Exceptionality in East Asia : Explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness 9781136455728, 9780415507271

Citation preview

Exceptionality in East Asia

The continual successes of students from East Asia are confirmed in a variety of international tests of academic achievement and yet, despite this attainment, many scholars have realized that a substantial proportion of these students are also underachieving. Using the actiotope model of giftedness to integrate a broad range of research, this innovative book features a number of chapters written by internationally recognized scholars in a frank and lively discussion about the origins of exceptionality in students from East Asia. With the actiotope model as the theoretical framework, the book distinguishes between trait models of giftedness and systems approaches to exceptionality. Breaking new ground in understanding the complex interactions between a learner’s environment, goals, intelligence and motivations in the development of their everexpanding knowledge and skill set, this book will:

• • • • •

describe, with examples, a systems approach to the development of exceptionality, allowing educators and researchers the ability to track students with greater precision; influence the means by which educators identify and support students with the potential for exceptional performance; suggest possible reasons for the variability in the achievement of potentially gifted students; provide strategies to support these students; and have a profound effect on the way that exceptionality and giftedness are defined and understood, not only in East Asia but also in the West.

Covering issues that have firm theoretical foundations and which are based on cutting edge ideas, Exceptionality in East Asia has significant implications for gifted education and is essential reading for scholars, undergraduate and postgraduate students interested in the psychological and social basis of exceptionality. Shane N. Phillipson, PhD, is Associate Professor and Associate Dean in the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Australia and previously at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Heidrun Stoeger, PhD, is Chair Professor of Educational Sciences (School Research, School Development, and Evaluation) at Regensburg University, Germany. She is Vice President of the International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence (IRATDE) and Editor-in-Chief of High Ability Studies. Albert Ziegler, PhD, is the Secretary General of the International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence (IRATDE). He is Chair Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg and Editor-inChief of Talent Development & Excellence.

Exceptionality in East Asia

Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness

Edited by Shane N. Phillipson, Heidrun Stoeger and Albert Ziegler

First published 2013 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2013 Shane N. Phillipson, Heidrun Stoeger and Albert Ziegler The right of the editors to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Exceptionality in East Asia : explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness/edited by Shane N. Phillipson, Heidrun Stoeger, Albert Ziegler. p.cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-0-415-50727-1 (hardback) — ISBN 978-0-415-50729-5 (paperback) — ISBN 978-0-203-12638-7 (ebook) 1. Gifted children—Education—59. I. Phillipson, Shane N. LC3999.4.E94 2013 371.9509—dc23 2012029312 ISBN: 978-0-415-50727-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-415-50729-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-12638-7 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Cenveo Publisher Services

Dedicated to Aristarchus of Samos (310 BC–ca. 230 BC)

1,800 years before Copernicus, Aristarchus of Samos challenged the prevailing view that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. He had a premonition that Earth and the other planets revolved around the sun, contributing equally to the whole. In understanding the development of exceptionality, we take Aristarchus’ lead and focus not on the individual, but on the interactions between the individual and their material, social, and informational environment. We call this system an actiotope.

Contents

List of contributors Foreword by Kurt A. Heller Preface 1

The actiotope model of giftedness: an introduction to some central theoretical assumptions

ix x xiii 1

ALBERT ZI E G L ER, WIL MA VIA L L E A ND BA S T IAN WIMMER

2

Talent development as adaptation: the role of educational and learning capital

18

ALBERT ZI E G L ER A ND JO S EP H BA KER

3

Confucianism, learning self-concept and the development of exceptionality

40

S H AN E N . P H I L L IP S O N

4

Pathways to artistic giftedness: developmental theory as a complement to the actiotope model of giftedness

65

M ARI O N P O RAT H

5

Chinese students and mathematical problem solving: an application of the actiotope model of giftedness

86

RO S E M AR Y CA L L INGHA M

6

Intelligence and academic achievement – with a focus on the actiotope model of giftedness ALJ O S C H A N E U BA U ER

100

viii

Contents

7 Goal orientations and the development of subjective action space in Chinese students

114

REBECCA WING-Y I CHENG A ND S HA NE N. PHILLIPSON

8 Social-emotional development of Chinese gifted students: a review based within the actiotope model of giftedness

132

M AN TAK Y UEN A ND RICCI W. FO NG

9 The “Tiger Mother” factor: curriculum, schooling and mentoring of Asian students in an Australian context

147

W I L M A VI A L L E

10 Parental involvement within the actiotope model of giftedness: what it means for East-Asian students

167

S I VAN E S P H IL L IP S O N A ND S IN Y IN JA NET YICK

11 Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia according to the actiotope model of giftedness

188

H E I D RU N ST O EGER

12 Twice-exceptional students with deafness or hard-of-hearing and giftedness

212

KEVI N C. P. Y U EN

13 Gifted education policy and the development of exceptionality: a Hong Kong perspective

232

S TE P H E N D. T O MMIS A ND S HA NE N. P HILLIPSON

14 The gifted and talented and effective learning: a focus on the actiotope model of giftedness in the Asian context

255

D EN N I S M . MCINERNEY

Index

269

Contributors

Joseph Baker, School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, UK Rosemary Callingham, Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Australia Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng, Department of Psychological Studies, the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong SAR Ricci W. Fong, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong SAR Kurt A. Heller, Centre for the Study of Giftedness, LMU, Germany Dennis M. McInerney, Department of Psychological Studies, the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong SAR Aljoscha Neubauer, Department of Psychology, University of Graz, Austria Shane N. Phillipson, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia Sivanes Phillipson, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia Marion Porath, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, the University of British Columbia, Canada Heidrun Stoeger, School Research, School Development and Evaluation, University of Regensburg, Germany Stephen D. Tommis, the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education, Hong Kong SAR Wilma Vialle, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Australia Bastian Wimmer, Department of Psychology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany Sin Yin Janet Yick, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, Hong Kong SAR Kevin C. P. Yuen, Department of Special Education and Counselling, the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong SAR Mantak Yuen, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR Albert Ziegler, Department of Psychology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Foreword Kurt A. Heller

In the last two decades, synthetic approaches have gained increasing influence on gifted education and the conceptualization of giftedness and exceptionality worldwide. Well-known examples are the MVT:D4 model (originally MT:D3) by Brody and Stanley (2005), the WICS model of giftedness by Sternberg (2003), the Munich Model of Giftedness (MMG) by Heller (1992, 2001) or Heller et al. (2005) and the MMG-extended Munich Process Model of Giftedness (MPMG) by Ziegler and Perleth (1997) as well as the Munich Dynamic Ability Achievement Model (MDAAM) by Perleth (2001), among others. Recently, Ziegler and Stoeger (2004) and Ziegler and Phillipson (2012) offered the systems analysisbased actiotope model of giftedness, originated by Ziegler within the framework of the DFG researcher group “Knowledge and Action” at LMU Munich (19962002); see Ziegler (2005), Ziegler et al. (2006). Systemic approaches have been elaborated in other domains too (e.g. in the field of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi and Wolfe, 2000), or family psychology and medicine). Which new theoretical insights and benefits of gifted education can be expected from systems approaches like the actiotope model compared with psychometric models (e.g. MVT:D or MMG) and the developmental-process models like MPMG or MDAAM? In my opinion, this is the crucial point in the assessment of different research paradigms concerning giftedness and gifted education (for greater detail see Bock and Ackrill, 1993). The actiotope model by Ziegler et al. is characterized by the following main components: action repertoire (e.g. cognitive abilities as individual learning potential and competencies (i.e. actual and/or actualized action repertoire for achieving)), subjective action space (e.g. self-related knowledge and behavior, learning and achievement motivation, efforts, etc.), goals (aspirations, goal orientation, interests, etc), and environment (variables like expectations and attitudes held by parents and teachers as well as school curriculum, classroom instruction, etc). Originally, the actiotope model was developed as a heuristic model and its aim was to determine the relevant cognitive, non-cognitive (e.g. emotional and motivational) and social learning conditions of gender differences in the area of STEM. In a series of consecutive experimental and quasi-experimental (field) studies, the Munich Motivational Training (MMT), the (Causal) Attributional Re-Training

Foreword

xi

(ART) and other self-related knowledge and motivation integrated intervention concepts have been developed and validated in STEM-related learning groups. The ART and MMT are proven as successful interventions reducing unfavorable motivational and self-concept factors, especially in the area of STEM (see Heller and Ziegler, 1996; Ziegler et al., 2006). Contrary to this individual-focused gifted education approach, Ziegler and Stoeger (2004) and Ziegler and Phillipson (2012) stress a systems perspective for exploring giftedness and excellence performance. Hence, they redefined the conception of “giftedness” and argued: that the basic principles of a systemic approach to gifted education require attention to the interaction between the persons and their environment, a focus on the co-evolution of all elements in the system, closer attention to the continual expansion of resources and competencies within the system, and the construction of an individualized learning pathway … (2012, p. 27). The “new look” of gifted education represented in this book reveals itself in many facets. What is essentially new in the actiotope model compared to MMG, MPMG or MDAAM? These and further questions are discussed by eighteen authors from Australia, Canada, Europe (Austria, Germany) and the Far East (Hong Kong). The fourteen chapters represent the current state of the art. In my opinion, two elements should be emphasized above all: (1) The heuristic function of the actiotope model has been confirmed not only with regard to several domains and settings, but also in different cultural contexts – as impressively demonstrated in this book. (2) Compared to MPMG or MDAAM, a salient advantage is gained from the differentiated interaction components within the actiotope model. I could agree with the editors’ demand for more “attention to the interaction between the person and the environment,” the “construction of individualized learning pathways” as far as possible, but with – not without – multifactor or multidimensional identification measures, especially in the sense of learning tests or dynamic assessment. Then different research paradigms would compliment each other. The editors and authors of this significant work deserve our gratitude and respect. This new book provides invaluable research tools to researchers, scholars, students and practitioners interested in gifted education – nationally and internationally. The systems perspective enlarges – without doubt – a welcome theoretical enrichment concerning gifted education. Further empirical research should be stressed on the validation of actiotope model applications in the practice of gifted education.

xii

Foreword

References Bock, G. R. and Ackrill, K. (eds.), (1993). The Origins and Development of High Ability. CIBA Foundation Symposium 178. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Brody, L. E. and Stanley, J. C. (2005). Youths Who Reason Exceptionally Well Mathematically and/or Verbally. In R. J.Sternberg and J.E.Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 20–37). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Wolfe, R. (2000). New Conceptions and Research Approaches to Creativity: Implications of a Systems Perspective for Creativity in Education. In K. A. Heller, F. J.Mönks.R. J. Sternberg and R. F. Subotnik (eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd. ed., pp. 81–93). Oxford: Pergamon Press/ Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Heller, K. A. (ed.), (1992). Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter [High Ability in Childhood and Adolescence] (2nd ed., 2001): Göttingen: Hogrefe. Heller, K. A. and Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and the natural sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 200–210. Heller, K. A., Perleth, Ch. and Lim. T. K. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg and J.E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147–170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Perleth, Ch. (2001). Follow-up-Untersuchungen zur Münchner Hochbegabungsstudie [Follow-ups of the Munich Study of Giftedness]. In K. A. Heller (ed.), Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter [High Ability in Childhood and Adolescence] (2nd ed., pp. 357–446). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS as a Model of Giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14, 109–137. Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In R. J.Sternberg and J. E.Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A. and Perleth, Ch. (1997). Schafft es Sisyphos, den Stein den Berg hinaufzurollen? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme der Diagnose- und Fördermöglichkeiten von Begabten in der beruflichen Bildung vor dem Hintergrund des Münchner BegabungsProzess-Modells (MPMG) [Will Sisyphos be able to roll the stone up to the mountain? A critical examination of the status of diagnosis and promotion of the gifted in occupational education set against the MPMG]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 44, 152–163. Ziegler, A. and Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual frame of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. Psychology Science, 46, 324–342. Ziegler, A. and Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Toward a Systemic Theory of Gifted Education. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30. Ziegler, A., Heller, K. A., Schober, B. and Dresel, M. (2006). The Actiotope. A heuristic model for a research program designed to reduce adverse motivational conditions influencing scholastic achievement. In D. Frey, H. Mandl and L. v. Rosenstiel (eds.), Knowledge and Action (pp. 143–173). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Preface

The power of many conceptions of giftedness to explain the variability in the achievements of potentially gifted students is limited. On the other hand, the actiotope model of giftedness is a revolutionary model of exceptional achievement that moves away from trait models of giftedness and considers exceptionality as the outcome of a system (Phillipson, 2006; Ziegler, 2005; Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). This book – Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness – explores the exceptional academic achievements of students who can be broadly identified with the Confucian-heritage culture of East Asia, including those from China, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and the Special Administrative Regions of China such as Hong Kong. More specifically, this book explores the achievements of these students using the actiotope model as the theoretical framework. With a focus on East Asia, we have access to a rich and extensive body of research, although we are also aware of the dangers of over-generalizing the development of exceptionality in East Asia under the Confucian aegis (Lee, 1996). Nevertheless, we feel that there is sufficient commonality amongst these nation-states to allow some broad conclusions. Paradoxically, however, there is a growing realization that many of the students from East Asia are underachieving. In Hong Kong, for example, recent studies have suggested that students with a wide range of intellectual abilities are underachieving in mathematics, including students who have the potential for exceptional achievement (Lau and Chan, 2001; Phillipson, 2008). Naturally, an understanding of the reasons for this underachievement, particularly for students with the highest intellectual ability, is of increasing concern. As well as explaining the bases for exceptionality, this book helps to explain the reasons behind their underachievement and suggest strategies to support them The actiotope model was first published in an English version in Robert J. Sternberg and Janet Davidson’s (2005) book Conceptions of Giftedness and its placement as the final chapter underpins its unique contribution to this seminal volume. Since its publication, the actiotope model has provided the theoretical basis of a number of research efforts, particularly in its country of origin. Although our focus is an explanation of exceptionality in East Asia, this book also serves to

xiv

Preface

better explicate the various components of the actiotope model since it draws upon many concrete examples. The actiotope model has been successfully operationalized in the German school context (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2004) and used to explain the achievement of mathematical excellence (Phillipson and Callingham, 2009). The actiotope model, however, transcends domains, geographic and cultural boundaries and, hence, can be used to explain the development of exceptionality more generally. It is unique amongst conceptions of giftedness because it moves away from a need to define the traits of giftedness such as intelligence, creativity and motivation. Instead, the actiotope model recognizes that achievement excellence depends on the complex interactions between the four components of an individual’s actiotope. It is timely that the actiotope model be used to stimulate further research in giftedness research, particular when research in gifted education has been described by many researchers as entropic (Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). As our book explains, the actiotope model views exceptionality as an outcome of a system, the components of which include goals, action repertoire, subjective action space and the environment. These terms, of course, require further explanation although the discerning reader of our book will soon recognize some familiar territory, including goal orientation theory, personality and social cognitive theory. The intersection between cognition and sociocultural processes represents an emerging field of research (Sun, 2006) and the development of exceptionality is an example of the outcomes of such processes. Although our focus helps to explain the exceptional academic achievements of students from East Asia, this book is intended for researchers searching for a fresh perspective to the study of giftedness. It will also be of practical use to practitioners and parents more broadly, not only those living and working within a Confucian heritage. We also make the leap between our specialist area of giftedness and mainstream educational psychology. Ziegler, Vialle and Wimmer (Chapter 1) introduce the basic concepts behind the actiotope model, including the action repertoire, goals, subjective action space and environment. Using four vignettes to illustrate these concepts, Ziegler, Vialle and Wimmer conclude that although learning pathways are highly individualized the broad system requirements are the same. Ziegler and Baker (Chapter 2) begin with a discussion of the actiotpe model as a system, including how this system is regulated and by what. The distinction between educational and learning capital is then introduced, followed by the relationship between the actiotope model and the basis of a systemic gifted education. S. N. Phillipson (Chapter 3) focuses on the relationship between the basic tenets of Confucianism and the development of exceptionality, explaining that many tenets have the potential to either enhance or inhibit the development of academic achievement. Phillipson introduces the term of learning self-concept to reflect the extent of the influence of Confucianism on an individual’s concept of self as a learner.

Preface

xv

In Chapter 4, Porath examines the complementary relationship between neoPiagetian development theory and the actiotope model. Drawing on case studies of exceptional Chinese artists, Porath concludes that cultural influences are important in the development of Chinese artistry, particularly in the formative years of middle childhood. Callingham (Chapter 5) focuses on the exceptional performance of students from East Asia in international tests of mathematical ability such as PISA and TIMMS. Callingham notes that the actiotope model is better able to account for cross-cultural differences in mathematical performance because it is able to incorporate other more simplistic explanations such as didactic teaching approach and family influence into the one model. Exceptional performance is often attributed to traits such as high intelligence. Neubauer (Chapter 6) juxtaposes the actiotope model with psychometric intelligence and creativity. Neubauer argues that these two personal traits cannot be ignored in any model of exceptionality and suggests an approach to integrate these two traits into the actiotope model. Cheng and Phillipson (Chapter 7) focus on the relationship between goal orientations amongst Chinese students and the development of the subjective action space. In reviewing the extant literature, they conclude that there is evidence for a mastery-oriented, learning-oriented and socially-oriented subjective action space amongst Chinese learners, with each being a powerful influence on the development of an individual’s action repertoire. In Chapter 8, M.-t. Yuen and Fong examine the social-emotional development of Chinese gifted students using the actiotope model as the conceptual framework. Drawing on the relevant research, Yuen and Fong conclude that for these students, psychological adjustment, perfectionism and school-connectedness are three critical issues related to the development of exceptionality. Importantly, they use the actiotope model to explain how these issues affect the development of exceptionality and provide concrete examples of strategies that can redress their influence. Vialle (Chapter 9) considers the bases of the continuing exceptional academic performance of Asian students in Australian schools. After reviewing the stereotypic explanations of the reasons behind their exceptional performance, Vialle concludes that the actiotope model offers a sound framework within which the “tiger mother” can be understood. S. Phillipson and Yick (Chapter 10) focus on the significance of parental involvement in their children’s academic achievement. Based on an extensive review of eight separate meta-analyses, Phillipson and Yick conclude that parental involvement influences the subjective action space through the clear communication of their expectations, beliefs and values. Importantly, they show that some types of parental involvement are better than others in effecting academic achievement. Central to most gifted education programmes is the identification of gifted students. In Chapter 11 Stoeger draws on her European experience in the

xvi

Preface

identification of gifted students and concludes that the ENTER model is particularly suitable for the identification of such students from East Asia. In Chapter 12, Yuen focuses on the challenges facing gifted students with hearing disabilities within the context of the East-Asian culture. Using examples from a number of case studies, Yuen concludes that the actiotope model provides both the basis for understanding the impact of these challenges and the rationale for the strategies that can be implemented. Tommis and Phillipson (Chapter 13) discuss the relationship between educational policy and the actiotope model based on the Hong Kong example. Given that a gifted education policy has the potential to influence the educational environment of a student, this chapter concludes that in Hong Kong, the greatest influence of the policy is likely to be on the professional development of their teachers. In Chapter 14, McInerney draws the link between the actiotope model and the broader domain of research in giftedness and educational psychology. The broad aim of his chapter is to take a step back from the general discussion and provide a critique of the specific approach taken by this book and the conclusions described in the first 13 chapters. McInerney concludes that central to the actiotope model is counseling, helping student set realistic goals and to deal with the social and emotional contexts, and to develop strong self-concept and identity. In his final comments, he reminds us that giftedness is not synonymous with high academic achievement as demonstrated by tests such as TIMSS and PISA. He challenges us to test the actiotope model by looking at other case studies within the East-Asian context across their lifespan, and he poses a number of fundamental questions, including whether or not giftedness really exists in the East-Asian context, or are the successes simply a demonstration of hard work driven by Tiger Mothers? This book is based on a symposium held on 1–3 August 2011 at The Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) and supported by a generous grant from the Department of Special Education and Counselling (SEC) of HKIEd. The symposium was co-hosted by SEC, the Centre for Special Needs and Studies in Inclusive Education of HKIEd, the International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence (IRATDE), and Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education. The symposium – Giftedness in East Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness – was attended by delegates from East Asia, including Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, Taiwan and more broadly, including New Zealand, Australia, and Europe. The delegates included research students, parents, researchers and policy makers. The success of the symposium and, ultimately, this book is due to the work of several key persons. We would like to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Jan Gube for organizing the symposium and supporting the delegates, and Dr Kenneth Sin, Dr Stephen Tommis, Professor Heidrun Stoeger and Dr Sivanes Phillipson as members of the organizing committee. In preparing the book, we would like to

Preface

xvii

thank Professor Kurt A. Heller for writing the Foreword. Finally, we thank the many anonymous reviewers of the chapters who worked diligently and creatively to very tight deadlines. Shane N. Phillipson, Heidrun Stoeger and Albert Ziegler October 2012

References Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian heritage. In D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences (pp. 25–41). Hong Kong, China and Victoria, Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong and the Australian Council for Educational Research. Lau, K.-L., and Chan, D. W. (2001). Identification of underachievers in Hong Kong: Do different methods select different underachievers? Educational Studies, 27(2), 187–200. Phillipson, S. N. (2006). Treasure chests, chameleons and theories of giftedness: Illuminating the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (Symposium presentation with Prof. Albert Ziegler, Prof. Heidrun Stoeger and Dr. Taisir S. Yamin). In C. C. Kuo, L. W. Chang, C. Y. Chen, I. et al. (eds.), Meeting the Unique Needs of the Gifted: Proceedings of the 9th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, Taipei, Taiwan, 31 July–4 August, pp. 91–98. Phillipson, S. N. (2008). The optimal achievement model and underachievement in Hong Kong: An application of the Rasch measurement model. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(2), 147–172. Phillipson, S. N., and Callingham, R. (2009). Understanding mathematical giftedness: Integrating self, action repertoires and the environment. In L. V. Shavinina (ed.), The International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 671–698). Amsterdam: Springer Science and Business Media. Sternberg, R. J., and Davidson, J. (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sun, R. (ed.), (2006). Cognition and Multi-agent Interaction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A. and Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education, High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30. Ziegler, A., and Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual frame of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness Psychology Science, 46, 324–341.

Chapter 1

The actiotope model of giftedness An introduction to some central theoretical assumptions Albert Ziegler , Wilma Vialle and Bastian Wimmer Scenario 1: Favela Rocinha in the south of Rio de Janeiro. Little Carlos is sitting on three piled-up tyres. The four chairs around the only table in the wooden hut are occupied by his oldest brother and his friend playing cards together. Scenario 2: 155th street, Holocombe Rucker Playground, in the middle of a neighborhood in the poorest part of Harlem. Mike, aged eight, is dreaming of doing one ‘slam dunk’ after another some day during the ‘Rucker’, the world’s most famous street basketball tournament. Scenario 3: The room of Lian, a third-grade pupil. She’s going to do a mathematics test in two weeks, but cannot decide if she should start studying or watch a TV show which is very popular among her classmates.

It may seem unlikely to us that Carlos is going to be a professional card player, that Mike is going to be a professional basketball player or that Lian is going to be a great mathematician. But how could this scenario change?

Effective action repertoires These are three scenarios, representing three totally different worlds of actions and opportunities for personal development. Conventional models of talent propose that the key to answering this question lies in the special personality traits of the three children. These models label them with talents, gifts, abilities, and so on (Shavinina, 2009; Sternberg and Davidson, 2005). By contrast, the actiotope model of giftedness emphasizes the dynamic interaction of individuals with the environment. The focus of interest under the actiotope model, then, is action not traits. All humans have a different action repertoire – that is, the possibilities for acting – which they could realize in principle. Carlos, for example, can play cards in a very sophisticated way for a boy of his age. Mike scores the most points with a basketball compared to his friends and Lian masters arithmetical operations that would normally be expected of children two years older than her. Although these

2

Albert Ziegler, Wilma Vialle, Bastian Wimmer

three youngsters show remarkable performance in special fields for their age, their action repertoire is not comparable to that of an expert in his or her special field. Experts have a far more effective action repertoire, which differs on at least seven characteristics from the repertoires of actions of Carlos, Mike or Lian (Ericsson, 1998; Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich and Hoffman, 2006). These seven characteristics comprise the following: (1) The action repertoire of experts in their specialty includes actions that are more successful. A professional musician who is asked to play a new track will immediately find a much better interpretation than a good amateur musician. Similarly, chess Grand Masters, who analyze chess patterns, find much stronger turns than a novice chess player. Mathematics professors can solve complex equation systems with ease; the average person finds them very difficult to understand. (2) The action repertoire of experts in their specialty is far more elaborated. Chess Grand Masters, for example, have as many useful chess patterns (chunks) saved in their mind as there are words in their native language. They record more items of information, recognize the diverse relationships among them, and save those items in a more structured manner. (3) Access to effective actions. Experts have sophisticated strategies, enabling them to retrieve successful actions and solutions to problems more quickly and in a more targeted manner. By contrast, the novice has access to poor choices along with possibilities for success. If you have managed to ride a bike without falling off, for example, there is no guarantee that the next time you ride a bike you will also be free of accidents. (4) Analysis of problems. Before experts act, they analyze the problem extensively and create a more action–functional problem representation than does a novice. (5) Physical adaptations. The bodies of experts are adjusted in many ways to the requirements of their domain. To illustrate, this applies not only to the different muscular systems of weightlifters, table tennis players and radiologists, but also to the specialized regions of their brains, which are enlarged in connection to their activities. (6) Strategies. Experts use more suitable strategies to arrive at a solution. Expert physicians, for example, start with the given information and work their way through to the solution of the problem. Students of physics, however, typically reverse this process and try to work their way backwards from the unknown, to the given information. (7) Cognitive effort. Experts have automated an enormous number of cognitive action steps. They do not have to be laboriously constructed to solve a problem, but can simply be retrieved. Consequently, cognitive resources are available for the analysis of aspects of problems, whose solutions are unknown at this point. Taken together, these characteristics explain why experts, with their effective action repertoires, are superior to the average capable person in their special field.

The actiotope model of giftedness

3

However, these findings do not explain why some people are able to develop from an ordinary action repertoire to an extraordinarily effective action repertoire. Do talents and gifts actually play the critical role that conventional giftedness researchers believe?

Intelligence adaptations If giftedness researchers want to assess whether Carlos, Mike or Lian could ever build up an exceptionally effective action repertoire, they usually want to examine whether these three children bring talents and gifts with them. In the actiotope model, this question is regarded as less scientific. The question that is asked is whether all three can learn in an effective way; which enables them to build up an excellent action repertoire in card playing, basketball or mathematics. The answer is given within the scope of the systemic paradigm. The fundamental theoretical unit on which all analyses are based is the actiotope.

What is an actiotope? The focus of the actiotope approach is action and the possibilities for acting possessed by individuals. These can only be understood if we recognize them as a result of three adaptations:

• • •

a biological adaptation that was mainly carried by the human species and is conceptually locatable in biotopes; a social adaptation that is mainly carried by social associations, which we can conceptually locate in sociotopes; and an individual adaptation that is carried by individuals, which we can conceptually locate in actiotopes.

Essentially all actions, which are of interest in research on giftedness, are a result of these three adaptations. If Carlos puts a card on the table, for example, he does it with his hand (not with a fin or a wing); this is a consequence of biological adaptation (in biotopes). Both the card game itself and its rules are the results of a social adaptation (in sociotopes). The choice of particular card moves is a result of Carlos’s individual adaptation (which happens in his actiotope). In a similar vein, all of Lian’s arithmetic skills are based upon enormous developments in the information processing of the vertebrates (in biotopes), the development of the mathematics discipline (in sociotopes) and the individual development of her arithmetic skills (in her actiotope). In line with these introductory remarks, we can define an actiotope thus:

An actiotope includes an individual and the material, social and informational environment with which that individual actively interacts.

4

Albert Ziegler, Wilma Vialle, Bastian Wimmer

Three perspectives on the actiotope Every actiotope is unique. In every actiotope, the individual can access a range of special possibilities for interacting with his or her environment. Every environment sets different conditions for success. When faced with a particular environment and the possibilities of learning which that environment affords, individuals construct their action repertoire. Action repertoires always have functionality that is unique to the actiotope in which the individual is currently acting. Hence, actiotopes are conceptual analytical units, in which the individual’s acting and the possibilities of actions within the environment are integrated. Instead of single personal traits like talents or gifts, the actiotope approach examines individuals and their individual world of actions.1 System-theoretical considerations are significant from three perspectives:

• • •

The component perspective (What are the elements of an actiotope? How do they interact?). The dynamic perspective (How do actiotopes change?). The system perspective (How do actiotopes remain stable, especially as they develop into excellence?).

Component perspective All actions show four characteristics. The action in question:

• • •

•

is part of the action repertoire of the person; pursues an aim that seems reachable because of this action; is made possible because the situation was constituted in a way to allow this action; and, is selected because the person decided that the action was the most expedient in this situation from the repertoire of possible actions.

Based on this analysis of actions, the actiotope approach distinguishes four components: (1) The action repertoire is the total of individual possibilities of actions (e.g. first grade pupils typically can add and multiply in their heads, while fourth grade pupils can also calculate the same operations in a notational way. Hence, the latter’s mathematical action repertoire is more comprehensive.). (2) Goals, which are targeted conditions by the individual through actions (e.g. learning targets, social aims, professional goals).

The actiotope model of giftedness

5

(3) Environment—the material, social and informational environment with which an individual actively interacts (i.e. within the actiotope) as well as the external environments of an actiotope. (4) Subjective action space, which are the possibilities of actions considered by the individual (to reach the aims, the most promising actions in this situation are chosen from the personal action repertoire—e.g. in a basketball match Mike may dribble around his opponent using the right instead of the left side; Carlos may try a bluff in his first card game for money when he has a bad set of cards; and Lian may choose an indirect mathematical proof for a mathematical theorem). As the bracketed examples suggest, the four components are not only involved in the accomplishment of excellent performance actions, but are also constituents of every action, especially for learning actions. While points 1 (action repertoire, or what may be viewed as competencies) and 2 (goals) have been explored within the field of gifted education, the environment and the subjective space of actions have not received adequate theoretical examination. In this chapter, only the the role of environment is discussed further.

A proposal to analyze environment: sociotopes To study the learning efficiency of environments, Ziegler (2008, 2009) suggested the construct of sociotopes. Sociotopes are relatively stable configurations of the environment, which exert stable influences on the actions of individuals. Spoken in system theoretical jargon, sociotopes are control variables (Thelen and Smith, 2006). Some conceptual preliminary remarks are important. First, sociotopes are understood as a framework condition of tangible actions. Second, they are conceived in a specific way in view of learning possibilities (e.g. an environment may be a learning sociotope for playing football, but not for mathematics). Third, the relativity of sociotopes has to be considered (i.e. the same spatial environment can be a totally different sociotope for different individuals). A sociotope concept, which fulfils these conditions, conceives environments not as a geographical area, but as a space of action for individuals. Thereby an objective action space and a normative action space are distinguished (Ziegler, 2011). Lian’s learning should serve as an example. This case is concerned with actions in mathematics, which literally means that both objective and normative actions are conceived in view of mathematical actions (e.g. learning maths, doing a calculation, watching a movie about the life of a mathematician, talking about maths, and so on). Under objective action space, the total of possibilities of actions is understood as those that can be theoretically executed in a given situation. Classrooms, train

6

Albert Ziegler, Wilma Vialle, Bastian Wimmer

Table 1.1 Classification of sociotopes in the domain of mathematics Objective action space…

Normative action space: actions in mathematics are…

… allows for learning … does not allow for learning

Learning Infrastructural sociotope sociotope Thematic sociotope Competing sociotope

… desired

… neutral

… rejected Avoidance sociotope Antagonistic sociotope

compartments, slopes, swimming pools, and so on, can offer these totally different objective action spaces of actions. Within the normative space of actions, every possible action from the point of view of the individual may either be desirable, undesirable or without any normative valence.2 That implies the classification illustrated in Table 1.1 (cf. Ziegler, 2008; 2009).

Learning sociotope Here, learning is possible and desired. Learning sociotopes can be a classroom during lessons, or completing homework at a desk at home. Additionally, they can include situations for learning outside the school context, such as extra-curricular music lessons, language courses, or sports training. These represent all the environments in which Lian’s mathematical learning is desired. There is a good case to believe that she is in more of these mathematical learning sociotopes than Carlos or Mike. Those individuals would be more frequently in the learning sociotopes in which they could improve in card playing or basketball respectively.

Infrastructural sociotopes These also allow performance gain and learning, but the accomplishment of learning actions is voluntary. Learning mathematics, for example, is something that Lian can also do on a park bench, during a bus or train ride, with an opened booklet at the breakfast table or by using mathematical knowledge offerings featured in the media. In Mike’s case every backyard with a basketball hoop can be an infrastructural sociotope. A group of card-playing friends, who are not playing to improve, can be an infrastructural sociotope for Carlos.

Avoidance sociotype In an avoidance sociotope, learning is possible, but not desired. It is possible that Lian wants to use a recess break, spare time at school, or a day off from school to learn mathematics, but she encounters criticism from her classmates and/or her

The actiotope model of giftedness

7

parents. She is then placed in the awkward situation of having to justify her wish to learn. Equally, Mike and his friends could be told to stop playing basketball by neighbours because of the noise. Carlos’ father could prohibit his son and his friends from playing cards at home.

Thematic Sociotype Here, learning is not possible, but successful learning and performance gain are appreciated. When people talk to Lian about mathematics in a thematic sociotope, there is a positive undertone. She can have these conversations with her parents who are also interested in mathematics, for example. Alternatively, the parents of Mike and Carlos, being more interested in basketball and card playing, are able to provide thematic sociotopes in these fields during a dinner conversation.

Competitive Sociotope In a competitive sociotope, learning is impossible because other things are in the foreground (e.g. listening to music, watching TV, or dancing). Thus, Lian, Mike and Carlos are not pursuing any learning goals while they undertake these activities.

Antagonistic Sociotope Antagonistic sociotopes endanger learning, because they stigmatize learning as negative. Examples are all situations in which learning is objectively not possible, and is additionally depicted as negative. One example would be if, during a break, Lian’s peers started to criticize mathematics and to mock those ambitious pupils who are interested in it. For Mike and Carlos, this would happen if their parents asked them to spend less time on basketball and card playing respectively. Altogether, this analysis of sociotopes indicates which repertoires of actions individuals can build up in their environment and those they should build up. They constrain the development of excellence.

Dynamic perspective Whether Carlos, Mike and Lian can establish an effective action repertoire will mainly depend upon what learning opportunities they discover in their environment and how effectively they can use them. They will practice, learn and train years for this, until they can achieve excellence in their domain—and probably only there. Their process of adaptation is dynamic, since Carlos, Mike and Lian constantly change, as does the environment in which they interact, during their acquisition of excellence. During her learning process, Lian may have shown extraordinary achievements in mathematics, such as completing simple calculation tasks in her head while still a preschooler, or systematically learning arithmetic in primary

8

Albert Ziegler, Wilma Vialle, Bastian Wimmer

school and algebra in secondary school. She may have specialized at university in a special branch of mathematics, which she deepened by completing a doctorate at a foreign university. From her first involvement with mathematics to the attainment of performance excellence, her person, her environment, her learning goals and her learning itself are subjected to a process of continual change. This can be examined at two levels. At the micro level, we look at the individual learning period, that is, a singular expansion of the action repertoire. At the molar level, we analyze the sequence of learning episodes.

Micro perspective The micro perspective focuses on a single episode of learning or a single step. This step can be considered to be complete if an individual has expanded his or her action repertoire to include an additional possibility to act and is able to use this new possibility successfully in the appropriate situation to achieve an appropriate target. The question of whether it is possible to identify characteristics of effective learning episodes is interesting. We argue that there are at least four, which can be called the ‘big four of learning’ because they all must be generally realized at successively more sophisticated learning steps (c.f. Grassinger, Porath and Ziegler, 2011; see also Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Roemer, 1993). Improvement-orientated learning means that a simple engagement with issues rarely admits learning gains. Thus, performance and effort level off quite quickly in our daily lives. In concrete terms, this means that there is usually a very good compromise between the achievements we can still reach, without the need to expend too much energy in the process. Beyond this compromise, no further performance gains are targeted. This is a very useful process, which keeps us from persisting too long with areas in which we cannot succeed. However, people who strive for excellence must be far ahead of their social reference group. If Lian wants to become an exceptional mathematician, it is not enough to be the best in her class. Nor should Mike be satisfied with being the best in his team, or Carlos with being the best player in his neighborhood. Their engagement with their domain must always be with the aim to improve, and to move their individual limit upward. Optimal learning is based on the principle of individualization. Each individual learning step must be tailored to the learner. In other words, every learning step must entail an optimal use of the five forms of educational capital and of the five forms of learning capital, described below (see also Ziegler and Baker, Chapter 2 this volume). A learning step is rarely possible without appropriate feedback. The learner needs to know what he or she is still doing wrong and when the step is complete. This feedback can be generated through self-monitoring, but professional help is often needed. Mike scoring a basket, or Carlos winning a game does not necessarily prove that they have mastered a learning step. For example, Mike may have scored the basket with a suboptimal technique, which could be damaging to his play if it becomes a habit. Equally, Carlos may have won his card game despite employing an incorrect strategy, because his opponents made errors in their play.

The actiotope model of giftedness

9

Both practice and consolidation are part of a successful learning step. Usually a variety of exercises are necessary. This should require minimal transfers, which means they must be solvable without the necessity for further steps of understanding. This principle—to give sufficient training opportunities in practice tasks with minimal transfer—has been applied successfully in learning musical instruments, in mathematics and in sport for centuries.

Molar perspective The molar perspective focuses on the sequence of learning episodes, that is, the planning of individual trajectories that can lead to excellence. Such trajectories are known as learning pathways in the actiotope model. In particular, an effective sequencing of learning episodes is important. Skill acquisition is the development

Table 1.2 Ideal forms of actiotope components for different stages of the acquisition of expertise in a domain Level of expertise Component

Lay people

Beginners

Advanced levels of expertise

Action No or only Predominantly Competent repertoire rudimentary actions with actions in a domainpositive quality domain; specific actions of experience numerous automated actions Aims

No domainrelated goals

Environment No or loose contact to the domain

Subjective action space

Playful access, Performance positive quality improvement of experience (fun) Usual conditions Professional of a hobby design of learning opportunities; trainers, mentors

Domain-specific Simplified actions are not Subjective considered action spaces

Complex action spaces with increasingly more effective and more flexible action constructions

Experts Extremely extensive, highly effective, very elaborated, can be flexibly combined Successful use of the action repertoire Professional design for practicing the expertise (e.g. auditions, performances, application of expertise in the profession) Complex action spaces, safe design and execution of excellent actions

10

Albert Ziegler, Wilma Vialle, Bastian Wimmer

of an effective action repertoire, which can be completed only through interaction with specific learning environments. These must be designed in line with the increasing skill levels of learners as they become increasingly professional. Ideal characteristics for different stages of excellence development are included in Table 1.2.

The system perspective Systems are stable configurations of interacting elements, which can be considered a meaningful and purposeful unit. If excellence is to be achieved, the actiotope of a person must undergo considerable modification. But why did Carlos, Mike and Lian want to become better? Why did they not abandon their quest after one of the many setbacks that inevitably occur during the development of excellence? Why were they continually supported by mentors, coaches or friends? What kind of support did they need? For the assessment of the modifiability and stability of an actiotope, it must be remembered that the current actiotope of the students is the best solution they could find to achieve their goals in their environment for their actions. Of course, these solutions are, objectively considered, rarely optimal solutions. However, we can assume that actiotopes are usually quite stable and changes often interfere with such states of equilibrium. Learning steps, therefore, also have unintended changes, which can threaten the stability of the actiotope. To keep actiotopes on a learning pathway, many resources are necessary.

Resources: educational capital and learning capital The idea that any change needs energy is a fundamental scientific principle. On the basis of our systemic approach, we also assume that each step requires energy and resources. These resources are partly localized in the learner (i.e. endogenous resources) and partly outside of the learner (i.e. exogenous resources). The regulation of endogenous resources is subject exclusively to the subsystem of ‘person’, but while exogenous resources can be used by the person, their provision usually depends on other systems (school, teacher, classmates, educational system, etc.). We equate exogenous resources with the term of educational capital, and endogenous resources with the term of learning capital. Because of the centrality of these forms of capital, a separate chapter is devoted to these in this book (see Ziegler and Baker, Chapter 2 this volume). Here is just a summary.

Educational capital Educational capital refers to all external resources, which can be used to build up an effective action repertoire and which are not just influenced by the person itself. Five forms are distinguished.

•

Economic educational capital includes all those possessions and valuables, which can be used for the initiation or continuation of learning episodes. For

The actiotope model of giftedness

•

•

• •

11

example, the amount of money assigned by various educational jurisdictions per student differs greatly (OECD, 2011). The numerous findings on the relationship between the socio-economic status of a family and a diverse range of developmental outcomes for children, both in the socio-emotional and cognitive realms, are another example of the importance of economic educational capital. To illustrate, if Lian would like to later study at an elite university to achieve excellence in mathematics, she may have to deploy considerable economic educational capital. Cultural educational capital includes values, concepts and ways of thinking, which can promote or impede the development of an effective action repertoire. For example, there is currently a tremendous appreciation of learning at schools in various East Asian countries, which promotes the learning success of students in these countries in many ways (see various other chapters in this book). Further, groups of students can be identified that are remarkably poorly equipped with cultural educational capital. Girls in STEM (sciences, technology, engineering, mathematics), who have to overcome a number of culturally related obstacles in most countries before they can achieve excellence, are one example. Even today, STEM work is seen as a male domain, while girls and women are regarded as less suitable for these disciplines (cf. Stoeger, 2007). Social educational capital includes all individuals and social institutions that have direct or indirect impact on the success of learning episodes. Research shows convincingly that the different availability of educational equity for students is in line with diverse educational and learning indicators (Goldin and Katz, 2008; Nonoyama-Tarumi and Willms, 2010). Infrastructural educational capital includes material and policy options which can be used in support of learning. These include, for example, school buildings, resource rooms within schools or school libraries. Didactic educational capital is the available knowledge on the design and optimisation of pedagogical approaches (c.f. Willms, 2006).

Learning capital Learning capital is what we call the endogenous resources that help students to build up an effective action repertoire. We distinguish five forms of learning capital.

• •

Organismic learning capital refers to the physiological and constitutive resources of a learner. For example, the learning outcome depends directly on the physical (fitness) state in which it is learned. Actional learning capital includes the complete action repertoire of a learner, or of which the learner is basically capable of utilizing. This includes cognitive activities (and thus, approximately, what is commonly referred to as knowledge). Examples include arithmetic skills, movement sequences in sport, and also linguistic skills. Students with an immigrant background, for

12

• •

•

Albert Ziegler, Wilma Vialle, Bastian Wimmer

example, may be disadvantaged if they cannot execute all linguistic actions (language production, language comprehension, etc.) as desired. Telic learning capital refers to the availability of learning goals. For example, students who are alienated from school, may have very few or, in extreme cases, no learning objectives. Episodic learning capital represents the available goal- or situation-related patterns of actions for students. Simply expressed, it is the experience of students. Although episodic learning capital requires mandatory actional learning capital, there is one important difference. Actional learning capital corresponds to the generally available actions while episodic capital includes only the effective possibilities of actions (see also Simons, Weinert and Ahrens, 1975). Thus, it is not sufficient to be able to perform a learning strategy; a student must know exactly how and when the strategy can be deployed successfully. Attentional learning capital refers to the quantitative and qualitative attention resources available for learning. Quantitative attention resources are not as readily available when a lot of time is spent on leisure activities (e.g. for computer games or television). The quality of attention resources may be restricted (e.g. if there is no quiet workplace at home for completing homework).

The educational and learning capital of Carlos, Mike and Lian – some examples When we introduced the construct of sociotopes, we indicated that Carlos, Mike and Lian live in completely different worlds. Not only are the sociotopes different, but so are the given education and learning capital of sociotopes. Mike may have many friends who think it’s great that he is good at basketball; maybe a neighbor will drive him to an away game. He has social educational capital in terms of basketball. However, his friends may not like it if he is good at mathematics (= negative social educational capital); the neighbor might drive him to an away game in basketball (positive social educational capital) but would not drive him to a math lecture. In Mike’s environment, there is an outdoor basketball court, but not a library where he could borrow math books. Thus, his infrastructural educational capital is greater than Lian’s in terms of basketball, but it is lower in terms of mathematics. Carlos receives many tips from his playing partners on how he could improve his game. But these tips are not equally beneficial because the didactic educational capital of his partners is also different. Carlos, Mike and Lian, of course, also have completely different telic learning capital: Carlos likes card games, Mike likes basketball and Lian enjoys mathematics. In a large part, their telic learning capital reflects the cultural educational capital that they found in their sociotopes. The friends of Carlos admire outstanding card players, Mike’s friends admire

The actiotope model of giftedness

13

basketball stars and it is important for Lian’s parents that she performs well at school, especially in mathematics. Card games and basketball, however, they reject. If Mike suffered a blow, for example, and his telic learning capital was not sufficient to get to training, maybe one of his friends would intervene and build him up again (= social educational capital). If he has insufficient economic educational capital to buy new basketball shoes, a sponsor may intervene and provide them. These examples show that we are able to explain quite well, on the basis of the educational and learning capital available in the actiotopes, what developments these three children can accomplish and whether they can overcome learning crises.

The principle of co-evolution The principle of co-evolution is based on the understanding that there are no isolated behaviors or changes. The behavior of system elements is not localized, but always has an impact on the overall system. Feedback loops of various kinds are not an exception but the norm. However, changes entail follow-up changes and consequences. Furthermore, they must be arranged in a way that makes new learning processes possible. If a new playing technique has been successfully employed by Carlos in a card game, this has consequences for his development of competence. There are additional, quite typical, reactions that may be observed. He responds with positive emotions, is motivated, his interest in the acquisition of new effective techniques increases, he is allowed to play with stronger card players where he can acquire new playing techniques, and so on. For the analysis of modifiability and the analysis of stability, the principle of co-evolution of the components is critical to actiotopes (Ziegler, 2005). After a step is mastered, the extended action repertoire in the subjective action space must be mapped. New goals can be achieved now and previously non-usable environmental conditions can be included in actions. Let us assume, for example, that Mike has expanded his action repertoire with a new way to pass his opponent. Various aspects of the posture of his opponent, which he had not previously observed, could now be the reason to use his extended action repertoire. To do this, he must set appropriate goals (e.g. pass the opponent on the left, after deceiving his opponent with a quick look to the right to suggest he intended passing on the right). In his subjective action space, he must generate the best use of his possibilities of actions to successfully achieve his objectives, with an exact observance of the reactions of the opponent. Of course, his plan could also go wrong. Based upon this experience, Mike can work specifically on his weaknesses. This assumes that, in turn, he sets appropriate learning goals, and generates clever possibilities of actions in his subjective space to achieve these new goals in his environment, and so on. The behavior of his opponents is also affected by his extended action repertoire. With time they will adapt to his new technique, which then may be incentive for Mike to add yet new extensions to his action repertoire.

14

Albert Ziegler, Wilma Vialle, Bastian Wimmer

Considering the usual methods of assistance for gifted students (enrichment, acceleration, etc.), it would seem that all the components of actiotopes and the principle of co-evolution are only considered in exceptional cases. The hope, that everything will magically co-develop, is not very professional.

Summary This chapter aimed to provide a practice-orientated introduction to the basic theoretical assumptions of the actiotope model. As we have seen, it is concerned, above all, with the actions of an individual, where the achievement of excellence is interpreted as building a repertoire of highly effective actions. It is a domainspecific adaptation to the environmental conditions in the individual actiotope that is increasingly developed. We have introduced the component perspective of the actiotope model. In contrast to other conceptions of giftedness, four categories of system elements and their interactions are considered: the action repertoire, goals, the environment and the subjective action space. Some readers may question why components that are typical of other models are missing. For example, our model does not include the words ‘talent’ or ‘talented’; these may be identified on the basis of an IQ score or achievement (or a combination of both). Rather, we argue that achievement is a synonym for an effective action repertoire. This means that within a domain, the individual selects an effective action from an action repertoire, at the right moment in the pursuit of a goal. Thus, Carlos chooses the right game strategy, Mike hits the basketball hoop under stress, and Lian solves a mathematics task. In the actiotope model the current effective actions are those of high interest. An individual’s IQ can be interpreted as an indicator (but by no means an explanation) of an effective action repertoire. Indeed, IQ tests, as designed, represent a good indicator of the effectiveness of the academic action repertoire. Only those items are included in IQ tests, which correlate with school or academic accomplishments. To this extent, only, the IQ is partially suitable to predict (but not explain) the further construction of the academic action repertoire. However, domain-specific items are superior in this regard. However, it is equally important to analyze other components besides the action repertoire. For example, interest tests can be used for the measurement of goals. The analysis of the environment can be done on the basis of the classification of the sociotope in which an individual is located. There are still no special methods for the measurement of subjective action space, but some considerations are being investigated. This consideration of components of actiotopes, however, is only a relatively static impression of its current status. If we look at the development of excellence, only one seems to be stable, namely, change action repertoire, goals, learning opportunities (as well as the everyday environment of learners), and the actions designed in the subjective action space evolve dramatically. It is incumbent upon the dynamic perspective to analyze all of these changes, although there is a

The actiotope model of giftedness

15

natural focus on the individual learning episodes (micro perspective) and its succession (molar perspective). However, the respective analyses require a considerable knowledge of domain-specific learning processes and their sequencing. This will usually require professionals. The next step in mediating the trajectory of Carlos may be a card expert, of Mike a professional basketball coach, and of Lian a mathematics teacher. With increasing expertise, the learning processes are continually becoming more specialized. Nevertheless, we have used the big four of learning to explore four criteria for the design of a successful learning period. The adaptations that Carlos, Mike and Lian will next undertake depend on how their current action repertoire is enunciated (because no customization steps can be skipped), what goals they hold at the time, how their environment is constituted (what learning opportunities it offers), and whether they manage to generate an effective action in the subjective action space. Certainly a concordant interaction of the actiotope components is important, enabling the system to permanently display the desired behavior. This is the principle of co-evolution, that is, that actiotopes are to be modified, and that these significant changes over time, access each other harmoniously, otherwise the stability of the system is compromised. For example, it is not sufficient for Lian to set the goal to become better in mathematics. It may lead to an increase in her learning, but such learning is not guaranteed unless her action repertoire contains the necessary learning and comprehension strategies. Lian’s progress must be in line with the aforementioned principle of co-evolution. This would mean, in Lian’s case, that goal setting, acquisition of the necessary learning, and understanding of the strategies would have to go hand in hand. Again, this is not sufficient in itself. The subjective action space must also be adjusted accordingly. Thus, increased capabilities must be mapped in the self-concept, thereby allowing more challenging goals to be targeted in the subjective action space. It follows, then, that the new learning opportunities for the next step would have to be provided in the learning environment. This also means that Lian’s teacher must recognize her higher competence level, adjust the level of difficulty of the tasks given to her, or give appropriate feedback. Accordingly, modifications must be carefully planned with regard to the principle of co-evolution. Which resources are required to build an effective action repertoire? For this purpose, we have introduced the concepts of educational and learning capital. Here, the principle is ‘a chain breaks at its weakest link’. In the planning of individual learning pathways for Carlos, Mike and Lian, care must be taken, therefore, that these learning pathways are adequate and the necessary educational and learning capital is available at all times. Otherwise, the long chain of learning episodes, which is necessary to achieve excellence in a card game, a basketball game, or in mathematics would be damaged at some point. To sum up, we want to highlight, that in this short introduction to the actiotope model, excellence is considered to be the result of successful adaptations to environments (sociotopes), containing potent learning opportunities

16

Albert Ziegler, Wilma Vialle, Bastian Wimmer

(i.e. domain-specific education and learning capital). Whether Carlos becomes a brilliant card player, whether Mike achieves his breakthrough in basketball, or whether Lian becomes a great mathematician, is the result of a co-evolutionary process in which attention has to be paid to the stability of the system following any successful learning episodes. Excellence is achieved while the learner is immersed in a specific domain, but is decided over a lifetime. From the perspective of the actiotope model, therefore, insufficient learning orientation and insufficient real-world orientations are the two main deficits in current models of gifted identification and gifted education.

Notes 1 It should be noted that the actiotope model includes excellent groups. For reasons of space, we focus here only on individuals. The comments can be transferred mutatis mutandis to excellence and the development of excellence in groups. 2 The division into three valences is a simplification made for didactic reasons. In fact, we assume that the valence can take a lot more values.

References Ericsson, K. A. (1998) ‘Scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learning and creativity’. High Ability Studies, 9, 75–100. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., and Hoffman, R. (eds.), (2006) Cambridge Handbook on Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) ‘The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance’. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Goldin, C. and L. Katz (2008) The Race between Education and Technology, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Grassinger, R., Porath, M. and Ziegler, A. (2010) ‘Mentoring: A review’. High Ability Studies, 21, 27–46. Nonoyama-Tarumi, Y. and Willms, J. D. (2010) ‘The relative and absolute risks of disadvantaged family background and low levels of school resources on student literacy’. Economics of Education Review, 29(2) 214–24. OECD (2011) Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing Shavinina, L. (ed.), (2009) International Handbook on Giftedness. Amsterdam: Springer. Simons, H., Weinert, F. E. E. and Ahrens, H. J. (1975). ‘Untersuchungen zur differentialpsychologischen Analyse von Rechenleistungen’ [Studies of interindividual differences in math achievements’]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 7, 153–169. Sternberg, R. J., and Davidson, J. E. (eds.), (2005) Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd edn) Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press. Stöger, H. (2007) Berufskarrieren begabter Frauen in K. A. Heller and A. Ziegler (Hrsg.), Begabt sein in Deutschland [To be Gifted in Germany]. Berlin, Germany: LIT. Thelen, E. and Smith, L. (2006) ‘Dynamic systems theory’ in W. Damon and R. M. Lerner (eds.), The Handbook of Child Psychology (6th edn) New York: Wiley.

The actiotope model of giftedness

17

Willms, J. D. (2006) Learning Divides: Ten Policy Questions about the Performance and Equity of Schools and Schooling Systems. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Ziegler, A. (2005) ‘The actiotope model of giftedness’ in R. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A. (2008) Hochbegabung [Giftedness]. Munich, Germany: UTB. Ziegler, A. (2009) Ganzheitliche Förderung “umfasst mehr als nur die Person: Aktiotopund Soziotopfoerderung [‘Holistic education aims more than just at the person: promotions of actiotopes and sociotopes’]. Heilpaedagogik online, 2, 5–34. Online: www.heilpaedagogik-online.com/2009/heilpaedagogik_online_0209.pdf. Ziegler, A. (2011) ‘Analysekategorien zur Bewertung von Lernumwelten: Soziotope und Bildungskapital’ in U. Ostermaier (Hrsg.), Hochbegabung, Exzellenz und Werte. Positionen in der schulischen Begabtenförderung [‘Giftedness, excellence, and values: Approaches in school education’] (S. 119–138). Dresden, Germany: Thelem. Ziegler, A. and Baker, J. (in press) ‘Talent development as adaptation: The role of educational and learning capital’ in S. N. Phillipson, H. Stoeger, and A. Ziegler (eds.), Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. London: Routledge.

Chapter 2

Talent development as adaptation The role of educational and learning capital Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

The notion that people change over time is relatively uncontroversial; however, less trivial are observations that many of these changes are possible only as the product of the coordinated actions of a very great number of processes, and, as a result, predicting their emergence is extremely difficult. The development of excellence exemplifies this type of process. However, compared to many processes that take place without our own intervention, developing excellence is an active process preceded by an immense number of successful regulations or adjustments that, importantly, can be facilitated through appropriate attention. This emphasizes the necessity of the correct approach to gifted education. Explanations of excellence typically focus on two paradigms: (1) Some researchers consider it as an ‘expression of gifts’ (e.g. Gagné, 2011), while others conceive of it as (2) the end result of the process of skill acquisition (e.g. Gruber and Ziegler, 1996). Both viewpoints have been repeatedly questioned because of their organismic asymmetry (Davids and Araújo, 2010; Dunwoody, 2006; Ziegler, 2008). The core of these critiques is both paradigms locate excellence ‘within the person’ (cf. Araújo and Davids, 2011; Baker and Horton, 2004; Ziegler, 2005), which leads to an unjustified narrowing of the research horizon, either limited to processes describing the transformation of internal entities (e.g. of genetically fixed gifts into talents, cf. Gagné, 2011), or, reduced to the responsible internal conditions (e.g. the construction of an elaborated knowledge base, cf. Ericsson, Nandagopal and Roring, 2009). This, however, represents an artificial decontextualisation of gifts and abilities (cf. Brunswik, 1955; Turvey and Shaw, 1995). Bickhard (2008) draws attention to the fact that decontextualised conceptualisations of the object under examination are in no way unusual. They are typical of the beginning phase, a still immature state, of a scientific (sub-)discipline, where the research object is still being considered as a kind of stable substance or characteristic, a notion that currently applies to the approaches of the vast majority of giftedness and excellence researchers and their view of gifts, talents and excellence development (cf. Ziegler, 2008). The necessary, subsequent step, according to Bickhard (2008), is the development of a processual conceptualisation of the research object.

Talent development as adaptation

19

Ecological and systemic approaches in psychology, and especially excellence development (e.g. Gibson and Pick, 2000; Vicente and Wang, 1998; Ziegler, 2005) have been impor tant developments in this regard. They conceptualise excellence as the result of successful adaptations to specific (performance) contexts (cf. Gruber, Jansen, Marienhagen, and Altenmueller, 2010). These models consider not only the person but also the environment to which the person functionally adapts. Therefore, excellence is not so much a reflection of the person; rather, excellence depends on both culture and context.

Excellence development as an adaptation and regulation process An individual’s demonstration of excellence, in any domain, is underpinned by numerous interactive possibilities with the dynamic, complex environments that constitute a talent domain. However, it should be borne in mind that actions that we call excellent make sense, or are functional, only within the domain in question. To illustrate this with a somewhat drastic example: We will understand why, as members of our cultural community, a diver plunges into the pool after a forward dolphin spin with one-and-a-half twist. The very same manoeuvre would be incomprehensible if the same diver did it from the balcony of their home. Therefore, the person involved and the context of their action must always be kept in mind. For this reason also, the question ‘Smart people or smart contexts?’ posed by Barab and Plucker (2002) regarding the main determinants of excellence development, cannot really be determined. Since the person and environment form one system, an actiotope1 ‘smartness’ can only be ascribed to the system as a whole – an effective action repertoire acquired over a long period of adaptation is functional only in the particular (performance) context of a domain. The fruitfulness of a theoretical approach is measured above all by two criteria: Can it generate new, interesting research questions? What can it contribute to the understanding of observational data in a research field?

The contextualist perspective A systemic-ecological approach brings a long overdue, largely neglected, perspective into discussions regarding the ‘development’ of excellence. Traditionally, excellence research has focused exclusively on the individual. The desire was to know whether, and how, a certain person could achieve excellence. In fact, however, one could just as well ask from a contextualist perspective:

• •

How high is the probability that in the next 30 years a woman from China will win the Nobel Prize for physics? How high is the probability that a ski jumper from Saudi Arabia will win a medal in the Winter Olympic Games of 2014 in Sotschi?

20

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

•

How high is the probability that in the PISA results of 2018 the average performance in mathematics in the 97th percentile of British pupils will lie above the average performance of the 97th percentile of French pupils?

Such questions fall outside the individualist perspective on excellence and show that it needs to be extended. Evidently, the probability of excellence is decided not only relative to an individual, but also relative to that individual’s (or group of individuals’) position within a system. The individualist perspective, that is, whether an individual can achieve excellence, requires thus the complement of the contextualist perspective. Together they can form a dynamic-interactive perspective on the individual and environment equally. This paradigm shift is particularly crucial whenever the question ‘How can a society increase the probability of the emergence of excellence?’ is approached, for here traditional ‘gifted education’, with its individualist approach, very soon collides with its own limitations.

Selected evidence Below we provide some examples highlighting the fruitfulness of a contextualist perspective. However, research in the development of excellence has, to date, not led to any robust evidence on the level of usual methodological standards of empirical research. Instead, the rather anecdotal findings concern the learning process, the social as well as cultural surroundings, and the role of resources.

Learning process The development of excellence is interpreted by most researchers in this field as the end result of an enormous learning process, usually taking at least ten years (cf. Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, and Hoffman, 2006). During this period, a person spends a minimum of 10,000 active, concentrated hours of learning. In recent years, several research studies across a host of domains have produced a quite dependable picture of excellence development. The learning activities are not isolated, randomly begun episodes, but rather targeted behaviours designed to improve the current state of learning. They can be described as a coordinated movement through carefully arranged learning sociotopes that are modified in accord with the increasing competence level (Ziegler, in press).2 Each new learning step requires the creation of a new learning situation precisely adjusted to the current state of competence. When, for example, a talented pianist has mastered an etude, the piano teacher will carefully select the next piece, which should reflect the new, higher competence level and offer an optimal learning opportunity. Excellence development should thus offer an orderly learning cascade of systematically arranged and sequenced learning environments conceptually sequenced as adaptations.

Talent development as adaptation

21

Social environment In his seminal study, Bloom (1985a) interviewed 120 persons who had achieved excellence in various domains. He found that, in most cases, they had grown up in individually structured learning environments, for which a personal mentor had been responsible (Bloom, 1985b). For Bloom, the ability of these mentors to continue to set new learning challenges and to create appropriate learning occasions was a precondition to the children’s obtaining excellence. Further research confirms that the social learning environment makes a crucial contribution to the achievement of excellence (cf. Sosniak, 2006). Its function, however, is not only that it somehow ‘awakens’ the exceptional gifts resting below the surface in the person showing talent (for these will awake from their slumber at some point anyway) but it also provides the active interaction partners who can develop excellence together with the talented individuals. Important ‘persons in the shadow’ (cf. Gruber, Lehtinen, Palonen, and Degner, 2008; Gruber and Westermeier, in press) are, however, not limited to those who take a direct teaching function in the domain, they also include persons such as spouses, partners and parents who stabilise the actiotope of the talented individual by facilitating daily routines, or who can unlock access to fields where excellence can emerge, such as athletes’ or performers’ agents (Hancock, Ste-Marie, and Schinke, 2010).

Cultural environment There are multiple indications that individuals develop their excellence only through, and in confrontation with, the surrounding culture. A very good example is the existence of so-called ‘golden ages’ in which prominent representatives of a domain emerge in astonishing numbers. Two famous groups of artists are, on the one hand, the musicians Quantz, Hasse, the Marcello brothers, the two Scarlattis, Cimarosa, Lotti, Galuppi, Caldero, Jommelli, Parpora, Albinoni, Tartini, Haendel and Vivaldi; and The Byrds, Kinks, Motorhead, Nirvana, The Police, The Who, Rolling Stones, Sex Pistols, David Bowie, George Michael, Phil Collins, Cat Stevens, Peter Frampton and Elton John on the other. The members of the first group developed their musical excellence in, among other places, 18th-century Venice, where they were all active within a 50-year period. The second group comprised London musicians and bands from the second half of the 20th century. Even if the two groups differ in the characteristics of their music, internally they exhibit great similarities (e.g. in composing style and instrumentation). The style of each ‘individual’ artist or band is definitely not purely individual, but rather can only be adequately understood as an interaction of the individual and the musical culture dominating in a specific geo-cultural area of the time.

Resources The important role of resources (a systematisation of resources is to follow) to the development of excellence is a further significant indication of the necessity

22

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

for a dynamic-interactive perspective. For example, the complete absence of Ethiopian Olympic champions in luge can in no way be taken as a lack of individuals with luge talent in Ethiopia. But even the most talented of these would find no adequate support conditions. By contrast Germany and Austria are considered the most successful luge nations in the world, since they have won approximately 60 per cent of all Olympic medals in the past. In Germany, initial successes led to improvements in the already excellent infrastructure, so that they could not only stabilise, but also advance. For example, the German women have lost only one of all World Luge Championships since 1997. Currently, Germany is the only European country with more than one facility for holding international competitions (it has four). Furthermore, they offer excellent training conditions all year round, while many other nations are limited to training during the winter months. The great success of the Germans is not only due to their individual sledding talents, but also, and not insignificantly, to the creation of training facilities that are unique by worldwide comparison.

A systemic approach: the actiotope model of giftedness Csikszentmihalyi (1996) in his interviews with especially successful persons – Nobel Prize laureates, exceptional creative artists, etc. – arrived at the conclusion that excellence is not localised in the person, but in the system of the person and environment: A person exhibits actions that, in certain contexts, are accorded the label ‘excellent’. This perspective raises a series of theoretically important questions including: ‘How can acquisition and demonstration of excellence, as well as the conditions supporting these processes, best be analysed’? The actiotope model attempts to provide these answers on the basis of a systemic approach where excellence is understood as the consequence of an enormous number of successful adaptations to environments. Expressed differently and more concretely: A constantly richer action repertoire is built up that permits more, and also more effective, actions in a talent domain.

An actiotope consists of the acting individual and the environment with which he/she interacts in his/her actions.

An actiotope is not static, but changes as each new goal is set during the process of developing excellence. The resulting adaptation comprises the four components of the actiotope (for details see Ziegler, 2005): (1) An action repertoire is built up that permits functional actions in the talent domain.

Talent development as adaptation

23

(2) Goals are adjusted repeatedly, which is important so learning opportunities are optimized. (3) New environments that offer optimal learning conditions for each learning step are necessary for the permanent widening of the action repertoire. (4) Each possibility of a further action opens access to the challenge of a new goal. These can be realised in a continually growing number of contexts. If, for example, multiplication has been learned, this skill can be applied to many new goals in very different situations. There is therefore a need to coordinate a richer action repertoire, more diverse goals and more numerous contexts. In terms of the actiotope model this means that the subjective action space must be adapted, where the possibilities for action are generated and selected. The latter occurs when the best action for reaching the currently pursued goal is selected from the action repertoire.

Regulation types During the development of excellence, individuals find themselves in a continuous process of targeted (self-)modification, the most visible result of which is an increasingly functional action repertoire in some domain. Such adaptations to a domain are, however, evidently not autocatalytic (i.e. processes proceeding by themselves) but rather require multiple regulations (cf. Alexander, Dinsmore, Parkinson, and Winters, in press). Regulation relates to the directed influencing of system behaviour (i.e. the transition from one condition to another).

Gifted education must realise that the development of excellence consists of an extended sequence of highly structured, successful learning episodes based on the principle of co-evolution (Ziegler, 2005). Such orderly processes are not self-evident, but the result of regulations. Unfortunately, most regulations are still unknown. Of those that are, almost all are poorly understood. However, we will see below that there are at least two types of regulations: homeostatic, and allostatic, with the second especially relevant for the development of excellence.

The concept of homeostatic regulations and their limitations in explaining the development of excellence During the development of excellence, the usual regulation processes typical for human beings are always ‘running in the background’. Among these are

24

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

thermo- and osmoregulation, emotive regulation and the maintenance of social relation structures (e.g. familial interaction patterns). In these, it is (mostly) a matter of homeostatic processes that serve to maintain the required steady states. Homeostatic regulations serve to maintain nominal states of systems. In the explanation of the development of excellence, however, the homeostasis concept evidently has its limits, since the development of excellence aims to purposely change normal states of function, not maintain them. In fact, researchers of differing theoretical provenance have already noted that the homeostasis concept is insufficient in accounting for all the behaviours that serve to change the subject and lead to modifications of goal states (cf. Kanfer, 1987; Maturana and Varela, 1991). This leaves two paths open: If a theoretical concept shows itself to be insufficient, it is usually either replaced by a better concept that allows a greater range, or, it is augmented with a complementary concept, so that the phenomenon is (more) completely captured (Stegmueller, 1976). In the present case, the first path indeed seems less advantageous. While various further developments in the homeostasis concept have been discussed, the most prominent being ‘homeodynamics’ (cf. Maturanaand Varela, 1991), they all share the same disadvantage: the unsuccessful attempt to extend the homeostasis concept from the maintenance of nominal states to the new concept. For this reason the second path, the introduction of an additional concept, is preferred.

Allostatic regulations during the development of excellence We should thus seek a complementary concept to homeostasis. The combined reach of the two concepts should be great enough to describe all the regulations occurring during the development of excellence. In the search for a concept it is advantageous to remember two striking characteristics of the development of excellence: the quantity in terms of time of the necessary learning processes, and the quality of these experiences. One of the first attempts to quantify the development of excellence was undertaken by Simon and Gilmartin (1973). They estimated through computer simulation that the number of domain-specific units of knowledge that an excellence-level performing person must have at their disposition, was somewhere close to 100,000. This estimate is, however, probably too low (Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012) but, even if the number were not much higher, it would be a mistake to believe that acquisition is simply the end result of obtaining that many (i.e. 100,000) learning episodes. The many connections that exist between the units of knowledge also have to be learned. In addition, erroneous items may be learned and these have to be corrected – often with considerable trouble (Ericsson et al., 2006). Whereas most persons usually avoid dealing with their shortcomings and try to maintain a positive self-view, later experts consciously

Talent development as adaptation

25

choose just those areas for learning where they still struggle. Thus, it comes as no surprise that later experts often describe the quality of their learning experience as largely negative – and to some extent downright aversive (Ericsson, 1998; Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Roemer, 1993). Quantitative and qualitative observations thus pose the question ‘How are some persons able to succeed in directing their actions steadily over such long periods, despite considerable negative experiences along the way?’ To express this in technical terminology: Why do these persons maintain themselves in a metastable state during their development of excellence over several years? Why do further regulations lead repeatedly to attaining a further meta-stable state, while the process of transition is associated with (often) negative emotional qualities? Would it not be much simpler to forego the daunting adventure of the development of excellence, and aim instead for a stable state that does not feature the negative emotional quality of the former and perhaps even provides some level of satisfaction? One of the popular answers to this problem says that talented individuals who hold through this task are precisely those possessed of an enormous motivation (the ‘rage to master’) that drives them ever further (cf. Winner, 1996). Although the validity of this assumption is still questionable, motivation could offer an explanation for why someone regulates with great determination, but gives no clue about which form of regulation is involved. The concept of allostasis, originally developed in medicine by McEwen and Stellar (1993), offers some promising analytic possibilities for the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the development of excellence as discussed above. It refers to mechanisms of the targeted adjustment of the organism in reaction to challenges. An important characteristic here is that continually new resources must be activated in order to attain (meta-)stable states. To make allostasis a suitably complementary concept to homeostasis, we define it for our purposes as follows:

Allostatic regulations serve to attain new, adjusted steady states, which require the activation of new resources.

Using the homeostasis and allostasis concepts, all the regulations occurring during the development of excellence can be considered (i.e. those that serve the maintenance or attainment of newly adjusted nominal levels) particularly those that show one or both of the following two characteristics: (1) The regulations adjust the (new) target states (e.g. yesterday’s target state of learning, that is, yesterday’s just attainable learning goal, is today too low because of increased competence). (2) The regulations activate advantageous resources (e.g. ‘didactic educational capital’, see below) related to the new target state, so that it becomes more attainable.

26

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

In regard to the second characteristic, the nature of what these important resources are has not been systematically investigated either in giftedness or excellence research. We consider these resources below.

Resources How is the development of excellence regulated and what resources are required? Above all, biographical analyses of persons performing at the excellence level provide various indications (e.g. Bloom, 1985b; Simonton, 1977; Wallace and Gruber, 1989). On this basis we propose a differentiation between two kinds of resources. Endogenous resources can be regulated only through a system and its subsystems. Because we are focusing on the development of excellence, we are referring in the following only to individuals. Exogenous resources can be regulated equally through the system (in this case, the individual) as well as further systems (e.g. family, society). ‘Resources’ are, by definition, means that can be employed to attain goals. To borrow from a now widely used terminology, in the following they will be called various types of ‘capital’ (cf. Bourdieu, 1983), but this concept will be further expanded to include variously appearing forms of capital. This is necessary, among other reasons, because for the first time exogenous and endogenous resources are differentiated. In the following, we refer to them as educational capital and learning capital.3

Exogenous resources: educational capital Many sciences grasp their object not as a singular entity, but as part of a field or system (Kauffmann, 1995). This makes it possible for them to deal with research questions from the contextualist perspective discussed above. For the analysis of the problem that excellence is distributed unevenly over systems (e.g. different countries, or sports teams), Ziegler (in press) proposed the use of the concept of educational capital. Educational capital is that which can be (but needn’t be) employed for improvement of education and learning. It can be regulated through individuals as well as further systems.

The ‘degree of resolution’ of an analysis of educational capital can vary according to the question at hand. The system of interest can be an actiotope, a family, school, political district or educational system of a country. Central are two questions: (1) What educational capital is available? (2) How it is applied? For this, five forms of educational capital – that at least partially overlap – are identified (see Ziegler, in press).

Talent development as adaptation

27

Economic educational capital is every kind of wealth, possession, money or valuables that can be invested in the initiation and maintenance of educational and learning processes.

Economic educational capital plays an overarching role in the support of excellence, but has not received sufficient recognition in giftedness theories. If one compares societal systems, one finds particular clusters of excellence that closely correlate with the availability of economic capital (e.g. Hanushek and Kimko, 2000; Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002; Rindermann, Sailer, and Thompson, 2009); educational systems indeed claim a considerable proportion of the public expenditures of nations. The same is true for the total of top-level support, for which unfortunately there are no meaningful statistics. Yet many relations are evident (e.g. Nobel Prizes for science are won exclusively by researchers from institutions in economically strong countries with high per capita gross national product). Without the strong engagement of economic educational capital, many inventions and innovations are simply not possible. Some research fields (e.g. particle physics) require a level of investment that only the richest countries can afford (cf. Ammermueller and Lauer, 2007). Economic educational capital is naturally also applied as targeted support for individuals. It is used, for example, to pay for stimulating toys, special tutors and mentors, musical instruments and instruction, sports equipment, good schools and much more. Economic investments in education and excellence bring numerous secondary effects, which underscore the necessity for a complementary, contextualist perspective. They attract, for example, human resources, as when top-class research institutions have a greater probability of attracting and engaging high-performing researchers, often from other countries. The superior research opportunities (and facilities) permit the newcomers to do even better research, resulting in a positive feedback effect.

Cultural educational capital includes value systems, thinking patterns, models and the like, which can facilitate – or hinder – the attainment of learning and educational goals.

The research literature contains many indications that culture influences the emergence of excellence. The example of the ‘golden age of music’ was already mentioned (cf. Pfleiderer, 1877); however, culture can also refer to smaller systems, such as religious communities (as in Max Weber’s famous ‘Protestant work ethic’; Weber, 1934), elite schools and universities, orchestras or sports teams.

28

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

Culture can also hinder the emergence of excellence and thus be ‘negative cultural capital’. There are also now interesting research results on how culture affects individual action (e.g. in ‘stereotype threat’, cf. Martiny and Goetz, 2011; Steele, James, and Barnett, 2002, or ‘dysfunctional attributive styles’, cf. Campbell and Henry, 1999; Nauta, Epperson, and Waggoner, 1999). For example, culture is unfavourable to women’s development of excellence in STEM fields4 when, in the culture of origin, the conviction dominates that they are less well suited to achieve in these areas (Dweck, 1999). In fact, the rates of women’s participation in STEM fields around the world are especially low wherever this stereotype is strongly manifested (Stoeger, 2007). It is no accident that, despite women possessing comparable gifts to men, during the whole of the 20th century only five have managed to win Nobel Prizes in the natural sciences. Social educational capital includes all persons and social institutions that can directly or indirectly contribute to the success of learning and educational processes. Social educational capital can be employed to directly improve learning processes as well as creating more favourable surrounding conditions for learning to occur. Social educational capital applied directly to improve learning processes includes mentors, trainers, pedagogues, teachers, professors, teacher organisations, etc. The greater their number, their personal engagement and their teaching and supporting abilities, the greater is the probability of excellence emerging. Learning is a situationally embedded process. Social educational capital can be the way to gain access to specific learning situations (e.g. through sponsoring, scholarships, social connections, support associations or networks) or to improve the situative learning conditions (e.g. supportive partners, engaged parents, neighbourhood helpers). A striking example is the typically contrasting availability of social educational capital to central European men and women interested in STEM fields (Stoeger, 2007). While a woman is often the positive social educational capital for her male partner, by supporting his career in a STEM field, the male partner often represents negative social educational capital for a female partner (e.g. if he makes excessive claims on her availability for household and (child-) care duties, thereby negatively influencing her learning opportunities). Infrastructural educational capital relates to materially implemented possibilities for action that permit learning and education to take place. Infrastructural educational capital influences the chances of excellence in two ways. The availability of infrastructure can, first, awake interest. A sports field in a neighbourhood increases the probability that a child will come there to play

Talent development as adaptation

29

football; a nearby swimming pool raises the chances that a child will learn to swim. Second, infrastructural educational capital offers specific learning possibilities. The example of the excellent infrastructural conditions for luge in Germany has already been mentioned. Many more examples could be given, ranging from the equipping of preschools with high-quality play and learning materials, schools with learning media, to the institution of tertiary education facilities, all the way to special research programs such as CERN. Didactic educational capital is the assembled know-how involved in the design and improvement of educational and learning processes. For almost all domains that attract enough interest, the average and top performance levels have risen in recent decades. What were earlier practically unplayable music pieces now belong in the standard repertoire of professional musicians, world records have been repeatedly, dramatically, surpassed and, if IQ tests were not continually adjusted, the average IQ would also have significantly risen in recent decades (e.g. Flynn, 1987; 2007). These rises in performance levels are due partially to enormous increases in didactic educational capital. Improved training methods, superior teaching planning, perfected instruction techniques, pedagogically better organised learning feedback, more finely structured learning sequences, targeted improvements in individual learning competence etc., make possible ever-higher returns on learning effort in ever-briefer periods. Thus, today’s advanced high-school students can demonstrate the possession of mathematics skills that the best mathematical minds of earlier centuries needed decades of study to master.

Endogenous resources Learning capital includes that which is exclusively accessible to individuals for improvement of education and learning.

Endogenous resources are subject exclusively to regulation by the system (in our case, the individual) and its subsystems. This does not mean, however, that they cannot be indirectly, exogenously regulated; parents attempt this by such pedagogical techniques as praise and blame). However, praise and blame first need to be processed by the recipients (e.g. as illustrated by paradoxical praise effects (cf. Binser and Foersterling, 2004)). Organismic learning capital consists of the physiological and constitutional resources of a person.

30

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

The body of a person is an important constituent of every learning process. This seems trivial in domains such as sports, where health, conditioning, flexibility, endurance, power, etc. are the all-important determinants of effective training and performance. Bodily fitness is, however, also an important precondition for top-level cognitive activity (e.g. Bellisle, 2004; Gottfredson, 2004). Actional learning capital means the action repertoire of a person – the totality of actions they are capable of performing. Actions are not limited to voluntary motor movements. Arguments are available for a broad concept of action, as employed, for example, by the actiotope model (Ziegler, 2005) where actions comprise all bodily changes intended to serve the attainment of action goals. This explicitly includes cognitive activities. Persons differ as to what actions they could possibly carry out at a given point in time. That can be organismically grounded, e.g. in differences in mobility, power or endurance. These inter-individual differences, however, can also rest on differences in procedural or declarative knowledge (e.g. Anderson, 1976). Research studies have shown that the current action repertoire of a person is an excellent predictor of later performance (e.g. Ziegler, 2008). For this reason, talent support is often directed towards those groups of persons who have already demonstrated notable performance, that is, who have shown a high level of actional learning capital (e.g. Gershon, Kiderman and Beller, 1996; Roecker, Schotte, Niess, Horstmann, and Dickhuth, 1998).

Telic learning capital comprises the totality of a person’s anticipated goal states that offer possibilities for satisfying their needs.

Goals refer to states of the world (internal as well as external) that we wish to realise through actions. They have often been conceptualised as the result of very rapid decision-making processes in which we weigh up the probability of success and the value of possible alternative actions (cf. Atkinson’s pioneering studies of 1957; 1964). These and similar conceptualisations hide the fact that functional goal-setting is preceded by a learning history. People are constantly forced to adjust to changing environments. Part of the change comes from the fact that our environment has been deliberately designed to satisfy our personal needs (e.g. agriculture, snack stands, clothing shops or public transportation). If its functionality is decreased, it is altered, which has the consequence that the anticipatory (i.e. expected) goal states in which the satisfaction of needs can take place are permanently subject to change. For example, as small children we all learn what things in our environment are edible. Noodles are edible, while grass is not.

Talent development as adaptation

31

Telic learning capital, that is, the accessibility of functional goals for the learning process, is in at least two ways a significant resource during the development of excellence. First, it is useful for the creation of favourable framework conditions of learning (e.g. planning rest-periods, so that the next learning step is undertaken in a condition of optimal fitness; setting up a functional workplace). Second, it can be employed to set up functional learning goals that promise greater competence growth (Cleary and Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas and Zimmerman, 2002; c.f, also the functionality of learning goal vs performance goal orientations; e.g. Stoeger, 2002). Episodic learning capital concerns the simultaneous goal- and situation-relevant action patterns that are accessible to a person. In many different domains (e.g. music, natural sciences, team sports, chess; numerous examples in Ericsson et al., 2006), experts possess an enormous repertoire of standard solutions for typical situations. While actional learning capital comprises only the possibility of action, standard solutions contain effective couplings of (1a) infrastructural educational capital with (2a) actional and (3a) telic learning capital. More concretely, episodic learning capital consists of effective episodic knowledge that comprises (1b) potential action contexts as well as (2b) possible successful actions therein for the (3b) attainment of functional goals. Such episodes include, for example, automatic actions, accessible solution routines or intuitions. It has been demonstrated, for example, that in many interactive sports, experts better recognise and remember strategic moves (e.g. Starkes, 1987); are better able to anticipate actions of their opponents on the basis of their relevant experience (Abernethy, 1990; Loffing, Schorer, Hagemann and Baker, 2012); and can structure flexibly and highly functionally the typical temporal progressions of play and their consequences (Gruber and Ziegler, 1993). Attentional learning capital denotes the quantitative and qualitative attentional resources that a person can apply to learning.

Attention, as a limited resource, has been conceptualised mainly from three perspectives. It is thought of in terms of: (1) the object for which one seeks attention (e.g. Franck, 1998); (2) as a temporally limited entity (can be evoked only for a certain time) (Ericsson, 1998); and (3) as a selective limitation on tranches of perception (i.e. one cannot simultaneously focus on all of what one perceives; Navon and Goher, 1979; Schneider and Shiffrin, 1977). For the development of excellence, all three aspects play important roles.

32

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

A domain must (1) attract the attention of a person so that they focus optimally (2) for a sufficient length and (3) selectively on the improvement of their performance. Just some degree of occupation with a domain is not enough to attain an excellent action repertoire in it. Research by Ericsson (e.g. Ericsson et al., 1993) in particular, has repeatedly shown that to attain substantial performance gains, routinely extensive, well-planned sequences of learning behaviours are necessary (‘deliberate practice’). Their execution requires a very high level of attention. Interestingly, in turn, better attentional performance becomes characteristic of an increasing development of excellence (e.g. Abernethy and Russell, 1987).

Four consequences for gifted education The development of excellence has been described in this chapter as an adaptation during which a functional action repertoire for specific talent domains is built up. Because this is not an autocatalytic process, numerous partial processes require regulation. On the one hand, it is a matter of homeostatic regulations aiming to maintain target states while on the other, allostatic regulations try to achieve modified target states by the application of new resources. The latter regulation type is characteristic of the actual development of excellence (i.e. the acquisition of a functional repertoire of actions in a talent domain). As described in the previous sections, the resources applied during the process can be summarised as educational capital and learning capital. The adaptive process is directional and follows an incremental principle: The modification of the actiotope through regulations proceeds continuously in the direction of excellence (Ziegler et al. 2010). Most persons who occupy themselves with a particular domain will, however, at some point cease with their learning efforts at some level of performance that seldom fully challenges the individual developmental possibilities. The regulation efforts thereby cease to be effective and are stopped from without, or by the learners themselves. These crucial points provide the best opportunities for gifted education to intervene and assist. Its task is to improve the adaptation of the actiotope towards excellence through measures to support the regulations. Four general principles, on the basis of how this should take place, are dealt with in the concluding section below. They imply a radical re-orientation of gifted education.

What is regulated? The principle of co-evolution of actiotope components Systemic-ecological approaches proceed from the assumption that each localised change has an effect on the total system. Each learning step creates, therefore, the need for new regulation. In order that this does not proceed chaotically, co-evolution is necessary, that is, the system must develop further in an orderly way, so as to retain its stability. For gifted educations this means that educational

Talent development as adaptation

33

objectives will not be attained if attention is concentrated only on the support of a single element. Gifted education support must therefore be holistic. Its goal is the further development of the total actiotope without threat to its stability. The focus here is not only the continued acquisition of an excellent action repertoire, but also the coordinated adaptation of goals, environment and the subjective action space. Gifted education is full of examples of just how difficult the task of co-evolution is and how insufficiently the multiple feedback possibilities of actiotopes are known. An impressive example is the studies by Freeman (2006a; 2006b), which demonstrate how often even the smallest interventions in the course of development can overtax the regulation skills of pedagogues and produce serious negative consequences. Just the information, communicated to talented pupils, that they in fact are talented, is an enormous risk factor for their further development. Some of the empirically well-demonstrated risks indicated by Heller (2004) are ‘social isolation, development of egocentric attitudes and behaviors, endangering or disturbing the personality development and self-concept through extreme achievement pressures or too much responsibility’ (p. 308). Indeed, he recommends that exclusively professional counsellors should inform persons about their special gifts (Heller, Reimann, and Senfter, 2005). Their expertise in regulation is simply greater.

Who controls the regulations? The principle of dynamic-interactive regulation It should be evident that the development of excellence is not achieved by the learner alone. Trainers, mentors, giftedness counsellors etc., put didactic educational capital at learners’ disposition and provide access to learning sociotopes, etc. (see Grassinger, Porath and Ziegler, 2010). In short, the regulations require many types of cooperation and coordination between the learner and persons directing the learning process (e.g. mentors), but also with persons who create the necessary framework conditions (parents, comprehending and supportive partners, etc.). For gifted education, this means that the hope held by many that talented persons should be able to regulate the development of excellence largely by themselves, is illusory. The occasional suggestions or advice from experts, summer schools or enrichment programmes are not sufficient. Instead, stable conditions for dynamic-interactive regulation, such as mentor-mentee relationships enriched with multiple resources, must be established and empirically verified (Grassinger et al., 2010). Unfortunately, the complexity of the necessary regulations is dramatically underestimated, even in many mentoring situations (Stoeger, Ziegler, and Schimke, 2009). Therefore, a much greater professionalisation is necessary than previously provided. ‘Classical’ regulation notions (simple cause-and-effect relations) hardly do justice to the reality. These regulations are characterised by

34

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

effects, unintentional side-effects, consequences with multiple feedback loops, self-reinforcing mechanisms and non-linear transitions (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2009). In order to regulate actiotopes over a period of years, mentoring, coaching and the like offer, in principle, a good framework, but high-level expertise in regulation must be added. Without professional, or at least very experienced, coaches, trainers, mentors, or teachers the achievement of excellence is extremely unlikely.

What resources do regulations require? The principle of capital orientation This chapter has shown various examples of how, because of lack of resources, the process of excellence development can break down, or arrested performance can appear (Krampe and Ericsson, 1996). The many overt forms of exogenous and endogenous resources (i.e. educational and learning capital) have already been mentioned. Because the development of excellence requires that all of them be available precisely when needed, they must be correspondingly taken into account in the identification of talent, as well as in gifted education. This means that in talent identification, the availability of all five forms of educational capital and all five forms of learning capital should be surveyed. Gifted education must ensure that sufficient educational and learning capital is available to enable each new learning step to take place.

What is the chronological horizon of identification and support? The constructivist or learning-pathway principle Identification of talent is mostly done with reference to the status quo; the future developmental possibilities are seldom examined in detail. In fact, however, future learning possibilities should be actively investigated and constructed. The projection should extend over periods that are much longer than the brief support and intervention periods of traditional talent support. The aim is to elaborate an individual ‘learning pathway’ that describes the construction of a functional learning repertoire in a domain up to the attainment of excellence. The supply of endogenous and exogenous resources must be, over the entire learning pathway, permanently available in sufficient amounts. The absence of these resources makes the development of excellence extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Notes 1 For the concept of the actiotope, see below. 2 Ziegler (2009) defines a learning sociotope as a stable situative arrangement that permits increases in learning.

Talent development as adaptation

35

3 The concept ‘capital’ was for four reasons preferred over that of ‘resource’. First, it can reasonably take on a negative value (e.g. debt); second, various types of capital are (at least within limits) convertible; third, capital connotes, better than resource, that it – as a rule – must be earned; and fourth, it can grow. 4 STEM is the acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

References Abernethy, B. (1990). Anticipation in squash: Differences in advance cue utilization between expert and novice players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 17–34. Abernethy, B. and Russell, D. G. (1987). Expert-novice differences in an applied selective attention task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 326–345. Alexander, P.A., Dinsmore, D., Parkinson, M.,and Winters, F. I. (0000) (in press). ‘The interplay of academic domains and self-regulated learning’ in B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning and Performance. New York: Routledge. Ammermueller, A. and Lauer, C. (2007). Bildung und nationale Prosperitaet, in K. A. Heller and A. Ziegler (eds.), Begabtsein in Deutschland [To be Gifted in Germany, Vol. 1, pp. (31–48). Muenster, Germany: LIT. Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language Memory and Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Araújo, D. and Davids, K. (2011). Talent development: From possessing gifts to functional environmental interactions. Talent Development and Excellence, 3, 23–25. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. New York: Van Nostrand. Baker, J. and Horton, S. (2004). A review of primary and secondary influences on sport expertise. High Ability Studies, 15, 211–228. Barab, S. A. and Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182. Bellisle, F. (2004). Effects of diet on behavior and cognition in children. British Journal of Nutrition, 92, 227–232. Bickhard, M. H. (2008). Issues in process metaphysics. Ecological Psychology, 20, 252–256. Binser, M. J. and Foersterling, F. (2004). Paradoxe Auswirkungen von Lob und Tadel: Personale und situative Moderatoren [Paradox effects of praise and blame: Personal and situational moderators]. Zeitschrift fuer Entwicklungspsychologie und Paedagogische Psychologie, 36, 182–189. Bloom, B. S. (1985a).Developing Talent in Young People. New York: Ballantine Books. Bloom, B. S. (1985b). ‘Generalizations about talent development’ in B.S., Bloom (ed.), Developing Talent in Young People. New York: Ballantine Books. Bourdieu, P. (1983). ‘Oekonomisches Kapital – Kulturelles Kapital – Soziales Kapital’ in R. Kreckel (ed.), Soziale Ungleichheiten [Social Disparities]. Goettingen, Germany: Schwarz. Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217. Campbell, C. R. and Henry, J. W. (1999). Gender differences in self-attributions: Relationship of gender to attributional consistency, style, and expectations for performance in a college course. Sex Roles, 41, 95–104.

36

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

Cleary, T. J. and Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 185–206. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial. Davids, K. and Araújo, D. (2010).The concept of ‘Organismic Asymmetry’ in sport science. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13, 633–640. Dunwoody, P. T. (2006). The neglect of the environment by cognitive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26, 139–153. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Ericsson, K. A. (1998). The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learning and creativity. High Ability Studies, 9, 75–100. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., and Hoffman, R. (eds.) (2006). Cambridge Handbook on Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Tesch-Roemer, C. (1993).The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., and Roring, R. W. (2009). Toward a science of exceptional achievement: Attaining superior performance through deliberate practice. Annals of New York Academy of Science, 1172, 199–217. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191. Flynn, J. R. (2007). What is Intelligence? Beyond the Flynn Effect. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Franck, G. (1998). Oekonomie der Aufmerksamkeit: Ein Entwurf [Economy of Aattention: A Draft]. Munich, Germany: Carl Hanser. Freeman, J. (2006a). Emotional problems of the gifted child. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 481–485. Freeman, J. (2006b). Giftedness in the long term. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 384–403. Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent Development and Excellence, 3, 3–22. Gershon B.-S., Kiderman, I., and Beller, M. (1996). Comparing the utility of two procedures for admitting students to liberal arts: An application of decision-theoretic models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 90–107. Gibson, E. J. and Pick, A. D. (2000). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Life, death and intelligence. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 4, 23–46. Grassinger, R., Porath, M., and Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring: A review. High Ability Studies, 21, 27–46. Gruber, H., Jansen, P., Marienhagen, J., and Altenmueller, E. (2010). Adaptations during the acquisition of expertise. Talent Development and Excellence, 2, 3–15. Gruber, H., Lehtinen, E., Palonen, T., and Degner, S. (2008), Persons in the shadow: Assessing the social context of high abilities. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 237–258. Gruber, H., and Westermeier, B. (0000) (in press). ‘Foerderung von Selbstregulation im Leistungs sport am Beispiel Langstreckenlauf ’ in M. Dreseland and L. Laemmle (eds.),

Talent development as adaptation

37

Motivation, Selbstregulation und Leistungsexzellenz [Motivation, Self-regulation and Excellence]. Muenster, Germany: LIT. Gruber, H., and Ziegler, A. (1993). Temporale Wissensstrukturierung mit Hilfe Mentaler Modelle [Temporal chunking in mental models]. Sprache and Kognition, 12, 145–156. Gruber, H., and Ziegler, A. (eds.) (1996). Expertiseforschung: Theoretische und methodischeGrundlagen [Expertise research: Theoretical and Methodical Foundations]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hancock, D. J., Ste-Marie, D. M., and Schinke, R. J. (2010). The development and skills of expert major junior hockey player agents. Talent Development and Excellence, 2, 51–62. Hanushek, E. A. and Kimko, D. D. (2000). Schooling, labor-force quality, and growth of nations. American Economic Review, 90, 1184–1208. Heller, K. A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychology Science, 46, 302–323. Heller, K. A., Reimann, R., and Senfter, A. (2005). HochbegabungimGrundschulalter: Erkennenund Foerdern [Giftedness in Elementary School: Identification and Education]. Muenster, Germany: LIT. Kanfer, F. H. (1987). ‘Selbstregulation und Verhalten’ in H. Heckhausen, P. M. Gollwitzer and F. E. Weinert (eds.), Jenseits des Rubikon: Der Wille in den Humanwissenschaften [Beyond the Rubicon: The Will in the Social Sciences]. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Kauffmann, S. (1995). At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-organization and Complexity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kitsantas, A. and Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among novice non-expert, and expert volleyball players: A microanalytic study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 91–105. Krampe, R. T. and Ericsson, K. A. (1996). Maintaining excellence: Deliberate practice and elite performance in young and older pianists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 331–359. Loffing, F., Schorer, J., Hagemann, N., Lotz, S., and Baker, J. (2012). On the advantage of being left-handed in volleyball: Further evidence of the specificity of skilled visual perception. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 74, 446–453. Lynn, R. and Vanhanen, T. (2002). IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Westport: Praeger. Martiny, S. E. and Goetz, T. (2011). Stereotype Threat in Lern- und Leistungssituationen: Theoretische Ansaetze, empirische Befunde und praktische Implikationen. In M. Dreseland L. Laemmle (eds.), Motivation, Selbstregulation und Leistungsexzellenz [Motivation, Self-regulation and Excellence]. Muenster, Germany: LIT. Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1991). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. New York: Springer. McEwen, B. S. and Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanism leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153, 2093–2101. Nauta, M. M., Epperson, D. L., and Waggoner, K. (1999). Perceived causes of success and failure: Are women’s attributions related to persistence in engineering majors? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 663–676. Navon, D. and Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human processing system. PsychologicalReview, 86, 214–255. Pfleiderer, E. (1877). Die Idee eines goldenen Zeitalters. Ein geschichtsphilosophischerVersuch [Golden Ages: The Perspective of the Philosophy of History]. Berlin, Germany: Reimer. Rindermann, H., Sailer, M., and Thompson, J. (2009).The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development. Talent Development and Excellence, 1, 3–25.

38

Albert Ziegler and Joseph Baker

Roecker, K., Schotte, O., Niess, A. M., Horstmann, T., and Dickhuth, H.-H. (1998). Predicting competition performance in long-distance running by means of a treadmill test. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 30, 1552–1557. Schneider, W. and Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66. Simonton, D. K. (1977). Creative productivity, age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis of 10 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 791–804. Simon, H. A. and Gilmartin, K. (1973). A simulation of memory for chess positions. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 29–46. Sosniak, L. A. (2006). Retrospective interviews in the study of expertise and expert performance in K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, and R.R. Hoffman (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Starkes, J. L. (1987). Skill in field hockey: The nature of the cognitive advantage. Journal of Sports Psychology, 9, 146–160. Statistisches Bundesamt (2010). Oeffentliche Bildungsausgaben [Public expenditures for education]. Retrieval date: 12.02.2011. Available at: http://www.destatis.de Steele, J., James, J. B., and Barnett, R. C. (2002). Learning in a man’s world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46–50. Stegmueller, W. (1976). The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Stoeger, H. (2002). Soziale Performanzziele im schulischen Leistungskontext [Social Performance Goals in Scholastic Contexts]. Berlin, Germany: Logos. Stoeger, H. (2007). ‘Berufskarrieren begabter Frauen’ in K.A. Heller and A. Ziegler (eds.), Begabt sein in Deutschland [To be Gifted in Germany]. Berlin: Germany LIT. Stoeger, H., Ziegler, A., and Schimke, D. (2009). Mentoring: Theoretische Hintergruende, empirische Befunde und Praktische Anwendungen [Mentoring: Theoretical Background, Empirical Results and Practical Applications]. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. Turvey, M. T. and Shaw, R. E. (1995) Toward an ecological physics and a physical psychology in R. L. Solso and D.W. Massaro (eds.), The Science of the Mind: 2001 and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. Vicente, K. J. and Wang, J. H. (1998). An ecological theory of expertise effects in memory recall. Psychological Review, 105, 33–57. Wallace, D. and Gruber, H. E. (1989). Creative People at Work: Twelve Cognitive Case Studies. New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1934). Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus [Protestant Ethics and Capitalism]. Tuebingen, Germany: Mohr. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted Children: Myths and Realities. New York: Basic Books. Ziegler, A. (2005). ‘The actiotope model of giftedness’ in R. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A. (2008). Hochbegabung [Giftedness]. Munich, Germany: UTB. Ziegler, A. (2009). ‘Ganzheitliche Foerderung’ umfasst mehr alsnur die Person: Aktiotopund Soziotopfoerderung [Holistic educations refers to more than just the person: designing actiotopes and sociotopes]. Heilpaedagogik Online, 8, 5–34.

Talent development as adaptation

39

Ziegler, A. (in press). ‘Analysekategorien zur Bewertung von Lernumwelten: Soziotopeund Bildungskapital’ in D. Thuernau (ed.), Neue Konzepte und Erfahrungen derHochbegabtenfoerderung [New Concepts in Gifted Education]. Dresden, Germany: Thelem. Ziegler, A. and Fidelman, M., Reutlinger, M., Vialle, W., and Stoeger, H. (2010). Implicit personality theories on the modifiability and stability of the action repertoire as a meaningful framework for individual motivation: A cross-cultural study. High Ability Studies, 21, 147–164. Ziegler, A. and Murat, A. (2011).Bildungskapital. Eine ergaenzende Perspektive auf die Entwicklung von Leistungs exzellenz [Educational capital: A complementary perspective on the development of excellence]. News and Science, 28, 25–27. Ziegler, A. and Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of giftedness [Target article]. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30.

Chapter 3

Confucianism, learning self-concept and the development of exceptionality Shane N. Phillipson

The relationship between the culture and the academic achievement of Chinese students is an area of enduring interest (Lee and Mok, 2008), particularly when tests of student achievement such as TIMSS and PISA place students from East Asia at the pinnacle of international comparisons (see Tommis and Phillipson, Chapter 13 this volume). Indeed, a number of works have attributed the high academic achievement of students from East Asia to aspects of the Confucian culture, particularly those aspects that relate to the learning environment (Lee and Mok, 2008; S. N. Phillipson, 2007; S. N. Phillipson and Lam, 2011; Watkins and Biggs, 2001). On the other hand, Chan (2007) proposed that other aspects of Confucianism may hinder the development of exceptional achievement, highlighting its complex and sometimes contradictory nature. Other research demonstrates that some well-established educational principles do not seem to apply in the East Asian context. In Hong Kong, for example, academic self-concept is negatively correlated with academic achievement – a finding that is in contrast to research findings focusing on students from the West (Lee and Mok, 2008). An interesting debate regarding the role of the “unforgiving” Confucian learning culture and the exceptional academic performance of Asian students is found in Stankov (2010), Ji (2010) and Mok (2010). In explaining the development of exceptional achievement, the actiotope model of giftedness emphasizes the dynamic interactions between the four components of an individual’s actiotope, including environment, action repertoire, subjective action space and their individual learning goals (Ziegler, 2005). In broad terms, the increasing sophistication of an individual’s action repertoire depends on the continual formation and fulfillment of new learning goals. As existing learning goals are achieved the features of the environment also change, allowing for the formation of new learning goals and a further expansion of the action repertoire and subjective action space. Grassinger, Porath and Ziegler (2010) coined the term “sociotope”1 to describe the “relatively stable environments that make certain opportunities for action [both] accessible and normatively regulated” (p. 14). According to Grassinger et al., a sociotope consists of both an objective action space and a normative action space. Specifically, an objective action space is defined as all

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

41

possible actions that can be carried out in a particular environmental setting. In contrast, a normative action space reflects the local pressures an individual may experience that select for or against particular actions. Bringing together the specific example of the Confucian learning culture and the actiotope model will provide a fresh insight into the cultural bases of the exceptional academic achievements of students from East Asia. In doing so, I conclude that the influence of Confucianism assists students to develop a learning-oriented self-concept as separate to self-concepts related to their academic, physical or social self. In this chapter, I begin by reflecting briefly on the nature of learning environments before expanding Grassinger, Porath and Ziegler’s (2010) concept of “sociotope”, including a proposal for twelve distinct sociotopes based on four variations in objective action space and three variations of normative action space. In particular I draw on research that links aspects of Confucianism that either encourage or inhibit the development of an individual’s actiotope. Some of this research focuses on the gifted Chinese learner (Chan, 2007) while other research discusses the Chinese learner more broadly. I then turn to specific aspects of the Confucian culture and examples of different types of objective action space and normative action space. These specific examples will help to establish the directions of future research.

The environment and human development The idea that the environment plays a role in human development, including the development of knowledge, is not new. Vygotskian (1978) perspectives refer to the importance of the child’s interaction with the immediate external environment in their cognitive development, particularly in speech, writing and other higher order processes. In describing the relationship between the individual and environment, Vygotsky proposed that the individual learns to interpret and act upon their environment, leading, in turn, to further adaptation of their environment. In other words, the individual and environment “mutually shape each other in a spiral process of [cognitive] growth” (Van Der Veer, 1997, p. 22). Importantly, Vygotsky suggested that specific features of the environment may be interpreted differently by different individuals and that each individual’s interpretation changes with development. In order to understand the effects of the learning environment on the developing child, the researcher must take into account the likelihood that the child interprets the learning environment very differently from other children. Furthermore, the child’s interpretation may be very different to the interpretation in the mind of the researcher. Many of Vygotsky’s ideas are echoed in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979; 1995; 1999; Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998) bioecological systems theory of human development, where the different influences on the individual are modeled as a succession of “nested systems” (199, p. 11). The innermost system, termed the microsystem, represents the most direct factors influencing a child’s development.

42

Shane N. Phillipson

The next system is the mesosystem, representing the interactions among the components of the microsystem. The third system is the exosystem, describing the link between the child’s immediate contacts and the social contexts of these contacts. The final system is the chronosystem, helping to explain changes in the first three systems over time. Bronfenbrenner (1999) emphasized the interactions between the proximal processes,2 the environment and human development, including learning and skill development, noting the “systems” (p. 11) nature of these interactions. Furthermore, Bronfenbrenner supported an earlier contention that the proximal processes need to be understood within the contexts that they are found. For example, the educational contexts for students in Hong Kong reflect both its socio-cultural heritage and recent political history, as well as current educational policies that focus on changes to both the secondary and tertiary curricula (Kennedy, Fok, and Chan, 2006; S. N. Phillipson, S. Phillipson, and Eyre, 2011; S. N. Phillipson, et al., 2009).

Effective learning environments The term learning environment is used to describe the interactions between the learner, the environment and the task (Blumenfeld, Marx, and Harris, 2006). In this context, the learning environment usually has a constructivist perspective and, as such, draws on current research from cognitive psychology and the social contexts of learning (Blumenfeld, et al., 2006). When grounded in research, learning environments can be manipulated to serve the designer’s specific intention, such as the development of mathematical problem solving (De Corte and Verschaffel, 2006). Blumenfeld, Marx and Harris (2006) pointed out that the features of an effective learning environment can be studied from many levels, including the development and implementation of an educational policy, clearly stated goals and descriptions of tasks, outlines of instructional material, proposals for the social organisation, delineated roles for teachers, use of technology and plans for assessment. Of these, educational policy has the greatest opportunity to make a “huge impact” (p. 336) on the quality of the learning environment because of its focus on the recruitment and professional development of teachers, allocation of resources and identification of learning objectives. The value of this framework is to understand that the learning environments can be defined in terms of its components with each working together within a clearly defined domain of study. Furthermore, learning environments vary according to the domain and the stage of learning and, most importantly, can be manipulated to ensure the greatest likelihood of student learning (Blumenfeld, Marx and Harris, 2006). A recent examination of the effective classroom was based on a paradigm that viewed education as knowledge delivery and where effectiveness depended on improving the internal processes of schools (Cheng and Mok, 2008; Creemers

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

43

and Kyriakides, 2006). Cheng and Mok showed that in Hong Kong, students’ academic achievement, their attitude toward school and school satisfaction was correlated with environmental factors such as their school’s social climate, quality of physical environment, and family involvement. In terms of management style, the teachers’ use of professional power was correlated with student attitude, satisfaction and academic achievement. Reward power was correlated only with academic achievement, whereas teachers’ personal power was correlated with attitude and satisfaction. Such outcomes were considered by Cheng and Mok to be consistent with comparable findings from the West. In the context of globalization, another perspective of the effective classroom is in terms of its relevance to the development of both the individual and their society (Cheng and Mok, 2008). Within this paradigm, the effective classroom can be determined by measuring students’ learning attitudes, application of learning methods, learning effectiveness, multiple ways of thinking, and satisfaction with school life. Associated school factors include asking teachers to assess the shift to school-based management, and assessing their focus on an appropriate paradigm shift in education and student-centred teaching. Cheng and Mok’s analysis showed that higher scores in all of these variables characterize effective schools in Hong Kong.

Measuring learning environments A mathematical model of the broad relationship between environment (E), intellectual potential (P) and academic achievement in mathematics (A) for schoolaged children in Hong Kong has been described in Phillipson (S. N. Phillipson, 2008; S. N. Phillipson and Tse, 2007). The model defines environment in a broad sense and recognizes that there are aspects of the environment that either inhibit or enhance learning, but does not distinguish between the physical or non-physical environment. Using a hypothetical data set, the model shows that given the same educational environment, students with the highest potential will achieve more highly in mathematics. Furthermore, the model predicts that as the educational environment changes from inhibiting to enhancing, the greatest effects will be for students with the greatest potential (see Figure 3.1).

Sociotopes and action repertoires An important aspect of the learning environment is a clearly identifiable domain (Blumenfeld, Marx and Harris, 2006). In the actiotope model, the domain becomes increasingly important in terms of helping to set goals, identify and select appropriate actions, and to set standards. As Ziegler (2005) pointed out, the systems nature of the actiotope model means that there may be many possible pathways to achievement excellence within one specific domain, and that at any time an individual may have goals in more than one domain.

44

Shane N. Phillipson

6

Achievement

5

P=5 P=1 P = 1.5 P=2

4 3 2 1 0

−1

−0.5

0

0.5

1

Environment

Figure 3.1 Modelling the influence of environment (E) on academic achievement (A) for different levels of intellectual potential (P). The influence of educational environment (E) on the academic achievement (A) of students for different levels of intellectual potential (P) is based on the formula A ∝ PeE. It assumes that the Ravens Progressive Matrices and a test of mathematical achievement measure the same underlying psychological construct (Jensen, 1998; S. N. Phillipson, 2008) and Rasch modelling to equate the measurement scales.

Ziegler (2005) explained that the various features of an individual’s environment can act in ways that are independent of each other: some features encourage the expansion of the actiotope while other aspects inhibit its expansion. In describing the specific role of a mentor as a (potentially) important feature of an individual’s environment, Grassinger, Porath and Ziegler (2010) pointed out that environmental features can either act directly on the individual and/or indirectly by changing the individual’s environment. In particular, the mentor can facilitate the expansion of the individual’s action space by helping the individual identify a specific domain and to set goals and enable the development of specific skills and knowledge, and to set standards. In addition, the mentor can make changes to the individual’s learning environment by removing barriers and opening doors. The overall effect of the mentor is to change positively one aspect of the individual’s learning environment. However, other aspects of the environment may work against the expansion of the action repertoire. For example, “antagonistic” and “competing” environments (Grassinger, et al., 2010) place pressure directly on the individual or provide possible domain alternatives, respectively, both working to inhibit the development of an actiotope within one domain. To make sense of learning environments, Grassinger Porath and Ziegler (2010) used the term learning sociotope to describe a sociotope where learning,

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

45

education and competencies are possible and valued. The next section more fully expands these ideas.

Objective action space Using Grassinger et al.’s (2010) examples, an objective action space depends partly on the availability of educational resources such as an appropriate educational policy, the availability of physical equipment and effective pedagogy (Blumenfeld, et al., 2006). Although an objective action space is not the same thing as the resources, the presence of such resources increases the likelihood that an individual will develop their action repertoire. Ziegler, Vialle and Wimmer (see Chapter 1 this volume) classify an objective action space as either “allowing” or “does not allow” learning to occur. This broad classification focuses on the possible outcomes of an objective action space, rather than the characteristics of the objective action space itself. On the other hand, Grassinger et al. (2010) hinted that the value or esteem placed on the importance of learning is very different to the availability of appropriate resources. In this chapter, I make this distinction clear, bearing in mind that it is possible for a learning environment to value highly both learning and academic achievement but lack the necessary resources. The value or esteem placed on learning and academic achievement can be traced back to the culture in which the sociotope is situated, with different cultures valuing learning and academic achievement differently (Lee and Mok, 2008; S. N. Phillipson and McCann, 2007). Again, an objective action space that places a high value or esteem on learning would increase the likelihood that an individual will develop their action repertoire. Thus, it is possible to distinguish between four types of objective action space, based on the value or esteem placed on learning and academic achievement and the availability of resources. Of course, intermediate conditions between these extremes are possible. Clearly, tensions in the objective action space may arise when the resources are available, but the cultural values and esteem placed on learning and academic achievement are low, or when the value and esteem is high, but the educational resources are limited. Drawing on perspectives outlined in Vygotsky (1978) and Bronfenbrenner (1999), an individual subjectively interprets their learning environment. Bronfenbrenner pointed out that role expectations are a “dynamic feature” (p. 15) of the environment and, as such, are powerful environmental forces. Using Bronfenbrenner’s lead, I argue that value and esteem should be based on the perspective of the individual. In other words, these cultural values together with the individual’s role as a learner are communicated to an individual through a number of proximal processes. In time, these values are internalized by the individual, thereby affecting their development as a learner. Hence it is possible that the same learning environment (resources and cultural values) is interpreted differently by any two individuals. Specifically, an individual’s role expectation as

46

Shane N. Phillipson

a learner reflects the component of the objective action space Grassinger et al. (2010) described as value and esteem. According to Bronfenbrenner (1999), variability in the proximal processes related to their role as learner will lead to differences in their role expectations and subsequent development, helping to explain the differences in academic achievement of students from the West and those within Chinese cultures.

Normative action space In addition to the objective action space Grassinger et al. (2010) suggested that “normative” pressures can be exerted on an individual within their sociotope. Using their examples, these pressures can be either aligned with the objective action space (i.e. pupils discuss excitedly the results of an experiment), be neutral (i.e. there is nowhere to read a book), or can be opposed to the objective action space (i.e. a peer group bullies a very able student). According to Grassinger et al., the normative pressures act independently to the objective action space.

Twelve types of sociotopes Grassinger et al. (2010) described six different sociotopes. However, it is possible to identify a total of 12 sociotopes, based on combinations of objective action space and normative action space (see Table 3.1). When fitting descriptors to the twelve different sociotopes, a number of difficulties arise. Grassinger et al. do not clearly distinguish between available resources and the value and esteem placed on the objective action space. Furthermore, the number of descriptors is inadequate to cover the full range of 12 sociotopes. What is clear, however, is that there is a range of possible sociotopes that reflect the likelihood of an individual expanding their actiotope within a given domain. A tentative attempt to fit their original descriptions and to place new descriptors is shown in Table 3.1. As described in Grassinger et al. (2010), tensions can exist when the normative action space is incompatible with the values and esteems. For example, an individual working within an optimal sociotope is highly likely to expand their action repertoire, whereas an antagonistic sociotope makes it highly unlikely that the individual will achieve the same expansion. The remaining sociotopes are intermediate between these extremes. On the other hand, sociotopes that neither values and esteems learning, nor provides adequate resources provide limited opportunities for the development of an action repertoire leading to academic achievement, even if the normative action space actively supports learning. Such a sociotope is termed a deficit sociotope. The next section focuses on Chinese culture, beginning with resources. It then describes aspects of the culture that reflect the high value and esteem placed on learning. However, different aspects of the CHC are sometimes contradictory, leading to the possibility that individuals may be confused by the environmental expectations of their roles. Furthermore, aspects of the CHC may also inhibit the development of exceptionality.

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

47

Table 3.1 Twelve sociotopes1 An individual’s sociotope consists of their objective action space and normative action space, where … … the objective action space depends on …

In turn, the normative action space … the objective action space.

…value and esteem, and …

…resource availability

actively supports

neither supports nor inhibits (neutral)

actively rejects

High

Rich Poor

Low

Rich

Low

Poor

Infrastructure sociotope2 Infrastructure Sociotope2 Infrastructure sociotope2 Competing sociotope2

Toxic sociotope

High

Optimal sociotope Thematic sociotope1 Suboptimal sociotope Deficit sociotope

Toxic sociotope Toxic sociotope Antagonistic sociotope2

1

An individual’s sociotope (learning environment) for any one domain consists of their objective action space and normative action space. The objective action space consists of all possible actions that can be carried out in the sociotope and depends on the value and esteem (High or Low) placed on learning in the objective action space and the presence of appropriate resources (Rich or Poor) as outlined in Blumenfeld (2006). The normative action space consists of those actions that can be expected to be carried out within a particular environment. The normative action space depends on pressures exerted directly on the individual. 2 Descriptions of the various sociotopes are from Grassinger et al. (2010). Note that their terms learning sociotope and professional sociotope are not used in this model.

In terms of normative action space, there are some examples where local pressures are not conducive to learning, leading to sociotopes where there is conflict between the normative action space and objective action space.

Resources and educational environment Chiu and Khoo’s (2005) research focused on the relationship between resources and academic achievement in schools from 41 countries. Their analysis showed that students with access to financial or social capital generally have higher achievement in language, mathematics and science than those with limited resources. According to Chiu and Khoo, richer students live in “richer neighborhoods” and attend schools with “superior physical, teacher, and student resources” (p. 577). However, providing additional resources to poorer schools was found to have a greater effect on student outcomes than for richer schools – an effect that Chiu and Khoo called “diminishing marginal effect” (p. 597). Currently, Hong Kong is divided geographically into 16 administrative regions, termed districts. For research that depends on a representative sample of

48

Shane N. Phillipson

students, it is important to consider the differences in socio-economic status (SES) of families living in the different districts. Some recent has shown that there is a link between district and the proportion of students who are underachieving in mathematics, with students from lower SES districts showing increased proportions of underachievement across all year levels (S. N. Phillipson, 2008; S. N. Phillipson and Tse, 2007). Other research has shown a correlation between the quality of the physical environment and family factors such as parental income (Cheng and Mok, 2008), again reflecting the link between available resources and educational achievement.

The Chinese culture In broad terms, students from a number of countries in East Asia such as China (including the Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions), South Korea, and Singapore are thought to outperform those from the West because schools stress the value and esteem of learning, including student autonomy, the need for competition, the role of individual effort and family pride. Indeed, Salili (Salili, Chiu, and Lai, 2001; Salili and Lai, 2003) suggests that the cultural values expressed within these classrooms are the most important contributory factors in explaining the academic achievement of these students. Students from East Asia share a common cultural heritage, commonly referred to as the Confucian heritage culture (CHC), although Daoism and Buddhism also play important roles (Sun, 2008). All three philosophies provide a system of values and examples of behaviour that continue to influence the learning environments of students from this part of the world. Indeed, many schools are identified by their affiliation to one of these three philosophical systems. However, societies in East Asia tend to integrate a number of value systems rather than adopting only one. Students from Hong Kong, for example, are not only influenced by their Chinese heritage, but also Western values because of its recent colonial history and its current position as a centre for international finance. Although some regional differences existed, Confucianism was the dominant value system in these societies (Lee, 1996) and its dominance is likely to be still a feature of these societies.

Enhancing the value and esteem of learning Although many of the values expressed in the classroom are consistent with the broader culture, some values are at odds with some of the basic tenets of Confucianism. The next section explores some of the basic tenets that enhance the value and esteem of learning, beginning with the ideal scholar.

The ideal scholar The basic tenets of Confucianism focus on developing the “ideal Confucian scholar” (Sun, 2008, p. 13). These tenets include benevolence (ren, ோ), righteousness

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

49

(yi, ⩏), propriety (li, ⚰), filial piety (xiao, Ꮥ), loyalty (zhong, ᛅ) to one’s ruler, the development of a cultured or educated man (jun zi, ྩᏊ), the doctrine of the mean (zhong yong, ୰ᗤ), and the five cardinal relationships. The mandate of Heaven (tian ming, ኳ࿨) and concept of Heaven (tian ming guan, ኳ࿨や) as well as the rectification of names (zheng ming, ṇྡ) are also included in Confucianism’s basic tenets. These tenets help regulate Chinese society, providing a complete set of values guidelines and exemplars for both individual behaviors and the behaviors of groups. In the CHC, the ideal man observes all these tenets; the ultimate goal of selfactualization is becoming one with Heaven (tian ren he yi, ኳேྜ୍) (Sun, 2008, p. 13). Significantly, the role of education in the CHC is to help achieve self-actualization. Confucianism holds the view that all persons can be educated and that formal schooling plays an important role in the process of actualizing each person’s potential. Furthermore, self-actualization necessarily requires human effort, arising from both the intrinsic and extrinsic importance of learning. In contrast to first impressions, Confucianism promotes a deep rather than surface approach to learning, believing that reflective thinking and inquiry are essential (Lee and Mok, 2008; Watkins and Biggs, 2001, 1996).

Benevolence, righteousness and propriety The tenets of benevolence, righteousness and propriety mutually underpin each other: in the absence of one tenet neither of the other two are possible (Sun, 2008). Benevolence is concerned with the desire to bring out the best in other people through the expression of genuine love and concern. In being righteous, a person enacts their benevolence towards others. Propriety, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with avoiding any inappropriate actions, including those that infringe on the correct relationships between individuals. According to Sun (2008), the interplay of benevolence, righteousness and propriety supports social stability and the equitable allocation of resources. Research showing a direct link between benevolence, righteousness and propriety, and academic achievement does not appear to have been undertaken. However, Ho (2001) characterized the relationships between teachers and students depended on whether the interaction occurred within or without the classroom. Although teachers are authoritarian within the classroom, good teachers display warmth, mutual respect, genuine concern and respect towards their students outside the classroom. Furthermore, Chinese teachers are able to use punitive measures such as detention as opportunities to establish positive relationships with students.

Filial piety and loyalty The twin tenets of filial piety and loyalty are required to maintain stability and harmony within the family and beyond, respectively. In the family, filial piety is more than just being respectful to parents and ancestors, requiring a high degree

50

Shane N. Phillipson

of selflessness. Sun (2008) argued that modern Chinese society is less concerned with filial piety than in previous times and that it is being replaced with a modern version that emphasizes filial reciprocity. Nevertheless, filial piety remains an important tenet in the CHC. In research linking parents and academic achievement, Chinese parents in Hong Kong list filial piety as the primary attribute of the ideal child, followed by academic achievement and correct behaviour (Shek and Chan, 1999). Accordingly, these parents prefer to use authoritarian parenting practices, believing that there is a causal link between practices, such as resorting to rules, power and punitive actions, and the development of filial piety. Interestingly, authoritarian parenting styles are positively related to the academic achievement of their children (Leung, Lau, and Lam, 1998; McBride-Chang and Chang, 1998), in contrast to studies from the West. In another study involving first-generation Chinese-American students, Chao (2001) proposed that the authoritative parenting style of Chinese parents has an additional dimension she termed “relationship closeness”. As an extension of filial piety, loyalty governs the relationships of people outside the family, including persons in positions of authority. In the classroom, students are expected to be respectful toward their teachers. Significantly, however, teachers in Hong Kong also seemed to use authoritarian approaches to their teaching, including the use of ridicule and shame to ensure compliance (Ho, 2001). Moreover, teachers often used group pressure to ensure that inappropriate behaviours are discouraged. Nevertheless, Ho concluded that the use of authoritarian approaches by teachers when dealing with students is balanced by their genuine concern for their students and the development of “warm and caring relationships” (p. 109), in ways that echo the relationship closeness described in Chao (2001). This holistic, rather than compartmentalized, approach by teachers in Hong Kong helps to explain the academic success of their students (Biggs and Watkins, 2001).

Development of a cultured and educated person The purpose of education is to develop oneself according to the needs of others. The fruit of this “life-long endeavor” (Sun, 2008, p. 9) is the demonstration of a number of highly desirable traits such as a love for humanity and selflessness. According to Confucianism, the purpose of education is not only to bring benefits to the individual, but it to bring benefit to society as a whole. Furthermore, all persons can, and should, be educated, although not always to the same extent. In Confucianism, the link between education, learning and effort are very strong: indeed, any differences in natural ability can be overcome through self-determination. Furthermore, the primary purpose of learning is to achieve self-realization, since only through self-realization can the learner serve others (Lee, 1996).

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

51

Academic achievement, self and social needs The emphasis on self is seemingly in contrast to the “collectivist” nature of Chinese society. As Lee (1996) explained, however, relationships in Chinese families begin with self as a “significant reference point” (p. 33). In terms of education, academic achievement in Chinese culture serves both a social as well as an individual purpose, with individual competencies evaluated in its social context (Chang and Wong, 2008). These relationships include a positive correlation between the need for achievement and the need for societal affiliation. Although other cultures share a relationship between these two needs, Chang and Wong (2008) suggested that it is strongest in East Asian students. If so, then it is not surprising to note the relationship between poor academic achievement and socially disruptive behaviour. Tam (2003) showed that students in Hong Kong’s “lowest achievement schools” (p. 457) display a number of discipline problems, including actions harmful to self (i.e. drug taking, smoking), antisocial behaviours (i.e. fighting, bullying, stealing, foul language, possession of pornography) and anti-school behaviour (i.e. damage to property, lateness, cheating, skipping classes). Although Tam did not include a comparison school in his study, the results of his and other studies involving Hong Kong students showed that discipline problems were associated with an external locus of control, low academic self-concept and poor school and parental relationships. On the other hand, children with a record of high academic achievement consistently attained better grades for school conduct (Yu, Chan, Cheng, Sung, and Hau, 2006). Further research will need to establish the causal relationships between these variables. It is easy to speculate, however, that poor academic achievement leads to a lowering self-concept and poor social relationships, contributing again to poor academic achievement. Given that school environments in both low and high achieving schools in Hong Kong are essentially identical in terms of resources, curriculum, and high academic standards, it is not surprising that for some students, the poor social relationships that result from low academic achievement lead to a further drop in social relationships and so on. The net effect is continuing poor academic achievement and increasing alienation from their schooling (Lam and S. N. Phillipson, 2009). Although there are few exceptions, this emphasis on academic achievement limits children’s aspirations for success in physical activity (Yu, et al., 2006). Reflecting Chinese beliefs about the importance of academic achievement, parents have little regard for physical activity, considering it to unduly affect children’s capacity to concentrate on their schoolwork. In evaluating the relationship between self-esteem, academic achievement, school conduct and physical activity in a sample of Hong Kong Chinese students, Yu et al. found strong correlations between academic achievement and school conduct, but not between physical activity and school conduct. In fact, there was a negative correlation between physical activity and school conduct for girls, indicating that “high levels of physical activity in girls violated teachers’ gender role expectations” (p. 338).

52

Shane N. Phillipson

On the other hand, self-esteem in males was predicated by their academic achievement and physical activity. In countering Stankov’s (2010) thesis that the CHC is “unforgiving”, Mok (2010) explained that Chinese learners could develop low self-concept in response to high expectations for academic success and effort attributions. The low self-concept could be a consequence of “upward comparisons” (p. 565) with their peers rather than comparisons with self (downward comparisons), reflecting the collectivist focus in Confucian societies. In contrast, students from the West maintain downward comparisons as a result of their focus on the individual.

Motivation and attributional styles Lee (1996) discussed a number of ways that motivation can be understood within the Confucian context. According to Lee, the path toward self-realisation is an individual’s intrinsic need.3 In perfect co-existence with self-realisation, an educated purpose has also greater access to “fame, wealth, a beautiful wife and upward mobility” (Lee, 1996, p. 37). This pragmatic purpose of education is echoed throughout modern China, including Hong Kong. For example, many students in Hong Kong ask the reasons for their learning, hoping to find a link between the courses that they are required to take and their utilitarian value (Lai, 2009; S. N. Phillipson, 2005). Chen, Wang, and Wei et al. (2009) drew the distinction between personal goals and goals based on social expectations, and the associated attributions for success and failure in a cohort of Taiwanese university students. They found that when pursuing personal goals, academic success was attributed to internal factors such as ability and effort and academic failure was attributed to luck and task difficulty. When pursuing social goals such as pleasing parents, in contrast, academic failure was attributed to internal factors. Chen et al. argued that goals based on social expectations do not reflect a “lower form of motivation” (p. 189), but rather the strong association between self and their social roles. In Hong Kong, research into attribution styles has shown that both Chinese parents and their children attribute academic success to effort and effective learning strategies rather to ability (Law, 2009; S. Phillipson, 2006), confirming the modern-day link between education, learning and effort. Furthermore, S. Phillipson showed also that parents play an important role in communicating attributional styles to their children. In summarizing research into the motivational profiles of modern Hong Kong Chinese students, Watkins and Biggs (2001) concluded that it is difficult to separate the individual motivations. Rather, deep learning strategies are activated by “a head of mixed motivational steam” (p. 7).

The doctrine of the mean This doctrine seeks to maintain social harmony by finding the best course of action between two conflicting positions. According to Sun (2008), this does not

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

53

necessarily mean that a compromise position needs to be reached: rather the doctrine encourages parties to find the best alternative. The doctrine also encourages persons to adopt moderate forms of behaviour, including expressions of emotions, in social situations. In the classroom, this doctrine is reflected in expectations for students to conform to uniform standards of behaviour (Ho, 2001). The role of teachers in maintaining this expectation is to provide an appropriate model, and to initiate harsh methods of discipline, including the use of social or group disapproval. For example, teachers in Hong Kong find that it is acceptable to reprimand a student for their misbehaviour in public (Ho), believing that it strengthens both the individual and the group in ensuring conformity and collective responsibility.

The five cardinal relationships The five cardinal relationships refer to the relationships between ruler and minister, father and son, husband and wife, older and younger, brother and friends. Although each dyad in the five relationships depends on different core values and behaviors, in broad terms the junior member of each dyad “owes strong duty of service and reverence” to the senior member, whereas the senior member owes a duty of “care and benevolence” to the other (Sun, 2008, p. 12). In the Hong Kong classroom, the teacher-student relationship is characterized by a high degree of reciprocal respect. Despite being one of the lowest-paid professions, the respect given to teachers in Hong Kong reflects both the importance of education as well as the authority inherent in the profession of teaching. Furthermore, teachers tend to hold Confucian values regarding the ideal student, such as valuing honesty, self-discipline, responsibility and being respectful, while themselves exercising benevolent authority (Ho, 2001). As Salili (2001) pointed out teachers’ interactions with their students are in line with Confucian values, emphasizing the importance of memorization, effort, and limiting the use of praise.

The mandate of Heaven and concept of Heaven The mandate of Heaven refers to the legitimacy of the Chinese kings’ right to rule over their subjects. Specifically, the right to rule is based on the idea that Heaven has “blessed” the king, giving him absolute power. In turn, Heaven is the embodiment of ultimate and perfect authority. According to Sun (2008), the consequences of this tenet on the personality of the Chinese people is the development of an external locus of control, a worship of authority and an inherent fatalistic determination (pp. 12–13). In the university classroom, Chen et al.’s (2009) research studied the relationships between achievement goals and attributional styles, including locus of control. In particular, Chen et al.’s research paradigm consisted of presenting to university students a series of fictional scenarios describing another student’s successes or failures. As noted earlier in this chapter, attributions of success and

54

Shane N. Phillipson

failure when pursuing personal goals were associated with internal factors and external factors, respectively. Attributions for failure when pursuing societal goals were attributed to internal factors. In concluding their research, Chen et al. raised the possibility that the dichotomy between personal and vertical goals is unrealistic, with students gradually internalizing vertical goals. In Chen et al. (2009), the students can be considered as being academically successful since they had already entered university. Hence, it is unclear whether or not the findings are representative of students who are currently experiencing academic failure. Their research does raise the possibility, however, that an inability to integrate vertical goals with personal goals for whatever reason may unduly affect a student’s academic achievement, particularly in the context of Chinese culture. This inability could mean that failure would be simultaneously attributed to both internal and external factors. Chen et al. also raised the possibility that differences in the expectations from society and significant others may lead to “important social and or psychological consequences” for the student (p. 190). Evidence for this possibility is seen in research conducted with secondary students in Hong Kong showing both low achievement and discipline problems (Tam, 2003). For these students, “bad events” were attributed to “internal, stable and global courses” (p. 464) and “good events” were attributed to “external, unstable and specific causes” (p. 464). Such a pattern is in direct contrast to the attributions found for the university students in Chen et al.’s (2009) research. Clearly, more research is needed to determine the relationship between the relationships between personal and vertical goals and academic achievement in Chinese students.

The rectification of names This tenet helps to maintain social harmony. It achieves its purpose when a person uses the correct terms for describing, for example, the proper relationships between people, thereby demonstrating their understanding of their role and responsibility within society. In observing and using these terms correctly, “sociopolitical order” will follow (Sun, 2008, p. 13).

Inhibiting the development of exceptionality Although Chan (2007) argued that the relevance of Confucianism has diminished over the centuries, it still plays an important role in helping to define the modern Chinese culture. In studying giftedness in Chinese society, Chan also argued that some of the virtues and taboos within Confucianism also directly or indirectly inhibit the development of exceptionality. As Chan (2007) pointed out, however, these links need to be more fully explored through the use of appropriate research. Some of these are paraphrased from Chan as follows: Collectivism ((㞟㧓) Collective decisions are likely to be positively reinforced by most members of the group, thereby discouraging new ways of thinking.

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

55

Harmony (࿴╬ ) The importance of social harmony may limit opportunities to raise questions and, consequently, inhibiting greater intellectual development. Sexuality and gender (ᛶ஦) Females are considered subordinate to males and lower in intelligence, creativity and giftedness. Consequently, females may not be given the same educational opportunities as males. Aggression (ᨷ᧬) The expression of alternate viewpoints, including intellectual debate, is considered a form of aggression and is actively discouraged. Furthermore, any view that is different from those in authority is considered impolite and offensive. Intelligence (ᬛ្) The insistence of respecting those in authority requires subservience to teachers and to reproduce materials teachers regard as important. Consequently, originality, verbal fluency and flexibility, persuasive arguments, and other higher order thinking skills are less developed. Family (ᐙᗞ) The child’s greatest responsibility is to the family. Hence, obedience requires them to follow the instructions of parents, with freedom of speech and creative expression considered disrespectful. Feng shui (㢼Ỉ) The concept of feng shui is based on an understanding of the influence of wind and water on daily life, including their future talent and success. Although feng shui changes the person’s locus of control to external forces, the individual is free to try and change their personal feng shui. Filial piety (Ꮥ㐨) The importance of filial piety means that when parents become ill, children should stay by the bedside. On the death of the parents, all activities including scholastic ones should be suspended for some time. Shame (⩈᜝) To be regarded as less bright, less competent, or less useful than others is generally considered shameful. For a student it is shameful to fail an examination and the consequences of shame extend beyond self to include parents, wider family, and school. Consequently, Chinese students may be fearful when asked questions by their teacher, particularly when unsure about the answer. In general, it is safer to not express an opinion or take a risk because opinions can be challenged. Furthermore, risks involve the possibility of failure and, hence associated shame. The antithesis of shame is honour, epitomized in the saying “nothing succeeds like success itself”, where honour allows the possibility of a decent and happy life. Xing fu (ᖾ⚟) Although the term is difficult to translate, xing fu is concerned with the blessings that come from different circumstances. Hence, xing fu differs from person to person, since different people have different expectations and levels of satisfaction. For example, some consider that it is a blessing to marry and have successful and obedient children, rather than to earn a university degree. Other people may regard their weaknesses as a blessing in disguise. For example, failure in something may lead to success in other things; being “talented” may induce jealousy in others and, hence, should be avoided. Face (㠃Ꮚ) The Chinese culture emphasizes the importance of face, including whether or not a certain action will result in losing face, gaining face, saving face

56

Shane N. Phillipson

and giving face. This concern motivates some individuals to wear an expensive watch, live in a large house, drive a prestigious car, and complete a doctorate degree, even if they are not considered essential in themselves. A talented child will bring face to their parents and extended family because they feel that they have produced something precious to the society. Consequently, Chinese families place high value on the academic performance of their children and, hence, will take pains to send their children to “gifted” schools. Yuan (⦁ศ) Chinese people believe in yuan, an outcome that cannot be explained by logic. Yuan provides an explanation for bringing two people together in a certain place, at a certain time, and on a certain date to fulfill a particular purpose. In terms of conceptions of giftedness, the Chinese view is that giftedness is a rare occurrence and that it cannot be predicted. Consequently, giftedness is a valuable commodity and those who have it gain prestige. Guanxi (㜝ಀ) Relationships are important in Chinese life and guanxi describes the closeness and trust between two or more people. Guanxi facilitates the development of effective working relationships, upon which decisions can be made. The concept of guanxi extends to the fundamental relationships between gifted and ordinary people, where cooperation and collaboration between these two groups of people allows for the development of both knowledge and skills. In other words, exceptionality cannot proceed unless guanxi is playing a key role.

Normative action spaces and the Chinese learner According to Grassinger et al. (2010) the normative action space describes the direct pressure being exerted on an individual by environmental influences such as mentors, parents, teachers and peers. These pressure can be aligned with, or contradict, the objective action space, leading to different types of sociotopes (see Table 3.1). At this stage of the development of the actiotope model, research that investigates normative action spaces and their consequences on the developing action repertoire is limited to mentorships. However, some research has been conducted that indirectly sheds some light on the normative action spaces that may be experienced by Chinese students. This research shows that, despite objective action spaces that highly values and esteems learning, normative pressures can still be a significant influence on a student’s academic achievement.

Teachers, parents and peers within the normative action space When analyzing teachers’ attitudes toward underachieving Chinese students in elementary (primary) school in Hong Kong, McCall, Beach and Lau (2000) found that teachers were more supportive of underachievers in Grades 1 and 2, compared to students from Grades 5 and 6. Moreover, teachers viewed underachieving

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

57

students from Grades 5 and 6 as more “disruptive, impatient, and aggressive at school and at home” (p. 800). Similarly, parents and classmates also viewed underachieving students as being more problematic as they became older and, consequently, were less supportive of them. From the perspective of the underachieving student, the learning environment becomes increasingly unsupportive, with parents, teachers and peers viewing these students as more and more of a problem. McCall et al. (2000) suggested that these changes were consistent with the contexts of the Chinese culture, where “Confucian philosophy … [places a] heavy emphasis on the importance and efficacy of effort and ‘academic accomplishments’. As a consequence, student underachievement is a ‘serious child and family problem’, possibly leading to ‘major embarrassment … [and] family rejection and contemplation of suicide’ (p. 787). Chen et al. (2005) followed 535 Grade 6 Chinese students from three randomly selected schools in Shanghai over a number of years, examining the role of school peers in the relationship between effective parenting and school achievement. Chen et al. found that pro-social peers strengthened the positive influence of maternal parenting, but anti-social destructive peers weakened this influence. In addition, children belonging to pro-social groups were likely to experience greater social approval and support from peers, which promoted their social and leadership skills. However, children in anti-social destructive groups did not benefit from supportive parenting and their group membership contributed to social and behavioural problems. Significantly, Chen et al. suggested that supportive parenting might be interpreted by children as “permission” or “approval” (p. 429) for their socially deviant behaviour and contributed to further behavioural problems. Moreover, these effects were more pronounced in boys than in girls. Finally, Chen et al. argued that, within the Chinese context, the one-child policy might contribute to parental indulgence, leading to the development of children with impulsive and egocentric behaviour. In another study, Chen (2005) explored the importance of three types of perceived support – namely, parents, teachers and peers – on student academic engagement and subsequent academic achievement among secondary students from a “typical” (p. 89) Hong Kong school. The students were asked for their perceptions of the level of academic support, including emotional support, instrumental support and cognitive support, given by their parents, teachers and classmates. They were also asked to estimate their level of academic engagement based on how they behaved in class, their attitudes towards schooling, their participation in classroom activities and self-reports on their academic achievement. Chen (2005) found that academic support from teachers, followed by parental support, contributed both significantly and directly to the academic achievement of students. However, students considered that, while teachers have a positive influence on their academic attainment, parents influence this “negatively” (p. 107). These findings suggest that “the stronger the academic support

58

Shane N. Phillipson

from parents as perceived by students, the worse they tend to perform” (p. 107). Chen proposed that parents should increase their level of academic support in response to their children’s academic performance and also reported that this reactive strategy was confirmed by an administrator from the school, indicating that parental involvement increases when the academic achievement and/or engagement of children “worsen” (p. 107). According to Chen, this behaviour is consistent with the Chinese view that parents are responsible for their children’s performance. Chen (2005) also found that academic support is mediated by the perceived academic engagement of students: increasing academic support translates into more meaningful academic engagement; this, in turn, facilitates high academic achievement. The primary role of teachers in academic achievement is not surprising given their role in the Chinese culture and their close proximity to, and frequent interactions with, students. In contrast, the academic support of peers plays a “less powerful role” (p. 111) in students’ academic achievement, possibly due to the highly competitive nature of Hong Kong classrooms. Chen’s (2005) research emphasized the vital role played by academic support systems in schools, particularly for students of low SES. She recommended that Hong Kong teachers continue to work towards building supportive academic environments and that parent education programmes should be implemented to improve the quality of parental involvement.

Schools and normative action space Schools can be a source of normative pressures. In Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia, parents are generally aware that some schools are “better” than others and encourage their sons and daughters to study hard to gain admission to these schools. Students can also distinguish “good” from “bad” schools, and work hard to gain entry to the former. Such is the intensity of competition for a place in one of the “good” schools that students attend tutorial schools and participate in cultural activities such as musical recitals, in order to gain a competitive advantage. Key indicators of good schools include a past record of high academic results, small class size, quality of the teaching staff and the breadth of the school’s alumni network. Despite the perception that class size is important, larger class sizes do not appear to be barriers to academic achievement (Cortazzi and Lixian, 2001; Dahlin, Watkins, and Ekholm, 2001). Another key indicator is the medium of instruction (MOI) with schools that use English as the MOI are perceived by parents to be superior to those that use Cantonese. In addition, parents may consider schools’ religious and cultural ethos as important while others emphasize the “gifted and talented”, the “creative” aspects of their curriculum, or their trilingual curriculum (English, Cantonese and Putonghua). Finally, consideration may be given to a school’s “international” standing, allowing students greater access to foreign universities.

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

59

Chinese sociotopes According to Grassinger et al. (2010), sociotopes are relatively stable environments that allow for the expression and regulation of action repertoires. Grassinger et al.drew also the distinction between objective action space and normative action space, where the former consists of the educational resources available to the individual, and the value and esteem that learning is held within the environment in which the individual is developing. In contrast, normative action space describes the pressures acting directly on the individual. Bronfenbrenner (1999) pointed out that role expectations are a “dynamic feature” (p. 15) of the environment and, as such, are powerful environmental forces. Using Bronfenbrenner’s lead, I argue that value and esteem should be based on the perspective of the individual. In other words, these cultural values, together with the individual’s role as a learner, are communicated to an individual through a number of proximal processes. In time, these values are internalized by the individual, thereby affecting their development as a learner. Specifically, an individual’s role expectation as a learner reflects the component of the objective action space Grassinger et al. (2010) described as value and esteem. According to Bronfenbrenner (1999), variability in the proximal processes related to their role as learner will lead to differences in their role expectations and subsequent development, helping to explain the differences in academic achievement of students from the West and those within Chinese cultures. I have suggested that there are possibly 12 different sociotopes, based on a combination of four types of objective action space and three types of normative action spaces (Table 1). The 12 sociotopes differ in terms of the likelihood that they promote the development of an action repertoire leading to academic achievement in any particular domain. In particular, sociotopes that highly value and esteem learning and are resource rich, and where the normative action space directly supports the objective space are termed optimal sociotopes.4

Learning self-concept, value and esteem and objective action space An important consequence of the high value and esteem placed on learning in Chinese culture is that students are generally very clear what is expected of them in their role as learners. As mentioned previously, the extent to which students interpret and internalize these role expectations will then determine the subsequent development of their action repertoires and, ultimately, the likelihood of academic success. Furthermore, these roles expectations are not necessarily stable over time. Hence, developing tools to measure changes in role expectations rather than objective measures of the “external” learning environment would be an important development in understanding changes in Chinese sociotopes. In the Chinese culture, the value and esteem of learning is communicated to students through the basic tenets of Confucianism. The end result of this com-

60

Shane N. Phillipson

municative process is the interpretation and internalization of their role as student. Because of the emphasis on the value and esteem of learning in Confucian-heritage cultures, it is not unreasonable to posit the existence of a learning self-concept as distinct to other components of self-concept such as academic self-concept (Huitt, 2009). The antecedents of learning self-concept include aspects of the Confucianism such as focus on academic achievement, conformity, respectfulness, self-determination, need for societal affiliation, pursuit of both personal and vertical goals, moderation in emotions, care and benevolence, and internal attributions for both success and failure. As with academic self-concept and self-efficacy, learning self-concept helps to describe the relationship between the student and their academic achievement. Consistent with the two former concepts learning self-concept from individual to individual and is hypothesized to be positively related to academic achievement, depending, of course, on the normative action space.

Normative action space As with all students, the normative action space of learners from East Asia is determined by those environmental features that directly influence them, including parents, teachers and peers. Some of these features are random, whereas others appear to be more systematic. Examples of normative action spaces that are both systematic and actively reject the objective action space include situations where, for example, teachers, parents and classmates become increasingly unsupportive of underachieving students, reflecting the Confucian view that academic accomplishment reflects on both the student themselves and their extended family. Other normative pressures that reject the objective action space are situations where the medium of instruction changes from Chinese (Cantonese) to English when students move primary to secondary school. This somewhat paradoxical experience sometimes confronts highly achieving students when their parents have successfully enrolled them into a “good” school.

Conclusion To help explain the role of the environment exceptional in the achievement of students from East Asia, I have expanded Grassinger et al.’s (2010) concept of sociotope by distinguishing between value and esteem of learning and resources within the objective action space. Furthermore, I have identified three categories of normative action space, yielding up to 12 types of sociotopes. I also propose that the Confucian emphasis on the value and esteem of learning is internalized, thereby necessitating the need to posit a psychological construct termed learning self-concept. Learning self-concept is distinct from academic self-concept and helps to define the identity of the student from East Asia as a learner. Future research will help confirm the existence and etiology of learning self-concept and its central place in the exceptional achievement of students from East Asia. Such

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

61

research will also directly investigate the sociotopes of students demonstrating exceptional achievement by clarifying the relationship between learning self-concept, objective action space and normative action space.

Notes 1 In Ziegler (2005), the term sociotope was used to describe the actiotope of a group as opposed to an individual. 2 According to Bronfenbrenner (1999), proximal processes are “enduring forms of interactions between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects and symbols in its immediate external environment” (p. 5). 3 Amongst scholars in educational psychology, intrinsic motivation is generally understood as a person’s response to internal needs such as interest or curiosity. Higher order needs such as self-realisation are growth needs according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Although it is not clear whether Lee refers to self-realisation is an internal need or a growth need, self-realisation may be internalized as a consequence of living within a Confucian society, as suggested by Chen, Wang, and Wei et al. (2009). 4 Note that Grassinger et al. (2010) used the term learning sociotope to describe a sociotope where learning, education and competencies are possible and valued.

References Biggs, J. B., and Watkins, D. A. (2001). ‘Insights into teaching the Chinese learner’ in D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 277–300). Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., and Harris, C. J. (2006). ‘Learning environments’ in K. A. Renninger and I. E. Sigel (eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 297–342). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). ‘Developmental psychology through space and time: A future perspective’ in P. Moen, J. G. H. Elder and K. Luscher (eds.), Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development (pp. 619–647). Washington, D.C.: APA Books. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). ‘Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and operational models’ in S. L. Friedman and T. D. Wachs (eds.), Measuring Environment across the Lifespan: Emerging Methods and Concepts (5th edn, pp. 3–28). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Bronfenbrenner, U. and Morris, P. A. (1998). ‘The ecology of developmental process P. M. Lerner (ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol 1 Theory (5th edn). New York: Wiley. Chan, J. (2007). ‘Giftedness and China’s Confucian heritage’ in S. N. Phillipson and M. McCann (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness: Sociocultural Perspectives (pp. 35–64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chang, W. C., and Wong, K. (2008). Socially oriented achievement goals of Chinese university students in Singapore: Structure and relationships with achievement motives, goals and affective outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 880–885.

62

Shane N. Phillipson

Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese American and European Americans. Child Development, 72(6), 1832–1843. Chen, J. J.-L. (2005). Relation of academic support from parents, teachers, and peers to Hong Kong adolescents’ academic achievement: The mediating role of academic engagement. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 131(2), 77–127. Chen, S.-W., Wang, H.-H., Wei, C.-F., Fwu, B.-J., and Hwang, K.-K. (2009). Taiwanese students’ self-attributions for two types of achievement goals. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 179–194. Chen, X., Chang, L., He, Y., and Liu, H. (2005). The peer group as a context: Moderating effects on relations between maternal parenting and social and school adjustment in Chinese children. Child Development, 76(2), 417–434. Cheng, Y. C., and Mok, M. M. C. (2008). What effective classroom? Towards a paradigm shift. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(4), 365–385. Chiu, M. M., and Khoo, L. (2005). Effects of resources, inequality, and privilege bias on achievement: Country, school, and student level analyses. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 575–603. Cortazzi, M., and Lixian, J. (2001). ‘Large classes in China: ‘Good’ teachers and interaction’ in D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 115–134). Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. Creemers, B. P. M., and Kyriakides, L. (2006). Critical analysis of the current approaches to modeling educational effectiveness: The importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3), 347–366. Dahlin, B., Watkins, D. A., and Ekholm, M. (2001). ‘The role of assessment in student learning: The views of Hong Kong and Swedish lecturers’ in D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 47–74). Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. De Corte, E., and Verschaffel, L. (2006). ‘Mathematical thinking and learning’ in K. A. Renninger and I. E. Sigel (eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 103–152). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons. Grassinger, R., Porath, M., and Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: A conceptual analysis. High Ability Studies, 21(1), 27–46. Ho, I. T. (2001). ‘Are Chinese teachers authoritarian?’ in D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 99–114). Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. Huitt, W. (2009). Self-concept and self-esteem. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/regsys/self.html Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. Ji, L.-j. (2010). Is Confucian culture unforgiving? Commentary on Stankov (2010). Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 569–570 Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., and Chan, K. S. J. (2006). Reforming the curriculum in a postcolonial society: The case of Hong Kong. Planning and Changing, 37(1/2), 111–130. Lai, M. L. (2009). ‘I love Cantonese but I want English’: A qualitative account of Hong Kong students’ language attitudes. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(1), 79–92.

Confucianism and the development of exceptionality

63

Lam, B.-H., and Phillipson, S. N. (2009). What are the affective and social outcomes for low-achieving students within an inclusive school in Hong Kong? Education Research for Policy and Practice, 8(2), 135–150. Law, Y.-K. (2009). The role of attribution beliefs, motivation and strategy use in Chinese fifth-graders’ reading comprehension. Educational Research, 51(1), 77–95. Lee, W. O. (1996). ‘The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian heritage’ in D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), The Chinese Learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25–41). Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and the Australian Council for Educational Research. Lee, W. O. and Mok, M. M. C. (2008). Construction and deconstruction of the Chinese learner: Implications for learning theories. Evaluation and Research in Education, 21(2), 147–153. Leung, K., Lau, S., and Lam, W. L. (1998). Parenting styles and academic achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 44(2), 157–172. McBride-Chang, C., and Chang, L. (1998). Adolescent-parent relations in Hong Kong: Parenting styles, emotional autonomy, and school achievement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159 (421–436). McCall, R. B., Beach, S. R., and Lau, S. (2000). The nature and correlates of underachievement among elementary schoolchildren in Hong Kong. Child Development, 71(3), 785–801. Mok, M. M. C. (2010). Alternative explanations for the Confucian Asian high performance and high self-doubt paradox: Commentary on “Unforgiving Confucian culture: A breeding ground for high academic achievement, test anxiety and self-doubt?” by Lazar Stankov. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 564–566. Phillipson, S. (2006). Cultural variability in parent and child achievement attributions: A study from Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 26, 625–642. Phillipson, S. N. (2005). The expectations and difficulties faced by Cantonese speaking tertiary students in a teacher education award when using English as the medium of instruction. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 14(1), 47–95. Phillipson, S. N. (2008). The optimal achievement model and underachievement in Hong Kong: An application of the Rasch measurement model. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(2), 147–172. Phillipson, S. N. (ed.), (2007). Learning Diversity in the Chinese Classroom: Contexts and Methods for Children with Special Needs. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Phillipson, S. N., and Eyre, D. M. (2011). Being gifted in Hong Kong: An examination of the region’s policy for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 235–249. Phillipson, S. N., and Lam, B. H. (2011). Learning and Teaching in the Chinese Classroom: Responding to Individual Needs. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Phillipson, S. N. and McCann, M. (eds.), (2007). Conceptions of Giftedness: Sociocultural Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Phillipson, S. N., Shi, J., Zhang, G., Tsai, D.-M., Quek, C. K., Matsumura, N. (2009). ‘Recent developments in education in East Asia’ in L. V. Shavinina (ed.), The International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 1427–1461). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media. Phillipson, S. N. and Tse, K.-o. A. (2007). Discovering patterns of achievement in Hong Kong students: An application of the Rasch measurement model. High Ability Studies, 18(2), 173–190.

64

Shane N. Phillipson

Salili, F. (2001). ‘Teacher-student interaction: Attributional implications and effectiveness of teachers’ evaluative feedback’ in D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp. 77–98). Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. Salili, F., Chiu, C. Y., and Lai, S. (2001). ‘The influence of culture and context on students’ motivational orientation and performance’ in C. Y. Chiu and F. Salili (eds.), Student Motivation: The Culture and Context of Learning (pp. 221–247). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Salili, F. and Lai, M. K. (2003). Learning and motivation of Chinese students in Hong Kong: A longitudinal study of contextual influences on students’ achievement orientation and performance. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 51–70. Shek, D. T. L., and Chan, L. K. (1999). Hong Kong Chinese parents’ perceptions of the ideal child. Journal of Psychology, 133(3), 291–302. Stankov, L. (2010). Unforgiving Confucian culture: A breeding ground for high academic achievement, test anxiety and self-doubt? Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 555–563. Sun, T.-L. C. (2008). Themes in Chinese Psychology. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia. Tam, S. K. T. (2003). Locus of control, attributional style and discipline problems in secondary schools. Early Child Development and Care, 173(5), 455–466. Van Der Veer, R. (1997). ‘Vygotsky in context’ in H. Daniels, M. Cole and J. V. Wertsch (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 21–49). New York: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press. Watkins, D. A., and Biggs, J. B. (2001). ‘The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond’ in D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp. 3–23). Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. Watkins, D. A., and Biggs, J. B. (eds.), (1996). The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences. Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. Yu, C. C. W., Chan, S., Cheng, F., Sung, R. Y. T., and Hau, K.-T. (2006). Are physical activity and academic performance compatible? Academic achievement, conduct, physical activity and self-esteem of Hong Kong Chinese primary school children. Educational Studies, 32(4), 331–341. Ziegler, A. (2005). ‘The actiotope model of giftedness’ in R. J. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd edn, pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 4

Pathways to artistic giftedness Developmental theory as a complement to the actiotope model of giftedness Marion Porath

Development matters in the achievement of excellence. Ziegler’s (2005) actiotope model acknowledges the importance of tracing pathways to excellence and offers a comprehensive “big picture” model of the individual and contextual factors that are brought to bear in achieving excellence. An individual’s action repertoire, or the actions applied to learning situations, is one of the components of the model. An action repertoire develops over time but what develops and how are questions that need to be explored. This chapter explores how neo-Piagetian developmental theory (NPT) can complement the actiotope model (Ziegler, 2005) via its detailed explication of domain-specific development from childhood through adolescence. Visual art is used as an exemplar of how development matters in our consideration of how to articulate the action repertoires of highly able young visual artists and more fully understand how the development of action repertoires unfolds. The way in which artistic action repertoires become increasingly complex and sophisticated is illustrated through the case studies of Wang Yani and Huang Yongyu, highly accomplished Chinese artists. The chapter also considers how intrapersonal and environmental factors support the development of action repertoires that lead to the attainment of excellence. NPT articulates the macrostructure of children’s thinking (Case, Okamoto, Henderson, McKeough and Bleiker, 1996); this articulation is important in providing the conceptual framework that informs practice focused on the development of excellence (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1986). It also articulates the conditions and contexts that support optimal development (Wozniak and Fischer, 1993). As such, NPT can contribute in a complementary way to a more detailed explication of the actiotope model. In addition, complementing the actiotope model with other theoretical perspectives may help to bridge its application to practice. With a few notable exceptions (e.g. Callingham, see Chapter 5 this volume; Phillipson and Callingham, 2009; Phillipson and Sun, 2009; Stoeger, see Chapter 11 this volume; Ziegler, see Chapter 1 this volume), the actiotope model has not been widely applied in educational practice. The introduction of a complementary theory that has informed practice, showing robust instructional effects both in its culture of origin (e.g. Case, 1991; Griffin, 2004; McKeough and Sanderson, 1996; Porath, 2009)

66

Marion Porath

and across cultures (McKeough et al., 2008; Okamoto, Case, Bleiker and Henderson, 1996) may help in knowledge translation. An overview of each perspective is provided first, followed by a discussion of how each complements the other. This complementary view of pathways to excellence is then illustrated through examples of exceptional artistic development. The chapter is heuristic in nature; it presents thoughts about how we may conceive of actual steps toward excellence and questions we may need to ask to inform culturally meaningful learning pathways.

The actiotope model of giftedness The actiotope model (Ziegler, 2005) offers an insightful model of how excellence can be achieved. The current zeitgeist in research and discussions of giftedness includes serious questions about the categorical approach to defining and identifying giftedness, an approach that locates giftedness exclusively in the person and fails to consider the social and educational contexts that support outstanding achievement (e.g. Barab and Plucker, 2002; Borland, 2003; Dai, 2010). Much of the research to date gives a fragmented picture of a “gifted” person’s development. The plethora of definitions of giftedness contributes to this fragmentation, raising the question of how research results can be synthesized in any meaningful way when participants are “defined” differently (Hoge and Renzulli, 1993). The actiotope model moves the discussion away from the debate on what constitutes “giftedness,” giving us a direction for thinking about the contexts that support the development of excellence. The actiotope model highlights in a coherent way the systemic nature of factors that contribute to the achievement of excellence (Phillipson and Sun, 2009). The actiotope model notes the importance of individual actions and environmental variables in achieving excellence (Ziegler, 2005). Rather than an absolutist conception of giftedness that emphasizes individuals with “gifted traits,” the actiotope model emphasizes individuals in context, the relativity of judgments about what constitutes excellence, and, perhaps most importantly, the co-evolution of components of the model. The model is comprehensive, providing a holistic view of what it takes to achieve excellence and what excellence means. These strengths of the model give it the potential to inform the study of talent development and excellence across cultures. Its “big picture” is compatible with cultural interpretations of the various components of the model. Like any comprehensive model of human development, however, critical analysis that contributes to its refinement, including consideration of theories that complement the model, is needed (Ziegler, 2005; Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). The primary focus in this consideration of the complementarity of the actiotope model and NPT is on action repertoires. Secondary foci are the feedback loops, intrapersonal factors, and sociocultural beliefs and practices that influence individuals’ action repertoires.

Pathways to artistic giftedness

67

Action repertoires Individuals’ action repertoires are central to the actiotope model. These repertoires consist of possibilities for action that individuals apply to situations; excellence is inherent in the quality of these actions (Ziegler, 2005). Ziegler provides examples of actions and action repertoires and notes that repertoires are successively and continuously expanded. However, more detailed descriptions of how particular actions are united in repertoires and how they are expanded are needed. For example, how does a person build on the ability to do simple arithmetic to attain mastery of calculus (Ziegler, 2005)? Are there arithmetical precursors relevant to calculus and do those who go on to achieve excellence in calculus approach arithmetic in particular ways? How do children build on arithmetical foundations to construct more complex networks of mathematical understanding? How do we plan educational environments that support “successive enhancements” (Ziegler, 2005, p. 426) of action repertoires?

Influences on action repertoires Feedback loops also are integral to the actiotope model, providing a mechanism for building a repertoire of actions through the incorporation of feedback on one’s actions. This mechanism also would benefit from more detail about the nature of the feedback loops (e.g. How do conceptual understanding and declarative knowledge “work together” in feedback and influence subsequent development?) and the processes that may underlie the incorporation of feedback. Other factors in the actiotope model may also benefit from examination through a developmental lens. For example, NPT adds a particular perspective on intrapersonal factors through its consideration of neuropsychology, motivation, and experience as important determinants of conceptual understanding. It also brings sociocultural beliefs and practices to bear; these are critical components in applying the actiotope model to the East-Asian context.

Neo-Piagetian developmental theory The theory used to bring a complementary developmental lens to the actiotope model is Case’s (1992a; Case and Okamoto, 1996) neo-Piagetian theory. It is a stage theory conceived in North America, reflecting European roots; however, its application in research in Asia (e.g., Okamoto et al., 1996) demonstrated the relevance of conceptual structures of mind in mathematical and artistic development. Case and Okamoto concluded, “Cultural influences are more likely to be reflected in children’s localized skills than in general conceptual development” (Okamoto, 2010, p. 131). Greenfield’s (2000) work suggests an interesting framework for thinking about developmental theory cross-culturally. Implicitly, major developmental

68

Marion Porath

stage transitions such as those posited by Piaget and Case are universal, providing “sensitive period[s]” or “developmental window[s]” (Greenfield, 2000, p. 244); explicitly, culture contributes to the details and form (or style) of those transitions. Case’s (1992a) theory includes both universal and culturally relevant factors, making it a useful tool for complementing the actiotope model and thinking about the actiotope model’s potential utility in the East-Asian context. Because of its articulation of the structure, content, and developmental course of thought and knowledge in different domains, Case’s (1992a; Case and Okamoto, 1996) NPT provides a useful theoretical perspective to complement and elaborate the actiotope model. The theory is considered neo-Piagetian because it refined Piaget’s stage and structure hypotheses and addressed major criticisms of his work. Case (1985, 1992a, 1992b) articulated “detailed substages of development, explanation of mechanisms of stage transition, and replacement of a monolithic structure that explains all development (Piaget’s structure d’ensemble) with a number of structures that are domain-specific” (Porath, 2006a, p. 140). Case’s NPT is a “hybrid,” drawing on Piagetian, information processing, and sociocultural theories, but it is most closely aligned with Piagetian notions of stage, structure, and construction of knowledge (Case, 1987). This alignment is evident in the qualitative and hierarchical descriptions of thinking across domains and ages (cf. Shayer, 2008) and in the methodology of gathering extensive data with children (e.g. drawings, stories, and responses to mathematical tasks) and analyzing them carefully to understand what characterized children’s thinking and representations of thought and knowledge in different domains and how these changed over time. These analyses resulted in the explanatory construct of central conceptual structures. With his research group, Case (1992a, 1998) charted the development of central conceptual structures from early childhood to adolescence in a number of domains including spatial-artistic organization, narrative, and number (e.g. Case, Stephenson, Bleiker and Okamoto, 1996; McKeough and Genereux, 2003; Case and Okamoto, 1996; Porath, 2006b). Structures are “blueprints” of children’s understanding, the internal mental entities that consist of the relations among a number of concepts. Because the relations are semantic, articulating the meanings children assign to concepts, structures are conceptual. Structures are considered central to a domain because they form the basis for understanding a wide range of related tasks within that domain, that is, as “broadly applicable schemes and scripts” (Morra et al., 2008, p. 18), they form the “conceptual ‘center’ of children’s understanding of a broad array of situations, both within and across culturally defined disciplines or content areas” (Case, 1996a, p. 5). With support from their families, teachers, and other members of their communities, children construct these structures in domains that reflect the priorities of their culture and do so in an increasingly complex fashion, resulting in a “staircase” of development (Case, 1992a).

Pathways to artistic giftedness

69

Complementing the actiotope model with NPT A developmental perspective complements the actiotope model’s foci on the dynamic nature of ability and the importance of understanding the nature of pathways to excellence. Constructivist and learning path principles and a way of specifying the content, organization, and development of action repertoires are thus brought to the actiotope model. Case (1987, 1992a) also incorporated a sociocultural perspective in his theory of development. The importance of social context (i.e. the cultural value ascribed to domains and the effort invested in teaching children certain practices) in determining the nature and level of conceptual understanding is recognized. Social context can “exert a direct effect on the level of children’s psychological structures” (Mascolo, Li, Fink, and Fischer, 2002, p. 120); even subtle changes in context and tasks impact conceptual understanding. As Lave (1988) observed, “‘Cognition’ observed in everyday practice is distributed – stretched over, not divided among – mind, body, activity, and culturally organized settings which include other actors” (p. 1). The ways in which NPT may complement the actiotope model include a more fine-grained analysis of how action repertoires are successively and continually expanded in a developmental trajectory leading to excellence; specification of how instruction is conceived as a “design for development” (McKeough, Okamoto and Porath, 2002); a conceptual framework for understanding the role of feedback loops; and motivation, experience, and brain development as intrapersonal factors important in building action repertoires. These complements to the actiotope model are summarized in Table 4.1 and discussed in detail below.

The structure of action repertoires and their expansion Excellence involves “a successive and continual expansion of action repertoires” (Ziegler, 2005, p. 417). An action repertoire is defined as the “objectively sustainable possibilities for actions persons have at their disposal” (Ziegler, 2005, p. 423). While action repertoires focused on acquisition of concepts are seen as necessary but not sufficient for excellence (Phillipson and Callingham, 2009), conceptual learning is vital in the journey toward excellence (Ziegler, 2005). Developmental theory offers a way of thinking about what action repertoires “look like” over time and how they develop and change, thus giving us a detailed roadmap of the conceptual underpinnings of action repertoires.

Enhancing understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of action repertoires NPT allows for the mapping of precise changes in development (Mascolo et al., 2002). Case (1985, 1992a; Case and Okamoto, 1996) conceived of development as hierarchical, with higher stages of development integrating and elaborating on

70

Marion Porath

Table 4.1 Summary of Neo-Piagetian Developmental Complements to the Actiotope Model Actiotope model of giftedness (Ziegler, 2005)

Neo-Piagetian developmental theory (Case, 1992)

Successive and continual expansion of action repertoires, leading to excellence (p. 417)

Hierarchical nature of development of central conceptual structures; the role of maturation in both constraining and potentiating development; potential for creativity and innovation after progression through dialectical cycles of development Instruction conceived of as a design for development; educational environments that support the achievement of excellence Nature of the complexity that results from the interplay between, and the feedback loops consisting of, conceptual understanding and extensive declarative knowledge. Motivation and experience as influences on the sophistication of central conceptual structures

The learning environment as important in enhancing action repertoires Organized complexity and the development of actions within a complex system The role of intrapersonal factors in attainment of action repertoires

previous stages. Each stage of development is subdivided into substages. Minor restructuring of thought takes place in these within-stage transitions; the general systemic construct of working memory capacity is related to the form each central conceptual structure takes in successive substages (Case, 1992a; 1992c) – a quantitative transition from substage to substage that sees increases in the number of concepts coordinated. At the point where thinking is coordinated and elaborated upon, a qualitative stage transition takes place; thinking is consolidated in new and different ways and higher order understandings are evident (Porath, 2006a). There are four recursive cycles (or stages) of such coordination, starting with first-order relations among concepts in infancy and progressing to fourth-order relations in adolescence/early adulthood (Case, 1988; 1992a). These cycles define the form, or structure, relevant in understanding central conceptual structures. Form is consistent across domains. For example, children who are beginning to think in a dimensional fashion (third-order relations), at around age six, can coordinate the two quantitative dimensions of counting and more-less relationships in mathematics, unite events and the intentions that may have motivated those events to create a simple plot in narrative, and place objects along a baseline to form a scene in drawing, given that the domain is one which is valued in their culture and they have the appropriate experience (Case, 1988; Okamoto, 2010). The cycles of development are dialectical (Case, 1988), beginning with a “thesis” that coordinates two units of thought from the previous stage to form a higher-order unit of thought; progressing to a potential antithesis that considers

Pathways to artistic giftedness

71

two such units, one of which may be in conflict with the other; and finishing with a synthesis that integrates the structure, resolving any conflict between the units of thought. These cycles of development are analogous to the “successive and continued expansion of action repertoires” (Ziegler, 2005, p. 417) that describes the development of excellence. In NPT, markers of excellence are understood in terms of the potential for creativity, innovation, and genuine discovery that result at different key points in development. However, Case (1988) made a distinction regarding creativity that is important to this consideration of how developmental theory can complement the actiotope model. Each step (or substage) in development is a creative act but an act that is considered “normal creativity” or “constructivity”; this constructivity is distinct from genuine discovery (Case, 1988). Potential for innovation and genuine discovery occurs at the end of the fourth dialectic cycle (early adulthood) when mature thought is evident. On the way to innovative potential, however, are points at which children’s capacity for innovation may be most evident and where the possibilities in the action repertoire may be greatest and/or most likely to lead to creative actions. The end of a stage – at approximately 4, 10, and 18 or 19 years of age – when the capacity to synthesize thought is most evident, may be critical assessment points for domains in which individuals already demonstrate talent and commitment (Case, 1988).

NPT and excellence What does Case’s NPT (1992; Case and Okamoto, 1996) mean for understanding giftedness and excellence? In my work using NPT to investigate artistic, narrative, and social giftedness, I have found that children who demonstrate excellence have a unique pattern of development. Their conceptual development is somewhat advanced, usually by about a substage, or approximately two years, ahead of expectations for age while their “domain-specific skills” are considerably more advanced, resulting in complex thinking in their domains of interest and strength and a rich journey on pathways to excellence (Porath, 1996, 1997, 2006b). These children: appear to ‘vacuum up’ (N. Robinson, personal communication, May 1997) central conceptual structures associated with a particular stage or substage, allowing them to work flexibly with these structures and use advanced domain-specific knowledge and skills in integrated, cohesive and elaborate ways, consistent with expert performance. (Porath, 2006b, p. 147). Children whose development is considered advanced and indicative of promise and excellence in a field may demonstrate the potential described by Case (1988) all through their development, with critical windows for supporting creativity occurring at stage transitions.

72

Marion Porath

Development, education, and the expansion of action repertoires Central conceptual structures are relevant to what is taught (Case, 1992b). The theory essentially is the basis for a “design for development” (McKeough et al., 2002) and, as such, can inform the anticipative development of an action repertoire (Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). Instructional work focused on conceptual learning conducted by Case’s research group (e.g. Griffin and Case, 1996; McKeough and Sanderson, 1996; Porath, 2009) can, first, inform the consolidation of existing conceptual action repertoires as a way of ensuring a strong foundation for expansion and elaboration of these repertoires and, second, provide a “blueprint” for subsequent conceptual development, or “successive enhancements” (Ziegler, 2005, p. 426) of action repertoires. This instructional work uses what is known about the form and conceptual nature of structures in different domains and at different points in development to inform instructional content. Combining knowledge of what content is central to learning with how to teach, that is, developmentally sensitive teaching approaches, leads to powerful educational outcomes (Case, 1992b). This combination is relevant across cultures. Case argued for “much similarity across cultures, at an abstract level” (Morra et al., 2008, p. 331); every culture offers experiences that develop basic concepts.

Feedback loops In the actiotope model, feedback loops are conceived of as reciprocal influences to effect change in behaviour, as in a tennis coach providing sustained, welldesigned learning opportunities to improve a mentee’s backhand (Ziegler, 2005). Feedback loops “are employed to bring forward the acquisition of competence for the execution of an action” (Ziegler, 2005, p. 428). In Case’s (1996b) work, feedback loops are iterative in the fashion implied by Ziegler. They also share the notion of dynamic interplay between skills and actions implicit in the feedback loops of Ziegler’s (2005) actiotope model. NPT’s view of feedback loops adds a conceptual framework that may further our understanding of the role of feedback in development. NPT articulates the systemic nature of interplay between conceptual and skills-related knowledge (Case, 1996b). “General conceptual structures … exert a strong influence on children’s specific learning, and specific learning … make[s] a strong contribution to children’s general conceptual development” (Case, 1996b, p. 159) in an iterative and hierarchical way. Feedback loops in NPT, then, are fundamental to cognitive growth and achievement of excellence; they have the potential to influence development more generally. Strong skills, such as visual representation among Chinese children, acquired from “high-frequency learning experiences” (Case, 1996b, p. 186) are “fed in” to less well-developed skills “via the mediation of general structures” (Case, 1996b, p. 186). The “essence of a phenomenon” (van Geert, 2004, p. 355) is important here. Identifying this essence – here conceptualized as structures of

Pathways to artistic giftedness

73

mind – has the potential for identifying detailed, integrated sets of feedback loops, thus optimizing strategies for supporting the development of excellence. The actiotope model is a dynamic model; it “entail[s] … principles of change that are intrinsically dynamic” (van Geert, 2004, p. 374). Conceptualizing the essence of types of feedback in the actiotope model and the roles of essential feedback in pathways to excellence appears to be a productive direction in which to take the actiotope model.

Intrapersonal determinants of action repertoires What individuals themselves bring to action repertoires has yet to be clarified, although Ziegler (2005) suggests a number of possibilities, including genetic factors and cognitive abilities, both of which have been the focus of efforts to define and understand giftedness. Neo-Piagetian theory hypothesizes neurological maturation (Case, 1992c; Case and Okamoto, 1996; Morra et al., 2008; Okamoto, 2010; Porath, 2010), motivation and the related construct of intentional learning (Case, 1992a; Case and Okamoto, 1996; Ferrari and Vuletic, 2010), and temperament (Marini, Dane and Kennedy, 2010) as intrapersonal factors affecting conceptual learning. This discussion concentrates on the role of motivation as an individual variable important in the achievement of excellence. The actiotope model includes the goals that drive individuals to master a domain and motivation to learn as important intrapersonal factors in the achievement of excellence but Ziegler (2005) notes that both deserve more research attention. Similarly, in neo-Piagetian research, while “curiosity, exploration, and the desire for mastery” (Case and Okamoto, 1996, p. 17) are deemed important in structural change, their roles as intrapersonal factors in cognitive growth have not been specified in any detail. Porath (1992) suggested that a combination of intense interest and advanced ability in a domain and the heightened amount of experience that results may be instrumental in structural advancement. Motivation is a fruitful avenues for research in terms of what motivates and how, and how temperament may influence the choices individuals make on their learning journeys. Children’s developing understandings of their own learning (Porath and Lupart, 2009; Porath, Lupart, Katz, Ngara, and Richardson, 2009) and preferences for teaching (Porath, Ngara, Lai, Fogel, and Lupart, 2010) may be fruitful avenues for exploration as well. Analyzed within Case’s (1992a) NPT, both show a strong conceptual relationship to intentional learning (Porath, Ngara et al., 2010). Because this analysis is informed both by theory and the data themselves, it is suited to cross-cultural application and could further refine the actiotope model’s utility in East Asian contexts. This potential is discussed below, using artistic development as an example. Striking similarities across cultures are seen in children’s early graphic development (Golomb, 2002; Selfe, 2011). Visual perception may stem from a “hard-wired system of rules” (Selfe, 2011, p. 60), with early development focused on the representation of objects. Young children develop a “‘vocabulary’ of representation” (Selfe, 2011, p. 67). Later, unique

74

Marion Porath

factors like cultural context and graphic tools used in the culture shape further development of this “vocabulary”(Golomb, 2002; Morra, Gobbo, Marini, and Sheese, 2008). Cross-cultural developmental and educational research has identified both similarities and differences in artistic production and instructional support in North American and Chinese contexts, resulting in the potential for a productive blend of perspectives that can inform expansion of the actiotope model and its application in East Asia.

Relevance of developmental theory in the East Asian context In the Chinese context of a long and valued artistic tradition and instruction that supports children in mastering this tradition (Piscitelli, Chi and Zhichao, 1999; Winner, 1989), and children who do remarkable artistic work (Winner, 1989; Wolf and Gardner, 1989), structural development as conceived of by Case (1992a) and other neo-Piagetian theorists (Morra et al., 2008) still matters. A cross-cultural study of Canadian and Chinese children aged four to 10 (Okamoto et al., 1996) found that children in both countries used central spatial structures (the central conceptual structure brought to bear in representing three dimensions on a two-dimensional surface) similarly. There was a strong age effect for spatial representation and overall composition but no effect for country. Conversely, when figural complexity was examined, strong effects for both age and country were found favouring the Chinese children – effects that may be related to the nature of art education in China (Winner, 1989): If a culture values a particular set of skills and invests a great deal of resources in teaching them, children in that culture are more likely to excel in those skills than children who grow up in a culture that does not. However, accelerated performance in a set of skills is unlikely to influence the rate of development of central conceptual structures…. (Okamoto, 2010, p. 131) Golomb (2002), too, noted the “same developmental trends and constraints” (p. 42) in the paintings of Wang Yani, a Chinese artistic prodigy, as in an international collection of young children’s human figure drawings: “In many ways, they are typical childhood paintings conceived within the cultural traditions of China” (Golomb, 2002, p. 42). While Yani’s later work increasingly demonstrated the role of culture in developing advanced structures (Morra et al., 2008), the utility of understanding universal factors in early artistic development is important for appropriate support in the early stages of artistic development. Early stages must be respected and worked through “unhurriedly” since they “lay the foundation for any mature achievement” (Arnheim, 1974, p. 204). Wang Yani’s work is analyzed in detail below for what her developmental trajectory can tell us about supporting excellence.

Pathways to artistic giftedness

75

Wang Yani: Testing the complementarity of developmental theory and the actiotope model The complementarity of NPT and the actiotope model, with reference to the structure of action repertoires and their expansion, feedback loops, and intrapersonal determinants of action repertoires, is explored through a case study of a Chinese artist, Wang Yani, who was considered an artistic prodigy (Andrews, 1989; Goldsmith and Feldman, 1989; Golomb, 2002). This exploration also examines the role that culture is hypothesized to play in a developmental “journey guided by both innate mechanisms and cultural systems of knowledge” (Okamoto, 2010, p. 129). Feldman (1993) described Case’s thoughts on the potential of studying prodigies: By examining such sharply etched and rarified instances of development, we are … in a better position to identify the forces and contexts that must be taken into account in all instances of talent development. The interplay among these forces, including whatever cultural organisms are found to be involved, holds the key to understanding the development of great potential. (p. 249)

Dialectical cycle of drawing development in early and middle childhood Using Case’s (1992a) theoretical framework, Dennis (1992) mapped the development of children’s ability to represent spatial relationships in drawing (i.e. the representation of three dimensions on a two-dimensional surface) and found that typically developing children demonstrate the following competencies across early and middle childhood: Age 4:1 Following earlier stages of scribbling and emergent representational ability, children draw human figures and inanimate objects like houses and trees with spatial relations represented appropriately (e.g. head and trunk with arms and legs in appropriate locations). This point in development is conceptualized as the end of early childhood (Case, 1992a), the culmination of ability to represent objects in a rudimentary fashion. This ability is then ‘merged’ (Case and Okamoto, 1996) with the ability to represent a spatial axis, leading to the two-dimensional scenes typical of the beginning of middle childhood. Age 6: Two or more objects are drawn on a baseline so that a two-dimensional scene emerges. Age 8: Objects are arranged in foreground and background scenes. Age 10: Foreground and background scenes are coordinated through a middle ground, resulting in a coherent three-dimensional scene.

76

Marion Porath

While the developmental hierarchy demonstrated by Dennis (1992) reflects the tools and traditions of Western art making (Goldsmith and Feldman, 1989), as discussed earlier there are universals in artistic development, most notably at the earlier stages of emergent representational ability and representation of spatial relationships in human figures and inanimate objects. In this regard, Yani’s early development was no exception (Ho, 1989). Her subsequent development in middle childhood has been compared to that of Western prodigies like Picasso and Klee, showing a “number of happy parallels” (Ho, 1989, p. 24) in the speed and sophistication of her development. Her work is similar to children considered artistically gifted in North America, in its combination of structural and culturally informed artistic technique that results in complex and creative works (e.g., Loewen, 2006; Porath, 1993, 1997, 2006b). However, it is remarkably more sophisticated and structurally advanced. Yani’s work, indeed, provides a sharply etched and rarified instance of development, and can tell us much about development in general and development in the East Asian context in particular.

Wang Yani Wang Yani was born May 2, 1975 in Gongcheng in Guangxi Province in southern China. The region is remarkably beautiful; Yani loved it and the inspiration it provided for her work (Zhensun and Low, 1991). Yani’s father was a painter and described Yani as entering the world “accompanied by the smell of oil paint … and the aroma of resin drifting in from the pine woods” (Wang, 1987, p. 15). Yani’s father gave up his own artistic pursuits to support his daughter’s artistic development, support that was provided in a non-directive, sensitive way with attention to her interests (Wang, 1987; Zhensun and Low, 1991). He responded to her excitement, passion, and feeling for art and the objects she chose to represent through close observation of her work, provision of materials, and joy. Yani’s very early paintings, at age three, represented animals in ways that were remarkable in their detail and sophistication (e.g. Kitten and Little Monkey, Zhensun and Low, 1991). These representations were, though, clearly similar in many ways to drawings and paintings done by young children all over the world (Golomb, 2002). Yani’s attempts to deal with representing animals’ positions in space indicated that she, like other young children, struggled with how to portray objects accurately but, at the same time, she was already clearly a master of Chinese brush technique and traditional painting format (Goepper, 1987). By age six, Yani’s work (e.g. Carrying the Sedan Chair, Zhensun and Low, 1991) shows the universality of a typical two-dimensional scene but, within that structure, she layered figures of monkeys in ways that indicate her increased understanding of three-dimensional representation and used her brush in masterful ways to portray both the furry and detailed smooth surfaces and the variety of emotions displayed by the monkeys as they struggled with a heavy sedan chair. Yani “developed and built a rich repertoire of marvelous brushstrokes and … applied them well” (Ho, 1989, p. 17). Her passion for monkeys (Wang, 1987;

Pathways to artistic giftedness

77

Zhensun and Low, 1991) is clear, as is her humour in showing a curly tail emerging from the sedan chair. Delbanco (1989) described Yani’s monkey images as “the most vibrant since the Song [dynasty]. She shares with the Song masters an intimate knowledge of her subject” (p. 37). By the age of six, Yani had produced 4,000 paintings (Ho, 1989). This is an extraordinary accomplishment which supports Case’s (1988) contention that at the end of a stage, possibilities for creativity in the action repertoire are greatest. What Yani accomplished by the age of six was taken into a new stage of development in ways that allowed new and different modes of creative expression. Her passion, drive, and intense experience – experience that is far beyond that of other children – in combination with her profound artistic giftedness appears to have resulted in works that portrayed spatial relationships and demonstrated technique in a way that accelerated both structural and expressive development. From this point, Yani built on the accomplishments of her early development in new ways that foreshadowed her later direction as an artist. Yani’s works at ages seven and eight show the integrated composition (Goldsmith and Feldman, 1989) found by Dennis’ (1992) 10-year-old subjects. Ho (1989) described Yani’s development from ages 7 to 11 as “the horizon beyond” (p. 18): She records her experiences, feelings, and zest for life in all the major painting genres through a variety of expressive modes, using different kinds of washes and brushwork. She adapts the styles of the Chinese painting masters, both old and new, in her rendering of flower and bird themes, leans toward the work of contemporary Chinese artists in landscape but creates a new expressive direction of her own…. (Ho, 1989, p. 23) Goldsmith and Feldman (1989) also described a significant shift in Yani’s work at about age seven, commenting that she shared “these kinds of changes with children the world over” (p. 57). This is the same shift described as universal by Greenfield (2000); children the world over begin to master the modes of artistic representation in their culture at about the age of seven. However, for Yani, it was a “joint development of her style and mind” (Goldsmith and Feldman, 1989, p. 57) as she took up broader and more realistic portrayals of her world – a shift from a focus on personal interest in artistic representations to one of an “objective reality” (Goldsmith and Feldman, 1989, p. 57). While typical of a universal transition point, Yani’s development sharpens our understanding of the interplay of feedback loops between conceptual development and technical and stylistic development (Case, 1996b). Yani used the spatial conceptual abilities available to her in remarkably sophisticated ways, weaving layered compositions and multiple scenes together via vibrant brushwork, adaptations of traditional and contemporary styles, and astounding sensitivity to form. Her artistic skills “fed into” her spatial representations, bringing

78

Marion Porath

them to life in completely unique ways, while her ability to work creatively with spatial relationships provided the “platform” for her demonstration of expressive genius. Context is important here as well. Yani travelled throughout her middle childhood as her work was exhibited in Europe and North America. This facilitated her exposure to other modes of artistic representation that further fed her creation of new directions in expression. Extraordinary development in early childhood, combined with a wealth of experience and a highly supportive developmental niche, intensified both the rate and scope of Yani’s artistic ability. Viewed from the perspective of Case’s (1992) NPT and Dennis’s (1992) work, Yani’s development was structurally advanced, showing the ability to coordinate a three-dimensional scene typical of the last substage of middle childhood. At this point, the potential for creativity is once again heightened (Case, 1988). Yani’s work certainly supports this hypothesis. Her landscapes (e.g. What a Long River, painted in 1983) show her ability to represent a variety of three-dimensional scenes in dramatic, spontaneous versions of traditional vertically constructed Chinese landscapes. Landscape is considered the “highest, most demanding subject in mature Chinese painting” (Goepper, 1987, p. 13) and Yani showed remarkable mastery of the genre as well as the potential to work creatively with it and to move beyond it (e.g. Beautiful Red Roofs, Impressions of Germany, 1985). I Want the Most Beautiful Flower, painted in 1985, is a complex, multilayered, beautifully rendered version of a scene characterized by a sophisticated synthesis of form and technique. It presages a shift to abstraction in Yani’s later work. Let’s Play Together, also painted in 1985, shows an even more complex synthesis of structure and technique in a version of Chinese landscape that blends vertical scenes in a powerful way. Talent, experience, passion for her art, wise teaching, and exposure to other cultures supported Yani’s creativity. Little is known of her adolescence, but she is now a successful abstract painter in Germany. The interplay between Yani’s exceptional artistic skills and structural development resulted in rich and complex works of art that were the foundation for mature work of excellence. Yani’s “sharply etched” (Feldman, 1993, p. 49) prodigious development provided a meaningful way to examine universal and cultural influences on development. Gifted children’s pathways through developmental stages are complex, sophisticated, and elaborate but they are also influenced by maturation. Developmental milestones and transitions matter in our consideration of how excellence is realized. There is a dynamic interplay between universal conceptual underpinnings of thought and knowledge and domain-specific, culturally determined abilities (Case, 1996b) that has implications for how any culture supports children’s emergent talent.

The educational environment Arts education is important in China, and it is considered desirable to teach in a sequential fashion (Piscitelli et al., 1999). Arts education is teacher-directed, with

Pathways to artistic giftedness

79

strong emphasis on technique and learning to “master the tradition” (Winner, 1989). Lessons begin at age three and are uniform throughout the country (Piscitelli et al., 1999; Winner, 1989). While this approach results in highly accomplished technique among young children, critics note that creativity is lacking in Chinese children’s art (Piscitelli et al., 1999). Yani’s father’s approach to teaching was entirely different. “I never even considered giving her instructions or guiding her talent, so that from the very beginning her work remained unrestricted by convention” (Wang, 1987, p. 15). Wang Shiqiang carefully observed Yani’s work, responded to her interests and questions, delighted with her passion for the objects she painted, and served as mentor. He recognized that “Yani’s whole being is … intimately bound up with her pictures” (Wang, 1987, p. 22). The mentorship in which he engaged is recognized as the best way to support excellence (Grassinger, Porath and Ziegler, 2010). It is also consistent with the approach to education advocated by neoPiagetian theorists. This approach pays close attention to children’s actions and thoughts, using their interests and ways of thinking to learn more about how each child understands and learns, guide them sensitively in clarifying their understanding, and provide opportunities to extend understanding (Schwartz and Fischer, 2010). Wang Shiqiang’s knowledge of his daughter’s artistic accomplishments indicates his remarkable sensitivity to her progress. “Soon she was able to link up separate images and events in her mind and give them visible form in her works” (Wang, 1987, p. 16). His sensitive guidance included walks and trips for exploration and observation of favourite things to paint. “Interestingly enough, all the fruit trees she painted were leafless. In order to induce her to correct this, I took her to the orchards so that she might see for herself what real fruit trees look like” (Wang, 1987, p. 17). Instructional work based on NPT does include direct instruction; however, it is guided by what children already know and the developmental sequences associated with the domain (Griffin, 2004). It includes strategies that help children build bridges between concepts that are as yet unrelated in their minds and “ultimately integrate these concepts into a higher order structure” (Griffin, 2004, p. 287). Yani appeared to do this ably on her own, but the approach may make the expansion of action repertoires a reality for talented children who need some support in integrating their thinking. It is important that “conceptual bridging” takes place in contexts in which children have real-world problems to solve, opportunities to interact and communicate with peers and experts and to explain their thinking, and exposure to the ways in which particular forms of knowledge are “represented and talked about in [their] culture” (Griffin, 2004, p. 288).

Different pathways to excellence Implicit in the discussion of attentiveness and responsiveness to children’s ways of thinking is that pathways to the achievement of excellence are individual. While general patterns of conceptual thinking may be evident, individuals may

80

Marion Porath

have unique ways of achieving developmental milestones. As Ziegler and Phillipson (2012) emphasize, individual pathways to excellence vary considerably. The mature work of Huang Yongyu, another highly accomplished Chinese artist, shows his amazing versatility as an artist. It, like Yani’s work, crosses cultural boundaries in its style and vitality and shows unique interpretations of classical Chinese painting. “His works range from the delicate and colourful gongbi (fine outline) paintings to the xieyi (freestyle) brushwork paintings” (Chu, 2005, p. 24). Abstract forms are combined with classical Chinese composition in mixed media to create stunningly dramatic and moving works of art (e.g. Shelter from the Rain, 2003; The Wind in the Pines, 1924; An Apology for the Fable of Sandpiper and the Clam, 2002). Huang Yongyu’s pathway to artistry differed considerably from Yani’s. He was born in 1924 but there is no mention of artistic interest until he was 12. At that time, his parents gave him a book of cartoons and he began experimenting with sketching, cartooning, and eventually woodcuts. He was self-taught in all these endeavours but was encouraged by an art teacher while in secondary school (Chu, 2005). Huang Yongyu produced woodcuts for newspapers and had his first solo exhibition in 1948. Huang Yonyu’s artistic and written works were vehicles for social and political criticism; the Cultural Revolution was an extremely difficult time for him (Chu, 2005). His strength, hope, and love of beauty helped him survive and are evident in his contemporary works. His developmental trajectory as an artist is markedly different from Yani’s, at least as far as we know, since there appears to be no record of early artistic development. There are some commonalities – parents who had an artistic background, childhood opportunities to observe the beauty of the natural world, intense motivation to learn, the ability to take charge of his own learning, and mentorship – but their interaction with, and feedback to, his talent varied, influenced in part by time, place, and political context.

Concluding remarks NPT complements the actiotope model via its detailed explication of the conceptual underpinnings of thinking at different ages and the ways in which concepts are integrated and elaborated upon over time. While conceptual action repertoires are not the whole story in the development of excellence, they do provide the framework for understanding how skills and conceptual knowledge are integrated. The blend of development of conceptual understanding and extensive declarative knowledge via feedback loops that is articulated in NPT offers a way of understanding more fully how action repertoires are significant in mapping developmental trajectories. This chapter focused on artistic development but the principles of a conceptual developmental approach apply across domains. “Without the opportunities to integrate, consolidate, and appreciate underlying conceptual meaning in a variety of disciplines, gifted children will

Pathways to artistic giftedness

81

not acquire the types of experiences necessary to optimize and fully realize their potential” (Porath, 2006b, p. 153). Skills alone will not accomplish this; skills must be part of a feedback loop that includes conceptual learning. This combination gives a strong foundation for mastering, and then moving beyond, traditions in a discipline (Porath, 2006b). It allows for generative learning and knowledge representation in ways that skill-based approaches, when used alone, cannot. Studying examples of artistic excellence in the Chinese context highlight the utility of the actiotope model, complemented by NPT, as a framework for talent development. While questions still remain about intrapersonal factors and feedback loops, their importance was highlighted through analysis of Yani’s approach to her work. Her intense motivation and love of her art clearly demonstrated her individuality. Her father took this individuality into account by responding to her talent and love of art and offering her gentle guidance and a wealth of experiences that fed into her subsequent development. Huang Yongyu’s developmental trajectory was different, highlighting the role of individual differences in understanding pathways to excellence. For both artists, individuality, cultural–historical context, motivation, and support coalesced in brilliant work that both honoured and superseded the traditions in their discipline. The actiotope model offers an important “big picture,” or “outline,” for supporting the achievement of artistic excellence in the East Asian context, a form of excellence that is highly valued in that context. NPT “fills in the details,” allowing conceptual action repertoires and the role of culture in the achievement of excellence to be defined more precisely. Culture is important in shaping development in middle childhood, in taking the universal forms of depiction of early childhood and supporting children in mastering traditionally valued cultural forms. The role of culture appears to come full circle, however. “Greater experience and knowledge supersede cultural influence” (Morra et al., 2008, p. 331) in later development, as seen in the brilliant works of Yani and Huang Yongyu who developed their own unique expressive styles. Their brilliance, while achieved via unique developmental pathways, was supported in ways that were very different from the technically focused, prescribed methods of arts education practiced in China (Piscitelli et al., 1999). Chinese art education is at a crossroads; the need for creative development is recognized, but it is hard to achieve because of lack of resources (Piscitelli et al., 1999). The actiotope model, as complemented by a developmental perspective on artistic development, provides a valuable framework for thinking about the ways and means to allow Chinese children to both master and surpass the traditions of their culture.

Note 1 Ages are approximate, representing prototypical performance. Individual differences in age of acquisition are acknowledged in Case’s theory.

82

Marion Porath

References Andrews, J. F. (1989). ‘Wang Yani and contemporary Chinese painting’. In W-C. Ho (ed.), Yani: The brush of innocence (pp. 39–50). New York, NY: Hudson Hills Press. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Barab, S. A., and Plucker, J. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Talent development in an age of situated approaches to learning and thinking. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182. Bereiter, C., and Scardamalia, M. (1986). Educational relevance of the study of expertise. Interchange, 17(2), 10–19. Borland, J. H. (2003). Rethinking gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Case, R. (1987). Neo-Piagetian theory: Retrospect and prospect. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 773–791. Case, R. (1988). Dialectical cycles in the development of creative intelligence. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 11, 71–76. Case, R. (1991). A developmental approach to the design of remedial instruction. In A. McKeough and J. L. Lupart (eds.), Toward the practice of a theory-based instruction: Current cognitive theories and their educational promise (pp. 117–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Case, R. (1992a). The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Case, R. (1992b). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s scientific and mathematical thought. In A. Demetriou, M. Shayer, and A. Efklides (eds.), Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development (pp. 52–64). New York, NY: Routledge. Case, R. (1992c). The role of the frontal lobes in the regulation of cognitive development. Brain and Cognition, 20, 51–73. Case, R. (1996a). Introduction: Reconceptualizing the nature of children’s conceptual structures and their development in middle childhood. In R. Case and Y. Okamoto (eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2, Serial No. 246), 1–26. Case, R. (1996b). Modeling the dynamic interplay between general and specific change in children’s conceptual understanding. In R. Case and Y. Okamoto (eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2, Serial No. 246), 156–188. Case, R. (1998). The development of conceptual structures. In W. Damon (Series ed.) and D. Kuhn and R. S. Siegler (Vol. eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed., pp. 745–800). New York: John Wiley. Case, R., and Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61 (1-2, Serial No. 246). Case, R., Okamoto, Y., Henderson, B., McKeough, A., and Bleiker, C. (1996). Exploring the macrostructure of children’s central conceptual structures in the domains of number and narrative. In R. Case and Y. Okamoto (eds.), The role of central conceptual

Pathways to artistic giftedness

83

structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2, Serial No. 246), 59–82. Case, R., Stephenson, K. M., Bleiker, C., and Okamoto, Y. (1996). Central spatial structures and their development. In R. Case and Y. Okamoto (eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2, Serial No. 246), 103–130. Chu, C. (2005). Preface to Huang Yongyu at 80: An art exhibition. In Hong Kong Museum of Art, Huang Yongyu at 80: An art exhibition (2nd ed.) (pp. 18–25). Hong Kong: Leisure and Cultural Services Department. Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness. A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Delbanco, D. H. (1989). Monkeys in Chinese art and culture. In W-C. Ho (ed.), Yani: The brush of innocence (pp. 27–38). New York, NY: Hudson Hills Press. Dennis, S. (1992). Stage and structure in the development of children’s spatial representations. In R. Case (ed.), The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge (pp. 229–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Feldman, D. H. (1993). Cultural organisms in the development of great potential: Referees, termites, and the Aspen Music Festival. In R. H.Wozniak and K. W. Fischer (eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 225–251). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferrari, M., and Vuletic, L. (2010). The intentional personal development of mind and brain through education. In M. Ferrari and L. Vuletic (eds.), Developmental relations among mind, brain, and education. Essays in honor of Robbie Case (pp. 293–323). New York, NY: Springer. Goepper, R. (1987). Tradition and a young Chinese artist. In Wang Yani. Pictures by a young Chinese girl (pp. 11–13). Munich, Germany: Prestel. Goldsmith, L. T., and Feldman, D. H. (1989). Wang Yani: Gifts well given. In W-C. Ho (ed.), Yani: The brush of innocence (pp. 51–62). New York, NY: Hudson Hills Press. Golomb, C. (2002). Child art in context: A cultural and comparative perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Grassinger, R., Porath, M., and Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: A conceptual analysis. High Ability Studies, 21, 27–46. Greenfield, P. M. (2000). Culture and universals: Integrating social and cognitive development. In L. P. Nucci, G. B. Saxe, and E. Turiel (eds.), Culture, thought, and development (pp. 231–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Griffin, S. (2004). Contributions of central conceptual structure theory to education. In A. Demetriou and A. Raftopoulos (eds.), Cognitive developmental change: Theories, models and measurement (pp. 264–295). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffin, S., and Case, R. (1996). Evaluating the breadth and depth of training effects when central conceptual structures are taught. In R. Case and Y. Okamoto (eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2, Serial No. 246), 83–102. Ho, W-C. (1989). The brush of innocence. In W-C Ho. (ed.), Yani: The brush of innocence (pp. 13–26). New York, NY: Hudson Hills Press. Hoge, R. D., and Renzulli, J. A. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and selfconcept. Review of Educational Research, 63, 449–465. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

84

Marion Porath

Loewen, S. (2006). Exceptional intellectual performance: A neo-Piagetian perspective. High Ability Studies, 17, 159–181. Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., and Kennedy, R. E. (2010). Multiple pathways to bullying: Tailoring educational practices to variations in students’ temperament and brain function. In M. Ferrari and L. Vuletic (eds.), Developmental relations among mind, brain, and education. Essays in honor of Robbie Case (pp. 257–291). New York, NY: Springer. Mascolo, M. F., Li, J., Fink, R., and Fischer, K. W. (2002). Pathways to excellence: Value presuppositions and the development of academic and affective skills in educational contexts. In M. Ferrari (ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 113–146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McKeough, A., Bird, S., Tourigny, E., Romaine, A., Graham, S., Ottmann, J., and Jeary, J. (2008). Storytelling as a foundation to literacy development for Aboriginal children: Culturally and developmentally appropriate practices. Canadian Psychology, 49, 148–154. McKeough, A., and Genereux, R. (2003). Transformation in narrative thought during adolescence: The structure and content of story compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 537–552. McKeough, A., Okamoto, Y., and Porath, M. (2002, April). A design for development: The legacy of Robbie Case. Sylvia Scribner lecture, American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. McKeough, A., and Sanderson, A. (1996). Teaching storytelling: A microgenetic analysis of developing narrative competency. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 6, 157–192. Morra, S., Gobbo, C., Marini, Z., and Sheese, R. (2008). Cognitive development: Neo-Piagetian perspectives. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Okamoto, Y. (2010). Children’s developing understanding of number: Mind, brain, and culture. In M. Ferrari and L. Vuletic (eds.), Developmental relations among mind, brain, and education. Essays in honor of Robbie Case (pp. 129–148). New York, NY: Springer. Okamoto, Y., Case, R., Bleiker, C., and Henderson, B. (1996). Cross-cultural investigations. In R. Case and Y. Okamoto (eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2, Serial No. 246), 131–155. Phillipson, S. N., and Callingham, R. (2009). Understanding mathematical giftedness: Integrating self, action repertoires and the environment. In L. V. Shavinina (ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 671–698). New York, NY: Springer. Phillipson, S. N., and Sun, R. (2009). Modeling mathematical actiotopes: The potential role of CLARION. Talent Development and Excellence, 1, 27–43. Piscitelli, B., Chi, P. T. M., and Zhichao, C. (1999). Young children’s art education in Australia, Vietnam and China: A comparative perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 19, 21–30. Porath, M. (1992). Stage and structure in the development of children with various types of “giftedness.” In R. Case (ed.), The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge (pp. 303–317). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Porath, M. (1993). Gifted young artists: Developmental and individual differences. Roeper Review, 16, 29–33. Porath, M. (1996). Narrative performance in verbally gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 276–292.

Pathways to artistic giftedness

85

Porath, M. (1997). A developmental model of artistic giftedness in middle childhood. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 276–292. Porath, M. (2006a). A developmental view of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 17, 139–144. Porath, M. (2006b). The conceptual underpinnings of giftedness: Developmental and educational implications. High Ability Studies, 17, 145–157. Porath, M. (2009). Fostering social expertise in early childhood. Early Child Development and Care, 179, 93–106. Porath, M. (2010). Disentangling the complexity of social giftedness: Mind, brain, development, and education. In M. Ferrari and L. Vuletic (eds.), Developmental relations among mind, brain, and education. Essays in honor of Robbie Case (pp. 231–242). New York, NY: Springer. Porath, M., and Lupart, J. (2009). Gifted children’s representations of learner identities. Exceptionality Education International, 19(3), 80–96. Porath, M., Lupart, J., Katz, J., Ngara, C., and Richardson, P. (2009). Gifted learners’ epistemological beliefs. Talent Development and Excellence, 1, 57–66. Porath, M., Ngara, C., Lai, Y., Fogel, K., and Lupart, J. (2010). Children’s understanding of teaching: A component of self-regulation? Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52, 454–471. Schwartz, M. S., and Fischer, K. W. (2010). Interviewing: An insider’s insight into learning. In M. Ferrari and L. Vuletic (eds.), Developmental relations among mind, brain and education. Essays in honor of Robbie Case. (pp.149–175). New York, NY: Springer. Selfe, L. (2011). Nadia revisited. A longitudinal study of an autistic savant. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Shayer, M. (2008). Intelligence for education: As described by Piaget and measured by psychometrics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 1–29. van Geert, P. (2004). Dynamic modelling of cognitive development: Time, situatedness and variability. In A. Demetriou and A. Raftopoulos (eds.), Cognitive developmental change: Theories, models and measurement (pp. 354–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wang, S. (1987). Yani as I see her. In Wang Yani. Pictures by a young Chinese girl (pp. 15–23). Munich, Germany: Prestel. Winner, E. (1989). How can Chinese children draw so well? Journal of Aesthetic Education, 23, 41–63. Wolf, C., and Gardner, H. (1989). Introduction. (Special issue: Arts education in China). Journal of Aesthetic Education, 23, 9–15. Wozniak, R. H., and Fischer, K. W. (1993). Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zhensun, Z., and Low, A. (1991). A young painter: The life and paintings of Wang Yani – China’s extraordinary young artist. New York, NY: Scholastic. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.) (pp. 411–436). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., and Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. [Target article]. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30.

Chapter 5

Chinese students and mathematical problem solving An application of the actiotope model of giftedness Rosemary Callingham

Introduction A variety of explanations has been given for the reasons why Chinese students perform exceptionally well in mathematics. When learning mathematics in any context, new ideas and concepts are introduced into students’ existing environments. It is the role of the student to deal with this novel idea or challenge, and this role is underpinned by the often tacit assumption that the goal of the teacher – that every student will try hard to learn and come to understand the new idea – is also the goal of each individual student. To attain this goal, a student must search an existing subjective action space to find the appropriate action repertoires needed to reach the intended outcome. There are many reasons why this process – learning new mathematics ideas – goes astray. Students bring to the classroom a wide range of knowledge, beliefs, values and expectations derived from previous experiences, family backgrounds and personal traits, and these characteristics of the student impact on the success or otherwise of the learning endeavour. Reasons offered as explanation for Chinese students’ success in mathematics include the importance of education to Chinese families, the Confucian tradition, the effects of Chinese language, and didactic teaching approaches. This chapter examines some of the explanations offered for Chinese students’ success in school mathematics using the actiotope model of giftedness (Ziegler, 2005) as a framework. The research around Chinese students’ mathematical performance will first be reviewed. The actiotope model will then be used to draw together the disparate threads of explanation. Finally, the appropriateness of applying the actiotope model to explain group performance will be considered, together with the implications of such an approach.

Chinese students and mathematics There is considerable evidence from a variety of sources that Asian students in general, and Chinese students in particular, achieve highly in mathematics.

Chinese students and mathematical problem solving

87

Table 5.1 Performances of 15-year-old students on PISA mathematical literacy assessments Region/Country

2009

2006

2003

Shanghai China Hong Kong China Korea Chinese Taipei Macau China Australia Germany International average United Kingdom USA

600 555 546 543 525 514 513 499 492 487

547 547 549 525 520 504 497 495 474

550 542 527 524 503 500 483

In terms of the actiotope model, these students demonstrate better action repertoires in mathematics than do students from other backgrounds. International comparisons, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), www.pisa. oecd.org), show Chinese students consistently among the top performers in mathematics. Table 5.1 shows the country mean for Asian 15-year-old students in mathematics from 2003 to 2009 on PISA assessments, together with the OECD average. The performances of Australia, United Kingdom and Germany from Europe, and the USA are also included for comparison. The results are ordered by mean score in 2009, when all countries/regions participated. All of the Asian performances are significantly above the international average and have been maintained across the years. Where Chinese country or regional groups have joined the PISA study, such as Chinese Taipei and Shanghai-China, these too achieve excellence, suggesting that mathematical performance may be associated with Chinese thinking. At the other end of the education span, Chinese Grade 4 students in the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (www.acer.edu.au/timss) also performed at very high levels. Table 5.2 shows the performances of Grade 4 students from Asian countries compared with the international average for 1995, 2003 and 2007, together with those from Australia, England and Germany from Europe, and the USA. The results are ordered from highest to lowest mean score for 2007. Again the Asian performances are consistently high and well above the international average. Similar results are found for the Grade 8 TIMSS mathematics assessments. These sustained high performances across the years of schooling suggest that Asian students who participate in international studies demonstrate better action repertoires in mathematics in consistent ways. In the Australian NAPLAN (National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy), results are categorized by whether the student speaks a language

88

Rosemary Callingham

Table 5.2 Performances of Grade 4 students on TIMSS mathematics assessments Country

2007

2003

1995

Hong Kong China Chinese Taipei Japan England USA Germany Australia International average

607 576 568 541 529 525 516 500

575 564 565 531 518

587

499 495

546 529

597 513 545

other than English at home (LBOTE – Language Background Other Than English). In general, students learning in a language other than their mother tongue are disadvantaged in school tests of achievement. In the NAPLAN tests, however, students categorized as LBOTE consistently perform at higher levels in numeracy, except in the Northern Territory where these students are mainly Aboriginal (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2010). One explanation for this apparent anomaly of high performance by students with non-English speaking backgrounds is that many of these students outside the Northern Territory are high achieving Asian students, mainly Chinese, living in Australia. This result suggests that Chinese students attain excellence in school mathematics, demonstrating a superior action repertoire, even when living within a Western culture. In 2003, the PISA mathematics assessment also included a scale of problem solving. This more applied approach required students to consider non-routine mathematical problems that were placed in “real world” contexts and typically involved aspects from several domains of mathematics. Although highly correlated, there was a clear distinction between mathematics and reasoning in the problem solving tasks. When performance on the “Mathematics” scale was compared with that on the “Problem Solving” scale, differences emerged among the countries listed in Table 5.1. Whereas Japan, Korea, Australia and Macau China performed better on the problem-solving scale than the mathematics scale, Hong Kong China and the USA had higher achievement on the mathematics scale. This finding suggests that the action repertoires developed by students in different countries may be affected by their educational environment. For example, there may be dissimilar emphases in the curriculum or diverse approaches to teaching (OECD, 2004a, b) which focus on open-ended problem solving over routine mathematical tasks. The Australian curriculum in 2003 (Australian Education Council, 1990), for example, had a strong focus on mathematical thinking and the processes of working mathematically, whereas the Hong Kong curriculum had a strong emphasis on mastering “basic concepts, knowledge, principles and formulae in mathematics” (Curriculum Development Council, 2000).

Chinese students and mathematical problem solving

89

Findings from other studies appear to bear out the PISA outcomes with respect to Chinese students. In a comparison of Grade 5 students in Australia and a Chinese school in Hong Kong, Callingham (2008) found that, in metal computation tasks, Hong Kong students found straightforward recall questions, such as 9 × 8, easier than longer strategy-based questions, such as 49 × 7, whereas for Australian students the reverse was true. On a language-based problem-solving task, the Hong Kong students were able to identify relationships between two variables and express these as an abstract equation, but had difficulties explaining their thinking or extending the task into new areas. In Australia the opposite was found, again suggesting different action repertoires for Chinese and Australian students. Similarly, when considering open- and closed-process problems in mathematics, Cai (2000) found that Chinese students had higher scores on closed problems whereas US students scored better on the open tasks. Furthermore, US students were more likely to use concrete or visual strategies whereas Chinese students used abstract approaches. Cai and Hwang (2002) also found differences when considering sixth-grade students’ problem-posing and problem-solving approaches in Chinese and American schools. Chinese students tended both to use more abstract approaches and to pose more abstract problems. Again, these results indicate diverse action repertoires. Overall, these studies appear to indicate that Chinese students have strong action repertoires in both mathematics and problem solving, but that the problem-solving aspects are less clear cut than the mathematical ones, or more subject to environmental differences such as the school curriculum and pedagogical approaches.

Applying the actiotope model Although many different explanations have been advanced to explain the observed differences between Chinese and Western students in mathematics, there is no overarching perspective. The actiotope model (Ziegler, 2005) may be one useful approach to considering cross-cultural differences in the achievement of excellence, in this instance in the domain of school mathematics. The model has close links with systems theory that, as Ziegler points out, can be applied to social groups. These links suggest that it may be possible to identify systemic aspects of culture that provide explanatory power for the occurrence of apparent excellence among a particular social group, such as Chinese students, within a specific domain, like school mathematics. The action-based, rather than trait-based, nature of the achievement of excellence posited by the actiotope model indicates that the success of applying the model to social groups relies on identifying actions and goals that can be attributed to being part of the group. In turn, the recognition of appropriate actions and goals may depend on an examination of characteristics of the environment within which the identified group exists and operates. In addition, the actiotope

90

Rosemary Callingham

must be able to change and evolve at a group level to provide wider choices within the subjective action space of the group. It is also necessary to spell out exactly what constitutes excellence in the domain. In this example, the domain is school mathematics. It is important to recognize that this is mathematics intended to equip individuals for productive, useful citizenship and future careers; that is, it is not necessarily the mathematics of a mathematician, which becomes increasingly specialized and abstract as the mathematical thinking develops. School mathematics, however, must provide the platform on which the mathematics of a mathematician can be developed, as well as be the springboard for any number of other areas in which mathematical knowledge forms a part. In terms of the domain, in school mathematics achievement of excellence could be construed as very high levels of performance in tests of mathematical knowledge and understanding applied by school systems or governments. Indeed, this criterion is often used to identify students nominated as being gifted in mathematics (S.N. Phillipson and Callingham, 2009). If it is accepted that Chinese students achieve excellence in the domain of school mathematics, the questions that must be answered need to address components of the actiotope model that could be identified as characteristic of the group of Chinese students with respect to school mathematics, and features of the environment that allow these characteristics to operate. The actiotope model is a dynamic model. The components interact and co-evolve. Any given environment drives the development of goals specific to that situation. Actions, undertaken in the light of particular goals, change the existing action repertoire which is represented within the subjective action space. In school mathematics, for example, an environment which encourages risktaking in the classroom may motivate students to attempt a mathematics problem that they might otherwise avoid. In turn, this motivation creates the goal of solving the problem. The action of attempting the problem will draw on existing action repertoires within the subjective action space. In so doing the learner will identify aspects of mathematics that can be used to help solve the problem, as well as gaps in that knowledge which create a barrier to arriving at an answer. The need for a specific piece of mathematical knowledge provides a motivation to seek out and learn the new idea, creating a new goal and eventually an addition to the action repertoire. In relation to Chinese students and mathematics, the issue is to identify aspects of the model that might explain their achievement of excellence through their superior action repertoire, represented within the subjective action space. In this section, specific components of the actiotope model are considered which ultimately affect the subjective action space of Chinese students in school mathematics. There are a number of characteristics which differentiate Chinese students as a group from other groups including the nature of the language, the Confucian tradition, and some aspects of cognitive processes (Nisbett, 2003). These factors

Chinese students and mathematical problem solving

91

will be considered individually, followed by an examination of the actions that arise from these matters.

Language Although there are many Chinese languages, they share a common structure through a focus on relationships rather than categories (Nisbett, 2003). In mathematics, such a focus is of benefit because it makes clear the mathematical structures. This applies from the earliest years, when children are learning to count, through to the later years, when they are dealing with abstractions based on mathematical relationships. Written mathematical language, however, is easier to comprehend using the Hindu-Arabic number system, and this is used universally for mathematics teaching. At school, Chinese children have the benefit of their natural language to develop understanding of mathematical concepts, while using standard mathematical text. There is some evidence that very young Chinese children, between three to five years old, are better at counting than American children of the same age (Rasmussen, et al., 2006). Dehaene (1997) argued that Chinese number words are shorter and require less working memory, and are also more logical in their naming systems, and that these linguistic features provided an advantage to Chinese students in early mathematics, enabling the development of more sophisticated action repertoires. The nature of the Chinese language of mathematics also supports the early notions of operations on numbers. Take subtraction, for example. In English the term “decomposition” is used for the process of transferring one group of “10” to become “10 units”. The word decomposition of itself does not explain what is being decomposed, nor for what purpose this is being done. In contrast the Chinese language states “jie yi dang shi” (೉୍ᙜ༑) or “to borrow 1 unit from the tens and regard it as 10 ones.” The Chinese is more succinct and better supports the mathematical structure (L. Ma, 1999). It appears that the Chinese language structure helps the acquisition of an effective mathematical action repertoire, providing an advantage for Chinese students over others.

Chinese culture and the Confucian tradition Education has always played an important part in Chinese life and mathematics has always been a valued part of the Chinese education tradition (Leung, 2005a). Teachers were, and still are, highly respected members of society and Confucius is remembered as a great teacher. Confucius emphasized that learning is a two-way process and that “teachers should guide and students’ participate” (ICME-11 Chinese Delegation, 2008, p. 10). Teachers play a central role in mathematics education but in China there is an explicit expectation that students also must contribute through attentive study of the subject. There are many

92

Rosemary Callingham

Chinese proverbs that emphasize the importance of education and that success arises from hard work and effort. In relation to mathematics, one of the fundamental beliefs among Chinese people is that innate intelligence is not the prime reason for success on mathematical tasks – it is diligence that counts (ICME-11 Chinese Delegation, 2008, p. 13). The international success of Chinese students has been attributed in part to this Confucian tradition, in which learning is highly valued and hard work leads to worldly success (Leung, 2005a; Li, 2004). These cultural backgrounds, into which Chinese students are born, support particular types of goals, such as high academic achievement, which shape the learning environments created in schools. These goals and learning environments create specific conditions and opportunities for Chinese students to expand their action repertoires.

Action repertoires Action repertoires are those behaviors on which students draw to aid their learning, such as memorization, practice and creativity. An action repertoire that is likely to play a part in Chinese students’ mathematical exceptionality is that of memory. One of the beliefs about learning arising from the Confucian tradition is that memorization leads to better learning. This notion underpins mathematics education in China (ICME-11 Chinese Delegation, 2008). In primary school, Chinese children memorize multiplication tables and have done so for more than 1000 years (Binyan et al., 2008). This memorization, however, is not the “chanting tables” of Western classrooms. Rather it stresses the relationships among the different multiplication facts. Instead of being presented as lists of tables, the multiplication facts in Chinese classrooms are shown as a table, which focuses on the relationships identified (ICME-11 Chinese Delegation, 2008). The nature of Chinese written language may also play a part in developing the capacity for memorization because of the need to remember many different characters. Another action repertoire is associated with practice and diligence. Hong Kong Chinese students, for example, are notoriously diligent, having more homework and greater expectation of out-of-classroom work than students elsewhere (Wardlaw, 2006). Within the Confucian tradition, practice does not mean rote learning as understood in the west. Rather it is a carefully structured experience that builds connections between new knowledge and the old (ICME-11 Chinese Delegation, 2008). Mathematics lessons in China have a narrow focus on a particular concept and the same concept is presented in multiple ways. In Hong Kong, Ho (2005, p. 8) declared that Chinese students develop a solid foundation through the acquisition of sound, basic mathematical skills, developed through “… conventional pedagogical strategies of mainly lectures, demonstration of examples, and class practice …”. One action repertoire that does not appear to be well developed in Chinese students, however, is that of creativity in mathematics. Although Chinese mathematics classes address problem solving, it is more through making connections

Chinese students and mathematical problem solving

93

between existing knowledge and skills and a new problem situation than in encouraging new approaches to thinking (Binyan et al., 2008). L. Ma (1999) reported that faced with a hypothetical student dilemma regarding a partial understanding of perimeter and area, Chinese teachers indicated that they would praise the student for the thinking but also quickly move to discuss its limitations and develop a more sound conventional understanding. In contrast, US teachers were more likely to accept the student’s thinking and praise the originality. It appears that although Chinese students have excellent mathematical skills and understanding, they are not encouraged in creative thinking (ICME-11 Chinese Delegation, 2008).

Goals Ziegler (2005) suggested two clusters of goals that appear pertinent: the development of excellence and the employment of an outstanding action repertoire. These goals are related to students’ motivation to learn (Dweck, 2000). Students who are performance-oriented focus on doing well and achieving sufficient learning to get by, whereas students who are mastery-oriented take a longer-term view. In a study of Hong Kong Chinese secondary school students, Lai, Chan and Wong (2006) found that intrinsic motivation – learning for its own sake – was closely associated with a mastery orientation. This finding was consistent with other research from Western countries. In addition, however, students’ performance orientations were also significantly and positively correlated with intrinsic motivation and achievement. Lai et al. concluded that Hong Kong students were able to adopt multiple goal orientations. The Confucian tradition indicates that students should strive to achieve mastery with sayings such as “⇍⬟⏕ᕦ” often translated as “practice makes perfect”. Lai et al.’s study suggested that Chinese students were more flexible in their goal orientation than might have been expected.

Environment The learning environment is the focus of this section. The dynamic nature of the interactions between the goals and actions, and the learning environment within which the student operates, is one key to understanding the actiotope model. In relation to school mathematics, the most important environment is the mathematics classroom. In terms of Chinese students, their teachers appear to have a deeper grasp of mathematical knowledge than Western teachers (Leung, 2005b; L. Ma, 1999) and more time is given to mathematics in the curriculum (Lam, 2002). A learning environment which is led by knowledgeable teachers and where focused time is provided is likely to support the achievement of excellence through the development of effective action repertoires in conjunction with aligned goals for teachers and students.

94

Rosemary Callingham

In China, the use of open-ended problems is attracting more attention in the mathematics classroom (ICME-11 Chinese Delegation, 2008). These problems, however, are different from the types of problems used in Western classrooms where students tend to have more self determination in their approach. Although open-ended, problems presented in Chinese classrooms have a strong focus on mathematical development whereas the types of problems used in Western classrooms are often more socially based (OECD, 2004b). These differences are likely to lead to the development of dissimilar action repertoires. In particular, the focus on student “discovery” in Western classrooms is more likely to support risk taking – the idea of “having a go”. Indeed, this approach is often strongly advocated in Western curriculum documents where the process of doing mathematics is emphasized as well as the mathematical knowledge itself (e.g., Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2011; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Parental expectations are also important in terms of the learning environment. Surprisingly, He (2007) found no differences between Chinese and US students’ perceptions of their parents’ mathematics anxiety and attitudes towards mathematics. Phillipson and Phillipson (2007) found that Hong Kong Chinese parents’ expected scores in mathematics and languages were strong predictors of their child’s success. Phillipson (2006), however, found that socio-economic status interacted with subject when considering attributions of success in mathematics and language for both students and parents. It appears that when environment is considered, there may be confounding factors that interact when parental influences on Chinese students’ learning are considered. Nevertheless, the environment in which Chinese students exist provides a range of educational and cultural capital that may support students’ achievement of excellence (see Ziegler, Vialle & Wimmer Chapter 1 this volume). Over a quarter of a century ago, Stevenson, Lee and Stigler (1986) indicated that differences in the home environment in terms of parental expectations and involvement in schooling led to increased outcomes in mathematics for Chinese over American students and Leung (2005a) made similar remarks. The value of education in Chinese societies leads to a significant investment in the education of children. For example, students in after-school coaching in Sydney, Australia were likely to be Asian high achievers (Kenny and Faunce, 2004). In the classroom, Chinese students typically spend longer doing mathematics (Stevenson et al., 1986) and the time spent is at a consistently higher level of thinking (Huang, Cai and Ye, 2008) providing additional learning capital. These rich environmental factors interact with other aspects of the actiotope model to develop action repertoires within the subjective action space.

Subjective action space The subjective action space for Chinese students is likely to be constrained by their thinking patterns and attributions. Self-concept and beliefs about personal

Chinese students and mathematical problem solving

95

capabilities are generally predictors of success (Marsh, 1986). Ma and Kishor’s (1997) seminal meta-analysis of the association between attitudes towards mathematics (ATM) and achievement in mathematics (AIM) showed that the ATM–AIM relationship was significantly stronger for Asian students than for other students. There are some anomalies, however. In PISA 2003, Asian students, including those from Hong Kong China, had the lowest self-concept internationally with respect to mathematics, despite very high performances. Within country comparisons showed the expected relationships: students with higher self-concept achieved at higher levels (OECD, 2004a). These findings suggest that at a country or cultural level, Chinese students’ perceptions of their mathematical abilities are underestimated, reinforcing the subjective nature of the action space. There are other aspects of mathematics in which Chinese students appear to behave differently from Western students. In a study of children’s attitudes to mathematics in a Chinese kindergarten, Sun (2009) found that as these young students learned more mathematics their feelings about mathematics became more negative, even within the kindergarten experience. In contrast, a report about British students suggested that young children enjoyed mathematics up to about the age of nine years after which the proportion of children reporting that they liked or loved mathematics had dropped (Bloom, 2008). Again, these findings suggest that there are subjective differences in the behaviour of Chinese and Western students. Older Chinese students also demonstrated surprisingly negative attitudes towards school in PISA 2003, with over half of Hong Kong students indicating that they thought school had done little to prepare them for adult life, whereas in Australia this figure was less than 25 percent (OECD, 2004a). These attitudinal findings are also relevant to the subjective action space inhabited by Chinese students as a group because they are likely to impact on their action repertoires. There is also evidence that Chinese students use different cognitive processes. Western thought is built on formal logic, arising directly from the Greek tradition. In contrast, Chinese thinking tends to be based on experience (Nisbett, 2003). In turn, these differences lead to diverse ways of reasoning causally with Asians having more holistic approaches and taking account of more factors (Choi and Nisbett, 2000), leading to different action repertoires located within the subjective action space. The more holistic approach of Asian students suggests that they take more account of relationships. In mathematical terms, recognizing and using relationships between mathematical entities, such as numbers, is recognized as a powerful learning approach. Having a cast of mind that looks for relationships may advantage Chinese students in their early learning of mathematics at school through the development of a deeper understanding that plays out in the action repertoires available to them. Although these are brief examples from a large field of research, it does seem likely that there are factors that apply to Chinese students as a group that can influence their mathematical achievement regardless of the cultural environment

96

Rosemary Callingham

in which they are situated. In terms of the application of the actiotope model, it is the development of action repertoires within the subjective action space, the goals that arise from the nature of the student group, and the interactions with the learning environment, that are important in developing the superior action repertoires in mathematics that Chinese students demonstrate.

Discussion In school mathematics, Chinese students attain excellence in a variety of settings across the years of schooling. There is some evidence that high levels of mathematical achievement are maintained even when the education occurs in non-Chinese settings, suggesting that although the education system is likely to play a part, it is not the only determinant. On measures of mathematical problem solving, however, relative to their performance in mathematics, some Chinese students tend to achieve less well, especially when open-ended problems are used. When aspects of the group are considered, it appears that there are characteristics of Chinese students that are unique, and support the achievement of excellence in school mathematics. Language is one such factor, and there is a variety of evidence that Chinese language supports mathematical thought, leading to deeper action repertoires. The Confucian tradition values education and students from within this tradition work hard in accordance with the Confucian ideal; the goals of the student are aligned with those of the teacher creating conditions under which strong action repertoires can be developed. Repetition and practice are very much a part of this tradition, and this may explain the lesser performance on open-ended problem solving tasks. Although repetition builds mathematical skills, it is within a narrow framework, and students also need practice in choosing which mathematical skill to use in any given situation. These observations suggest a variety of action repertoires arising from the interactions between the aspects of the students, derived from their cultural and educational capital, with the learning environment. In terms of thinking, however, the close attention to relationships that characterizes Chinese cognitive patterns should support creativity and problem-solving in mathematics, through not only recognizing the underlying mathematical relationships but also in identifying relationships among problem types. That cognitive processing among Chinese students appears not to develop creative thought in mathematics may be due more to environmental factors, such as the nature of pedagogical approaches. In addition to the environment of mathematics classrooms, Chinese parents also appear to create conditions under which excellence can be attained in school mathematics. Coming from the Confucian background, they have high expectations for their children, and these carry into different cultural settings. The goals and motivations of Chinese students are affected by this cultural capital. These comments indicate a variety of action repertoires arising from the interactions

Chinese students and mathematical problem solving

97

between the aspects of the students, derived from their cultural and educational capital, with the learning environment. It seems possible, however, that environmental factors are less important than other parts of the model. Chinese students, for example, were surprisingly negative about school which is not consistent with experiencing a vibrant learning environment. In addition, Chinese students as a group demonstrated low selfconcept with respect to mathematics despite their high achievement. These negative attitudes constrain the subjective action space and may lead to a lack of risk taking, which is a factor in open-ended problem solving. In addition, Chinese students tended to be oriented towards mastery learning goals which are supported by repetition and practice, consistent with Confucian traditions. The paradox of Chinese students who attain excellence in school mathematics, but achieve relatively less well in problem solving, is a complex one and deserves more research. The actiotope model appears to provide a suitable framework for that research, in that it can draw together diverse factors that may impact on the attainment of excellence.

References Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2010). National assessment program – literacy and numeracy. Achievement in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy 2009. Melbourne: MCEEDYA. Retrieved from http:// www.naplan.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAPLAN_2009_National_Report.pdf Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2011). The Australian curriculum: Mathematics, version 1.2. Sydney: ACARA. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Home Australian Education Council. (1990). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne. Binyan, X., Qiping, K., Ping, Y. and Hongyu, S. (2008). Chinese mathematics teaching in classroom. In Mathematics Education in China: Tradition and Reality pp. 51–72. Beijing: ICME-11 Chinese Delegation. Bloom, A. (2008). Attitudes to maths fixed by the age of 9. Times Educational Supplement. Retrieved from http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6006036. Cai, J. and Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in US and Chinese students’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 401–421. Cai, J. (2000). Mathematical thinking involved in US and Chinese students’ solving process-constrained and process-open problems. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 309–340. Callingham, R. (2008). Perspectives gained from different assessment tasks on Chinese and Australian school students learning mathematics. Evaluation and Research in Education, 21(3), 175–187. Choi, I. and Nisbett, R. E. (2000). The cultural psychology of surprise: Holistic theories and recognition of contradiction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 890–905. Curriculum Development Council (2000). Mathematics curriculum guide (P1 – P6). Hong Kong.

98

Rosemary Callingham

Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis. He, Huihua (2007). Adolescents’ perception of parental and peer mathematics anxiety and attitude toward mathematics: A comparative study of European-American and MainlandChinese students. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Washington State University. Retrieved from: http://www.dissertations.wsu.edu/Dissertations/Spring2007/h_he_042407.pdf Ho, Sui-Chu, E. (2005). Second HKPISA report. Hong Kong: HKPISA Centre, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Huang, R., Cai, J. and Ye, L. (2008, July). Mathematical tasks implementation in the U.S. and Chinese classrooms. Paper presented at International Congress on Mathematics Education, Monerrey, Mexico. Retrieved from http://tsg.icme11.org/document/ get/702 ICME-11 Chinese Delegation (2008). Mathematics education in China: Tradition and reality. Beijing. Lai, P. Y., Chan, K. W., and Wong, K. Y. (2006). A study of intrinsic motivation, achievement goals and study strategies of Hong Kong Chinese secondary students. In P. Jeffery (ed.), Proceedings of the AARE annual conference, Adelaide, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/lai06321.pdf Lam, L. (2002, September). Mathematics education reform in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Mathematics Education into the 21st Century: The Humanistic Renaissance in Mathematics Education, Terrasini, Palermo, Italy. Leung, K. S. F. (2005a, August). In the books there are golden houses: Mathematics assessment in East Asia. Plenary address to the ICMI 3rd East Asian Regional Conference on Mathematics Education, Shanghai. Leung, K. S. F. (2005b). Some characteristics of East Asian classrooms based on data from the 1999 TIMSS video study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 199–215. Li, J. (2004). Chap 5. A Chinese cultural model of learning. In L. Fan, N-Y, Wong, J. Cai, and S. Li (eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 124–156). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Kenny, D. T. and Faunce, G. (2004). The effects of academic coaching on elementary and secondary school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(2), 115–126. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ma, X. and Kishor, N. (1997). Assessing the relationship between attitude toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 26–47. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. Nisbett, R.E. (2003). The geography of thought. How Asians and Westerners think differently – and why. London: Nicholas Brearley Publishing. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2004a). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.

Chinese students and mathematical problem solving

99

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2004b). Problem solving for tomorrow’s world. First measures of cross-curricular competencies from PISA 2003. Paris. Phillipson, S. (2006). Cultural variability in parent and child achievement attributions: A study from Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 26(5), 625–642. Phillipson, S. and Phillipson, S.N. (2007). Academic expectation, belief of ability and involvement by parents as predictors of child achievement: A cross-cultural comparison. Educational Psychology, 27(3), 329–348. Phillipson, S. N., and Callingham, R. (2009). Understanding mathematical giftedness: Integrating self, action repertoires and the environment. In L. V. Shavinina (ed.), The International Handbook on Giftedness (Ch. 33, pp. 671–698). Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media. Rasmussen, C., Ho, E., Nicoladis, E., Leung, J., and Bisanz, J. (2006). Is the Chinese number-naming system transparent? Evidence from Chinese-English bilingual children. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(1), 60–67. Stevenson, H. W., Lee, Shin-ying, and Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science, 231(4739), 693–699. Sun, H. V. (2009). Investigating feelings towards mathematics among Chinese kindergarten children. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing Divides (Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia). Wellington, NZ: Merga. Wardlaw, C. (2006, September). Mathematics in HK/China. Improving on being first in PISA. Address to the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Australian Mathematical Society, Sydney. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 6

Intelligence and academic achievement – with a focus on the actiotope model of giftedness Aljoscha Neubauer

Introduction Gifted education is an important endeavor in the East Asian countries. A framework that could guide this endeavor is suggested in Ziegler and Phillipson (2012), using the actiotope model of giftedness as the theoretical framework. The actiotope model presents an impressive approach to fostering gifted students that goes beyond current approaches to giftedness. The need for the “paradigm shift” suggested by Ziegler and Phillipson is based on their assumption that traditional “mechanistic” approaches run short in only trying to dissect giftedness “into its measurable parts.” Such multifactorial models (by Gagné, Heller, Mönks, Tannenbaum and others) try to identify three types of factors (internal cognitive, internal non-cognitive, external) and use these for the prediction of exceptional accomplishments. Referring to Lipsey and Wilson’s (1993) meta-analysis of traditional gifted education that – according to Ziegler and Phillipson – showed minimal to, at best, moderate effect sizes the authors derive the need for a paradigm shift. The actiotope model indeed represents an approach that views gifted education from a new and fresh perspective and seems well suited to advance it and provide new inspirations to it. However, two caveats should be borne in mind when implementing a new approach that, in its presented form, really implies a paradigm shift: (1) In the long run also the new paradigm has to demonstrate its effectiveness in carefully designed empirical evaluation studies. (2) This seems even more essential as the suggested systemic approach bears considerable implications regarding requirements of resources. In my view it should be noted that a realization of the actiotope model leads to the necessity of a quite comprehensive (and therefore probably costly) mentoring of each gifted person. Logic dictates that this cannot be done for each and everyone, so it seems essential that a selection of potentially gifted candidates is required (i.e. students for

Intelligence and academic achievement

101

whom it is likely that the considerable investments needed will pay off in the future). Finally, the new approach will have to prove its effectiveness by demonstrating larger effect sizes than for traditional approaches to giftedness. In my view this endeavor is much more likely to succeed when any model of giftedness takes advantage of the highly developed psychometry of individual traits, especially of cognitive abilities. In the following I will outline this argument in detail; first by presenting the bone-crushing evidence for the pervasive importance of the concept of human psychometric intelligence. Second, I will argue that the actiotope model could strongly profit by taking into account the recent advances in research on creativity. In the view of many authors this represents perhaps the main shortcoming when it comes to explaining why China and other East-Asian countries – in spite of their alleged superiority in many psychological aspects (self-discipline, motivation in cognitive domains, etc.) still seem left behind by Europe, the US and other economies regarding innovation in general, and especially in the field of technology. Why are individual traits so important? According to Ziegler (2005) extraordinary achievements are too diverse so that they exceed the explanatory power of one psychological construct by far; therefore he concluded that a logical consequence was to eliminate the limitations of gifts and talents to one psychological construct. Instead other conceptions were suggested like the “Multiple Intelligences” by Howard Gardner (1993) or the “Successful Intelligence” by Robert J. Sternberg (1997). Ziegler’s conclusion at that time was even more radical, he posited that these mystic entities called traits do not exist and he went on to say “which conception of giftedness one tends to favor is a question of taste, not a question of the thorough consideration of empirical findings” (p. 412). In my contribution I will argue that such conclusions are not valid and that dismissing the concept of personal traits is, as argued above, ineffective because especially the high demands and costs of a full realization of the ambitious actiotope approach is only possible when it can be given to those who have the potential to draw a “profit” out of the high investments into their gifts. On the basis of recent sound empirical basic research in the field of Differential and Personality Psychology, in the last 20 years the related applied field of psychological assessment has made enormous progresses with regard to the prediction of real world behavior, especially and mostly when it comes to predicting success in school, in primary, secondary and tertiary education and professional success. To discard these successes and not to take them into account will result for any model in a violation of Carnap’s (1950) total evidence rule. In the following I will state that intelligence exists as do other traits as well, and moreover, that intelligence or especially g (general cognitive ability) has been empirically shown to be probably the most powerful explanatory trait variable in psychology – with respect to the prediction of (a) educational outcomes; (b) professional success; and possibly even (c) health (with the latter point not being covered in this chapter).

102

Aljoscha Neubauer

At the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, this short review of the current status of intelligence research will show that human psychometric intelligence (as measured by standard psychometric intelligence tests) is well researched: (a) (b) (c) (d)

from the viewpoints of definition, psychometry and structure; regarding the validity of intelligence tests; the underlying cognitive processes; and the neuroscience study of intelligence.

Later, I will relate these findings to the actiotope model and state why intelligence is important for this model; then I will present some current evidence on a second important psychological construct from differential psychology, namely, the field of creativity and argue why this is especially important for gifted education in East Asia.

The status of intelligence research Unfortunately, since several decades of giftedness research and intelligence research do not take much notice of each other. Therefore, misconceptions about the other “camp” held by both sides originate from a communication problem. When studying modern textbooks on human intelligence research almost no references to giftedness research can be found; the reverse is true for textbooks and handbooks of talent and giftedness research in which many achievements of modern intelligence research are being neglected. In fact, intelligence research is a flourishing field in psychology; the number of research papers is increasing steadily; there is a dedicated society, the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), and the journal Intelligence develops extremely well, especially in the last years when its impact factor has risen from around 1.5 in the 1990s to now 2.7, which is probably one of the highest impact factors for non-general (i.e. specialist psychology journals). One aim of this chapter is to inform all who are interested in giftedness education about the recent successes of intelligence research. But what is intelligence? In 1997, Linda Gottfredson in an editorial with 52 signatories defined intelligence as “a very general capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience. … intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well” (p. 13). Undoubtedly, one of the great pioneers of intelligence research was Charles Spearman who, in his 1927 work “The abilities of man” proposed the concept of the general factor of intelligence. In larger parts intelligence research in the 20th century was dominated by the debate between proponents of the “Spearmanian view” that all cognitive abilities are correlated and draw on a common resource as opposed to Thurstone’s (1938) conception who saw intelligence as a set of unrelated primary mental abilities.

Intelligence and academic achievement

103

Meanwhile, the controversy has been resolved in the form of John B. Carroll’s suggestion of the so-called 3-Stratum-Model based on his seminal work published 1993 for which he analyzed 360 data sets based on the incredible sample size of 120,000 individuals. This re-analysis produced a 3-Stratum-Model with a g-factor at the top, eight broad secondary level factors (crystallized and fluid intelligence, general memory and learning, broad visual perception, broad auditory perception, broad retrieval ability, broad cognitive speediness, and processing speed) as well as a large number of primary factors below each of the eight broad factors. Moreover, in the last 20 years we also have been confronted with many suggestions for alternative intelligences like social intelligence, emotional intelligence, practical intelligence etc. and Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences (1993). Although some of these new approaches constitute new and interesting concepts, they – if they can be reliably and validly assessed at all – almost never show substantial correlations with psychometric cognitive intelligence. In order to avoid a too high fuzziness of psychological constructs and too much surplus meaning of psychological terms most personality researchers stick to the view that the term intelligence should be used exclusively for the cognitive ability described in Gottfredson’s definition, given above. This does not mean social, emotional or other so-called soft skills are unimportant, but they should better be called competencies or skills, not intelligences. The only exception to this might be the concept of practical intelligence which often shows moderate correlations with g. Intelligence is measured via intelligence tests usually employing verbal tasks and numerical tasks as well as figural spatial tests, and from the performance in these subtests also a total score reflecting the general factor (g) or the general intelligence quotient (IQ) is computed. This general factor shows a normal distribution and many IQ-based definitions for giftedness refer to IQs higher than 130 (about 2 percent of the population) or higher than 135 (about 1 percent).

The validity of intelligence tests But do intelligence tests measure something meaningful? The question for the so-called validity of intelligence tests is usually studied by relating the score in an intelligence test to educational or professional outcomes like school performance or job performance. Dozens of such studies including 10,000s of participants, were summarized in the highly cited meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter (1998): The average correlation between general cognitive ability (i.e. intelligence) and job performance was around .50, which is one of the highest validity coefficients not only in psychology but in social as well as medical sciences generally (Meyer et al., 2001). Somewhat higher correlations can even be found for school performance, especially primary school performance as well as for high school performance; the more selective the schools are (resulting in a range restriction in IQ), the lower get the correlations but still the correlations are .3 and above (Jensen, 1980).

104

Aljoscha Neubauer

Moreover, several meta-analyses have shown that other constructs like the assessment of interests or of (achievement) motivation show rather weak incremental validity over the assessment of intelligence (i.e. they hardly improve the prediction of later school or job performance (e.g. Schmidt and Hunter, 1998)). One possible exception, however, might be the concept of self-discipline which in the well-known study by Duckworth and Seligman (2005) has been concluded to exceed the predictive power of intelligence when predicting school performance (although this conclusion seems problematic given that the sample they tested was already pre-selected with respect to intellectual ability; this restriction of range in intelligence but not in self-discipline attenuates the correlation of the former variable with educational success). A recent meta-analysis of relations between cognitive tests and performance in graduate schools, universities etc. showed mostly substantial correlations averaging around .4 but partially exceeding .5 (see Figure “Tests as predictors” in Kuncel and Hezlett, 2007). A frequent objection to using tests for prediction and selection, however, is that relationships between intelligence and school performance are only/mainly due to individual differences in socioeconomic status (SES). According to this assumption individual differences in the socioeconomic background would be responsible for correlations between tests and grades. A recent meta-re-analysis by Sackett et al. (2009), however, has shown that – although SES correlates at .42 with the scholastic aptitude test (SAT; which in fact is an intelligence test) – the correlation between SAT and success in graduate school of .47 decreases only to .44 when SES is statistically controlled for. With respect to job performance, I already referred to the meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter who analyzed data from 42,000 persons from 515 different jobs and reported an average correlation of .5 between intelligence and several indicators of job performance. These findings have basically been confirmed in several subsequent meta analyses (e.g. Salgado and Anderson (2003) who metaanalyzed 128 primary studies conducted in Europe with more than 12,000 subjects and reported even higher average correlations of .6 to .7). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis by Strenze (2007) has shown that age at intelligence testing, at measurement of success as well as the (publishing) date of the study do not influence validities substantially. He analyzed correlations of psychometric intelligence tests with education, occupation and income as criterion variables considering separately several potential moderator variables. For age at testing he compared four age groups: 3–10 vs. 11–15 vs. 16–18, vs. 19–23 and found that by and large validities increase with age but surprisingly already at the testing ages 3–10 years, correlations with education and occupation are substantial (between .19 and .37; rising up to .51 for age 19–23; see Table 2 in Strenze, 2007). Correlations with income are generally lower than for the other two criteria, but this criterion variable always also depends on many nonpsychological factors, which partially lie outside the person itself. Next, analyzing the age at success as a moderator variable by comparing validities from 20–49 yrs

Intelligence and academic achievement

105

(in five-year steps) and for ages 50–78 does not show clear-cut trends. The correlations, are mostly between .40 and .50 for educational and occupational success, neither increase nor decrease with age at success (with a possible exception of the correlation with income that rises from .06 to .24). Another point might be that the importance of intelligence might have decreased in recent decades which the author analyzed by investigating the moderator variable year of success and found a small trend of decreasing validity from the 1930s to the late 20th century for education and occupation but not for income (see Table 2 in Strenze, 2007). A final question is: Does intelligence get irrelevant with increasing level of job experience as sometimes purported by critics of the IQ concept? A follow-up meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter (2004) shows that this is not the case: The IQ with performance correlation even increases from year of professional experience 0–3 from .35 to almost .60 for studies on people with more than 12 years of professional experience. On the other hand, it is interesting that the experience with performance correlation even decreases with years of experience. The same authors have also shown that – as could be expected – intelligence is more important for more complex jobs (with most validities between .50 and .60; for semiskilled work it was still .40, only for feeding/off-bearing jobs it was rather low with .23).

The neural basis of human intelligence In addition to describing constructs like intelligence, creativity etc. and assessing their validity the science of psychology also aims at explaining them by disentangling their genetic and neurobiological bases. This research involves behavior genetic approaches that try to disentangle the influence of genes vs. environment on the development of human traits (and which genes and which environmental influences exactly contribute to a more or less in intelligence, creativity, emotional stability, extraversion etc.). The main finding of this research is that nature and nurture are about equally important for intelligence as well as for many personality traits, like the Big Five (Plomin et al., 2008). This research has, however, been less successful in finding out the exact genes or environmental factors or conditions that contribute to a more or less of intelligence, creativity and so on. However, for human intelligence the best replicated variable identified to foster intelligence is the amount of schooling (cf. Rindermann and Ceci, 2009). Another approach towards “understanding” intelligence is to study underlying elementary cognitive processes. First, it has been shown here that intelligence correlates with the speed of information processing: Brighter individuals are faster (i.e. they show shorter reaction times in speeded elementary cognitive tasks like the inspection time task as well as the well-known Shepard and Metzler mental rotation task (cf. meta analysis by Sheppard and Vernon, 2008). Second, intelligence is related to the individual capacity of working memory (cf. Ackerman et al., 2005): Individuals scoring higher in intelligence tests are

106

Aljoscha Neubauer

characterized by a more capacious working memory (i.e. they can hold more items simultaneously in their short-term memory and at the same time perform cognitive operations on them). A typical example is the backward span task: After presentation of a series of digits the person has to reproduce them backwards, which involves not only storing the digits in short-term memory but also performing the cognitive operation of bringing them into reverse order, which requires capacity of the working memory. A third approach elucidating the basis of intelligence is to study neurobiological correlates: Here two aspects have been focused on, namely the neurostructural and the neuro-functional correlates of intelligence. The first refers to estimates of local amounts of grey and white matter in the brain obtained with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). For the second, dozens of studies have investigated the neuro-functional correlates of g for example by measuring brain electrical activation or blood flow in the brain and relating such parameters to the participants’ intelligence (for a general overview of this field, see Deary et al., 2010). Neuro-structural research has shown that it is mostly two brain areas that are responsible for individual differences in intelligence (i.e. the amount of grey matter in frontal and parietal cortex areas correlates positively with intelligence: Brighter individuals have more neurons, synapses etc). These two brain areas have been pinpointed in the so-called Parieto-Frontal Integration theory by Jung and Haier (2007). The prefrontal cortex is responsible for working memory and central executive processes and the parietal cortex handles storage/recall of knowledge, symbolic processing, abstraction etc. In conclusion, more intelligent individuals have more grey matter (i.e. more neurons, dendrites, synapses) mostly in prefrontal and parietal but also temporal areas and they also have more white matter (i.e. stronger and/or better myelinated axons (the long connections between more distant brain areas)). With respect to functional correlates many studies have dealt with the socalled neural efficiency hypothesis going back to Richard Haier’s seminal study from 1988 in which he showed that a group of highly intelligent subjects showed much less brain glucose metabolism when solving Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices versus a group of less intelligent subjects. From this he concluded: Intelligence is not a function of how hard the brain works but rather how efficiently it works. ... This efficiency may derive from the disuse of many brain areas irrelevant for good task performance as well as the more focused use of specific task-relevant areas. (p. 415f, Haier et al., 1992). The neural efficiency hypothesis has been confirmed in many studies, as shown in a review by Neubauer and Fink (2009). The conclusion from these findings is that more intelligent individuals display less brain activation mostly in prefrontal areas and during tasks of low to medium cognitive demand.

Intelligence and academic achievement

107

Intelligence and the actiotope model In this section I will try to relate the reported findings for human psychometric intelligence to Albert Ziegler’s actiotope model. However, I have to restrict myself to some relevant aspects. In his model Ziegler (2005) strongly focuses on consequences from biographies of people demonstrating excellence. As is well-known, prominent researchers in expertise research showed that development of exceptional performance or excellence takes 10 years, and is presumably achieved by executing a large number of actions in a specific domain (e.g. Ericsson et al., 1993).

The role of deliberate practice and expertise We know that “deliberate practice”, as Ericsson et al. (1993) termed it, leads to changes in brain structure as has been shown in several studies on the relationships between learning processes and neural plasticity. For example it has been shown that grey matter in motor brain areas increases after having performed three weeks juggling training of juggling (Draganski et al., 2004). Another wellknown example is the taxi driver study by Maguire et al. (2000) who showed that taxi drivers with enhanced navigation skills have a larger posterior right hippocampus, which is important for spatial orientation skills. On the other hand, even after extended periods of practice in a domain, individual differences in human intelligence are still important when people are confronted with novel demands. In our own taxi driver study (Grabner et al., 2003) we compared a group of less versus more intelligent taxi drivers and assessed their brain usage via EEG when the taxi drivers performed an expertise task (mentally driving through Graz, the second largest Austrian city) as compared to an intelligence task, which was comparable to the expertise tasks but was novel to the participants. We found that the same group of taxi drivers showed the expected pattern of neural efficiency (i.e. less and more focused brain activation in higher IQ subjects when dealing with the novel demands of the intelligence task whereas both groups showed about the same brain activation during the expertise task). We concluded that the development of expertise makes the brain more efficient when confronted with expertise-related demands, but still, when confronted with novel demands the more intelligent brain is more efficient right from scratch. This again reminds us of Gottfredson’s definition of intelligence by that intelligence is a very general capability that, among other things, involves the ability “to learn quickly and learn from experience” (see above). In relation to the actiotope model and its focus on actions I would emphasize that it seems important to ‘enhance’ the actiotope model also by abilities and traits; as these are important determinants of behavior. Of course actions and their environmental determinants are important but we also know that people self select their actions and environments to match their abilities and personality traits. Let us take a look at the example of chess, Albert Ziegler is referring to.

108

Aljoscha Neubauer

Ziegler states that in chess “one must be able to mentally foresee a relatively long series of moves and have the capability to compare and evaluate moves with the consequences with which they are associated” (2005, p. 11f). One could, indeed, presume that this is a very specific ability but, in fact, this ability to foresee is intelligence dependent. Ziegler and Phillipson (2012) write “the minimum IQ score necessary to become an international chess champion was estimated to be as low as 95 points” (p. 12) referring to a study from my laboratory (Grabner et al., 2007). It is correct that we found strong intermediate players in the Austrian chess Premier division with IQs of 95, but these had ELO scores of around 2000, which is not high enough to succeed on an international level. This international level can be only assumed for those with ELOs above 2200; and not a single one of these highly gifted Austrian chess players had IQs below 115 (cf. Figure 1 in Grabner et al., 2007). Intelligence, therefore, is the indicator of a high potential for outstanding achievements in cognitive domains. But, given that individual’s with a high intellectual potential have been identified: How can we make sure that each of them finds the right, that is fostering environment? With respect to school we have learned from Stephen Ceci’s excellent research that school attendance is one of

2400

2200

ELO rating

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200 70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

IQ numerical

Figure 6.1 Scatterplots of the IQ scores and ELO rankings. The dashed line marks the playing strength of strong intermediate players (ELO 2000), the dotted line that of advances (expert) players (ELO 2200) (adapted from Grabner et al., 2007).

Intelligence and academic achievement

109

the main “catalyzers” of intelligence: Each year in school is “worth” a gain of five IQ points (Ceci, 1991).

The “specificity assumption” of the actiotope model The actiotope model posits that the system interacts with the actiotope of an individual: this means the action repertoire, the subjective action space, the goals and finally, the actions in the domain. “The rapid alteration of domains is another reason why the analysis of the objective structure of a talent domain and postulation of characteristics of efficient action are so important” (p. 426). Again, I sympathize with this conjecture, but again – especially in the cognitive domain – there is rather weak evidence for such an assumption of specificity, but much evidence for the pervasive generality of Spearman’s concept of general intelligence. Of course it is possible to find examples for Ziegler’s (2005) contention that one person might be a brilliant theoretical physicist but at the same time only an average experimental physicist. All existing evidence shows this to be the well-known exception to the rule. Again, to quote Linda Gottfredson: “Intelligence is a very general capability… ” (i.e. one that is an advantage in practically all cognitive domains). My conclusion is simple: Intelligence should not be neglected in the actiotope model.

Intelligence in East Asia How is the intellectual potential in East Asia? What do we find when we crossculturally compare the average IQs of nations? Generally there is, so far, rather little research on intelligence in China, or more generally, in East Asia. A thorough literature research using keywords China/Chinese/Hong Kong etc. in combination with intelligence/IQ gives only a few dozen “hits”; the situation is similar for studies on creativity in East Asia. The three main topics studied are: (1) The mean IQ of cross-cultural studies comparing the mean IQs in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan to other countries with the general finding of higher average IQ in Eastern Asia (see below). (2) The second group of studies deals with relations of intelligence with exposure to environmental poisons (for example, lead, serum fluoride and sodium fluoride) with hypothesized and also empirically demonstrated negative effects on intelligence development (e.g. Xiang et al., 2003; Ding et al., 2011). (3) The third group of studies deals with the positive effects of iodine on intelligence (e.g. Liu et al., 2008; Qian et al., 2005). I will not go into more detail for Topics 2 and 3. A general comparison of the IQ in 81 nations going back to the heavily discussed book by Lynn and Vanhanen in 2002 shows a favorable situation for

110

Aljoscha Neubauer

Table 6.1 IQ in 81 nations (a selection, Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002)

Europe North America and Australia East Asia

Country

IQ

Austria Italy New Zealand Hong Kong South Korea Singapore

South and Southwest Asia Southeast Indonesia Asia and Pacific Islands Latin America Argentina and the Caribbean Africa Morocco

Country

IQ

Country

IQ

102 Denmark 102 Hungary 100 Australia United States 107 Japan 106 Taiwan 103 Thailand

98 99 98 98 105 104 91

Bulgaria Ireland Canada

93 93 97

China

100

Nepal

78

89

Philippines

86

Fiji

84

96

Guatemala

79

Jamaica

72

85

South Africa

72

Equatorial Guinea

59

East Asia (see Table 6.1; a selection of the Lynn and Vanhanen results): Generally the mean IQs are the highest for East Asia, and within East Asia Hong Kong has the highest estimate of 107 in a comparison of all 81 countries.

Creativity in East Asia Intelligence is not the only trait that has been thoroughly studied in the field of differential psychology. While in my view many trait concepts are important and should not be neglected in models of giftedness, in East Asia there seems to be a special issue with the important aspect of creativity. Taking a role of a “devil’s advocate” one might even ask: What is intelligence without creativity? Several authors have pointed out that maybe Eastern Asian societies do a lot for fostering intelligence but they neglect the role of creativity. For example Hongli in 2004 asked “Why is there still no Nobel prize winner from China?” From this, he derived the question “Do we need special strategies for nurturing creativity of Chinese primary and middle school students?” Huang et al. (2005) demonstrated that implicit theories of creativity held by Chinese teachers influence creative behaviors in students and these implicit theories are not very favorable. Chan and Chan (1999) have shown that Chinese teachers regard high creativity as socially undesirable, an empirical fact that, however, has also been reported for other countries in the world (e.g. in the US or Europe). Another study by Forrester and Hui (2007) tried to relate creativity measures to classroom measures showing that environmental factors influence

Intelligence and academic achievement

111

students’ creativity and motivation (in Hong Kong). An especially convincing study by Dineen and Niu (2008) explored the effectiveness of Western creative teaching methods in China in an undergraduate graphics design class employing a quasi-experimental pre-post design with a control group. They showed that creative methods developed in the UK proved highly effective in fostering creativity and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the problem seems to be that the focus on high-stakes educational testing might lead to de-emphasis of creative behavior in favor of assessment of reading, writing and arithmetic. Niu and Sternberg (2003) posited that high stakes testing in China coupled with societal values and school pedagogic approaches has for some time impaired creativity of Chinese students. Therefore, more focus on creativity boosting techniques is required.

Conclusion A conceptual reboot like Ziegler’s actiotope model seems attractive, its systemic and holistic aspects are important but without considering individual traits we run into danger of violating Carnap’s total evidence rule (1950). Practically, through focusing only on observed actions and behavior we might lose underachievers whose potentials might be uncovered only by assessing their intellectual potentials through IQ tests. In contrast to Ziegler’s contention that gifts are not personal attributes I would rather state that gifts are personal attributes and they need to be identified and developed. Once identified the actiotope model seems to be a highly attractive approach, which in the future should be implemented and empirically tested; and in this a special focus should be given to creativity.

References Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., and Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 30–60. Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities – A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ceci, S. J. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 703–722. Chan, S. W. and Chan, L.-K. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’ perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 185–195. Deary, I. J., Penke, L., and Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 201–211. Dineen, R., and Niu, W. (2008). The effectiveness of western creative teaching methods in China: An Action research project. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 42–52.

112

Aljoscha Neubauer

Ding, Y., Gao, Y. Sun, H., Han, H., Wang, W., Ji, X., Liu, X. and Sun, D. (2011). The relationship between low levels of urine fluoride on children‘s intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 186, 1942–1946. Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Busch, V, Schuierer, G., Bogdahn, U. and May, A. (2004). Changes in grey matter induced by training. Newly honed juggling skills show up as a transient feature on a brain-imaging scan. Nature, 427, 311–312. Duckworth, A. L., and Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. Forrester, V., and Hui, A. (2007). Creativity in the Hong Kong classroom: What is the contextual practice? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 30–38. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gottfredson, L. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79–132. Grabner, R. H., Stern, E., and Neubauer, A. C. (2003). When intelligence loses its impact: Neural efficiency during reasoning in a familiar area. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 49, 89–98. Grabner, R. H., Stern, E., and Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Individual differences in chess expertise: A psychometric investigation. Acta Psychologica, 124, 398–420. Haier, J. R., Siegel, B. V. Jr., Nuechterlein, K. H., Hazlett, E., Wu, J. C., Paek, J., Browning, H. L., and Buchsbaum, M. S. (1988). Cortical glucose metabolic rate correlates of abstract reasoning and attention studied with positron emission tomography. Intelligence, 12, 199–217. Haier, R. J., Siegel, B., Tang, C., Abel, L., and Buchsbaum, M. S. (1992). Intelligence and changes in regional cerebral glucose metabolic rate following learning. Intelligence, 16, 425–426. Hongli, W. (2004). On developing creativity in primary and middle school students. Psychological Science (China), 27, 383–385. Huang, S., Lin, C., and Wang, Y. (2005). A review on implicit theories of teachers’ creativity. Psychological Science (China), 28, 1243–1245. Jung, R. E., and Haier, R. J. (2007). The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 135–187. Kuncel, N. R., and Hezlett, S. A. (2007). Standardized tests predict graduate students’ success. Science, 315, 1080–1081. Lipsey, M. W., and Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1201. Liu, H.-L., Lam, L. T., Zeng, Q., Han, S.-q., Fu, G., and Hou, C.-c. (2008). Effects of drinking water with high iodine concentration on the intelligence of children in Tianjin, China. Journal of Public Health, 31(1), 32–38. Lynn, R., and Vanhanen, T. (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers – Greenwood Publishing Group. Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., and Frith, C. D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. PNAS, 97(8), 4398–4403.

Intelligence and academic achievement

113

Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., and Dies, R. R., (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment – A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56(2), 128–165. Neubauer, A. C., and Fink, A. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(7), 1004–1023. Niu, W., and Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Social and school influences on student creativity: The case of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 103–114. Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., and McGuffin, P. (2008). Behavioral genetics. (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers. Qian, M. Q., Wang, D., Watkins, W. E., Gebskis, V., Yan, Y. Q., Li, M., and Chen, Z. P. (2005). The effects of iodine on intelligence in children: a meta-analysis of studies conducted in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 14(1), 32–42. Raven, J. C., Court, J., and Raven, J. Jr. (1980). Raven-Matrizen-Test – Advanced progressive matrices. Weinheim: Beltz Test Gesellschaft. Rindermann, H., and Ceci, S. J. (2009). Educational policy and country outcomes in international cognitive competence studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(6), 551–577. Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., Arneson, J. J., Cooper, S. R., and Waters, S. D. (2009). Does socioeconomic status explain the relationship between admissions tests and postsecondary academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 1–22. Salgado, J. F., and Anderson, N. (2003). Validity generalization of GMA tests across countries in the European Community. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(1), 1–17. Schmidt, F. L., and Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274. Schmidt, F. L., and Hunter, J. E. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162–173. Shepard, R., and Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three dimensional objects. Science, 171 (3972), 701–703. Sheppard, L. D., and Vernon, P. A. (2008). Intelligence and speed of informationprocessing: A review of 50 years of research. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 535–551. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man, their nature and measurement. New York: Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Plume. Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35, 401–426. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Xiang, Q., Liang, Y., Chen, L., Wang, C., Chen, B., Chen, X., and Zhou, M. (2003). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride, 36(2), 84–94. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd edn, pp. 441–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A. and Phillipson, S. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of giftedness [Target article]. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30

Chapter 7

Goal orientations and the development of subjective action space in Chinese students Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng and Shane N. Phillipson The exceptional achievements of East-Asian students in international tests of academic performance are well documented. As Tommis and Phillipson (see Chapter 15 this volume) have pointed out, students from Hong Kong SAR, Chinese Taipei, South Korea, Singapore, Japan and, more recently Shanghai, consistently occupy the top places in tests such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In explaining the reasons behind such achievements it is imperative to focus on motivational theories. In conceptions of giftedness, motivation can be conceptualized in two ways (Schick and Phillipson, 2009). On the one hand, motivation is regarded as a component of giftedness where individuals are considered gifted when they demonstrate above-average performance in three areas, including specific intellectual abilities, creativity and achievement motivation (Renzulli, 1978; Simonton, 2005; Sternberg, 2005). In the second conceptualization, achievement motivation is regarded as a moderator variable that allows the potential for extraordinary performance to be fulfilled (Feldhusen, 2005; Gagné, 2009; Heller, 2001; Heller, Perleth, and Lim, 2005; Robinson, 2005; Ziegler, 2005). These two views of motivation represent two conceptualizations on the role of motivation in giftedness, which are mutually exclusive. Although it is commonly understood that academic performance depends on motivation for learning, the relationship between learning motivation and the development of intellectual giftedness is more equivocal. Nevertheless, it is clear that a highly motivated individual will overcome the many setbacks and ensure the completion of 10,000 hours of highly focused practice that is necessary for high achievement (Ericsson, 2009). The tasks chosen for deliberate practice depend on the interactions between training goals, the individual’s current level of skills and the mechanisms that monitor and control performance. For deliberate practice to be effective, individuals need to seek new challenges in “safe and optimal” environments. Such growth-oriented mindsets are reminiscent of Dweck’s (1986, 1999, 2006) highly influential work on the relationship between motivational processes and learning. Her work has provided the foundation for a body of research,

Goal orientations

115

commonly referred to as goal orientation (or achievement goal) theory, describing different types of goal orientation and their corresponding cognitive processes and learning outcomes (Meece, Anderman, and Anderman, 2006). Currently, four types of goal orientation have been described, including two types of mastery goals (mastery approach and mastery avoidance) and two types of performance goals (performance approach and performance avoidance) (Elliot, 1999). Goal orientation theory has become one of the most important theories of motivation, helping to explain the differences in an individual’s motivation for learning and the differences in quality in their learning. In describing a new theoretical understanding of giftedness, Ziegler (2005) outlined the interactions between an individual’s action repertoire, their subjective action space and goals, and the environment. As Ziegler pointed out, much of human behavior is directed toward the attainment of goals. In the actiotope model of giftedness, goals are important because they select appropriate actions, as well as energizing, directing and regulating them. To facilitate the expansion of the action repertoire, goals need to be continually updated as well as becoming increasingly focused. In the pathway to achievement excellence, an individual’s goals become increasingly specialized and personally relevant. Within the actiotope model, changes in one component impact each of the other components; likewise, new goals have the potential to influence the other three components of the actiotope, including action repertoire, subjective action space and the environment. This chapter will review the research relating to goal orientation theory in the context of Chinese culture and sets the stage for the integration of goal orientation theory and the actiotope model of giftedness. We argue that to fully align the actiotope model with existing research in goal orientation theory, the subjective action space needs to include at least three orientations, including a learning (or mastery)-oriented subjective action space, a performance-oriented subjective action space and a socially oriented subjective action space. In doing so, the actiotope model is better able to account for the academic achievements of students.

Goal orientation theory Goal orientation theory, also known as achievement goal theory, has emerged as one of the most dominant theoretical frameworks for understanding student achievement motivation (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Midgley et al., 1998). Goal orientation refers to why students would like to achieve certain academic objectives instead of what they would like to achieve academically. In other words, goal orientation refers to students’ reasons for trying to succeed academically instead of the content of academic achievement (Maehr, 1989). Students’ endorsements of different types of goal orientation represents how they interpret academic events and thus is believed to predict different affective, behavioral and cognitive outcomes (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1999).

116

Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng and Shane N. Phillipson

Mastery and performance goals Two types of goal orientation that have received the greatest attention are mastery goals and performance goals. Students who pursue mastery goals view the purposes of learning as being to acquire knowledge, develop skills and increase understanding of learning materials. They focus on personal improvement and development. Mastery goals are found consistently to be associated with adaptive outcomes, including higher interest in the classroom, higher persistence in the face of difficulties, more effective self-regulation, increased use of deep learning strategies, more positive attitudes toward learning, more positive emotion and higher self-efficacy (e.g. Ames, 1992; Kaplan et al., 2002; Pekrun, Elliot, and Maier, 2009; Wolters, 2004). Students who pursue performance goals view the purpose of learning as demonstrating their intellectual ability to others. They focus on gaining favorable judgment or avoiding negative judgment of their competence, being more concerned with the evaluation of their performance but not the learning itself. When compared to mastery goals, performance goals are found to yield maladaptive outcomes, especially for the low achievers who have low self-concepts of ability (Dweck, 1986). Some negative outcomes that are associated with performance goals include the use of surface rather than deep learning strategies, negative affect and withdrawal in the face of challenge (e.g. Ames, 1992; Grant and Dweck, 2003). Yet, some studies did not support the negative impact of performance goals. Instead, performance goals are found to associate with high selfefficacy, the use of effective learning strategies and positive affect (e.g. Elliot, 1999; Urdan, 1997a). To resolve the inconsistent pattern of relationships between performance goals and motivation outcomes, the approach-avoidance distinction was incorporated within the performance goals framework (Elliot, 1997, 1999; Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996). Students who pursue performance-approach goals focus on achieving success and demonstrating high abilities, while students who pursue performance-avoidance goals focus on avoiding failure or looking dumb in front of others. Previous research has confirmed that these two goal orientations are distinct constructs and performance-approach goals tend to predict more positive outcomes than that of performance-avoidance goals. In general, performance-avoidance goals are believed to associate with negative outcomes, including low efficacy, disorganized study habits, high anxiety, high avoidance of help-seeking, high self-handicapping strategies and low grades (e.g. Elliot, 1999; Urdan et al., 2002; Wolters, 2004). The prediction of performance-approach goals on motivation outcome is somewhat inconsistent. Most of the studies support the benefits of pursuing performance-approach goals, including high persistence, positive affect and high grades (e.g. Harackiewicz et al., 2002) while some studies found this goal orientation to be related to negative outcomes, such as anxiety, fear of failure, avoidance of challenge, disruptive behavior and low retention of knowledge (e.g. Midgley, Kaplan, and

Goal orientations

117

Middleton, 2001). As suggested by Midgley et al. (2001), performance-approach goals lead students to demonstrate ability rather than focus on learning itself, thus contributing to high grades but not necessarily deep understanding of knowledge. Middleton, Kaplan and Midgley (2004) further cautioned for students’ potential transformation from performance-approach to performanceavoidance goals when they experience failure or perceive themselves unfavorably, pointing to the problem of pursuing performance-approach goals. Elliot (1999) incorporated the approach-avoidance distinction to mastery goals as well, making a 2 (mastery versus performance) × 2 (approach versus avoidance) framework. Students who pursue mastery-approach goals seek to increase understanding of learning materials, while students who pursue masteryavoidance goals seek to avoid misunderstanding or failure in learning. Limited research has been done to investigate the consequences of pursuing masteryavoidance goals. In a series of studies by Elliot and McGregor (2001), masteryavoidance goals were related to disorganized studying and negative emotion, such as test anxiety and worry. Recently, Elliot, Murayama and Pekrun (2011) proposed a 3 (evaluative standard: task, self and other) × 2 (approach versus avoidance) achievement goal model, which is derived from the 2 × 2 masteryperformance model. More research should be conducted to investigate the antecedents and consequences of adopting these six types of goals (i.e., taskapproach, task-avoidance, self-approach, self-avoidance, other-approach and other-avoidance) and how this conceptualization of goals can be integrated with the 2 × 2 framework. Although mastery and performance goals appear to be contrasting in the goal orientation framework, it is possible for students to hold both goals simultaneously according to the multiple goals perspective (Hidi and Harackiewicz, 2000; Murphy, and Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2000). Many researchers even argue that an endorsement of both types of approach goals could be more adaptive than endorsement of a single goal (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, and Thrash, 2002; Midgley, Kaplan, and Middleton, 2001; Pintrich, 2000). Interestingly, studies conducted in Asian countries like Hong Kong and Singapore have provided evidence for moderate to high positive correlations between mastery and performance goals, with both goals predicting positive outcomes (Chan, 2008; Chan et al., 2005; Ee and Moore, 2004; Ho, Hau, and Salili, 2007), which deviates somewhat from the normative goal theory in the West where the correlations between the two goals are often not high (see Hulleman et al., 2010 for a review), implying that the two goals are more dichotomous in nature (Hau and Ho, 2010). Such a cross-cultural difference in goal endorsement receives consistent support from various studies that adopt different goal measures (Lee, Tinsley, and Bobko, 2003; Ng, 2000; Salili, Chiu, and Lai, 2001). The positive correlation between mastery and performance goals in Chinese students can be explained from a cultural perspective. Tao and Hong (2000) argue that academic achievement represents a social obligation for Chinese students.

118

Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng and Shane N. Phillipson

To gain social approval from significant others such as parents and teachers, students are not only expected to achieve mastery of knowledge, but are also expected to demonstrate their competence through high performance. Chinese students are motivated to meet the social expectations from significant others and such a motivation is likely to be performance oriented, which helps explain the positive correlation between mastery and performance goals.

Social goals Under the influences of the Confucian-collectivistic tradition in Chinese culture, Chinese students have strong social reasons to achieve, such as to fulfill social obligations to family or to maintain social relationships with peers (Li, 2002, 2005; Hau and Ho, 2010; Yu, 1996). Western studies also demonstrate that students tend to hold some social goals, in addition to mastery and performance goals, for engaging in academic work (Patrick, Anderman, and Ryan, 2002; Wentzel, 1998, 2000). According to Urdan and Maehr (1995), some examples of social goals are social approval goals (reason to study is to gain approval of teachers), social solidarity goals (reason to study is to bring honor to family) and social welfare goals (reason to study is to become a productive member of society). Based on qualitative data, Dowson and McInerney (2001, 2003) also identified five social goals, namely social affiliation goals, social approval goals, social responsibility goals, social status goals and social concern goals. One kind of social goal that might have particular relevance in the Chinese context is social responsibility goals. Social responsibility goals refer to students’ willingness to meet social demands or expectations, such as their tendency to follow parents’ commands or conform to classroom regulations (Wentzel, 1991). Social responsibility goals have been found to associate with adaptive outcomes, including higher grades in schools, higher academic efficacy and positive affect (e.g. Anderman, 1999; Patrick, Hicks, and Ryan, 1997; Wentzel, 1993). McInerney et al. (1997) also investigated the relationship of social goals, including social concern and affiliation, to achievement outcomes for students from Western and non-Western indigenous minority groups. Results indicated that social concern was highly correlated with mastery and predicted achievement outcomes across cultural groups, while affiliation was not related to achievement outcomes. In another study conducted in Hong Kong secondary schools, Watkins, McInerney and Lee (2002) found that these two social goals were associated with deep learning strategies. The prediction of social goals on motivation outcome is indeed more complicated than that of mastery and performance goals because social goals involve different types and their prediction depends very much on context. For example, whether seeking social approval from peers is beneficial to academic motivation depends on the values of peers from whom approval is sought (Nelson and DeBacker, 2008; Urdan, 1997b). If peers value academic achievement, the desire for getting along with them may encourage positive learning motivation.

Goal orientations

119

Otherwise, if peers are alienated from learning, they may encourage each other to have poor learning attitudes or disruptive behavior so as to maintain relationships with peers and uphold the identity within the social group. In some contexts where academic performance is not valued, high academic achievement is harmful for gaining popularity (Coleman, 1961). As demonstrated in the early literature, the need for achievement and the need for affiliation are usually negatively correlated (Sid and Lindgren, 1981). Commonly referred to as the forced-choice dilemma (Gross, 1989), a student wanting to receive approval from peers may choose not to work hard to avoid achieving. This is true especially when the learning atmosphere in the classroom is competitive. When compared to mastery and performance goals, research on social goals is relatively limited and most of them focus primarily on what students would like to achieve instead of why they would like to engage in certain academic tasks (Anderman, 1999; Patrick, Anderman, and Ryan, 2002; Patrick, Hicks, and Ryan, 1997; Wentzel, 1998, 2000). Despite the substantial contribution of these research works, the content approach gives little attention to the treatment of social goals in parallel to mastery and performance goals, making it hard to incorporate social goals within the goal orientation framework (Kaplan and Maehr, 2007; Urdan and Maehr, 1995).

Management of multiple goals Previous research, both in the West and in Asian countries, reveals that all three goals (i.e. mastery goals, performance goals and social goals) play significant roles in the academic motivation of students. The qualitative study by Dowson and McInerney (2003) provides a very nice illustration of how different goals can interact in conflicting or converging ways to affect students’ motivation and performance. To illustrate how goals can be in conflict with each other, Downson and McInerney quoted a student’s words: “I really like to do well at school, but when I do my friends sometimes call me a ‘brain’ [derogative term], even though we all work together. So I don’t know whether to work hard or not sometimes” (p. 104). This example demonstrates clearly how mastery goals can be in conflict with social affiliation goals, thus impairing a student’s motivation. Goals are not always conflicting, but can be converging with each other. For example, a student in Dowson and McInerney’s (2003) study reported: “I work best when I try to come near the top (of the class) in maths and understand the teacher” (p. 106). This example illustrates how performance and mastery goals can work together to enhance a student’s effort in academic work. Another student even mentioned social concern goals in her words. She said: “I want to go well in all my subjects and have lots of fun trying to learn things with my friends” (p. 106). This example illustrates how performance goals, mastery goals and social affiliation goals work in harmony to produce positive outcomes. Students usually endorse multiple goals, thus attention should be given to harmonize the goals so that students’ motivations can be optimized. According to

120

Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng and Shane N. Phillipson

Barron and Harackiewicz (2001), one possible way for students to successfully pursue both mastery and performance goals is to strategically shift their focus between the two goals to suit the academic environment. For example, some students may pursue mastery goals to achieve in-depth understanding of knowledge in everyday learning, while they may pursue performance goals to outperform classmates when they prepare for quizzes and examinations. How students can coordinate multiple goals successfully and the roles teachers play in the process certainly deserve more attention in future research. All in all, as suggested by Wentzel (1999), students will have greater chances to succeed when multiple goals lead them in the same direction. Chinese students are always found to have outstanding performances in international comparisons of achievement. How can we interpret this phenomenon from the perspective of goal orientation theory? Do Chinese students endorse multiple goals that always work in harmony? The Hong Kong education system has been criticized as being too examination-oriented and is regarded as one of the most highly achievement-segregated systems in the world (Chan, 2001, 2008, 2009; Lo et al., 1997). It is intuitive to believe that the competitive school environment will encourage Hong Kong students to endorse performance goals more than mastery goals. Yet, research findings on this area appear to be inconsistent. The three-year longitudinal study by Salili and Lai (2003) demonstrated that junior high-school students in Hong Kong adopted performance goals more than mastery goals, irrespective of gender, school type or ability. On the other hand, Lau and Lee (2008) found that Hong Kong elementary and high-school students reported the highest endorsement in mastery goals, followed by performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. In gifted education, Chan (2008) found that Hong Kong gifted students endorsed mastery and social goals over performanceapproach and performance-avoidance goals. Mastery goals were found to predict positively on academic, non-academic and social/leadership achievement, while social goals contributed substantially to the prediction of social/leadership achievement. While Hong Kong students’ endorsements of mastery versus performance goals is somewhat contradictory across studies, these two goals are consistently found to be positively correlated, indicating that both goals are considered important for Hong Kong students. Hong Kong students are encouraged to compete and excel in academic work, and at the same time they are expected to work hard in learning and gaining knowledge because making an effort is regarded as a filial duty or obligation in the Chinese culture (Li, 2002, 2005; Salili and Lai, 2003). Hau and Ho (2010) propose two explanations for the lack of adverse effects of performance goals in the Chinese culture. First, performance goals in a competitive environment can be very adaptive for survival. Second, the strong emphasis on effort in the Chinese culture weakens the link between performance and ability evaluation. If Chinese students perform poorly in a task, they will attribute their failure to lack of effort instead of low ability (Ho, Salili,

Goal orientations

121

Biggs, and Hau, 1999; Lau and Chan, 2001). Their feelings of guilt and shame motivate them to make even more of an effort to improve. Chan (2008) incorporated social goals, which are defined as students’ willingness to collaborate with others, in his investigation on goal orientation of gifted Hong Kong students. He found that mastery and performance goals were both positively correlated with social goals, and the correlation between mastery and performance goals was substantially reduced when there was control for the effect of social goals. These findings support the suggestion by Tao and Hong (2000) that the academic success of Hong Kong students may be a social endeavor which can possibly be fulfilled through both mastery and performance goals. It seems that Chinese students endorse three types of goals simultaneously and this multiple endorsement and coordination of goals is conducive to the achievements of Chinese students. More research is needed to uncover the mechanism underlying the positive correlations among mastery, performance and social goals in the Chinese culture.

Goal orientation within the actiotope model In the actiotope model, goals refer to the standards of performance within a particular domain. Once goals are achieved, expansion of the action repertoire results when goals are updated and refined in response to the individual’s developing expertise and changes to the environment, leading to continuous development toward excellence along the learning pathway. Such a conceptualization of goals within the actiotope model is different from that in the goal orientation theory, which defines goals as the reasons for meeting a performance standard. Let us use an example to illustrate the importance of making such a distinction between goals. Three students may share the same goal: admission to the medical school at a university, but they may have different goal orientations, or reasons, for wanting to be admitted. One student may think that being a doctor is intrinsically motivating and wants to learn more about medical knowledge (mastery goals); another student may want to demonstrate his/her high competence to peers by gaining admission to this competitive and prestigious school (performance goals); while the remaining student may do it just because his/her parents want him/her to be a doctor (social goals). These three students should display different patterns of affect, behavior and cognition when they encounter success/failure during the course of their studies due to the different reasons they have for wanting to be admitted to the medical school. Given the prominent role of goal orientation in predicting motivation and achievement, we suggest that the actiotope model should take into account the reasons why a particular goal has been set, apart from the goal itself, in ordr to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the development of an individual’s actiotope. Ziegler (2005; Ziegler and Stoeger, 2008) also acknowledged that goal orientations are important in understanding the development of an individual’s

122

Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng and Shane N. Phillipson

actiotope. Ziegler and Stoeger found that individuals with a subjective action space that is oriented toward learning achieve better learning outcomes. In particular, a person with learning-oriented subjective action space: (1) focuses on that part of the environment where the new action repertoire is to be located; (2) recognizes that new actions are possible; (3) has confidence that their action repertoire can be expanded successfully; and (4) has sufficient reason or need to attempt such an expansion (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2008). In their study, a learning-oriented subjective action space was found to be a more significant predictor of academic achievement than IQ score. For more discussion on learningoriented subjective action space, see Chapter 3 in this volume. Consistent with the multiple goals perspective in the goal orientation theory, the many pathways to achievement excellence proposed by Ziegler (2005) raise the possibility that different types of subjective action space will facilitate academic achievement. In addition to a learning-oriented subjective action space, we propose that a performance-oriented subjective action space and a socially oriented subjective action space can also account for the academic achievement of gifted students. Within the framework of the actiotope model, it is possible that all three types of subjective action space allow for the accessibility of the action repertoire in the development of achievement. Nevertheless, the functioning of the different types of subjective action space, their relationships with each other and how they produce additive or interactive effects on achievement deserve further investigation.

Origins of goal orientation Is goal orientation a trait or a state? To what extent is it stable and/or flexible? It is believed that students’ successful coordination of different goal orientations should lead to better achievement outcomes, but where do goals come from? Is goal orientation a trait or personality disposition that is relatively stable across time and academic situations? Or is it a state that is a situational characteristic affected by environment? Researchers adopt different procedures to operationalize goal orientation depending on how they conceptualize the construct. Some of them investigate goal orientation as a trait through interviews (e.g. Dowson and McInerney, 2001, 2003) or inventories using Likert scales (e.g. Midgley et al., 2000) while some treat goal orientation as a state through experimental manipulation of goals (e.g. Elliott and Dweck, 1988). Results of studies that have adopted different procedures converge to demonstrate that both disposition and environment play a role in influencing goal orientation. As suggested by Kaplan and Maehr (2007), whereas students may have a disposition to a certain goal orientation, they have in their repertoire different schemas related to different goal orientations which may be activated based on situations.

Goal orientations

123

Several longitudinal studies (Anderman and Midgley, 1997; Kaplan and Midgley, 1999) demonstrate that students’ endorsements of goal orientation are moderately stable across years, while the stability is stronger within an academic year than across the transition between elementary school and middle school. As mentioned by Patrick et al. (2001) teachers’ instructional strategies do not seem to have great variations across years, leading to the conclusion that both students’ dispositions and teaching practices contribute to the stability of goal orientation. Experimental studies (Ames, 1984; Elliott and Dweck, 1988) suggest that students can be manipulated to adopt a particular goal orientation, at least temporarily, supporting the flexibility of goal orientation. Experimental manipulations of mastery goals usually consist of statements that describe the purpose of the task as learning and self-improvement, and students are required to evaluate themselves based on criterion-referenced assessment, while manipulations of performance goals consist of statements that describe the purpose of the task as outperforming others and students are required to evaluate themselves based on norm-referenced assessment. Although both the wordings used to manipulate goal orientation and the procedures of manipulation are varied across studies, the results converge to demonstrate favorable outcomes in the “mastery goals” condition over the “performance goals” condition. While goal orientation is being treated as both a personality disposition and a situational characteristic affected by environment, the actiotope model focuses more on the environmental influence on goals. As a systemic theory, the actiotope model emphasizes that the continual expansion of action repertoire depends on the interactions of environment, goals and subjective action space, noting the contribution of environment (such as the values that a culture holds) to the development of the actiotope (Grassinger, Porath, and Ziegler, 2010). As Ziegler et al. (2010) pointed out, actiotopes must be both modifiable and stable. They are modifiable in the sense that they are open to the possibility of change in response to new goals and stable in the sense that once committed to a further development, an actiotope resists immediate threats to the viability of the new learning process. A person is motivated toward achieving a goal if they believe that their actiotope is sufficiently modifiable to allow for the goal to be achieved, and when the new goal does not pose a threat to the stability of the actiotope. The modifiability and stability of the different types of subjective action space that correspond to the different types of goal orientation requires further investigation.

Impact of classroom goal structure The classroom represents a potential influence on a student’s subjective action space, whereby the values toward learning held by the dominant culture are communicated in the context of the available physical resources. In addition, the classroom may be a source of normative actions, where teachers communicate their respective expectations onto the students. In the ideal environment, the

124

Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng and Shane N. Phillipson

values, resources and normative action space are aligned. In such a classroom, the value of education is high, the necessary physical and technological resources are abundant, and teachers, parents and peers provide positive learning environments for the students (see Chapter 3 this volume). Research focused on the classroom has investigated how teachers can make use of different instructional strategies to create different goal structures in classrooms, which in turn, will affect students’ personal goal orientations and subsequently their motivation and achievement patterns (Kaplan et al., 2002). Ames and Archer (1988) identified the theoretical distinctions between mastery and performance goals in terms of a set of classroom dimensions. For example, in a classroom that emphasizes mastery goal structure, students’ successes are defined as improvement and progress, their errors are treated as part of learning, and value is placed on students’ efforts; on the other hand, in a classroom that emphasizes performance goal structure, students are encouraged to compete with peers and achieve high grades, which makes the experience of failure very distressing for students. Ames and Archer found that a mastery but not performance goal structure provides a favorable context for student motivation. Specifically, students who perceived the classroom as emphasizing mastery goals reported using more effective strategies, preferred challenging tasks, had a more positive attitude toward classroom activities and attributed success to effort. By contrast, students who perceived the classroom as emphasizing performance goals were focused on evaluation of self-competence and attributed failure to lack of ability. In general, studies found that students’ personal goal orientations correspond with their perceptions of the classroom goal structure (Urdan, 2004), even when the differences in student characteristics, like gender, ability or chronic goal orientations, are controlled for (Roeser, Midgley, and Urdan, 1996). When students perceive their classroom or school as emphasizing learning and effort, they are more likely to adopt mastery goals; by contrast, when students perceive their classroom or school as emphasizing competition and ability, they are more likely to adopt performance goals.

Impact of parental goals Studies on the relationship between parent and student goal orientations yielded similar findings (Friedel et al. 2007; Gonida, Kiosseoglou, and Voulala, 2007; Gonida, Voulala, and Kiosseoglou, 2009). If students perceive their parents to be mastery oriented, focusing on development and improvement of skills, as well as understanding and deep learning of materials, then they are more likely to adopt mastery goals, which in turn predicts high academic self-efficacy, more adaptive coping strategies in the face of negative experiences and high behavioral and emotional engagement in learning. On the other hand, if students perceive their parents to be performance-oriented, focusing on school grades and ability demonstration, then they are more likely to adopt performance goals, which in turn predicts maladaptive coping and non-coping in the face of negative experiences.

Goal orientations

125

In the studies that co-examined classroom/school goal structures and parent goals (e.g. Friedel et al., 2007), mastery goal structures and parent mastery goals were found to be more influential than performance goal structures and parent performance goals on students’ motivation patterns. Parent goals were found to be stronger predictors of student goal orientations than teacher goals. Ziegler, Dresel, and Stoeger (2008) found that students held specific performance goals with respect to different addressees, including parents and teachers. Performance goals addressing parents were associated with maladaptive motivation, including low academic self-concept and high test anxiety, while the relationship between performance goals addressing teachers and motivation was less systematic. While these studies have revealed the important role of parents and teachers in student motivation, they are mainly conducted in the West and further research should be conducted to examine the relative importance of parent and teacher goals on student achievement in the Chinese context. The impact of parents on student motivation and achievement has generated intense discussion worldwide in response to the term “tiger mother” (Chua, 2011). “Tiger mother” represents a Chinese parenting style that is demanding and strict, and which puts high emphasis on academic achievement. Chinese children are expected to engage heavily in academic activities, follow commands with high standards and perform vigorous practice to achieve excellence. Chinese parents believe that they know what the best is for their children and thus commit fully to prepare their children with important skills and confidence for the future. For more discussion on parenting and tiger mother, and their relationships with student motivation and achievement, see Chapters 10 and 11 this volume.

Concluding remarks: Importance of goals of social environment In the actiotope model, the origins of the different types of subjective action space are likely to be traced, in part, back to the social environment, such as classroom and parents. As suggested by Ho, Hau and Salili (2007), if students value academic pursuits and consider learning to be important, interesting or useful, then they are more likely to pursue mastery goals even when their perceived competence is not high. If students focus on whether it is important to achieve and whether there is a good chance of success, then they are more likely to pursue performance goals. Even though mastery goals are usually found to be more adaptive than performance goals, different goals can work in converging ways to predict positive outcomes. Thus, instead of focusing on promoting students’ mastery goals, it may be more adaptive for educators to implement multiple-goal interventions that involve, for example, performance-approach goals and social goals (Dowson and McInerney, 2003). In gifted education, more research should be conducted to investigate the role of classroom/school goal structure and parent goals on the goal orientation, motivation pattern and achievement of gifted students.

126

Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng and Shane N. Phillipson

In gifted education, the role of mentors in nurturing gifted individuals to achieve exceptionality is also considered to be significant. Gruber et al. (2008) refer to these mentors as “persons in the shadow” who design the practice activities, set the goals for practice and motivate individuals to engage in practice. Similarly, Grassinger, Porath and Ziegler (2010) recognize the importance of effective mentoring in the development of the actiotope of the gifted individual. They treat improvement-oriented learning as part of the learning process that must be satisfied for mentoring programs to be effective. The goal orientations of mentors and gifted individuals and how they affect the development of different types of subjective action space, and subsequently the achievement of individuals, are promising directions for future research. Goal orientation theory has been a fruitful theoretical and experimental approach in understanding the basis of academic motivation and achievement. The focus in goal orientation theory has been on the relationship between goal orientation (i.e. mastery, performance and social goals) and achievement motivation. The actiotope model focuses on the interactions of goals, environment, action repertoire and subjective actions space on the development of exceptionality. We suggest that goal orientation theory can be incorporated within the actiotope model by including at least three types of subjective action space, that is, a learning (or mastery)-oriented subjective action space, a performance-oriented subjective action space, and a socially oriented subjective action space. As noted by the literature on classroom goal structure and parent goals, the development of the subjective action space can be traced back to social environment, such as teachers and parents. While the incorporation of goal orientation theory within the actiotope model looks compelling, the functioning of the different types of subjective action space and how they interact with other components in the model to achieve development of exceptionality requires systematic analysis through a vigorous research program. Our discussion in this chapter mainly focuses on the Chinese culture which is under strong influence from the Confucian-collectivistic tradition. To achieve academic excellence, Chinese students are believed to endorse mastery goals, performance goals and social goals simultaneously, which correspond to the three types of subjective action space. The relative importance of different goal orientations should vary across cultures, and so too the development of the different types of subjective action space. Integration of goal orientation theory and the actiotope model under a cross-cultural context should be an important direction for future research.

References Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive-motivational analysis. In R. Ames and C. Ames (eds.), Research on motivation in education (vol. 1, pp. 177–208). New York: Academic Press. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.

Goal orientations

127

Ames, C., and Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267. Anderman, E. M., and Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269–298. Anderman, L. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging, and social goals as predictors of students’ positive and negative affect following the transition to middle school. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 89–103. Barron, K. E., and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706–722. Chan, D. W. (2001). Beyond lifelong learning and learning to learn: What more could be achieved through education reform in Hong Kong? Educational Research Journal, 16, 1–12. Chan, D. W. (2008). Goal orientations and achievement among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 19, 37–51. Chan, D. W. (2009). Perfectionism and goal orientations among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Roeper Review, 31, 9–17. Chan, K. W., Lai, P. Y., Leung, M. T., and Moore, P. J. (2005). Students’ goal orientations, study strategies and achievement: A closer look in Hong Kong Chinese cultural context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 14, 1–26. Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York: Penguin Press. Coleman, J. (1961). The adolescent society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Dowson, M., and McInerney, D. M. (2001). Psychological parameters of students’ social and work avoidance goals: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 35–42. Dowson, M., and McInerney, D. M. (2003). What do students say about their motivational goals? Towards a more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 91–113. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. Dweck, C. S., and Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Ee, J., and Moore, P. J. (2004). Motivation, strategies and achievement: A comparison of teachers and students in high, average and low achieving classes. In J. Ee, A. S. C. Chang, and O. S. Tan (eds.), Thinking about thinking (pp. 142–160). Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education. Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the ‘classic’ and ‘contemporary’ approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich (eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189. Elliot, A. J., and Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.

128

Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng and Shane N. Phillipson

Elliot, A. J., and McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., and Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 x 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 632–648. Elliott, E. S., and Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12. Ericsson, K. A. (2009). Enhancing the development of professional performance: Implications from the study of deliberate practice. In K. A. Ericsson (ed.), Development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert performance and design of optimal learning environments (pp. 405–431). New York: Cambridge University Press. Feldhusen, J. F. (2005). Giftedness, talent, expertise, and creative achievement. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 64–79). New York: Cambridge University Press. Friedel, J., Cortina, K. S., Turner, J. C., and Midgley, C. (2007). Achievement goals, efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in mathematics: The roles of perceived parent and teacher goal emphases. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 434–458. Gagné, F. (2009). Debating giftedness: Pronat vs. antinat. In L. V. Shavinina (ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 155–198). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Gonida, E. N., Kiosseoglou, G., and Voulala, K. (2007). Perception of parent goals and their contribution to student achievement goal orientation and engagement in the classroom: Grade-level differences across adolescence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 23–39. Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., and Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students’ achievement goal orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 53–60. Grant, H. and Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553. Grassinger, R., Porath, M., and Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: A conceptual analysis. High Ability Studies, 21, 27–46. Gross, M. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forcedchoice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11, 189–194. Gruber, H., Lehtinen, E., Palonen, T., and Degner, S. (2008). Persons in the shadow: Assessing the social context of high abilities. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 237–258. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., and Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., and Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562–575. Hau, K. T., and Ho, I. T. (2010). Chinese students’ motivation and achievement. In M. H. Bond (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 187–204). New York: Oxford University Press. Heller, K. A., Perleth, C. and Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goal orientations

129

Hidi, S., and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179. Ho, I. T., Hau, K. T., and Salili, F. (2007). Expectancy and value as predictors of Chinese students’ achievement goals. In F. Salili and R. Hoosain (eds.), Culture, motivation and learning: A multicultural perspective (pp. 69–90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Ho, I. T., Salili, F., Biggs, J. B., and Hau, K. T. (1999). The relationship among causal attributions, learning strategies and level of achievement: A Hong Kong Chinese study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 19, 44–58. Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136, 422–449. Kaplan, A. and Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–184. Kaplan, A., and Midgley, C. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of the classroom goal structure and early adolescents’ affect in school: The mediating role of coping strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 187–212. Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., and Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal structures. In C. Midgley (ed.), Goals, goal structures and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 21–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lau, K. L., and Chan, D. W. (2001). Motivational characteristics of under-achievers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 22, 417–430. Lau, K. L., and Lee, J. C. K. (2008). Validation of a Chinese achievement goal orientation questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 331–353. Lee, C., Tinsley, C., and Bobko, P. (2003). Cross-cultural variance in goal orientations and their effects. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 272–297. Li, J. (2002). A cultural model of learning: Chinese ‘heart and mind for wanting to learn’. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 248–269. Li, J. (2005). Mind or virtue: Western and Chinese beliefs about learning. New Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 190–194. Lo, L. N. K., Tsang, W. K., Chung, Y. P., Cheng, Y. C., Sze, P. M. M., Ho, E. S. C., and Ho, M. K. (1997). A survey of the effectiveness of Hong Kong secondary school systems. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong. Maehr, M. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames and R. Ames (eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 299–315). New York: Academic Press. McInerney, D. M., Roche, L. A., McInerney, V., and Marsh, H. W. (1997). Cultural perspectives on school motivation: The relevance and application of goal theory. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 207–236. Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., and Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503. Middleton, M. J., Kaplan, A., and Midgley, C. (2004). The change in middle school students’ achievement goals in math over time. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 289–311. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., and Middleton, M. J. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M., Urdan, T., Anderman, L., Anderman, E., and Roeser, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113–131.

130

Rebecca Wing-yi Cheng and Shane N. Phillipson

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M. J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., and Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Murphy, P. K., and Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53. Nelson, R. M., and DeBacker, T. K. (2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 170–189. Ng, C. H. (2000). A path analysis of self-schema, goal orientations, learning approaches and performance. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 1, 93–121. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., and Ryan, A. M. (2002). Social motivation and the classroom social environment. In C. Midgley (ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 85–108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., and Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 35–58. Patrick, H., Hicks, L., and Ryan, A. M. (1997). Relations of perceived social efficacy and socialgoal pursuit to self-efficacy for academic work. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 109–128. Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., and Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 115–135. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition talented. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184. Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: A conservative view from a die-hard liberal. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 280–294). New York: Cambridge University Press. Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., and Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422. Salili, F. and Lai, M. K. (2003). Learning and motivation of Chinese students in Hong Kong: A longitudinal study of contextual influences on students’ achievement orientation and performance. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 51–70. Salili, F., Chiu, C. Y., and Lai, S. (2001). The influence of culture and context on students’ motivational orientation and performance. In F. Salili, C. Chiu, and Y. Hong (eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 221–247). New York: Plenum. Schick, H., and Phillipson, S. N. (2009). Learning motivation and performance excellence in adolescents with high intellectual potential: What really matters? High Ability Studies, 20, 15–37. Sid, A. K. W., and Lindgren, H. C. (1981). Sex differences in achievement and affiliation motivation among undergraduates majoring in different academic fields. Psychological Reports, 48, 539–542. Simonton, D. K. (2005). Genetics of giftedness: The implications of an emergenic-epigenetic model. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 312–326). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Goal orientations

131

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The WICS Model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tao, V., and Hong, Y. (2000). A meaning system approach to Chinese students’ achievement goals. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 1, 13–38. Urdan, T. C. (1997a). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. L. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich (eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 99–141). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Urdan, T. C. (1997b). Examining the relations among early adolescent students’ goals and friends’ orientation toward effort and achievement in school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 165–191. Urdan, T. C. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining achievement goals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 251–264. Urdan, T. C., and Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243. Urdan, T., Ryan, A. M., Anderman, E. M., and Gheen, M. H. (2002). Goals, goal structures, and avoidance behaviors. In C. Midgley (ed.), Goals, goal structures and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 55–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Watkins, D., McInerney, D. M., and Lee, C. (2002). Assessing the school motivation of Hong Kong students. Psychologia, 45, 144–154. Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1–24. Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4–20. Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202–209. Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relations: Implications for understanding motivation in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 76–97. Wentzel, K. R. (2000). What is it that I’m trying to achieve? Classroom goals from a content perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 105–115. Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236–250. Yu, A. B. (1996). Ultimate life concerns, self and Chinese achievement motivation. In M. H. Bond (ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 227–246). New York: Oxford University Press. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., Dresel, M., and Stoeger, H. (2008). Addresses of performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 643–654. Ziegler, A., Fidelman, M., Reutlinger, M., Vialle, W., and Stoeger, H. (2010). Implicit personality theories on the modifiability and stability of the action repertoire as a meaningful framework for individual motivation: A cross-cultural study. High Ability Studies, 21, 147–163. Ziegler, A., and Stoeger, H. (2008). A learning oriented subjective action space as an indicator of giftedness. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 222–236.

Chapter 8

Social-emotional development of Chinese gifted students A review based within the actiotope model of giftedness Mantak Yuen and Ricci W. Fong

In recent years there has been a marked increase in the level of interest shown by educators, guidance professionals and researchers in matters related to nurturing the social-emotional development of gifted learners (Chan, 2007; Freeman, 2006; Peterson, 2006; Vialle, Heaven and Ciarrochi, 2007). Career development practitioners and giftedness researchers in different parts of the world have applied systemic approaches to understand better the nature of giftedness and talent development of individuals within their socio-cultural contexts (e.g., McMahon and Watson, 2008; McMahon and Yuen, 2009; Reis, 1995; Sternberg, 2007). In the past, most conceptualizations of giftedness tended to give too little attention to the environment – particularly the social environment – in which gifted individuals develop. Exceptions to this generalization are the more recent models proposed by Gagné (2009) and Ziegler (2004). Gagné, in the differentiated model of giftedness and talent, specifically recognizes the social role of family, peers, teachers and mentors in promoting and supporting the overall development of gifted students. Similarly, Ziegler includes influences within the social environment as one of the four key components in his actiotope model. This seeks to describe the complex interactions between a person”s “action repertoire,” their “subjective action space” and “the environment” (Phillipson and Sun, 2009). Ziegler (2004, 2005) felt that previous explanations of giftedness placed too much focus on “traits” or innate attributes of the individual and did not acknowledge adequately the actual manifestations (actions) that gifted individuals display in a given context. He argues that excellence is recognized most readily by what an individual does, not by opaque characteristics such as intelligence (Ziegler, 2004; Ziegler and Stoeger, 2008). Ziegler also recognizes the role of environmental factors, such as peer group influences, quality of instruction, and effective feedback in the development of individual excellence (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2004). Indeed, Ziegler considers giftedness as a characteristic that must develop over time within an environmental context, and it results from interactions between the individual and the environment (Ziegler, et al., 2010). In similar terms, Phillipson and Sun (2009, p. 27) have suggested that giftedness refers to “… the interaction between complex patterns of actions, the psychological

Social-emotional development

133

aspects of self, and the social environment toward the attainment of achievement excellence.” In East Asia, it is important to consider social-emotional issues in the development of excellence with full reference to the cultural context and social environment. Social connectedness in the family and peer groups plays a crucial role in socializing collective behaviors and reducing the relative importance of individualism (e.g. Chen and Tse, 2008; Rubin et al., 2011). For this reason, a systemic approach to the study of giftedness is more suitable in East Asia than an individual approach that relies, for example, on purely psychometric assessment (Robinson, 2005; Sternberg, Jarvin, and Grigorenko, 2011). Approaches such as Gagné’s (2009) differentiated model of giftedness and talent (which see the influence of environment only as an additive to intrinsic individual determinants in the learner) are not sufficiently comprehensive in a collectivist society. It follows logically that in East Asia a systemic approach that analyzes the strong interconnectedness of the social environment and the individual is more appropriate. It has been explained in other sections of this book that the actiotope comprises an action repertoire, goals, subjective action space and the environment. It is unnecessary to revisit each of these components in detail, but merely to indicate here that: (1) an action repertoire contains all the actions a learner could potentially engage in at a given stage of development and in a specific domain of endeavor; (2) goals represent what the learner is personally motivated to achieve; (3) subjective action space refers to the beliefs the learner has about his or her own self-efficacy in relation to performing actions within their action repertoire; and (4) environment is the variable that interacts with determinants within the learner and influences his or her self-efficacy and motivation to achieve their goals. Taken together, these components determine the learning path toward excellence for each individual – a path that is often lengthy and arduous (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2004). Progression along this learning path is influenced by interactions among intrapersonal and contextual or environmental factors that contribute to an ever-increasing repertoire of actions that can contribute to excellence and to talent development. According to Ziegler and Stoeger (2007, p. 255) an individual “… must acquire a wide variety of behavioral competencies through learning in order to function in his or her actiotope.” Some of these competencies are, of course, in the interpersonal domain, and include knowledge and skills that enable the individual to operate and self-regulate effectively within the social environment. Factors in this social environment impact upon an individual’s learning path in ways that may either be positive, or detrimental. Acquiring a repertoire of social competencies that result in excellence inevitably involves dynamic adaptations and changes over time. Indeed, Ziegler (2005, p. 419) observes that “… excellence [can be] considered a result of self-organization and the adaptation of a highly complex system.” We intend to use the actiotope model as a framework within which socialemotional development of gifted and talented students can be considered. We aim

134

Mantak Yuen and Ricci W. Fong

to explore critical social-emotive developmental issues related to Chinese gifted students’ pathways to exceptional achievement. We will begin with research on adjustment problems, social coping, and action strategies of Chinese gifted students. Then we will examine the Chinese goals of self-perfection and academic self-efficacy as variables operating in their subjective action space. Finally we will examine research on Chinese gifted learners’ connectedness to school, family and peer environment. We will also discuss important directions in research on applications of the actiotope model in assessment and interventions meeting the social-emotive needs of gifted learners. This chapter does not intend to provide a comprehensive review of the literature but simply to highlight some important work in the area.

Psychological adjustment, social coping and action repertoire Psychological adjustment and related social-emotional issues are often concerns for gifted learners and their parents (Assouline and Colangelo, 2006). Research has found that common adjustment problems among gifted Chinese students in Hong Kong are often related to high parental expectations, a tendency toward perfectionism, intense involvement in school work and activities, and loss of motivation due to unchallenging schoolwork (Chan, 2003c). These students are also most concerned about their interpersonal relationships and the effect that recognition of their exceptional abilities can create (Chan, 2002). To enhance gifted students’ psycho-social adjustment, and to promote excellence in their talent performance, it is crucial to develop their action repertoire. Research among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong has identified some common social action strategies for coping, including denying their own giftedness to ensure peer group acceptance, and avoidance of challenging situations (Chan, 2003b, 2005a). Unfortunately, coping by valuing peer acceptance and by avoidance of challenge significantly predicts psychological distress (Chan, 2004). It is true that students who possess adequate emotional intelligence (emphasizing empathy and social skills) are more likely to alleviate potential psychological distress by promoting social interaction with others (Chan, 2005b). Social skills are the best predictors of engagement in social and other activities; and effective social skills are essential within an individual’s action repertoire (Chan, 2003a). Despite, or perhaps because of their concerns over the “gifted” label, Chinese gifted students tend to exercise coping strategies that involve them in social interactions (e.g. helping others) while at the same time avoiding challenges that might overtly highlight their abilities (Chan, 2004, 2005b). It is also evident that “popularity” becomes increasingly important to Chinese gifted students as they mature into adolescence (Chan, 2005a). This concern for popularity is consistent with key values of social harmony underlying the Confucian culture in Chinese communities (e.g. liking and respecting others, and desiring to be liked and respected by others) (Chan, 2005a; Watson, 2007). Hence, in line with the

Social-emotional development

135

emphasis of interactions in the actiotope model, social development is seen to be an indispensable element in education for Chinese gifted students, alongside physical and mental development (Shi and Zhai, 2004).

Self-perfection and academic self-efficacy: Influences on goals and subjective action space Many researchers and authors relate Chinese values and Chinese parenting to perfectionism (Chang, 1998; Chua, 2011; Flett, Hewitt, and Singer, 1995; Kawamura, Frost, and Harmatz, 2002; Yoon and Lau, 2008). As stated already, in the pursuit of perfectionist goals Chinese parents are known to exercise high levels of control over children’s academic progress. In Chinese schools, effort is valued over innate ability, and diligence is widely regarded as a means to overcome any weakness and to achieve perfection (Chao, 1994; Hau and Salili, 1991; Li, 2002). Unlike Western parents, who highlight their children’s strengths and successes to boost their motivation and confidence, Chinese parents tend to focus more on students’ weaknesses. The rationale is that students can only improve if they are able to locate and work upon the areas of weakness that hinder their progress (Fong and Yuen, 2011b; Heine et al., 2001). In this manner, Chinese students, including the gifted, are socialized to become sensitive to mistakes they make and to revisit a task until perfection or mastery is achieved. This practice essentially exemplifies how individuals and the environment interact and co-modify continuously to achieve excellence. Looking into perfectionism in Chinese students can therefore offer a frame of reference to understand the social-emotional development of Chinese gifted students under the paradigm of the actiotope model (Ziegler, 2004, 2005). Although an endless pursuit of perfection may, on the one hand, lead to a variety of social and emotional problems (Graham et al., 2010; Greenspon, 2000; Stoeber and Otto, 2006), a growing body of empirical findings nevertheless suggests that Chinese students tend to view failures in a more positive light than their Western counterparts in their quest for excellence (Chan, 2008; Fong and Yuen, 2011a; Li, 2002; Wang, Yuen, and Slaney, 2009). The striving for perfection is motivating rather than debilitating among Chinese gifted students (Chan, 2007; Eaton and Dembo, 1997; Fong and Yuen, 2011a; 2011b). Researchers have shown that Chinese gifted students prefer learning and social goals over performance and avoidance goals (Chan, 2008). Among gifted students, learning and social goals tend to be associated with realistic emphasis on high standards and organization (Chan, 2009). Guided by Confucian ideas and parenting values, Fong and Yuen (2011b) found that Chinese gifted primary school students have generally internalized the traditional belief that “failure is a precedent of success” (shi bai nai cheng gong zhi mu). They explain that their mistakes indicate to them the areas they should strive to improve through hard work. This relatively positive perception of failure enables them to set new goals to improve themselves (Li, 2001). The desire to attain the social goal of self-perfection through

136

Mantak Yuen and Ricci W. Fong

learning from mistakes steers Chinese gifted students to endorse both a learning goal to master the skills and knowledge for self-perfection and a performance goal to demonstrate their abilities to others for social approval in the name of one’s family (Chan, 2008). Healthy perfectionists, who aim for high standards and organization but are less concerned about discrepancy between reality and the ideal, are well identified among gifted and non-gifted primary school Chinese students in Hong Kong (Chan, 2011). Clearly, students’ subjective action spaces are influenced positively when they link effort with improved outcomes, and when they recognize that they have the necessary resources to achieve within their action repertoires. In the light of collectivism and Confucian values, the goal that motivates Chinese gifted students to achieve excellence stems from social or family demands (Leiber, Fung, and Leung, 2006; Li, 2001; Sue and Okazaki, 1990). Unlike Western students, their goal to learn and achieve is often social rather than personal in nature since achievement is not solely accountable to self but also to the family or community to which an individual belongs (Chan, 2008; Chao, 1994). The significance of fulfilling a social goal was primarily derived from Confucianism, which emphasizes social responsibility, unquestioning obedience and respect toward one’s parents, as well as self-perfection as the ultimate goal in life (Chao, 1994; Li, 2001; Watson, 2007). From a tender age, Chinese students are imparted with the importance of their achievement to their family, as well as to their own future. Kasdan and Yuen (2007) found that Chinese students generally regarded achieving academic excellence as their major duty. Today, such a culturally deep-seated belief in academic excellence as a guaranteed ladder to future success is indeed reinforced by the fact that university admission, endowment of scholarships, and career options do rely heavily on academic attainment. As the actiotope model contends, a student will not be able to attain excellence without effective feedback, progressive adaptation of the action repertoire, and the ability to locate effective strategies for improvement (Ziegler, 2005). Students must possess appropriate goals that drive them to adapt and enhance their action repertoire in a changing yet supportive environment (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2008). This process is, in fact, influenced by students’ perceived possibilities of executing an action, such as participating in a writing contest. As underscored in the model, development requires (over a long learning period) effective co-adaptation among goals, latent actions in the action repertoire, and variables in the learning environment (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2008). For instance, despite having educated parents, a computer and a library of books at home, a student will not be able to demonstrate their full potential in preparing for the writing contest, refining their writing skills and eventually winning the contest if he or she is either not motivated to enter the contest, or does not believe he or she is good enough to win. Self-doubt severely restricts a learners’ subjective action space. The subjective action space of Chinese gifted students is governed by their perceptions of self-efficacy, fueled by social connectedness and an unwavering belief in the importance of expending effort in pursuing excellence. The belief in

Social-emotional development

137

effort over ability is integral to the development of most Chinese gifted students, who believe that persistent effort is more important than intelligence (Li and Yue, 2003). In Hong Kong, Chinese gifted students generally regard being diligent as the primary means of attaining academic success. Even if they were born with high cognitive abilities, they still cannot succeed without working hard over a long period (Fong and Yuen, 2011b). Yuen, Gybsers, Chan, Lau and Shea, (2010) have found that high-ability secondary students tend to have high average self-efficacy in developing their own talents and engaging in positive work habits. Chan (2006) has found that students’ self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the relationship between adjustment problems and psychological distress among gifted students in Hong Kong. The advocacy of diligence applies to all areas of learning in the Chinese culture, including music training. For instance, at age seven, the world-renowned pianist Lang Lang began following a strict practice schedule drawn up by his father, with six hours of piano practice per day (Lang and Ritz, 2009). It is noteworthy that such belief is consistent with the perspectives of the actiotope model in that excellence does not come because of one’s extraordinary abilities, but with expansion of the action repertoire over time through practice and adaptation. Being diligent is the main mechanism by which Chinese gifted students expand their action repertoire and their subjective action space.

Connectedness to family, school and peer environment It can be argued that gifted students will not be able to expand their action repertoire or set appropriate goals for themselves without being connected positively to an appropriate and stimulating environment (Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi and Damon, 2001) and the influence of environment begins very early in life. For most children, the people and the resources available in their families comprise the first formative environment they come into contact with as infants. In the Chinese context, parental expectations, involvement and investment are paramount to children’s development (Chao, 1996). The level of stimulation and “training” that parents can provide, the living conditions, and the availability of resources (for instance, a piano in the home) will affect when particular interests (e.g. music) are first aroused in a child’s life. Likewise, the connectedness between children and their families determines the amount of support and encouragement they receive to set personal goals, persevere through different challenges, and strive for excellence. Intact family connectedness facilitates children in gaining awareness of their own skills, interests and creativity. Chan (2005c) suggests that family cohesion is closely related to parents’ encouragement for children’s independent thinking. While it might be anticipated that family cohesion and parental expectations could hinder students’ creativity, in reality they appear to be reliable predictors, not only of students’ academic skills, but also of their creativity and leadership (Chan, 2005c). In a similar connection, Peterson et al. (2005) suggest

138

Mantak Yuen and Ricci W. Fong

that supportive behavior from parents promotes both conformity and autonomy among Chinese adolescents. One may question this positive association between interdependence and independence, but the findings are not surprising if we consider the significant role of family in the Chinese culture, as previously discussed. Cohesive and supportive family relationships tend to fuel Chinese learners with a sense of security, allowing them to expand their subjective action space independently beyond their family boundaries and develop their talents with confidence (Chan, 2005c; Peterson et al., 2005). The power of social connectedness in creating a stimulating and supportive environment has been acknowledged since ancient times in the China (Li, 2001). In a family where individuals feel bonded with each other, children are more likely to internalize parental expectations for high achievement while benefitting from the encouragements and feedback from parents. By tradition, imparting a socially desirable work ethic and training children for academic excellence are commonly considered the core duty and social goal of most Chinese parents (Chao, 1994, 1996; Chao and Sue, 1996). In Chinese communities, social and familial connectedness contributes to an environment that encourages excellence. This is reflected in the Chinese notions of guan (to govern) and jiao xun (training, teaching or educating), where parental control and involvement do not indicate potentially intrusive interference in a child’s natural development but rather encompass parental warmth, concern, care, support and positive parent–child interaction (Chao, 1994; Chao and Sue, 1996; Stewart et al., 1998; Tobin, Wu, and Davidson, 1989). Recent empirical studies demonstrate that Chinese gifted students do share positive conceptions of guan and jiao xun with their parents. For example, in a qualitative investigation with such students in Hong Kong, all the informants perceived that the training and supports provided by their parents (as well as from teachers and peers) are indispensable in their cognitive and psychological development (Fong and Yuen, 2011b). The encouragements they receive in bad times, and the positive appraisals in good times, help them persevere in striving to achieve their goals. In another study, McBride-Chang and Chang (1998) found that Chinese students tend to perceive their own parents as more permissive and reasonable in their demands than their parents think of themselves. Writers point out similarities between Chinese and Western parenting ideals in that both value close involvement, supportive supervision and positive expectations for age-appropriate behaviors (Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown, 1992; Stewart et al., 1998). When children start school, they enter a new environment that enables them to acquire fresh interests, develop new skills and become more autonomous as learners. The good practices presented by capable peers and older students at school make a useful reference point for gifted students to refine their own academic skills and establish their aims. More incentives will come along to expand students’ horizons and action repertoires as they create connections with more social parties, such as peers and teachers, in childhood and adolescence. In this

Social-emotional development

139

context, Grassinger, Porath and Ziegler (2010) highlight the great value of “mentoring” in promoting excellent development of the whole actiotope of a gifted individual. In an ideal situation, as time passes students become more emotionally “connected” to their schools through experiencing success, being exposed to new and exciting ideas, receiving constructive feedback and encouragement, and through feeling valued as a member of the school community (Yuen et al., 2011). School connectedness becomes one of the key influences on the beliefs that students develop about their own competencies and their willingness to take risks. Connectedness to school also influences students’ motivation to learn. In other words, in terms of the actiotope model, positive school connectedness indirectly influences the subjective action space of each individual student. By helping students feel effective in what they strive to do (an essential aspect of connectedness), teachers are expanding students’ subjective action spaces. In the East-Asian context, parental influences continue to be very strong throughout a student’s school years. Throughout this long period, most parents assist their children with schoolwork and help prepare them for assessments (Chao, 1996; Lieber et al., 2006; Peterson et al., 2005; Phillipson, 2010). It is noteworthy that, although Chinese parents and teachers commonly monitor students’ academic achievement through high levels of involvement and control, the good intentions behind this “strictness” is fully understood and positively perceived by Chinese students (Fong and Yuen, 2011b; McBride-Chang and Chang, 1998). This underscores the fundamental value of highly monitored training provided by Chinese parents and teachers in Chinese societies. High parental control and expectations for obedience and achievement do not seem to be antagonistic to the actiotope of Chinese gifted students, and may in fact cause students to strive even harder to excel (Chan, 2005c). For example, two Asian child prodigies who later developed into accomplished mathematicians observed that their Chinese parents’ constant involvement and exploration of opportunities, as well as the availability of a good mentor, were significant in the development of their precocity (Muratori et al., 2006). In reality, some researchers have argued that the learning environment of Chinese students is actually not as dictatorial and directive as it is often perceived to be by many Western researchers (Muratori et al., 2006; Rao, Moely, and Sachs, 2000; Steinberg et al., 1992). In summary, findings from Western and Asian studies support a view that connectedness to family, peer groups and school is crucial to developing excellence (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, and Egeland, 2004; Furrer and Skinner, 2003; Schwartz, et al., 2005). Among family, teacher and peer connectedness, Chinese students tend to regard family connectedness as the most influential to their overall academic pursuit. Despite the high level of control, the active involvement of Chinese parents in their children’s education assures the students of the presence and readiness of cognitive and emotional supports brought by family connectedness. This awareness energizes them to pursue academic excellence with greater

140

Mantak Yuen and Ricci W. Fong

confidence (Fong and Yuen, 2011b; Yuen et al., 2010b). Research has found that Chinese gifted students perceive that they have high academic self-efficacy when they feel connected to their social circles (Rice et al., 2006).

Implications for teachers and guidance professionals of Chinese gifted learners In terms of nurturing gifted learners, many resources have been allocated in Hong Kong and elsewhere to develop their potential and extend their cognitive abilities. Contextual factors influencing the development of life skills appear to include not only experiences within the school curriculum and the guidance and counseling program but also family and peer relationships and opportunities for talent development (Yuen et al., 2010a). Teachers and guidance personnel should take into account any culturally distinctive features that influence the actiotope of Chinese gifted learners. For example, given the importance of social environment and social goals in Chinese communities, it is essential to encourage communication among parents, teachers and students to clarify and understand the expectations each party holds. Considering culture as a medium, Chinese students’ degree of connectedness with their family and school environments should also be accounted for when offering guidance or counseling for students in transition (Cole and Packer, 2011; Valsiner, 1989). When supporting Chinese gifted learners in career and talent development, teachers and counselors need to consider family, school and peer environment issues (Assouline and Colangelo, 2006; Eccles and Roseser, 2011; Henderson and Chan, 2005). Counselors and teachers could help students gain maximum family support in educational planning and career development (Ma and Yeh, 2010). For instance, this may be achieved by regularly disseminating information to parents and involving them, where possible, in guidance activities to assist students in their self-exploration and goalsetting. Involving parents more frequently in this way could encourage mutual understanding, thus creating a supportive social environment for students’ talents to blossom. Policy makers in the gifted education domain could also review policies with reference to the body of knowledge concerning the social-emotional development of gifted learners (Phillipson, Phillipson, and Eyre, 2011). What hinders the social-emotional development of gifted learners is the mismatch of environments (Gross, 2002). In the long run, more attention and resources should be devoted to providing appropriate environments for students to expand their action repertoire and maximizing the power of their social environments, so as to regulate Chinese gifted learners to focus on refining their action repertoires and increasing their abilities to evaluate themselves realistically for progressive development (Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). In future research, in-depth case studies could help to clarify the complicated dynamic relationship among individuals’ goals, action repertoires, and subjective action spaces within the socio-cultural environment. Longitudinal surveys could be conducted to test the mediating effects of environmental variables on social-emotional development.

Social-emotional development

141

Conclusion When we consider the development of excellence and self-efficacy in gifted students in East Asia, their success can be attributed in part to their connectedness and immersion in a supportive social environment, as well as to specific inputs from parents, teachers and mentors. These direct and indirect social, emotional and educational influences on the development of gifts and talents make the actiotope model a culturally appropriate framework on which to base rigorous study of giftedness in the East-Asian context.1

Note 1 The authorship of this chapter is equally shared by both writers. The preparation of this paper was partly funded by the Hong Kong Research Grant Council (HKU 754509H).

References Assouline, S., and Colangelo, N. (2006). Social-emotional development of gifted adolescents. In F.A. Dixon, and S.M. Moon. (eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 65–85). Waco, TX: Prufrock. Chan, D. W. (2002). Giftedness, adjustment problems, and psychological distress among Chinese secondary students, Hong Kong. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26(1), 6–24. Chan, D. W. (2003a). Leadership skills training for secondary students in Hong Kong: Does training make a difference? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(3), 166–174. Chan, D. W. (2003b). Dimensions of emotional intelligence and their relationships with social coping among gifted adolescents. Hong Kong Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(6), 409–418. Chan, D. W. (2003c). Adjustment problems and multiple intelligences among gifted students in Hong Kong: The development of the revised Student Adjustment Problems Inventory. High Ability Studies, 14(1), 41–54. Chan, D. W. (2004). Social coping and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 30–41. Chan, D. W. (2005a). The structure of social coping among Chinese gifted children and youths in Hong Kong. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 8–29. Chan, D. W. (2005b). Emotional intelligence, social coping, and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 163–178. Chan, D. W. (2005c). Family environment and talent development of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 211–221. Chan, D. W. (2006). Adjustment problems, self-efficacy, and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students. Hong Kong Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 28(4), 203–209. Chan, D. W. (2007). Positive and negative perfectionism among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: Their relationships to general self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(1), 77–102. Chan, D. W. (2008). Goal orientations and achievement among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 19(1), 37–51.

142

Mantak Yuen and Ricci W. Fong

Chan, D. W. (2009). Perfectionism and goal orientations among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 31(1), 9–17. Chan, D. W. (2011). Perfectionism among Chinese gifted and non-gifted students in Hong Kong: The use of the revised almost perfect scale. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(1), 68–98. Chang, E. C. (1998). Cultural differences, perfectionism, and suicidal risk in a college population: Does social problem solving still matter? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 237–254. Chen, X., and Tse, H.C. (2008). Social functioning and adjustment in Canadian-born children with Chinese and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1184–1189. Chao, R. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119. Chao, R. (1996). Chinese and European American mothers’ beliefs about the role of parenting in children’s school success. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 403–423. Chao, R., and Sue, S. (1996). Chinese parental influence and their children’s school success: A paradox in the literature on parenting styles. In S. Lau (ed.), Growing up the Chinese way: Chinese child and adolescent development (pp. 93–120). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the Tiger Mother. New York: The Penguin Press. Cole, M., and Packer, M. (2011). Culture in development. In M. H. Bonstein, and M. E. Lamb (eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook. (6th edn., pp. 51–107) New York: Psychology Press. Eaton, M. J., and Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of AsianAmerican and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 422–470. Eccles, J., and Roeser, R. W. (2011). School and community influences on human development. In M. H. Bonstein, and M. E. Lamb (eds.), Developmental Science: An Advanced Textbook. (6th edn., pp. 571–643). New York: Psychology Press. Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., and Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 723–730. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., and Singer, A. (1995). Perfectionism and parental authority styles: Individual psychology. Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research and Practice, 5, 50–60. Fong, R. W., and Yuen, M. (2011a). Perfectionism in Chinese elementary school students: validation of the Chinese adaptive/maladaptive perfectionism Scale. Talent development and excellence, 3(2), 203–213. Fong, R. W., and Yuen, M. (2011b). Perfectionism, connectedness and academic self-efficacy in academically talented primary school students in Hong Kong: A qualitative investigation. Manuscript submitted for publication. Freeman, J. (2006). The emotional development of gifted and talented children. Gifted and Talented International, 21(2), 20–28. Furrer, C., and Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162. Gagné, F. (2009). Talent development as seen through the differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In T. Balchin, B. Hymer and D. J. Matthews (eds.), The Routledge International Companion to Gifted Education (pp. 32–41). Abingdon: Routledge.

Social-emotional development

143

Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, and M., Damon, W. (2001). Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books. Graham, A. R., Sherry, S. B., Stewart, S. H., Sherry, D. L., McGrath, D. S., Fossum, K. M., and Allen, S. L. (2010, September 20). The Existential Model of Perfectionism and Depressive Symptoms: A short-term, four-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0020667 Grassinger, R., Porath, M., and Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: A conceptual analysis. High Ability Studies, 21(1), 27–46. Greenspon, T. S. (2000). “Healthy perfectionism” is an oxymoron! Reflections on the psychology of perfectionism and the sociology of science. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(4), 197–208. Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Social emotive issues for exceptionally intellectually gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, and S. M. Moon (eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 19–29). Washington, DC: Prufrock. Hau, K. T., and Salili, F. (1991). Structure and semantic differential placement of specific causes: Academic causal attributions by Chinese students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 175–193. Henderson, S. J., and Chan, A. (2005). Career happiness among Asian Americans: The interplay between individualism and interdependence. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33(3), 180–192. Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., and Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 599–615. Kashdan, T. B., and Yuen, M. (2007). Whether highly curious students thrive academically depends on perceptions about the learning environment: A study of Hong Kong adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 31(4), 260–270. Kawamura, K. Y., Frost, R. O., and Harmatz, M. G. (2002). The relationship of perceived parenting styles to perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 317–327. Lang, L., and Ritz, D. (2009). Journey of a Thousand Miles: My Story. New York: Spiegel and Grau. Li, J. (2001). High abilities and excellence: A cultural perspective. In L. V. Shavinina and M. Ferrari (eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability. The Educational Psychology Series (pp. 187–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Li, J. (2002). A cultural model of learning: Chinese “Heart and mind for wanting to learn”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 248–269. Li, J., and Yue, X.-D. (2002). Learning conceptions, desires, and actions among Chinese school children. Unpublished manuscript. Lieber, E., Fung, H., and Leung, P. W.-L. (2006). Chinese child-rearing beliefs: Key dimensions and contributions to the development of culture-appropriate assessment. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 140–147. McBride-Chang, C., and Chang, L. (1998). Adolescent-parent relations in Hong Kong: Parenting styles, emotional autonomy, and school achievement. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(4), 421–436. Ma, P.-W. W., and Yeh, J. C. (2010). Individual and familial factors influencing the educational and career plans of Chinese immigrant youths. Career Development Quarterly, 58, 230–245.

144

Mantak Yuen and Ricci W. Fong

McBride-Chang, C., and Chang, L. (1998). Adolescent-parent relations in Hong Kong: Parenting styles, emotional autonomy, and school achievement. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(4), 421–436. McMahon, M., and Watson, M. B. (2008). Systemic influences on career development: Assisting clients to tell their career stories. The Career Development Quarterly, 56(3), 280–288. McMahon, M., and Yuen, M. (2009). Career counselling and internationalization. Asian Journal of Counselling, 16(2), 91–111. Muratori, M. C., Stanley, J. C., Gross, M. U. M., Ng, L., Tao, T., and Ng, J. (2006). Insights from SMPY’s greatest former child prodigies: Drs. Terence (“Terry”) Tao and Lenhard (“Lenny”) Ng reflect on their talent development. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 307–357. Peterson, J. S. (2007). A developmental perspective. In S. Mendaglio and J. S. Peterson (eds.), Models of counseling gifted children, adolescents, and young adults (pp. 97–126). Austin, TX: Prufrock. Peterson, G. W., Cobas, J. A., Bush, K. R., Supple, A., and Wilson, S. M. (2005). Parentyouth relationships and the self-esteem of Chinese adolescents: Collectivism versus individualism. Marriage and Family Review, 36(3)–(4), 173–200. Phillipson, S. (2010). Modeling parental role in academic achievement: Comparing highability to low- and average-ability students. Talent Development and Excellence, 2(1), 83–103. Phillipson, S. N., Phillipson, S., and Eyre, D.M. (2011). Being gifted in Hong Kong: An examination of the region’s policy for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 235–249. Phillipson, S. N., and Sun, R. (2009). Modelling mathematical actiotopes: The potential role of CLARION. Talent Development and Excellence, 1, 27–43. Rao, N., Moely, B. E., and Sachs, J. (2000). Motivational beliefs, study strategies, and mathematics attainment in high- and low-achieving Chinese secondary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 287–316. Reis, S. M. (1995). Talent ignored, talent diverted: The cultural context underlying giftedness in females. Gifted Child Quarterly. Special Issue: Giftedness in the social context, 39(3), 162–170. Rice, K. G., Leever, B. A., Christopher, J., and Porter, J. D. (2006). Perfectionism, stress, and social (dis)connection: A short-term study of hopelessness, depression, and academic adjustment among honors students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 524–534. Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: a conservative view from a die-hard liberal. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd edn.) New York: Cambridge University Press. Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R., Chen, X., Bower, J., and McDonald, K. L. (2011). Peer relationships in childhood. In M. H. Bonstein and M.E. Lamb (eds.), Developmental Science: An Advanced Textbook. (6th edn., pp. 519–570). New York: Psychology Press. Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., and Toblin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 425–435. Shi, J., and Zhai, J. (2004). Education of supernormal children in a primary school. In D. Boothe and J. C. Stanley (eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 119–125). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Social-emotional development

145

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., and Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent development: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729. Sternberg, R. (2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 29(3), 160–165. Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., and Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). Explorations in giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stoeber, J., and Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319. Stewart, S. M., Rao, N., Bond, M. H., McBride-Chang, C., Fielding, R., and Kennard, B. D. (1998). Chinese dimensions of parenting: Broadening western predictors and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 22(5), 345–358. Sue, S., and Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45(8), 913–920. Tobin, J. J., Wu, D. Y. H., and Davidson, D. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wang, K. T., Yuen, M., and Slaney, R. B. (2008). Perfectionism, depression, loneliness, and life satisfaction: A study of high school students in Hong Kong. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(2), 249–274. Watson, B. (2007). The analects of Confucius. New York: Columbia University Press. Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vialle, W., Heaven, P. C. L., and Ciarrochi, J. (2007). On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong youth study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 569–586. Yoon, J., and Lau, A. S. (2008). Maladaptive perfectionism and depressive symptoms among Asian American College students: Contributions of interdependence and parental relations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(2), 92–101. Yuen, M., Chan, R. M. C., Gysbers, N. C., Lau, P. S. Y., Lee, Q. A. Y., Shea, P. M. K., Fong, R. W., and Chung, Y. B. (2010a). Enhancing life skills development: Chinese adolescents’ perceptions. Pastoral Care in Education: An International Journal of Personal, Social and Emotional Development, 28(4), 295–310. Yuen, M., Chan, R. T. H., Gysbers, N. C., Lau, P. S. Y., Chan, R. M. C., and Shea, P. M. K. (2011). Connectedness, potential career exploration, work habits, and talent development in Grade 5 primary students in Hong Kong. Presented in the Career Development Association of Australia (CDAA) International Association for Vocational and Educational Guidance (IAEVG) International Career Conference, Cairns, 26–29 April 2011. Yuen, M., Chan, R., Lau, P. S. Y., Yu, L., Chan R. M. C., Gysbers, N. C., and Shea, P. M. K. (2010b). Implementing the comprehensive guidance and counseling program in Hong Kong: High school teachers’ perspectives. Asian Journal of Counselling, 17(1) and (2), 61–79. Yuen, M., Gysbers, N. C., Chan, R. M. C., Lau, P. S. Y., and Shea, P. M. K. (2010). Talent development, work habits, and career exploration of Chinese middle-school adolescents: Development of the Career and Talent Development Self-Efficacy Scale, High Ability Studies, 21, 47–62. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2010.488089 Yuen, M., Lau, P. S. Y., Lee, Q. A. Y., Gysbers, N. C., Chan, R. M. C., Fong, R. W., Chung, Y. B., and Shea, P. M. K. (2011). Factors influencing school connectedness: Chinese adolescents’ perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review. doi: 10.1007/ s12564–011–9176–7

146

Mantak Yuen and Ricci W. Fong

Ziegler, A. (2004). The actiotope model of giftedness. Pädagogische Psychologie am Seminar für Pädagogik der Universität Ulm. Online document accessed 15 July, 2011 at: aktiotop.org/Ziegler_2004_Actiotope_Model_of_Giftedness_Nr_6.html Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411–436). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., Fidelman, M., Reutlinger, M., Vialle, W., and Stoeger, H. (2010). Implicit personality theories on the modifiability and stability of the action repertoire as a meaningful framework for individual motivation. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 147–263. Ziegler, A., and Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30. Ziegler, A., and Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual frame of the actiotope model of giftedness. Psychology Science, 46(3), 324–341. Ziegler, A., and Stoeger, H. (2007). The role of counseling in the development of the students’ actiotopes: Theoretical background and exemplary application of the 11-SCC. In S. Mendaglio, and J. S. Peterson (eds.), Models of counseling gifted children, adolescents and young adults (pp. 253–283). Waco, TX: Prufrock. Ziegler, A., and Stoeger, H. (2008). A learning oriented subjective action space as an indicator of giftedness. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(2), 222–236.

Chapter 9

The “Tiger Mother” factor Curriculum, schooling and mentoring of Asian students in an Australian context Wilma Vialle

Introduction There is evidence from a range of sources that indicates that South and East Asian background students are academically outperforming their peers in Australian primary and secondary schools (see, for example, Khoo and Birrell, 2002; Marks et al., 2000; McInerney, 2008; Paar and Mok, 1995). This evidence ranges from tertiary enrolment figures and the enrolment statistics of academically selective programs, through to school achievement records and research studies. Several explanations for the superior academic outcomes have been posited by researchers. These have included their work ethic, motivation and aspirations, and the support and expectations of their parents. While these explanations have some appeal for educators, they have not been brought together into one theoretical construct. Therefore, this chapter will examine these differences between the South and East Asian background students and their peers in Australian schools through the analytical lenses of the actiotope model of giftedness (Ziegler, 2005) and its logical companion, a systemic approach to giftedness (Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012).

Historical background Australia prides itself on being a multicultural country that has forged its identity on the varied immigration patterns of the last two centuries. It is an island continent, with nearly 22 million inhabitants, and calls the nations of Asia and the South Pacific its closest neighbors. While the first wave of immigrants to Australia was largely British, Chinese immigration has been significant since the gold rushes of the mid-nineteenth century. In his book, Big White Lie: Chinese Australians in White Australia, John Fitzgerald (2007) details the long history of migration from China to Australia, pointing out that at the time of Federation (1901) Chinese immigrants numbered about 100,000. Fitzgerald indicates that the Chinese-Australian communities were characterized by extensive social networks that permitted strong integration into their new country despite prevalent racism. He also argues that the Chinese immigrants were strong supporters of

148

Wilma Vialle

Federation in Australia as it seemed to offer the liberty and fairness that were consistent with their cultural values. The White Australia policy, based on irrational fears of the “yellow peril” or “reds under the bed” and in effect until 1973, severely restricted non-White immigration from 1901. Following the abandonment of this policy, though, non-White immigration has again expanded but the governmental restrictive emphasis on skills and professions affects the make-up of contemporary Asian immigrants to Australia. The 2006 census data (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006) indicated that approximately 9 percent of the Australian population is from an Asian background but over 16 percent of the population of the two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, are Asian Australians. The proportion is even greater in schoolaged children, with approximately 27 percent of public school enrolments coming from a language background other than English (LBOTE), the majority of whom are Asian in origin (ACARA, 2011). In common with the experience of other Western nations, there is a strong perception in Australia that Asian Australian students are out-performing all other “migrant” populations as well as indigenous and Anglo Australians. The stereotype depicts the Asian student as a diligent, highly motivated individual aided in his or her educational journey by “tiger mother” (Chua, 2011) parents who are stern disciplinarians and hold high expectations of their offspring. In this chapter, I will examine the evidence for the academic success of Asian students in Australia and the explanations given for their scholastic performance. Drawing on Australian research and Ziegler’s actiotope model (2005), the pathways to excellence for Asian students in Australian schools (Ziegler, 2005) are explored.

Academic outcomes of Asian students There are multiple indicators that point to the relative academic success of Asian Australian students in secondary schooling, particularly the sub-groups whose backgrounds are from South and East Asia. Among these indicators are the general trends found in academic outcomes for Asian-background students in many Western countries; the enrolment data of Asian Australian students in tertiary education in Australia; and, the enrolment data of Asian Australian students in academically selective high schools in the two major Australian cities, Sydney and Melbourne. Research has consistently demonstrated superior academic outcomes for Asian-background students compared to their counterparts in Western countries (Coleman et al., 1966; Flynn, 1991; Hsia, 1988; Pieke, 1991; Schneider et al., 1994; Suzuki, 1980; Vernon, 1982). This achievement pattern has been supported by research in Australian schools (see, e.g. Khoo and Birrell, 2002; Marks et al., 2000; McInerney, 2008; Paar and Mok, 1995). Walkey and Chung (1996) found similar patterns of Asian “superiority” in a study of New Zealand schoolchildren. McInerney’s (2008) cross-cultural research in Australian schools found higher mathematics and English academic outcomes for the Asian Australian

The “Tiger Mother” factor

149

students compared to the Anglo, Lebanese and Aboriginal students in his study. Analysis of the 2009 PISA results show that first-generation students (i.e. children who were born in Australia but whose parents who were foreign-born) performed significantly higher than Australian-born students (i.e. children who were born in Australia with at least one parent also born in Australia) in mathematical literacy and the higher levels of reading literacy (Thomson et al., 2010). While these figures include students from all foreign nations, Asian Australians make up the largest proportion of first-generation students. In Australia, the superior performance of Asian students is more evident in students from East and Southeast Asian nations and for those who belong to nations with a Confucian value system (Dandy and Nettelbeck, 2002b). Contrasting with these studies were the findings of an earlier study by Dandy and Nettelbeck, which failed to find achievement differences for Asian Australian students over Anglo-Celtic Australian students (Dandy and Nettelbeck, 2000). However, the small, select sample may have confounded the results in that study, with ceiling effects a strong possibility. Although the measures of academic success differ across these studies, there would seem to be some support in the research literature for a higher than expected performance of Asian students in Australian schools. Researchers have also pointed to the higher levels of participation in tertiary education of Asian students compared to other groups (Marginson, 2004; Marks et al., 2000). Marginson (2004) indicated that in 2001, overall participation by many Asian groups in higher education was about double that of other cultural groups. He observed that Chinese background students represented 1.34 percent of higher education enrolments; double that of their population ratio of 0.62 percent. Other Asian groups over-represented in higher education included those from Hong Kong, Taiwan, India and Malaysia (Marginson, 2004). A more dramatic illustration of the high academic outcomes of South and East Asian students is the pattern of selective high school enrolment in Sydney and Melbourne. Selective high schools are government-funded schools that require students to pass an entrance examination focused on literacy and numeracy. Entry into such schools is highly competitive and, thus, only the top-performing students are successful in gaining a place. The top ten performing selective schools in Sydney, according to their Year 12 student outcomes,1 have very high enrolments of students who are first- or second-generation Australians.2 While exact proportions are unavailable, Chinese and Indian background students dominate, with smaller representations of other Asian nations rounding out the enrolment. As Table 9.1 illustrates, the top Sydney selective high school, James Ruse Agricultural High School, boasts a total of 97% LBOTE students and only one school in the top ten has fewer than 80% LBOTE students. Selective high school enrolments in Melbourne are similar to the Sydney schools in their cultural make-up. In 2010, Melbourne High School (MHS), for example, was the top-performing high school in the state of Victoria based on its students’ Year 12 results, which over the last decade have averaged 95%,3 with

150

Wilma Vialle

Table 9.1 Percentage of students from language backgrounds other than English in the top 10 selective schools in New South Wales (in order of Year 12 student outcome rank) School James Ruse Agricultural High School North Sydney Girls High School Hornsby Girls High School Baulkham Hills High School Sydney Girls High School Sydney Boys High School Northern Beaches Secondary College Manly Campus North Sydney Boys High School Fort Street High School Normanhurst Boys High School St George Girls High School

% LBOTE1 97 93 86 92 88 91 39 90 81 80 90

1 Language Background Other Than English Source: Ho, 2011

15 to 20% of students scoring above 99%. The school enrolls approximately 350 boys each year from a pool of up to 2000, all of whom sit the entrance examination. Applicants also need to demonstrate high academic achievement and a commitment to co-curricular activities. Current enrolment records indicate that two-thirds of the student body comes from a South or East Asian background (Melbourne High School, 2010). Interestingly, the school’s long history as a dominant force on the Australian Rules football grounds has been replaced by a shift to badminton and table tennis as the dominant sports, reflecting the shift in the cultural make-up of the school. The motto of the school is “Honour the work and the work will honour you,” a statement that accords well with the stereotype of the work ethic of the Asian student. While many schools include generic statements about maximizing every student’s potential, Melbourne High School’s website provides a more detailed and specific focus on expectations of academic excellence. This is reflected in its philosophy of “providing a safe, secure and stimulating learning environment in which students can reach their full educational potential in a positive school culture that engages and supports them in their learning” and of “a strong commitment to academic excellence” (Melbourne High School, 2010). The “My School” website (ACARA, 2011) indicates that MHS’s sister school, MacRobertson Girls’ High School, has a 93% LBOTE population, with South and East Asian students dominating this cultural make-up. In previous years,

The “Tiger Mother” factor

151

MacRobertson Girls’ High School has out-performed its brother school. Its website, too, places emphasis on academic excellence and co-curricular involvement. While these high proportions of LBOTE students in selective schools may be seen as an indicator of their academic success generally, this effect is moderated by patterns of public (i.e. government-funded) versus private schooling (i.e. schools which are largely funded by school fees). Migrant families from South and East Asia are typically selecting the public schooling option for their offspring. In all the suburbs with concentrations of Asian migrants, the local public schools have a higher proportion of Asian Australian students enrolled than expected according to their proportion of the total population of students in those suburbs. According to Ho (2011), this pattern reflects a deliberate choice by migrant families for the public system, particularly into academically selective schools, which are producing outstanding academic results. By contrast, Anglo Australian families are dominating enrolments in the independent sector (Ho, 2011). The impact is that many of the top selective high schools in New South Wales (particularly Sydney) have become enclaves of LBOTE students (see Table 1). Jakubowicz (2009) suggests that this is “a withdrawal from intercultural interaction, into monocultural isolation” (p. 4).

The actiotope model of giftedness There has been an assumption that LBOTE migrant groups may fare worse in school because of language difficulties (Marginson, 2004), although evidence shows that in Australia, Chinese and some Vietnamese succeed at school, but also maintain their home language (Marginson, 2004). The counter-assumption is that migrant groups may perform better at school because of a strong desire to recoup their investment in migration. For example, Inglis (2003) observed that the “lodestone for migrant families is the educational success of their student children, which is the key to upward social mobility” (p. 144). However, as Ogbu and Simon (1998) have argued, not all migrant groups have fared equally well in the schooling systems of “settler societies” such as the United States and Australia. If we accept the indications that South and East Asian students are scholastically performing better than expected, comparative to their proportion of the population, the question becomes why they do so well. Ziegler’s (2005) actiotope model provides a strong theoretical foundation to explain these differential educational trajectories. In an earlier chapter in this volume, Ziegler, Vialle, and Wimmer (see chapter 1 this volume) presents a model for giftedness that challenges the “trait” view that has dominated much of the literature in the past. The actiotope model proposes that giftedness is not the attribute of an individual but is something that develops over time as individuals interact with their environments. A critical element in the actiotope model is the action repertoire, which is defined as the “sum total of all the actions that a person is basically capable of executing” (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2008, p. 224). The question posed by Ziegler and Stoeger (2008), as to why

152

Wilma Vialle

some individuals are more successful in expanding their action repertoire and thereby attaining excellence, goes to the heart of the attempt to explain the apparent Asian4 superiority in scholastic achievement in Australian schools. The actiotope model, therefore, provides a systemic approach to understanding the achievements of Asian Australian students. Ziegler and Baker (see Chapter 2 this volume) has also proposed that Bourdieu’s notion of “capital” is a useful frame for understanding the development of these actiotopes. Ziegler and Baker (see Chapter 2 this volume) elaborates the concept of capital by identifying “learning capital” as those resources that are unique to the individual and are used to support their learning, and “educational capital” which refers to the societal resources that support their learning. Each of these is further divided into five subcategories. Learning capital includes the sub-categories of organismic, actional, telic, episodic, and attentional, while educational capital includes economic, cultural, social, infrastructural, and didactic (see Ziegler, in press, for details). Most of these categories are relevant to the patterns we have identified in Asian students in Australian schools and will be elaborated in the following section.

Why do they do so well? Various explanations have been offered in the research literature as to the relative academic success of Asian Australian students. The major explanations include the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

genetic factors such as IQ; selective migration patterns; work ethic and effort; motivational patterns, including attitudes to school and goal orientation; and parental support.

These explanations will be examined below. One early explanation for the superior performance of Asian students in Western schools was that there were genetically based group differences in the IQs of East Asians (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994; Lynn, 1987; Vernon, 1982). Among the first to challenge this explanation, however, was Flynn (1991). Utilizing his theory of IQ gain over succeeding generations, Flynn reanalyzed the data from IQ-based research and determined that there was no difference between the means of the Asian Americans and their American counterparts (see, also, Dandy and Nettelbeck, 2002b; Stevenson, Stigler et al., 1985; Stone, 1992). While there may be little or no difference in measured IQ for various Asian groups, Dandy and Nettelbeck’s (2002b) research with Vietnamese, Chinese and Anglo Australian students revealed that the Asian students out-performed their equivalent IQ Anglo students in mathematics achievement. Selective migration has also been proposed as a factor in the strong academic performance of Asian students in Western countries (Hirschman and Wong, 1986).

The “Tiger Mother” factor

153

The argument is that better-educated migrants will produce and nurture offspring who are more educationally oriented. Current migration policies in Australia, for example, favor those with a professional skill-set (Marginson, 2004). The valuing of education as a tool for social mobility, though, transcends such migration policies (Sue and Okazaki, 1990). Sue and Okazaki’s (1990) theory of “relative functionalism” purports that the relationship of one’s cultural values to the demands of navigating and succeeding in a new environment is crucial. Thus, relative functionalism would point to the alignment of Confucian values of effort and reward with many Asian immigrants’ belief in education as a means to upward mobility. Nevertheless, there is insufficient research evidence to indicate what part this might play in Asian Australian school attainments. The stereotype that Chinese and other Asian students work harder than their Western counterparts has received a great deal of support in the research literature (Caplan et al., 1992; Chang, 1985; Dandy and Nettelbeck, 2002b; Hau and Salili, 1990; Ho, Salili, Biggs, and Hau, 1999; Lau and Chan, 2001; McInerney, 2006; Otsuka and Smith, 2005). Lau and Chan’s (2001) study of high-, low- and under-achieving Hong Kong high school students, for example, demonstrated that all three groups most frequently attributed their academic performance, good and bad, to effort. This theme of associating academic outcomes with the amount of effort expended is reflected in research with Asian Australian students who report spending more time on their studies than did Anglo Australian students (see, for example, Cresswell, 2004; Dandy and Nettelbeck, 2002b; McInerney, 2006). While Dandy and Nettelbeck (2002b) found Asian Australian students spent more time studying than Anglo Australians, though, this was not independently correlated with achievement outcomes. The researchers contend that study time and aspirations combine with sociocultural variables associated with ethnicity (such as parental expectations) to explain the differential outcomes. From Ziegler and Baker’s (Chapter 2 this volume) perspective, the students’ attentional learning capital (represented by their allocation of time to study) and telic learning capital (their aspirational goals) interact with the cultural and social educational capital provided by their parents’ values. Examining the data from a number of research projects my colleagues and I have conducted from 2002, the work ethic in Asian students is established early and continues throughout schooling (Quigley, 2002; Vialle, in press; Vialle and Quigley, 2002; Vialle and Tischler, 2004). One typical example is Jie-Qi,5 a preschooler who informed her mother that she preferred Preschool A to Preschool B because the former allowed her to work hard and she found that more interesting (28/08/10).6 Another study we conducted in a Sydney primary school revealed that the Chinese Australian students, as early as Kindergarten and Year 1, would complete their work at school and then go home to complete further “homework” set by parents or grandparents (Quigley, 2002). Finally, at high school, the Asian Australian students demonstrate these work patterns in their comments about effective teaching. For example, in research examining the qualities of effective teachers of gifted students, respondents were required to

154

Wilma Vialle

complete a survey that included open-ended questions (Vialle and Quigley, 2002). Approximately 6% of the respondents (N = 25) indicated that they were Asian Australian students. An analysis of their open-ended responses revealed that they were far more likely than their non-Asian Australian peers to reflect on their own behaviors when responding to the prompt, “Please describe what makes an effective teacher.” The following statement sums up the sentiment expressed by the majority of the Asian Australian students: “I believe that, if a student is not willing to work hard, it is better for that student to not be in the class at all.” The students indicated they were not only willing to work hard themselves but expected it of their teachers as well. Again, an illustrative comment was “teachers should have the willingness to devote time after school to helping students.” Research has shown that the Asian Australian cohort of students is far more likely to hold positive attitudes to school (Cresswell, 2004) and to direct its attentive resources to learning (see e.g. Ainley, 1995; McInerney, 2008). This factor has been shown to be correlated strongly with academic outcomes in the Wollongong Youth Study, a longitudinal research study of 900 secondary school students (Vialle, Heaven and Ciarrochi, 2007). The students are willing to spend significant time at home and with tutors to ensure that their mastery of content is assured. This approach that the Asian Australian students take to their learning at school is an example of the attentional learning capital identified by Ziegler and Baker (chapter 2 this volume). Closely related to the work ethic of Asian Australian students are their motivation patterns. Some cross-cultural research has focused on the construct of motivation in an attempt to explain the superior academic performance of Asian students in schooling and on international measures such as PISA and TIMSS (see, for example, Eaton and Dembo, 1997; Leung, 2002; Stevenson and Lee, 1996). Eaton and Dembo (1997) suggested that East Asian Americans, for example, set higher goals for themselves and judged their performance more stringently, thereby encouraging them to expend more effort to attain those goals. While acknowledging the potential contribution of lower levels of absenteeism on their academic performance, McInerney’s (2008) motivation research revealed that the Asian Australian students had higher levels of mastery orientation, valued and liked school, and aspired to higher education to a greater degree than do their peers. Peer influence on motivation was also reported as a more positive influence for the Asian students. McInerney’s research suggests a difference in degree rather than kind on motivational variables, a finding that was later supported by a comparative study of Hong Kong and Australian students’ achievement motivations (Martin and Hau, 2010). An analysis of PISA data conducted by Cresswell (2004) found that Australian students from Chinese backgrounds had higher levels of instrumental motivation (i.e. learning is motivated by external factors such as employment) than their peers. Ziegler and Baker (chapter 2 this volume) concept of telic learning capital is reflected in the motivation and aspirations that Asian Australian students hold for their schooling. As McInerney (2008) indicated, Asian Australian students are

The “Tiger Mother” factor

155

more likely to have goals that are aligned with a mastery orientation. Similarly, the students in my research on effective teachers also demonstrated a clear focus on mastering the content of their academic subjects, which was reflected in the high expectations they had of teachers to facilitate their attainment of their achievement goals (Vialle and Tischler, 2005; Vialle and Quigley, 2002). Ziegler (2005) proposed that goals within the actiotope model need to be mediated to be optimal. The students were proactive in seeking mentors that would assist them in working towards their goals, as the following excerpts from interviews illustrate.

• • • • •

I always look for a teacher who gives individual help to students; A good teacher understands students’ needs, knows what we want to know, thinks from our perspective, respects our opinion and our way of logical thinking; My ideal teacher is willing to dedicate extra time and energy so students can excel; A teacher becomes a mentor for me when they are asking questions (of students), and accepting questions (from students); and To improve this class, we need more tutoring opportunities and more time to talk with teachers during class time/school time. (28/2/06).

The motivation to perform well at school and to master the content that will lead to the successful attainment of vocational aspirations is a strong theme in my current research with Asian Australian secondary school students. The students consistently talked in these focus group interviews about their desire to master the curriculum and perform well, indicating that they expected to work hard (unpublished raw data). The following comments are typical of their interview responses to questions about an effective teacher:

•

• • • •

is willing to help his students achieve their goals [student 4]; does not waste time [student 17]; covers all the material, doesn’t digress [student 8]; an ineffective teacher does not convey that he/she expects students to work hard and do well [student 24]; the class would be better with more worksheets but with non-repetitive questions [student 11]. (28/2/06)

Asian Australian students were more likely to appreciate the intellectual characteristics of their teachers than were other groups of students. In a study of selective school students’ perceptions of effective teachers (Vialle and Quigley, 2002), we administered the Preferred Teacher Characteristic Scale. This instrument is a 36-item forced-choice questionnaire that asks students to select an intellectual (is an expert) or personal (has a sense of humor) characteristic for each item. Personal characteristics are scored 0 and intellectual characteristics are scored 1, yielding a total score between 0 and 36. The closer the score is to 0, the greater is the

156

Wilma Vialle

preference for personal characteristics. The mean of the overall sample (N = 387) was 10.27 compared to the mean of 19.88 for the sub-group of South and East Asian students (N = 25), indicating that the Asian Australian students were far more appreciative of their teachers’ intellect and subject expertise than the other students. Notably, in the Asian sub-group, 10 was the lowest total score of any student. While interview data from the overall sample described effective teachers, drawing on a blend of personal and intellectual characteristics, the Asian Australian students were far more focused on how teachers could facilitate their academic outcomes. Typical comments from the Asian Australian students include the following descriptions of an effective teacher:

• •

• • • • • •

good, clear precise explanations [student 14]; well organised, consistent method and medium for getting material across (allows students to get into an efficient pattern) [student 16]; someone who presents clearly the theory of things [student 22]; being able to cover all subjects “one time”, taking time to make sure everything was learnt thoroughly [student 3]; knowledge/interest in subject [student 7]; knowledgeable, covers all curriculum [student 13]; good teaching strategies, mainly according to students’ way of learning, not unclear, know what they are saying and that students know too (your logic doesn’t necessarily work for us) [student 25]; and clear explanation of the subject matter and the objectives of the course, effective supervision of homework completion [student 19]. (28/2/06).

Parents concur, deliberately inculcating the motivation to work hard and achieve highly in their offspring. Several parents indicated in interviews that children could excel with the right motivation and work ethic. For example, one mother stated that the “learner needs to understand that effective learning strategies are derived from motivation” (20/3/11). The principal of the top-performing selective school in New South Wales echoed the sentiments of the parents: “Student achievement is more to do with motivation, the high value their families place on education and the support they receive” (8/6/11). Her observation was reflected consistently in comments made by teachers in other selective schools, who attributed the academic success of their Asian students to the latter’s motivation to attain very clear academic and vocational goals. Again, this reflects their telic and episodic learning capital. Some of the Australian teachers interviewed, however, were vocal in condemnation of the narrow focus of those goals. For example, one deputy principal indicated that some of their students would be motivated to work hard to attain their Licentiate of Music Australia7 (L. Mus. A) qualification and then give up playing once they had attained the milestone to focus instead on their remaining academic subjects (9/6/11).

The “Tiger Mother” factor

157

The Asian Australian students’ motivational patterns and goal orientations illustrate the concept of episodic learning capital. As Ziegler and Baker (chapter 2 this volume) has posited, episodic learning capital involves bringing together individuals’ goals with context-relevant action patterns to enhance their learning. Along with other forms of learning and educational capital available to the students, this potent combination helps us understand their comparatively high levels of academic achievement. The motivation to expend effort can be seen to derive from high aspirations and expectations on the part of the students themselves and their parents. The role of parents has been reported to be a critical influence on students’ aspirations (Dandy and Nettelbeck, 2000). Research with Asian American families consistently demonstrates their higher educational aspirations and expectations compared to other cultural groups (Chen and Stevenson, 1989; Sue and Okazaki, 1990). In Australia, Dandy and Nettelbeck (2002a) found similar results when they compared the expectations and aspirations of Asian Australian (Chinese and Vietnamese) and Anglo-Celtic parents. Dandy and Nettelbeck’s (2002b) research also demonstrated that Vietnamese and Chinese students had aspirations of higher status occupations than Anglo-Celtic students matched on IQ and socioeconomic status. Other Australian research by McInerney (2006; 2008) and analysis of PISA data (Cresswell, 2004) demonstrated greater aspirations to attend university on the part of Asian Australian students. In line with their high aspirations for their offspring, Asian parents have expressed particular expectations of, and for, their children, including: (1) Asian parents requested more homework of teachers compared to AngloAustralian parents who requested less homework (Dandy and Nettelbeck, 2002b). (2) Asian parents structured out-of-school activities and set specific times for study for their children (Malik, 1998). (3) Asian parents expect them to persevere at difficult tasks (Otsuka and Smith, 2005). From Ziegler and Baker’s (chapter 2 this volume) perspective, these expectations by parents reflect their cultural and social education capital, but there is also a suggestion of the didactic education capital at work here in the educational choices they make for their children to guarantee their academic success. Interestingly, the Asian students indicated lower levels of parental support, which McInerney (2008) hypothesized was the students’ interpretation of help they received within the home; they ignored the sizeable investment by parents in private tutoring. The parents in my current research concur with these sentiments but match these expectations for their children with the commitment of financial resources, often requiring long hours of work or personal sacrifices. This ranges from paying for music, art or dancing classes to hiring personal tutors for additional coaching in academic subjects, as well as the provision of specialist equipment and materials

158

Wilma Vialle

to support their learning. This is an example of their utilization of economic educational capital (Ziegler & Baker, chapter 2 this volume). The employment of private tutors has become so prevalent in schools in New South Wales that many teachers are expressing concern about the long-term impact of such services. Of particular concern is that this industry is not regulated and may, in some cases, do more harm than good. In a recent group interview with selective schools principals, I proposed that we design a research study to evaluate the effectiveness of private tutoring but they responded that they would not have sufficient students who were not being tutored to serve as a comparison group (1/4/11). While their economic educational capital may not be greater than non-Asian families, Asian parents utilize their financial resources strategically to benefit their children’s education. These “extras” complement their use of the governmentfunded selective schools, which provides a less expensive option than the private schooling adopted by many middle-class and wealthy Anglo Australian parents (Ho, 2011). There are also multiple examples of how the infrastructural educational capital available to Asian Australian families is utilized to support the learning outcomes of the Asian Australian students. The first relates to the learning opportunities designed by parents for their children. Many families have made the decision to migrate to Australia specifically to provide educational opportunities for their children. They are also far more likely to be found in the two major capital cities, Sydney and Melbourne, because of the learning opportunities such cities afford. They also go to great lengths, hiring tutors and setting learning pathways for their children from the beginning of school, to ensure that they are selected into the academic selective streams in late primary school and secondary school. Not surprisingly, then, obligation to parents is a feature of Asian students’ motivation to succeed in school (Dandy and Nettelbeck, 2000; Malik, 1998; Otsuka and Smith, 2005). Such obligation most likely derives from Confucian principles of filial piety. “A salient feature of the father-child relationship is the unquestioned obedience of the son to the authority of the father” (Tu, 1985, p. 234). One parent in my current research in selective high schools indicated that “Asian families are strong and work together. Children always respect their elders and their teachers. This is very important for them to do well at school” (22/4/11). Hence, cultural educational capital (Ziegler & Baker, chapter 2 this volume) is also a feature of the performance of Asian Australian students with a high value placed on education by their families. The research described herein has revealed the positive attitude to schooling that the children hold, which has been inculcated by their parents. For example, the Asian parents (and grandparents) in one of our studies monitored the children’s behavior in the classroom and if the children were not sufficiently attentive, the parent or grandparent would march into the classroom and discipline their child (Quigley, 2002). The parents also established routines around learning from Kindergarten on by setting additional homework or structuring practice times.

The “Tiger Mother” factor

159

Social educational capital refers to the kinds of support provided by those around the learner and flows from the points in the previous paragraph. It is clear that Asian parents provide a great deal of social support to their children, although the children may not always recognize this readily (see McInerney, 2008). Ziegler’s (2005) argument that giftedness is not a trait of an individual is consistent with the attitudes expressed by Asian Australian students and their parents. For the Asian Australians in my various research undertakings, giftedness or excellence or high achievement is the outcome of effort. Parents go to great lengths to instill in their children the belief that they are capable of high achievement, and the attitude that they should aspire to such excellence in all their endeavors. These attitudes are coherent with the “anticipative competencies” described by Ziegler (2005, p. 427) that lead to excellence. Finally, didactic educational capital plays a part in the accomplishments of Asian Australian students. The parents who were part of the research studies reported in this chapter shared an orientation toward capitalizing on the educational resources available in Australia. They draw on the strong networks they have established to get the best information about educational pathways and opportunities for their children. They are strongly represented in associations that support gifted children and regularly attend seminars to enhance their own knowledge.

Are Asian Australian parental expectations aligned with Australian teachers’ expectations? In my current research, however, there is some tension between the Chinese parents’ expectations of education and the teachers’ views about the parenting style of many of these parents. The specter of stern disciplinarians who force their children into particular school subjects and vocations is a stereotype that is held by many of the teacher respondents in my current research. This arose in our interviews following the release of Amy Chua’s (2011) controversial book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. In this book, Chua outlines the harsh regimen she imposed on her two children and justifies the “hard line” she adopted as coming from a place of deep love and respect for the children. Chua stated: Western parents are extremely anxious about their children's self-esteem. They worry about how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are concerned about their children’s psyches. Chinese parents aren’t. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently … Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn't get them, the Chinese parent assumes it’s because the child didn't work hard enough. (p. x)

160

Wilma Vialle

I discussed Chua’s ideas about parenting “tiger mother” style, and found quite polarized responses between my teacher and parent participants. Most teachers were horrified by some of the examples of Chua’s parenting (such as banishing the younger child to stand outside in the cold because of her refusal to play a particular piece on the piano), with a small number even labeling it “child abuse.” In our primary school data, we had examples of Chinese grandparents standing outside the Kindergarten classroom window and then going inside to chastise their grandchild if the child was not paying sufficient attention in class (Quigley, 2002). The secondary teachers in the current study cited examples in their schools of parents “over-scheduling” their children with too much structured activity, including music or dance or art lessons, Saturday maths schools, Mandarin or Cantonese language classes, and so on. They also commented on parents pushing their children into a very narrow selection of academic subjects. For example, at one Sydney selective high school, the Deputy Principal observed that the student body refers openly to choosing either the Indian or the Chinese menu of subjects for the Higher School Certificate. The Chinese choice is three Sciences and two Mathematics subjects, while the Indian choice is two Sciences, two Mathematics and Economics (1/4/11). Other researchers have commented on the narrow selection of subjects adopted by Asian Australian students, indicating that such choices were generally high-status subjects (McInerney, 2008; Sturman and Sharpley, 1992). Sturman and Sharpley (1992) observed that non-Englishspeaking-background (NESB) students were more likely to enroll in Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, and Economics. Further, parents often selected subjects for the students, according to one research study conducted in Australia (Malik, 1998). As a result of this narrow focus, the selective school above is unable to offer some subjects, such as Visual Art, after Year 9 because of insufficient enrolments. The perception among the teachers is that well-roundedness – their preference – is being sacrificed on the altar of academic excellence. In the selective schools where the Asian enrolment is not the majority group (such as non-metropolitan schools), teachers do not perceive it as such an issue, although several have commented that they actively discourage students from narrow selections. One science teacher at a non-metropolitan selective school indicated to me that “we tell them not to do more than one or two Science subjects because they don’t need it to get into Uni” (20/6/11). This is at odds with the students’ goals in many cases, where they are more concerned with mastery of the content (28/3/06). The Chinese parents in my current research reacted quite differently with most approving of the “tiger mother” approach. Xiaolin, the mother of a five-year old, was typical of many of the Chinese parents in my study. She commented: I think her ideas are excellent. That’s how I raise Jie-Qi. When she is practicing the violin at home [Xiaolin has scheduled half an hour daily violin practice for her daughter], if she doesn’t give 100% effort, I tell her she will have

The “Tiger Mother” factor

161

to stop the violin because there is no point in not doing things as well as you can. Then she works harder and she enjoys it more. (13/6/11) While the teachers in my current study tend to be critical of the kind of control and feedback given by Asian parents to their children, the parents report that they are motivated by intense love and respect for their children. They are willing to work extra jobs or sacrifice treats for themselves to provide enriching opportunities for their children. Xiaolin, for example, explained to me that she has enrolled her preschool daughter in ballet classes, music lessons, art classes, swimming lessons and Mandarin language classes (31/8/10). Each of these structured activities is designed deliberately by Xiaolin to develop self-discipline and self-regulation skills in her child. The feedback she gives to her five-year-old daughter may sound quite harsh to some Western ears, but it is intended to communicate Xiaolin’s strong belief in her daughter’s intelligence, concentration, and creativity. As indicated above, the Chinese parents in my current study believed that the high expectations and aspirations that they held for their children were necessary for them to attain excellence. They believed that the structure and discipline they demanded of their children would equip them with strong self-efficacy and good self-regulation skills. This stands in stark contrast to some assumptions that the Chinese parenting style, as popularized by Amy Chua, would undermine children’s confidence and create dependent, compliant children without a vestige of creativity. There is certainly evidence to support the Chinese parents’ position in work on attribution theory (Weiner, 1986). In a recent study, we found that the feedback given by preservice teachers to students with learning disabilities, while intended to be sympathetic, instead sent a message to students that they were not capable and thereby undermined their self-efficacy (Woodcock and Vialle, 2010).

Conclusion To summarize the differences between Asian students and their counterparts in Australian schools, as a group Asian students demonstrate higher levels of academic achievement in their secondary school subjects, particularly in mathematics. They are over-represented in academically selective classes, particularly in the secondary school setting, and are more likely to undertake tertiary studies. They exhibit higher levels of motivation, are more likely to adopt mastery goals, and have higher aspirations for their school performance and careers. Consequently, they are more likely to enjoy school and are willing to spend more time on their studies. As indicated, Ziegler’s actiotope model challenges the mechanistic view of giftedness that is inherent in many approaches to gifted education. This chapter also supports the move away from a mechanistic view of intelligence, whereby the superior performance of Asian Australian students would be seen as resulting from higher IQs, propensity for mathematics, or selective migration patterns of higher IQ parents. Rather, it points to the need for a systemic view of giftedness

162

Wilma Vialle

(see Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012) that recognizes that the development of excellence proceeds from the individual within his or her environment. The Asian parents, featured in the Australian research studies reported in this chapter, share this systemic perspective in their expectations for their children and the manner in which they interact with and support their children’s learning. The “tiger mothers” recognize their role in their children’s learning and are instrumental in building individual learning pathways for their children. In other words, they utilize a dynamic-integrative regulation of their children’s learning (Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). This chapter has argued that on some measures – such as, academic performance at school, particularly in Mathematics; and, selective school enrolment – South and East Asian Australian students are achieving excellence in the Australian school system. The actiotope model provides a coherent theoretical foundation for the factors that research has associated with the high achievements of these students compared to their Australian peers. Through the lenses of learning and educational capital (Ziegler & Baker, chapter 2 this volume), we can understand how the academic outcomes, the motivational and aspirational patterns, and the resources provided by parents within the Confucian-heritage value system combine in Asian Australian students to support their learning. As I have argued, the learning capital resources support the learning of these South and East Asian Australian students. The telic learning capital is reflected in the motivational goals the students have for their learning; the episodic learning capital combines these goals and their situational contexts with their action repertoires to result in high academic outcomes; and, the attentional learning capital reflects their self-discipline and time commitment with regard to their learning. Similarly, the educational capital resources that proceed largely from the actions of parents also support the learning of South and East-Asian Australian students. Economic educational capital reflects the financial resources directed at the children’s learning; cultural educational capital entails the value of education shared by the Asian parents in our research; social educational capital reflects the range of supports provided by the parents, including their high expectations for their children’s success; infrastructural educational capital is found in the parents’ careful planning of learning opportunities for their children, including selection of school subjects; and, finally, didactic educational capital is reflected in the ways that Asian parents utilize their networks and seek information to help them guide educational decision-making with their children. Asian parents, characterized in this chapter as “tiger mothers,” devote themselves to their children’s learning, having a clear and positive effect on their children’s action repertoires and the delineation of “a learning path … that leads to excellence” (Ziegler, 2005, p. 431). This does not mean that all parents or teachers need to become “tiger mothers” to put children on the appropriate pathway to excellence. But a focus on how we can work within the actiotope framework to understand how individuals can make the most of their environmental

The “Tiger Mother” factor

163

supports, develop their subjective action spaces and attain excellence, is a must for education, both practically and theoretically.

Notes 1 In New South Wales, students sit statewide examinations in each of their subjects at the end of Year 12. The students’ scores on these examinations are combined with in-school assessments to attain a standardized score for each subject and are reported in their Higher School Certificate (HSC). The ranking of schools is calculated on the number of HSC subject scores of more than 90 attained by students when compared with the total number of students in the school. 2 First-generation students are those who were born in Australia but whose parents were born overseas; second-generation students are the offspring of first-generation Australians. 3 Students’ Year 12 final results are standardized to a score out of 100 across all students in the state of Victoria. An average of 95 percent in this context indicates that the mean score for Melbourne High School Year 12 students has been in the 95th percentile for that period of time. 4 For the sake of brevity the term “Asian” from this point forward will be used for the sub-groups of South and East Asian students who are the subjects of the various research studies included in this chapter. 5 Pseudonyms are used for all respondents. 6 Dates provided in this format refer to raw data collected on that date. 7 The L. Mus. A is the highest level of performance awarded by the Australian Music Examination Board. It requires students to have achieved near-perfect mastery of their instrument.

References ACARA (2011). My school website. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://www. myschool.edu.au/ Ainley, J. (1995). Students’ views of their schools. Unicorn, 21(3), 5–16. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Australian Census data. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au Caplan, N., Choy, M. H., and Whitmore, J. K. (1992). Indochinese refugee families and academic achievement. Scientific American, 266(2), 18–24. Chang, C. (1985). Family influences on school achievement in China. US-China Friendship, 4, 20–30. Chen, C. and Stevenson, H. W. (1989). Homework: A cross-cultural examination. Child Development, 60, 551–561. Chua, A. (2011). Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. New York: Penguin. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., and York, R. L. (1996). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: Washington Center for Educational Statistics. Cresswell, J. (2004). Immigrant status and home language background: Implications for Australian student performance in PISA 2000. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research. Dandy, J. and Nettelbeck, T. (2002a). A cross-cultural study of parents’ academic standards and educational aspirations for their children. Educational Psychology, 22, 621–627.

164

Wilma Vialle

Dandy, J. and Nettelbeck, T. (2002b). The relationship between IQ, homework, aspirations and academic achievement for Chinese, Vietnamese and Anglo-Celtic Australian school children. Educational Psychology, 22, 267–275. Dandy, J. and Nettelbeck, T. (2000). The model student? An investigation of Chinese Australian students’ academic achievement, studying, and causal attributions for academic success and failure. Australian Psychologist, 35, 208–215. Eaton, M. J. and Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of Asian American and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 433–440. Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Big White Lie: Chinese Australians in White Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. Flynn, J. R. (1991). Asian Americans: Achievement beyond IQ. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hau, K.-T. and Salili, F. (1990). Examination result attribution, expectancy and achievement goals among Chinese students in Hong Kong. Educational Studies, 16, 17–32. Herrnstein, R. J. and Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press. Ho, C. (2011). ‘My School’ and others: Segregation and white flight. Retrieved June 8, 2011, from http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2011/05/ho.html Ho, I. T., Salili, F., Biggs, J. B., and Hau, K.-T. (1999). The relationship among causal attributions, learning strategies and level of achievement: A Hong Kong Chinese study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 19, 44–58. Hsia, J. (1998). Asian Americans in Higher Education and at Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Inglis, C. (2003). Contemporary educational issues in multicultural immigrant societies. In M. Charney, B.S.A. Yech, and T.C. Kiong (eds.), Asian Migrant and Education: The Tensions of Education in Immigrant Societies and Among Migrant Groups (pp. 133–148). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Jakubowicz, A. (2009). Cultural Diversity, Cosmopolitan Citizenship and Education: Issues, Options and Implications for Australia. Sydney: Australian Education Union. Khoo, S.-W. and Birrell, B. (2002). The progress of young people of migrant origin in Australia. People and Place, 10, 30–44. Lau, K. L. and Chan, D. W. (2001). Motivational characteristics of under-achievers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 22, 417–430. Leung, F. K. S. (2002). Behind the high achievement of East Asian students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8, 87–108. Lynn, R. (1987). The intelligence of the Mongoloids: A psychometric, evolutionary and neurological theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 813–844. Malik, R. S. (1998). Accounting for the differential academic performance: A case of the Chinese-Australian and Anglo-Australian children. Paper presented to 29th Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Adelaide. Marginson, S. (2004, September). They still call multiculturalism home: Migration, language and education in Australia. Paper presented to session on Citizenship education: The key to an active and engaged citizenry? Multicultural Futures Conference, Monash University, Prato. Marks, G. N., Fleming, N., Long, M., and McMillan, J. (2000). Patterns of participation in Year 12 and higher education in Australia: Trends and issues. LSAY Research Report No 17. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.

The “Tiger Mother” factor

165

Martin, A. J. and Hau, K.-T. (2010). Achievement motivation among Chinese and Australian school students: Assessing differences of kind and differences of degree. International Journal of Testing, 10, 274–294. McInerney, D. M. (2006). The motivational profiles and perceptions of schooling of Asian students in Australia. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 3, 1–31. McInerney, D. M. (2008). Personal investment, culture and learning: Insights into school achievement across Anglo, Indigenous, Asian and Lebanese students in Australia. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 870–879. Melbourne High School (2010). Melbourne High School website. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://resources.mhs.vic.edu.au/mhs/index.html. Ogbu, J. U. and Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A culturalecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29, 155–188. Otsuka, S. and Smith, I. D. (2005). Educational applications of the expectancy-value model of achievment motivation in the diverse cultural contexts of the west and the east. Change: Transformations in Education, 8(1), 91–109. Paar, N. and Mok, M. (1995). Differences in the educational achievements, aspirations, and values in birthplaces groups in New South Wales, People and Place, 3, 1–8. Pieke, F. N. (1991). Chinese educational achievement and folk theories of success. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22, 162–179. Quigley, S. (2002). An analysis of effective interactions in early reading instruction. Unpublished Honours Thesis. University of Wollongong, NSW. Schneider, B., Hieshima, J. A., Lee, S., and Plank, S. (1994). East-Asian academic success in the United States: Family, school, and community explanations. In P. M. Greenfield and R. R. Cocking (eds.), Cross-cultural Roots of Minority Child Development (pp. 323–350). New York: Prentice-Hall. Stevenson, H. W. and Lee, S.-Y. (1996). The academic achievement of Chinese students. In M. H. Bond (ed.), A Handbook of Chinese Psychology (pp. 124–142). New York: Oxford University Press. Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lee, S., Lucker, G. W., Kitamura, S., and Hsu, C. (1985). Cognitive performance and academic achievement of Japanese, Chinese, and American children. Child Development, 56, 718–734. Stone, B. J. (1992). Prediction of achievement by Asian-American and white children. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 91–99. Sturman, A. and Sharpley, B. (1992). Social justice and the curriculum: An investigation into the participation in the curriculum of different groups of students. Paper presented at the AARE/NZARE Conference. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://www.aare. edu.au/92pap/stura92120.txt. Sue, S. and Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements. American Psychologist, 45, 913–920. Suzuki, B. (1980). Education and the socialization of Asian Americans: A revolutionist analysis of the ‘model’ minority thesis. In R. Endo, S. Sue, and N. Wagner (eds.), Asian Americans: Social and Psychological Perspectives (pp. 155–178). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavioural Books. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., Nicholas, M., Hillman, K., and Buckley, S. (2010). Challenges for Australian Education: Results from PISA 2009. Retrieved March 6, 2012, from http://www.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/reports.

166

Wilma Vialle

Tu, W.-M. (1985). Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, and F. L. K. Hsu (eds.), Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives (pp. 231–251). New York: Tavistock Publications. Vernon, P. E. (1982). The abilities and achievements of Orientals in North America. New York: Academic Press. Vialle, W. (in press). ‘I don’t think I’m a boy!’ Social understanding and giftedness in preschoolers. In H. Stoeger, B. Harder, and A. Aljughaiman (eds.), Talent Development and Excellence (pp. 117–134). Zurich and Berlin: Lit. Vialle, W., Heaven, P. C. L., and Ciarrochi, J. (2007). On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong Youth Study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 569–586. Vialle, W. and Quigley, S. (2002). Does the teacher of the gifted need to be gifted? Gifted and Talented International, 17, 86–90. Vialle, W. and Tischler, K. (2005). Teachers of the gifted: A comparison of students’ perspectives in Australia, Austria and the United States. Gifted Education International, 19(2), 173–181. Walker, J. (1994, March 15). Middle-class aspirations are Darra’s driving force. The Australian: Asians in Australia Supplement, 4–5. Walkey, F. H. and Chung, R. C.-Y. (1996). An examination of stereotypes of Chinese and Europeans held by some New Zealand secondary school pupils. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 27, 283–292. Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Woodcock, S. and Vialle, W. (2010). Attributional beliefs of students with learning disabilities. The International Journal of Learning, 17(7), 177–192. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., & Baker, J. (2012). Talent development as adaptation: The role of educational and learning capital. In S. N. Phillipson, H. Stoeger, and A. Ziegler (eds.), Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. (pp. 18–39). London: Routledge. Ziegler, A. and Phillipson, S. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of giftedness [Target article]. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30. Ziegler, A. and Stoeger, H. (2008). A learning oriented subjective action space as an indicator of giftedness. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 222–236.

Chapter 10

Parental involvement within the actiotope model of giftedness What it means for East-Asian students Sivanes Phillipson and Sin Yin Janet Yick

The role of family and parents is recognized as important in the development of giftedness and gifted children (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008). Chinese students perceive parental expectations displayed through their involvement and the family cohesion as vital parental functions in enhancing their excellence (Chan, 2005). This indicates that parental influence in children’s excellence is crucial for their development, socially and educationally. This chapter explores how parental involvement in children’s lives can be interpreted using the actiotope model of giftedness to understand its broad implications to high-achieving East-Asian students. To complete this examination, this chapter begins with a theoretical review of the actiotope model and how its components of action repertoire and subjective action space can be viewed in relation to parental involvement and children’s achievements. This is followed by a literature review of parental involvement and its contribution to children’s education and achievements. Using a methodology of synthesis of eight meta-analyses, we put forward an empirical discussion of how parental involvement serves as the environmental stimulus to children’s action spaces and helps them toward their goals.

The actiotope model The actiotope model (Ziegler, 2005; Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012) is a systems approach model that places actions in relation to the environment in pursuit of targeted goals. The action dimension has two main components – action repertoire and subjective action space – that interact with the environment in achieving connected goals. Of particular interest to this chapter is the link between children’s action repertoire and subjective action space with the environment as represented by a significant person in children’s lives such as peers, teachers and parents. Being able to act relevantly in response to feedback or reactions given by a peer, a teacher or a parent in learning situations, children need to determine the appropriate sets of actions to fulfill their reaction. How children respond to particular parental expectations that is conveyed within parental interactions when, for example, they support their children in their homework, can be prescribed by the volatility of the subjective action space. The word “subjective” denotes a

168

Sivanes Phillipson and Sin Yin Janet Yick

personal construct where parents and children negotiate relationships that lead to the expected outcomes. We view this personal construct as children’s affective space that might be impacted by parental involvement to help children excel in whatever they do. How much of this space would children need for parents to transfer their beliefs and expectations, in our opinion, are arbitrary according to individuals’ motivations to become involved and their related goal orientation. The actiotope model also holds the key to a clearer iteration of intentions (Ziegler et al., 2010) and how those iterations transform to goals for the child (Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). It might be that the action repertoire is seen as a malleable construct alongside the subjective action space due to aspects of intentions. Intentions can be viewed as the motivation children have in internalizing parental expectations and beliefs during everyday interactions. Intentions can further be seen as in why parents get involved with their children’s education and development, especially when the intentions are linked to their social capital and background (Yamamoto and Holloway, 2010). Hence, it is imperative for us to understand why parents do become involved in their children’s development and education. The answers to the “why” question provides us with a conceptual rationale that links the functions of parents’ involvement in influencing their children’s action repertoire and subjective action space toward their academic goals. The next section thus reviews literature that rationalizes parental involvement and children’s education and achievement.

Why do parents become involved? Why do parents become involved? (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey, et al., 2005). This question highlights parents’ motivation to be involved in their children’s education and achievement. Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005) believed that parents become involved with their children’s education for three reasons: (a) parents’ belief systems (including their ideas of child development and parenting and their sense of efficacy for helping their children succeed in school); (b) invitations and demands for involvement from child and school; and (c) parents’ life contexts (including their social values). Accordingly, these reasons are taken as the dimensions of parental involvement for the current discussion.

Parental belief systems The first rationale for parents’ involvement is related to parental aspirations, expectations, beliefs and their related motivation for their involvement in their children’s schooling. Where parental involvement worked as a platform for parents that enabled the transfer of their beliefs and expectations to their children,

Parental involvement within the actiotope model

169

such involvement tended to be related to students’ academic achievement (Epstein, 1991). Parents’ estimates of their children’s cognitive abilities might not necessarily relate to children’s actual abilities, but it shapes the way parents raise their children and the aspirations that they have for their children (Dandy and Nettelbeck, 2002a). Wu and Qi (2006) concluded that parents’ beliefs in their children’s abilities predicted their children’s academic achievements in mathematics, reading and science, both concurrently and prospectively. Additionally, parental beliefs were known to relate strongly with parental expectations. In particular, Chinese parents of highly able children tended to have higher expectations regarding the outcome of their abilities (Chan, 2005). Accordingly, Yamamoto and Holloway (2010) submitted that Asian American parents had higher expectations, and in particular, expectations of effort by their children, which appeared to have significant impact upon students’ achievements. If communicated, these expectations could result in students working harder to achieve the desired academic performance (Tsui, 2005).

Invitations and demands The second rationale for parents’ involvement with their children’s education – invitations and demands from the child and the school – is more widely researched. One example is the role of parents in helping students with school homework. In order to see positive outcomes and achievement in school, parents provide different forms of support for school homework, especially if their children have difficulties (Epstein, 2006; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001). When assisting students with their homework, it is found that parents need to communicate positive attitudes and dispositions toward their children’s attempts at their homework (Pomerantz et al., 2005). Younger school children, in general, seek their parents’ involvement at the school level more than would adolescents (Collins and Madsen, 2003). However, how involved parents are at the school level is found to be dependent upon the extent to which the school is “welcoming” (Feiler et al., 2006). Parents may perceive schools to be open or hostile to their involvement, and schools’ or teachers’ invitations to be involved could eliminate some doubts as to the schools’ intentions. Furthermore, fostering home-school shared communication and engagement could be beneficial for children’s academic achievement (e.g. DePlanty et al., 2007; Hung, 2007).

Parents’ life context Parents’ life context – the third reason for parental involvement – has more to do with their social circumstances. Dandy and Nettlebeck (2002b) and Hung (2007) concluded that the means by which parents communicated their beliefs and expectations through their involvement depended upon the opportunities that were created through their social status. Tsui (2005) demonstrated that Chinese

170

Sivanes Phillipson and Sin Yin Janet Yick

parents of low and high income did not differ in their expectations of their children’s academic achievements, whereas US parents of lower income had lower expectations than US parents with higher incomes. Martin et al. (2007) finds that lower expectations connected with lower income in American families result from a paucity of educational resources at home, leading in turn, to fewer opportunities for success. Having a higher income that facilitates greater access to educational resources such as tuition is also cited as a reason for Hong Kong Chinese students’ academic success (Chow, 2000). Furthermore, parents with higher educational levels and occupational attainment can bring about better psychological support when their children are pursuing study, and hence, are able to promote academic achievement (Hung, 2007).

Research setting In this chapter, we argue that these three dimensions of parental involvement form the complex environment link within the actiotope model. Parental involvement works as a platform that enables the transfer of parents’ beliefs and expectations to their children’s actions in learning and their achievement of goals. Parental social capital and opportunities in the home–school partnership create support to children’s action spaces and the resulting achievement of goals. The elements of parental involvement in relation to children’s intention and achievement, especially in light of their action spaces, is looked into closely, by aiming to answer the following research questions in a synthesis of past meta-analyses of parental involvement research: (1) Which types of parental involvement from the three dimensions contribute to children’s academic goals? (2) How do these types of parental involvement contribute to children’s academic goals? We searched and reviewed meta-analyses that have focused on the relationship between parental involvement and students’ academic outcomes, including those that covered East-Asian research. Studies were included in our analysis if they met the following criteria: (a) meta-analyses examining the relationship between parental involvement and children’s overall or particular types of achievement; and (b) meta-analyses published between 1990 and 2011. No specific age group was focused upon in this review paper. A total of eight meta-analyses that involved a total of 277 studies on parental involvement fulfilled this criteria and were used for analysis.

Method A number of computerized databases were searched, using a combination of varying keywords: parental involvement, achievement, academic achievement,

Parental involvement within the actiotope model

171

performance, children outcome, and parents. The databases included: Psycinfo, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ProQuest Education Journal, Scopus, and Wiley InterScience Journals. We also completed manual searches of journal articles in libraries that were available to us. We reviewed the reference sections of each selected article to ensure that we had listed all relevant meta-analyses.

Analysis First, we evaluated and summarized the aims, methods and findings of each metaanalysis. This was followed by a creation of a conceptual model for each metaanalysis to provide an overview of our synthesis. A total of eight individual models are produced from the eight meta-analyses (Erion, 2006; Fan and Chen, 2001; Hill and Tyson, 2009; Jeynes, 2003, 2005, 2007; Patall, Cooper, and Robinson, 2008; Senechal and Young, 2008). Each model elaborates types of parental involvement and other moderating variables that influence children’s academic achievement. Each model consists of similar independent variables (general or certain types of parental involvement) and dependent variables (academic achievement/outcome/goals), while the moderating variables vary across studies. Finally, one meta-conceptual model is produced from the common factors of the different findings represented in each meta-analysis incorporating the actiotopes for children’s achievement. Due to space limitation only the meta-conceptual model is presented in this chapter.

The eight meta-analyses In this section, we review each meta-analysis, beginning with the earliest metaanalysis (Fan and Chen, 2001) to the latest (Hill and Tyson, 2009) and interpret each meta-analysis in the context of the actiotopes. A summary of the studies, including the effect sizes between variables in the study is presented in Table 10.1.

Meta-analysis 1 – Fan and Chen ( 2001 ) This meta-analysis of 25 studies concluded that various factors have significant moderating effects on the correlation between parental involvement and students’ academic attainments. The variables included domains of academic achievement (math, reading, science, social studies, etc.), nature of parental involvement (parental home supervision, expectations/aspirations, different operational definition of parent involvement) and types of measures of academic achievement (including test scores and school grade point average [GPA], for example). Even though there were inconsistencies across studies due to potential moderators, results in this meta-analysis supported the finding that parental involvement was moderately positive and correlated with children’s educational outcome (r = 0.25). Within the actiotope model, this could be interpreted as parental

Jeynes

2

2003

Fan & Chen 2001

1

Year

Author

No.

20

25

No. of studies

12, 000

Overall sample

Table 10.1 Summary of the eight meta-analyses

Independent variables Overall parental involvement: – Specific parental involvement – Parental style – Parental attendance – Parental expectations – Communication – Homework Dependent variables Academic achievement

Independent variables Overall parental involvement: – Communication – Parental home supervision – Expectations/aspirations – Participation Dependent variables Specific academic areas General/unspecified academic areas Moderating variables Area of academic achievement Parental involvement dimensions Students’ age Ethnicity Measure of academic achievement

Variables

r¯ c =.18 r¯ c =.33 73,933 102,321

ES =.22–.48 ES =.30 ES =.44 ES =.51 ES =.57 ES =.53 ES =.72

r¯ = 32.13b r¯ = 35.17b r¯ = 4.22b r¯ = 4.16b r¯ = 1.06b

r¯ c =.25 r¯ c =.19 r¯ c =.09 r¯ c =.40 r¯ c =.32

Effect size

263,099 26,493 69,137 24,826 56,755

Sample size of each variable

Jeynes

Erion

3

4

2006

2005

37

41

1507

20, 000+

Independent variables Parent tutoring (Group design studies) Parent tutoring (single-subject design studies) Dependent variable Academic outcome Moderating variables Duration of parental training session Type of assessment Skill areas Monitoring

Independent variables Overall parental involvement – Parental reading – Parental expectations – Parental style – Homework assistant – Parental attendance and participation Dependent variable Academic achievement Moderating variable Type of achievement measure – Grades – Standardized test – Other measures

Moderating variables Type of academic measure Ethnicity – Mostly or all Asian Americans – Mostly or all Latinos and Asian Americans – Mostly or all African-Americans Aspect of parental involvement

(continued )

ES =.69 PND = 94

ES =.85 ES =.37 ES =.34

ES =.74 ES =.42 ES =.58 ES =.31 ES = –.08 ES =.21

Patall, 2008 Cooper and Robinson

6

2007

Jeynes

5

Year

Author

No.

Table 10.1 (continued )

36

52

No. of studies

55,786

300, 000+

Overall sample

Sample size of each variable

Independent variables Overall parental involvement in homework – Family SES – Homework monitoring

Independent variables Overall parental involvement: – Expectations – Parental style – Checking homework – Family communication – Specific parental involvement – Having household rules Parental involvement programs Dependent variables Overall academic achievement Standardized tests Grades Other measures (e.g. teacher rating scales, indices of academic attitudes and behaviors) Moderating variables Type of academic measure SES Type of involvement

Variables

r =.04 r = –.09 r =.10

ES =.46 ES =.88 ES =.40 ES =.32 ES =.24 ES =.39 ES =.02

Effect size

Senechal and Young

Hill and Tyson

7

8

2009

2008

50

16

228239

1340

Independent variables Overall parental involvement: – School-based involvement – Academic socialization – Home-based involvement: • educational activities • homework assistance

Independent variables Overall parental involvement: – Listen to their children read books – Using specific reading activities – Read to children Parental training program Dependent variable Reading acquisition

– Direct aids – Setting rules about homework Parent training Dependent variables Academic achievement Homework completion rates Frequency of homework problems Moderating variables Type of outcome measure Type of subject matter Type of parental involvement Student’s age Respondents

∼ 17698 ∼ 3479 ∼ 15293

518 481 343

(continued )

r =.18 r =.19 r =.39 r =.03 r =.12 r = –.11

d =.52 d = 1.15 d =.18

d =.65

d =.28a d =.84a

r =.54 d =.11

Author

Year

No. of studies

Overall sample Dependent variables Academic achievement

Variables

Sample size of each variable

Effect size

Note. All effect sizes refer to the effect of the independent variable on students’ overall academic achievement, except those with superscript a and b (see the following explanations). r¯ = average correlation coefficient. a Effect of parent training on the dependent variable b Effect of study features on the correlation between parental involvement and students’ academic achievement c All correlation coefficents have been transformed to Fisher’s zs, weighted according to sample size, averaged, and then back transformed to their corresponding rs.

No.

Table 10.1 (continued )

Parental involvement within the actiotope model

177

involvement affecting children’s goals. Parental home supervision had a very weak relation with academic achievement (r = 0.09), while parental expectations or aspirations were strongly (r = 0.40) associated with achievement. In addition, ethnicity and age were found to have small moderating effects. This could mean that parental expectations as transmitted through parental involvement as part of children’s environments, contributed more effectively to children’s action spaces, than parental home supervision, in affecting their goals.

Meta-analysis 2 – Jeynes ( 2003 ) This meta-analysis, which incorporated a total of 20 studies, examined the relationship between overall parental involvement (parenting expectations, parental attendance, parental style and parents’ communication with children) and the academic achievement of minority children. Parental involvement proved to have a significant positive impact on all levels of academic achievement: GPA, standardized tests, and other measures, for children across all races. It appeared that parental involvement had the least association with GPA (effect size [ES] = 0.25– 0.32), whereas other measures, which primarily consisted of teachers’ rating, had the strongest link with parental involvement. Also, parental involvement had a stronger impact on standardized test scores (ES = 0.22–0.48) than on GPA (ES = 0.25–0.32). Again, this result provides evidence of environmental elements like parental involvement affecting children’s action spaces in impacting on their academic goals. However, the difference in the relationship between parents’ involvement and their children’s outcome could be interpreted from the point of how constantly parental involvement contributed to children’s action spaces, especially their subjective action space, which is linked to their motivation to perform. A GPA is an accumulation of performance grades throughout the year, while a standardized test provides a one-off performance grade. Parental influence on a GPA outcome might appear to be less due to an inconstant involvement and impact on their children’s subjective action space through out the year. In contrast, parental involvement on their children’s one-off performance outcome could be clearly defined, as it is a matter of negative or positive impact on their children’s action spaces to perform. Furthermore, it was found that children from various ethnic groups of this study all benefitted from general parental involvement, although the strength of this positive impact varied across ethnicities. African Americans and Latinos appeared to benefit the most, while Asian Americans benefitted the least, meaning that on the surface it seemed that the impact of parental involvement on children’s action spaces was minimal for the latter group of children. Jeynes speculated that the difference could arise from consistencies in parental involvement and social capital provisions that were available for students from different ethnic backgrounds. Asian American students were said to have constant parental involvement and social provisions which the other two races tended to lack. So in contrast to what seemed a minimal involvement with Asian American students

178

Sivanes Phillipson and Sin Yin Janet Yick

who achieved highly, consistent Asian American parental involvement and social capital provision had a regular effect on children’s subjective action spaces, which connected to their motivation to achieve.

Meta-analysis 3 – Jeynes ( 2005 ) This meta-analysis of 41 studies explored the link between general parental involvement and specific types of parental involvement with academic outcome of urban elementary school children. It was revealed that parental involvement (general as well as individual components) had a strong relationship with children’s school outcomes. This relationship existed across race and gender. The regression coefficient of overall parental involvement for educational outcome was 0.74; the effect was slightly greater for boys (0.62) than for girls (0.52). The strength of such a link was smaller when specific aspects of involvement were examined as compared to general parental involvement. Among all types of parental involvement, only parental expectations and parenting styles had significant associations with achievement. This finding seemed to indicate that these two types of parental involvement impacted upon their children’s subjective action spaces that produced their academic achievement. In comparison, parental participation and attendance had a smaller contribution (β = 0.21) to educational outcome. Homework assistance yielded a slightly negative and insignificant impact (β = –0.08) on academic success. This finding could be taken to suggest that children who performed poorly in school were in need of extra support and thus received higher levels of homework assistance from their parents. In this instance, parental involvement through the factors of participation, attendance and assistance could be seen as having lesser influence on their children’s subjective action spaces and their goals. Additionally, these findings showed that parental involvement programs tended to be positively correlated with academic outcome (β = 0.27) because these programs fostered parental involvement in children’s education with its effectiveness particularly greater for urban students of low socioeconomic standing (SES). This seems to suggest that family SES or their social capital moderated the degree of success of parental involvement programs. Training parents from lower social capital background provided them with more parenting capability that helped with their children’s achievement of goals. The effect of parental involvement on school achievement was larger when teachers’ rating and grades were used rather than using standardized test scores as measures. Jeynes suggested that the perception of teachers was influenced by parental involvement. In other words, the relationship between parental involvement and achievement is influenced by teachers’ acknowledgement of parental involvement if teachers’ rating was selected as the main academic measure. In this instance, two environmental elements, teacher rating and parental involvement, were contributing to the subjective action space of the children and their linking motive to achieve.

Parental involvement within the actiotope model

179

Meta-analysis 4 – Erion ( 2006 ) The meta-analysis of 37 experimental studies investigated the impact of parent tutoring on achievement of mainly primary school students, with the inclusion of both group and single-subject design studies. Whether the relationship was affected by other environmental factors, such as treatment features, types of assessment, and study features, were also examined. Both design studies pointed out that parent tutoring was an effective means for improving the academic skills of children. For group design studies, the overall mean weighted ES was +0.55 for trimmed data. For the single-subject design studies, the median percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) was 0.94. It was found that some environmental factors moderated the effects of parent tutoring on outcome of group design studies, but a similar effect was not apparent in single-subject design studies. Among group design studies, one treatment feature, duration of parental training sessions, and the types of assessment appeared to be the moderating variables of the effects of parents’ tutoring on outcomes. Among the single-subject design studies, one study feature (skill areas) and one treatment feature (monitoring) appeared to be the moderating variables. For instance, the impact of parent tutoring was greater when word recognition and math calculation were examined as compared to reading fluency and spelling. This showed that parents in these instances needed further support themselves with knowledge and skills to help their children’s subjective action space in learning.

Meta-analysis 5 – Jeynes ( 2007 ) Jeynes in this subsequent meta-analysis of 52 studies concluded that general parental involvement had a positive ES of 0.46 on children’s overall academic achievement; this relationship held across various types of populations and cultures. Jeynes found that parental involvement appeared to have less effect on academic achievement for older children than for younger ones. It was suggested that parents more easily influenced younger children than older children, as the latter children tended to have higher self-awareness of their own mental and physical weaknesses and strengths. Hence, the subjective action space of older children might not be as malleable as younger children as they could be more set in their thinking and motivation toward their goals. However, parents who were voluntarily involved in training programs managed to affect their children’s goal orientation (ES = 0.36), obviously through influencing their children’s will to work and achieve. Further, this meta-analysis revealed that various forms of parents’ involvement differed in the degree of effect on achievement. For example, parental expectations and parental style yielded an ES of 0.88 and 0.40 respectively, which were higher than the ES of other types of parental involvement, such as family communication (0.24). Among all the parental involvement variables, having household rules had the smallest impact on the overall achievement with ES close

180

Sivanes Phillipson and Sin Yin Janet Yick

to zero (0.02). This meant that parental expectations when transferred with specific parenting styles affected children’s motivations within their subjective action spaces. The impact of parental participation and attendance on overall academic achievement was unnoticeable; nevertheless, it is pointed out that parental participation had an influence on grades and other measures. The fact that these show more statistically significant results may be due to the fact that parental attendance was likely to assist students with school work and parental participation at school functions enhanced the relationship between parents and teachers, and these involvements in turn enhanced academic performance, but not students’ general knowledge, which was measured by standardized tests. Hence, it could be submitted that the type of measurement moderated the strength of relationship between parental involvement and children’s academic goals. Although not evident in the results, Jeynes concluded in his discussion that there was a positive relationship between SES and parental involvement, and that the inclusion of SES reduced the effect of parental involvement. However, he iterated that parents’ beliefs and personalities might both be confounding and mediating variables of SES and parental involvement. An instance when this could happen was where parents who highly valued education and were likely to be highly educated and had successful careers, tended to provide more social and capital support for their children’s academic development. Hence, parental beliefs and social capital formed the environmental effect on their children’s subjective action space.

Meta-analysis 6 – Patall, Cooper and Robinson ( 2008 ) This meta-analysis, which included 36 studies, examined the relationship between parental involvement in homework and academic outcome across three study designs. The majority of the results across the three were similar. It was revealed that the overall impact of parental involvement in homework was small (r = 0.04) and varied with student ages. The relationship between parental involvement in homework and achievement was positive and significant for elementary school students (r = 0.06) and high school students (r = 0.17), but negatively related to middle school students (r = –0.17). This implied that age or developmental stage of children might be a moderating variable of this association. However, the negative relation in middle school might be due to the fact that achievement decline was likely to occur during the transition to middle school, which in turn led to an increase in level of parents’ involvement to ensure support for their children’s will to achieve. Of all types of parental involvement, homework monitoring was the only type of involvement that had a negative relationship with academic performance (r = –0.09). In contrast, direct aid was positively related to achievement (r = 0.10). Setting rules about homework had the strongest positive association (r = 0.54) with academic outcome; yet, family SES is considered as a confounding factor of

Parental involvement within the actiotope model

181

these two variables. This showed that parental explicit help in their children’s efforts are paramount in shaping their subjective action space and achievement of goals. Further, parental ability to provide resources and help with children’s learning and efforts to achieve was fundamental.

Meta-analysis 7 – Sénéchal and Young (2008) This meta-analysis of 16 studies explored the helpfulness of three different types of parental training on children’s reading acquisition of kindergarten to grade 3 children, which in turn, examined the effects of three different forms of parental involvement. Overall, parental involvement had a positive effect (d = 0.65) on children’s reading acquisition. However, the degree of this association varied across the types of involvement. Training parents to tutor their children using specific reading activities produced the greatest effect (d = 1.15). Training parents to listen to their children read books was also highly beneficial to reading achievement (d = 0.52), albeit less effective than training parents to tutor their children using specific exercises. Parental training in these instances showed beneficial effect on children’s subjective action space to read and achieve in reading. Interestingly, no significant link (d = 0.18) was found between parent–child book reading at home and reading acquisition. However, only a few studies of this meta-analysis included such an intervention. Therefore, insufficient evidence is provided to support this phenomenon. Previous studies (e.g. Whitehurst et al., 1988; Hargrave and Senechal, 2000) had evidence that book reading benefits children’s other skills, such as oral language, vocabulary acquisition, and knowledge of the literate discourse that may facilitate reading. Therefore, the relationship between book reading and reading acquisition may be indirect.

Meta-analysis 8 – Hill and Tyson ( 2009 ) This meta-analysis included 50 studies and examined whether and which types of parental involvement were associated with achievement in middle school. Parental involvement was categorized as three main types: school-based, home-based and academic socialization. The results indicate that general parental involvement during middle school was positively related to achievement; the average weighted correlation across the independent samples was r = 0.18. Yet, it was noticed that not all types of involvement were equally effective. Academic socialization, which involved parent–child communication and discussions about parental expectations, educational aspirations and future planning, had the strongest positive correlation with academic achievement (r = 0.39). Academic socialization could be interpreted as a process where parental interaction with children helped foster their autonomy, independence and cognitive abilities within their subjective action space and that led to effective academic performance. In contrast, school-based involvement had a positive, but a weaker correlation (r = 0.19) with academic achievement since the emphasis of such involvement

182

Sivanes Phillipson and Sin Yin Janet Yick

was placed on parents’ participation in school activities rather than providing parents with instructions and knowledge about school work that was essential in facilitating students’ subjective action space toward their goals. Moreover, it was possible that the impact of school-based involvement was weakened due to the difficulties in forming constructive relationships between teachers and parents, as there were usually excessive numbers of students and multiple teachers in a middle school class. This implied that the school context might be a contributor to the effectiveness of school-based involvement. Among the three main types of parental involvement, the strength between home-based involvement and achievement was the least significant with a correlation of 0.03. For home-based involvement, specific subtypes of involvement were investigated. A negative relationship between homework assistance and achievement was reported, where the average weighted correlation was 0.11. It could be that homework assistance exerted excessive pressure on children and interfered with their autonomy within their subjective action space, which in turn, negatively affected their academic performance. Another possible explanation of this negative relation was that parents of students, who performed more poorly in school, were induced to offer a higher level of support and assistance in their children’s homework. On the other hand, educationally enriching activities, such as providing artifacts at home or taking children to educational outlets, had a consistent and positive impact on achievement. The average weighted correlation between activities at home and academic outcome was 0.12. This demonstrated that parental social capital in the form of resources and activities do affect children’s own capacities to achieve.

A meta-conceptual model A number of common factors were obvious from the eight meta-analyses and how they relate to actiotopes. A few of these common factors explicitly fall within two out of the three dimensions of parental involvement (parental expectations, beliefs and values, and parental social capital context), while parental training is somewhat an involvement by invitation from the school or organization. A metaconceptual model (Figure 10.1) is constructed out of this overview where parents’ expectations, beliefs and values are seen to influence their children’s academic achievements directly and through parental involvement. Parental expectations are influenced by children’s age and developmental stage and this in turn affects the way they get involved with their children. Parental training to help with homework and so forth is seen to influence children’s academic achievements through parental involvement, while parental social capital context, including their SES and ethnicity, is seen to moderate parental expectations and hence involvement. Most importantly, the meta-analyses imply that the extent and the ways parents get involved, whether through the communication of their expectations, their parenting style or their willingness to be trained, is affected by parental

Parental involvement within the actiotope model

183

attitudes and motivations, which we see as parental intentions. Of course, other variables such as types of achievement measures and subject areas are also moderators of parental involvement that affects children’s academic achievement, and this relates to how targeted goals are crucial for parental involvement. In the meta-conceptual model, we conclude that dimensions of parental involvement form the complexity of children’ subjective action spaces and their link to action repertoires in producing the anticipated goal of achievement (see Figure 10.1). Specifically, parental expectations, beliefs and values contribute to their own personal construct that induces their initial motivations, manner and extent of involvement. Parental involvement works as a platform that bridges the transfer of beliefs and expectations to children, which arises out of parents’ own interaction with their children and their social contexts. Such transfer of expectations and belief systems is enabled by children’s action repertoires to control and .

Environment Social capital

Parental expectations, beliefs, values

Environment

Parent attitude/ motivation

Social capital

Parental training

Parental involvement

Students’ age/ Developmental stage

Type of involvement

Action repertoire

Environment

Type of achievement measure

Area of academic achievement

Children’s subjective action space Children’s subjective action space

Children’s subjective action space

Children’s academic achievement as the anticipated goal

Figure 10.1 An actiotope perspective of parental involvement as an affective and social capital contribution to subjective goal orientation.

184

Sivanes Phillipson and Sin Yin Janet Yick

modify their own subjective action spaces in response to parental involvement. Therefore, clear and well-communicated expectations are paramount to ensure that children’s subjective action spaces are malleable and can react accordingly. Similarly, parental training modifies and affects the way and extent parents interact with their children. All these, in turn, act upon children’s subjective action space of belief in their abilities and feed back to stability in achieving excellence. Explicit and implicit links with schools are steps that parents take in various measures to ensure success in their children. However, these steps are not apparent and are not a major finding from the eight meta-analyses. In fact, such steps are seen to be arbitrary according to class sizes and numbers of teachers with which parents have to deal. This is why parental involvement is more dominant at primary and late secondary school rather than the middle school. Action steps are also influenced by parents’ attitudes and motivations (i.e. their intentions, the kinds of “persuasion” or training they receive in helping them decide the best means of helping their children). Other action steps in children are seen in how parents create opportunities for their children’s learning and education. Parents’ SES generates chances for their involvement, where a conduit between their own belief systems and various active steps and their children’s belief systems and learning orientation, is built to facilitate the loop of action space within the context of schooling and home environment. In fact, this aspect can be likened to parental social capital that provides appropriate educational and learning capital to optimize the achievement of goals. Social capital can be in the form of tutorial classes, a computer to do school work or books to read. This educational and learning capital, of course, is more available for children of parents from higher SES. Ethnicity has an overall moderate effect where parental values and beliefs as affected by ethnicity influence intentions of involvement and parental style. While the effect is consistent across races, the parental involvement of East-Asians in a number of the meta-analyses is largely shown through parents’ “intentions” of having their expectations of high achievement and the creation of learning opportunities effectively translated to their children’s achievement goals.

Implications for East-Asian students We have considered the functional role that dimensions of parental involvement have within their children’s action repertoires and subjective action spaces in relation to goals. How far this role makes a difference in giftedness and high achievement of East-Asian students is the ultimate purpose of this chapter. The eight meta-analyses cover studies from all over the world, with the weight being mainly on Western studies. However, our literature review of Asian studies (e.g. Hong and Ho, 2005; Wu and Qi, 2006) concur with the main findings of the metaconceptual model, that parental expectations, beliefs and values are fundamental to children’s subjective action spaces that determine high achievement or the anticipated goal. Parents who highly value education and base their intentions of

Parental involvement within the actiotope model

185

involvement on this premise have better success at parenting their expectations to their children. Intentions or the goal orientation of wanting their children to succeed, and synchronizing this orientation with those of their children, are the ultimate challenges of gifted education. Parents who communicate their expectations of high achievement are one step nearer to ensuring that their children do perform highly. Communicating their firm beliefs and expectations in forceful ways has been the practice that many East-Asian parents are known to impose upon their children’s subjective action spaces which are linked to their goal orientation. However, there is a danger that such forceful ways are stereotypically seen as harsh or abusive. In reality, “harshness” does not fully correspond with actual parent–child relationships in East-Asian communities, which in many instances relates to culturally specific ways of familial and filial relationships. On the other hand, East-Asian students’ subjective action spaces and goal orientation have the challenge of embracing these beliefs in a constructive way – as a way forward for their own desire to perform, rather than to please their parents. This is especially difficult for gifted East-Asian students who underachieve and do not conform to the boundaries of classroom demands and exam-oriented pressures. What might help is the recognition and understanding of children’s developmental stages and the demands of contextual variables, such as home and school environments, peers and teachers. Without this recognition, parents have a danger of pressuring their children unnecessarily, as found by studies in Hong Kong (Chan, 2006; Watkins, 2009). However, parental expectations themselves are not sufficient to ensure a successful East-Asian student. From the meta-conceptual model, it is obvious that parents need to action their expectations through a number of steps that are stimulated accordingly by their effective involvement within the environment of their children’s spaces. Effective parental involvement comes in the form of conducive types of involvement, such as academic socialization where active interaction and communication takes place while participating in educationally enriching activities, like visiting a library or an exhibition. Focusing on a subject matter that their children prefer is also a way to help gifted East-Asian students to achieve. Parents through active conversation can achieve this focus with their children. Setting homework rules has been one effective way to help children manage their own efficacy and productiveness. Parents can also realize this focus through explicit communication between parents and schools, in particular with teachers. Parent training and goal orientation in helping children at home is a useful way forward for East-Asian students. Parent training programs and establishing home–school cooperation are imperative to ensure that East-Asian students get the optimum learning opportunities from both school and home. Parents’ awareness in what their children need most to succeed at school can be brought about by their knowledge of achievement measures, extant of curriculum covered at school and acceptance of novel ways of success. This can happen through active home–school cooperation programs that have

186

Sivanes Phillipson and Sin Yin Janet Yick

succeeded widely in the west for predominantly minority groups, including Asian Americans as reported in the meta-analyses in this study.

References Chan, D. W. (2005). Family environment and talent development of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 211–221. Chan, D. W. (2006). Adjustment problems, self-efficacy, and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Roeper Review, 28(4), 203–209. Chow, H. P. H. (2000). The determinants of academic performance: Hong Kong immigrant students in Canadian schools. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 32(3), 105–110. Collins, W. A., and Madsen, S. D. (2003). Developmental change in parenting interactions. In L. Kuczynski (ed.), Handbook of Dynamics in Parent-child Relations (pp. 49–66). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Dandy, J., and Nettelbeck, T. (2002a). The relationship between IQ, homework, aspirations and academic achievement for Chinese, Vietnamese and Anglo-Celtic Australian school children. Educational Psychology, 22(3), 267–275. Dandy, J., and Nettelbeck, T. (2002b). Research note: A cross-cultural study of parents’ academic standards and educational aspirations for their children. Educational Psychology, 22(5), 621–627. DePlanty, J., Coulter-Kern, R., and Duchane, K. A. (2007). Perceptions of parent involvement in academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 361–368. Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teachers’ practices and parent involvement. Advances in reading/language research: Literacy through family, community, and school interaction, 5, 261–276. Epstein, J. L. (2006). Families, schools, and community partnerships. Young Children, 61(1), 40. Erion, J. (2006). Parent tutoring: A meta-analysis. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(1), 79–106. Fan, X., and Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22. Feiler, A., Greenhough, P., Winter, J., Salway, W. L., and Scanlan, M. (2006). Getting engaged: Possibilities and problems for home-school knowledge exchange. Educational Review, 58(4), 451–469. Hill, N. E., and Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A metaanalytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763. Hong, S., and Ho, H.-z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 32–42. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., and Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195–209. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–130.

Parental involvement within the actiotope model

187

Hung, C.-l. (2007). Family, schools and Taiwanese children’s outcomes. Educational Research, 49(2), 115–125. Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218. Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–269. Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110. Martin, S., Meyer, J., Nelson, L., Baldwin, V., Ting, L., and Sterling, D. (2007). Locus of control, self control, and family income as predictors of young children's mathematics and science scores. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 599–610. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2008). The role of the family in talent development. In S. I. Pfeiffer (ed.), Handbook of Giftedness in Children (pp. 53–70). New York: Springer. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., and Robinson, J. (2008). Parental involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1039–1101. Pomerantz, E. M., Wang, Q., and Ng, F. F.-Y. (2005). Mothers’ affect in the homework context: The importance of staying positive. Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 414–427. Senechal, M., and Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 880–907. Tsui, M. (2005). Family income, home environment, parenting, and mathematics achievement of children in China and the United States. Education and Urban Society, 37(3), 336–355. Watkins, D. A. (2009). Motivation and competition in Hong Kong secondary schools: The students’ perspective. In C. K. K. Chan and N. Rao (eds.), Revisiting The Chinese Learner – Changing Contexts, Changing Education (pp. 71–88). Hong Kong: Springer: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Wu, F., and Qi, S. (2006). Longitudinal effects of parenting on children’s academic achievement in African American families. The Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 415–429. Yamamoto, Y., and Holloway, S. D. (2010). Parental expectations and children’s academic performance in sociocultural context. Educational Psychology Review, 1–26. Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., Fidelman, M., Reutlinger, M., Vialle, W., and Stoeger, H. (2010). Implicit personality theories on the modifiability and stability of the Action repertoire as a meaningful framework for individual motivation: A cross-cultural study. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 147–163. Ziegler, A., and Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systematic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30.

Chapter 11

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia according to the actiotope model of giftedness Heidrun Stoeger

Identifying gifted students is one of the greatest challenges faced by giftedness researchers. As a variety of giftedness definitions and models exist (cf., for an overview, Heller et al., 2000; Sternberg and Davidson, 2005), concrete measures of identification depend, among other things, on one’s giftedness definition. Moreover, identification methods also reflect just what it is one hopes to achieve through identification. Identification criteria will look quite different depending on whether pupils are, to cite two examples, being selected for a special school for gifted children, or for an enrichment program. My colleague Albert Ziegler and I designed our giftedness identification and promotion model ENTER (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2004; 2007) to be both flexible and concrete. The model’s flexibility allows for its implementation in the context of various definitions and models of giftedness as well as to various ends. Its concreteness lies in its specificity regarding a theoretically and methodological sound identification. This chapter describes how a process of giftedness identification according to the ENTER model, which is based on the actiotope model (Ziegler, 2005), is particularly amenable to the East-Asian context.

The applicability of ENTER-based, actiotope-inspired identification to the East-Asian context The actiotope model of giftedness is particularly well suited to identification efforts in the East-Asian context because the actiotope model focuses on learning activities. Unlike many other giftedness models, the actiotope does not define giftedness as the sum of certain personality traits expressed by an individual (such as high intelligence or exceptional creativity). Rather, the actiotope model describes individuals as gifted who are likely to be in a position to execute excellent actions in a given talent domain at some point in the future. The more traditional approach to giftedness identification suggested by other models merely requires the documentation of a particularly high degree of salience of certain personality traits or of learning potential. The actiotope model envisions a fundamentally different giftedness identification strategy: a consideration of all of the

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

189

components of a person’s actiotope (action repertoire, goals, subjective action space, and environment) and of their systemic interaction leads to: (a) a prognosis of just how likely it is that an individual will achieve excellence in a given talent domain; and (b) to an assessment of how an individual can best be supported during her or his development towards such achievements. In other words, actiotope-based giftedness identification is about identifying, planning, and continually improving a path of learning leading to excellence. Thus, according to the actiotope model, giftedness identification is not a means of educational placement but rather a way of diagnosing an individual’s educational needs and identifying a learning path to excellence. This diagnostic perspective appears particularly appropriate for the East-Asian context, where effort, and thus also studying, are valued highly. Proverbs such as the following bespeak this cultural tradition: “Talent and will come first in study; will is the teacher of study and talent is the follower of study. If a person has no talent, it [achievement] is possible. But if he has no will, it is not worth talking about study” (Xu Gan, Zhong Lun, quoting Hong, 2001). Empirical evidence confirms the prevalence of such attitudes (e.g. Salili and Hau, 1994). What is more, a basic affinity exists between the robust consideration of environmental factors as well as of various types of educational and learning capital (cf. Ziegler, 2012) within the framework of ENTER-based, actiotope-inspired systemic giftedness identification, on the one hand, and the prominence of such environmental aspects of learning in the East-Asian context, on the other. Excellent examples of this are the high levels of parental involvement in the education of children (cf. Philippson, 2012; Vialle, 2012) and the comprehensive extracurricular learning opportunities typically found throughout East Asia and which play a greater role in children’s lives there than such offerings do in Western countries (cf. Bude, 2011; Tommis and Phillipson, 2012). Before I proceed with more detailed considerations, I will first provide an overview of the ENTER model. Then I will describe in more detail how actiotope-based giftedness identification works according to the ENTER model. Finally, I will return to the matter of how this method is appropriate for the East-Asian context.

The ENTER model ENTER is an acronym consisting of the initial letters of Explore, Narrow, Transform, Evaluate, and Review (cf. Figure 11.1). Each word represents one of the model’s five phases. The first three phases cover the collection of various data and information. Phase one, Explore, looks primarily at the individual and her or his place within larger environmental systems. It considers factors such as an individual’s achievement potential and her or his behavior at school, at home, and among peers. Only in phase two, Narrow, does the model attempt to delineate a talent domain for an individual. Typically, a talent domain becomes increasingly well defined as age and achievement potential increase. Once a promising talent

190

Heidrun Stoeger

domain has been identified, an analysis is made of those actions which the domain will require of the individual, the so-called demands analysis. The goal of this diagnostic phase, Transform, is identifying a learning path which will help an individual develop to the point at which she or he can successfully execute the actions described by the demands analysis. In sum, the first three phases each focus on different central aspects: Explore focuses on the individual and her or his systemic embeddedness in an environment; Narrow identifies an appropriate talent domain; and Transform identifies a learning path for the individual. The final two phases, Evaluate and Review, ensure the quality and continued development of (a) the goals and methods upon which the identification process is based, (b) the chosen learning path, and, finally, (c) the theory of giftedness on which the identification was based. The Evaluate phase examines whether the primary goal for carrying out a process of giftedness identification (e.g. deciding whether a pupil is potentially capable of successfully skipping a grade) has been fulfilled. Among other things, the next phase, Review, looks post hoc at the primary identification goal within the larger context of the entire process of developing excellence in a given talent domain. In the case of giftedness identification in the context of making a decision about skipping a grade, for instance, one might realize in hindsight that while a certain pupil did succeed at skipping a grade, pursuing another promotional option might have been more amenable to her development towards excellence. The Review phase also assesses the appropriateness of the chosen model of giftedness (see Figure 11.1).

ENTER on the basis of the actiotope model of giftedness We will now consider how giftedness identification works using ENTER and based upon the actiotope model (cf. Ziegler and Stoeger, 2004; 2007). The goal in combining these two models is to design an identification process which considers all of the actiotope components (action repertoire, goals, subjective action

1) Explore

5) Review

2) Narrow

4) Evaluation

3) Transform

Figure 11.1 The ENTER model of identification.

Implement the learning path

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

191

space, and environment) and their systemic interactions (co-adaptation, stability, and modifiability) as described by Ziegler (2005). An identification process based on ENTER within the theoretical framework of the actiotope model requires intensive long-term counseling efforts. The model comes to life when trained counselor-diagnosticians work with counselees interested in giftedness identification and support. The counselees typically consist of a pupil and her or his parents who are interested in learning more about the pupil’s academic strengths and talents as well as about options for encouraging their development. As the following section illustrates, execution of the ENTER framework requires substantial investments of time and effort of both the counselor and the counselees.

Explore The first goal during this phase is to collect as much information as possible about the individual and her or his systemic embedding in an environment. Collecting the variety of data which comprise this picture requires a combination of various diagnostic resources. First, we consider what Cattell (1973) terms L-data, in other words, data which describe the behavior and possible actions of a given individual within certain real-life contexts and situations. Additionally, so-called Q-data and T-data are collected (Cattell, 1973). Q-data is information collected with scales and questionnaires. T-data reflects the results of standardized tests. These data sources are combined to assess: (a) how much learning and educational capital an individual possesses; (b) how well both of these types of capital can be employed in a systemic support strategy; and (c) just how likely they make the achievement of excellence (for more information about learning and educational capital, cf. Ziegler, 2012; Ziegler and Stoeger, 2011).

Assessing learning capital as a source of information about the individual An assessment of available learning capital offers an initial indication of a person’s learning potential and chances of achieving excellence in a given domain. It also helps us to understand where special measures of support can improve an individual’s chances of achieving excellence. Learning capital consists of actional, telic, episodic, organismic, and attentional learning capital. The first three types of learning capital (actional, telic, and episodic learning capital) represent those components of a person’s actiotope which are located within the individual (action repertoire, goals, and subjective action space). The latter two types (organismic and attentive learning capital) have an indirect influence on these components. Actional learning capital represents a person’s action repertoire and thus all the actions of which a person is theoretically capable. According to the actiotope model, this includes all the actions which an individual carries out with the intent

192

Heidrun Stoeger

of achieving certain behavioral goals (including cognitive activity). Various sources offer information relevant for assessing an individual’s actional learning capital: past accomplishments as reflected by documents such as report cards and rewards, standardized tests such as intelligence tests or standardized achievement tests, questionnaires (e.g. about knowledge and use of learning strategies), behavior observation (e.g. during play or homework), and assessments made by others (e.g. by parents, teachers, and coaches). Telic learning capital describes all the anticipated goal conditions of a person. In the sense described by the actiotope model, one can use telic learning capital for setting functional learning goals which envision significant improvements in one’s abilities as one progresses down a developmental path to excellence in a given talent domain. Particularly effective in this area are those sorts of challenging goals which – from the perspective of deliberate practice – point to a level of knowledge or ability which is somewhat higher than the current level of performance. Telic learning capital is also helpful for the establishment of effective learning contexts such as the planning of studying activities. During the Explore phase, questionnaires and structured interviews help assess telic capital. Episodic learning capital refers to those patterns of behavior or action to which a person has access and which are simultaneously linked both to an individual’s current learning context and to her or his goals. In the sense envisioned by the actiotope model, the assessment of episodic learning capital helps us to learn more about an individual’s subjective action space. We can say that sufficient episodic learning capital is available when an individual: (a) knows about appropriate action contexts; (b) is capable of effectively carrying out actions relevant to these contexts; and (c) actually does carry out these actions following functional goals. Questionnaires (e.g. about test anxiety or belief in one’s own abilities) and structured interviews based on checklists are two diagnostic tools which are helpful for assessing aspects of an individual’s episodic learning capital. Actional, telic, and episodic learning capital represent components of the actiotope model. Organismic and attentive learning capital, on the other hand, relate only indirectly to the model’s components in that, for instance, they do have an influence on an individual’s action repertoire and its expansion. Organismic learning capital refers to a person’s physiological and constitutional resources for learning. During the Explore phase, questionnaires, interviews, and perhaps reviews of medical records offer an insight into the state of an individual’s organismic learning capital, which influences how an individual learns. A counselee’s organismic learning capital includes faculties such as eyesight and motor skills as well as other related factors like developmental status, diet, sleep patterns, and level of physical activity (e.g. sports participation). Attentive learning capital refers to an individual’s quantitatively and qualitatively defined attentional resources for learning. During the Explore phase, counselors use questionnaire and interview methods to understand: (a) where an individual counselee is focusing her or his attention while learning; (b) how long an individual typically focuses her or his attention (e.g. studying per day or per

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

193

week); and (c) the extent to which an individual is paying attention to her or his own development in particular domains.

Sociotope analysis and the assessment of educational capital as a source of information about the environment The assessment of learning capital described above provides a wealth of information about an individual’s action repertoire, goals, subjective action space, and the influences upon these factors. The Explore phase helps the counselor to find out other sorts of information as well. It includes both sociotope analyses, which provide information about the fourth determinant of the actiotope, and the environment, as well as various analyses designed to collect information on educational capital. A thorough analysis of the learning environment during the Explore phase is of particular importance for a number of reasons. Environmental conditions help to determine which actions are possible. They also play a role in determining which actions receive social encouragement and which elicit social sanction. We know that certain types of environments or sociotopes with varying degrees of conduciveness to achieving excellence reflect certain combinations of objective action possibilities and (social) norms (Ziegler, 2011). When developing a learning path to excellence in a given talent domain, learning sociotopes which allow for and privilege learning activities (e.g. classrooms, instrumental instruction in music schools) are particularly important. Yet this does not change the fact that other sociotopes are also influential: infrastructural sociotopes are conducive to, but do not demand, learning (e.g. libraries); avoidance sociotopes do not fully prevent learning activities, but tend to sanction learning (e.g. certain constellations of classmates); thematic sociotopes do not allow for learning but value the activity (e.g. family dinner); competing sociotopes neither allow for nor require learning (e.g. a night out clubbing); antagonistic sociotopes prevent learning and reject the value of doing so (e.g. certain peer groups outside of school). During the Explore phase, counselees start by filling out weekly schedules which illustrate typical weekly patterns. This provides initial insight into the sociotopes to which a given individual has access. A counselee might report, for instance, on what she or he does during a typical week of school and a typical week of vacation. As one and the same part of an individual’s environment can form various sociotopes, it is important that counselor and counselee discuss the weekly schedules together to assess just what sorts of sociotopes the counselee is involved in. Think about a math class, for instance. For a child in that class, mathematics instruction might well involve a learning sociotope or an avoidance sociotope, depending on whether classmates value or reject the idea of studiousness. The family dinner, for instance, can reflect a thematic sociotope if learning is discussed positively; it can, however, also represent an antagnositic sociotope if a child’s attempts at talking about school and learning are rebuffed.

194

Heidrun Stoeger

The availability of educational capital serves as a criterion for the quality of (learning) sociotopes. Educational capital denotes the resources available for improving one’s education and learning (cf. Ziegler, 2012) to the end of increasing one’s likelihood of achieving excellence in a given domain at a later point in time. The Explore phase differentiates between economic, cultural, infrastructural, social, and didactic types of educational capital and uses questionnaires and interviews to collect comprehensive information about them. The assumption seems plausible that the likelihood of achieving excellence rises and falls along with the amount of each type of educational capital which is available or can be made available for learning and education. Economic educational capital denotes money or other forms of material wealth which can be used to acquire learning materials (e.g. books, science kits) or pay for additional learning experiences (e.g. summer school, music lessons, tutoring). The Explore phase looks, for instance, at how much money a child’s family has invested in various domains of education and learning. In order to understand the sorts of cultural capital to which a counselee and central figures in her or his life (e.g. parents, siblings, friends) have access, both the counselee and such central figures answer a series of questions about values, notions, and inspirational figures in education and culture in general and in various domains (e.g. music, sports, and scholastic pursuits). Questions also assess the availability of infrastructural capital by asking about the availability of those possible actions which are dependent upon the use of, or access to, certain objects or institutions. Examples of materially dependent actions abound. We ask, for instance, whether an individual has access to certain sources of information (e.g. libraries, the internet, museums), to educational games, or to certain athletic activities (e.g. a swimming pool, a swimming team, and a coach). This consideration brings us to the matter of social capital. It is not enough to know about material resources, especially since people and institutions are often just as directly or indirectly responsible for ensuring the success of a learning process. If we return to our previous example for a moment, we can ask ourselves what good are a swimming pool and a swim team without a good swimming coach, dedicated parents, and sponsors. The good swimming coach has a direct influence as social capital on the learning success of a child who is working towards swimming excellence; the mom or dad who drives a child to swimming practice and the supermarket owner who sponsors the annual swimming competition also qualify as social capital, although their influence on the same child’s learning success in the domain of swimming is more indirect. Yet even the complementary components of infrastructural and cultural capital are insufficient for ensuring learning success. Didactic capital is another prerequisite for achieving excellence in a certain domain. The Explore phase thus monitors just how much and what kinds of know-how the people possess who help structure the learning processes of an individual (e.g. teachers, mentors, and coaches). How much do these people know about designing and improving learning processes? How exactly do they go about supporting the learner? A sufficient

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

195

amount of didactic capital is particularly important in cases in which the longterm goal is achieving excellence in a given talent domain. The more competent one becomes in a given talent domain, the more difficult the task becomes of finding a pedagogic guide who possesses sufficient didactic capital. This difficulty is often a reason why individuals seek out new teachers or coaches with more know-how as their own levels of expertise increase. Doing so may help ensure the optimal design and continued improvement of their learning processes. The sociotope analysis and the questionnaires about available educational capital provide the counselor and the counselees with a better understanding of the environment of a counselee and whether this environment is conducive to a development towards an excellence in a given talent domain. Along with the information about the learning capital which the individual possesses within heror himself, we thus have an extensive body of knowledge about the components of the actiotope (action repertoire, goals, environment, and subjective action space) (see Figure 11.2). However, a prognosis regarding the likelihood with which a certain counselee will one day achieve excellence in a certain talent domain requires still other types of information about the systemic characteristics of the actiotope.

1) Explore Assessment of Learning Capital • Organismic learning capital • Telic learning capital • Attentive learning capital • Actional learning capital

• Episodic learning capital

Action repertoire

Subjective action space Actions

Goals

Assessment of the systemic interaction among the components of the Actiotope

Person

Environment Sociotope Analysis Assessment of Educational Capital -Economic educational capital -Cultural educational capital -Social educational capital -Infrastructure educational capital -Didatic educational capital 5) Review

2) Narrow

3) Transform

4) Evaluation Implement the learning path

Figure 11.2 Detail of the Explore component of the ENTER model of identification.

196

Heidrun Stoeger

Assessing the systemic interdependence of various actiotope components The actiotope’s components interact with one another in a variety of ways. The actiotope model of giftedness does not conceive of the process of development towards excellence in a talent domain as an isolated development of a certain sort of competence. Instead, the model understands this development as an adaptive process of a highly complex system in which action repertoire, goals, environment, and subjective action space influence one another. Ziegler (2005) describes this as a co-adaptation of the actiotope components. Consequently, finding out whether an individual’s actiotope is sufficiently capable of supporting processes of co-adaptation is a crucial task during giftedness identification. The first step is assessing whether an individual’s actiotope evidences the flexibility required for change. The Explore phase of our ENTER model, for instance, uses questionnaires, interviews, and behavior-monitoring techniques to find answers to three central questions: (1) Does a counselee possess the will and capacity necessary for continually extending her or his action repertoire? (2) Does this person have the will and capacity necessary for regularly revising learning goals to ensure that they always remain somewhat above current performance levels? (3) Are the learning actions which lead to the stated goal represented within the individual’s subjective action space? Beyond these questions, Explore also deals with the matter of whether and to which extent an individual’s environment supports this developmental process. Beyond flexibility, an actiotope conducive to the development of talentdomain excellence must also be sufficiently stable. Thus Explore also looks at whether the given environmental conditions support enough actiotope stability (e.g. supportive parents, a well-organized daily routine) and identifies environmental factors which could harm the actiotope’s stability. Explore asks parents, for instance, whether they feel overwhelmed by the prospect of having to support their child’s development in a particular talent domain; it asks whether teachers or siblings perceive the performance level of the gifted counselee as being a threat to their self-esteem; it asks whether the teasing or ostracism of jealous peers threatens the stability of the counselee’s actiotope. The Explore phase then examines whether progressive adaptations of the actiotope are possible. These are essential for effective future progress along a learning path leading to excellence in a given talent domain. Explore considers five adaptive functions: (1) Interviews help assess whether a counselee is capable of recognizing successful and unsuccessful actions. Being capable of doing so is an important

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

197

prerequisite for making substantial learning gains. For instance, learners will only be able to employ more appropriate learning strategies once they have realized that their current approach to learning is inefficient. The next question is whether a counselee can make effective conditionally informed choices about which actions, under which circumstances, will lead to aspired goals. A counselee should recognize, for instance, that preparatory strategies typically used when studying for written examinations are ineffective for oral examinations, or that certain learning strategies are only applicable for certain types of subject matter. An inquiry is made into whether a counselee is capable of permanently generating action variations. When individuals are incapable of doing so, their progress in a given talent domain usually stagnates after about 40 or 50 hours of work (Ericsson, 2003). If an individual is interested in achieving an exceptional performance level and significantly expanding her or his action repertoire, action variations need to be found which enable actions which are considerably more effective than the sorts of actions typically being executed when one has only invested 40 to 50 hours of work in a particular talent domain. Think of a counselee interested in working towards excellence in the domain of mathematics, for instance. This person cannot be satisfied with finding typical solutions – only a constant search for newer, better problem-solving strategies will prepare her for dealing effectively with future challenges. The Explore phase examines just how anticipative a counselee’s actiotope is. The degree to which an individual’s actiotope is anticipative has considerable bearing upon the development towards excellence in a talent domain. The extensive series of learning processes along the path to excellence entail frequent increases in the demands placed upon individuals (e.g. when a learner skips a grade or moves on to university study) and unforeseeable barriers (e.g. critical life events). Consider, for example, just how important an actiotope’s anticipatory nature would be in the case of a gifted adolescent boy who is to attend a boarding school for the gifted in a foreign country where a different language is spoken. The step would place enormous demands on his language abilities and on the social skills he will require for coping with the separation from his family. The fifth adaptive function which Explore analyzes is the nature of the feedback to which a counselee has access. In many talent domains the level of performance can become exceptionally high. In such cases, the feedback typically offered to average learners becomes inadequate. The closer one comes to achieving excellence in a given domain, the more the necessary adaptation of the actiotope becomes dependent upon effective feedback and feed-forward loops. In such cases, usually only experts such as coaches or highly skilled mentors are capable of providing the more sophisticated forms of feedback which learners require. Such experts often spend years working closely with their protégées and protégés on improving their weaknesses.

198

Heidrun Stoeger

Even during the early stages of learning identification, it is a good idea to consider options for current and future feedback loops.

Narrow Once a counselor has worked through the Explore phase with a counselee, a considerable amount of information about an individual and her or his systemic embeddedness in an environment is available. It needs to be kept in mind, though, that this information is still somewhat general and thus only allows for an estimation of the likelihood that a person seeking counseling is capable of successfully working through intensive learning processes. This estimation does not yet specify a specific talent domain in which this learning process is to take place. As achievement excellence results from extensive and demanding learning processes, it follows that individuals can usually achieve excellence in only one talent domain. We will now look at how ENTER helps counselors and counselees to narrow down their focus to a specific talent domain. Thus the goal of the next phase, Narrow, is the identification of a talent domain in which a learning path to excellence can be identified. Explore usually leads to preliminary indications about possibly appropriate talent domains; the Narrow phase then coordinates a systematic search for indications of an appropriate talent domain. In a manner similar to the pattern of data collection in Explore, Narrow structures the search for these indications with the concepts of learning and educational capital (and thereby according to the components of the actiotope) and with the actiotope’s system characteristics (i.e. flexibility, stability, and adaptive ability). The main difference between these two phases is, of course, that in Narrow, the focus is restricted to potentially relevant talent domains. The presentation of ENTER as a sequence of phases suggests a hierarchical approach to identification in which the examination of the actiotope moves from the general to the specific. This needs not necessarily be the case, however. In fact, a number of pragmatic concerns favor a heterarchical approach in which the diagnostician (i.e. the counselor) is allowed enough flexibility to, for instance, discount the possibility of a certain talent domain (thereby narrowing down the identification) in an interview during the Explore phase, if such a step appears appropriate. Such a decision may even prove necessary in certain cases, such as, for instance, when a person (e.g. a mentor) can only be interviewed once and when further opportunities for collecting specific information will not be available. As described for the Explore phase, the Narrow phase also relies on the collection of L-, Q-, and T-data (Cattell, 1973); however, the data are restricted to the relevant talent domains. As appropriate measurement instruments (standardized tests in particular) are lacking for many talent domains, assessments of learning potential (as well as of learning and educational capital and their system characteristics made by experts of such domains) need to be considered. Once the Explore and Narrow phases have been concluded, it should be clear whether, and in which talent domain, an individual may be capable of one day

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

199

achieving excellence. Identification efforts often conclude at this point, especially when: (a) a giftedness model is used in which giftedness is defined according to personality traits, or on the basis of a high level of learning potential; and (b) when the identification is reduced to a mere selection of gifted individuals. For these status-oriented diagnostic approaches, the sorts of information collected during Explore and Narrow are often deemed sufficient. The problem is that such an approach cannot be reconciled with the dynamic view of identification taken by the actiotope model. In accordance with the actiotope model, ENTER does not conclude with the Narrow phase. As the approach is one of support diagnostics, the realization that an individual is capable of achieving excellence in a given talent domain is not, in and of itself, an acceptable diagnostic outcome. An actiotopebased identification process focuses much more on the ensuing learning processes. In particular, the overarching goal of this sort of identification is identifying a learning path to excellence in a given talent domain which is optimally tailored to the actiotope of the person who is seeking counseling.

Transform The goal of this phase is identifying a learning path and getting an individual started on that path. The path needs to be one which will gradually transform the person’s actiotope – which, at the time of counseling, is already promising – into an actiotope of excellence within a certain talent domain. An important aspect within Transform is an analysis of the demands of the actions of which the counselee will, at a later point in time, have to be capable: the demands analysis. For the sake of example, let us assume that a certain giftedness identification process hones in on future excellence in the area of physics. In this case, Transform will work to understand just what actions will be expected of a physicist: What will a physicist study at college? What sorts of research will physicists do? Ancillary skills which lie outside the purview of physics also need to be thought through so that the learner can anticipatively acquire these skills (i.e. secondary skills such as computer programming, foreign language, or team skills) which are not part of the physics domain but are nevertheless essential or important for success in that domain. Another important aspect within Transform involves deciding whether a learning path to domain-specific excellence can be identified for a counselee and, if so, what this path looks like. Various data collected during Explore and Narrow are evaluated (e.g. information about learning and educational capital as well as systemic characteristics of the actiotope and information about its adaptivity). The question guiding the investigation at this point is whether the identification results produced during Explore and Narrow make it appear likely that the counselee will gradually become capable of carrying out the actions specified in the demands analysis. In this context it is also important to examine how the skills necessary for carrying out the specified actions can most effectively be acquired and how the concrete execution of the learning path will actually function for the

200

Heidrun Stoeger

counselee. In fulfilling these goals, Transform considers more than just the aspects directly related to identification; it directs attention to various counseling aspects which involve not only the learner-counselee but also various people within her or his environment (e.g. parents, siblings, teachers, and mentors). As it accompanies the development towards domain-specific excellence, the counseling process usually involves a substantial investment of time. It has an oversight function during the planning of the execution of the learning path; and it accompanies the actual execution, evaluating partial steps along the larger path and orchestrating constant adaptations. Transform makes use of the eleven-step counseling cycle, the so-called 11-SCC, designed by Ziegler and Stoeger (2007, cf. Figure 11.3). In order to offer a sense of just how extensive the identification and counseling processes are during the Transform phase, I will now briefly introduce each of these steps from the 11-SCC. During the first step, Mediation of the potential learning path, the counselor shares the diagnosis with the counselees. An example might be a situation in which a counselor explains to a child and her parents that the diagnostics carried out during the Explore and Narrow phases suggest that a learning path to excellence in physics is conceivable for her. The counselor, who at this point is also working as a diagnostician, then describes a learning path which was planned based on the information collected during Explore and Narrow. This learning path might, for instance, involve the following measures: (a) work towards a career in the domain of physics; (b) planning of a learning path specifically for physics which might include, among other things, work on certain learning goals in cooperation with a mentor as well as participation in college-level physics coursework parallel to attending school; (c) development of a social network in the area of physics; (d) improving one’s abilities in the area of self-regulated learning; and (e) an intensification of efforts in the areas of computer programming and English as support efforts (see Figure 11.3). The second step, the joint learning-path assessment, is when the counselor and the counselees sit down together to discuss the identified learning path and vet its quality. This is a crucial event. The learning path as it stands on paper can only become a reality with the full commitment of all the stakeholders. In this context, at the third step, a discussion of the importance of alternative goals, (e.g. a career as a professional musician), should be carried out. The intention of this step is one of coming to terms with a learner’s other potentially achievable options which, otherwise, may prove to be a permanent source of temptation and thus distraction for a learner. Such an alternative can lead a learner to abandon a learning path or pursue a given path with a lower amount of engagement. If, during the discussion of step three, an alternative goal surfaces, there is still time to decide against the learning path identified in step one.

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

3) Transform

201

1) Explore

5) Review

2) Narrow

4) Evaluation Implement the learning path

Mediation of the potential learning path Joint learning-path assessment

Taking stock

Importance of alternative goals

Forming resolutions, reinforcing the solutions

Clarification of resources and willingness to participate

Discussing the learning path within the context of the counselees’ lives

Ascertainment of support made available in similar activities

The counselees describe their participation in the learning path Experiences with possible solutions and the development of solutions to problems

Anticipated problems

Figure 11.3 Detail of the Transform component of the ENTER model of identification.

Should the counselees – after these discussions – still favor the originally identified learning path, they then proceed to the fourth step, the clarification of resources and willingness to commit. The counselor broaches the issues of resource allocation and commitment with questions along the lines of the following: Are the parents willing to commit to driving their child to and from rehearsals, practices, meetings with a mentor, etc.? Are a child’s siblings ready to accept the fact that an increased amount of parental engagement in the learning path of the one child will leave less time for family activities? As counselees’ responses to these questions are often overly optimistic, step five then focuses the participants’ attention on the issue of the ascertainment of support made available in similar activities. The point here is to cross-check the accuracy of the hypothetical selfassessments made by the counselees in step four against their actual responses in the past in similar situations. If it turns out that, in the past, parents showed low levels of support for their child in similarly demanding situations, siblings reacted to parental support focused on one child with jealousy, or a child reacted poorly to an exceptional challenge, then it is important to discuss what the family has

202

Heidrun Stoeger

done about these sorts of problems in the past and why their efforts may have been unsuccessful. Yet, even if the answers to the questions posed in step five (i.e. that all family members have been successful in the past at meeting such challenges) confirm the self-evaluations made in step four, it is nevertheless likely that the considerable adaptations which the actiotope will have to undergo as a child progresses down a learning path to excellence will present the family with new challenges. This assumption leads us to step six, a discussion of anticipated problems. Once these problems have been discussed, step seven moves on to experiences with possible solutions and the development of solutions to problems. This discussion serves as a point of departure for developing a repertoire of reactions which is appropriate for the kinds of problems one expects to encounter during the execution of a learning path. Once stakeholders have developed this repertoire, step eight asks the counselees to describe their participation in the learning path. All parties should try to describe their individual actions and responsibilities in the most concrete terms possible. This will increase the likelihood of a successful execution of the learning path and will help counselors and counselees alike to ferret out unrealistic goals and to better judge just how realistic the integration of stated actions into the child’s actiotope is. If this step does not lead to satisfying results, participants are returned to step four. If repeated attempts to work through steps four through eight fail to culminate in a promising solution, then participants must proceed from step eight to step eleven. The ninth step demands still more concretization of action intentions from all the stakeholders in a child’s learning path. By discussing the learning path within the context of the counselees’ lives, stakeholders have another chance to consider whether they are truly willing to make the sorts of personal sacrifices which adherence to the envisioned learning path will entail for all. If responses appear to be convincingly affirmative, then step ten, forming resolutions and reinforcing the solutions, helps prepare the counselees to turn their firm resolve into effective actions. We know that both of these activities have positive effects on success rates when it comes to actually carrying out intentions such as the implementation of a learning path (Gollwitzer, 1999). The eleventh and final step of the 11-SCC, taking stock, gives counselees a chance to think globally about what they are getting themselves into. Resolutions regarding the execution of the learning path are repeated; agreement is reached regarding the ensuing steps; and stakeholders plan a monitoring regimen which will accompany the execution of the learning path (e.g. regular meetings with the counselor). As is necessary, individual steps from the 11-SCC can be repeated over the course of the learning path execution. If we take a moment to reflect on the first three of ENTER’s diagnostic phases (Explore, Narrow, and Transform) as part of a larger entity, there are a number of specific observations about the adaptation of ENTER to the actiotope model of giftedness which should be pointed out. The diagnostics described in each of ENTER’s phases are focused on a specific question during each phase.

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

203

During Explore, the diagnostics deal with the actiotope in general; during Narrow, they look at the actiotope within a certain talent domain; and during Transform, they focus on the learning path. During each of these three steps, considerations are being made on two different levels. On one level, the diagnostics are addressing the components of the actiotope (i.e. action repertoire, subjective action space, goals, and environment); on a second level, the diagnostics are concerned with the larger system, in particular with the flexibility and stability as well as effective actiotope adaptation as a result of: (a) (b) (c) (d)

identifying appropriate actions and situations; finding action variations; anticipative skills; and feedback.

Evaluate and review It is worth repeating the fact that ENTER distinguishes itself from other giftedness identification strategies by taking a longer-term approach to the meaning of “identification.” Instead of culminating in, and concluding with, the appellation of an individual as “gifted” or “talented,” ENTER holds true to the actiotope model’s action-based and systemic concept of giftedness by taking an approach to identification based on diagnostic efforts which lead to recommendations on the optimal support of a well-defined learning path. Identification not only means presenting a learning path, it also means explaining this learning path and accompanying stakeholders as they work on its realization. Thus one can say that another hallmark of ENTER is the way in which it incorporates the diagnostic process into the identification. This, too, reflects the actiotope understanding of giftedness. From the standpoint of the actiotope model, the counselor-diagnostician becomes, by way of her or his participation in the giftedness identification process, a part of a learner’s actiotope. At the moment when the diagnostician is helping a learner, she or he represents a part of the learner’s social and didactic capital. By identifying a learning path and accompanying its realization, the diagnostician has a significant formative influence on a learner’s actiotope. The conceptualization of the diagnosis process as being a part of the act of identification is moreover remarkable because the diagnostician thereby becomes a part of a complex adaptive system which continues to develop through its interactions with the environment. Not only the person for whom the systemic diagnosis is being conducted in the first place is learning something, the diagnostician is learning, too, as her or his diagnoses improve from case to case. It is, indeed, reasonable to assert that the entire process of the development of successfully adapting systems is just as applicable for the diagnostician as it is for the counselee. I will now briefly demonstrate this. Evaluate offers the diagnostician feedback on whether the learning path she or he identified was successful. Such a measure of success or failure demands, of

204

Heidrun Stoeger

course, that stakeholders agree on success criteria, of which there are many to choose from. These depend on both the talent domain and the degree of expertise. As possible measures of success, one might consider, for instance, grades, degrees, exceptional accomplishments, publications, or rewards. It should be noted, however, that the systemic approach, which lies at the heart of the actiotope model, demands that we focus not only on the sheer achievement of excellence in a given talent domain (or of a certain partial goal on a larger path to excellence), but also on the question of whether a co-adaptation of an actiotope has occurred. Review provides the diagnostician with still more feedback on whether her or his chosen methods and theoretical models were appropriate. At this point, the examination of the appropriateness of a given method is not, as was the case in Evaluate, merely a matter of assessing whether a learning path has been successfully executed. Rather, the point now is to think about whether a chosen learning path was the most appropriate path that could have been chosen at that prior point in time. The exploration of this follow-up question requires that the diagnostician compares the outcomes of various counselees for whom, after the Explore and Narrow phases, the chances of achieving excellence in their respective talent domains (each having been set to follow a different learning path with different support strategies) appeared roughly equal. Comparing individual learning paths and outcomes helps a counselor-diagnostician to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the learning paths she or he developed, and of the concomitant decisions he or she made regarding a theoretical model; these insights, in turn, help her or him to continue to develop her or his own actiotope towards diagnostic excellence.

The applicability of ENTER-based giftedness identification according to the actiotope model for the East-Asian context As my remarks have illustrated, giftedness identification which is structured according to the ENTER model and theoretically grounded in the actiotope model differs fundamentally from other identification methods. Actiotopeinspired, ENTER-based giftedness identification cannot be viewed as a sort of status diagnostics focused on describing the expression of certain personality traits such as intelligence, creativity, or motivation. Rather, it is best understood as support diagnostics (i.e. as a series of diagnostic steps taken towards identifying how best to encourage an individual’s development towards a specifically defined sort of excellence in a certain talent domain). Thus, the overarching goal of this giftedness identification is identifying a learning path and guiding its realization through to domain-specific excellence. The information collected and analyzed to this end are diverse and extensive and reflect both the components of the actiotope (action repertoire, goals, environment, and subjective action space) and its systemic characteristics (flexibility, stability, and adaptive functions). Already the

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

205

collection of the data required by the first two phases of the ENTER model (Explore and Narrow) requires several days and is considerably more exhaustive than the data collection envisioned by other giftedness identification processes. The most extensive phase of data collection occurs, however, during Transform, ENTER’s third phase. Transform uses the information gathered during the first two phases to develop a learning path to excellence in a given talent domain. This path is then presented to all stakeholders within the environment of a learner (e.g. parents, teachers, and mentors) and discussed and further planned with them during a series of intensive counseling sessions. Counselors also accompany the actual execution of the learning path. Regular counseling meetings and inquiries help to ensure that difficulties are identified and appropriate adaptations are made. Thus the Transform phase can last several years depending on the concrete counseling goal. Once the learning path has been traversed, the final two steps in the ENTER model, Evaluate and Review, orchestrate a series of follow-up evaluations. Steps are taken to assess whether the learning path was successfully executed (Evaluate), whether a potentially better learning path was overlooked, and whether the chosen model of giftedness was appropriate (Review). This sort of giftedness identification process works particularly well in the East-Asian context because the actiotope model’s conception of giftedness is highly amenable to outlooks on achievement and development as they are commonly found in Confucian Heritage Cultures. In both cases, learning and effort are factors of great importance. The Confucian Heritage outlook and the actiotope model share the conviction that academic achievement is more strongly influenced by effort than by innate talent and that differences in innate talent can be overcome through learning and effort (cf. Philippson, 2012, for more information). It should be kept in mind, however, that the elements indicative of Confucian heritage can differ somewhat among East-Asian cultures. Hong Kong, for instance, has been characterized as neo-Confucian (Lee, 1996). Yet the views taken in various East-Asian cultures of the concept of effort are comparable. Adages such as “no pain, no gain,” “scolding builds character,” and “failure is the result of laziness” (Watkins and Biggs, 2001, p. 2) illustrate such widespread views. Furthermore, the identification of a learning path to excellence in a given talent domain as well as the successful traversal of such a path to the point of achieving excellence seems particularly likely in the East-Asian context since the amount of learning and educational capital found in many such societies appears to surpass that observable in many Western cultures. Studies show that the high value placed upon education and achievement in Confucianism (cf. Li, 2004; Shek and Chan, 1999; also cf. Phillipson, 2012) in the East-Asian context results in, among other things, a substantially greater availability of cultural capital than is typically found in Western cultures (Bray, 2006; Harnisch, 1994; Vialle, 2012). Indviduals living in East Asia also appear to have access to amounts of infrastructural capital which exceed the infrastructure capital typically available in Western cultures. This is true for the home environment, in which, for instance,

206

Heidrun Stoeger

parents ensure the availability of particularly effective study environments (Ho, 2003). This advantageous infrastructural situation is not limited to the home environment. The great demand for private tutoring offers one case in point. The prevalence of highly profitable independently operated tutorial schools in many parts of East Asia attests to the ubiquity of the demand in this region. Parents keen on seeing their children gain access to the best schools and universities are quite willing to invest significant sums in private tutoring for their children. In Japan, about 60 percent of public school students and about 90 percent of private school students attend so-called Jukus (cf. Harnisch, 1994; Bude, 2011), where they spend their afternoons repeating, better understanding, and expanding upon the subject matter presented during school instruction. Interesting for our discussion is the fact that high-achieving students visit Jukus more frequently than middle- or low-achieving students do (Kenny and Faunce, 2004; Whitman, 1991). The steep competition among private tutoring businesses and among schools creates an incentive for improving the quality of instruction; this dynamic effects a parallel increase in the amount of didactic capital available to individual learners. Government-coordinated education policies have tended to further intensify this development (Leung, 2005; Ma, 1999; Tommis and Phillipson, 2012). East-Asian societies also appear to provide learners with greater amounts of social capital than typical in Western societies. Various studies point out that the levels of parental involvement in a given child’s education are considerably higher in East-Asian countries than they are in other parts of the world; and this trend functions largely independently of socio-economic status (Hong and Ho, 2005; MacLead, 1987; Schneider and Lee, 1990; Stevenson, Lee, and Stigler, 1986). East-Asian parents typically invest enormous amounts of time and energy in their children’s education; and it is not uncommon that they tailor decisions about their own life and career plans around the perceived educational needs of their children (Vialle, 2012). The success of East-Asian societies at ensuring above-average levels of various types of educational capital suggests that levels of learning capital may also be high in the region. Research confirms this assumption for some types of learning capital. Levels of actional learning capital in East-Asian societies are higher than those typically observed in Western societies. The superior performance of EastAsian pupils in international comparative studies such as PISA and TIMMS (Martin et al., 2000; Mullis et al., 2000; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003; 2004) and on standardized achievement tests (Schneider et al., 1994), better fine motor skills (Luo et al., 2007) and more frequent participation in giftedness programs (Kitano and DiJiosia, 2001) document the higher levels of actional learning capital enjoyed by children in East-Asian societies. Pupils in East Asia also tend to possess mostly beneficial forms of telic learning capital: they demonstrate high aspiration levels (Schneider and Lee, 1990), favorable attributional styles and flexible goal orientations (Grant and Dweck, 2001) as

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

207

well as a proclivity towards mastery orientation (Lai, Chan, and Wong, 2006). Our picture of attentive learning capital in East Asia is less clear. Certain aspects such as the amount of attention focused on and available during learning activities (Ainley, 1995; McInerney, 2008; Miyamoto, Kitayama, and Talhelm, 2006) appear advantageous. Disadvantageous patterns have been observed for EastAsian pupils with regard to interest in, and attitudes about, learning (Cresswell, 2004; Leung, 2002; see also Callingham, 2012). A particularly problematic situation has been observed in the area of episodic learning capital among East-Asian students. A considerable amount of research and discussion has dealt with the discrepancies between above-average performance and the below-average selfconcept levels reported by East-Asian students (Hau, Kong, and March, 2003; Ho, 2006; Mok, 2010). There also appears to be a weakness among East-Asian pupils in the area of organismic learning capital. We have evidence that parents ascribe little value to physical activity, even viewing it as a factor which can distract from learning; teachers have a negative view of physical activity particularly in the case of girls (Yu et al., 2006). These attitudes discourage physical activity among students. From the perspective of the actiotope model, this may, in the long run, have a negative effect on the efficient execution of a learning path to excellence in a given talent domain. Despite the areas described above in which a few forms of learning capital appear deficient in East-Asian societies, we nevertheless have good reason to assume that the chances, on average, that the information gathered on learning and educational capital during the Explore and Narrow phases will actually lead to the identification and successful following of a learning path to excellence in a given talent domain are greater in the East-Asian context than they are in Western societies. Yet looking at learning and educational capital is just a first step. Only a thorough examination of the systemic characteristics of an actiotope can pave the way for finding an appropriate learning path to excellence in a given talent domain. Only such a thorough examination can ensure that a given learning path can be successfully traversed, despite the presence of some potentially disadvantageous aspects in learning capital. The Transform phase is particularly important for ensuring successful progression along a learning path. The very high levels of educational capital found in the East-Asian context suggest that Transform should be particularly effective there; the same is to be expected of the actual execution of the chosen learning path to excellence in a given talent domain. In conclusion, there is good reason to be optimistic about the effectiveness of this identification model in the East-Asian context. Just how successful ENTERbased, actiotope-inspired giftedness identification efforts really will turn out to be in East Asia and whether they will contribute to a further improvement of an already very positive situation with regard to giftedness encouragement are results we look forwarded to seeing. The results of the identification processes achieved during the Evaluate and Review phases will, I hope, already give us a good indication of the direction of future long-term developments.

208

Heidrun Stoeger

References Ainley, J. (1995). Students’ views of their schools. Unicorn, 21(3), 5–16. Bray, M. (2006). Private supplementary tutoring: comparative perspectives on patterns and implications. Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36(4), 515–530. doi: 10.1080/03057920601024974 Bude, H. (2011). Bildungspanik: Was unsere Gesellschaft spaltet [Education Panic: What divides our society]. München: Carl Hanser Verlag. Callingham, R. (in press). Chinese students and mathematical problem solving: An application of the actiotope model of giftedness. In S. N. Phillipson, Stoeger, H., and Ziegler, A. (eds.), Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 86–99). London: Routledge. Cattell, R. B. (1973). Die wissenschaftliche Erforschung der Persönlichkeit [The empirical investigation of personality]. Weinheim: Beltz. Cresswell, J. (2004). Immigrant status and home language background: Implications for Australian student performance in PISA 2000. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research. Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The acquisition of expert performance as problem solving: Construction and modification of mediating mechanisms through deliberate practice. In J. E. Davidson and R. J. Sternberg (eds.), Problem solving (pp. 31–83). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503. Grant, H. and Dweck, C. S. (2001). Cross-cultural response to failure: Considering outcome attributions with different goals. In F. Salili, C. Chiu, and Y. Y. Hong (eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 203–220). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press. Harnisch, D. L. (1994). Supplemental education in Japan: Juku schooling and its implications. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(3), 323–334. Hau, K. T., Kong, C. K., and March, H.W. (2003). Chinese self-description questionnaire: Cross-cultural validation and extension of theoretical self-concept models. In H. W. March, R. G. Graven, and D. M. McInerney (eds.), International advances in self-research (pp. 49–65). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., and Subotnik, R. F. (eds.), (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent (revised 2nd ed. 2002). Oxford: Pergamon. Ho, E. S.-C. (2006). High-stakes testing and its impact on student and schools in Hong Kong: What we have learned from the PISA studies. KEDI Journal Educational Policy, 31(1), 69–87. Ho, E. S.-C. (2003). Students’ self-esteem in an Asian educational system: Contribution of parental involvement and parental investment. School Community Journal, 13(1), 65–83. Hong, S. and Ho, H.-Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 32–42. doi: 10.1037/00220663.97.1.32 Hong, Y. (2001). Chinese students’ and teachers’ inferences of effort and ability. In F. Salili, C. Chiu, and Y- Hong. (eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 105–120). New York: Plenum.

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

209

Kenny, D. T. and Faunce, G. (2004). The effects of academic coaching on elementary and secondary school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(2), 115–126. Kitano, M. K. and DiJiosia M. (2001). Are Asian and Pacific Americans overrepresented in programs for the gifted? Roeper Review, 24(2), 76–80. doi: 10.1080/ 02783190209554133 Lai, P. Y., Chan, K. W., and Wong, K. Y. (2006). A study of intrinsic motivation, achievement goals and study strategies of Hong Kong Chinese secondary students. In P. Jeffery (ed.), Proceedings of the AARE annual conference, Adelaide, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/lai06321.pdf Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian heritage. In D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25–41). Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. Leung, K. S. F. (2002). Behind the high achievement of East Asian students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8, 87–108. Leung, K. S. F. (2005, August). In the books there are golden houses: Mathematics assessment in East Asia. Plenary address to the ICMI 3rd East Asian Regional Conference on Mathematics Education, Shanghai. Leung, K. S. F. (2005). Some characteristics of East Asian classrooms based on data from the 1999 TIMSS video study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 199–215. Li, J. (2004). A Chinese cultural model of learning. In L. Fan, N-Y, Wong, J. Cai, and S. Li (eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 124–156). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Luo, Z., Jose, P. E., Huntsinger, C. S., and Pigott, T. D. (2007). Fine motor skills and mathematics achievement in East Asian American and European kindergartners and first graders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 595–614. doi: 10.1348/026151007X185329 Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. MacLead, J. (1987). Ain’t no makin’ it: Leveled aspiration in low-income neighborhoods. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzales, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Smith, T. A., Chrostowski, S. J., Garden, R. A., and O’ Connor, K. M. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International science report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. McInerney, D. M. (2008). Personal investment, culture and learning: Insights into school achievement across Anglo, Indigenous, Asian and Lebanese students in Australia. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 870–879. Miyamoto, Y., Kitayama, S., and Talhelm, T. (2006, January). A meta-analytic review of cultural differences in cognitive processes. Poster presented at the 6th Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Palm Springs, CA. Mok, M. M. C. (2010). Alternative explanations for the Confucian Asian high performance and high self doubt paradox: Commentary on “Unforgiving Confucian culture: A breeding ground for high academic achievement, test anxiety and self-doubt?” by Lazar Stankov. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 564–566. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzales, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O’ Connor, K. M., Chrostowski, S. J., and Smith, T. A. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International mathe-

210

Heidrun Stoeger

matics report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publications. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publications. Phillipson, S. N. (in press). Confucianism, learning self-concept and the development of exceptionality. In S. N. Phillipson, Stoeger, H., and Ziegler, A. (eds.), Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations into the actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 40–64). London: Routledge. Salili, F. and Hau, T. (1994). The effect of teacher´ evaluative feedback on Chinese students’ perception of ability: A cultural and situational analysis. Educational Studies, 20, 223–236. Salili, F. and Lai, M. K. (2003). Learning and motivation of Chinese students in Hong Kong: A longitudinal study of contextual influences on students’ achievement orientation and performance. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 51–70. Salili, F., Chiu, C. Y., and Lai, S. (2001). The influence of culture and context on students’ motivational orientation and performance. In F. Salili, C. Chiu, and Y. Hong (eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 221–247). New York: Plenum. Schneider, B., Hieshima, J. A., Lee, S., and Plank, S. (1994). East-Asian academic success in the United States: Family, school, and community explanations. In P. M. Greenfield and R. R. Cocking (eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 323–350). New York: Prentice-Hall. Schneider, B. and Lee, Y. (1990). A model for academic success: The school and home environment of East Asian Students. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 21, 358–377. Shek, D. T. L. and Chan, L. K. (1999). Hong Kong Chinese parents’ perceptions of the ideal child. Journal of Psychology, 133(3), 291–302. Sternberg, R. J. and Davidson, J. E. (2005). In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Stevenson, H. W., Lee, Shin-ying, and Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science 231(4739), 693–699. Tommis, S. and Phillipson, S. N. (in press). Gifted education policy and the development of exceptionality: A Hong Kong perspective. In S. N. Phillipson, Stoeger, H., and Ziegler, A. (eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations into the actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 232–254). London: Routledge. Vialle, W. (in press). The ‘Tiger Mother’ factor: Curriculum, schooling and mentoring of Asian students in an Australian context. In S. N. Phillipson, H. Stoeger and A. Ziegler (eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations into the actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 147–166). London: Routledge. Watkins, D. A., and Biggs, J. B. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond. In D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 3–23). Hong Kong and Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. Whitman, N. C. (1991). Teaching of mathematics in Japanese schools. In E. R. Beauchamp (ed.), Windows of Japanese education (pp. 139–174). New York: Greenwood Press.

Support-oriented identification of gifted students in East Asia

211

Yu, C. C. W., Chan, S., Cheng, F., Sung, R. Y. T., and Hau, K.-T. (2006). Are physical activity and academic performance compatible? Academic achievement, conduct, physical activity and self-esteem of Hong Kong Chinese primary school children. Educational Studies, 32(4), 331–341. Ziegler, A. (2011). Analysekategorien zur Bewertung von Lernumwelten: Soziotope und Bildungskapital [Analytical categories for the evaluation of learning environments: sociotopes and educational capital]. In U. Ostermaier (Hrsg.), Hochbegabung, Exzellenz und Werte. Positionen in der schulischen Begabtenförderung (p. 119–138.)[Giftedness, excellence and values. Positions in promoting giftedness in school]. Dresden: Thelem. Ziegler, A. and Baker, J. (in press). Talent development as adaption: The role of educational and learning capital. In S. N. Phillipson, H. Stoeger and A. Ziegler (eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 18–39). London: Routledge. Ziegler, A., (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Ziegler, A. and Stoeger, H. (2011). Expertisierung als Adaptions- und Regulationsprozess: Die Rolle von Bildungs- und Lernkapital [The development of expertise as an adapting and regulating process: The role of educational and learning capital.]. In M. Dresel and L. Lämmle (Hrsg.), Motivation, Selbstregulation und Leistungsexzellenz (Talentförderung – Expertisenentwicklung – Leistungsexzellenz, Bd. 9) (S. 131–152) [Motivation, self-regulation, and performance excellence (Talent promotion – development of expertise – performance excellence, vol. 9)]. Münster: LIT. Ziegler, A. and Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual frame of the actiotope model of giftedness. Psychology Science, 46, 324–342. Ziegler, A. and Stoeger, H. (2007). The role of counseling in the development of gifted students’ actiotopes: Theoretical background and exemplary application of the 11-SCC. In S. Mendaglio and J. S. Peterson (eds.), Models of counseling gifted children, adolescents, and young adults (pp. 253–283). Austin, TX: Prufrock.

Chapter 12

Twice-exceptional students with deafness or hard-ofhearing and giftedness Kevin C. P. Yuen

This chapter will first discuss the definitions of twice-exceptionality (2E) in students who have both deafness or hard-of-hearing (D/HH) and giftedness. It will then explore the difficulties students with D/HH face in learning. Students with D/HH and giftedness can be classified into three distinct profiles. The actiotope model of giftedness (Ziegler, 2005), which is a systemic approach for revealing exceptionality, will be employed to discuss the challenges for students who are 2E with D/HH and giftedness. The chapter will then discuss how important it is for a D/HH individual to develop a sense of identity, which is an important determinant for the individual to explore and develop his/her gifted potentials, and then explores how the Asian culture influences the development of gifted potentials in a D/HH individual. Finally, the chapter explores the existing difficulties in identifying gifted potentials in students with D/HH and why teachers and others should abandon a traditional mechanistic view of exceptionality and adopt a more systemic view to support students with D/HH and giftedness (Stoeger and Ziegler, 2008). This is a shift of focus from rigidly diagnosing giftedness to a multidimensional identification of students’ gifted potentials which leads to the construction of a more effective student learning pathway (Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012).

Twice-exceptionality (2E) Twice-exceptionality (2E) refers to students who have outstanding talents or gifts in specific academic or non-academic areas, and concurrently have a disability which hinders their learning and development (Brody and Mills, 1997). Some gifted students may even have more than one disability and are described as twice plus exceptional (2E+). Children with 2E or 2E+ are among the most frequently under-identified populations in schools (Nicpon et al., 2011). From this perspective, among many average-performing students in mainstream classrooms, there may be those with 2E who have not been identified. The prevalence of 2E has not been well documented, in part because there is no government or organization worldwide reporting any prevalence statistics of 2E, and there is still a lack of operational definitions of 2E. These make it very

Twice-exceptional students

213

difficult to identify and diagnose this group of students. The National Education Association (2006) in the United States estimated that approximately 6 percent of all students served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2006) may also be academically gifted.

Deafness and hard-of-hearing Hearing impairment disrupts the normal development of spoken language. Children with normal hearing develop spoken language first by detecting sounds, then discriminating the differences among sounds, and finally, recognizing the sounds as meaningful components in the language. This seemingly natural progression of spoken language development is disrupted at different stages to different degrees according to the type and severity of the hearing impairment. With profound hearing loss, hearing thresholds at or above 90 dB HL (hearing level), everyday conversational speech with normal vocal effort even at a close proximity is completely inaccessible and cannot trigger any sound detection. Without the support of hearing prostheses, such as hearing aids, cochlear implants and/or personal frequency modulation (FM) systems, it is impossible for a child with severe to profound hearing loss to develop any effective spoken language. Despite having a proper hearing prosthesis fitted, the development of spoken language in severe to profoundly hearing-impaired children lags behind chronologically age-matched hearing peers (Geers et al., 2009). This can be attributed to the incomplete access of the acoustic properties of speech sounds which leads to poorly defined phonemic boundaries and/or a restricted phonemic repertoire, which poses a chain of acquisition delay and disorder on lexical, semantic and syntactic developments in spoken language, and the development of literacy (Moeller et al, 2007). An individual whose hearing impairment is so severe that it hinders the processing of linguistic information through hearing and in turn harmfully affects educational performance is categorized as deaf (US Department of Education, 2006). Students with deafness, even with properly fitted hearing aids, who were educated in an auditory and oral language communication program, could only attain an average reading level at the fourth grade after they graduated from high school, which posed challenges for them to be able to read newspapers (Dillion and Pisoni, 2006; Luft, 2008; Moores, 2001) and to be independent in other life functions requiring competent oral language skills. Furth (1966) indicated that even after many years of schooling, the majority of deaf students were unable to acquire functional language skills. Between the ages of 10 to 16 years, the average reading ability did not advance even one full grade. A comparison of academic achievements of deaf students from 1974 and 1983 showed that the disadvantage in reading for these students has not improved at all (Lane, 1988). Vernon and la Falce-landers (1993) reported that only 33 percent of students with deafness graduated with high school diplomas. Students with hearing loss in the moderate to severe range (55 to 89 dB HL) are threatened by the same challenges, albeit to a lesser degree. Harrington (2003)

214

Kevin C. P. Yuen

described the loss of available speech information with regard to the degree of hearing loss. A borderline hearing loss of 16 dB HL could cause a 10 percent reduction in speech information provided by a teacher who is one metre away. A mild hearing loss at 40 dB HL could cause as much as a 50 percent reduction in speech information at the same distance. When the teacher moves away, even further reduction of speech information will occur. Apart from this distance effect, students struggle with various noises in the classroom, such as peer conversations, noises from moving furniture, peers dropping and hitting belongings, and reverberant sounds in classrooms with many hard surfaces. Research evidence from Tharpe (2008) has reported the psychosocial, educational, speech, language and academic consequences for children who have mild hearing loss in both ears (bilateral mild hearing loss). Even mild hearing loss in just one ear and normal hearing in the other ear (unilateral mild hearing loss) is sufficient to pose a significant academic challenge to students. Students with the above-mentioned hearing loss, whether permanent, transient or fluctuating, which adversely affect educational performance but which is not included in the definition of deafness, are classified as HH (US Department of Education, 2006). Students who are HH perceive some sounds and adopt auditory-based communication methods with visual supplements. Those who are severely HH combine the following strategies to maximize their learning: audition, speech, speech-reading, use of personal devices including hearing aids and cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices such as FM systems (HEATH Resource Centre, 2005). The development of cochlear implants in the past 30 years has significantly improved the access of auditory signals to the severe to profound hearingimpaired population, which even the most powerful hearing aids failed to offer in the past (Dettman et al., 2004). With the identification of profound hearing loss, cochlear implantation, and auditory habilitation at an early age, students now have much better potential to develop spoken language competence closer to, if not matching with, their normal-hearing peers. Without adequately developed spoken language, it is difficult for a student with D/HH to cope academically in the school and classroom environment since spoken language is the major means of instruction inside and outside the classroom, and is the primary means of communication. Even for students with a minimal to mild permanent hearing loss, that is, hearing thresholds from 15–25 dB to 25–40 dB hearing levels, respectively, compared with their peers with normal hearing, they are significantly more prone to repeating a grade in school and to score poorly on standardized tests on vocabulary, language competence, short-term phonological working memory, spelling, and so on. (Bess, DoddMurphy, and Parker, 1998; Blair, Peterson, and Viehweg, 1985; Davis et al., 1986; Most, 2004; Yoshinaga-Itano, Johnson, Carpenter, and Brown, 2008). It is therefore crucial that professionals working with students who are D/HH and their families closely monitor and evaluate such students’ performances.

Twice-exceptional students

215

This is to ensure that students with a hearing loss have been, where possible, effectively compensated for their deficiencies in hearing and listening by technology, classroom and home environmental adaption, teaching instructions and pedagogy, and school personnel and peer support. Apart from the D/HH population, some students have normal or close-tonormal hearing sensitivities, but their hearing functions are affected disproportionally, in comparison with their peers with normal hearing, in the presence of background noise, or when speech is rapid or degraded. These students, whose hearing problems cannot be explained by either peripheral hearing loss, language disorder, attention deficit or other higher cognitive or related dysfunctions, are considered to have auditory processing disorders (American Speech-LangaugeHearing Association, 2005; Jerger and Musiek, 2000). If the hearing impairment is severe enough that the student does not response to very loud sounds (like doors slamming) which can be easily detected by their teachers or caregivers, timely intervention should be introduced as early as possible. However, for those whose hearing impairment is at the mild to moderate level, their hearing problems might not have been identified early enough, or identified at all, which makes it difficult to minimize the long-term detrimental effects on their speech, language, cognitive and psychosocial developments. A population-based cohort study in Australia found that children in the mild hearing loss category, compared with those in the moderate hearing loss category, had the poorest ratings in quality of life index and behavior difficulties (Wake et al., 2004). This research suggested that the educational and psychosocial needs of children with mild hearing loss have been underestimated. Another study supported this notion that there is a higher incidence of self-esteem and behavioral problems in students who have minimal permanent hearing loss who were not fitted with hearing devices (Bess et al., 1998).

Types of twice-exceptional students with D/HH It takes effort and understanding of the condition if educators hope to identify gifted traits in the D/HH population. Consider students with D/HH, especially those who have deafness, apart from the hearing disability, who also have significantly impaired speech and language functions. With such multiple disabilities in deaf students, it may be hard for parents, teachers, professionals, and even the students themselves, to believe they can possess gifted potentials in certain academic or non-academic domains. Both Baum (1990) and Montgomery (2004) suggested that students who are 2E can be classified into three categories. The first category is giftedness masks disability (Baum, 1990) or discrepant (Montgomery, 2004). The giftedness of these students is formally identified but their disability is unnoticed. In the hearing-impaired population, students with mild hearing loss, unilateral hearing loss or auditory processing disorders, may fall within this category. These students

216

Kevin C. P. Yuen

sometimes show a discrepancy between verbal and performance tasks on intelligence tests, or show inconsistent performance within the tests. These students with D/HH attain high IQ scores in some domains, but often show uneven achievements across their school subjects and often only perform in class at an average level. As a result, teachers may perceive the causes of these 2E students’ under-achievement as laziness, poor motivation and inattention. Students often find it increasingly difficult to use their gifted qualities, such as memory and reasoning skills to compensate for degraded and insufficient auditory input in classroom. This problem exacerbates when these students reach high school years where the academic demands escalate. The second 2E student category is disability masks giftedness (Baum, 1990) or deficit (Montgomery, 2004). Students in this category are those with severe HH or deafness. They are mostly involved in programs, services or instructions that focus solely on their hearing problems. Although their subtle gifted traits may be noticed by some teachers, formal IQ tests usually cannot identify these students because of their inability to understand and use language to perform specific tasks. The consequence is that these students, despite their potential, are limited by their significant hearing problems, leading to depressed intelligence test scores. These students may be allocated to study in deaf schools where the instructions are not always challenging enough to keep them engaged with learning. Behavioral and emotional problems may arise in these under-performing and under-challenged students (Montgomery, 2004). Giftedness and disability both unidentified (double unidentified) (Baum, 1990) or deceptive (Montgomery, 2004) is the third category of students with 2E. Students in this cohort usually have a minimal to mild degree of hearing loss, unilateral hearing loss, or auditory processing disorder. These students are very good at compensating their hearing problems with their giftedness, such as their exceptional memory and visual perceptual skills, even though they are struggling with limited auditory input. This group of students uses their high cognitive abilities to compensate for and conceal their hearing impairment. As a result, their actual academic achievement and results on standardized tests are depressed in comparison to their cognitive ability. These students’ exceptional potentials therefore are less likely to be identified on formal intelligence assessments and so are less likely to receive additional services to cultivate their giftedness. These students may be able to present themselves as average academic performers who show no interest and motivation to learn.

The actiotope model of giftedness The actiotope model (Ziegler, 2005) uses a systems approach to analyze the individual, the person’s environment, and his/her actions (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume; Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). Giftedness in actiotope model is different from other theories of giftedness because it does not suggest that an individual needs to possess some personal attributes such as high levels of intelligence

Twice-exceptional students

217

or creativity. Rather, actiotope model focuses on analyzing the developmental processes that shape that person’s behaviors and this is best understood within a systems framework in which the person operates. From the perspective of the actiotope model it is a case of understanding the environment and other factors that would lead to that person’s achievement of excellence. The actiotope model describes the complex interactions among an individual’s action repertoire and his/her subjective action space and the environment, which form that individual’s actiotope. An actiotope is comprised of the acting individual and the environment with which the individual interacts in his/her actions (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume). Provided with enough flexibility and support to develop, the individual’s action repertoire, goals, environment and subjective action space undergo continuous co-evolution advancement from one metastable condition to another (Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). With the co-evolution of these effective and compatible system components, the actiotope continues to adapt and will only fully develop after a long period of time (Ericsson, 1993) in order for the individual to obtain excellence. Ziegler and Stoeger (2004) outlined five major steps for progressive adaptation of the person’s actiotope to achieve excellence. These will be discussed later with a case study of how a student with D/HH progresses toward a career of excellence in creative writing.

The individual must identify whether an action was successful in expending the actiotope Bonnie was born with a permanent severe bilateral sensorineural hearing impairment and was diagnosed with the impairment and then fitted with hearing aids in both ears since her early childhood years. Albeit with the hearing impairment, Bonnie was found to have exceptional intelligence evidenced from a range of non-verbal intelligence tests in her primary school years. When Bonnie entered secondary school, she was very cognizant of the importance of receiving sufficient auditory information for learning in class, so she would, for example, sit close to the teacher, require the teacher to use the FM system, adjust the hearing device to noise-cancelling programs in noisy situations, and request for clarification when information heard was not clear. She regularly sought advice from a team of professionals, including an audiologist, speech-language pathologist and otolaryngologist to continually evaluate her speech recognition performance with the hearing aids, and her candidacy for cochlear implantation. Bonnie knew that when the hearing aids could no longer offer enough auditory information for her to understand oral instructions, she might need cochlear implant surgery. Cochlear implant bypasses the impaired sensory cells in the inner ear by stimulating the residual spiral ganglion cells via an electric current. The goal is to further improve the audibility of auditory information in both the intensity and frequency domains by capturing the soft and high frequency signals which hearing aids fail to offer to those with severe to profound hearing impairments

218

Kevin C. P. Yuen

(Zwolan, 2009). Over the high school years, the increasing demand for listening in the classroom has been affecting Bonnie’s academic progress as she found it increasingly difficult to fully capture the teachers’ oral instructions, even using all the strategies which were effective previously but not anymore. In order to improve her oral listening abilities, Bonnie, after her parents consulted with their cochlear implant team, underwent a series of testing, and finally decided to go for cochlear implant surgery in both ears over the summer vacation in grade 9. After the surgery, Bonnie utilized the summer vacation to recover and she enrolled into an intensive listening rehabilitation program to maximize the outcomes of her new cochlear implants. The training required Bonnie to capture auditory targets under various difficult listening situations, such as different background noises, rapid switching of gender and style of speaker and conversational topics, degraded speech, change in speech rate, and so on. After eight weeks of intensive training, Bonnie’s listening performance in these challenging situations was within one standard deviation compared with her peers with normal hearing. By progressively taking up new actions to challenge and improve her listening abilities which equaled her age-matched peers, Bonnie expanded her actiotope to prepare for the development of excellence (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume). Bonnie continued to excel in her class academically even in the language domains which granted her a successful entry into university.

The individual must recognize what specific learning strategies apply to which learning situations to generate effective learning In her university years, Bonnie realized that the use of a video/audio recorder to record the teacher’s face and voice during lectures would help her understand the lecture content much better. She could focus on using her cochlear implants to listen rather than having to shift her focus to note-take. On reviewing the video, apart from grasping the missed-out content in the lecture, she could also use it as a means to improve her lip-reading skills. Being able to lip-read her lecturer well also would help her better communicate with the lecturer in nonlecturing occasions, such as tutorials and individual meetings.

The individual must be able to generate variations of actions in their subjective action space and have the ability to choose among them in their action repertoire Bonnie challenged herself by participating in a university debate team, where she was trained to focus not just on listening but also how to grasp the key ideas of opponents, jot down those ideas, and formulate arguments against the opponents. Bonnie believed the experience and training in debating would help improve her listening and expressive language competence for future studies

Twice-exceptional students

219

and work. She anticipated that with the constant challenge from regular debate competitions internally and externally, she would have numerous opportunities to train in a lot of skills in one go, including listening, analysis, problem-solving, argument formulation, auditory memory, presentation style and so on.

The individual must be aware that their actiotope should always remain adaptive, not only reactive, but also anticipative Bonnie knew how important it is to gather as much information, not only for learning in the classroom, but also in her daily life. She decided to learn shorthand which would help reduce her working memory load when listening to information in situations where she could not rely on a note-taker or recordings. Bonnie knew that background noise would continue to be a big challenge for her to understand auditory information. Therefore, she enrolled into an advanced auditory training program where she could continue hone her listening skills on different speech materials using various challenging listening environments.

The individual must have effective feedback and feed-forward loops in their talent domain in order to remain adaptive, with the help of competent trainers Bonnie loves to write and has aspired to become a writer since in her high school years. Her writing portfolio was critically evaluated to be highly creative and original by an invited panel of writers organized by her high school. Her writing talents were identified not based on a traditional mechanistic view of gifted education. Bonnie’s writing talents were then cultivated by her Chinese teacher at school. A special writing program was then organized by the school which was run by the same panel of writers who discovered her talents. The writing program ran for the whole three years of senior high school. With such a professional nurturing environment, Bonnie was exposed to different kinds of challenges, such as participating in internal and open writing competitions, and coaching in writing which continuously expands her action repertoire in writing different genres from creative writing such as poems, short stories, drama and fiction, to professional writing such as position papers, policy statements and copywriting. The teacher continued to help Bonnie refine her goals based on her existing action repertoire. This tailored coaching for Bonnie has also widened her exposure into reading different works in writing, which has created an excellent environment for her to continue exploring and refining her writing goals and interests. With such a widened action repertoire, Bonnie has been able to explore her interests and potential to adapt and define her subjective action space. After the three-year tailored coaching scheme, Bonnie aspired to become a Chinese horror fiction writer. She chose to read a major in Chinese language

220

Kevin C. P. Yuen

and literature and a minor in Chinese culture and religion in university, to obtain more knowledge about this focused area of writing. She volunteered to work for an eminent local fiction writer to organize his manuscripts, with the intention of having a deep understanding of how these writers came up with creative ideas and effective strategies for writing. Because of Bonnie’s enthusiasm, the eminent writer has agreed to take Bonnie as her apprentice and has started to mentor her. The close working relationship with this eminent writer helped Bonnie to get thorough comments and personal tutoring on her own writing. This demanding mentor continued to set new challenges for Bonnie; for example, he required Bonnie to write short stories for newspapers and to compete in fiction-writing competitions. Although there were many rejections from newspapers and failures in competitions, the mentor helped Bonnie to self-critique the reasons for rejections and to discuss solutions that can improve the attractiveness of her stories. Further, the mentor devised a reading program for Bonnie and exposed her to works which she had not previously come across, but which were the most inspiring works the mentor found which had deeply affected his own writing. In addition, the mentor gave Bonnie the title he was working on and asked Bonnie to develop her own version. After that, the mentor asked Bonnie to critique her own work in comparison with his version. In the process, they discussed ways how she could refine and enrich the characters, plots and writing style to make the piece more attractive to readers. A number of high-quality and interesting short stories were created collaboratively under this mentorship process. Under this constructive learning pathway, Bonnie’s goals, action repertoire, environment, and subject action continued to co-evolve and bring her another step forward toward excellence (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume; Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). Personal mentors were found to be prevalent with individuals who had achieved excellence (Bloom, 1985). This social learning environment created between Bonnie and her mentor offers numerous opportunities for Bonnie to have the crucial experience toward the achievement of excellence (Sosniak, 2006). Under the framework of actiotope model, for students with 2E, and in Bonnie’s case with concomitant hearing impairment, the hearing impairment was not limiting Bonnie’s development of excellence, because every effort has been made to minimize the potential detrimental influence of hearing impairment. Bonnie was supported by a magnificent team of people, including her parents, medical and rehabilitation professionals, high school teachers and writing coaches, university debate team mates, the eminent writer and mentor, all of whom constantly offer support, challenges, feedback and love for Bonnie. With the above framework for progressive adaption and development of an individual’s actiotope, the actiotope model seeks to understand and determine whether or not that individual will evolve and develop into a person who is able to perform at a level of excellence in a talent domain. Within the actiotope model, the aim is to better understand the reasons why that person is successful or

Twice-exceptional students

221

why other individuals who also follow an intense occupation in that domain and who were also meticulously supported, may fail to achieve excellence (Ziegler, 2005; Ziegler and Stoeger, 2004). The actiotope model also provides a way of understanding and discussing the challenges faced by students with D/HH from the perspectives of the influence of Asian culture, developing identity, and the identification and development of their gifted potentials.

The influence of Asian culture on supporting 2E students with D/HH In some Asian cultures, disabilities can be viewed as shameful for the family. In some contexts having a child born with a disability in the family may be seen as a punishment to the family due to past evil doings from their own generation or their ancestors (Hussain, Atkin, and Ahmad, 2002). These negative views from society would have direct influence on how the family views and treats the disabled child and in turn affects how the disabled child sees him or herself. In the Western world, the parental perception of disability is mainly based on Western rationalized biomedical science, whereas in the Asian world, parents with children who have disabilities sometimes hold the belief that the disability can be cured with traditional or spiritual healers or homeopaths (Daudji et al., 2011). Parents have been conflicted between Western biomedical and traditional explanations of disabilities due to various influences from spiritual beliefs, family, elders and health professionals (Maloni et al., 2010). With traditional and spiritual influences on parents that their children’s disabilities are not permanent and will be cured, often leads to shopping for various cures and rejecting rehabilitation options for their children. This will lead to a delayed acceptance of their children’s diagnoses, and as a result, deferring rehabilitation and affecting prognosis. Apart from the above belief, Ibrahim (2006) reported that some Asian families would hold the belief that their child’s disability is God’s will, and they would rather cope with the loss and find positive meaning in their child’s disability than to agree with rehabilitation plans suggested by health care professionals. Having a child born with D/HH poses a lot of challenges for families in listening, speaking and communication exchanges. Parents who have children with disabilities in the Asian world tend to have low expectations and are overprotective towards their children (Hussain et al., 2002). Because of these attitudes, parents may be occupied with focusing on the child’s disabilities and may be insensitive to, or simply ignore, the child’s strengths that may develop into excellence. In addition, parents may develop a strong sense of guilt for causing the D/HH and feel they are responsible for protecting their child from any harm. They may try their best not to let their child experience any negative effects from their hearing impairment; for example, whenever somebody speaks to their child

222

Kevin C. P. Yuen

they may tell people that their child is D/HH and they may not understand what is said to them. Some parents are afraid that their child may fail and so they waive their child’s roles and responsibilities; this, in turn, limits the availability of life challenges and experiences for the child to develop various competencies in life skills (Hussain et al., 2002). In fact, some research in Western literature has reported that parent’s perception of their children’s communicative performance correlated poorly with the self-appraisals of their children, reflecting that their children’s abilities could have been underestimated by the family (Kopun and Stelmachowicz, 1998). Because of parental attitudes on low expectations and overprotection, the child would grow up with a very limited action repertoire ( Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume; Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012), with limited experiences offered from the environment. Without a challenging environment, the child would have few opportunities to demonstrate any potential, which would affect parental expectations of their child’s true potential, going on in a vicious cycle. Challenging goals may not be identified and learning may remain suboptimal. Such an overprotective child-rearing practice in the family would have a negative impact on how children perceive their own abilities and potentials. When these children grow up, they may conform to their parental negative views, or blame their parents that they were given limited opportunities to develop skills. Even for some children who would like to challenge their parents’ overprotective practice, they may feel guilty for upsetting their parents (Hussain et al., 2002). These intrinsic and extrinsic limitations of behavioral possibilities, together with the previously mentioned limited action repertoire, suboptimal goals, and deficient environmental challenges, would severely limit disabled individuals from developing fully their exceptional potentials. In some Asian countries, the view of disabilities is related to abnormality and inferiority, even in the educational settings (Hussain et al., 2002). Such a view would strongly hinder the discovery and development of the potential for excellence.

Developing identity of students with D/HH Culturally marginal identity Around 94 percent of children who are deaf were born from parents with normal hearing (Moores, 2001). Most of these hearing parents opt to communicate with their children through spoken language rather than sign language. They provide their children state-of-the-art hearing aids and cochlear implants. Even with these latest technologies and excellent quality and timely habilitation strategies, some deaf students are unable to achieve satisfactory speech perception and oral language competencies. A recent literature review indicated that factors of late cochlear implantation, inner ear malformation and meningitis, consistently limit cochlear implant outcomes in children (Black et al., 2011). These factors might have precluded children from using oral language and listening to

Twice-exceptional students

223

effectively learn. Nevertheless, some have been assigned to study in auditorybased educational settings, notwithstanding guarded cochlear implant outcomes. These students’ learning would be reduced because the auditory-based communication method was chosen for them and manual communication modes, like signing were not introduced as an additional communication option (Lau et al., 2010). These children were integrated into mainstream education environments which offered limited exposure for them to interact with large groups of deaf people or deaf culture. They might be the only deaf student in their class. This group of deaf children is culturally marginalized as they do not fully identify with either culture (Glickman, 1996). Without proper support, these children may fail to develop their identities, especially those who are still struggling with using oral language and audition to function in the hearing world. These children may perceive that they are deficient no matter how hard they try, and as a result, may develop learning helplessness and continue to stay at this marginal stage. Deaf students in this culturally marginalized group, having insufficient speech perception and oral language competencies, will continually be discouraged (Glickman, 1996). Since they lack the effective means to communicate, the sense of inferiority, low self-esteem and low self-image would severely limit their motivation to develop their action repertoire because they are not convinced that they can achieve what they want to be. As a deaf teacher, Ruth reported that: “I grew up and I felt that I didn’t have an identity. I didn’t see myself as a deaf person who could achieve. I saw myself as someone who was sick who couldn’t really achieve in a hearing community.” (Vialle and Paterson, 1996, p. 7) For example, a student with D/HH and poor language abilities showed talents in arts and design. His parents and teachers shared the view that the student should focus on remediating his oral language disability and literacy problems, rather than to discover and develop possible actions for cultivating his gifted traits in arts and design. The thought was that time should not be spent on exposing the student to different arts and design works, enrolling the student into art and design classes, participating in school or open competitions and so on. These actions would have helped the student to assess and develop his subjective action space. Without the support of the environment to execute appropriate actions, this student with D/HH was disadvantaged as he did not realize he possessed determinants that could lead to achievement of excellence, and resulted in underestimation and under-achievement. In this case, the student and the environment dismissed the development and execution of actions. The action repertoire of arts and design would be reduced and without the necessary actions, goals for becoming a designer would not be formed.

Deaf identify and deaf-hearing bicultural identity For those individuals with D/HH who are identified with poor development in audition and spoken language, there may be some advantage to being involved with the cultural world of the deaf by learning sign language in a deaf educational

224

Kevin C. P. Yuen

environment where they can develop their true potential of learning a language without any obstacles and use that to interact freely with their deaf peers. They can embrace their disability as a deaf individual, and consider deafness is just another culture which is not inferior to the hearing one. Another group of deaf students who also struggle with oral communication and at the same time progress slowly may be considered to study in a sign–oral bilingual co-enrollment environment (Lau et al., 2010) where they learn both the spoken language and sign language with both their deaf and hearing peers in the same classroom. Students who are D/HH and those with normal hearing learn oral and sign languages in the same classroom from teachers who are proficient in both languages. These students are nurtured in a bicultural environment where they can appreciate the benefits of both languages and can develop strategies to interact among themselves. The learning and social interaction for those with D/HH is free from the barriers of their oral language competence. More actions can be identified to expand the actiotope (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume). Most case studies from Vialle and Paterson (1996) reflected that they went through the culturally marginal stage. They reflected coincidentally that only when they realized and embraced their identity as a deaf individual did they understand that they were no longer limited by the belief that a deaf individual could not achieve. Greg, in Vialle and Paterson (1996) revealed his identification as a deaf individual: “I identify myself as a Deaf person and I live within the Deaf community. With identity comes pride as well and in being deaf I feel that I’m not different to any other person.” (Vialle and Paterson, 1996, p. 8) Healthy identity development is a crucial component for positive psychological adjustment (Erikson, 1980). The development from being culturally marginalized to being part of the deaf culture or being bicultural makes the individual develop more actions and expands his/her action repertoire (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume), since they no longer feel they are limited or inferior to others, albeit being disabled, once they have found their cultural identity. Many of the case studies in Vialle and Paterson (1996) recalled that when they were young, they all lacked role models who were also D/HH so there was nobody for them to look up to. Even so, individuals in these case studies all achieved high academic success and nearly all of them became teachers for the deaf. In the actiotope model, the environment and the individual interacted and produced a unique, but positive, outcome. The case studies from Vialle and Paterson (1996) support the actiotope model notion that if the learning and support system is positive, then individuals are able to develop their individual actiotope. The fact that the person had a disability was not the limiting factor. D/HH is only a limitation in an actiotope model when compensational support within the environment is not activated. These deaf teachers interviewed by Vialle and Paterson (1996) became the role models of their younger generations. The D/HH students of these deaf teachers were taught in a non-disabling environment with accommodation for their learning and communication needs. As predecessors, these deaf teachers were sensitive to what determents their students

Twice-exceptional students

225

had which could be utilized to develop more effective actions to be represented in their subjective action space. Goals could be formed and realized, which could be both challenging, yet realistic, to improve their current state of performance and minimize the detrimental effect of failures. Deaf teachers could offer convincing and effective empathetic support, as they had gone through the same process. With deaf teachers’ support, actions could be realistically evaluated for continuation or alternation of goal attainment. The learning environment created by the deaf teacher fully supported the implementation and evaluation of actions. Action alternatives would be easily identified after failures and successes. For students with gifted potential, learning environments with such an experienced coach would facilitate the development of excellence. During the process of coaching their deaf juniors, deaf teachers, described by Vialle and Paterson (1996) would have had an excellent opportunity to selfreflect on the determinants they possess, their action repertoire and the potential of existing and new actions that could be placed in their subjective action space, which led to the pursuit of suitable goals. They might also develop a stronger awareness on implementing strategies on how to influence the environment to help them execute effective actions for goal attainment, for example, a deaf teacher would study the disability discrimination ordinance and find out what were their legal rights, and would liaise with the tertiary institution, for which they have enrolled for a higher degree, to prepare for full coverage of sign language translation for lectures and tutorials, note-taking services, adjustment for assignment requirements such as using his/her preferred written language, and the installation of assistive listening devices in classrooms in which the student will study, such as personal FM and public address systems and so on. With a full acceptance of their identity, and the self-reflections described above, the deaf teacher would have better odds to search for, develop and pursue excellence in a talent domain.

Identifying gifted potentials and constructing learning pathways for students with D/HH It is not always easy for students with D/HH to be admitted to a gifted education program because of the stringent and unaccommodating identification procedure for giftedness (Brody and Mills, 1997). Unfortunately identification often means the use of a single intelligence composite score, combining the verbal and non-verbal measures from IQ tests, to identify giftedness, without deliberating on the possible discrepancies between the high versus poor performing subtests. In fact students may show subtest scores scattered across the extreme ends of the scale, for example, high-performing non-verbal subtests, but low-performing verbal subtests, which can be an indicator of 2E (Winstanley, 2003). From the perspective of the actiotope model, the focus on a composite IQ score is not a good measure of giftedness because high-performance abilities may have been missed. One way to include students with D/HH in the gifted education

226

Kevin C. P. Yuen

program is to reduce the qualifying IQ cutoff scores from 130 by 10 or more to account for the depressed scores due to hearing and related language disabilities (Silverman, 1989). Montgomery (1996) alerted that rather than the composite score, the highest scores from subtests and the cluster of those subtests should be considered when looking for gifted educational needs. Purely non-verbalbased instruments such as the Raven’s Progressive Matrices tests (Raven, Court, and Raven, 1998) should be used to identify the giftedness potential where verbal abilities are limited due to the disability caused by D/HH. The problem of relying on intelligence tests for the identification of giftedness is that it does not say anything about the process of developing giftedness – a core component of the actiotope model. Tests for intelligence are usually administered de facto by the mother tongue of the hearing community, which is biased against revealing the true potential of the individual with 2E. Using language as the main indication of ability should be altered, not only for the D/HH group, but for all others who are linguistically challenged (Winstanley, 2003). Winstanley (2003) reported a six-year-old boy with bilateral severe hearing loss who was enrolled in an oral communication educational setting where signing was discouraged. With the aid of a hearing prosthesis he might develop oral language from an audiological perspective. The teacher was alerted to the fact that he was actually incapable of learning lip-reading, spelling, reading and learning any spoken vocabulary. However, he communicated via self-generated gestures and mimes. Standardized language scales revealed very depressed scores. However, the Raven’s Progressive Matrices identified him in the top two percent of the population. He responded rapidly once sign language was introduced. Without the teacher’s awareness and the non-linguistically based intelligence assessment, this boy’s gifted potential would have been buried without trace. This cautions us to be fair in language, communication method, and culture toward identifying giftedness in students with D/HH. There should be tests developed to assess the potential of young children with D/HH to learn signing and to develop a manual language, and the gifted potentials of learning a manual language. Verbally based intelligence tests should be administered using the best performing language and communication mode of the individual, and if needed, a combination of different languages (sign and other languages the individual has mastered, in addition to the mother tongue of the individual’s family), and communication modes (writing, lip-reading, cued speech, in addition to oral language). Another challenge is how to reveal the true potential of D/HH individuals without relying on IQ tests. So as not to miss out gifted potentials in D/HH individuals, apart from standardized tests, multiple sources of information must be sought, such as reports from teachers, parents, peers, student interviews, portfolios of both academic and non-academic work including fine arts, performing arts and sports. The assessment program should be highly vigilant in looking for subtle indicators of exceptional gifted qualities. For example, teachers with basic knowledge of sign language would help pick up the subtle academic and

Twice-exceptional students

227

reasoning strengths of students via the competent communication method of the individual. It is their high competence in reasoning, thinking and/or creativity that needs to be assessed and revealed, even if it is with a form of communication different from their peers with normal hearing. Under the actiotope model, the teacher of this deaf student supported the development of thinking and creativity so as to expand the student’s actiotope. Zieger and Phillipson (submitted) suggested that in the systematic view of gifted education the focus is not simply to put a diagnostic label of giftedness on an individual and predict linearly the prognosis of that individual in the future. Rather, gifted education should focus on cultivating the individual’s potential toward excellence. This can be achieved by constructing learning pathways which help promote the co-evolution of system components of the individual’s actiotope. This systemic view of creating learning pathways to develop giftedness talents and excellence is a valid approach for supporting students with D/HH and giftedness, because it has abandoned the traditional mechanistic approach (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2004) of identifying and supporting giftedness which has disadvantaged gifted students with concomitant disabilities, as previously discussed.

Supporting twice-exceptional students with D/HH with giftedness The actiotope model promotes the comprehensiveness and all-round fairness to effectively identify and develop the gifted potentials of 2E students with D/HH and giftedness, and also addresses the areas of weakness that would hinder the development of the gifted potentials if not supported. Education policies, therefore, should offer services to minimize the challenges of audition, language and learning and, at the same time, encourage the development of an individual’s actiotope so that the student develops toward his/her maximal potential. The Jockey Club Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrolment in Deaf Education Programme is one of the world’s first Chinese investigational educational programs in an inclusive educational setting (Lau et al., 2010). This program is intended for students with D/HH who failed to develop effective oral language and listening for learning in mainstream educational settings, albeit fitted with state-of-the-art hearing aids or cochlear implants. A sign–oral bilingual teaching pedagogy was adopted for every student, including students with D/HH and their peers with normal hearing. In each classroom, there is a lead teacher who instructs students orally and is also competent in basic signing. There is another support teacher, who is a deaf and performs simultaneous sign interpretation for the lead teacher, and leads the learning of signing in the classroom. Oral language and signing are equally emphasized in the classroom. This is the fifth year of the program implemented at the Kowloon Bay St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School in Hong Kong. The author had a chance to observe classes and interview students with both D/HH and normal hearing. Hearing students have been interacting very early on with their D/HH peers. Diversity and differences are

228

Kevin C. P. Yuen

embraced everywhere in the school, including with the principal, teachers, peers, guardians of the peers and other support personnel. The hearing peers are very willing to take up the role of interpreter in classes when there are no sign teachers, such as physical education classes. The author observed that between students with D/HH and normal hearing they would secretly chat using signing during classes. Hearing students would enquire with deaf teachers inside or outside classrooms using signing on subjects in which the deaf teacher excels. The school has created an excellent environment for students with D/HH to learn effectively. The language environment no longer limits the student’s learning, as any oral language difficulties via auditory learning are complemented by signing. The social environment is free from segregation among students with D/HH and their hearing peers as they are all competent in signing which creates a truly inclusive environment for social interaction and learning. Such a supporting language and social environment for students with D/HH encourages the development of individual action repertoires. Students with D/HH in the program have many more opportunities to develop their subjective action space than in an oral language-focused educational environment. The co-enrollment program will continue in secondary school for both the students with D/HH and their hearing peers. With the continuation of such an optimal learning environment, the author believes that the students with D/HH in this program will not be more limited than their hearing peers in exploring actions to construct their subjective action space to determine their future goals for study, work and life.

Conclusion Exceptional students with both D/HH and giftedness can be very difficult to identify. We lack operational definitions of 2E. We lack comprehensive policies and assessment procedures to identify these students. We lack accommodating educational expertise and environments which can truly support these students’ learning by minimizing the impact of their disabilities via audition and oral language, while at the same time cultivating their hidden gifted potentials. When we work with these 2E students and their families in Asia, we need to be sensitive regarding their family and cultural backgrounds, which can be hugely discrepant from the Western world. The students’ family and cultural backgrounds can be critical in providing a supportive environment to develop the actiotope (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume). The ability of a 2E student with D/HH and giftedness to identify him or herself as a member of their peers in the educational environment can be another critical component for exploring new actions and expanding the subjective action space (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume). We lack research on all of the above. More effort should be put into researching and developing efficient and effective public education, identification policies, audiological, linguistic and educational supports for their gifted potentials to be truly realized. Otherwise our society risks losing potential leaders, revolutionary inventors, motivating writers and emotive artists.

Twice-exceptional students

229

References American Speech-Langauge-Hearing Association. (2005). (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders – The role of the Audiologist [Position Statement]. Retrieved from http:// www.asha.org/docs/pdf/PS2005-00114.pdf Baum, S. (1990). Gifted but learning disabled: A puzzling paradox (ERIC Digest #E479). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Docment Reproduction Service No. ED321484). Bess, F. H., Dodd-Murphy, J., and Parker, R. A. (1998). Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear and Hearing, 19(5), 339–354. Black, J., Hickson, L., Black, B., and Perry, C. (2011). Prognostic indicators in paediatric cochlear implant surgery: a systematic literature review. Cochlear Implants International, 12(2), 67–93. Blair, J., Peterson, M. E., and Viehweg, S. H. (1985). The effects of mild sensorineural hearing loss on academic performance of young school-age children. Volta Review, 93, 87–93. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Generalizations about talent development. In B. S. Bloom (ed.), Development talent in young people (pp. 507–549). New York: Ballantine Books. Brody, L., and Mills, C. (1997). Gifted education with learning disabilities: A review of issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 282–296. Daudji, A., Eby, S., Foo, T., Ladak, F., Sinclair, C., Landry, M. D., Gibson, B. E. (2011). Perceptions of disability among south Asian immigrant mothers of children with disabilities in Canada: impliactions for rehabilitation service delivery. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(6), 511–521. Davis, J. M., Elfenbein, J., Schum, R., and Bentler, R. A. (1986). Effects of mild and moderate hearing impairments on language, educational, and psychosocial behaviour of children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 53–62. Dettman, S. J., D'Costa, W. A., Dowell, R. C., Winton, E. J., Hill, K. L., and Williams, S. S. (2004). Cochlear implants for children with significant residual hearing. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 130, 612–618. Dillion, C. M., and Pisoni, D. B. (2006). Non word repetition and reading skills in children who are deaf and have cochlear implants. Volta Review, 106, 121–145. Ericsson, K. A. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquistion of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W. W. Norton. Furth, H. (1966). Thinking without language. New York: Collier McMillian. Geers, A. E., Moog, J. S., Biedenstein, J., Brenner, C., and Hayes, H. (2009). Spoken language scores of children using cochlear implants compared to hearing age-mates at school entry. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(3), 371–385. Glickman, N. (1996). The development of culturally deaf identities. In N. Glickman and M. Harvey (eds.), Culturally affirmative psychotherapy with deaf persons. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harrington, M. (2003). Hard of hearing students in the publich schools: should we be concerned? Volta Review, 11, 18–22. HEATH Resource Centre. (2005). Students who are deaf or hard of hearing in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

230

Kevin C. P. Yuen

Hong Kong Special Administrative Government. (2010). Improvement measures on provision of hearing aids for hearing impaired students, from http://www.info.gov.hk/ gia/general/201008/30/P201008300104.htm Hussain, Y., Atkin, K., and Ahmad, W. (2002). South Asian disabled young people and their families. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Ibrahim, H. D. (2006). An overview of parental perceptions in cross-cultural groups on disability. Childhood Education, 82, 236–241. Jerger, J., and Musiek, F. (2000). Report of the Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis of Auditory Processing Disorders in School-Aged Children. J Am Acad Audiol, 11(9), 467–474. Kopun, J. G., and Stelmachowicz, P. G. (1998). Perceived communication difficulites of children with hearing loss. American Journal of Audiology, 7, 30–38. Lane, H. (1988). Paternalism and Deaf People: An open letter to Mme Umuvyegi. Sign Language Studies, 60, 251–270. Lau, T., Lam, E., Lee, K., Tang, G., and Yiu, C. (2010, January). The oral language profiles of children with hearing impairment: A comparison between children in a sign bilingual and co-enrolment programme and children studying in regular primary schools in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the Conference on Sign Linguistics and Deaf Education, Hong Kong. Luft, P. (2008). Examining educators of the Deaf as ‘highly qualified’ teachers: Roles and responsibilities under IDEA and NCLB. American Annals of the Deaf, 152, 429–440. Maloni, P. K., Despres, E. R., Habbous, J., Primmer, A. R., Slatten, J. B., Gibson, B. E., and Landry, M. D. (2010). Perceptions of disability among mothers of children with disabilities (CWD) in Bangladesh: implications for rehabilitation service delivery. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2010(32), 845–854. Moeller, M. P., Tomblin, J. B., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Connor, C. M., and Jerger, S. (2007). Current state of knowledge: language and literacy of children with hearing impairment. Ear Hear, 28(6), 740–753. Montgomery, D. (1996). Educating the able. London: Cassell. Montgomery, D. (2004). Double exceptionality: gifted children with special educational needs and what ordinary schools can do. Gifted and Talented International, 18(1), 29–35. Moores, D. F. (2001). Educating the deaf: psychology, principles, and practices (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Most, T. (2004). The effects of degree and type of hearing loss on children's performance in class. Deafness and Education International, 6(3), 154–166. National Education Association. (2006). The twice-exceptional dilemma. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Nicpon, M. F., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., and 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. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., and Raven, J. (1998). Raven's progressive matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press. Silverman, L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handcaps. Roeper Review, 12, 37–42. Sosniak, L. A. (2006). Retrospective interviews in the study of expertise and expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich and R. R. Hoffman (eds.),

Twice-exceptional students

231

The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 287–301). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stoeger, H., and Ziegler, A. (2008). High ability assessment. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 91–96. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). 34 CFR Parts 300 and 301, Assistance to States for the Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilties; Final rule. Washington, D.C: Rederal Register. Vernon, M., and La Facle-Landers, M. (1993). A longitudinal study of intellectually gifted deaf and hard of hearing people. American Annals of the Deaf, 138(5), 427–434. Vialle, W., and Paterson, J. (1996). Constructing a culturally sensitive education for gifted deaf students (Vol. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED419 336). Wake, M., Hughes, E. K., Poulakis, Z., Collins, C., and Rickards, F. W. (2004). Outcomes of children with mild-profound hearing loss at 7 and 8 years: a population study. Ear and Hearing, 25, 1–8. Winstanley, C. (2003). Gifted children with hearing impairment. In D. Montgomery (ed.), Gifted and talented children with special education needs (Vol. 110–128). London: David Fulton. Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Johnson, C. D., Carpenter, K., and Brown, A. S. (2008). Outcomes of children with mild bilateral hearing loss and unilateral hearing loss. Seminars in Hearing, 29, 196–211. Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., and Joseph, J. (2012). Talent development as adaptation: the role of educational and learning capital 18. In S. N. Phillipson, H. Stoeger and A. Ziegler (eds.), Exceptionality in East Asia (pp. 18–39). London: Routledge. Ziegler, A., and Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30. Ziegler, A., and Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual frame of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. Psychology Science, 46(3), 324–341. Zwolan, T. A. (2009). Cochlear implants. In K. Katz, L. Medwetsky, R. Burkard and L. Hood (eds.), Handbook of Clinical Audiology (pp. 912–933). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Chapter 13

Gifted education policy and the development of exceptionality A Hong Kong perspective Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson 1

By most indicators of academic performance, Hong Kong’s students perform exceptionally well. For example, the most recent Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) places Hong Kong at the top of 36 countries at Grade 4 (the equivalent of Primary 4) in mathematics and science. At Grade 8 (equivalent to Secondary 2) Hong Kong drops slightly to fourth place with a score of 572, behind Chinese Taipei, The Republic of Korea and Singapore. Since the beginning of the TIMSS project in 1995, Hong Kong has been able to increase its overall rankings. Similarly, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results for 2011 show that Hong Kong is consistently ranked above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average in reading, mathematics and science and these results have been remarkably consistent over time (OECD, 2010). There is a similar pattern of results from the International Mathematics and International Physics Olympiads in which Hong Kong has taken an active part for many years. In 2011, the Hong Kong teams were awarded two gold, one silver and three bronze medals, and three gold and two silver medals in mathematics and physics respectively. The success of Hong Kong’s students reflects, in part, the substantial financial investment made by the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) in both education generally and in gifted education (GE) in particular. In addition, Hong Kong society is based on a Confucian heritage that regards hard work as a key component of success. Indeed, some interpretations of Confucianism place little value on gifted traits in comparison to the ethic of hard work. Rather, hard work and a dedication to specific training regimes are important if excellence in any particular domain is the goal. Furthermore, status is an important indicator of success in Hong Kong and parents exert a considerable influence over their children’s education so as to improve the likelihood of their children’s success. The recent controversy over Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother (Chua, 2011) serves to highlight the differences in parenting roles between East and West. Parents, of course, are a key component of a child’s educational environment.

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

233

As one of a number of East-Asian countries and regions, Hong Kong may not be unique in its approach to the development of its students. However, it does allow an opportunity to study some of the key aspects of the environment that play a significant role in helping students achieve internationally. In particular, we use the actiotope model of giftedness (Ziegler, Vialle and Wimmer, chapter 1 this volume; Ziegler, 2005) as our conceptual framework to help explain the interactions between Hong Kong’s policy for GE and the exceptional achievements of its students. We begin by justifying the value of the actiotope model as our conceptual framework to make the link between a GE policy and exceptional achievement. We then examine ways in which the GE policy in Hong Kong might influence the actiotope of individuals. Our aim is to expand some of the key components of Hong Kong’s policy for GE that can be empirically tested later. In our discussion, we view policy as socially constructed, consisting of texts and interpretations of those texts by policy makers (Yang, 2007). In Hong Kong, the GE policy is to be found in three main documents and interpretations of those documents by several key policy makers, including those from the Education Bureau (EDB) of the Hong Kong government and the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education (HKAGE) (S. N. Phillipson, S. Phillipson, and Eyre, 2011).

A conceptual framework to explain exceptionality To understand better the development of exceptionality, Ziegler (2005; see Ziegler, Vialle and Wimmer, chapter 1 this volume) developed the actiotope model, focusing on both the actions of the individual and the environmental conditions that promote exceptionality. It is the co-existence of both the individual and the appropriate learning environment that helps to explain whether an individual’s actions will lead to exceptionality. Reinforcing a systems perspective, Ziegler emphasizes the capacity of the system to evolve, the inter-relatedness of the components and their ability to establish new relationships over time. The actiotope model consists of two broad components, namely the self and the environment, where self includes the action repertoire, the subjective action space and goals. Environment, provides more than just the context for the processes within self, helping to shape each of the three individual components and, in turn, being shaped by changes in each of the three other components. Although outlined separately, Ziegler (2005) emphasized the systems nature of the interactions between self and the environment. The action repertoire describes the universe of all possible actions students have at their disposal (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2004). Whether a student chooses these possibilities will depend upon their goals and their perceptions of these possibilities according to their subjective action space. Ideally, the purpose of a GE policy should be to provide a learning environment where there are opportunities for all individuals to continually develop and express their action repertoire in an increasingly specialized domain.

234

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

The subjective action space constitutes the student’s cognizance of the universe of possible actions available to them. It is subjective because it represents their perception of what is possible, with the degree of congruence dependent on the quality of information available and the preparedness of the student to conduct the necessary research to understand it. According to Ziegler (2005), students may over- or underestimate their action repertoire because of environmental influences affecting self-perceptions of their ability and/or worth. Goals influence the level of student engagement (or motivation) in the pursuit of actions, and therefore are also affected by the outcomes of this engagement. When considering the role of GE policy in setting goals, it is important to bear in mind that policy can help to establish goals that students can follow, as well as helping students to set their own goals. We suggest that any GE policy should provide the framework of opportunities for the student to define his/her subjective action space, allowing opportunities to set goals, and to select and regulate actions so that they can more easily develop their learning pathway and move towards excellence achievement. The identification of students should also include assessments of their subjective action space as possible barriers to their development. Central to the actiotope model is an assessment of an individual’s learning pathway and the conditions that influence whether this pathway provides the optimal opportunities for the development of exceptionality. Ziegler, Vialle and Wimmer, chapter 1 this volume, makes the distinction between three key phases, including the Talent Phase, the Gifted Phase and the Excellence Phase. In the Talent Phase a student exhibits rapid progress in the pace and depth of his learning or achieves at a precocious level, so can be recognized as having the potential to realize excellence. In the Gifted Phase, a student has reached a critical state where excellence is probable. Finally, the Excellence Phase is reached when the student has attained demonstrable excellence in any particular domain or domains. The identification of students with the potential to reach excellence begins in the Talent Phase with the gathering of information reflecting the student’s learning pathway. The information includes assessments of the action repertoire, goals, subjective action space and environmental contexts (Ziegler and Stoeger, 2004). In considering the purpose of a policy for GE, its focus should be on meeting the needs of students in the Talent and Gifted Phases so that their chances of reaching the Excellent Phase are maximized.

Educational environments All GE policies exist in a broader educational, social, economic and political environment and are themselves shaped by competing forces within this environment. If we are to understand how GE policy influences the nature of action spaces we also need to consider the relationships between the GE policy and the broader educational environment. To make sense of the educational environment

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

235

we use the concept of “capital” to describe the sum total of all available resources that are able to influence the outcome of exceptionality. The concept of “capital” is not new. Coleman’s (1988) concept of social capital, social patterns and processes can account for disparities in academic achievement among ethnic groups. He argued that educational expectations, norms and familial obligations are important sources of social capital that influence the level of parent involvement and investment which are, in turn, significant predictors of academic success. Similarly, Csikszentmihalyi (1996) concluded that excellence is not localized in the person, but rather in the system of interactions between the person and their environment. According to Ziegler a person exhibits actions that, in certain contexts, are labeled ‘excellent’ (Ziegler, 2005, 2012, forthcoming) but it is the resources or environmental capital that facilitates the development of exceptionality (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume). The contextualization of a student’s action repertoire requires two types of capital, including educational capital and learning capital (Ziegler and Baker, chapter 2 this volume). Educational capital is external to the student and consists of all resources that can be employed for the improvement of education and learning. It can be regulated by individuals as well as by systems. Educational capital can take many forms, including policy capital, infrastructural capital, cultural capital, social capital and economic capital. To this list we have added historical capital because we feel that the developmental process helps to understand the interactions between the GE policy and the broader educational environment (see Figure 13.1). Hence, we hold the view that GE policy is both a discrete entity and one that interacts with other forms of capital. Such an approach emphasizes the complex interactivity of the various forms of capital and fits well with the systems approach advocated.

Educational Capital

Historical Capital

Policy Capital

Infrastructural Capital

Cultural Capital

Social Capital

Economic Capital

Individual’s Actiotope

Figure 13.1 Six types of environmental capital. (See text for detailed explanation.)

236

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

Learning capital refers to those resources that are directly accessible to individuals, helping them to achieve their learning goals. However, to date, the only research on GE policy we are aware of which has examined the internal quality of the GE policy is that of Phillipson, Phillipson and Eyre (2011). In contrast, there is a serious lack of research focusing on the direct impact of GE policy on the learning experiences of Hong Kong students. As a consequence, we do not discuss learning capital. The next section describes the various forms of educational capital and the GE policy, beginning with historical capital.

Historical capital Gifted education has been part of the educational landscape in Hong Kong for more than 20 years, beginning with the publication of the Hong Kong Education Commission Report No. 4 in 1990. This document represents the first acknowledgement by the government of Hong Kong of a need for GE in the (then) British colony. Since its publication, the Hong Kong government has implemented a number of educational reforms, many of which have incorporated measures to improve the quality of GE throughout the (now) SAR of China. Hong Kong introduced nine years of free and compulsory education in 1979, reflecting the need for a general basic education for its citizens. Reflecting international trends, a common curriculum emerged based on the assumption that “one size fits all,” and that the needs of all students could be met from common curricula and common strategies for teaching. The recognition that students are not identical, and that these differences can influence their capacity to learn, emerged in the 1980s. Accordingly, students with learning difficulties were supported and, for those gifted primary students with “no serious behavioral problems,” enrichment courses were developed by the Psychological Services Section of the (then) Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB). With the introduction of teaching approaches such as “small reporters,” “puppets,” brainstorming and project work, it was generally agreed that the selfesteem of students, as well as the creative, problem-solving, communication and research skills of gifted students, could be enhanced. In many ways this decade witnessed the first steps in the formation of informal programs reflecting GE needs in Hong Kong. The publication of the Education Commission Report No. 4 (ECR4) in 1990 is one of several documents that help to describe GE policy, including definitions for the term “giftedness.” In addition, the report stated that GE should embrace a perspective based on multiple intelligences rather than be limited to academic excellence, arguing that identification should extend beyond the use of IQ tests and include evidence from several sources. The report adopted a 2 percent criterion to help estimate the number of exceptionally gifted students, and most importantly, proposed school-based programs rather than special schools for gifted learners, citing arguments based on equity. Finally, it recommended that

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

237

initial screening should be via teacher nomination, with students then assessed individually by “intelligence and achievement tests” undertaken in the course of their primary schooling. These recommendations are still being implemented. ECR4 recommended that higher-order thinking skills, creativity and personal–social competence should be embedded in the general curriculum for all students “as the basis for nurturing talents and giftedness.” The document argued that schools should provide enrichment and extension activities in all subject areas and differentiated teaching strategies within the regular classroom, relying on teachers to match programs with students’ learning needs. In addition, schools should offer pull-out programs so students could receive “systematic training as a homogeneous group, in which they are exposed to mutual challenges, crossdiscipline exploration, in-depth studies and co-operative work.” For students with special needs, individualized education plans should be devised, beginning with a full psychological assessment and counseling. Finally, the report recommended that the Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre (FHCGEC) should be repositioned as a multi-functional resource center, together with the identification and engagement of other non-government agencies, to provide competitions, scholarships, mentoring and summer schools. The publication of The Development of Gifted Education in Hong Kong (Education Department, 2000) has become the cornerstone of the current GE policy, providing a brief rationale for GE, the basic conditions that would ensure the success of GE and the approaches that should take place. The document also sets out a series of principles for GE, including:

• • • •

• •

GE should be seen as part of quality education where the needs of gifted students should be met in their own school; Hong Kong should adopt a broad definition based on multiple intelligences, where nurturing multiple intelligences should be the mission of all schools; special provision is necessary for exceptionally gifted students whose learning needs cannot be met in school and for gifted students with emotional, behavioral or learning difficulties; teachers should identify and select students for extension and enrichment activities, where such activities are one way of meeting individual learning differences at the upper end of the ability range. The label “gifted” should not be used to define those taking part;2 stakeholder resources should be drawn together to support schools in stretching gifted students; and a ‘more generic approach’ (which is not explicitly defined) is recommended for primary schools.

In summary, the Hong Kong government has developed a GE policy that serves as a guideline for schools to follow. Although the policy is over 20 years old, the extent to which the general public has knowledge of and/or accepts this policy is unknown. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine the impact of the policy on the

238

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

broader educational environment. Although some schools have implemented GE programs, it is yet to be established how the policy has been implemented and whether or not these programs have been successful (Phillipson, Phillipson and Eyre, 2011). Despite its long history, we suspect that the GE policy may not enjoy wide public acceptance for at least two related reasons. First, the GE policy does not require schools to implement GE, and indeed the precise number of Hong Kong schools implementing GE is not publicly known. Second, schools enjoy considerable flexibility in how they implement GE, including definitions and strategies, leading to considerable variations in how GE is implemented and as a consequence, misperceptions within the general public. The current implementation of GE in Hong Kong is summarized in Table 13.1. A detailed explanation of this table is given in the following discussion.

Policy capital The purpose of educational policy is to set the direction and tone for what schools and related organizations need to do to meet society’s goals. As part of the broader goals of education, a GE policy aims to provide the organizational, human and learning resources that enable students to achieve academic exceptionality. At the individual level, the GE policy might also be expected to directly influence students by providing opportunities for appropriate learning experiences, such as, for example, mentorship schemes. The purpose of educational policy is to make a demonstrable change to a clearly identified educational issue or to provide a solution to a problem (Bell and Stevenson, 2006). Similarly, the purpose of a policy for GE is to effect a positive change to a clearly defined issue or provide a solution to a problem related to the education of students having the potential for outstanding achievement. This achievement is usually in academic domains (also known as Key Learning Areas in Hong Kong), although leadership and creativity are nearly always included. Within the context of the actiotope model, policy is a part of the individual’s learning environment, seeking to influence both the objective action space and the normative action space of all learners.3

Policy components and attributes VanTassel-Baska (2009) suggested five necessary components and five attributes of a “comprehensive” (p. 1306) and “high quality” (p. 1308) GE policy. The necessary components include specific references to identification, program and service provisions, a link with supplemental policies, preparation of personnel involved in the education of gifted students such as teachers, school counselors and administrators, and program management. To these five, Phillipson, Phillipson and Eyre (2011) added a sixth overarching component they termed clearly delineated aims and objectives.

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

239

Table 13.1 The three-tier model of gifted education in Hong Kong – A summary Name

Target group

Level 1: Whole-class EDB Responsibility

Level 2: Pull-out EDB Responsibility

Level 3: Off-site support HKAGE Responsibility

All students in Selected outstanding Gifted students secondary and students in nominated by primary schools, no secondary or secondary or selection is needed primary schools primary schools Responsible EDB working with EDB working with The HKAGE planning, organizations schools at primary secondary and organizing and for and secondary primary schools brokering with local implementation levels universities and similar institutions Implementation In regular classroom Inside school Within Venues outside place and time Within school or after regular school, often on timetable school hours university campuses or similar. After school hours (e.g. weekends, long vacations) Examples of Infusion of the three General enrichment Formerly the “Support Measures for the program: curriculum or core elements of Exceptionally Gifted broadening and learning GE into all Students”, now deepening the activities curriculum: (i.e. high-order thinking original curriculum replaced by the HKAGE programs skills, creativity and in order to match based on domains with the learning personal-social needs of the gifted and Key Learning competence) Areas students. Website: http://www. Programs include: Creative writing in hkage.org.hk English Language, Leadership training, etc. The HKAGE Resources Financial resources: cooperates with provided Capacity Enhancement Grant is provided and/or commissions for all primary and secondary schools by tertiary institutes to the government, and also the Diversity offer external Learning Grant for catering the gifted resource support to under the New Senior Secondary the exceptionally curriculum. gifted students. Human resources: Professional advice from the GE Section is provided for schools. Advice includes the design and implementation of Schoolbased Gifted Development Programs. Curriculum Resources: Curriculum packages in different domains are produced by the GE Section for school reference. Website: http://www.edb.gov.hk/cd/ge

240

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

As well as the policy components, VanTassel-Baska (2009) described the essential attributes of a GE policy, including clarity, comprehensiveness, connectedness, feasibility and basis in research. In the context of the actiotope model these attributes help to define the quality of opportunities available in the student’s actiotope. For example, a lack of clarity in the aims and objectives of the GE policy may lead to confusion among both providers and beneficiaries and a potential narrowing of a student’s action repertoire, despite the intentions of the policy. The ultimate goal of any GE policy should be to provide for the development of action repertoires that lead to achievement excellence. Accordingly, the components of any GE policy should rate highly in each attribute, with lower ratings in any one component limiting the number and/or quality of the opportunities The components may act directly or indirectly on a student’s actiotope. Direct influences might include providing for gifted students through a clearly differentiated curriculum. Indirect influences might, for example, occur where a policy benefits the student through the professional development of their teacher.

GE in Hong Kong The eight main groups of beneficiaries of the GE policy include students, parents, teachers, schools, the HKAGE, Hong Kong’s universities, the general public and broader educational reform (S. N. Phillipson, S. Phillipson, and Eyre, 2011). The general aims of the policy are also broadly stated and include an exploration and development of students’ multiple abilities, promotion of a general understanding of multiple abilities, promotion of parental understanding and mobilization of the general public’s acceptance of GE (S. N. Phillipson, S. Phillipson, and Eyre). For gifted students, the GE policy aims to explore and develop their potential systematically and strategically, to provide them with opportunities to receive education at appropriate levels in flexible teaching and learning environments, and to become autonomous learners and well-adjusted individuals willing to contribute to the community. The present policy encourages all government schools to meet the needs of gifted students, including social and emotional needs, through school-based gifted development programs, and allows for both on- and off-site support. Gifted students with special needs should be adequately supported and an awareness of their needs should be promoted in all schools. Although not specifically mentioned, setting goals would be an aspect of helping students develop their potentiality and in becoming autonomous learners.

Implementing the GE policy Despite evidence that mandates do make a difference (Carnoy and Lobe, 2002; Landrum et al., 1998; Purcell, 1995; VanTassel-Baska, 2009), GE in Hong Kong is not mandated. In this context, the success of the GE policy depends on being

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

241

able to persuade school personnel (e.g. school principals) that GE is important and necessary. The persuasiveness of the policy depends, in part, on the attributes of the policy, particularly its clarity, comprehensibility, connectedness and feasibility.

Defining giftedness The GE policy defines giftedness broadly, including references to multiple intelligences, psychometric intelligence and the Marland (1972) definition. In the policy, giftedness is not necessarily equivalent to all-round excellence, as some gifted students may excel only in a certain domain or in a set of skills, such as creativity. The policy also refers to students who are at risk of underachievement because of social, personal, or environmental factors, including students with special educational needs, such as physical or sensory disabilities, specific learning disabilities, emotional, behavioral or social problems, or hyperactivity. The reference to Marland (1972) implies that cognitive skills are the same as a domain, rather than part of the action repertoire necessary for the attainment of exceptionality in these domains. Creativity, for example, is not a domain in itself; rather, it is a skill necessary to realize exceptionality. The policy refers to measured achievement rather than specifying which actions are necessary for this achievement. This should allow for individuals to use a variety of alternate action repertoires. However, this depends on a curriculum that allows different pathways to develop. Recent systemic changes to the curriculum in Hong Kong aim to provide a variety of learning pathways that suit individual student needs and aptitudes, but it is too early to say how effective these will be in providing a range of alternative action repertoires. The reference to psychometric intelligence reflects historical notions of giftedness and the distinction between potential and achievement. Although the actiotope model recognizes intelligence as one of a number of intrapersonal determinants of action repertoires (Ziegler, 2005), they are not, in themselves, indicators of giftedness. Similarly, it is not clear how a multiple intelligences perspective can assist the development of an action repertoire, given that Gardner (1983, 1999) defines each of the multiple intelligences as a potential rather than domain. On the other hand, a definition based on the Marland definition has the potential to extend the domains where giftedness can be found, and of course, the range of action repertoires that can be developed. For schools, a broad definition may prove problematic because of the lack of specificity. Although EDB has prepared a number of checklists that schools can use, the flexibility that schools enjoy in adapting the policy to suit their needs may prevent them from acting simply because they lack the confidence with which to make informed decisions. In evaluating the Hong Kong GE policy, Phillipson et al., (2011) concluded that the highly competitive and pragmatic nature of Hong Kong’s educational system makes it difficult for students other than those

242

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

with demonstrable academic achievement to be identified. Thus, most schools are likely to select high-achieving students for gifted programs because they are easily identified and the decision to do so is easily justified if challenged. Clearly, it also means that students with special educational needs are unlikely to be selected for gifted programs since their needs may have prevented them from achieving highly. Since 2008, the HKAGE has developed processes for the identification of exceptionally gifted students. The processes depend on the use of checklists and the involvement of teachers, but more recently the involvement of school education psychologists and social workers to identify underachieving gifted students. To complement these approaches, the HKAGE has also begun professional development programs for these three groups of professionals to help and encourage them to adopt more sophisticated measures. After implementing the GE policy, Hong Kong is now more sensitive to the different groups of gifted students. It recognizes both general and specific abilities among the gifted population and it strongly recommends that multiple criteria be used to identify each category of giftedness. However, it is unable to provide a clearly delineated process for equitable decision-making across the screening, identification, selection and placement phases. Only in the screening process for the HKAGE courses is there a process to relate a student’s abilities to the courses they might follow since all nominations are made to a particular domain, such as mathematics, science, humanities and leadership, for example.

Evaluating the GE policy in Hong Kong The Hong Kong policy for GE does not include plans for its evaluation, nor does it clearly identify the goals and standards by which the policy can be evaluated. A recent analysis of the current status of Hong Kong’s GE policy showed that its aims and objectives are stated broadly with references to exploring and developing students’ multiple abilities, promoting parental understanding, and mobilizing the general public’s support for, and participation in, GE (S. N. Phillipson, S. Phillipson, Eyre, 2011). Although laudable, such statements reflect the mission of the policy rather than its objectives. Given that the policy allows schools considerable flexibility in how they implement GE, the presence of broadly expressed goals and standards is understandable. On the other hand, there is a paucity of research indicating the extent to which schools are implementing GE and if so, how they evaluate its effectiveness. On the other hand, the HKAGE has developed a framework by which the effectiveness of its programs can be evaluated (see Figure 13.2). This framework depends on both quantitative and qualitative information, given that the latter can sometimes be a better indicator of effectiveness. Moreover, data is collected from three sources, including the student, the service provider and focus groups,

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

243

Student Feedback Qualitative and Quantitative Course objectives, intended learning outcomes, expectation met Motivation to learn and benefit to study at school Self-regulated learning, active learning and interaction with others Creativity, critical thinking and problem solving skill Quality of teaching Preparation and logistic arrangement of the course Overall evaluation Suggestion for improvement

Regular Focus Group Discussion/Study

Programme Evaluation Programme Planning Programme implementation

EVALUATING IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING

Students Parents Teachers

Case Studies Sample students with IQ 130 or above Actively attending courses (10+ per quarter) Regularly attending courses (2+ each quarter) Inactive to attend course (attend 0–2 each quarter) With special educational needs/twice exceptionality Outstanding awardees in various competitions (local tertiary wide or HK delegates)

Figure 13.2 The HKAGE evaluation framework for student programs. (See text for details.) Source: Reproduced with the kind permission of the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education.

so it is possible to triangulate the evidence. Additional evidence is provided by in-depth studies of individual cases. At the core of this framework are the learning needs of the students and how the courses provided by the HKAGE may have added value to the student’s learning experience. The framework allows the HKAGE to evaluate its services and to make subsequent adjustments. Within such a framework the quality of the opportunities for the development of an optimal action repertoire are honed and replicated.

Program and service provision The GE policy in Hong Kong specifically discourages specialist schools for gifted students and emphasizes that gifted students can be found in all schools and that these schools should provide for their needs. It also recognizes the importance of

244

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

supporting the emotional and social needs of gifted students, although it is less clear on how this should be done. The GE policy in Hong Kong is operationalized as a three-tier model (see Figure 13.3) where:

•

•

•

Level 1 operates at the classroom level and for all students. The objectives are to incorporate high-order thinking skills, creativity and personal–social competence within the regular school curriculum and to differentiate teaching with enrichment and extension activities across all subjects. Level 2 caters for the top 10 percent of students and operates through pullout programs but within the school in specific areas (e.g. mathematics, science, languages, creativity and leadership, etc.) to allow systematic training for students with outstanding performance. Level 3 caters for the exceptionally (top two percent) gifted students by providing tailor-made off-site programs in collaboration with universities and other professional bodies. Since 2008 delivery at Level 3 has been the responsibility of the HKAGE as well as some universities. Three-tier Implementation Model and Target Students Mode

Student Category

Level Three: Off-site support

Exceptionally gifted students

Level Two: School-based pullout programmes Level One: School-based whole-class approach

Students with special Students with outstanding talents in creativity, critical performance in specific thinking and leadership domains

All Students

General Enrichment

Students with outstanding performance in academic subjects

Curriculum Content

Specialized (Subject/Domain)

Figure 13.3 Hong Kong’s three-tier model of gifted education. The needs of students in Levels 1 and 2 are met through school-based programs organized by EDB, whereas the needs of students in Level 3 are met by the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education and some universities. Source: Reproduced with kind permission of the Education Bureau of Hong Kong. (Original source: http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=2377&langno=1)

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

245

In nominating students for services in Levels 1 and 2, schools use a variety of identification tools, including school results, target-oriented assessments, observation checklists and student portfolios. When nominating students for Level 3, schools are encouraged to use a number of identification tools, including aptitude tests, intelligence tests, social emotional assessments, creativity and other checklists. In an attempt to be more inclusive in the identification process, the HKAGE also encourages nominations from educational psychologists and school social workers, since they are sometimes better placed to recognize underachievement. However, as Phillipson et al. (2011) point out, it is likely that only those students able to demonstrate their academic achievement will be nominated by their schools to participate in gifted programs, rather than those who are underachieving. Furthermore, the articulation between the three levels is not clearly specified. Hence, it is possible that if students are allocated to one of the three levels they only receive the services appropriate to that level. As a consequence, students identified as being in the top two percent may not have had access to services related to Levels 1 and 2 (Phillipson et al., 2011), assuming they exist. In practice, schools are required to match the mechanisms used to identify students and the educational programs and services that are provided. However, schools do not seem to be able to make the link explicit, other than through their Level 2 pull-out programs. Additionally, the requirement to have no less than 150 minutes each week for dedicated gifted programs is not part of the GE policy; schools can decide for themselves what provisions they make for their gifted students. In terms of developing the action repertoire of a student, it is appropriate to move away from a “horizontal” perspective and to consider an articulation across the three levels. For example, a student with a potential of achieving in the top 2 percent should be able to access an appropriately differentiated learning environments in their regular class (Level 1) and school-based pull-out programs (Level 2). After building on this foundation, there should be a high likelihood of being nominated for HKAGE programs in one or more domains (Level 3). In this way, opportunities for the expansion of the action repertoire are increased. Of course, this requires a perfect alignment between the student’s goals, his/ her motivations and both the objective action space and the normative action space. In contrast to the existing policy, the actiotope model focuses exclusively on the demonstration of actions such as skills sets and knowledge within a particular domain, rather than an equal reliance on tests of intelligence. VanTassel-Baska (2003) emphasized the importance of a curriculum policy that is sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of diverse learners. For gifted students, the curriculum must be differentiated and articulated to include the selection of content appropriate to their needs, access to suitable teaching strategies such as flexible grouping and the benefits of teachers trained in GE (Kulik and Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 2002). The actiotope model goes further in recommending that an individualized education program is warranted, including the involvement of parents. Only then will the student’s action repertoire be maximized.

246

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

Infrastructural capital At present, two key agencies in Hong Kong are responsible for the implementation of the GE policy – the Gifted Education Section (GES) of the EDB and HKAGE. The GES has direct links with schools and has staff that are able to provide advice on the identification of gifted students, curriculum differentiation and professional development opportunities for teachers. The HKAGE began operations in September 2008, focusing on the needs of exceptionally gifted students. Although an independent organization, it works closely with EDB both to co-ordinate and implement the GE policy, including developing strategies designed to meet the educational needs of gifted students, the professional development of their teachers, support for their parents and conducting research. In accordance with the broad aims of the GE policy, the provision of GE in Hong Kong currently extends beyond the government schools and includes a number of local universities and businesses. For example, the Chinese University Hong Kong (CUHK) has been running programs for primary and secondary students for a number of years. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) conducts science and mathematics courses for secondary students, initially in partnership with EDB, but more recently in collaboration with Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth (JHU-CTY) for their summer school. At the tertiary level there is some provision for training teachers in GE, but it is very limited in both quantity and scope. Most of the professional development of teachers falls to EDB and the HKAGE and is likely to continue into the future. In addition, there is an elective course at CUHK on the Master of Eduction (MEd) course and the University of Hong Kong runs an Advanced Certificate course in GE sponsored by the HKAGE. The Hong Kong Institute of Education initiated an MEd degree in GE in 2009 and enrolls a steady stream of teachers and parents, but not in sufficient numbers to make a significant impact on schools.

Didactic capital Every GE policy is situated within broader educational policies, seeking to enhance professional expertise and raise standards in schools. Hong Kong is possibly unique because of the scope and pace of its current reform programs in both the secondary and tertiary education sectors, including reducing secondary education by one year and increasing tertiary education by one year. The four platforms of educational reform in Hong Kong include reforms in school-based management, curriculum and learning, assessment and accountability and quality assurance. Inherent in these changes is a focus on the needs of the student rather than the needs of schools (see Figure 13.4). In focusing on the needs of the student, the current reforms are more in line with the GE policy – particularly as the educational reforms emphasize learner

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

247

Components of HK Education Reforms School Development Reform School-based management Diversified school funding Building school capacity

Curriculum and Learning Reform New senior secondary system Multiple pathways to further study

Assessment Reform Assessment for learning School-based assessment Standards-referenced reporting New HKDSE

Accountability and Quality Assurance Reform New school development and accountability framework School self evaluation External school review

Figure 13.4 The four platforms of educational reform in Hong Kong include reforms in school-based management, curriculum and learning, assessment and accountability, and quality assurance.

diversity. In the new educational environment, teachers are required to acknowledge and meet the learning needs of a varied student population, including those who are capable of exceptional achievement. Of course, it is still too soon to judge whether or not the needs of these students are being met. How these changes fit with VanTassel-Baska’s criteria for supplemental policies is difficult to say, as the changes are yet to be embedded in schools, and only from 2012 will the impact on the universities begin to be known. At the moment, there is some evidence to suggest that there is a linkage between the differentiation of the curriculum, instructional practices and assessment for gifted students, and the standards of the broader educational reforms, but teachers seem to lack confidence on implementation. It also seems that more work is needed to monitor student data to ensure that gifted students are reaching desired proficiency levels in areas related to their identification. The notion of “hallmark” secondary programs, such as the International Baccalaureate (IB) and Advanced Placement (AP) schemes, has not been a feature of GE in Hong Kong. All IB programs, for example, are limited to the international and independent school sector. From 2012, the EDB and the HKAGE have announced a joint venture to overcome the deficiencies in school-based expertise in GE. Recognizing that teachers play a key role in the GE, each school is recommended to appoint a GE Manager and a GE Coordinator from the existing pool of teachers. The primary role of the manager is to provide the resources (including time) for the development of a whole-school policy and the coordinator’s role is to implement GE in the school, including the professional development of teacher pedagogy at the school. To support this initiative, a number of training tiered pathways will be

248

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

Professional Development Framework in Gifted Education For GE Managers, GE Coordinators and All Teachers (From 2012) Hotung Lecture

Foundation Course in Gifted Education (Compulsory Online Learning) Target: All School Practitioners 4 Modules 8 hours

Intermediate Course in GE: Leadership & Management Target: GE Managers/Coordinators 3 Modules 9 hours

Advanced Course: (GE Management) Target: GE Managers 18 hours

Advanced Course: (Curriculum Coordination) Target: GE coordinators 18 hours

Biennial GE Conference (Joint)

School Networks Enhancement Courses (TPD) Target: techers (KLAs) 6 hours

Thematic seminars & workshops

Key:

School Networks

GE Teachers Networks (by KLA)

EDB HKAGE HKAGE

Figure 13.5 Proposed training pathways for teachers in Hong Kong to support the implementation of school-based gifted education managers and gifted education coordinators. Source: Reproduced with the kind permission of the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education.

provided to support these recommendations, including foundation courses, and various forms of advanced and enhanced courses (see Figure 13.5). Each training pathway follows a tiered structure of Foundation, Intermediate and Advanced courses, amounting to 25 hours of gifted-specific professional development – a number that corresponds closely to that recommended by VanTassel-Baska (2009). Furthermore, there is explicit recognition of the need to include leadership and management skills development in these courses, since success depends on the ability of these teachers to make an impact in their schools. To complement these “driver” courses, there are also enhanced courses (total of 14 hours) and a series of varied thematic courses. Although completion of these courses is not a requirement for the two new positions, they do offer opportunities for systematic staff development. All of these courses are to be run by the EDB and the HKAGE using their internal resources and supplemented by invited expertise as required.

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

249

Taken together, these initiatives should broaden and enhance the scope for government school-based provision in the future and therefore expand the opportunities for students to develop their action repertoires in a manner that most suits their learning needs.

Cultural capital Cultural educational capital includes value systems, thinking patterns and models which, for example, influence the attainment of learning and educational goals. In Hong Kong, cultural capital is heavily based on the Confucian heritage culture, where education is highly valued. Education is seen as the ladder for social mobility, self-improvement, a better income and an increase in social status. However, there are variations to this capital that can influence educational outcomes. In the first example, Waters (2008) showed that Hong Kong students who have sought their higher education in Canada did so because of the strong symbolic meanings attached to having a Western education, especially at the tertiary level. According to Waters, “academic qualifications can be strategically accumulated by individuals with access to financial, cultural, and social capital and that practices of, and success in, education are often determined by social class rather than necessarily reflecting natural talent or intelligence” (p. 6). Her research concluded that the social capital of Hong Kong graduates returning from Canada played a critical role in the recognition and evaluation of cultural capital. For most Hong Kong employers, qualifications gained overseas carry with them qualities and workplace skills which the Hong Kong education system is not able to develop. For job applicants with similar educational qualifications, graduates with an overseas qualification have a 20 percent greater chance in securing a position compared with local graduates. For students educated in Hong Kong, there are at least four ways in which the Confucian tradition is a potent force in determining positive attitudes toward academic achievement. The first concerns the need for impulse control from an early age as part of the preparation for academic success (Rao et al., 2003). In addition, the father (and more recently the mother) is often seen as the disciplinarian, matched by teachers once the child goes to school. Therefore, East-Asian children are reared to respect adults and behave in a manner that fosters compliance to regulations. In a similar way there are also very strong bonds of filial piety in which meeting the demands of parents is a socializing obligation. Parents, therefore, often play a very active role in their children’s education, whether it is setting academic standards, advocating for more provision for gifted learners with schools and EDB, or helping them with homework each evening (Phillipson, 2010). Cultural capital is thus transferred between generations with the transmission of attitudes and values from the parents. With the emphasis on education, students in Hong Kong, as elsewhere in East Asia, are strongly motivated for academic achievement; these

250

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

are usually strongly correlated with future occupational preferences, especially for law, medicine, science, finance and related professions.

Social capital Social capital is often thought of as the intangible resources that are embedded in interpersonal relationships and educational institutions. Social capital is rarely explicitly identified in education policy, although it does provide a cultural context within which policy is articulated and therefore reinforced by public perceptions and attitudes. The concept of social capital highlights the value of social relations and the role of cooperation and confidence to get collective or economic results. As we have seen, within the family, expectations, obligations and relationships strongly influence success outcomes in Hong Kong. Furthermore, when parental expectations are high, there is often a high degree of parental involvement in their child’s education which often increases the pressure on schools and teachers to deliver positive educational outcomes (Phillipson, 2010). Social capital provides a useful construct to better understand the disciplinary and academic climate in schools, the cultural norms and values that promote student effort, and thereby engender high-end outcomes in the education process.

Economic capital Hong Kong has recognized the need to invest in human capital to ensure its long-term economic viability. Accordingly, it has established education as one of its “six pillars” for economic development, after testing and certification, medical services, innovation and technology, culture and creative industries, and environmental industry. Recurrent spending on general education has steadily risen over the past 10 years to about HK$52 bn in 2010–11 (or about 25 percent of all government spending) to become the single largest cost of any government department or policy area. Similarly, the financing of the GE policy in Hong Kong has risen significantly in recent years. A LegCo Finance Committee Paper from 2007–8 states that: “In 2006–07, the Support Measures for Exceptionally Gifted Students included 51 enhancement programs and 36 related activities for gifted students, their teachers and parents, costing about HK$3.8 million in total.” With a total number of beneficiaries estimated to be about 8,000, that is a direct per capita expenditure of HK$475. Annual spending on GE between 2003 and 2007 averaged HK$29 million. With the setting up of the HKAGE in 2007, further funding in excess of HK$24 million per year has been added.

Conclusion In establishing a link between the GE policy in Hong Kong and the development of the actiotope of gifted students, we are hampered by the lack of any research

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

251

that focuses directly on the impact of the policy on the educational outcomes of gifted students (Phillipson et al., 2011). Nevertheless, there are some generalizations that emerge from our analysis that help to understand the ways the policy has attempted to enhance the learning environment of Hong Kong’s gifted students. Hong Kong’s GE policy scores on all of VanTasssel-Baska’s (2009) five/six components, but to differing levels, and therefore its capacity for defining and developing a student’s action repertoire has to be proportionally reduced. This may be an inevitable reflection of the relatively early stages of GE policy and practice in Hong Kong; it may be that “practice” has not kept pace with policy; it may be that policy needs to be made more explicitly clear to key stakeholders so they are not only convinced of the need to implement but they also know how to implement. The truth is probably an amalgam of all these. The component that holds the greatest prospect for enhancing the GE landscape in Hong Kong is that relating to the further professional development of teachers, including GE Managers and GE Coordinators. For the first time, there will be key personnel in place in schools to help drive the agenda forward. These are vital roles to facilitate the development of school-based practice at Level 1 since they hold the key to embedding the GE policy across all government schools (and in the wider school community). The literature is replete with examples of how students are offered limited challenge and stimulation in the conventional school curriculum and so Hong Kong has the opportunity to show how it can expand the action repertoire of students and increase their motivation to set realistic goals for themselves. Identification is an issue that has always lacked unanimity of understanding in the gifted community. The strength of Hong Kong’s stance is that it recognizes and embraces a wide interpretation of what giftedness can be. Its weakness is that in trying to accommodate all forms of giftedness it has not given more guidance to teachers on how to translate this in practice. Arguably, it also underplays the importance of underachievement and of the issues surrounding twice exceptionality. Hong Kong’s three-tier framework for implementing its GE policy is potentially a rich source for any student developing their action repertoire, since it offers experiences both on-site and off-site that should be complementary. However, we note that the GE policy is not clear in articulation across the three tiers. If the student pathway through the three tiers is made explicit, then the opportunities to enhance the student action repertoire are enhanced. Focusing on the individual student, the various opportunities can be summarized in Figure 13.6. The key to developing these opportunities is to view the learning experiences of any student as a “vertical slice” through the diagram so that every gifted learner should be able to find challenge in each of the levels. Complementary, and preferably linked, learning experiences for every gifted learner are needed at every level of this model. What evidence there is suggests that more work needs to be done to provide for differentiated instruction in the classroom and to extend the concept of pull-out programs to include more

252

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

Expanding the Student Action Repertoire/Learning Experience

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1

• KLA-specific learning outsourced to universities • University credit-bearing courses • Leadership programs • Mentorships • Exchange programs • Olympiad training • Virtual learning environment • Enhancement and enrichment activities in pull-out programs • Competitions • Domain-specific learning opportunities • Collaboration with other schools to widen access • Flexible curriculum planning – extension modules • Differentiated learning – pace, depth & breadth • Skills development: critical & creative thinking • Flexible student grouping • Acceleration by grade or subject • Whole-person development: affective domain

Figure 13.6 Potential learning experiences in the three-tier model of gifted education.

than competitions. There is the danger that some will perceive the Level 3 courses as substitutes for the proper development of Level 1 instruction and so the foundations that should be found at Level 1 become instead the superstructure to Level 3. The wider context of GE in Hong Kong is still in a state of flux. There is no doubt that the educational reforms are wide-ranging and the place of GE is identifiable, but not secure. There are a number of central concepts, such as learner diversity, that hold promise of support for the gifted but the connections need clear articulation by key agencies to help professionals make the much-needed connections between reform and meeting the needs of gifted learners. Finally, no policy can be left to deliver without some form of evaluation framework. Although the HKAGE has formulated such a framework, it is still in its development stages and there is no indication yet that it will be adopted by EDB and thus offer an agency-wide means to evaluate the effectiveness of all levels of the implementation model. Hong Kong has a unique opportunity to deliver an innovative and successful approach to GE because the scale of operation is not too large, reflecting the citystate nature of the Hong Kong territory. The SAR has an estimated population of 20,000 gifted learners in the top 2 percent of the ability range so the numbers involved are within manageable proportions. However, its success depends on

Gifted education policy in Hong Kong

253

clearly articulating connections between dimensions of the environment and the student’s actiotope.

Notes 1 Note that the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the organizations for which they work. 2 Note that this principle is no longer followed.

3 An objective action space is defined as all possible actions that can be carried out in a particular environmental setting. A normative action space, on the other hand, reflects the local pressures an individual experiences that select for or against particular actions. See Chapter 3 this volume for more details.

References Bell, L., and Stevenson, H. (2006). Education Policy: Process, Themes and Impact. New York: Routledge. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., and Harris, C. J. (2006). Learning environments. In K. A. Renninger and I. E. Sigel (eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 297–342). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons. Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley II, B. B., and Stambaugh, T. (2006). A five-state analysis of GE policies. Roeper Review, 29(1), 11–23. Callahan, C. M. (ed.), (2004). Program Evaluation in GE. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Carnoy, M. and Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4): 305–331. Chua, A. (2011). Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. New York: The Penguin Press. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial. Education Commission. (1990). Report No. 4: The curriculum and behavioural problems in schools. Hong Kong, China: Government Printer. Education Department. (2000). Development of GE in Hong Kong. Retrieved. from http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_3201/policy_paper.pdf. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Grassinger, R., Porath, M., and Ziegler, A. (2010). Mentoring the gifted: A conceptual analysis. High Ability Studies, 21(1), 27–46. Kulik, J. A. and Kulik C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Children Quarterly 36(2): 73–77. Landrum, M. S., Callahan, C. M., and Shaklee B. D (1998) Aiming for Excellence: Gifted Program Standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc Marland, S. P. J. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printer.

254

Stephen D. Tommis and Shane N. Phillipson

McDonnell, L. M., and Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133–152. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD. Phillipson, S. (2010). Parental role and students’ cognitive ability: An achievement model. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(2), 229–250. Phillipson, S. N., Shi, J., Zhang, G., Tsai, D.-M., Quek, C. K., Matsumura, N. (2009). Recent developments in GE in East Asia. In L. V. Shavinina (ed.), The International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 1427–1461). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media. Phillipson, S. N., Phillipson, S., and Eyre, D. M. (2011). Being gifted in Hong Kong: An examination of the region’s policy for GE. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 235–249. Purcell, J. H. (1995). GE at a crossroads: The program status study. Gifted Child Quarterly 39(2), 39, 57–65. Rao, N., Koong, M., Kwong, M., and Wong, M. (2003). Predictors of preschool process quality in a Chinese context. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(3), 331–350. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming GE: Matching the Program to the Child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Differentiating curriculum experiences for the gifted and talented: A consumer’s guide to best practices. Parenting for High Potential, Washington: DC: NAGC. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2009). United States policy development in GE: A patchwork quilt. In L. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 1295–1312). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media. Waters, J. (2008). Education, Migration, and Cultural Capital in the Chinese Diaspora: Transnational Students between Hong Kong and Canada. New York: Cambria Press. Yang, R. (2007). Comparing policies. In M. M. Bray, B. Adamson and M. Mason (eds.), Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods (pp. 241–262). Hong Kong, China: Springer. Ziegler, A. (2006) The actiotope model of giftedness. In M. Giger: http://www.gigers. com/matthias/gifted/actiotopic_model.tml Ziegler, A. and Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness: A meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J Moenks, R. Sternberg, and R. Subotnik (eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (2nd edn). Oxford: Pergamon. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg and J. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., and Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on the ENTER within the conceptual frame of the actiotope model of giftedness. Psychology Science, 46(3), 324–341. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (eds.), Self-regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-reflective Practice (pp. 1–19). New York: Guilford Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic Press.

Chapter 14

The gifted and talented and effective learning A focus on the actiotope model of giftedness in the Asian context Dennis M. McInerney

General notions of giftedness Ability in various academic, creative and social domains lies along a continuum. Among the characteristics of gifted individuals are above-average intelligence, above-average problem-solving ability (particularly in their use of metacognitive strategies), greater intellectual curiosity, academic interest and challenge-seeking behaviour, higher preference for independent mastery, an emotive interest in their work, greater motivation and persistence than average-ability students (e.g, see Dai, 2009; McClain and Pfeiffer, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2012; Reis and Renzulli, 2010). High perceived academic competence sets gifted students apart from other students, and they have higher mathematical and verbal self-efficacy (Dai, Moom, and Feldhusen, 1998). However, gifted and talented students do not form a homogeneous group (Erwin and Worrell, 2012; Olszewski-Kubilius and Thomson, 2010; Reis and Renzulli, 2010; Yoon and Gentry, 2009). They can display many different talents and come from many different backgrounds (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell, 2012). Individuals who are quite gifted across a number of areas may nevertheless require remediation in other subject areas (referred to as double exceptionality) and various talents may become evident as individuals grow older (Assouline, Nicpon, and Whiteman, 2010; Bianco, Carothers, and Smiley, 2009; Cropley, 1993a, 1993b; Reis and Renzulli, 2010; Sternberg and Davidson 1985, 2005; Subotnik et al., 2012; Torrance 1986). Some argue that giftedness and talent are dynamic and developmental rather than static and trait-like, evolving in different ways in different sociocultural contexts (Al-Shabatat, Abbas, and Ismail, 2011; Barab and Plucker, 2002; Little, 2012; Ziegler and Phillipson, 2012). As such giftedness varies from context to context, a point emphasized by Ziegler in the actiotope model (see Chapter 1 this volume) and illustrated by Porath’s chapter on developmental perspectives drawing on Neo-Piagetian developmental theory (see Chapter 4 this volume). Giftedness and talent is dependent on the dynamic interaction between individuals and their physical and sociocultural contexts, what the actiotope model refers to as various forms of capital (sociotopes). In this context, whether a particular

256

Dennis M. McInerney

individual-environment interaction (ACTION-SPACES) is considered talented is very much socioculturally determined: “Therefore, an important part of exhibiting talented behaviour involves understanding how to act in a manner that is consistent with those ways that have been socioculturally endorsed – that is, functional for a particular group” (Barab and Plucker, 2002, p. 174). The development of talent and excellence depends upon appropriate opportunities and resources being made available. These latter are determined by a whole host of cultural, physical, and geographical affordances and constraints, discussed by Ziegler in Chapter 1, and which lie at the heart of the actiotope model. Therefore, in contrast to models and measures of giftedness that are exclusive and dependent on limited measures such as equating giftedness with IQ, the actiotope model is inclusive combining elements such as cognitive strengths, and non-intellectual qualities such as motivation, self-concept and creativity (see also Sternberg and Davidson, 2005, for an expanded view of giftedness and its measurement).

Identifying and measuring giftedness The issues of the definition and measurement of giftedness and the identification of gifted and talented individuals are enormously complicated (McClain and Pfeiffer, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2009; Subotnik et al., 2012; see Chapter 11 this voulme). Essential to this is the debate on whether giftedness should be viewed as trait-like or developmental. In the past, individuals who scored an IQ of 130 on the Binet performance test were considered gifted (McClain and Pfiefer, 2012; Reis and Renzulli, 2010; Shaughnessy 1993). Neubauer dealt with this in his chapter on intelligence and achievement and the emphasis he placed on identifying individual trait characteristics such as intelligence as a key indicator of giftedness. He emphasizes that psychometric intelligence is still the strongest predictor of educational and professional success. However, the specific attributes assessed by such a single measure as an IQ score often bear little relationship to the cluster of qualities more broadly characteristic of the gifted individual. Today, a more thorough screening process, based on a wider conceptualization of giftedness, is usually used to identify gifted and talented individuals for purposes of special educational programmes (McClain and Pfeiffer, 2012; Subotnik et al., 2012). Among the measures that may be used in addition to intelligence tests, are standardized tests of creative and general ability, behavioural checklists, anecdotal records, interviews, products and performance, class grades and multi-dimensional testing (Johnsen, 2009; Kornilov et al., 2012; McClain and Pfeiffer, 2012; Shavinina, 2009; Silverman, 2009; Sternberg, 2010; Sternberg and Davidson 1985, 2005; Subotnik et al., 2012). However, the emphasis in such assessments is still relatively trait-like, it’s just that the range of indicators has been widened. There is little emphasis on the developmental nature of giftedness. The actiotope model adds to, and builds upon, this catalogue and emphasizes the developmental nature of giftedness through the ENTER assessment process involving exploring, narrowing, transforming, evaluating, and reviewing to broaden the perspective (see Chapters 11 and 12).

The gifted and talented and effective learning

257

In line with this emphasis on the developmental nature of giftedness, the actiotope model emphasizes the need to provide action space, to develop action repertoires and leaning paths essential in any dynamic model of giftedness and talent. In other places this is referred to as “opportunity” which provides a context for talent to be nurtured (Subotnik et al., 2012). Programs for the gifted and talented to enhance educational and learning capital are many and diverse and this issue was covered by many of the chapters, including Ziegler et al., (see Chapters 1 and 2), Phillipson and Cheng (Chapter 7), and Tommis and Phillipson (Chapter 13). Callingham (see Chapter 5) examines the success of Asian students in mathematics from the actiotope perspective and argues that such achievement is action based rather than trait based. In other words, achievement is the product of effort and hard work (drawn from the Confucian tradition, see also Shane Phillipson (Chapter 3) and Yuen and Fong (see Chapter 8)), rather than an innate quality of Asian students per se, vis a vis comparator groups.

Educational provisions for the gifted and talented Some argue that the gifted and talented student’s educational needs are not, and can not, be met adequately in the regular classroom, irrespective of the provisions made, and because of this they are a disadvantaged group (Reis and Renzulli, 2010; Robertson, Pfeiffer, and Taylor, 2011; Subotnik et al., 2012). Some argue strongly for the establishment of special classes, schools and programs for the gifted, selective high schools and gifted classes designed to meet the needs of the gifted student. Research generally indicates that grouping gifted students facilitates their cognitive and social development while having no impact on the achievements or attitudes of the peers remaining in the regular heterogeneous classroom (Reis and Renzulli, 2010). However, there is currently an emphasis on inclusive schooling and mainstreaming educational opportunity for students with exceptionalities and disabilities. In the context of the mainstreaming movement, therefore, it would appear a little odd to argue that the gifted and talented should be educated in special schools or special classrooms isolated from the mainstream. Among the objections to special provisions for the gifted and talented are that such provisions are elitist; gifted and talented students will develop irrespective of provision and that special programs neglect the fact that all individuals can be talented and gifted to a greater or lesser degree. Furthermore, because it is unlikely that many gifted children will have access to special provisions and support, teachers of the regular classroom should be competent to facilitate the learning of all students in their classroom, including the gifted, a point made by Tommis and Phillipson (see Chapter 13)). There are a number of provisions that can be made to facilitate the education of gifted students which can be provided within the context of the regular classroom and regular school (Lloyd 1999; Urban 1993) an emphasis drawn by Tommis and Phillipson (see Chapter 13) and considered by Shane Phillipson and

258

Dennis M. McInerney

Cheng as effective learning environments through the development of functional learning sociotopes. Regular classes should be able to give enough room to improve the achievement of gifted students by reshaping teaching methods, grouping with differing levels of difficulty, encouraging creative thinking, using well-designed and organized extracurricular activities, and establishing relevant goals. Indeed, schools and learning spaces in general, should be adaptable to the special needs of all learners. Provisions that can be made within the regular school context include: (1) Teaching strategies that involve the implementation of appropriate and specific strategies in the regular classroom to stimulate the development of gifted and talented students. These strategies could include self-directed and independent study, and individual education plans (IEPs). These should encourage students to become ‘deep’ thinkers with an armory of appropriate cognitive and metacognitive skills. (2) Flexible progression, which involves the promotion of a student to a level of study beyond the usual one for their age group. This flexible progression may take one of the following forms: (a) early enrolment; (b) early completion of a stage and entry into the next stage in one or more subjects; (c) early entry to tertiary education; (d) compaction of course content; and (e) vertical grouping, which may involve grouping students by ability across age ranges or stages of development. (f) Enrichment, to enable gifted and talented students to pursue study of a particular topic at greater depth and breadth. It might include special tasks, projects, freely selected activities, interest clubs, resource rooms, seminars, independent study and field trips. (3) Mentor programs, whereby gifted and talented students are matched with mentors with expertise and ability to foster the development of the students. (For examples, see Gross, 2006; Kulik, 2004; Reis and Renzulli, 2010; Subotnik et al., 2012; Urban 1993; refer also to the Porath and Tommis and Phillipson (see Chapters 4 and 13)). Many schools run camps, clubs or extension programs where courses of study are provided in one or more areas for gifted and talented students so that the students may extend their talents while working with similarly talented and focused youngsters. Tommis and Phillipson (see Chapter 13), outline three levels of provision of enriched educational experiences to enhance giftedness in the Hong Kong context (albeit voluntary). There is strong research evidence for the benefits of grouping gifted students, providing differentiated instruction, and acceleration and enrichment programs, and that these benefits apply across cultural and socio-economic groups, as well

The gifted and talented and effective learning

259

as to double exceptional students (Reis and Renzulli, 2010; see Dai, Swanson, and Cheng, 2011, for an overview of research on giftedness and gifted education). However, despite the possibilities and rhetoric of providing for gifted students it appears that few initiatives are actually taken within school systems internationally (see e.g. Reis and Renzulli, 2010; Subotnik et al., 2012; and Tommis and Phillipson, Chapter 13). The reasons for the lack of implementation of gifted programs should be further examined as National Excellence: A case for developing America’s Talent states: “[the gifted] are under-challenged and therefore underachieve.” (cited in Reis and Renzulli, 2010, p. 309). Essential to the development of giftedness within the actiotope model is counseling. The actiotope model provides a long-term counseling/mentoring-based approach to facilitate the development of individual talent, outlined in the chapters by Stoeger, and Zeigler et al. One issue raised by the actiotope model that is very important across all interventions is that any program needs to be sustained and focused in order to develop giftedness and provide the “training time” required so that talent develops into eminence as individuals mature.

Coping with giftedness – the human side Apart from the academic aspects, teachers, parents, and mentors of gifted learners need to help gifted individuals cope with the special problems/issues that might arise from their giftedness and understand the developmental needs of gifted children (see Schilling, Sparfeldt, and Rost, 2006; Wood, 2010). This is alluded to by Ziegler in his treatment of the difficulties of co-evolution and the multiple feedback possibilities of actiotopes (Ziegler et al., see Chapter 1). The developmental nature of giftedness is covered in Chapter 4 and is highlighted by M.-t. Yuen and Fong (see Chapter 8) dealing with the social-emotional development of Chinese gifted students focusing on psychological adjustment, social coping and action repertoires. Among the potential areas of concern are:

•

• • • • •

perfectionism and fear of failure; ambivalence about themselves (i.e. a concern over whether or not they are really gifted and whether they want to push themselves); arrogance or its opposite/shyness; self-doubt and anxiety; deviation from family or peer norms; and social isolation associated with being different.

Many gifted learners develop interests and ambitions that are widely different from the expectations held by parents and peers, and this may cause them to become isolated. It is a moot point, however, whether these types of characteristics are “inherent” in being gifted or the result of the way gifted individuals may be treated in

260

Dennis M. McInerney

the home, community, and school environments (Subotnik et al., 2012). How these factors play out in the Asian context needs further investigation. From this perspective, educational and career guidance take on additional dimensions with gifted individuals: linking students up with out-of-school programs or mentors; finding teachers who display special sympathy or skills with gifted learners and so on. Personal counseling, as indicated above, is very much at the core of the actiotope model, and is needed to help gifted learners set realistic goals, accept and live with the consequences of giftedness on social relations, come to grips with the social and emotional situation within the family, and develop a strong selfconcept and identity. A key issue here, and one that is not addressed in the book, is the extent to which the counseling model espoused in the actiotope model would suit the Asian context.

Parental expectations and teacher influences Research indicates that parents play a very important role in providing an environment supportive of developing talent (Garn, Matthews, and Jolly, 2010; Schilling et al. 2006; Subotnik et al., 2012). Within the actiotope model parents, teachers, mentors, trainers, and counselors are essential supports for the development of giftedness and talent specifically by enhancing action repertoires and subjective action space (learning sociotopes), with the special role of parents in Asia being covered in Chapter 10 by Sivanes Phillipson and Yick, Chapter 9 by Vialle, and Chapter 5 by Callingham. The stereotypical parental “push” for high achievement in education in the Asian context, should perhaps lead to the development of greater “demonstrated” giftedness in adulthood. However, it is commonly lamented that Asia produces few homegrown Nobel prize winners, one of the hallmarks of true giftedness. The underlying reasons for this paradox needs close examination from the perspective of the actiotope model. Perhaps the secret to this lies in the exploration of the Tiger Mother concept. Chapter 9 deals specifically with the Tiger Mother and the high expectations of Chinese parents, among a range of other social and educational influences that seem to enhance the performance of Asian students. Vialle analyses the performance of Asian students within the actiotope model and describes some of the potential issues involved in Asian style parenting. Perhaps the relentless drive for achievement without “white space” for exploration and discovery limits the potential for Asian students to develop their giftedness. In other words, Asia may produce students who are excellent but not gifted and creative individuals (see Subotnik et al. for a general discussion of the issue of expertise versus eminence). This issue is nicely dealt with in Chapter 4, and in particular Porath’s case studies of two gifted artists. In general, art in China is taught didactically leading to technical expertise in students but not outstanding “break the mould” creative productions. In the second case cited by Porath, Yani’s father’s approach was

The gifted and talented and effective learning

261

entirely different. “I never even considered giving her instructions or guiding her talent, so that from the very beginning her work remained unrestricted by convention.” (Porath, see Chapter 4). It has long been known that Asian students and their parents have a more malleable view of giftedness and high achievement, attributing it more to effort than ability, the converse is the case in many Western societies. But, there is an important caveat to make here, and that is that while achievement may be high because of intense practice and effort, it might not be the achievement that ultimately leads to high eminence (that is making breakthrough discoveries as adults, perhaps better described as ‘brilliance’) but rather leads to excellence as students, and expertise and competence as adults. This is indeed a continuing paradox of the Asian learner which is brought into sharp focus when we consider giftedness and talent. Within the Western context, the psychological impact of the family on the socialization and cognitive development of gifted children is very significant (Schilling et al., 2006). Apart from the strong affordances that a positive family environment provides family pressures may create difficulties for the gifted. Western research indicates that problems can be caused by overambitious parents determined to push their children to the limits, or by parents who are afraid that their children may “get above” their station in life and therefore doom themselves to isolation from family and friends. In some cases, parents become overawed by the child’s talents and expect the child to become the emotional support for the family. Accumulated pressures may lead to gifted adolescents feeling they have been robbed of their childhood (Cropley 1993a, 1993b). There may be other mental health problems associated with giftedness that are currently being researched (Hyatt and Cross, 2009; Martin, Burns, and Schonlau, 2010; Meyers, 2005; Mueller, 2009; Smith et al., 2012; however, see also Cross et al., 2008; Zeidner and Shani-Zinovich, 2011). Do these features play out in the Asian context? They appear not to if we give credence to the Tiger Mother typology of parental support/pressure and the apparent compliant response to this by children. However, M. Yuen and Fong (see Chapter 8) highlight a number of social-emotional problems that might be peculiarly Asian resulting from a high parental push for perfection. Their discussion on overly demanding pressure for perfectionism is qualified by the caveat that there can be a “healthy perfectionism” interpreted in terms of subjective action space and action repertoires, that is not debilitating to achievement in the Asian context.

The scope of giftedness It is useful to note here that the notion of giftedness appears circumscribed in the Asian context, apparently limited to a drive to have excellence in academics, especially mathematics to the exclusion of other areas. Perhaps this may be referred to

262

Dennis M. McInerney

as an Asian sociotope, which Philipson defines as “relatively stable environments … normatively regulated.” Do Asian parents recognize and support the development of talent outside a narrow range of domains? Are they ever confronted, therefore, with the diversity of talents, outside regular family expectations, that may characterize Western families and that may confront family expectations and values (such as a son wanting to become a ballet dancer, or a daughter an engineer)? Are there atypical behaviours demonstrated that confront teachers and parents in the Asian context? These issues were not effectively dealt with in the chapters comprising this volume, although the actiotope model provided a framework for such analyses.

Teacher influences In general, teachers hold positive expectations of gifted and talented learners that facilitate their development. However, particular expectations may cause problems. High-achieving students are often expected to do too much too soon, and are “not allowed” to make mistakes, “slacken off” or be reflective. They are expected to be deeply knowledgeable, but are often given too little opportunity to develop and deepen their understanding before being pressured to move on (Horowitz and O’Brien, 1986). Does this characterize the Asian approach to cultivating talent, and if so, what are the likely consequences for the individual child, as well as for society as a whole?

Gifted and talented in a cross - cultural context In essence, giftedness is a concept that we invent, not something we discover (Sternberg and Davidson, 1985). As such, it is whatever a society wants it to be, making it subject to change according to time or place. Very often we think of giftedness and talent from a limited cultural perspective. Some cultures even refuse to accept the notion of giftedness (Sternberg, 2007; Shaughnessy, 1993). Teachers and counselors need to be sensitive to cultural variations in the meaning and demonstration of giftedness and talent. As a simple example, from a Western cultural perspective giftedness may be recognized in those children who are competitive and verbally fluent. Other cultural groups may not value these qualities, but rather value an individual’s capacity to coordinate and lead a group while remaining in the background. Some cultural groups may prioritize areas of excellence over others, such as maths over athletics and the arts. Shane Phillipson and Rosemary Callingham explored this issue with Callingham focusing on the supposed superiority of Chinese in school mathematics which she analyses using the actiotope model (see Chapter 5). Because of the cultural prioritizing of different domains, different action pathways will be supported to the exclusion of others. There are many examples of this. Cultural and socio-economic groups, therefore, may either facilitate or inhibit access to the means of developing particular talents. In any cultural and social

The gifted and talented and effective learning

263

setting the question needs therefore to be asked “What actiotopes do specific socio-cultural groups provide?” Action repertoires (or possibilities) can be constrained or enhanced by cultural and socio-cultural factors, a point emphasized by Porvath. Children with the capacity to be gifted and talented writers, musicians, and sportspeople, may be limited in their access to opportunities. Some cultural groups, for example, give little freedom to females to engage in sport or a wide range of social activities, consequently limiting the opportunity for the development of talent (Cropley 1993a, 1993b). Zeigler’s paper highlighted this issue. What opportunities are provided in the Asian contexts to develop a wide range of talents?

Giftedness and minority groups Internationally, minority groups, whether they are cultural, socio-economic, gender-based, or disability-based are underrepresented in special programs for the gifted and talented (Erwin and Worrell, 2012; Lovett, 2011; McClain and Pfeiffer 2012; Nguyen, Callahan, and Stevenson, 2010; Reis and Renzulli, 2010; Subotnik et al., 2012). Giftedness and talent should be assumed to be normally distributed. Gifted children and adults are found in every ethnic and socioeconomic group and every culture (Sternberg, 2007; Reis and Renzulli, 2010). Methods of identifying the minority gifted and talented should not be biased and programs should be implemented to support gifted individuals from whatever background. This issue was addressed by K. Yuen in his treatment of double exceptionality of children with deafness and giftedness among Asian students (see Chapter 12), by Stoeger dealing with lower achievement of girls in STEM (see Chapter 11), and in by Tommis and Phillipson (see Chapter 13), drawing attention to the fact that gifted students can be found across all climes. A wide range of methods is needed, therefore, to ensure that all students who are gifted and talented are identified, particularly when identification is generally difficult. There are many reasons for this. Students, for example, may be:

• • • • • • •

from non-English-speaking backgrounds; non-vernacular speaking backgrounds; indigenous; disadvantaged by gender inequity; socio-economically disadvantaged; disabled physically or in terms of sensory functions; diagnosed as intellectually disabled; or conduct-disordered.

Special needs blur across categories and we need to be alert to this. Further complications are introduced because some students may actively disguise their giftedness and talents to maintain peer acceptance. This issue was addressed by Cheng and Phillipson, and M. Yuen and Fong in the context of

264

Dennis M. McInerney

Asian societies (see Chapters 7 and 8). It is commonly believed, for example, that Australian Aboriginal students cover up their talents so that they are not perceived to be “better than their mates.” This also appears to be the case in Asian societies. Some students just don’t like to appear different (see e.g. Ogbu, 2003; Steele, 1997). In the cases of double exceptionality extra care needs to be taken with identification and in providing appropriate learning pathways, or in the terminology of the actiotope model, multiple subjective action spaces.

Final points I was surprised that chapters in this volume did not interrogate the notion of giftedness within the Asian contexts reviewed, but appeared to identify it largely with national academic achievement in international “tests” such as PISA. High achievement is not synonymous with giftedness. In the Western context, giftedness and talent emerges on the basis of some unusual exemplary behaviour exhibited by a child. If this is identified and recognized as “gifted” by parents and teachers, support structures (action space and learning pathways) are established to help the talent flourish. In the Asian context, particularly with reference to maths and science, the expectation is that all children have the capacity to excel and so, as a cohort, they are driven along a homogenous pathway to academic excellence. There does not seem much opportunity under such an homogenized system for identifying and cultivating truly outstanding individual giftedness in a wide range of human endeavours (with the caveat provided by Tommis and Phillipson regarding selection to the Academy for Gifted Education). Is success in PISA and TIMMS, the cornerstone of supposed giftedness, simply a demonstration of hard work driven by Tiger Mothers and not really an exemplar of giftedness at all? Does giftedness really exist in the Asian context? I was also intrigued that papers tended to generalize that all Asians excel and are gifted. In general, the chapters failed to distinguish in-group differences from between group differences. There was a need to examine the characteristics of the truly gifted Asian students that distinguish them from their cohort. In other words, more nuanced descriptions should have been provided. It was also apparent to me that at times that the chapters were not really talking about giftedness as might be interpreted by Subotnik et al., but rather excellence and high average achievement. From the Subotnik et al. perspective, giftedness must be demonstrated developmentally and tracked through the lifespan. At each point of the lifespan new criteria for what constitutes giftedness is appropriate, a point alluded to in Chapter 4 by Porath. Giftedness may not appear until later in life. Children who appear gifted early in life may not develop eminence in a field later in life. For Subotnik et al., eminence later in life is the hallmark of giftedness. I would have liked to have seen, therefore, more focus on the lifespan development of giftedness (such as in Chapter 4) within the Asian context. In this context, and because the actiotope model is essentially a developmental

The gifted and talented and effective learning

265

model, I would also have liked a more thorough interrogation of how the elements of the actiotope model propel individuals to develop their giftedness over the lifespan. The issue of creativity perhaps also should have been dealt with in the context of giftedness as I believe the two cannot easily be disentangled. This point was made in Chapter 6. The actiotope model allows for a nuanced view of giftedness: its identification, and its development. As such, it can offer the academic and social communities help in their quest to provide the best opportunities to develop human capital through investment in the truly gifted. Using the actiotope model I would have liked the following questions, already highlighted above, to have been addressed in various chapters: (1) Does giftedness really exist in the Asian context, or is success in PISA and TIMMS simply the demonstration of hard work driven by Tiger Mothers? (2) What are the positive and negative features of the strong parental push for achievement in Asia on the development of giftedness? (3) Do Asian parents recognize and support the development of talent outside a narrow range of domains? (4) Are Asian parents ever confronted with the diversity of talents, outside regular family expectations, that may characterize Western families and that may confront family expectations and values? (5) Are there atypical behaviours demonstrated that confront teachers and parents in the Asian context? (6) What actiotopes do specific socio-cultural groups provide and what opportunities are provided in the Asian contexts to develop a wide range of talents? Perhaps the answers to these questions can provide the grist for further research and the content of another volume on Giftedness in East Asia.

References Al-Shabatat, A. M., Abbas, M., and Ismail, H. M. (2011). The direct and indirect effects of Environmental factors on nurturing intellectual giftedness. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 18–28. Assouline, S. G., Nicpon, M. F., and Whiteman, C. (2010). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with written language disability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 102–115. Barab, S. A., and Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182. Bianco, M., Carothers, D. E., and Smiley, L.R. (2009). Gifted students with Aspergers syndrome. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(4), 206–215. Cropley, A. J. (1993a). Creativity as an element of giftedness. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(1), 17–30.

266

Dennis M. McInerney

Cropley, A. J. (1993b). Giftedness: Recent thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(1), 89–97. Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., and Adams, C. M. (2008). The psychology of gifted adolescents as measured by the MMPI-A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 326–339. Dai, D. (2009). Essential tensions surrounding the concept of giftedness. In L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International handbook of giftedness (pp. 39–80). Springer: New York. Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., and Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2–3), 45–63. Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J. A., and Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998–2010 (April). Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 126–138. Erwin, J.O., and Worrell, F.C. (2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented children. Journal of Psycho-educational Assessment, 30(1), 74–87. Garn, A. C., Matthews, M. S., and Jolly, J. L. (2010). Parental influences on the academic motivation of gifted students: A self-determination theory perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 263–272. Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term outcomes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 404–429. Horowitz, F. D., and O’Brien, M. (1986). Gifted and talented children. State of knowledge and directions for research. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1147–1184. Hyatt, L. A., and Cross, T. L. (2009). Understanding suicidal behavior of gifted students: Theory, factors, and cultural expectations. In L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 537–558). New York: Springer. Johnsen, S. K. (2009). Best practices for identifying gifted students. Principal, 88(5), 8–14. Kornilov, S. A., Tan, M., Elliott, J. G., Sternberg, R. J., and Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Gifted identification with Aurora: Widening the spotlight. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 117–133. Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and M. U. M. Gross (eds.), A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students, Volume 11 (pp. 13–22). Iowa City: University of Iowa. Little, C.A. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools. Published Online First 12 June 2012. doi: 10.1002/pits.21621. Lloyd, L. (1999). Multi-age classes and high ability students. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 187–212. Lovett, P. (2011). Solutions for Jay and other underrepresented gifted minority students. Gifted Child Today, 34(1), 55–59. Martin, L. T., Burns, R. M., Schonlau, M. (2010). Mental disorders among gifted and nongifted youth: A selected review of the epidemiologic literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 31–41. McClain, M. C., and Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Education for the gifted in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28(1), 59–88. Meyers, L. (2005). The inner life of the gifted child. Monitor on Psychology, 36(11), 92–94.

The gifted and talented and effective learning

267

Mueller, C. E. (2009). Protective factors as barriers to depression in gifted and nongifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(1), 3–14. Nguyen, M., Callahan, C. M., and Stevenson, D. L. (2010). The AP challenge program: Advancing gifted minority student achievement in high school and beyond. Gifted Children, 4(1), 12–17. Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., and Thomson, D. L. (2010). Gifted programming for poor or minority urban students: Issues and lessons learned. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(4), 58–64. Pfeiffer, S. (2009). The gifted: Clinical challenges for child psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(8), 787–790. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Current perspectives on the identification and assessment of gifted students. Journal of Psycho-educational Assessment, 30(1), 3–9. Reis, S. M., and Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. Robertson, S. G., Pfeiffer, S. I., Taylor, N. (2011). Serving the gifted: A national survey of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 48(8), 786–799. Schilling, S. R., Sparfeldt, J. R., and Rost, D. H. (2006). Families with gifted adolescents. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 19–32. Shaughnessy, M. F. (1993). The concept of giftedness. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(1), 5–15. Shavinina, L. V. (2009). A new approach to the identification of intellectually gifted individuals. In L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 1017–1034). New York: Springer. Silverman, L. K. (2009). Measuring giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 947–970). New York: Springer. Smith, B. W., Dempsey, A. G., Jackson, S. E., Olenchak, F. R., and Gaa, J. (2012). Cyberbullying among gifted children. Gifted Education International, 28(1), 112–126. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. Sternberg, R. J., and Davidson, J. E. (1985). Cognitive development in the gifted and talented. In F. D. Horowitz and M. O’Brien (eds.), The Gifted and Talented: Developmental Perspectives (pp. 37–74). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sternberg, R. J., and Davidson, J. E. (eds.), (2005). Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Who are bright children? The cultural context of being and acting intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36, 148–155. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Assessment of gifted students for identification purposes: New techniques for a new millennium. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 327–336. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewshi-Kubilius, P., and Worrell, F. C. (2012). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. Torrance, E. P. (1986). Teaching creative and gifted learners. In M. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 630–647). New York: Macmillan.

268

Dennis M. McInerney

Urban, K. K. (1993). Fostering giftedness. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(1), 31–49. Wood, S. (2010). Best practices in counseling the gifted in schools: What’s really happening? Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 42–58. Yoon, S. Y., and 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. Zeidner, M., and Shani-Zinovich, I. (2011). Do academically gifted and non-gifted students differ on the Big-Five and adaptive status? Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 566–570. Zeigler, A., and Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 3–30.

Index

Abilities of man, The (Spearman) 102 abilities versus intelligences 103 Aboriginal students, Australia 88, 148, 149, 264 academic action repertoires 14 academic self-concept 40, 60 academic self-efficacy 135–7, 140 academic socialization 181, 185 achievement goal (goal orientation) theory 115, 121, 126 achievement in mathematics (AIM) 95 achievement motivation 114, 126 actional learning capital 11–12, 30, 31, 191–2, 206 action repertoires: and gifted education policy in Hong Kong 233, 234; and goal orientations 40, 121, 122; and sociotopes 43–5; as components of actiotopes 4, 22; as predictors of future performance 30; Chinese gifted students 134–5; Chinese mathematics students 89, 90, 92–3, 96; deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 218–19; definition 151; development, education and 72; effective 1–3, 14, 19; effect of parental involvement on 167, 168, 183; interpersonal determinants of 73–4, 81; in the actiotope model complemented with NPT 65–81 passim; see also goal orientations actiotope model of giftedness: and Asian Australian students 151–9, 161–3; and Chinese gifted students 132, 133–4, 135–7; and Chinese

mathematics students 89–91, 92–7; and Confucian heritage culture 105, 205; and deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 216–21, 224–5, 227, 228; and excellence development 22–3; and gifted education 100–2, 233–4, 235, 240, 245; and giftedness and talent 255–65; and goal orientations 115, 121–2, 123, 126; and intelligence 107–9, 111; and learning environments 43–5; and learning sociotopes 260; and mentors 44; and parental involvement 167–8, 182–4; complemented with NPT 65–81; domain-specific assumption 43, 109; feedback loops in 8, 13, 33, 197–8; focus on action not traits 1, 4, 101, 107, 111, 151; heuristic function x, xi; Talent, Gifted and Excellence Phases 234; see also ENTER giftedness identification and promotion model actiotopes: deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 219; definition 3, 22; expansion of 44, 217–18; ideal components for excellence development 9; inhibition of 44; modifiability and stability of 10, 13, 15, 123, 196; perspectives on: component 4–7; dynamic 4, 7–10; system 4, 10–14, 89, 217; progressive adaptations of 196–8, 217; systemic interdependence of components 15, 22–3, 32–3, 196–8, 204, 217, 227 Advanced Placement (AP) schemes 247

270

Index

affective space 168 African American students 177 age: and intelligence tests 104–5; and parental involvement 179, 182 aggression in Confucianism 55 allostatic regulations 24–6, 32 Anglo Australian students: achievements compared with Asian Australian students 148, 149, 152; attendance at private schools 151, 158; own and parental expectations and aspirations 157; study efforts 153 antagonistic sociotopes 7, 44, 46, 193 anticipative actiotopes 197, 219 anticipative competencies 159 approach-avoidance distinction of mastery and performance goals 115, 116–17 artistic giftedness: and feedback loops 67, 72–3, 77, 80, 81; educational environment 74, 78–9, 81; Huang Yongyu 80, 81; use of Western creative teaching methods 111; Wang Shiqiang 76, 79; Wang Yani 74–5, 76–8, 79, 81, 260–1; Western prodigies 76 Asian American parents 169 Asian American students 152, 154, 177–8, 186 Asian Australian parents 152, 156, 157–61, 162 Asian Australian students: academic outcomes 147, 148–51; and the actiotope model 151–9, 161–3; Confucian heritage culture 149, 162; educational capital 152, 157, 158, 162; factors behind academic success 152–9; goal orientations 154, 155, 156, 162; IQs 152, 161; learning capital 152, 153, 154, 157, 162; mathematics studies 87–8, 89, 95, 161, 162; motivation in 152, 154–7, 162; parental and teacher expectations 159–61; subject selections 160 attentional (attentive) learning capital: as endogenous resources 31–2; Asian Australian students 153, 154, 162;

assessing in giftedness identification 191, 192–3, 207; definition 12 attitudes towards mathematics (ATM) 95 attitudes towards school 43, 95, 97, 154, 158 Attributional Re-Training (ART) x–xi attributional styles 52, 53–4 auditory processing disorders 215, 216 Australia: Aboriginal students 88, 148, 149, 264; Asian Australian parents 152, 156, 157–61, 162; Asian migration to 147–8, 158; attitudes towards school 95; deaf and hard-ofhearing gifted students 215; Lebanese background students 149; mathematics 87–8, 89, 95; selective high schools 149–51, 156, 158, 160, 162; Year 12 149–50; see also Anglo Australian students; Asian Australian students authoritarian parents and teachers 50 avoidance of challenges by gifted students 134 avoidance sociotopes 6–7, 193 Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother (Chua) 159–60, 232 becoming one with Heaven (tian ren he yi) 49 behavioral competencies 133 behavioral problems: and supportive parenting 57; associated with low achievement 51, 54; deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 215, 216; influence of peers 119 belief systems of parents 168–9, 182, 183, 184, 185 benevolence (ren) 48 Big Five factors of personality 105 ‘big four of learning’ 8–9 Big White Lie: Chinese Australians in White Australia (Fitzgerald) 147–8 Binet performance test 256 bioecological systems theory of human development 41–2 biotopes 3 body and cognitive activity 30

Index book reading 181 Bourdieu, Pierre 152 boys and physical activity 51, 52 brain 106, 107 brain glucose metabolism 106 broad auditory perception 103 broad cognitive speediness 103 broad retrieval ability 103 broad visual perception 103 Bronfenbrenner, U. 41–2, 45, 46 Buddhism 48 Canada 74, 249 Cantonese as the medium of instruction 58, 60 capital 26, 34, 35n3, 152, 235; see also educational capital; learning capital Carnap, R. 101, 111 Carroll, John B. 103 Carrying the Sedan Chair (Wang) 76–7 Case, Robbie 67, 68, 69 central conceptual structures 68, 70, 71, 72, 74; central spatial structures 74 challenges avoided by gifted students 134 Chao, R.K. 50 Chen, M. 171, 172, 177 chess 107–8 China: culture and Confucian tradition 91–2; family connectedness 137, 138, 139, 261; migration from/to Australia 147–8 Chinese languages and mathematical achievement 91, 92, 96 Chinese parents: authoritarianism 50; connectedness with children 137–8, 139; expectations and involvement 94, 137, 139, 140, 169; perfectionism 135; ‘tiger mother’ 125, 148, 159–61, 162, 260, 261; within the student’s normative action space 57–8; see also Hong Kong parents Chinese students: academic achievements 48, 51–2; Confucian heritage 48–56; creativity 79, 81, 137; cultural educational capital 94, 96, 97; deaf and hard-of-hearing

271

gifted 227; goal orientations 92, 93, 96, 97, 120–1, 135–7; IQs 109; learning environments 40, 48, 92, 93–4, 96, 97; mastery and performance goals 117; normative action spaces 56–8, 60; sociotopes 59–60; subjective action spaces 86, 90, 94–6, 135–7; see also Hong Kong students; mathematics, Chinese students; social-emotional development of Chinese gifted students Chinese Taipei 114, 232 Chinese teachers: and social-emotional development of gifted students 140; art 78–9; attitudes towards creativity 110–11; mathematics 93, 96; relationships with students 49; respect for 91; within the student’s normative action space 56–8; see also Hong Kong teachers; teachers Chinese University Hong Kong (CUHK) 246 chronosystem (bioecological systems theory of human development) 42 Chua, Amy 159–60, 161, 232 class sizes 58 closed-process problems in mathematics 89 cochlear implants 213, 214, 217–18, 222–3 co-evolution, principle of 13–14; see also actiotopes, systemic interdependence of components cognitive processes 30, 95, 96, 105–6 Coleman, J.S. 235 collectivism in Confucianism 51, 52, 54, 118, 133, 136 compaction of course content for gifted and talented students 258 competencies versus intelligences 103 competitiveness in the classroom 58, 119, 120, 124 competitive sociotopes 7, 44, 193 component perspective on the actiotope 4–7 concept of Heaven (tian ming guan) 49, 53–4

272

Index

conceptual development 67, 69–71, 72 conceptual learning 69, 72, 73, 80, 81 Confucian heritage culture (CHC): and failure 135–6; and mastery orientation 93; and motivation 52, 96; and the actiotope model 105, 205; Asian Australian students 149, 162; Chinese students 48–56, 91–2, 96, 97; Hong Kong 50, 53, 205, 232, 249; shared by East-Asian students 46; superior performance in students 149; teachers influenced by 49, 50, 53; tenets: exceptionality enhanced by 40, 48–54, 59–60, 158; exceptionality inhibited by 40, 54–6, 118, 133, 134, 136; values of effort and reward 57, 153 connectedness (social) 137–40, 261 constructivist learning 34, 42, 69, 71 contextualist perspective on excellence development 19–22 Cooper, H. 174–5, 180–1 counseling and excellence development 259, 260 creativity 260; and Hong Kong’s gifted education policy 238; and mathematics 92–3, 96; Chinese students 79, 81, 137; Chinese teachers’ views on 110–11; in East Asia 101; in giftedness 114; in NPT 71; Wang Yani 77 cross-cultural contexts of giftedness and talent 262–3 crystallized intelligence 103 cultural educational capital: and gifted education policies 235, 249–50; as exogenous resources 27–8; Asian Australian students 157, 158, 162; assessing in giftedness identification 194; Chinese students 94, 96, 97; comparison of East-Asian and Western cultures 205; definition 11 cultural environments 21 culturally marginal identity of deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 222–3, 224 cultured and educated person (jun zi) 49, 50

Daoism 48 deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted (twiceexceptional) students: and the actiotope model of giftedness 216–21, 224–5, 227, 228; behavioral problems 215, 216; culturally marginal identity 222–3; deaf identity and deaf-hearing bicultural identity 223–5; effects of hearing impairment 213–15; identifying giftedness and constructing learning pathways 225–7, 263, 264; IQs 216; mentors 220; parents 221–2; psychosocial needs 215, 216; supporting 221–2, 227–8; teachers 216, 223, 224–5, 227, 228 deaf schools 216, 223–4 deaf teachers 223, 224–5, 227, 228 deceptive (2E students) 216 declarative knowledge 30, 80 deep learning strategies 52, 116, 118 deficit (2E students) 216 deficit sociotopes 46 deliberate practice: and attentional learning capital 32; and intelligence 107–9; and motivation 114; Chinese mathematics students 92, 96, 97 demands for parental involvement 168, 169 developmental cycles (stages) 69–71 developmental theory in the East Asian context 74 Development of Gifted Education in Hong Kong, The (Education Department) 237–8 diagnostic process of ENTER-based giftedness identification 189, 203, 204 dialectical cycle of drawing development 75–6 didactic educational capital: and dynamic-interactive regulation 33; and gifted education policy in Hong Kong 246–9; as exogenous resources 29; Asian Australian students 157, 159, 162; assessing in giftedness identification 194–5; definition 11; increased by tutoring 206

Index differentiated model of giftedness and talent 132, 133 diligence 92, 135, 137 disabilities 221–2, 241; see also deaf and hard-of-hearing (twice-exceptional) students disability masks giftedness (2E students) 216 discipline problems associated with low achievement 51, 54 disciplining of students 53, 249 discrepant (2E students) 215–16 doctrine of the mean (zhong yong) 49, 52–3 domains see talent domains double unidentified (giftedness and disability both unindentified) (2E students) 216 downward comparisons with peers 52 drawing (graphic) development 73–6 Dweck, C.S. 114–15 dynamic-interactive regulation 33–4 dynamic perspective on the actiotope 4, 7–10 early completion of stages by gifted and talented students 258 early enrolment of gifted and talented students 258 early entry to tertiary education 258 economic educational capital: and gifted education policies 235, 250; as exogenous resources 27; Asian Australian students 158, 162; assessing in giftedness identification 194; definition 10–11; examples of 13 educational capital: and gifted education policy in Hong Kong 235–40, 246–50; and optimal learning 8; as exogenous resources 10–11, 26–9, 32; Asian Australian students 152, 162; assessing in giftedness identification 191, 193–5; comparison of East-Asian and Western cultures 205; examples of 12–13; needed for gifted education support 34 educational environments: and gifted education policies 234–6; and

273

mathematical achievement 88, 89; and resources 47–8; role in excellence development 235 educational policies 42, 206, 227 educational reform in Hong Kong 236, 246–9 Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB), Hong Kong 236 Education Bureau (EDB), Hong Kong 233, 241, 246, 247, 248, 249, 252 Education Commission Report No. 4 (Hong Kong) 236–7 effort over ability 120, 124, 135, 137, 261 eleven-step counseling cycle (11-SCC) 200–2 ELO rating system 108 emotional intelligence 103, 134 emotional needs of deaf and hard-ofhearing gifted students 215, 216 endogenous resources see learning capital English as the medium of instruction 58, 60 enrichment programs 258 ENTER giftedness identification and promotion model: and learning pathways 199–202, 203–4, 205, 207; applicability in the East-Asian context 188–9, 204–7; diagnostic process of 189, 203, 204; Evaluate phase 190, 203–4, 205, 207; Explore phase 189, 190, 191–8, 199, 202–3, 205, 207; focus on developmental nature of giftedness 256; Narrow phase 189–90, 198–9, 202–3, 205, 207; overview of 189–90; Review phase 190, 203–4, 205, 207; Transform phase 190, 199–203, 205, 207 environment: analyzing through classification of sociotopes 5–7, 14; and human development 41–2; as a component of the actiotope 23; influence on goal orientations 123; influence on intelligence 105; see also cultural environments; educational environments; learning environments; social environments

274

Index

episodic knowledge 31 episodic learning capital: as endogenous resources 31; Asian Australian students 157, 162; assessing in giftedness identification 191, 192, 207; definition 12 Erion, J. 173, 179 esteem and value of learning 45, 46, 48–56, 59–60, 92, 123, 124 ethnicity 177, 182, 184, 235, 263–4; see also minority groups Evaluate phase (ENTER model) 190, 203–4, 205, 207 excellence, conceptualisations of 18–19 excellence development: and homeostatic and allostatic regulations 23–6; and intelligence 107–9; and NPT 71; and resources 21–2, 26–32; and the actiotope model 22–3; contextualist and individualist perspectives on 19–22; counseling to assist with 259, 260; different pathways to 79–80; effect of Confucianism on 48–56; ideal forms of actiotope components for 9; importance of social connectness 139–40; quantitative and qualitative characteristics of 24–6; role of educational environments 235; role of gifted education 32–4; role of mentors 21, 33–4, 139, 258, 260; talent domain-specific 14, 16, 19, 43, 44, 198–9, 200, 204 Excellence Phase (actiotope model of giftedness) 234 exogenous resources see educational capital exosystem (bioecological systems theory of human development) 42 experimental manipulation of goals 122, 123 Explore phase (ENTER model) 189, 190, 191–8, 199, 202–3, 205, 207 external locus of control 51, 53 extracurricular learning opportunities 189 face in Confucianism 55–6 failure, Chinese view of 135–6

family connectedness 137, 138, 139, 261 family in Confucian culture 55 Fan, X. 171, 172, 177 Federation in Australia 147, 148 feedback loops: for deaf and hard-ofhearing gifted students 219–21; in artistic giftedness 67, 72–3, 77, 80, 81; in the actiotope model 8, 13, 33, 197–8 feng shui 55 filial piety (xiao) 49–50, 55, 120, 158, 249 first-generation students 149, 163n2 Fitzgerald, John 147–8 five cardinal relationships 49, 53 flexibility (modifiability) of actiotopes 10, 13, 15, 123, 196 flexibility of goal orientations 123 flexible progression of gifted and talented students 258 fluid intelligence 103 Flynn, J.R. 152 forced-choice dilemma 119 frequency modulation (FM) listening devices 213, 214 frontal cortex 106 functional goals 30, 31 Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre (FHCGEC) 237 Gagné, F. 132, 133 Gardner, Howard 101, 103, 241 gender in Confucianism 55 general cognitive ability (g) 101, 102, 103, 106, 109 general memory and learning 103 genetic influences on academic success 105, 152 Germany 87 gifted education: and the actiotope model 100–2, 233–4, 235, 240, 245; educational and learning capital needed for 34; goal orientations in 125–6; role in excellence development 32–4 gifted education policies 234–6, 238–40; see also Hong Kong gifted education policy

Index giftedness and disability both unindentified (double unidentified) (2E students) 216 giftedness and talent: and minority groups 263–4; and the actiotope model 255–65; Asian context 264; coping with 259–60; creativity in 114; cross-cultural contexts 262–3; definition 132–3; diagnostic process of the ENTER model 203; disguising from peers 134, 263–4; educational provisions for 257–9; general notions of 255–6; lifespan development of 264–5; measured by IQ 103, 122, 225–6, 256; motivation in 114; research into 102; scope of 261–2; socio-cultural contexts 262–3; specialist schools for 236, 243; see also deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted (twice-exceptional) students; identifying giftedness and talent giftedness masks disability (2E students) 215–16 Gifted Phase (actiotope model of giftedness) 234 girls: lower achievement in STEM 263; physical activity 51, 207 goal orientation (achievement goal) theory 115, 121, 126 goal orientations: and action repertoires 40, 121, 122; and attributional styles 53–4; and gifted education policy in Hong Kong 233, 234; and learning capital 30, 31; and motivation 118, 119; and social environments 125–6; and subjective action spaces 122, 123; and the actiotope model 115, 121–2, 123, 126; as components of actiotopes 4, 23; Asian Australian students 154, 155, 156, 162; as traits 122; Chinese students 92, 93, 96, 97, 120–1, 135–7; flexibility and stability in 123; impact of classroom goal structure 123–4; influence of parents 124–5, 126, 168, 179, 183, 185; influence of self-perfection and academic self-efficacy 135–7; influence of the environment 123; in gifted education 125–5; measuring

275

14; multiple goals 117, 119–21, 126; origins of 122–5; personal goals 52, 54; talent domain-specific 43, 44; see also mastery goals; performance goals; social goals ‘golden ages’ 21 Gottfredson, Linda 102, 109 graphic (drawing) development 73–6 grey matter 106, 107 guan (to govern) 138 guanxi in Confucianism 56 guidance professionals and gifted Chinese students 140 Haier, Richard 106 harmony in Confucianism 55, 134 healthy perfectionism 136, 261 hearing impairment see deaf and hardof-hearing gifted (twice-exceptional) students hearing prostheses 213, 214, 222, 226 Heaven, concept and mandate of 49, 53–4 higher education 149, 154, 157, 258 Hill, N.E. 175–6, 181–2 Hindu-Arabic number system 91 historical capital 235, 236–8 homeodynamics 24 homeostatic regulations 23–4, 25–6, 32 homework assistance and monitoring 169, 178, 180–1, 182, 185, 249 Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education (HKAGE) 233, 242–3, 246, 247, 248, 250, 252 Hong Kong education system: and socio-economic status 47–8, 170; attitudes towards school 43; gifted education programs 236, 240, 243–5; ‘good’ schools 58; lowest achievement schools 51; reforms in 236, 246–9; spending on 250 Hong Kong gifted education policy: and creativity 238; and educational capital 235–40, 246–50; and goal orientations 233, 234; and identification of giftedness 234, 236–7, 242, 251; and learning capital 235, 236; and the actiotope model 233–4, 245; beneficiaries of 240;

276

Index

Hong Kong gifted education policy (Cont.) definition of giftedness 241–2; evaluating 241–3; implementation of 240–1; lack of research on 236, 251; professional development for teachers 246, 247–9, 251; program and service provision 243–5; three-tier model of 239, 244–5, 251–2 Hong Kong Institute of Education 246 Hong Kong parents: authoritarianism 50; disciplining by 249; education programs for 58; expectations of 94, 134, 185, 249; involvement with children 94, 235, 249; support from HKAGE 246; see also Chinese parents Hong Kong students: academic achievements 114, 232; at Australian universities 149; attitudes towards school 43, 95; competitiveness in the classroom 58; Confucian heritage 205, 232, 249; deaf and hard-ofhearing gifted 227; diligence 92; effort and academic outcomes 153; goal orientations 117, 120–1; IQs 109, 110; learning environments 43; learning pathways 241; low academic achievement and discipline problems 54; mathematics studies 88, 89, 95, 232; motivation and attributional styles 52; numbers of gifted 252–3; social-emotional development 134, 136, 137; social goals 118; Western educations valued by 249; see also Chinese students Hong Kong teachers: and Confucianism 50, 53; disciplining by 53; gifted education professional development 246, 247–9, 251; identification of gifted students 237; management style 43; within the student’s normative action space 56–8; see also Chinese teachers; teachers Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) 246 honor in Confucianism 55 Huang, Yongyu 80, 81 human body and cognitive activity 30

human development and environment 41–2 human psychometric intelligence 101, 102–3, 241, 256 ideal scholar (Confucianism) 48–9 identifying giftedness and talent: assessing educational and learning capital in 34, 192–5, 207; deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 225–7, 263, 264; Hong Kong 234, 236–7, 242, 251; methods 256–7; minority groups 263; traits as indicators 188, 256; Western cultures 264; see also ENTER giftedness identification and promotion model identity in deaf and hard-of-hearing students 222–5 impulse control in Confucianism 249 independent study 258 Indian background students in Australia 149, 160 individual education plans (IEPs) 258 individualism 8, 133 individualist perspective on excellence development 19–22, 20 information processing, speed of 105 infrastructural educational capital: and gifted education policies 235, 246; and standard solutions for typical situations 31; as exogenous resources 28–9; Asian Australian students 158, 162; assessing in giftedness identification 194; comparison of East-Asian and Western cultures 205–6; definition 11 infrastructural sociotopes 6, 193 instrumental motivation 154 intelligence: and excellence development 107–9; and the actiotope model 107–9, 111; definition 102; EastAsian 102–3, 109–10, 152; fostered in schools 105, 108–9; in Confucianism 55; neural basis of 105–6; status of research into 102–3 intelligence adaptations 3 Intelligence (journal) 102

Index intelligence quotient (IQs): and job performance 105; as a measure of giftedness 103, 122, 225–6, 256; as an indicator of effective action repertoires 14; Asian Australian students 152, 161; chess players 108; continual adjustments in testing 29; deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 216; increased by schooling 109; international comparisons of 110 intelligence tests 103–5, 226 intentional learning 73 intentions of parents 168, 183, 184–5 International Baccalaureate (IB) 247 International Mathematics Olympiad 232 International Physics Olympiad 232 International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) 102 intrapersonal determinants of action repertoires 73–4, 81 intrinsic motivation 93, 111 invitations for parental involvement 168, 169, 182 I Want the Most Beautiful Flower (Wang) 78 James Ruse Agricultural High School 149, 150 Japan 88, 114, 206 Jeynes, W.H. 172–3, 174, 177–8, 179–80 jiao xun (training, teaching, educating) 138 job performance and intelligence tests 103, 104, 105 Jockey Club Sign Bilingualism and Co-enrolment in Deaf Education Programme 227 Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth (JHU-CTY) 246 Jukus 206 Jung, R.E. 106 Korea 88, 232 Kowloon Bay St John the Baptist Catholic School 227–8

277

Lang, Lang 137 language background other than English (LBOTE) students in Australia 88, 148, 149–51 language impairment in deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 213, 215, 222 Latino students 177 L-data 191, 198 leadership skills 57, 120, 137, 238 learner diversity 246–7, 252 learning capital: and gifted education policies 235, 236; and optimal learning 8; as endogenous resources 10, 11–13, 26, 29–32; Asian Australian students 152, 162; assessing in giftedness identification 191–3, 195; comparison of East-Asian and Western cultures 205, 206–7; East-Asian societies 206–7; influence on goal orientations 30, 31; needed for gifted education support 34 learning environments: and gifted education policies 233, 238; and the actiotope model 43–5; assessing in giftedness identification 193; Chinese students 40, 48, 92, 93–4, 96, 97; effective 42–3, 258; measuring 43, 44; role expectations in 45–6, 59–60; schools as 92; Vygotskian perspective on 41; Western cultures 43 learning episodes (steps) 8–9, 15, 24–5 learning goals see mastery (learning) goals learning (mastery)-oriented subjective action space 122, 126 learning pathways: and gifted education policy in Hong Kong 234, 241; and the ENTER giftedness identification model 199–202, 203–4, 205, 207; comparison of East-Asian and Western cultures 207; deaf and hard-ofhearing gifted students 225–7; in gifted education support 34; in the actiotope model complemented with NPT 69; sequencing of learning episodes 9–10 learning process 20

278

Index

learning self-concept 40, 60 learning sociotopes: access to 20; and the actiotope model 260; assessing in giftedness identification 193; definition 6, 34n2, 44–5, 61n4 Lebanese background students in Australia 149 Let’s Play Together (Wang) 78 Licentiate of Music Australia 156, 163n7 life contexts of parents 168, 169–70 lifespan development of giftedness 264–5 Likert scales 122 literacy development 213 locus of control 51, 53, 55 low academic achievers 51, 54, 56–8, 111, 116, 206 low academic self-concept 51, 52, 116 loyalty (zhong) 49–50 Macau 88 MacRobertson Girls’ High School 150–1 mainstream educations 223, 257 Malaysian background students in Australia 149 mandate of Heaven (tian ming) 49, 53–4 Marland, S.P.J. 241 mastery (learning) goals: adaptive outcomes 116; and Confucian heritage 93; approach and avoidance 115, 117; Asian Australian students 154, 155; Chinese students 97, 135, 136; correlations between performance goals and 117–18; emphasized in the classroom 124; experimental manipulation of 123; interactions with performance and social goals 119, 120, 121, 125, 126; linked with intrinsic motivation 93; of parents 124–5; Western students 117–18, 119 mastery (learning)-oriented subjective action space 122, 126 mathematical thinking 88, 90

mathematics: American students 87, 88, 91, 93, 94; and creativity 92–3, 96; Asian Australian students 87–8, 89, 95, 161, 162; Asian students success in 261; attitudes towards 95, 97; Chinese students; achievements in Western cultures 88; action repertoires 89, 90, 92–3, 96; and the actiotope model 89–91, 92–7; motivation in 93; role of language in achievement 91, 92, 96; Chinese teachers 93, 96; classification of sociotopes in 6; Hong Kong students 88, 89, 95, 232; influence of educational environments on achievement 88, 89; memorization in 92; model for measuring achievement in 43; open- and closed-process problems 88, 89, 94, 96, 97; PISA assessments 87, 88, 89, 95; repetition in 96, 97; school 89, 90, 93–7, 262; Western cultures 93, 94, 95 McEwen, B.S. 25 medium of instruction (MOI) 58, 60 Melbourne 148, 149–50, 158 Melbourne High School (MHS) 149–50 memorization in mathematics 92 mental rotation tasks 105 mentors: and the actiotope model 44; of deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 220; role in developing excellence 21, 33–4, 126, 139, 258, 260; teachers as 155; Wang Shiqiang 79 mesosystem (bioecological systems theory of human development) 42 meta-analyses of parent involvement studies 171–82 meta-conceptual model of parent involvement 182–4, 185 micro perspective on the actiotope 8–9, 15 microsystem (bioecological systems theory of human development) 41 migration of Asians to Australia 147–8, 158

Index minority groups 177–8, 186, 263–4; see also ethnicity modifiability (flexibility) of actiotopes 10, 13, 15, 123, 196 molar perspective of the actiotope 8, 9–10, 15 motivation: and goal orientations 118, 119; and homeostatic and allostatic regulations 25; as an intrapersonal determinant of action repertoires 73; Asian Australian students 152, 154–7, 162; by mentors 126; Chinese mathematics students 93; effect of schools on 134; Hong Kong students 52; influence of peers 118–19, 154; influence of schools 139; in giftedness 114; in the Confucian context 52, 96 multiple goals 117, 119–21, 126 multiple intelligences 101, 103, 236, 237, 241 Munich Dynamic Ability Achievement Model (MDAAM) x, xi Munich Motivational Training (MMT) x–xi Munich Process Model of Giftedness (MPMG) x, xi Narrow phase (ENTER model) 189–90, 198–9, 202–3, 205, 207 National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), Australia 87–8 National Excellence: A case for developing America’s talent (US Department of Education) 259 negative cultural capital 28 negative learning experiences 25 neo-Piagetian developmental theory (NPT) 67–8; and excellence 71; complemented with the actiotope model 65–81: using artistic giftedness to test 75–81 neural basis of intelligence 105–6 neural efficiency hypothesis 106 New Zealand 148 Nobel prize winners 22, 27, 28, 110, 260

279

non-English-speaking-background (NESB) students in Australia 160 normative action spaces: and objective action spaces 5–6, 46, 47, 56, 59; Chinese students 56–8, 60; classrooms as 123–4; definition 40–1, 59, 253n2 objective action spaces: and normative action spaces 5–6, 46, 47, 56, 59; and resources 45; and role expectations 45–6; definition 40–1, 253n2 Okazaki, S. 153 one-child policy 57 open-process problems in mathematics 88, 89, 94, 96, 97 optimal learning 8, 20 optimal sociotopes 46, 59 oral language see spoken (oral) language organismic learning capital 11, 29–30, 191, 192, 207 overprotective parenting of disabled children 222 parental expectations: and rationale for involvement 169, 170; and styles of parenting 179–80; Anglo Australian 157; children’s response to 167; in a meta-conceptual model of parent involvement 182, 183, 184; in the East-Asian context 185, 259, 260–1; minority groups 178 parental involvement: and age of children 179, 182; and the actiotope model 167–8, 182–4; at schools 169, 178, 180, 181–2, 184, 185–6; demands and invitations for 168, 169, 182; East-Asian countries 189, 206; influence of socio-economic status 169–70, 178, 180, 182, 184; influence on children’s action repertoires 167, 168, 183; influence on children’s goal orientations 124–5, 126, 168, 179, 183, 185; metaanalyses of studies 171–82; metaconceptual model of 182–4, 185; programs for 178; rationale for 168–70

280

Index

parents: and behavioral problems of children 57; Asian American 169; Asian Australian 152, 156, 157–61, 162; belief systems 168–9, 182, 183, 184, 185; education (training) programs 179, 181, 182, 184, 185; intentions 168, 183, 184–5; mastery and performance goals 124–5; of deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 221–2; perceptions of children’s disabilities 221–2; social capital 168, 180, 182, 184; styles of parenting 178, 179–80, 182, 184; tutoring by 179, 181; Western cultures 138, 261; see also Chinese parents; Hong Kong parents parietal cortex 106 Parieto-Frontal Integration theory 106 Patall, E.A. 174–5, 180–1 peers: connectedness with 138, 139; disguising giftedness when among 134, 263–4; influence on motivation 118–19, 154; popularity with 119, 134; upward and downward comparisons with 52; within the Chinese student’s normative action space 57, 58 perfectionism 134, 135, 261 performance goals: approach and avoidance 115, 116–17; Chinese students 117, 135, 136; correlations between mastery goals and 117–18; emphasized in the classroom 124; experimental manipulation of 123; interactions with mastery and social goals 119, 120, 121, 125, 126; linked with intrinsic motivation 93; maladaptive outcomes 116; of parents 124–5; Western students 117–18, 119 performance-oriented subjective action spaces 122, 126 personal goals 52, 54 physical activity 51–2, 207 Piaget, Jean 68 policy capital 235, 238 poor academic achievers 51, 54, 56–8, 111, 116, 206

popularity with peers 119, 134 practical intelligence 103 practice see deliberate practice Preferred Teacher Characteristic Scale 155–6 prefrontal cortex 106 private schools 151, 158, 206 private tutors 157, 158, 181, 206 procedural knowledge 30 processing speed (cognitive) 103 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA): East-Asian student results 114; first-generation student results 149; Hong Kong student results 232; mathematics assessments 87, 88, 89, 95 propriety (li) 49 psychological adjustment in gifted Chinese students 134–5 psychometric intelligence 101, 102–3, 241, 256 psychosocial needs of deaf and hard-ofhearing gifted students 215, 216 public schools 151, 206 Q-data 191, 198 Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices 106 Raven’s Progressive Matrices 226 reading ability of deaf and hardof-hearing gifted students 213 reading acquisition 181 rectification of names (zheng ming) 49, 54 regulations (homeostatic and allostatic) 23–6, 32–4 ‘relationship closeness’ 50 relative functionalism 153 repetition in mathematics 96, 97 resources: and educational environment 47–8; and excellence development 21–2, 26–32; and goal structures in classrooms 123, 124; and objective action spaces 45; influence on interests in childhood 137; types of 10–13; use of the term 35n3; see also educational capital; learning capital

Index Review phase (ENTER model) 190, 203–4, 205, 207 righteousness (yi) 48–9 Robinson, J. 174–5, 180–1 role expectations in learning environments 45–6, 59–60 scholastic aptitude test (SAT) 104 school mathematics 89, 90, 93–7, 262 school performance and intelligence tests 103–4 schools: and Chinese students’ normative action spaces 58; as learning environments 92; attitudes towards 43, 95, 97, 154, 158; competitiveness at 58, 119, 120, 124; connectedness with 139; effective 42–3; for deaf students 216, 223–4; for gifted students 236, 243; goal structures in classrooms 123–4; Hong Kong 43, 51, 58, 243–5; influence on motivation 134, 139; intelligence fostered in 105, 108–9; lack of gifted programs 259; parental involvement 169, 180, 181–2, 184, 185–6; private 151, 158, 206; public 151, 206; relationship between resources and academic achievement 47–8 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields 11, 28, 263, x–xi second-generation students 149 selective high schools in Australia 149–51, 156, 158, 160, 162 selective migration of Asians 152–3, 161 self-actualization in Confucianism 49 self-concept 51–2, 94, 95, 97, 116 self-determination in Confucianism 49 self-directed study 258 self-discipline 104 self-efficacy 60, 116, 135–7, 140, 161 self-perfection 135–7 self-realization in Confucianism 49, 50, 52 self-regulation 133 Sénéchal, M. 175, 181

281

sequences of learning behaviors 9–10, 20, 23, 32; see also deliberate practice sexuality and gender in Confucianism 55 shame in Confucianism 55 Shanghai 57, 114 sign language 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228 sign-oral bilingual co-enrollment environments 224, 227–8 Singapore 48, 114, 232 skills versus intelligences 103 social connectedness 133, 137–40, 261 social context in neo-Piagetian developmental theory 69 social coping by gifted Chinese students 134–5 social educational capital: and gifted education policies 235, 250; and parents 168, 180, 182, 184; as exogenous resources 28; Asian Australian students 157, 159, 162; assessing in giftedness identification 194; comparison of East-Asian and Western cultures 206; definition 11; examples of 13; minority groups 177–8 social-emotional development of Chinese gifted students: and the actiotope model 132, 133–4, 135–7; and the differentiated model of giftedness and talent 132, 133; implications for teachers and guidance professionals 137–40; psychological adjustment, social coping and action repertoire 134–5; self-perfection and academic self-efficacy 135–7; social connectedness 133, 137–40 social environments 21, 125–6 social goals: and performance and mastery goals 117–19, 120, 121, 125, 126; Chinese gifted students 135, 136; influence of Confucianism 52, 54, 118; types of 118 social intelligence 103 socially oriented subjective action spaces 122, 126 social needs 51–2

282

Index

social skills 134 socio-cultural contexts of gifted and talented students 262–3 socio-economic status (SES): academic support for low SES students 58; and relationships between intelligence and school performance 104; effect on success in mathematics and languages 94; influence on parental involvement 169–70, 178, 180, 182, 184; in Hong Kong 47–8; talents facilitated or inhibited by 262 sociotopes: analysis of in giftedness identification 193–5; analyzing environment with 5–7, 14; and action repertoires 43–5; Asian 262; Chinese 59–60; definition 40–1, 59, 61n1; social adaptation in 3; types of 5–7, 46–7 South Korea 48, 114 spatial conceptual abilities 77–8 Spearman, Charles 102, 109 special educational needs 237, 240, 241, 242 special schools for gifted students 236, 243 speech impairment 215 speech information loss in deaf students 214 speech perception 222, 223 speed of information processing 105 spoken (oral) language: difficulties for deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 213, 214, 222, 223, 224, 226; in sign-oral bilingual co-enrollment environments 227, 228 stability of actiotopes 10, 13, 15, 123, 196 stability of goal orientations 123 standard solutions for typical situations 31 Stellar, E. 25 STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields 11, 28, 263, x–xi Sternberg, Robert J. 101

subjective action spaces: adaptation of 23; and gifted education policy in Hong Kong 233, 234; and goal orientations 122, 123; as components of actiotopes 5, 23; Chinese students 86, 90, 94–6, 135–7; deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 218–19; effect of parental involvement on 167–8, 183–4, 185; influence of self-perfection and academic self-efficacy 135–7; measuring 14; types of 122, 126 subject selection by Asian Australian students 160 successful intelligence 101 Sue, S. 153 surface learning strategies 116 Sydney 148, 149, 151, 158 system perspective on actiotopes 4, 10–14, 89, 217 Taiwanese students 52, 109, 149 talent domains: and attentional learning capital 32; and learning environments 42; school mathematics 90; specificity of 14, 16, 19, 43, 44, 198–9, 200, 204 Talent Phase (actiotope model of giftedness) 234 talent see giftedness and talent; identifying giftedness and talent taxi driver intelligence studies 107 T-data 191, 198 teachers: and Asian Australian parental expectations 159–61; and parental involvement 178, 180; as mentors 155; authoritarian teaching styles 50; concerns about private tutors 158; connectedness with 138, 139; deaf 223, 224–5, 227, 228; goals 125; goal structures in classrooms 123, 124; influence of Confucianism on 49; influences of 260–1, 262; management style 43; of deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted students 216; relationships with students 49; student perceptions of effective

Index 153–4, 155–6; United States 93; views on physical activity 207; views on ’tiger mother’ parenting style 160; see also Chinese teachers; Hong Kong teachers teaching strategies for gifted and talented students 258 telic learning capital: as endogenous resources 30–1; Asian Australian students 154, 162; assessing in giftedness identification 191, 192, 206–7; definition 12; examples of 13 temporal lobe 106 tertiary education 149, 154, 157, 258 thematic sociotopes 7, 193 3-Stratum-Model of cognitive abilities 103 3 x 2 achievement goal model 117 Thurstone, L.L. 102 ‘tiger mother’ parenting style 125, 148, 159–61, 162, 260, 261 total evidence rule 101, 111 traits: and giftedness identification 188, 256; and the actiotope model 1, 4, 101, 107, 111, 151; goal orientations as 122; influence of genes on 105 Transform phase (ENTER model) 190, 199–203, 205, 207 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 87, 88, 114, 232 tutoring by parents 179, 181 tutors (private) 157, 158, 181, 206 twice-exceptional (2E) students 212–13, 251, 255, 259; see also deaf and hard-of-hearing gifted (twiceexceptional) students twice plus exceptional (2E+) students 212 Tyson, D.F. 175–6, 181–2 underachieving students 51, 54, 56–8, 111, 116, 206 United Kingdom 87, 95, 111 United States: African American students 177; Asian American parents 169; Asian American students 152,

283

154, 177–8, 186; effect of income on parental expectations 170; graphic development 74; Latino students 177; mathematics studies 87, 88, 91, 93, 94; teachers 93; twice exceptional (2E) students 213 university education 149, 154, 157, 258 upward comparisons with peers 52 value and esteem of learning 45, 46, 48–56, 59–60, 92, 123, 124 VanTassel-Baska, J. 238, 240, 245 vertical goals 54 vertical grouping of gifted and talented students 258 Vietnamese background students in Australia 151, 152, 157 visual perception 73 ‘vocabulary’ of representation 73–4 Vygotsky, L.S. 41, 45 Wang, Shiqiang 76, 79, 81, 260–1 Wang, Yani 74–5, 76–8, 79, 81, 260–1 Western cultures: academic achievements compared with those of Asian cultures 46, 48, 59, 148; artistic prodigies 76; cognitive processes 95; creative teaching methods used in China 111; downward comparisons with peers 52; educational and learning capital 205–6; education valued by students from Hong Kong 249; identifying giftedness and talent 264; learning environments 43; learning pathways 207; mastery and performance goals 117–18, 119; mathematics studies 93, 94, 95; mathemematical achievements of Chinese students in 88; parents 138, 261; perceptions of disability 221, 222; social goals 118 White Australia policy 148 white matter 106 Wollongong Youth Study 154 women in STEM fields 11, 28

284

Index

work ethic and effort of Asian Australian students 152, 153–4 working memory 105–6 xing fu in Confucianism 55

Year 12, Australia 149–50, 163n1, 163n3 Young, L. 175, 181 yuan in Confucianism 56