according to Fromm (1959). Berlyne (1966) found that information that does not match leads to conflict and asynchronicity in the brain waves, and alertness ensues. This is one of the roots of the emergence of the drive for increased learning and attention. Safán-Gerard’s (1985) thoughts state that an individual who does not reject or repress ambivalence will experience a state in which their perception of reality and of themselves is enriched. Ambivalence comes with a certain mental pain (doubts, uncertainty). The area responsible for the connection between the limbic system (emotion) and the prefrontal cortex (information) also affects emotions. If this connection is severed, the pain abates (LaViolette, in Briggs, 1990). We have assigned the neurological process to the phases of the creative process, and identified the phases’ relationship with the brain’s physiological events (Gyarmathy, 2007): 1 The new information from the cerebral cortex meets the mnemonic material of the limbic system and their incongruence leads to disorder and chaos. This is the initiation phase. 2 From incongruity, a cloud of possibilities is formed. The tension in the brain stem intensifies, the arousal level rises. Possibilities whirl around in the cloud. With chaos and disorder the possibility for finding a new order and a new solution arises. This is the incubation phase. The longer the individual can tolerate tension, the more probable it is that a new picture, a new solution emerges. A strong cerebral visualization and holistic processing ability is helpful. If the usual connections are weak, it is easier to find a pattern and a new order during the incubation stage. 3 When the strongest signal is recognised and isolated from the creative chaos then a stage of

The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks 541

comprehension and illumination is possible. If tension cannot be maintained for a long enough time, then one of the original solutions remains in place and no new one is formed. In this case, the brain resolves incongruity by ignoring some element. 4 Whichever element the individual discards during the process, nothing new is created, only a choice, a selection is made. In this case, the individual does not make it to the stage of illumination and the creative process aborts in the incubation stage. Selection is not creation, merely reproduction. Naturally, this is a valid solution, but it is nothing new. 5 If the incubation stage was effective, the strongest signal brings to light new connections in the illumination stage. Just because things ‘fit together’, it does not mean the end of the line and the final solution. 6 The last stage is that of elaboration and verification. The analysis of the strongest signal, that is, the new idea the individual found, is again controllable, because it requires logic, knowledge and conscious functioning. If the solution is successful, the process culminates. If not, then the process restarts (see Figure 39.1).

Arne Dietrich (2004) created a model of creativity by placing the foregoing in a somewhat different light. He brought evidence from psychology and neuroscience that creativity

arises from a combination of four kinds of mechanism and he hypothesises that each of the four kinds of creative processing belongs to a specific neural circuit. ‘Creative Insight’ may be deliberate or spontaneous, and both emotional contents and cognitive analysis may contribute to it. By combining the two processing modes, we arrive at the four basic types of creativity (see Figure 39.2). The cognitive/deliberate creativity is the most accepted of the four types. This is the successful academics’ and experts’ style. While a person may use most of the forms of creativity, we can see definite differences according to the talent’s results and performances. Those who are at the front of the inventions often seek the deliberate/ emotional ways. The spontaneous area is considered mainly the artists’ creative way. However, fundamentally new inventions need a less traditional approach and emotional/spontaneous creativity, which we can relate to the ‘big C’. If a scientist thinks in an emotional/spontaneous way, the acceptance will come only when the ‘big achievement’ is obvious. Cesare Lombroso (1891) quotes Mirabeau in his book’s Preface: ‘Good sense is the absence of every strong passion, and only

Figure 39.1  Linking the creative process to its brain physiological background (Gyarmathy, 2007)

542

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Figure 39.2  Forms of creative processing (Dietrich, 2004)

men of strong passions can be great’. Then he writes: ‘Good sense travels on the wellworn paths; genius, never. And that is why the crowd, not altogether without reason, is so ready to treat great men as lunatics’ (The Man of Genius, 1891, Preface, p. x). In terms of Dietrich’s model, AI’s creativity is on the cognitive side. Machines’ artistic accomplishments are rather the essence of high-level usage of the learnt rules. Human creativity can beat the machines with the help of emotions, but it has its price, a constant chance of psychosis. We hypothesise that psychosis proneness involves aberrant filtering mechanisms operating below conscious awareness. An increased flow of information into preconscious awareness can result in an individual being overwhelmed with thoughts and idea fragments, with loose associative links. Research revealed that the higher the creative achievement, the closer the brain is to psychopathology. Creativity is connected to cognitive processes not only through divergent thinking, but abnormal pre-attentive filtering, and reduced latent inhibition. Both highly creative individuals and individuals with psychosis have been associated with low latent inhibition, which effects the capacity to ignore the stream of incoming stimuli (Crabtree & Green, 2016). Shared predisposition for psychosis and creative thinking suggests that a highly creative person can be

considered as an individual ideally or optimally close to psychosis. Neurology-based theories emphasise the duality of conscious and unconscious processes in the creative process and it remains an open question why certain parts of human creative thinking are unconscious.

CREATIVE PERSON Creativity as a Way of Thinking Creativity is evident when elements get arranged in the mind in a new way and something new and original is born, and this is all accompanied by an attitude during which the individual resists the known and the regular, and tolerates and seeks out ambiguity, uncertainty and disorder, from which a new order may arise. The following have great significance with respect to human creativity: • Individual thinking processes; • Significant knowledge and information relating to the given topic; • Personality traits like nonconformity or autonomy; • The relationship of individual and environment.

Human creativity is thus a phenomenon that is connected to abilities and personality, as well as to social relations, and is a

The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks 543

fundamental part of the learning process, which is part of the developmental and then later the thinking processes. Children, as well as researchers and many other groups, explore and try things out even in absence of external gratification to make the consequences of actions and events predictable. The gratification is the learning itself, the creation of knowledge. They lose their interest when they see in advance what will happen when, or when apparently, no rule or connection between the events can be identified (Schmidhuber, 2006). The essence of the creative attitude is that even the apparently unconnectable can be connected, that is, exploration is not aborted even in a stubbornly unpredictable situation. The drive surpassing natural curiosity leads to a special way of thinking which is based on the idea of ‘I don’t care if it’s impossible’. The special thinking processes, attitudes and personality traits that are the preconditions of creative thinking may constitute obstacles in social integration.

Creative Humans and their Deviance According to Cesare Lombroso (1891) genius is one of the many forms of insanity. We suggest that the creative personality arises from a background of different-fromnormal brain physiology. However, we have to consider that while a high level of creativity may be a neurological characteristic, the development of the nervous system is heavily influenced by environmental effects. Everyday experience shapes the prominences of neurological functioning, and socialisation significantly influences the development of the internal factors necessary for creativity. Creative personalities are characterised not by a lack of wanting to meet external expectations but by a lesser desire for integration and conformity. Many creative individuals do not find it problematic to adapt to their environment; they can adapt well. This, of course, depends in many respects on the

tolerance of their environment, but even creative individuals do not necessarily find it difficult to reconcile their own difference with the difference of the environment. They excel exactly at finding even very distant connections which can reconcile even apparently irreconcilable elements. Creative people look for complexity and disorder to be able to create a new order (Barron, 1968). A certain level of chaos, disorder and fragmentation is indispensable during creative activities. Creative people can live with the tension caused by ambiguity and uncertainty (May 1975), embracing chaos and disorder as fertile ground for creation. A brain that tolerates or seeks out tension and the psychoneurological constellation for which ambiguity and uncertainty is pleasing, or at least not so stressful, has a higher than average probability of being capable of creative functioning. Special processes can arise in the case of several types of deviance. Learning difficulty, ADHD, autism and the savant syndrome, as well as other clinical conditions like frontotemporal dementia and bipolar mood disorders have a big role in the unravelling of the neuro-anatomy and neuro-chemistry of creativity (Hassler, 1990; Fitzgerald, 2005; Mula, Hermann & Trimble, 2016).

DEVIANCES WHICH ARE INFLUENTIAL WITH RESPECT TO CREATIVE FUNCTIONING Exploration and Tension Exploration of the environment has significant adaptive advantages. Getting to know the new and unknown and forming new connections, or ‘curiosity’, is a human characteristic, an internal drive. According to Schmidhuber (2006) art and creativity can be explained as ‘side effects’ of this intrinsic curiosity that is present in everyone at a basic level.

544

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

The hyperactive/attention disorder syndrome is an excellent background for a strong exploratory behaviour. A hyperactive brain is a true ‘hunter brain’ (Hartmann, 1995). In the stimulus processing system of hyperactive individuals’ nervous system, neurotransmitters are produced at lower than average levels. Stimuli create less tension in them, whereby they basically live in a constant state of seeking stimuli and experience because of the underfunctioning of nerve impulses through the noradrenergic nerve endings system.

Special Associative Functioning Frank Lloyd Wright, the famous architect, could get lost in his daydreams so much that one often had to shout to make him notice something other than his thoughts (Secrest, 1992). The attention disorder that often accompanies hyperactivity and learning difficulty is a weakness in attention control rather than lack of attention. The brain automatically generates images. Individuals who belong to the visualising type often receive a diagnosis of attention disorder. At the same time, strong imagination and an image-like vision is one of the preconditions of creative thinking. This connection has not gone unnoticed in scientific literature. Cramond (1995) studied the relationship between creativity and hyperactivity/attention disorder through a comparison of cerebral structures, cognitive processing and temperament. She found some correspondences, such as correspondences between the following: neuro-biological anomalies, right hemisphere dominance, high figural creativity, use of peripheral stimuli during problem solving, experience seeking, sensitivity and strong reactions. Biographical data on several scientists, political figures and artists indicate some form of neurologicallybased achievement disorder. Both Thomas Alva Edison (Száva, 1969) and Nikola Tesla (Cheney, 2001) showed signs of specialities in childhood. Edison was dismissed as unteachable by his teacher, because he would

be immersed in observing how a spider was weaving its web instead of the words of his teacher. Daydreaming is a cognitive process that is not suitable for the classroom or traditional workplaces, and is usually punished, though research indicates that it seems to be essential for creative thinking. For a long time, it was theorized that a low level of executive inhibition may facilitate divergent thinking, because concepts and ideas are less likely to be inhibited (Mednick, 1962). In a recent study, Carson, Peterson and Higgins (2003) found that reduced latent inhibition was associated with better divergent thinking. The so-called latent inhibition (Lubow, 1973) is part of the selective attention process that results in ignorance of irrelevant stimuli, which protects against overload and the ensuing disintegration. Most people can ignore the constant stream of stimuli, thanks to latent inhibition, but there are some groups of mental specialties where this function is decreased. At the neuro-biological level, latent inhibition is presumed to be the activity of the prefrontal cortex in the role of executive function control, the basal ganglia (concerned with learning and habits amongst many other linked activities) and the hippocampus (here concerned with information transition between both short- and long-term memory functions) (Kéri, 2010). Latent inhibition (poor learning) has become a tool for understanding information processing, as well as attention dysfunctions, especially in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and schizophrenia. Reduced latent inhibition has been associated with susceptibility or acute-phase schizophrenia, but recent evidence has suggested that reductions in latent inhibition are also associated with the personality trait ‘Openness to Experience’ (Peterson & Carson, 2000). Low levels of latent inhibition may predispose one to mental illnesses under some conditions and to creative achievements under others. Carson, Peterson and

The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks 545

Higgins (2003), and later also Kéri (2011), have found that cognitive disinhibition combined with very high IQ predicts extraordinary creative achievement. Other important, independent predictors of creativity: IQ and primary social network size have been identified (Kéri, 2011). Horzyk (2014) states that the generalization mechanisms of biological associative systems can be modelled in artificial neural associative systems and used for associative neurocomputations. In other words, the human condition for all of its complexity can in effect be replicated. We can deduce that as a type of low mental inhibition seems to be a key to human creativity, in the case of a machine a training and learning of the ‘uninhibited’ associations can lead to similar creative achievements. A built-in distractibility won’t lead to a psychiatric diagnosis in the case of the AI though.

Holistic Processing Torrance (1982) found definite positive connections between creativity and information processing that is linked to the right hemisphere, while left hemisphere processing correlated negatively with creative abilities. The important role of the right-hemispheric cortical network in the creative process was further supported in EEG studies by, among others, Grabner, Fink and Neubauer (2007). According to the results of Folley and Park (2005), in schizotype people the divergent thinking shows connection to the functioning of the prefrontal cortex. Especially increased activity has been measured at the right hemisphere. Anyone can experience creative imaginationbased functioning when the visual information at their disposal is not definite enough. The brain strives to recognize objects even in dark, hazy situations. In the case of left hemisphere dominance, it takes a lot of time to form a picture. Under a right hemisphere dominance, in contrast, an object in a

situation where details are sparse will manifest itself as newer images. It is advantageous in a creative situation for the brain to readily give plenty of answers to the question ‘What else could it be?’. In contrast, guesswork is less adaptive when, for instance, a word needs to be read. Creative functioning often comes with deficits. A lot of creative thinkers display weaknesses in verbal areas and their right-hemispheric processing is much stronger (Gyarmathy, 2011). Many great creators have been slow or limited in their intellectual or emotional development, because they were unable to meet regular expectations (Kantha, 1992; Fink, 2002). Socio-cultural factors have an influence on the individual’s development, and affect neurological development, as well as the judgement of deviances. As long as education one-sidedly favours left-hemispheric processing, constraining the brain to work with logic, details, analysis and linear thinking, it will only support the development of this type of processing. There are results in neuro-biology supporting the right hemisphere’s importance in creative thinking. Jung et al. (2010) measured the thickness of the grey matter of the cerebral cortex. The grey matter of the left prefrontal cortex was thinner in the case of more successful creators. On the other hand, on the right side, the correlation was the opposite, higher creativity was associated with thicker grey matter. Australian researchers (Chi and Snyder, 2011) have developed a thinking cap that stimulates the right hemisphere and blocks left-hemispheric functioning to enable the individual to attain creative achievements. If knowledge is blocked imagination can work instead of memory, and a brain thus influenced can turn to a problem more openly and more effectively, without any bias. Individuals born with such a ‘thinking cap’ will very easily receive a label of learning difficulty. The right brain by itself is not enough to get to a creative solution. Without the support of the logical, sequential, verbal thinking the result is just a fuzzy fantasy.

546

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

The more scientific the area, the more organized thinking is required. The advantage of the right hemisphere dominant users is that their thinking starts with a holistic approach and fantasy, and turns to details and facts only afterwards.

Weakness of Automatic Adaptation Certain abilities need to be sacrificed for the sake of success at school. Studies indicate, for instance, that demonstrable changes take place in the brain with the acquisition of reading, and while certain areas get stronger, others, like certain visual abilities, get weaker (Dehaene et  al., 2010). The reading brain learns to see the trees, but these in turn block out the forest. A dyslexic brain resists this process, because of its weaknesses in visual attention control and adaptiveness, as well as in the formation of automatic processes. Learning difficulties are not simply rooted in a weak connection between the two hemispheres and a dominance of the holistic processing. More and more data show that the development of automatic processes is slower than usual in such cases, and transfer capacity is insufficient for an efficient stimulus adaptation, besides which control over visual attention is also poor (Kraus & Anderson, 2015; Perrachione et al., 2016). We could draw the conclusion that the dyslexic brain needs to run more processes consciously, and in the absence of a regular adaptation its perception functions differently and is unable to follow the prescribed route. Processes are fragmented, and the dyslexic brain needs to assist with conscious intervention in lieu of automatically forming solutions. We should not be surprised that when processing the same written material, it is a much more tiring task for a dyslexic reader than a typical one. A study of persons with dyslexia who became outstanding creators revealed that all of them read effectively first and foremost in context (Fink, 2002),

meaning that instead of relying on pure details, they create a whole from fuzzy material and then identify the details through a backwards inference from the whole. An important component of the creative process is that the increased number of details and their deeper perception through a ‘fragmentation’ of the original material allows for a greater space for finding new mental connections, and this is an everyday practice for the intelligent dyslexic brain. Boden (2004) identified transformations happening inside and outside conceptual spaces as the basis of creativity. According to her classification, important categories of creativity are: 1 A combination and recombination of known elements inside a certain area; 2 Discovery of new, possibly unexpected possibilities within a conceptual space through exploration in that conceptual space; 3 Transformation of a conceptual space to allow the thinking process to arrive at solutions that were not possible in the original space.

These are natural processing modes for highly creative individuals with a dyslexic brain. They use this mode of processing while they are reading and deciphering meaning (Fink 2002).

The Creative Product The most frequent criterion to measure a product’s level of creativity is its novelty. In the case of tests, statistical milestones are generally used: the rarer an answer, the more original it can be considered. Some regard an answer as original only if it occurs once in a population (Wallach & Kogan, 1965), but there are researchers (Ghiselin, 1952) who only regard those ideas as original that truly appear for the first time in the history of humanity. These ideas often challenge accepted social values and beliefs. Thurstone (1952) represents the other extreme, because

The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks 547

he believes it irrelevant how society judges the novelty of a creation, if it is a new product from the perspective of the thinker and in turn, any audience.

The ‘Big-C’ One solution to identify a creative product is to distinguish the fundamentally different creative outcomes ‘big effect and little effect on the society’: however, we can’t do that without reflecting on the creative act and the creative person. ‘Big-C’ creativity is rare. It appears at a high level of problem solving or at a level of innovation that has significant effects on the life of humanity. ‘Little-c’ creativity can be identified as a component of mental health, a problem-solving ability of everyday life (Simonton, 2003). ‘Big-C’ is not simply a strong functioning of imagination, but a desire to completely reform an area. Individuals who are creative in the sense of ‘Big-C’ differ in their personality structure from the typical talented or not talented individual. They rebel loudly or silently, and their childhood is often filled with tension and trauma (Goertzel and Goertzel, 1962; Gardner, 1993; Sulloway, 1996). We may assume that in these cases, a nervous system with a special way of managing stimuli and thus functioning differently from that of the majority cases causes the individual concerned to experience a particularly strong attraction to face the unexpected – which we could call an exploration desire or metaphysical wonderment. The important question is how to bridge the distance between professional knowledge and ‘Big-C’. A small child, capable of raising numbers to their square at the age of six, might become a professor of mathematics as an adult. For her to solve an unsolved mathematical problem or to discover new problems, she needs a level of creativity qualitatively surpassing that of usual imagination and a creative level of original thinking utilising a deep knowledge base.

Solving unsolved mathematical problems is not even beyond the abilities of persons with dyscalculia. They may in fact have a greater than average chance to do so. Owing to a special information processing mode, their creativity opens at least one new way for them to become outstanding and think radically differently from their peers. This is exactly what happened to the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot, who struggled with basic counting functions as a child. Creators change knowledge (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Gardner, 1993; Simonton, 1994; Sulloway, 1996), are independent and courageous (Albert & Runco, 1986), and do not wish to meet expectations. They engage in multiple fields and questions simultaneously. Gruber (1981) calls this the ‘network of enterprise’. They think in big integers and networks. Placing the foregoing in Boden’s (2004) system of conceptual spaces, we arrive at a network of conceptual spaces and a new, special level: ‘Big-C’ creativity is the manipulation of conceptual spaces themselves, and it is outside of the conscious, deliberate mental manipulations.

The Levels of the Creative Product Margaret Boden (2004) distinguished two levels, two extremes, with respect to product novelty: • ‘P-creativity’ (psychological creativity) is a novelty at the level of the individual. The expressive and productive creativity in Taylor’s (1960) system. • ‘H-creativity’ (historical creativity) is a novelty even at the level of society. Several levels from Taylor’s (1960) system belong here.

Taylor (1960) described products in levels and thereby captured, with a Gordian solution, different qualities of creativity and the product. Taylor also captured the level of the creative process in classifying creative

548

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

products. Different psychological processes may be connected to different levels, and these characterise the creative process and the creative product: • In expressive creativity, what is important is freedom of expression; the product is not necessarily original, and its quality is also not outstanding due to a lack of the techniques, knowledge and abilities necessary for creation. A good example is children’s drawings. It is the experience of freedom and the spontaneity that will later form the basis of individual creativity. • At the level of productive creativity, the goal is to create a product, and the control of knowledge places bounds on the process, and so at this level, realistic and unbiased creations are produced. • Inventive creativity is the level at which freedom and playfulness manifests itself against a background of knowledge. The creator discovers connections between unusual things. Inventors and researchers often relate accounts of how a new idea came to them through some symbol: images and visions may help insight. • Innovative creativity can lead to a reform or development of the basic principles of some scientific or artistic area. Leading figures and prominent disciples of scientific and artistic ‘schools’ are characterised by this high level of creativity (e.g., the psycho-analytical school or impressionists). • Emergent creativity is very rare and is connected to genius. It constitutes a level of creativity at which radically new principles are formed in scientific or artistic areas (e.g., Einstein or Picasso).

The level of creativity and thereby of the creative product is inseparable from the processing characteristics of the nervous system of the creative personality, and these characteristics are not always adaptive from the perspective of integration. Most people are capable of what Boden (2004) called P-creativity, but much fewer are capable of H-creativity. Artificial intelligence has proven that it is capable of creation at both Bodenian levels, but machines have not, yet, reached Taylor’s ‘emergent’ creativity level. ‘Big-C’ probably constitutes a boundary here. The ‘little-c’ ability that is accessible to everyone can be extended with

outstanding intelligence and motivation, coupled with some neurological deviances to higher Taylorian levels, possibly except for the highest level occupied by ‘Big-C’. Those who still maintain that a machine cannot reach the level of human creativity can cling to this last straw, the ‘emergent’ creativity. It is not at all certain, however, that this will remain so for a long time, if we incorporate the deviances of the human creative brain into the normal functioning of machines. Stephen Thaler (2012) started down this road and suggested the introduction of ‘V-creativity’ (visceral creativity). A disruption, or disorder built into the ‘gateway’ networks of the Creativity Machine could lead to the emergence of alternative solutions consistent with the bigger, comprehensive context. This would essentially model a dyslexic-schizophrenic brain and could generate contexts from fuzzy details akin to how outstanding dyslexic or mentally special creators think.

THE CREATIVE MACHINE The appropriate place and proportion of conscious and unconscious functioning seems to be one of the key questions of human creativity. The problem seems to be that consciousness obstructs and slows down cerebral processes in human thinking and doing away with this can intensify creative performance. Important, but difficult to grasp concepts like intuition can also be traced back to, in the case of humans, an unconscious event, when the wide variety of stimuli, possibilities and active elements connect and understanding emerges. Artificial intelligence can manage a ‘vast storehouse’ of open possibilities, and so the creative process seems possible in this case even without intuition. Boden (2004) describes three roads to new ideas: combination, exploration and transformation. These can in turn be subdivided or even more roads captured.

The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks 549

Artificial intelligence is capable of learning, and so, like intelligence, creativity can be developed; we only need to collect the elements of an efficient creativity training model to reconcile machine and human creativity. Let us take training materials that mutually complement each other, like that of Torrance and Safter (1990) and Necka (1992), and integrate the elements from their training into the training of the AI. • Training elements strengthening the efficiency of the incubation stage include (Torrance and Safter, 1990): alternatives, combination, viewpoint change, crossing boundaries; • Training elements building on creative abilities (Necka, 1992) include associations, abstraction, analogies, metaphors.

Let us also assume that these are common functions of machine and human creativity and are thus a point of overlap. AI is already capable of these functions or can have them taught, and is therefore very efficient in the manipulation of conceptual spaces. The material generated with manipulation can be huge, and processing it is only possible at a higher level of thinking. This kind of ‘evaluation’ as described in the taxonomy of Bloom (1956) is based on spotting regularities. Mass information is no longer a great value in itself. Intelligent search, information made sensible and finding new connections offer avenues for development. The 21st-century road of human thinking is critical thinking, which transcends knowledge and evaluates information in multiple contexts, and as a complement to machine creativity, even non-rational, human criteria may usefully be considered.

CONCLUSION: THE CREATIVE BEING Human creativity, whose universally accessible form is an organic part of mental health, often appears as some neurological

disorder. Higher levels of creativity, like all extremes, are linked to deviance and are usually judged differently. The emotional factor is crucial in human creativity and the unconscious part of the creative process is mostly attributable to that factor, which is not yet part of AI. We have something we can offer in the co-operation between human creators and AI. Based on our analysis, the best prototype for artificial creativity is an intelligent human mind that is deviant due to some neurologically based achievement disorders and/or moderate (optimal) psychosis. Processing fuzzy information and context-based manipulation, as well as possibly the quick, uncontrolled transformation of conceptual spaces, can be a normal algorithmic component of artificial neural networks. Creativity in the case of machines is directed at creation, while creativity that manifests as a characteristic of the human nervous system is also present at the level of personality and behaviour. And that is the tricky part, because machines do not have to struggle with the expectations of the community – mother, father, siblings, teachers, friends, etc., not to mention the society with its culture and beliefs, which means one less major obstacle to overcome. It only needs to manage the tension caused by the incongruity of information. Creativity is a social phenomenon (Amabile, 1983), which was proved by empirical research too (Kéri, 2011), and now the next step is to include machines in our social circles, and prepare for this new challenge. Processes that we call ‘creative’ are necessary for tasks that are beyond the average intellectual capacity. Therefore, human brains require other resources and processing modes, hence the role of unconscious processes, fantasy and intuition, and a dash of deviance. Education offering both rules and freedom at the same time is decisive when it comes to the development of human creativity:

550

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

• Rational boundaries and flexible rules help the individual to learn to explore boundaries and tolerate the tension that although the world contains rules, these are not eternal and may be shaped through mutual consent. • Points of view may be diverse, but they are reconcilable. • If there is diversity and a plethora of possibilities and one needs to choose and decide, then tolerating uncertain situations becomes a regular exercise.

This approach reduces the tension of incongruity, whereby the creative process will not result in too great tension, and there is a greater chance of enduring high creative sensations and becoming creative beings connected to artificial creativity. For a creative machine, no energy needs to be spent on integration. In contrast, creative humans have to fit into society. The development of an inclusive human environment, that is, an environment which can treat diversity and deviance as a value, cannot be dispensed with. For the time being, a child with characteristics that are advantageous for creativity but are problematic with respect to meeting usual expectations is identified by the system as a person who has a disorder, and the child therefore stands a smaller chance of becoming a creative adult. Kéri (2011) proved that decreased latent inhibition correlates with creativity, but only if other factors facilitate creative accomplishment: higher intellect and strong social support. This finding is consistent with our view that creativity is not just about being deviant, because it has to happen on an appropriate intellectual level, plus there has to be a tolerant society that supports the creative persons’ integration independently of the level of their deviance and creativity, recognising that concepts of universal humane values will also influence any discussion. Accepting the Creative Being can start with treating diversity as a positive and valuable asset, accepting and supporting individual paths of child development, as well as different manifestations of human creativity, as intellectual values.

REFERENCES Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1986) The achievement of eminence: A model based on a longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. J. Steinberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.) (1986) Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 332–357. Amabile, T. M. (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity. Springer, New York. Barron, F. (1968) Creativity and Personal Freedom. Van Nostrand, New York. Bergström, M. (1986) Conference on Meaning. Sussex, Great-Britain. In J. Briggs (1990) Fire in the Crucible. Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., Los Angeles. Berlyne, D.E. (1966) Conflict and arousal. Scientific American, 215(August), 82–87. Bloom, B. S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Longman Publishing Group, White Plains. Boden, M. (1999) Computational models of creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed) Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 351–373. Boden, M. (2004) The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge, London (2nd Edition). Boden, M. (2009) Computer models of creativity. AI Magazine, 30(3), 23–34. Briggs, J. (1990) Fire in the Crucible. Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc. Los Angeles. Carson, S. (2014) Leveraging the ‘mad genius’ debate: Why we need a neuroscience of creativity and psychopathology. Front. Hum. Neurosci., 8, 771. Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. (2003) Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in highfunctioning individuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 85, 499–506. Cheney, M. (2001) Tesla: Man Out of Time. Simon and Schuster, New York. Chi, R. P. & Snyder, A. W. (2011) Facilitate insight by non-invasive brain stimulation, PLoS ONE, 6(2): e16655. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0016655 Crabtree, J. & Green, M. J. (2016) Creative cognition and psychosis vulnerability: What’s the difference? Creativity Research Journal, 28, 24–32.

The Creative Being and Being Creative: Human and Machine Neural Networks 551

Cramond, B. (1995) The coincidence of ADHD and creativity. Research-based decision making series. The National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented. Storrs, CT. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996) Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins. Davis, G.A., & Rimm, S.B. (1985) Education of the Gifted and Talented. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood, Cliffs, NJ. Dehaene, S., Pegado, F., Braga, L. W., Ventura, P., Nunes Filho, G., Jobert, A., Cohen, L. et  al. (2010) How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and language. Science, 330(6009), 1359–1364. Dietrich, A. (2004) The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1011–1026. Fink, R. P. (2002) Successful careers: The secrets of adults with dyslexia. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 18(1), 118–135. Fitzgerald, M. (2005) The Genesis of Artistic Creativity: Asperger’s Syndrome and the Arts. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Folley, B. S., & Park, S. (2005) Verbal creativity and schizotypal personality in relation to prefrontal hemispheric laterality: A behavioral and near-infrared optical imaging study. Schizophrenia Research, 80, 271–282. Fromm, E. (1959) Creativity and its Cultivation. Harper & Row, New York. Grabner, R. H., Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007) Brain correlates of self-rated originality of ideas: Evidence from event-related power and phase-locking changes in the EEG. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121(1), 224–230. Gardner, H. (1993) Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. Basic Books, New York. Ghiselin, B. (1952) The Creative Process. Mentor, New York. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962) Cradles of Eminence. Little, Brown, Boston. Gowan, J. C. (1972) The Development of the Creative Individual. Knapp, San Diego. Grabner, R.H., Fink, A., Neubauer, A.C., (2007) Brain Correlates of Self-Rated Originality of Ideas: Evidence From Event-Related Power and Phase-Locking Changes in the EEG.

Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 121, No. 1, 224–230 Gruber, H. (1981) Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity (2nd edn). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Guilford, J. P. (1950) Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Guilford, J.P. (1967) The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGaw-Hill, New York. Gyarmathy, É. (2007) A tehetség – Háttere és gondozásának gyakorlata [The Gifted – Background and Practice of the Provision]. ELTE Kiadó, Budapest. Gyarmathy É. (2011) Kreativitás és beilleszkedési zavarok [Creativity and integration disorders] In. Münnich Ákos (Ed.) A kreativitás többszempontú vizsgálata [Multi-faceted study of creativity]. University of Debrecen and Didakt Publishing, Debrecen, pp. 13–45. Hadamard, J. (1945) The Mathematician’s Mind: The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Hartmann, T. (1995) ADD Success Stories. Underwood Books, Grass Valley, CA. Hassler, M. (1990) Functional cerebral asymmetric and cognitive abilities in musicians, painters, and controls. Brain and Cognition, 13, 1–17. Horzyk, A. (2014) How does generalization and creativity come into being in neural associative systems and how does it form humanlike knowledge? Neurocomputing, 144 (November), 238–257. Jung, R. E., Gasparovic, C., Chavez, R. S., Flores, R. A., Smith, S. M., Caprihan, A., & Yeo, R.A. (2009) Biochemical support for the ‘threshold’ theory of creativity: A magnetic resonance spectroscopy study. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 5319–5325. Jung, R. E., Segall, J. M., Jeremy Bockholt, H., Flores, R. A., Smith S. M., Chavez R. S., et al. (2010) Neuroanatomy of creativity. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 398–409. Kantha, S. S. (1992) Albert Einstein’s dyslexia and the significance of Brodmann Area 39 of his left cerebral cortex. Medical Hypotheses, 37(2), 119–122. Kéri S. (2010) Kreativitás és pszichopatológia az újabb neurobiológiai kutatások tükrében. [Creativity and psychopathology in the light of recent neurobiological research] Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle, 65(2), 243–272

552

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Kéri S. (2011) Solitary minds and social capital: Latent inhibition, general intellectual functions and social network size predict creative achievement. Psychol. Aesthet. Creativity Arts, 5, 215–221. Khatena, J. (1992) Gifted: Challenge and Response for Education. Peacock Publishers Inc., Itasca, IL. Kowalski, J. (1960) Attitudes and occupational interest of creative individuals. Senior thesis, University of Michigan. In S.A. Mednick (1962) The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. Kraus, N. & Anderson, S. (2015) Beat-keeping ability relates to reading readiness. Hearing Journal, 68(3), 54–56. Landau, E. (1980) Mut zur Begabung. Reinhardt, München. Lombroso, C. (1891) The Man of Genius. Walter Scott, London. Lubow, R. E. (1973) Latent inhibition. Psychological Bulletin, 79(6), 398. May, R. (1975) The Courage to Create. Collins, London. Mednick, S. A. (1962) The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. Melrose, L. (1989) The Creative Personality and the Creative Process. University Press of America, Lanham, MD. Mula, M., Hermann, B., & Trimble, M. R. (2016) Neuropsychiatry of creativity. Epilepsy & Behavior, 57, 225–229. Necka, E. (1992) Creativity Training. A Guidebook for Psychologists, Educators and Teachers. TAiWPN ‘Universitas’, Krakow. Parnes, S.J. (1981) The Magic of Your Mind. Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo. Perrachione T. K, Del Tufo S. N, Winter, R., Murtagh, J., Cyr, A., et  al. (2016) Dysfunction of rapid neural adaptation in dyslexia. Neuron, 92(6), 1383–1397. Peterson, J. B., Carson, S. (2000). Latent inhibition and openness to experience in a high-achieving student population. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 323–332.

Safán-Gerard, D. (1985) Chaos and control in the creative process. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 15(1), 129–138. Schmidhuber, J. (2006) Developmental robotics, optimal artificial curiosity, creativity, music, and the fine arts. Connection Science, 18(2), 173–187. Secrest, M. (1992) Frank Lloyd Wright: A Biography. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Simonton, D. K. (1994) Greatness: Who Makes History and Why. New York: Guilford Press. Simonton, D. K. (2003) Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475–494. Sulloway, F. (1996) Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. New York: Pantheon. Száva I. (1969) The Wizard of Menlo Park: A Biography of Edison [A Menlo-parki varázsló. Edison életregénye]. Móra Ferenc Könyvkiadó, Budapest. Taylor, I. A. (1960) The nature of the creative process. In P. Smith (Ed.) Creativity: An Examination of the Creative Process. Hastings Hall, New York. Thaler, S. L. (2012) The creativity machine paradigm: Withstanding the argument from consciousness. APA Newsletter, Spring, 11(2). Thurstone, L. L. (1952) Creative talent. In L. L. Thurstone, (Ed.) Applications of Psychology. Hastings House, New York, pp. 18–37. Torrance, E. P. (1982) Hemisphericity and creative functioning. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 15(3), 29–37. Torrance, E. P. & Safter, H. T. (1990). The Incubation Model of Teaching: Getting Beyond Aha! Bearly Limited, New York. Wallach, M. A. & Kogan, N. (1965) Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity-intelligence Distinction. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Wallas, G. (1926) The Art of Thought. Harcourt, Brace & World. Young, R. L., Ridding, M. C., & Morrell, T. L. (2004) Switching skills on by turning off part of the brain. Neurocase, 10(3), 215–222.

40 Gifted Education: The Future Awaits Ken McCluskey

INTRODUCTION The major objective of this chapter is to raise several burning issues in gifted education today. Nine resonate for me, but I recognize there will be other ideas and dissenting views. The hope is that this discussion will encourage more researchers and practitioners to apply their minds to the exciting opportunities that will emerge for our discipline if we are able to recognize and respond to the following challenges in thoughtful ways.

CHALLENGES IN GIFTED EDUCATION Preserving the Past … Selectively Throughout history the world has been in some form of transition. However, change has never been more rapid, unrelenting, and constantly accelerating than in the here and now. Young people today have been called

digital natives (Prensky, 2001), born into an age of new technologies and accustomed to laptops, iPods, iPads, and endless applications on cell phones that allow them to edit and spell-check their written work and even bypass keyboarding by using dictation software. While digital immigrants, who came into the world prior to the technological revolution, struggle to keep pace and announce smugly that letter writing and snail mail are relics of the past, the new reality is that a large proportion of young people also view email as outdated. Indeed, they are flocking to online networks en masse and doing the bulk of communicating through sites such as Bebo, Facebook, Flickr, Friendfeed, Friendster, Hi5, LinkedIn, LiveJournal, MySpace, Twitter, etc., ad infinitum. Texting and blogging are the new media for obtaining and disseminating information, and who knows what’s coming down the pike. In such times of almost overwhelming change, there is a tendency in education to clean house, erase the past, and replace it

554

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

with exciting new innovations; and there is often good reason. Unfortunately, many socalled enrichment programs were anything but enriching. Having them disappear is not a bad outcome. Other programs, including some to develop research skills, were excellent in their time, but became dated with the emergence of the internet. These programs must be reconfigured. But in any purge of the old ways of doing things, there is the danger of obscuring foundations of the present and future. There are many programs from the past that, with some gentle tweaking and refinement to incorporate new technologies and strategies, still have a place in the gifted world of tomorrow. Our team in Manitoba designed and delivered many projects to reclaim ‘at-risk’ students who had withdrawn or were forced from the educational system (McCluskey, Treffinger, Baker, & Wiebe, 2016). Creative Problem Solving (CPS) became an invaluable tool (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Stead-Dorval, 2006), especially in terms of helping marginalized young people make more reasoned educational, career, and life choices, and we plan to update and keep using this approach. And without doubt, the seminal work of Joe Renzulli – including the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1997) – will continue to provide much of the theoretical glue that gives direction to our field. It’s important to respect the tried-andtrue models and programs that have proven their worth over the years, and meaningful ones should be fine-tuned and maintained, not swept away in a flood of mindless transformation. Change happens, but we must be discerning and do our best to ensure that it happens in positive ways.

Embracing the Future … Realistically Many once-proprietary elements of gifted education are, as a result of burgeoning

technology and other developments, now available to all as part of the regular curriculum. Therefore, our discipline must evolve to stay relevant. To do otherwise would be a prescription for destruction. For some reason, however, the gifted field – like certain country clubs – has remained largely static, dogmatic, and resistant to change (Ambrose, Sternberg, & Sriraman, 2012). Yet change is definitely needed, and just repackaging the things that have always been done will not do the trick: it is time to move forward to new basics and to search for original answers to new questions (McCluskey, 2017; Treffinger & McCluskey, 1998). However, caution is required, for not all change is helpful. Assuming something is positive just because it is new is a mistake, and while the latest innovations move us forward in some instances, in others they do the opposite. A case in point is social media, which, when employed wisely, serves a valuable communicative purpose. Used thoughtlessly, however, online networks become a negative force that pre-empts play and interferes with friendship-building. That’s why our benign Old Boys Club at the University of Winnipeg (UW) meets regularly (very regularly) over coffee to share information, updates, and pleasantries in a face-to-face setting, rather than tweeting back and forth. In a talk on the pros and cons of technology, a former Deputy Minister of Education in our province noted that although one might really enjoy the first half-bottle of wine, it doesn’t always mean that it would be wise to finish the second half. Similarly, instruments of change must be controlled and employed sensibly, not overused (Farthing, 2015). Many new-fangled devices and approaches are wonderful, in that they open up unknown vistas. Others not so much. It is critical that educators examine new alternatives thoroughly and seek a balance between the past, present, and future. Actually, an excellent beginning has been made in this regard, for the Renzulli Learning System (now GoQuest™, Compass

Gifted Education: The Future Awaits

Learning®) has merged the old and the new. This web-based instrument, developed at the University of Connecticut, informs participants about theory and practice in the gifted field, identifies students’ interests, offers instruction on how to use the internet efficiently, and provides guided research projects for children and youth of various ages.

Welcoming Globalization … Cautiously Globalization has caused more and more of us in academe to think long and hard about world citizenship, and the need for people from all countries to learn from one another and to respect and have conversations across cultural differences (Kornelsen, 2014). Taisir Yamin (2011) said because ‘globalization has led to the internationalization of gifted education and increased social interaction’ (p. 3), a new vision for the discipline has become a necessity. More and more educators in high schools and universities across North America have responded by developing international student-teaching initiatives. The Faculty of Education at the University of Winnipeg is heavily invested in long-term, ten-month practicum/teaching programs in Thailand and China, and in shorter six-week practicum blocks in Costa Rica, Germany, Greece, Peru, and the Philippines. In one undertaking, students raised funds, learned Spanish, and – with their own hands – built a school in a village in Nicaragua. Pre-service teachers typically describe the international experiences as ‘enriching’, ‘life-changing’, and ‘transformative’. It is imperative to understand that because of its complexity, global education should not be entered into lightly – the concepts and the realities are complicated. All too often, professors and their students have a penchant for setting out from American and Canadian universities to help disadvantaged folk in ‘less developed’ parts of the world. However, ‘If one

555

is always the helpee, and never the helper, it can become subtly de-humanizing’ (McCluskey, 2000, p. 31). Ethnocentrism – judging another culture according to the values, customs, and biases of one’s own – can also be a problem. As a consequence, we must always question what we are doing and why. International ventures and global education are enticing, but they only work well if genuine, equal-status communication takes place between partners and if participating students are thoroughly prepared. To put it succinctly, it takes a lot of planning and a lot of work to get it right.

Seeking Interdisciplinarity … Openly There is much to be learned from theorists, researchers, and practitioners in other domains. In a target article in Gifted and Talented International, Ambrose (2015) noted ‘how the field of gifted education might enhance its productivity by crossing its borders more frequently and navigating into the conceptual terrain of various disciplines’ (p. 33). It has been heartening, then, to see renowned scientists, including a few Nobel laureates, delivering sessions at gifted conferences and publishing in ‘our’ journals. Rather than collaborating with the usual in-house researchers in perpetuity, it might be mind-expanding to look further afield, increase interdisciplinary sharing, seek partnerships with those who see the universe differently, and learn to view some of our thorny issues through new lenses. Our UW team has moved toward this goal by taking a hybrid approach in our Lost Prizes work, where we wed theory and practice from gifted and ‘at-risk’ education (McCluskey, Baker, & McCluskey, 2005; McCluskey, Baker, O’Hagan, & Treffinger, 1998; McCluskey et al., 2016). It has proven beneficial, likely because the major focus of these allied fields is to reach out to unique populations of children and youth.

556

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

In their classic text, Reclaiming Youth at Risk: Our Hope for the Future, Brendtro, Brokenleg, and Van Bockern (2002) introduced the Circle of Courage. Well-known in the at-risk sphere, but certainly not in gifted education, this medicine-wheel model highlights the power of four universal needs in child development: belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity. Although the framework is based on Native-American traditions, the worldview presented meshes compatibly with the psychological literature on the four ‘As’: attachment (belonging), achievement (mastery), autonomy (independence), and altruism (generosity); and certainly, marginalized, high-ability kids usually respond positively to programming based on this framework. Psychometricians concerned with the assessment of gifted students should look at the Developmental Audit (Brendtro, Mitchell, Freado, & du Toit, 2012), a longitudinal approach that shifts evaluation of atrisk youth away from deficit-based negativity by providing an understanding of how a child or adolescent arrived at a particular place in her or his life, decoding real-world behavior, and setting directions for growth. Along with being a primary data source, the young person participates fully throughout the process: a process that is more adaptable than the oneshot, static procedures frequently used in our field. This tool is grounded in neuroscience research, the principles of child development, and the resilience literature. For us at UW, adapting and using this instrument from the at-risk realm in gifted education demonstrates how interdisciplinary collaboration can build new networks, open ourselves to knowledge and possibilities in other fields, and thereby improve our own practice.

Valuing Morality … Tangibly When it comes to working with gifted students, the potential leaders of the future, values, morality, and ethics matter a great

deal. Ben Franklin said, ‘It is a grand mistake to think of being great without goodness’ (cf. Slack, 2017, p. 136). Those in the gifted movement are accustomed to hearing the comment, ‘Why should we do anything for gifted kids? They’ll make it on their own anyway’. That may be true sometimes; however, this laissez-faire, or what I call ‘lazy unfair’ attitude is shortsighted. Almost all of us can think of talented young people who ended up turning off, dropping out, and living alienated lives because their academic and social-emotional needs were not met. One conclusion arising from the groundbreaking 1975 World Conference on Gifted Children in London, England was that a large proportion of unsolved crimes in the British Commonwealth had likely been committed by gifted individuals – who made it on their own alright, but not precisely in a socially desirable direction. Ambrose (2015) observed, ‘otherwise gifted, intelligent leaders can become dogmatic warmongers who push their societies into morally reprehensible conflicts with devastating consequences’ (p. 45). Even a cursory look at world news, past and present, reveals many examples of misdirected talent, where value-vacant individuals manipulate their followers to engage in heinous, depraved conduct. Talented leaders who lack a moral compass are serious threats to peace, justice, and world order. Educators in the gifted field need to be mindful of that fact and address moral issues in their programming. Robert J. Sternberg, advocating for reform in gifted education, in this Handbook zeroes in on several areas, including the identification of giftedness, which he would like to see become broader and more flexible, and include practical problem solving and creative and critical thinking. He speaks of the importance of developing ethical leadership (Sternberg, 2013, 2017). In describing his ACCEL model created specifically to prepare students for Active Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership, he suggested injecting the direct teaching of classic studies in

Gifted Education: The Future Awaits

psychology. Furthermore, Sternberg (2017) noted that all leaders are, at one time or another, also followers. That observation brings to mind Robert Greenleaf’s (2002) inspiring work on servant leadership, especially his belief that one should serve before becoming a leader, and that rather than being obsessed with power, influence, or money, truly legitimate leaders ought to be altruistic and concerned primarily with serving the people they represent. At the same time, Greenleaf encouraged the people they represent to refuse to follow leaders who are interested only in power, influence, and money. At the University of Winnipeg, we heeded the call from David Hunt (1987) for academics to emerge from the ivory tower and reach out to serve their communities. To that end, all students in first-year Education take our Educational Leadership within a Service Learning Framework course, which involves interacting with neighborhood speakers in an in-class setting; completing 40 hours of service tutoring, teaching, or mentoring with a partnering agency; and engaging in guided reflection about the experience. Interested students in their final year can enroll in the Mentoring At-Risk Children and Youth elective, essentially a mentoring practicum where pre-service teachers are given a unique chance to connect with marginalized young people from the inner city, while ‘mentees’ benefit from the ongoing, desperately needed relationships and support (Wiebe, 2013). Although Gallagher-Mackay and Steinhauer (2017) acknowledge achievement testing is important, they point out that traditional academic subjects are only part of a greater whole, and advocate for adding other harder-to-quantify skills – socialemotional understanding and higher-order thinking. Similarly, to support generosity and push back against the ‘Look out for Number 1’ philosophy so endemic in contemporary society, some educators suggest including more community service opportunities in the school curriculum. The principles of servant leadership are firmly lodged within effective

557

service learning programs, and the literature shows that positive things happen when students are involved in helping others and when service and altruism become part of their normal day-to-day experience. Hedin (1989) identified several studies indicating that service-learning programs stimulate intellectual growth and lead to increased responsibility, self-esteem, and moral development. Intriguing service project possibilities are also laid out in classic enrichment programs such as the Community Problem Solving portion of the Future Problem Solving Program International (http://www.fpspi.org/). In the risk and resilience literature, a wealth of material speaks to the value of service-learning activities in empowering troubled, relationship-resistant children and youth, including those who display advanced academic talents. One would hope that offerings of this type become the norm, rather than a special opportunity for a select few. Albert Schweitzer (1935, p. 785) summed it up poignantly in a speech at Silcoates School: ‘the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve’. Abraham Maslow would have agreed, for although it’s not widely known, in the twilight of his life, he was in the process of reconfiguring his Hierarchy of Human Needs model to position ‘self-transcendence’ – where ‘the individual’s own needs are put aside … in favor of service to others’ – at the highest level (Koltko-Rivera, 2006, p. 306).

Creating Creative Environments … Creatively My co-workers and I have offered several suggestions for educators attempting to nurture the creative capacities of talented, but troubled young people (McCluskey et  al., 2016). Although some seem simplistic, the following strategies should definitely not be overlooked:

558

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

1 Recast reality by focusing on strength-based interactions and reframing problems to emphasize gifts rather than deficits; 2 Become talent spotters who actively search for special hidden or underdeveloped potential in all children and youth, even those who may be in unlikely places physically or emotionally; 3 Encourage self-ownership of talent by preparing students to take a large measure of responsibility for their own learning and behavior; 4 Be nice, all the while remembering ‘the therapeutic power of kindness’ (Long, 1997, p. 242); and 5 Individualize through recognizing the idiosyncratic strengths of every student.

Elaborating on the final two points, the need for kindness is, surprisingly, sometimes underestimated. Most of us occasionally run into teachers and other caregivers who strive to learn everything about everything; they study in depth each theory they come across and immediately take formal training in any new program which surfaces. Unfortunately, some of these skill-sated individuals manage to miss the point – the heart of the enterprise entirely: when working with most students, especially recalcitrant ones, it just might be that ‘Relationships … are the intervention’ (Gharabaghi, 2008, p. 31). To put it another way, ‘the new 3Rs – Relationships, relationships, relationships’ – are key, particularly in the case of unengaged, vulnerable kids (Wiebe, 2013, p. 98). With respect to individualization, there is a belief in some quarters that to be fair educators must treat all students the same (McCluskey, 2000). However, this quest for democracy frequently becomes unfair. Students are not all the same, and recognition of this fact is essential to talent identification and development. It can be a blessing having specific gifted programs, but we must be discerning in their selection, design, and application. Since gifted kids don’t come in homogeneous groups, we cannot expect them to behave the same way, work on the same material, or always do the same things at the same time. Obviously, there is a need to celebrate the diversity, individualize, and

respond to distinctive talents as they emerge and flourish. The amount of creativity in a workplace or school is related to the environment therein. Building upon Ekvall’s work in the corporate world, Isaksen and his team identified nine essential climate factors that contribute to creativity in the workplace (Isaksen, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011; Isaksen, Lauer, & Ekvall, 1999): challenge and involvement; freedom; trust and openness; idea time; playfulness and humor; conflict (i.e., absence of); idea support; debate; and risk-taking. There is an opportunity here for gifted scholars to take a page from the corporate literature, especially since these dimensions of innovation are as relevant for educators as for business people (McCluskey, 2013).

Debunking Myths about Acceleration … Consistently On one side of the acceleration debate stand the ‘let-kids-be-kids’ forces, who assert it’s a mistake to allow children to skip grades or enter school early. The conventional wisdom supporting this position is that pushing youngsters too hard causes immense pressure, puts them out of step socially with their older classmates, and results in emotional damage. On the other side of the debate are those who believe that gifted youngsters should have the opportunity to move through the curriculum and school at a pace commensurate with their abilities and accomplishments: why, ask the pro-accelerationists, should high-ability kids be left to languish in a lock-step, ‘pass-one-grade-get-to-go-toanother’ system? There are clearly no magic formulas to predict success, especially with personal, parental, educational, and other variables involved. Nonetheless, it makes sense to assess the situation carefully, and ask the necessary questions to help school administrators make the best possible decisions. A few queries come to mind: Are the dire prophecies and

Gifted Education: The Future Awaits

concerns raised about acceleration justified? Have the results of fast-tracking been catastrophic when it comes to nonacademic forms of human endeavor? For example, do we not usually move musical prodigies ahead once their talents are identified? Do we not encourage children with exceptional artistic talent to develop advanced skills at an early age? And in sports, do we not accelerate in many cases? Finally, what damage is done to the psyche of gifted kids who are trapped and compelled to march on the spot when they are ready to soar? Far-reaching educational decisions should be grounded not in myth, but in fact (Feldhusen, Proctor, & Black, 1986). The preponderance of research – including two thorough, decade-long literature reviews by Nicolas Colangelo at the University of Iowa and his colleagues (i.e., A Nation Deceived and A Nation Empowered) – has shown that permitting grade acceleration and/or allowing gifted and talented children into school early can have a tremendous positive impact on their academic, intellectual, social, and emotional growth (Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska, & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2015; Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Despite the supportive literature and prodigious efforts to disseminate it, the prevailing view among many educators still seems to be that acceleration is usually harmful and should not be an option in our schools. It is essential, therefore, that educators in the gifted field continue to clarify the misinformation and speak out consistently and firmly against the false assumptions. Referring doubters to A Nation Deceived and A Nation Empowered would be an excellent way to start. Karen Rogers has a chapter in this Handbook on an in-depth review of acceleration literature.

Addressing the Issue of IQ … Judiciously For decades, many researchers have pointed out the limitations of IQ testing

559

and/or criticized its overuse and abuse in the identification of gifted students. In the 1970s and 80s when I was Director of Special Education with Lord Selkirk School Division in Manitoba, a few colleagues and I outlined our concerns in this regard (McCluskey, 2017; McCluskey & Walker, 1986) – concerns that parallel those being raised once more by Sternberg (2017). In brief, there are elements about individual IQ testing that we find unsettling: 1 Intelligence is a complex, intangible concept, not a physical entity (such as weight or height) that can be reduced to an immutable, be-all-and-endall number; 2 IQ scores provide precious little information about values, morals, creativity, or stick-toitiveness; 3 IQ tells us little about real-life, practical skills and know-how; 4 Tests of cognitive ability are used rather indiscriminately across many populations, even though some of the content is clearly fraught with subtle racial, class, and cultural biases; and 5 IQ is, in a sense, socially constructed by the artificial test situation. For example, the tester is usually dominant during the assessment, in some cases sitting in a high-status position of power, hiding materials behind a ‘shield’, and exuding and exerting control through the use of a stopwatch. In addition, many subtests force overt failure, in that they are discontinued only after several oral questions in a row are missed or when activities, such as puzzles or block patterns, cannot be completed.

Formal, sterile test sessions can be threatening and contribute to below-potential performance. Some kids, oftentimes ‘good’, teacher-pleasing students accustomed to and skillful in the art of test-taking, are comfortable in this type of setting. For others – particularly those who are not doing well in school, who have had precious little positive experience with one-to-one assessment, or who are wary of adults and resistant to authority – it can be anxiety-arousing and off-putting. The fact that the Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Intelligence (WISC) is

560

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

now into its fifth revision attests to its popularity and staying power among psychiatrists, psychologists, educators, and other professionals. However, I suspect that if the testgivers were suddenly compelled to become test-takers, this type of inventory would become far less de rigueur. I have argued for increased flexibility during administration of the WISC, including making the procedures more comfortable and child-friendly, eliminating the stopwatch, rearranging the order of the subtests so that less-threatening nonverbal ones – ones that do not force obvious failure – are run first, building in opportunities for training and re-testing, and interpreting results less rigidly without actually calculating an overall IQ score (McCluskey & Walker, 1986). IQ tests often discriminate against students from different racial and cultural backgrounds. Williams (1972), in an effort to give African-American students an even break, created the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity. Recognizing that standard intelligence tests are biased in favor of young people from White, mainstream, middle- and upper-middle-class backgrounds, he designed an alternative instrument to focus on the lifestyle, language, attitudes, and experiences of Black high school and college students, who naturally outperformed their White counterparts when the test items were adapted in this manner. IQ idolatry has long been a legitimator of inequality (McCluskey, 2017). Many in gifted education tend to summarily reject any notion that our discipline might be elitist, and assert that gifted programs are not undemocratic … the absence of them is. And I agree wholeheartedly – providing we have equal opportunity for all. But do we? Perhaps we ought to consider the matter more dispassionately. I, along with Ambrose and Sternberg, would argue that many of our social structures, and yes, our assessment procedures, pave the way for certain young people while strewing gravel in the path of others (Ambrose, 2009, 2015; McCluskey, 2017; Sternberg, 2017).

In the WISC, for instance, the Verbal portion of the inventory is comprised of subtests that emphasize general knowledge, vocabulary, and comprehension. Kids raised in homes where bedtime stories are a regular event, where parents choose from a plentiful supply of books and read constantly to their offspring during the critical early years, and where education is valued and supported, have a distinct advantage over those who grow up in less fortunate circumstances. The same holds true for the nonverbal Performance section of the instrument, where youngsters who are exposed to an abundance of puzzles, blocks, and mazes have a pronounced edge over those who are not. Quite simply, kids who have never seen or heard of Where’s Waldo books have missed out on some preparatory pre-IQ-test training for finding missing details in pictures. It’s a matter of validity. The WISC definitely measures something in a reliable way. The question is, what is that something? Or, as I’ve asked elsewhere, what exactly is being assessed by tests of this type? Intelligence or past experience? Cognitive ability or prior opportunity (McCluskey, 2017)? It’s important to think long and hard about this issue, rather than blindly accepting the premise that IQ is the best, or even a good indicator of giftedness. This is not to say that intelligence testing has no role to play in the identification of gifts and talents: it’s just that the formal individualized testing role should be much less pronounced. Alternative possibilities exist when it comes to identifying exceptional ability. Tests of creativity, for example, shine a different light on things, as does ACCEL. Dynamic assessment, with its test–intervention–re-test format, can also help get at learning potential and underachievement. Don Treffinger and colleagues worked with teachers and students to design an enrichment and talent development program for the Lord Selkirk School Division that embodied many principles at issue here (Treffinger et al., 1995). The research team collaborated

Gifted Education: The Future Awaits

with divisional educators to develop a model where giftedness was viewed as a diverse phenomenon that manifests itself more qualitatively than quantitatively, as a ‘collage’ rather than a ‘photograph’ (p. 18). Within this framework, traditional, ‘exclusive’ identification methods that focused on ‘gate-keeping’, selecting only the ‘truly gifted,’ arriving at a final ‘index or score’, and ‘justifying who’s in or out’, were rejected in favor of a malleable, ‘inclusive’ approach that was more authentic, strength-based, ‘flexible’, ‘deliberate’, ‘developmental or growthoriented’, and ‘diagnostic’ in preparing for ‘enhanced instructional planning’ (p. 29). That way of doing things turned out to be remarkably effective.

Expanding Enrichment … Inclusively Although the ideal of equal opportunity is trumpeted, in many ways it is a myth: Kristof (2013) said, ‘Something is profoundly wrong when we can point to 2-year-olds in this country and make a plausible bet about their long-term outcomes – not based on their brains and capabilities, but on their ZIP codes’ (p. A4); Hedges (2009) had some choice words concerning elite universities that grease the skids for some while disadvantaging others, and about students who ‘see their money and their access to power as a natural extension of their talents and abilities, rather than the result of a system that favors the privileged’ (p. 99); and Ambrose (2009), highlighting the concept of unearned merit, indicated that many educators mistake inherited privilege for talent. With respect to restricted enrichment opportunities, Dorothy A. Sisk (1993) found in a classic study that no African-American, Hispanic, or Navajo students were initially chosen for gifted programs in four jurisdictions; indeed, none were even nominated. And Peterson (1997) noted that ‘tough bright’ students rarely find their way into

561

gifted programs. Ambrose (2015) postulated that there are ‘powerful, socioeconomic barriers to the discovery and development of high ability among deprived populations, especially in the most stratified nations such as the United States’ (p. 46). He stressed how essential it is to ‘recognize the distortion of aspirations among the privileged gifted and the crushing of aspirations among deprived, gifted young people’ (p. 49). It is possible to expand the search by encouraging teachers to become active, vigilant talent scouts. Tips for talent spotting include designing open-ended activities and lessons that allow for free-wheeling, looking out for emerging student interests and abilities over an extended period of time, keeping a notepad on hand to meticulously record observations, and watching diligently for signs of special gifts and passions in all students, even those with social, emotional, and behavioral issues who have been hitherto marginalized (Young, 1995). Expanding on the last point, it can be helpful to begin ‘looking for gifts in all the wrong places’ (McCluskey et al., 2016, p. 30), and to ensure that enrichment groups become more diverse and accessible to unengaged underachievers, disadvantaged kids, young people from minority groups, students in special education classes, and incarcerated youth in correctional facilities. Young people who become involved in criminal activity usually go unrecognized; yet, depending on how one looks at it, gangs might be considered a talent pool rather than a cesspool (Baker, McCluskey, & McCluskey, 2003). Although life in a gang can be reprehensible, destructive, and downright evil, not just anybody can survive in one. Robert B. Parker (1992), in one of his Spenser crime novels, offered this description of youth gang members: ‘They function barely at all in school, and the standard aptitude tests seem beyond them, and yet they are … often resourceful … They endure in conditions that would simply suffocate most of the Harvard senior class’ (p. 136). It’s a

562

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

mistake simply to write-off and squander such talent capital. Since the early 1990s, our teams in the field and at UW have been involved with the Lost Prizes projects for disadvantaged, unengaged young people, many of whom have dropped or been pushed out of school. We’ve taken a blended, strengthbased approach toward youth empowerment where educators – armed with training and experience in both the gifted and at-risk domains – identify and nurture the talents of marginalized individuals at risk for alienation, school failure, and gang involvement or other criminal activity. Eventually, the onus shifts to the youth themselves, who gradually learn to grow their own passions and take ownership for their education, talent development, and personal choices. The original Lost Prizes undertaking was put in place in three rural Manitoba school divisions to reclaim at-risk, talented highschool dropouts. It ran successfully from September 1993 through June 1996, and the project outcomes – and those from several spin-off initiatives – have been chronicled elsewhere (McCluskey et  al., 1998, 2005, 2016). In terms of process, teachers, counsellors, and administrators chose early school leavers for the program who demonstrated marked talent in various areas. Despite their abilities, these youth had been lost to the system: most were floating aimlessly, many were involved in serious substance abuse, and several were in trouble with the law. Our goal was to reconnect with these students, awake their buried creative potential, and point them toward a more productive path. The program was delivered separately, for two months per year, in three school divisions. During the first phase, a facilitator worked with the participants in off-site classes featuring information sessions on conflict resolution, learning styles, stages of relationships, and nonverbal communication; career exploration via interest inventories, interview simulations, job searches,

and résumé writing; and Creative ProblemSolving (CPS) training (Treffinger et  al., 2006). Employing CPS strategies, the re-energized students considered how best to move from their current reality to a desired future state, learned to map out individual growth plans, and practiced making better, more purposeful decisions. Participants completing this component of the training earned one high-school credit. In the project’s second phase, students gained experience in the world of work through on-the-job placements that gave them a chance to address real-world problems with the support of philanthropic mentors drawn from local business communities. Each participant who successfully went through this portion of the program received a second credit. During the three-year life of Lost Prizes, a large proportion of formerly disenchanted, disengaged, and disconnected dropouts managed to change their life trajectories. Once their talents were recognized, appreciated, and nurtured, 57 of the 88 participants (65%) responded by returning to and succeeding in high school, entering and faring well in post-secondary programs at university or community college, or obtaining permanent employment. Other related projects have accomplished their mission as well: Second Chance reduced the recidivism rate of inmates from First Nation communities; Prism increased the self-direction and achievement of troubled teens; and Northern Lights raised graduation and employment rates among disadvantaged Indigenous youth (McCluskey et  al., 2016). It’s abundantly clear that, with concrete support, lost causes can become talented prizes who are capable of turning their lives around dramatically.

CONCLUSION These are complex issues to think about as we look toward the future of gifted

Gifted Education: The Future Awaits

education. At first sight, it may be unrealistic to expect to change the world, but – upon further reflection – that is exactly what some pioneers in our discipline have done. Certainly, many of us can contribute mightily by building upon their work, responding to the new realities, and taking care of business in our neighborhoods; and then by disseminating information about the nature and effectiveness of our efforts. Collectively – by collaborating on research, partnering on service projects, sharing among and beyond ourselves, and setting a meaningful course for the next leg of the gifted journey – we may in fact have a profound impact on increasing the numbers of gifted and talented young people.

REFERENCES Ambrose, D. (2009). Expanding visions of creative intelligence: An interdisciplinary exploration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Ambrose, D. (2015). Borrowing insights from other disciplines to strengthen the conceptual foundations for gifted education. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 3(2), 33–57. Ambrose, D., Sternberg, R. J., & Sriraman, B. (Eds.). (2012). Confronting dogmatism in gifted education. New York: Routledge. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTasselBaska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (Eds.). (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vols 1–2). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center, College of Education, University of Iowa. Baker, P. A., McCluskey, K. W., & McCluskey, A. L. A. (2003). Gangs: Cesspool or talent pool? In D. L. Sutherland & L. Sokal (Eds.), Resiliency and capacity building in inner-city learning communities (pp. 147–168). Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press. Brendtro, L. K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (2002). Reclaiming youth at risk: Our hope for the future (rev. edn). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

563

Brendtro, L. K., Mitchell, M. L., Freado, M. D., & du Toit, L. (2012). The developmental audit: From deficits to strengths. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 21(1), 7–13. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vols 1–2). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Farthing, G. (2015). Reflecting on technology. Address to the Manitoba Education Research Forum, Frontier School Division, Winnipeg, MB. Feldhusen, J. F., Proctor, T. B., & Black, K. N. (1986). Guidelines for grade placement of precocious children. Roeper Review, 9(1), 25–27. Gallagher, J. J. (1997). Preparing the gifted student as an independent learner. Paper presented at the 12th World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Seattle, WA. Gallagher-Mackay, K., & Steinhauer, N. (2017). Pushing the limits: How schools can prepare our children today for the challenges of tomorrow. Toronto, ON: Doubleday Canada. Gharabaghi, K. (2008). Reclaiming our ‘toughest’ youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17(3), 30–32. Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Hedges, C. (2009). Empire of illusion: The end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle. Toronto, ON: Vintage. Hedin, D. (1989). The power of community service. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 37(2), 201–202. Hunt, D. E. (1987). Beginning with ourselves in practice, theory, and human affairs. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2011). Creative approaches to problem solving: A framework for innovation and change (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Situational outlook questionnaire: A measure of the climate for creativity and change. Psychological Reports, 85(2), 665–674.

564

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs: Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302–317. Kornelsen, L. (2014). Stories of transformation: Memories of a global citizenship practicum. Ulm, Germany: International Centre for Innovation in Education. Kristof, N. (2013, January 25). To reduce America’s inequality, start ‘small’. Grand Forks Herald, p. A4. Long, N. J. (1997). The therapeutic power of kindness. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 5(4), 242–246. McCluskey, K. W. (2000). Lines in the sand: Are students with difficulties being forced from our schools? Reaching Today’s Youth, 4(4), 28–33. McCluskey, K. W. (2013). Thoughts about tone, leadership, and building creative climates in our schools (2nd edn). Ulm, Germany: International Centre for Innovation in Education. McCluskey, K. W. (2017). Identification of the gifted redefined … with ethics and equity in mind. Roeper Review, 39(3), 195–198. McCluskey, K. W., Baker, P. A., & Massey, K. J. (1996). A 24-year longitudinal look at early entrance to kindergarten. Gifted and Talented International, 11(2), 72–75. McCluskey, K. W., Baker, P. A., & McCluskey, A. L. A. (2005). Creative problem solving with marginalized populations: Reclaiming lost prizes through in-the-trenches interventions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 330–341. McCluskey, K. W., Baker, P. A., O’Hagan, S. C., & Treffinger, D. J. (1998). Recapturing atrisk, talented high-school dropouts: A summary of the three-year lost prizes project. Gifted and Talented International, 13(2), 73–78. McCluskey, K. W., Treffinger, D. J., Baker, P. A., & Wiebe, A. C. (2016). Lost prizes: Identifying and developing the talents of marginalized populations. Winnipeg, MB: UW Faculty of Education Publishing. McCluskey, K. W., & Walker, K. D. (1986). The doubtful gift: Strategies for educating gifted

children in the regular classroom. Kingston, ON: Ronald P. Frye. Parker, R. B. (1992). Double deuce. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Peterson, J. S. (1997). Bright, tough, and resilient – and not in a gifted program. Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 8(3), 121–136. Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon (NCB University Press, Lincoln, NE), 9(5). Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd edn). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Schweitzer, A. (1935). The meaning of ideals in life. Paper presented at Silcoates School, Wakefield, England (included in The Silcoatian, New Series No. 25, 781–786). Sisk, D. (1993). Systemic training educational programs for under-served pupils (Project Step-Up). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Slack, K. (2017). Benjamin Franklin, natural right, and the art of virtue. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2013). Creativity, ethics, and society. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 1(1), 15–24. Sternberg, R. J. (2017). ACCEL: A new model for identifying the gifted. Roeper Review, 39(3), 152–169. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2006). Creative problem solving: An introduction (4th edn). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Treffinger, D. J., & McCluskey, K. W. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching for talent development: Current and expanding perspectives. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. Treffinger, D. J., Sortore, M. R., & McCluskey, K. W. (1995). Giftedness and talent development: Programming guidelines. Selkirk, MB: Lord Selkirk School Division. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Nassab, C. A., & Wittig, C. V. (2004). Talent development:

Gifted Education: The Future Awaits

The levels of service approach. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Wiebe, A. C. (2013). Mentoring as relationship technology: Engaging at-risk children and youth in different settings. In L. Sokal & K. W. McCluskey (Eds.), Community connections: Reaching out from the ivory tower (pp. 98–104). Ulm, Germany: International Centre for Innovation in Education.

565

Williams, R. L. (1972, September). The BITCH100: A culture-specific test. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI. Yamin, T. S. (2011). Excellence in gifted education: Toward a national agenda. World Gifted, 30(2), 2–3. Young, G. (1995). Becoming a talent spotter. Creative Learning Today, 5(1), 4–5.

Conclusion Belle Wallace, Dorothy A. Sisk and John Senior

A book is a moment in time, and this has never been more true than in the case of this rich collection of research, discussion, expertise, informed opinion, speculation and, above all, inspired wisdom and vision. Collectively and as individuals, we are part of the continuous discussion informed by the collected works in this volume. Our collective journey is one whereby we seek an understanding of what it is to learn, to think and to be. As editors and authors, we have contributed through this book to the collective need to know more about the common interest and area/mechanisms of learning. With increasing anxiety for a safe and secure existence fuelled by: repressive governments; forces concerned with the survival of structures that favour themselves, making humane and decent behaviour almost impossible; wars and conflict; and the challenge of reduced resources, we sense that humanity is vulnerable – the light of life can be a frail thing.

Who suffers most in both this current and developing climate that we appear to be entering? Those who seek hope and are thrilled by knowing more, inventing a positive future, expressing love through their creative, honest and ethical actions, our gifted and talented children and youth who deserve better. Not because they are ‘our future’, which compromises their existence as a tool of others, but deserving better because they are, they exist; they, like us, need to understand our ever-changing world and embrace the complexity of the world. It is our hope that with this book comes a call to action to support efforts in making it safe to be a gifted student – to be a learner – to ask questions and to help people understand the power of questioning. There is a need to focus on developing, nurturing and supporting their emotional resilience – promoting mindfulness and emotional and spiritual intelligence. And most important, there is a need to focus on providing nourishment for the hungry mind, and embracing

Conclusion

and resolving the issues of the forgotten and hidden disadvantaged learner. How do we embrace ambitious learners and encourage them to engage in learning without fear, without ethical compromise and above all without identifying them/selves as a group who can threaten power platforms and groups that would simply at best ignore those identified as otherwise intelligent? Difficult questions! In meeting the need for the gifted and talented to realise their potential, we must create a wave of global desire and action to reimagine the education of the gifted and talented to identify and nurture these able and gifted students who recognise that to truly be alive is to be a constant – perpetually – resilient

567

creature of curiosity and wisdom, an explorer without prejudice or jealousy, fear or favour. The gifted and talented share a journey, as do we … a journey driven by curiosity, creativity and that deceptively simple belief that curiosity leads to creativity. We hope you find this varied and informative stimulating collection a can’t-put-down book of wisdom and excitement that will help you to continue your journey of research and achievement while supporting and enabling others to be companions along the way. Thanks to you the reader, and we trust we are on the same page, in that glorious situation of having more questions than answers. We end with a new beginning!

Index ability grouping 42, 107, 112, 215, 322–9, 364 Able Kids Foundation 155 abstract reasoning 152 academic research 523 academic specialisation 533 ACCEL (Active Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership) model 1, 9–13, 36, 40–2, 556, 560 acceleration, academic 39, 104–10, 114, 215, 309–19, 322–32, 335, 364, 423, 435–6, 441–2, 470, 510, 512, 558–9 definitions of 314–15 difficulties with 309–10, 451 forms of 310–15 grade-based 315–19 matched to gifts and talents 318 meta-analytical syntheses of 312 outcomes for parents and for school principals 329 social outcomes 328–9 subject-based 316, 323, 331 teachers’ views on 327–8 acculturation 361 achievement gap 412 achievement tests 132, 243, 317, 557 Actiotope model 475 actors 124 actualizing tendency 22 Adelodun, G.A. 378 advanced placement (AP) courses 61 affordances 8 African education 216, 373–85 after-school programs 498 age–grade progression 324, 330 agency 464–5, 472 agricultural communities 375 AISTAP Association 514 Albany Senior High School 281 alcoholism 265–6 Alexander the Great 344 Alibaba 474 Alicerce progam 438 Alika, H.I. 382 Allen, Paul 78 Almost Perfect Scale 196–7 Alomar, B.O. 147 ambiguity faced by students 306 American Library Association 163, 166 American Mensa 165 American Psychological Association 474 analytical thinking 10–11 Antipoff, Helena 433, 439 APROGEN program 516

archetypes 21 architectural design 280 Aristarchus 85 Aristotle 5, 78, 344, 394 arts and art schools 77–8, 175–6, 500 artificial intelligence (AI) 407, 530, 538–9, 542–3, 546–9 Asian countries cultures of 475 education in 462, 462–75 Asperger syndrome 146, 154, 345 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 423–6 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 3, 129, 133–40, 146, 148, 154, 544 atypical brain development (ABD) 135 atypical gifted students 2 auditions, use of 133 auditory filter 154–5 augmented learning 283–7 Australia 215, 221–2, 272, 309–10, 357–67 Austria 508–10 authentic learning 282–3 authoritative parenting style 40 autistic spectrum 146, 154, 489 automatic adaptation, weakness of 546 autotelic personalities 87–8 Bai, H. 285 Baker, Kenneth 256 Balanchine, George 125–6 Balchin, T. 188 Baldwin, Alexina 65 Bancroft, Anne 124 Bandura, A. 89 Barbosa, A.J.G. 441 Barbot, B. 93–4 Bar-On, R. 373–6 Barron, F. 125, 540 Bates, Kathy 124 Beck, G. 376 Beethoven, Ludwig van 75 Begoray, D. 373 behavioral rating scales and checklists 134–5 Beijing Yucai School 453–4 Belge, Kathy 166 Belgium 508–10 Belk, R.W. 33 Bell, Alexander 84 Bell, T.S. 138 Bergman, Ingmar 77–8 Bergström, M. 540 Berlyne, D.E. 540

Index

Bernal, Ernesto 65 Bers, M.U. 276–7 Besançon, M. 93–6 best practice, analysis of 407 ‘better faster’ effect 74 Biddick, M. 322 Biescheke, Marke 166 Big-Five Factor Model 78 bilingualism 216, 359, 361, 366 Binet, Alfred 6–8, 46, 106, 130 biodiversity 530 bio-social-intellectual (BSI) model 447–50, 460 biotechnology 530 bisexuals 160 Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity 560 Black students 59–67 Blake, William 298 Bloom, B.S. 170, 176, 549 Boden, Margaret 546–8 bodymind system 22 Bognar, Branko 392 Bohr, Niels 23 boredom in children 111–13, 173, 178, 301–4, 325, 331, 362, 448 Borkowski, J.E. 249 Borland, H.J. 420, 466 Braden, G. 24–5 brain function 23–4, 544–6 Brambring, M. 518 Braunstein, Simone 283 Brava, Linda 123 Brazil 432–43 Center for Potential and Talented Development 439–40 characteristics of the country 432 education system 406, 433–4 general problems faced by 432–3 Objetivo Program 439 programs and practices for the gifted 434–8, 442–3 recent studies of giftedness 440–2 Tutorial Education Program 438 Brazilian Giftedness Council 442 breakthrough discoveries 94 Brendtro, L.K. 556 bridge-building between stakeholders 230 Brilliant Club 417 Brody, L.E. 136 Brokenleg, M. 556 Brooks, Max 124 Brown, D. 384 Brown, E.F. 236 Bruner, J. 64 Buddhism 25–7, 198 budgeting, educational 488–9 Bukowski, W.M. 187 Bulgaria 514–17 Burke, Edmund 241 bystander intervention 12

569

Caldwell, Sarah 123 Campione, J.C. 249 capacity, educational 470 capacity-building 464, 476 Capra, Fritoj 23 career counselling 376, 380–5 Carr, Emily 121 Carr, N. 276 Carrim, N. 380 Carroll, J.B. 7 Carson, S. 544–5 Cartwright, Sally 395–6, 399 case studies of early education 226–30 Cash, R. 161 Cassatt, Mary 121 castes 49 categorization 6 Cattell, J.M. 73 Cattell, Raymond 5 celebration of learning 307 Center for Internet Addiction 286 Center for Talented Youth (CTY), Greece 514 Center for Talented Youth (CTY), Ireland 512 central auditory processing disorder 146–8, 153 Chacon, M.C.M. 440 Chae, P.K. 136 challenge ethos of 418 liked by gifted students 422 through enrichment 419 Chan, A. 383–4 Chan, D.W. 197, 463, 470 Chao, R. 199 Chattopadhyay, K.D. 51 Chen, F. 466 Chetty, Raj 84 Chi, R.P. 545 Chicago, Judy 121, 127–8 Child Find program 147 China 197–9, 207–9, 324, 406, 423, 425, 446–60, 467–70, 473–5 gifted programs in 446–52, 460 Cho, S. 362 Christ the King College 299 ‘circling a segment’ 338 civil rights 66 classroom accommodations 155–6 Clayton, Nina 399 Clement, J. 277–8 climate change 525, 530 cloning, digital 286 Clough, P. 226 clustering 322–3 code switching 364 cognition 93, 106, 164, 247, 523–4; see also metacognition cognitive processes 276, 542 Colangelo, Nicolas 330, 559 Cole, M. 6

570

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Colombia conference on knowledge democracy (June 2017) 401 Columbus Group 37, 105 common sense 11–12 compensation for weakness 152–3 complexity faced by students 306 complexity theory 523–4, 530–1 composers 123 conative-afffective factors in creativity 93 concept mapping 269–70, 272 conductors 123 conformity 473 Confratute program 241 Confucius and Confucianism 26, 160 conscious mind 20, 23 conservatories 500 constructionism and constructivism 285–6 contextual influences 523 continuing professional development (CPD) 216, 391–5, 398, 401–2 contradictions, law of 394 convergent-integrative thinking 94, 97–9 Co-operative Research Group for Super-normal Children of China 446–7 coping mechanisms 171, 197 Copland, Aaron 123 core values 29 Cornell, D.G. 188 Cornish, L. 358 counselling 216, 376, 380–5 Cox, C. 73, 76 Cramond, B. 544 creative beng, the 549 creative functioning 543–6 creative genius 74–8 creative giftedness 74–5, 96 creative intelligence 523–7 creative machine, the 548–50 creative people 543 creative performance 100–1 creative potential 95–6, 100 creative problem-solving 554, 562 creative process 93–6, 540–2, 546, 549 definition of 93 dynamic model of 94 neuroscientific perspective on 540–2 types of 541–2 creative product, the 546–8 creative thinking 529, 542–4 creative writers 121–2 creativity 2, 13–14, 38, 70–9, 407, 424, 427–8, 442, 472, 476, 538 concept of 70–3, 92–3 definitions of 71–2, 79, 93–4 discouragement of 11 encouragement of 79 expressive, productive, inventive, innovative and emergent 548

human 538–9, 542–5, 548–50 link with intelligence 83 link with motivation 87 little-c and Big-C 72–5, 541, 547–8 measures of 96 models of 83–4, 88–9 personal or consensual 72–5, 78 preconditions for 171–2 predictors of 545 seen as a process 11, 539–42 seen as a social phenomenon 549 seen as a way of thinking 542–3 credentialism 472 criminal activity 528, 556, 561–2 Cripps, Louise 399 critical thinking 10–11, 549 Crompton, T. 391 Cronan-Mills, Kirstin 163 Cross, J.R. 60 Cross, T. 170 Crowder, G. 48 Cullen, J. 224 cultural capital 469 cultural differences 2, 5, 9, 49, 65 cultural relativism 48 cultural studies 503 cultural traditions 473 culture of a classroom 307, 392 curiosity 87–8, 424, 448, 543, 568 curriculum 161–2, 215, 218, 222–6, 267, 282, 329–31, 423 different conceptions of 223 for the early years 224 given or living 392–3, 396 learner-centred 223–4 use of the term 222, 224 Curriculum for Excellence 224–5 cut-off criteria 132–5 Czech Republic 514–16 Dąbrowski, Kazimierz 21, 85, 110, 137, 170 Daddis, C. 199 Dalits 50, 52 Dalli, C. 219, 221 Dalosto, M.M. 440 Damian, R.I. 78 dancers 125–6 Dan-Cohen, Meir 531 Darley, John 12 Darling, N. 209 Darvin, R. 365 Darwin, Charles 75, 344–5, 391 Davidson, Richard 24 daydreaming 544 decolonization 281 Defty, Christ 453 déjà vu experiences 297 delayed gratification172

Index

Delhi University 41 Delisle, J. 327 Dell, Michael 78 Demaree, H.A. 137 democratic governance 526 Denmark 511–13 desertification 265–6 ‘designer children’ 282 ‘desirable difficulties’ for students 305–6 de Sousa Santos, B. 401–2 developmental audit 556 developmental milestones 105, 149; see also physical development of children developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) 64 Dewey, John 86 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 133–4 didactic teaching style 471 dieting 153 Dietrich, Anne 541–2 differentiated model of giftedness and talent (DMGT) 358, 360 differentiation in educational provision 161, 215, 242, 294, 322, 327, 335–6, 378, 405–6, 420, 423, 467, 470, 475, 509, 512, 515–16 continuum of 336–42 for gifted English language learners 363–6 digital divide 276 ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital immigrants’ 553 digital spaces 276 directed learning 278 disabilities, achievements of peope with 518 disadvantaged able learners 417 DISCOVER model 263, 266, 268 discrimination 48, 60, 66; see also gender discrimination disparate impact doctrine 66 disruptive change, theory of 275 divergent thinking 94, 97–9, 539, 544 diversifying experiences 78 Dobzhansky, Theodosius 75 dogmatism 523–8, 556 ‘double bind’ faced by women pursuing a career 121, 126–7 Douglas, Michael 124 Downs, Marion 147 dropouts from college 77–8 dual enrolment 323 dual nationals 361 dually gifted and talented children 137 Duffy, Candy 123 ‘dumbig down’ 278, 300 Dylan, Bob 77 dynamic teaching model 268 dyslexia 144, 146, 155, 546 ear infections 147 early childhood environment rating scale (ECERS) 220

571

early detection of abnormality 147–8 early education 217–22, 448 Ebersöhn, L.E. 377 ecological preservation 27 Eden, Charles 400 Edison, Thomas Alva 234, 544 education 11, 75–9, 85, 96, 100–1 aims of 100 different concepts of 374 seen as a gift 392–3, 402. 423 education programs for talented students (EPTS), Turkey 499, 502 educational technology 214 effect size 311, 313, 317, 321, 325, 327, 331 egalitarianism 324 Egbochuku, E.O. 382 Eide, Brock and Fernette 155 Einstein, Albert 21, 95, 180 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox 23 Eisner, E. 223, 393 electronic calculators 275 Elias, M.E. 376 elitism 109, 130, 296, 324, 497, 517, 560 Elliott, Colin 149 Ellis, Havelock 70 Ellison, Larry 78 embedding of policies 418 eminence, attainment of 374–5 Emmons, R.A. 19 emotion 9, 95, 164, 307, 328, 453, 540, 542, 566 emotional challenges faced by the gifted 172, 179–80 emotional development 3, 169–81 emotional education 107 emotional intelligence 170, 376 emotional well-being 180–1 Enç, Mithat 501 engineering, definition of 234 England, education in 409–20, 511–13 English language, education delivered by the use of 360–1, 364–7 English as a second or additional language 358 enriched education’ 451–2 enrichment 335, 365, 419, 470 enrichment clusters 240, 282 enrichment programs 113, 323–4, 327, 436–7, 554 entrepreneurship 471–3 environmental adaptation 6, 8 environmental effects 543 environmental factors 6, 8, 93, 268, 424, 508, 525, 543 ‘epistemicide’ 401–2 equal access to learning 294 Equal Education Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 60 equal opportunities 517–18, 560–1 equality index (EI) 66 equity and equity goals 67 Ericsson, Andres 83 Escobedo, P.S. 422 Eskimo children 6, 8

572

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Espinosa, R. 361 Essenes 24–5 Essop, P. 379 Estonia 511–13 ‘ethical drift’ 13 ethics 10–13, 529, 532, 556 ethnocentrism 48, 555 Europe eastern 514–18 northern 511–13, 518 southern 513–14, 518 western 508–10, 518 European Council for High Ability (ECHA) 469, 511, 514 European countries, gifted education in 407, 507–19 European Schoolnet Academy 276 European Union 508 Eurotalent 514 Eurydice reports 508, 511, 513, 515, 518 evaluation of potential creativity (EPoC) 2, 56–9 evaluation of solutions 269–71 Evans, Debby 257 everyday lessons, challenge in 418 everyday reasoning and judgement 11, 14 excellence commitment to 303 impediments to 2, 84–5 hours of practice required for 83, 88 motivation for 85–7 ‘excellence gaps’ 412, 417 exceptionally able students (EAS) 417–18 executive functions 36 expectations about children 412, 416–19 experiential learning 288 expertise 298–9 extra-curricular activities 423 extrinsic motivation 85–6

‘fixers’ (Siegle) 279 flexible grouping 322–3, 367 ‘flipped’ learning 417 flourishing of humanity 391, 393, 396, 400, 402 flow experience 86–7 fluency 94 Flynn, J.R. (and Flynn effect) 7, 15 Foley-Nicpon, M. 188 Folley, B.S. 545 follow-up studies 177 Formby, Claire 399 Foundation for Excellence in Education, US 278 Frager, R. 25 France 508–10 Franck, Adolphe 26 Frankl, Victor 87 Franklin, Benjamin 556 Fraser, M. 47, 65 Frazier, T.W. 137 free school meals, children in receipt of 412 Freebody, P. 364 Freeman’sBay Primary School 280 Freire, Paulo 55 Freke, T. 24 French , L.R. 189 Freud, Sigmund 6 Friedrichs, T.P. 160–2, 165 friendships, gifted children’s 3, 41–2, 184–93 comparison between high school pupils and university students 192 previously-published studies of 186–92 Fromm, E. 540 Frost, R.O. 197 Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) 196–7 Fulleron Longitudinal Study 147

Facebook 160 failure, productive 305 fallacies of relevance 11 family relationships 62, 88–9, 148, 154, 170–3 family therapy 41 Farrell, Suzanne 125–8 fast-tracking 509–12, 559 ‘the fat lady singing’ 123 ‘fatherhood bonus’ 120–1 feedback given to students 305 Feldman, David Henry 111, 170 females empowerment of 345 talents of 2–3, 117–28, 518 underestimation of 406, 435, 443 Feuerstein, R. 327 Figlio, D.N. 63 Finland 511–13 Firmender, J.M. 242 Fitzgerald, Ella 122

Gagné, F. 64, 310, 358, 360 Galileo Galilei 78–9, 85 Gallagher-Mackay, K. 557 Galton, Sir Francis 5, 46, 70, 73–4, 390–1 gaming 286 Gamoran, A. 325 Gandhi, Mahatma 532 Gandy, P. 24 Gardner, Howard 7, 19–20, 38, 46, 61, 170, 263, 276, 374, 435, 496 ‘gatekeepers’ 61, 83–4 Gates, Bill 78, 473 Gati, I. 384 Gay, J. 6 Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educators Network (GLSEN) 160, 165 gedanken 101, 126–7, 123 ‘geekiness’ 184 Geller, Anat 400 gender differences 120–1, 518–19

Index

gender discrimination 3, 108, 127 gender roles 375–6 genetics 7, 117–19, 127 genius 2, 70, 73, 543 creative 74–8 scientific and artistic 78 studies of 70 genius potential 106 Gentry, M. 282 Germany 508–10 Gharabaghi, K. 558 Gibbons, A. 222 Gibson, J.J. 8 Gibson, William 294 Giddy, Davies 217–18 gift-giving 1 literature on 43, 45 motivation for 33–4 psychology of 33 Gifted Child Quarterly 327 gifted children characteristics and traits of 65, 454 different terms used for 508, 511, 513–14 not becoming gifted adults 321, 325, 331–2, 374–5 Gifted Development Center (GDC) 145–9, 154 gifted education 15, 53, 79, 101, 108–9, 112, 162–3, 178–9, 209, 213, 222–3, 230, 239, 243, 282–3, 330 core value of 473 future prospects for 562–3 goal-setting in 65–7 ‘golden rule’ for 93 groups under-represented in programs 362–3 innovation in 554–5 link with theoretical and philosophical constructs 527 marginalization of 468 openness and accessibility of 468 problems with 451 for students of color 59–67 sustainability of 469 technology used in 278–9 university involvement in 469 gifted English language learners (GELLs) 215–16, 357–67 advanced capabilities of 359 challenges for 360–3 curriculum and pedagogy for 363–7 under-representation in education programs 362–3 gifted gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning (GLBTQ) students 3, 159–66 gifted programs 10, 15, 32, 39, 377 giftedness 31–46, 50–5, 83, 87, 164 characteristics associated with 146–7, 424 concept of 70–4, 522, 529 creative 74–5, 96 cultural aspects of 495–7 definition of 1–2, 7–9, 37, 43–5, 51–2, 64–5, 105, 129–30, 144, 169, 322, 374, 422, 495–7, 522

573

different forms of 37 early detection of 147 empirical studies of 138 factors having an effect on 424 history of provision for 324–5 identification of 35, 43–5, 62–7, 107–8, 129–33 indicators of 515 measurement of 376–7 need for support of 222, 296–7, 333, 364, 378, 380, 385, 443 negative aspects of 42–3 negative attitudes towards 116 promotion of 38, 40, 44–5 psychological foundations of 494–5 related to foolishness 10 related to leadership 343–4 technological 299 testing for 150 theorization of 52–4 three-ring conception of 235, 423, 435 value of 7 see also profound giftedness; screening for giftedness Gilger, J.W. 135 Ginott, H. 391 Glass, G.V. 313, 325 Glick, J. 6 global connections 283 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 471 Global Innovation Index 473 globalization 522–6, 555 Goethe, J.W. von 295 Golden Key Society 191, 193 Goleman, D. 376 Google 284 Gottfried, A.E. and A.W. 87 Gottfried. M. 125 Gowan, J.C. 639 grade skipping 114, 172–9, 323, 326, 510, 513, 558 graduates 119 Grantham, Tarek C. 65 Grassinger, R. 345 Great Chain of Being 5 Greece 513–14 Green, Eli R. 160 Greene, M.J. 376 Greenleaf, Robert 557 Grieshaber, S. 220 Grigorenko, E.L. 374 Grissom, J.A. 63 Gross, Miraca 42, 170, 184, 328, 363 Grost, Audrey 115 Grost, Michael 115 group values 344 Gruenewald, D.A. 281 G-Squared Youth Advocate 165 guan 199–209

574

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Guichard, J. 380, 382 Guilford, J.P. 71, 131, 539 Guimarães, C. 440–1 Hadamard, J. 539 Hargreaves, D. 289 Hart, B. 64 Hartung, P.J. 383 Hawking, Stephen 145 H-creativity 547–8 Heacox, D. 161 ‘headroom’ for learners who could be doing better 411 hearing impairment 147 Hecht, Anthony 84, 88 Hedges, C. 561 Hedges, H. 224 Hedin, D. 557 Henig, R.M. 160 heredity 7, 112, 117–19, 424 the Hermetica 24 Herrera, C.R. 422 Higgins, D. 544–5 high abilities/giftedness centres of activity (Brazil) 434–6 high schools for science, social sciences, fine arts and sports (Turkey) 500 high-stakes testing 364 ‘highly able’ children 405, 409–16, 419–20 Hildegarde de Bingen 27–8 Hilliard, Asa Hinduism 25, 27, 49 Hirst, P. 401 Hispanic students 59–67 Hitler, Adolf 529 Hoagies Gifted 165 Hobbes, Thomas (and ‘Hobbes trap’) 525–6 Holahan, C.K. 171 holistic processing 545–6 Holland, J.L. 382 Hollingworth, Leta 34, 46, 71, 106–10, 114, 184–7, 274–5, 469 home environment 40, 65 home-schooling 39, 41, 112–14 homework 417 Honai housing 428 Hong Kong 196–8, 207–8, 466–7 Hood River Middle School 282 Horace 296 Horowitz, F.D. 188 Horzyk, A. 545 ‘hot-housed’ children 170 Houskamp, B.M. 138 Howie, D.R. 327 human capital 466–7, 475 human enhancement technologies 282 human potential 467–8 human rights 48

Human Rights Campaign 160–1 humanism 218 Hungary 514–16 Hunt, David 557 Hunter, John 283 Hurford, Ros 399 Hutchison, Sonia 399 Hymer, Barry 188, 391 Hynd, G.W. 135 Hynes-Berry, Mary 164 Iceland 511–13 identification of giftedness 55, 263, 336, 360, 377–8, 383, 410–11, 443, 468, 495, 507–8, 513–15, 556 identity 105–6, 361 identity politics 49, 54–5 ideologies, educational 217–18, 223 Ikegami, K. 220 implementation hierarchies 463–6, 469 ‘imposter syndrome’ 306 inclusive education 379–80, 480, 518 independent study 339–41 India 2, 46–55, 469–70, 473, 475, 532 National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) 51 National Curricular Framework (NCF) 50–1 individual giftedness as distinct from the well-being of the collective 374–5, 384–5, 467 individual learners, need for information about 319, 427–8 individualization 339, 558 Indonesia 405–6, 422–9 national education policy 424 problems for gifted students in 424–5 Industrial Revolution 274 inequality, social 527–8 information technology, use of 469 infrastructure-building 464, 468–9, 476 innovation 456, 473–4 Institute LECCA 437 Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) 119 Insitute of Play 286 integration of physical, digital and biological domains 282–3 Intel Science Talent Search 474 intellectual capital 469 intelligence 83, 95–6 academic or practical 11–12, 375 African conceptualizations of 374–5 contextual, experiential and componential 249 definitions of 6, 34, 50 development over time 270 going beyond reasoning 115–16 hereditary element in 7, 112 origin of concept 390–1 as perceived in different cultures 109

Index

raising of 104 study of 5 sub-theories of 249 triarchic theory of 36 types of 19–20 see also creative intelligence intelligence quotient (IQ) 6–11, 15, 34–8, 43–4, 71–4, 95–6, 119, 130, 147–51, 176, 185, 376–7, 462, 467, 545, 559–60 intelligence tests 5–11, 34, 46, 61, 71, 73, 96, 106–7 121, 132, 135–6, 149, 377, 560 skills measured by 8–9 inter-rater reliability 14 Interactive Expeditions project 283 interdisciplinary projects 407, 522–4, 527–33 interests of gifted students 424 ‘interfacers’ (Siegle) 279 internal motivation see intrinsic motivation International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE) 96–7 International Gateway for Gifted Youth (IGGY) 512 International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) 278 International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) 133–4 internet resources 275–6 interstitial identity 361 intrinsic motivation 2, 84–7, 180 intuition 115–16, 548 inventors, propensity to become 84 investigative learning mindset 236 investment in people 519 Iowa Accelerative Scale (IAS) 310–11 Ireland 511–13 irrationality 528 iSinti philosophy 375, 383 Israeli national mentoring program 345–55 achievements of young scholars in 351–2 factors enhancing the effectiveness of 354–5 formative evaluation of 350–3 goals and objectives of 345–7 implementation of 347–50 implications for other gifted students 353–4 It Gets Better project 165 Italy 513–14, 517 Ithaca College Center for LGBT Education 165 Jackson, P.S. 184 James, William 243 Janos, P.M. 184 Japan 423, 425, 466, 470, 475 Jarvis, J. 363 Jobs, Steve 78, 473 Jolly, J.L. 40 Joplin, Janis 123 Jordan, B. 224 Journal of Genius and Eminence 70

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 360 Jung, Carl Gustav 20–2 Jung, R.E. 545 K12 International Academy 277–8 Kageyama, Colin 154 Kahlo, Frida 121 Kahn, Salman 289 Kahn Academy 276 Kaku, M. 95 Kaleidoscope project 14 Kalla, J.S. 378 Kamau, R.W. 378 Kanevsky, L. 365 Kant, Immanuel 70 Karp, D.E. 10 Kaufman, Scott Barry 148–9 Kearney, K. 380 Kellerman, B. 10 Kemp, Kate 399 Kent, S.D. 311 Kenya 6, 8, 134, 375–8 Kéri, S. 545, 550 Kerr, J.F. 222–3 Kettler, T. 282 Killermann, Sam 160, 166 Kim, J. 136 Kinsey, Alfred 160 Kitano, M.K. 361 Klinkosz, W. 518 knowing, two senses of 20 knowledge, different views of 223 K¯ohanga Reo 224 Kohlberg, L. 223 Kokot, S. 379 Koonz, C. 529 Korea see South Korea Koshy, V. 225 Kpelle tribesmen 6 Krasney, N. 171 Kristof, N. 561 Krumboltz, J.D. 383–4 Kulieke, M. 171 Kulik, J.A. and C.-L.C. 311, 326 Kumoshiro, Kevin 160 Kunnunkul, T.V. 51 Kuo, Y.-L. 472 Kurup, A R. 377–8 Kurzweil, R. 289 ‘labelling’ of children 171–4, 178, 180 Laidlaw, Moira 392 language, academic and subject-specific 300–1 language skills 362, 424; see also under English Lansbury, Angela 124–5, 127 Lao Tzu 26 Latané, Bibb 12

575

576

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

latent inhibition 544, 550 Latvia 511–13 Lavender Lists 162 Law, B. 381 leadership definitions of 10, 343–4 development of 215, 345 ethical 36 skills of 15, 247, 263, 344, 349, 354 of youth and of adults 344 see also transformational leadership ‘league tables’ of exam results 331 learning authentic and augmented 214 barriers to 362 student-directed 271 students’ planning for 300 teacher-directed 270 learning difficulties 145–8, 546 learning environments 244, 278–82 learning opportunities 366, 394, 470 Lee, J.C. 327 Lee, S. 278 Lee, S.-Y. 184–5 left-hemisphere processing 545 LEGO 289 Leichtman, R. 28 Leonardo da Vinci 106 lesbianism 160 Leschinsky, Gary 282–3 ‘letting go’ of control of students 267 Leung, O.N. 189 Leviathan, David 163 Levin, H. 327 Levin, N. 384 Lichtenstein 508–11 limbic system 540–1 ‘limited English proficient’ (LEP), use of the term 358 Linas, Rodolfo 23–4 linguistic theory 364 Linke, Sandra 2, 94 Lipman-Blumen, J. 10 Lithuania 511–13 Little, C.A. 366 Liu Xining 453 Liu Xiu 451 living theory research 216, 390–402 implications of 394–402 as a social movement 400 validation of 398 Lombroso, Cesare 70, 538, 541–3 London conference on gifted children (1975) 556 London Gifted and Talented 297, 300 ‘loners’ 189 longitudinal studies 210, 367, 411 ‘lost gifted’, the 321, 325, 329–32, 562 Lovejoy, A.O. 5 Lubart, T. 93–6

Lukens, J. 285 Luo, J. 456 Luria, A.R. 5 Luxembourg 508–10 Lyotard, J.F. 48 McBee, M.T. 324–5 McCarthy, Melissa 124 McCarty-Hynes, Arleen 164 McClain, M. 132, 136 McGaw, B. 313 McGill, Moyra 124 machine neural networks 538 macro-opportunities and macro-problems 524–7 Madge, E.M. 376 Maia-Pinto, R.R. 441 Mails, T. 26 Maithreyi, R. 377–8 Makel , M.C. 326 Makerspace movement 285–6 Makiguchi, Tsunesaburo 220 Malta 513–14 Mandarić, Sanja 392 Mandela, Nelson 246 Manguel, Alberto 298 Manheim, Camryn 124 Manurewa Intermediate School 280–1 Manzella, Teresa 160, 165 M¯aori language 224 Marcuse, H. 394 Margison, J.A. 189 marking 305 Marland Report (1972) 130 Marsh, H.W. 179 Marshall, I. 19, 23 Martins, B.A. 440 Marwood, K.A. 184 Masden, C.A. 189 Maslow, Abraham 21–2, 453, 557 massively open online courses (MOOCs) 276, 395 ‘master educators’ 216 Masters module on gifted and talented education 396–8 mastery of an academic subject 306–7 mathematical problems 547 mathematicians 126 Mathews, M.S. 344 ‘Matthew effect’ 296 Matthews, D. 188 Matthews, G. 170 Matthews, M.S. 40, 358, 367 Mauere, Luca 160 May, Vanessa 123 Mayer, J.D. 376 meaningful coincidences 21 meaningful learning environments (MLEs) 278–9 meaningfulness 307 Meckstroth, E.A. 185, 187 Medawar, Peter 344–5

Index

mediated content 284 Mednick, S.A. 539 Melrose, L. 539 memory, unreliability of 173 Mendaglio, S. 184 ‘mental age’ concept 106 mentoring 84, 215, 260, 331, 335, 344–5, 366, 557, 562 effectiveness with the gifted 344–5 in Israel 345–55 Merrill, Maud 6 meta-analysis 321, 325–7 metacognition and metacognitive reflection 216, 249 metapattern analysis 532–3 Metz, A.J. 382 Meyer, H.-D. 471 Meyer, R. 223 microalgae 427 micro-expertise 524 Miles, M. 277–8 Milioni, A.L.V. 136 Miller, Terry 166 Mills, C.J. 136 mind maps 270 mindfulness 24, 566 minimum effort grades (MEGs) 419 Minnesota 310 Minsky, Marvin 523 Mischel, W. 172 mission for education (in England) 420 Mitchell, L. 221 Mohlala, S.C. 374 Monroe, Kristen Renwick 529 Moon, S. 311, 326 moral particularism 528 ‘more bang for the buck’ effect 74 Morgan, E.R. 10 ‘motherhood penalty’ 120 motivation see intrinsic motivation Mounter, Joy 256, 395–6, 399–401 Moyle, V.F. 184 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 75, 106 Mpofu, E. 375 Mtolo, M.Z. 381 multiculturalism 2, 47–50, 55, 65, 283 multiple choice questions 9, 14 Munich model of giftedness (MMG) 38 Munro, J. 363 music and musicians 75, 77, 88, 122–4, 127, 172, 175–8, 442, 512, 559 Musk, Elon 287–8, 473 Mutter, Anne-Sophie 123 mystical experience and traditions 24, 27 myths 20 about gifted education 327–31 Naicker, S.M. 380 nanotechnology 530 narratives behind academic subjects 304

577

Natal University 246–7, 252 A nation deceived (report, 2004) 309, 329–30 A nation empowered (report, 2015) 310, 329–30 National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE), UK 410–16, 512 ‘challenge’ framework 415–16 National Association for Gifted Children, UK 172, 512 National Association for Gifted Children, US 65, 474 National Center for Transgender Equality, US 165 National Consortium for STEM Secondary Schools (BCSSS), US 469 national curriculum (for England) 255, 413 National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, US 275 Native Americans 26–9 nature or nurture 36–7, 44 Necka, E. 549 needs, hierarchy of 453, 557 Neihart, M. 170, 364 Nelson, Jandy 163 neoliberalism 525–6 Netherlands, the 508–10 neural networks 549 New Zealand 268, 271–2, 280 newborns 104–5 Newton, D.P. 95 Newton, Isaac 344–5 Newton, L. 100–1 Ngara, C. 374 Nigeria 378 Njue, S.W. 378 No Child Left Behind Act (US, 2001) 41 Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth 84–5, 88 Noh, K. 136 nonverbal learning disorder (NVLD) 148 Northern Ireland 511 Norton, B. 365 Norway 511–13 Nutbrown, C. 226 Nuttall, J. 224 Oakes, J. 325 Oasis Enrichment Model (OEM) 470 O’Brien, M. 188 O’Callaghan, E.T. 138 Odyssey program 425–9 off piste excursions 298–9, 303 Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 59–61 Office for the Gifted and Talented (OGT), US 275 Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), UK 253, 295–6, 411–15 O’Keeffe, Georgia 121 Oklahoma State University 14–15 Old Boys Club at the University of Winnipeg 554 Oliveira, J.C. 441 Olszewski-Kubilius, P. 39, 171, 184–5, 278, 326, 374 Olujide, F.O. 378 Oluseyi, A.D. 378

578

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

online resources 113, 276, 290, 395 Open Education Resources (OER) 286–7 open-ended problems 266, 269 Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy, Johannesburg 379 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 221–2, 471 original ideas 96 Ottoman Empire 497 outcomes-based education (OBE) 379 out-of-level testing 108 overexcitabilities 21, 85, 110, 137, 441 overgeneralization, dangers of 185 Owen-Reid, Danielle 166 Oxbridge 295, 299, 344, 412 Özal, Turgut 493–4 pace of education 300, 304 Pachelbel, Johann 75 Page, Larry 78 Page, R.N. 325 Paltrow, Gwyneth 124 Panorma project 14–15 Papert, Seymour 287–9 parental influence 3, 147, 197–210, 455, 497 parenting 40–1 parents, support services for 442 Park, S. 545 Parker, Robert B. 561 Parkinson, Sue 155 Parnes, Sydney 269, 540 participation by students in decision-making about their education 115 particularists 528–9 passion 13, 88, 107, 236 patenting 79, 84 P-creativity 547–8 Peck, Richard 163 pedagogy 393, 471 perfectionism 3, 196–210, 424 Chinese perceptions of 197–8 measurement of 199–200 modelling of 200–7 Periathiruvadi, S. 278 Perino, S.C. and S. 187 Perons, Marji 257 perseverance 83–4 Persinger, Michael 23–4 ‘person of tomorrow’ 22 personalization and personalized learning 281–2, 339, 341, 363 personality 119, 127, 178 perspective-based learning 283 perspectives of creative and gifted individuals 85 Persson, R.S. 170 Pert, Candace 22–3 Peterson, J.B. 544–5 Peterson, J.S. 561 Pew Research Center 282

Pfeiffer, S. 132, 136, 170, 188, 377 phenomenological theory 21 Phillipson, S.N. 475 philosophy of education 279 physical development of children 449 Pickett, K. 527 Piechowsky, M.M. 184 Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development 117–20, 127 ‘environmental ‘suns’ of 120 place-based education (PBE) 281–2 definitions of 281 placements 287, 562 plagiarism detection 284 Plato 5, 344 play 288–9 Plucker, J. 330 Poland 514–16 Polanyi, M. 397 political aspcet of gifted education 507 Pope, M. 381 Popper, Karl 394 Porath, M. 374 Portugal 513–14 ‘positive disintegration’ theory (Dabrowski) 170, 441 positive technological development model 276 postmodernism 46–50, 55 potential as distinct from achievement 343, 374 potential creativity 101; see also evaluation of potential creativity Prain, V. 363 precocity 74, 126, 16 Press, F. 221 primary education 218 prior knowledge, students’ 302 ‘Prism of Learning’ model 263, 267 problem-based learning 283 problem perception/identification 265 problem-solving 263, 269–72, 288–9 creative 272 processes for 249–53, 256 problems, global 8–10, 283 processing, mental, conscious and unconscious 540 prodigies 324, 451, 559 professional development in gifted education 330; see also continuous professional development professionalism in education 393 profile analysis 190–1 profiles of students 238, 242 profound giftedness 2, 104–16 difficulties caused by 109–11 rarity of 109 and schooling 111–13 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings 221, 471, 433, 476 ‘programmers’ (Siegle) 279 ‘protected’ traits 66 psychic ability 115 psychological risks 107

Index

psychology, foundation of 20–2 psychosis 542 Ptolemy 78 pull-out programs 39, 323–4, 470 pupil premium 296, 413, 417 quality accumulation 456 quality of provision for early education and care 220–1 Qutoshi, Sadruddin Bahadur 399 Rabinow, Jacob 84–8 ‘race to the bottom’ 526 Radford House, Johannesburg 379 Rainbow project 13–14 ‘raising the bar’ for students 305 Ramachandran, Vilayanur 23–4 Ran, Shulami 123 Rance-Roney, J.A. 361–2 rational actor model 528 Raven’s Matrices 149–50, 173, 377 Rawal, Swaroop 400 reading 163–4, 546 real-world problems 9–13, 39, 271, 303, 472–3 REAPS (Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving) model 262–72 development of 263–4 implementation of 264–5, 267, 272 teachers’ attitudes to 271 Recob, Amy 164 Redding, C. 63 Ref Seek 284 Reggio Emilia 218, 224–5 registers of ‘more able’ pupils (in England) 410 reinhabitation 281 Reiss, M. 392 relativity theory 21 relevance of academic subjects 302–3 religion 49 Renzulli Academies 238 Renzulli Learning System (RLS) 242–3, 277, 554–5 research apparatus 465–6, 474–5 research-based inquiry 162–3 research needs 101, 138–40, 319, 443 Resnik, Judith 127 response-to-invention approach 467 retention problems with 331–2 two concepts of 325 Reynolds, Cecil 150 Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scale (RIAS) 150 rice production 426 right-hemisphere domination 546 Rimm, S. 185 Rinderman, H. 176 Rinn, A.N. 278 Roberts, R. 170 Robinson, A. 188 Robinson, Sir Ken 330

Robinson, L.P. 283 Robinson, N.M. 184, 225 robotics 285 Rodriguez, M. 172 Roeper Review 360 Roffey, T. 286 Rogers, Carl 21–2 role-models 3, 11 role-play 26 Romania 515–17 Rommelse, N. 132 Romney, D.M. 37 Ronksley-Pavia, M. 135–6, 139 Rost, D.H. 171 Rousseau, Jean Jacques 448 Roy, P. 424 Rubin, Vera 84–8 rural cultures 216 rural regions 375–6 Russia 514–17 Russo, Kristin 166 Ruzgis, P.M. 374 Safán-Gerard, D. 540 Safe Zone project 165–6 Safter, H.T. 549 Salovey, P. 376 Sambu, M.C. 378 Samuels, M.T. 37 Saudi Arabia 268, 272, 466, 469–70 Savage, Dan 166 Savrickas, M.L. 380, 382 Sayekti, S. 424 scaffolding 248, 298, 305 Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) 279 Schapiro, M. 189–90 Schiele, B. 426 Schiever, S.W. 263 Schiro, M. 223 Schleyer, Esther Jane 451 Schmerenbeck Centre 275, 289 Schmidhuber, J. 543 Schneider, B.H. 187, 189 school buildings 279–80 ‘schoolhouse giftedness’ 471 schools in Africa 375 autonomy for 413 best interests of 330 funding for 326 impact of 100, 171, 289 reform of 468 role of 11–12 Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) 213–14, 234–44, 435, 554 changes over time in 238–9 critcisms of 243–4

579

580

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

curriculum compacting component of 237 enrichment learning component of 237–8 how it works 236–8 mission and goals of 235–6 reasons for success of 239–43 three Es of 235, 240–1, 244 Schuler, P.A. 204 Schwab, K. 275 Schweitzer, Albert 557 science, foundation of 22–4 science and arts centres (SACs), Turkey 498, 502 science and technology (S&T) programs 425–9 scientists 126–7 Scotland 511–13 screening for giftedness 63 dynamic process for 99–100 multiple criteria used in 92–3 search engines 284 Sears, R.R. 171 Second Life 284 self-actualization 22, 382, 509 self-advocacy 114–15 self-directed learning 365 self-esteem 89, 172, 174, 248, 301, 306, 361, 425–9, 448, 557 ‘self-improving’ schools 413 self-report data 210 self-selection 468 self-sufficiency of students 275 sensory integration therapy 153–4 sensory processing disorder 146, 153–4 sequencing of events, questions and resources 304 service-learning activities 557 Sexton, Anne 122, 127 Sharp, D.W. 6 Shaunessy, E. 278–9 Shaunessy-Dedrick, E. 188 Shavinina, L.S. 188 Shekerjian, D. 397 Sherry, J.F. 32–5 Shirley, A. 289 Shoda, Y. 172 short-termism 330, 472 Shrude, Marilyn 123–4, 127 Siegle, D. 279 Simon, T. 6–7, 46, 106 simulations in learning 284 Singapore 466–9, 475 situational pressures 13 Six-C Model 276–7 skills for group work 268 innovation-based 100 need for 276 Skuse, Amy 399 Slaney, R.B. 196 Slovakia 514–16

Slovenia 513–14 Slovinsky, K. 373 Smetana, J.G. 199 Smith, M.L. 313 Smutny, J.F. 365, 518 Snyder, A.W. 545 social capital 63, 468, 474 social comparison 527 social experience courses 454–5 Social Institute for Motivating, Supporting and Recognizing Talent (SMART), Brazil 437–8 social isolation of the gifted 108, 110, 114, 178, 328 social learning theory 89 social media 554 social mobility 412, 414 social networks and social networking 114, 512 social recognition of talent 120 social relationships 41–2 social responsibility 450 social skills 177 socializatiom 77–8, 317, 423, 449, 543 societal factors 424 Socrates 160, 344 Soka education 220 solar system 85 Soler, P. 327 Solomon, King 345 Sommers, Shula 164 Sosniak, L.A. 88 South Africa 216, 246–7, 253, 257, 378–85 South Korea 423–6, 469–70, 475–6 Spain 513–14 Spanheim, Julia von 27–8 Spearman, C. 170 special educational needs 180, 378–80, 508, 511–15 special schools for the gifted and talented 112–13, 470, 500, 517 Spielberg, Steven 77–8 spiritual intelligence (SQ) 19–30, 374 definitions of 27, 29–30 spiritual pathfinders 27 Spiro, Jane 392 ‘spoon-feeding’ 304 sporting talent 324, 378, 385, 442, 500, 559 Sriraman, Bharath 523 stakeholders 265–6 standardized assessments of children 221 standards, national and local 303 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test 47, 66, 103, 137, 150, 162, 173 Stanley, J.C. 323 Staunton, T. 382 Steenbergen-Hu, S. 311, 326 Steinberg, L. 209 Steinhauer, N. 557 STEM (science, technology, engineering and medicine) subjects 417–18, 469, 529–31

Index

stereotyping 169, 172, 180, 375, 435 Sternberg, Robert J. 7, 34–40, 46, 61, 93, 249, 263, 377, 523–4, 556, 559–60 Stevenson, Robin 163 stigma 42–4 Stoeger, H. 475 Stonewall Book Awards 166 Stonewall Rebellion (1969) 162 Stratford, R. 222 ‘straw-man’ arguments 11 streaming 322, 329 stress 362, 527–8 stretch effort grades (SEGs) 419 Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) 126 subak system 426 subjective observation 170 Subotnik, R.F. 10, 39, 343, 374 success in adult life, nature of 176–7, 376–7, 472–3 Sufism 24 summer programs for the gifted and talented 113, 486 Sumsion, J. 221–2 Super, D.E. 382 survival in the 21st century, requirements for 526–7 Sutton Trust 411–14 Sverko, C. 286 Swadener, B.B. 221 Sweden 511–13 Sweeny, S. 242 Swift, Graham 296 Switzerland 510 synchronicity, theory of 21 synthetic biology 530 Szekeley, Edmond Bordeaux 24–5 Taber, K.S. 428 Taiwan, gifted education in 406, 467, 469, 472, 475, 479–90 talent 55, 74, 129–33, 427–8, 529 domains of 119–20 heritability of 117–19 talent development 37, 44, 131–2, 235, 343, 360, 414, 443, 446, 467–8, 475 talent spotting 561 talent support networks 469 ‘tall poppy’ syndrome 324 Tannenbaum, A. 47, 51, 64 Taoism 26–7, 198 target-setting 302 TASC (Thinking Actively in a Social Context) 246–60, 263, 266–9, 395 extension of 253–5, 260 principles and tenets of 248–9 theoretical underpinning of 248–9 websites related to 257 task avoidance 362 Taylor, I.A. 547–8

581

Te Wh¯ariki 224 teacher-centered pedagogy 471 ‘teacher-feasibility’ 244 teachers desirable characteristics in 215, 225 education and training of 112, 226, 241, 284–5, 330, 342, 366, 413, 448–9, 452–3, 470, 481, 510–16 job losses for 331–2 loss of professionalism 239–40 perceptions of students 63 pressures on 364, 452 roles of 100, 248, 341, 392 specializing in gifted education 298, 378, 406, 442–3, 448–9, 453, 455, 470, 489, 510–11, 516 teaching 297–9 technological giftedness 214 technology in education impact of 274–8 research on 278–9 technology integration matrix 278 Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre 28 telepathy 115 Terman, Lewis 6–7, 10, 15, 34–5, 46, 71, 73, 83, 106, 130–1, 171, 274 Tesla, Nikola 28, 544 testing of students 213, 301, 410 Thaler, Stephen 548 theory development 239, 394 Therien, J. 286 thinking convergent or divergent 539 definition of 93 thinking ‘outside the box’ 79, 473 thinking processes 97–100, 260 thinking skills 9, 236, 249, 256, 365, 417, 450, 557 Thomson, Patience 155 threshold concepts 306 Thurstone, L.L. 546–7 time management 362 Timm, Delysia 399 Tomlinson, C.A. 363 Torrance, E. Paul 1, 20, 545, 549 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) 133 totalitarianism 526, 529 ‘Tower of Babel’ effect 322 Toynbee, Arnold 29 tracking 322–5, 329 transcranial magnetic stimulation 23 transformational leadership 2, 10 transgender people 160 transition from primary school to secondary 412, 416–17 Treffinger, Don 560 Tribal Mensa Nurturing Program 51 Trotman, M.F. 364 Tucker, Vicky 399

582

The SAGE Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education

Tufts University 14 Turkey 406–7, 466, 474–5, 492–504 Vision 2023 493–4 Turner Thomson, D. 184–5 TurnItIn 284 Tutu, Desmond 373 ‘twice exceptional’ (2e) children 3, 34–5, 129, 135–9, 144–9, 276, 345 characteristics of 146–7 identificaton of 136–7 barriers to measurement of 139 Ubuntu philosophy 375, 383 Udvari, S.J. 189 Ujamaa philosophy 375, 383 Ukraine 514–17 Ullén, F. 87 unconscious mind 540–2, 548–9 underachievers 136, 144, 174, 247, 260, 295–6, 362, 405, 411–12, 416, 419, 422, 518, 528, 561 unique perspectives 85 United Kingdom 296, 512–13; see also England; Scotland; Wales United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 218–19, 426 Sustainable Development Goals 220 universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) 147 universalism 48, 529 universities, role of 469, 474–5 university admissions 295, 299, 331, 414, 433 university life 175, 185–6, 192 ‘unschooling’ 113 Urban, M. 221 Urst, Ribary 24 utilitarianism 472 Vail, P.L. 184, 187, 193 Vaivre-Douret, L. 105, 115 Vallance, E. 223 values and value-laden concepts 29, 390–2, 398, 402; see also group values Van Bockern, S. 556 Van Tassel-Baska, J. 236 Vaughan, F. 19 the Vedas 25 Virgolim, A.M.R. 434 virtual reality 277, 284 virtual schools for the gifted 277 VISCAR (vision, infrastructure, capacity, agency and research) framework 463–6, 470, 474 visceral creativity (V-creativity) 548 vision 468 vision therapy (VT) 154 visual artists 121 visual processing weaknesses 146, 153

vocational guidance 381–2 Volk, Tyler 532 Volmar 28 vuja de experiences 297 Vygotsky, L.S. 64, 89, 247–8, 260, 299 Wagner, R.K. 376 Wai, J. 176 Wales 511, 513 Wallas, G. 539 Ward, V.S. 188 Wasserman, J. 36 Webb, Chick 122–3 Webb, J.T. 185, 187, 193 websites 165–6 Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) 132 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) 149, 377, 559–60 Wei Yongkang 451 Weitz, Eric 529 Weizenbaum, Joseph 523 Whitaker, A.M. 138 White, D. 289 White, E.J. 219–22 White, J. 392 whole-school policies 418–19 Wigglesworth, C. 29 Wilber, Ken 19 Wilkinson, R.G. 527 Williams, Evan 78 Williams, Gary 399 Williams, R. 218, 560 Wilshaw, Sir Michael 295–6 Winblad, P. 344 Winebrenner, S. 363 ‘Wings’ project (Beijing) 455–60 Winner, Ellen 34–8 Winnipeg University 554–7, 562 wisdom and wisdom-based exerises 12–14 withdrawal of gifted pupils for specialist tuition 179, 323–4 Wolfram Alpha 284 Wolvaardt, Elizabeth 399 women see females Woodcock-Johnson Tests 132 World Bank 219–20 World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (WCGTC) 442 World Peace Game 283 Worrell, F.C. 37, 39, 374 Wotipka, C.M. 217 Wright, Frank Lloyd 544 Wu, W.-T. 472 Yamauchi, Hiroshi 78 Yang, A. 473 Yoon, Y. 362

Index

Youngstrom, E.A. 137 YouTube 276 Zambia 375 Zeidan, F. 24 Zeidner, Moshe 170, 451 Zen 25–6 Zentall, S.S. 138

Zhao, Y. 471 Zhilin, D.M. 514–15 Ziegler, A. 475 Zohar, D. 19, 23, 29 zone of proximal development (ZPD) 89, 248 Zuckerberg, Mark 78

583