Growing Up Gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at School and at Home [8 ed.] 0132620669, 9780132620666

Citation preview

Barbara Clark On Giftedness “Giftedness may be more ‘normal’ than the behaviors and abilities we now accept as typical.” (Chapter 2) “Society has unique needs for the services of gifted individuals. . . . Gifted students need direction in exploring all of the opportunities society has to offer them and the ways of contributing what they have to offer to society.” (Chapter 2) “[Gifted children’s] sense of justice can be tremendously valuable to society and beautiful in its motivating power for humanistic action. It can also be highly frustrating for their parents and teachers.” (Chapter 3) “Creativity involves discovery cognitively, deep satisfaction emotionally, beauty and grace in our physical world, and the thrill and peace of knowing and touching a higher, unlimited part of ourselves intuitively.” (Chapter 4)

On the Family and the Home of the Gifted Learner “In every phase of a child’s growth, the family and the home play a significant part. The home is the true cradle of eminence.” (Chapter 2) “Teachers at home (i.e., parents and families) can be among the most important sources of support and enrichment for the gifted program. They must be encouraged to organize, become informed, and collaborate with school personnel to provide the best possible education for their children.” (Chapter 10)

On Education for the Gifted Learner “Don’t confuse the IQ with the child; the child is much more.” (Chapter 2) “Learning should be a joy, not a punishment; a favor, not a duty.” (Chapter 2) “All program organizations and structures should make a combination of enrichment, acceleration, and grouping part of their range of services.” (Chapter 9) “There are exciting clues in brain research that can help educators optimize the learning and teaching experiences for the student with whom they work. By the environment and teaching experiences we provide, we change more than just the behavior of children; we change them at the cellular level.” (Chapter 9) “Our challenge is to find a place for children who may be 6 years old, read like a 10-year-old, write like a 6-year-old, solve mathematics problems like a 12-year-old, talk like a 15-year-old, and handle emotions and hurt feelings like a 4-year-old—or any other combination possible.” (Chapter 9) “Grades are quickly read, easy-to-manipulate symbols. In our ever-growing school population, they provide a quick way to categorize and group children. However, grades are also unfair, misleading, meaningless in many cases, and damaging to the self-concept of both bright and less bright children. They create pressures and anxieties for both teachers and students. They neither motivate nor contribute to learning. They communicate information on a par with chance estimates; at best, what they say is neither explicit nor constructive. But for many parents and teachers alike, grades are the most important part of the school’s responsibility.” (Chapter 10)

This page intentionally left blank

E I G H T H

E D I T I O N

Growing Up Gifted Developing the Potential of Children at School and at Home

Barbara Clark California State University, Los Angeles

#PTUPO
t
$PMVNCVT
t
*OEJBOBQPMJT
t
/FX
:PSL
t
4BO
'SBODJTDP
t
6QQFS
4BEEMF
3JWFS
"NTUFSEBN
t
$BQF
5PXO
t
%VCBJ
t
-POEPO
t
.BESJE
t
.JMBO
t
.VOJDI
t
1BSJT
t
.POUSFBM
t
5PSPOUP %FMIJ
t
.FYJDP
$JUZ
t
4ÍP
1BVMP
t
4ZEOFZ
t
)POH
,POH
t
4FPVM
t
4JOHBQPSF
t
5BJQFJ
t
5PLZP

Executive Editor and Publisher: Stephen D. Dragin Editorial Assistant: Katherine Wiley Marketing Manager: Joanna Sabella Production Editor: Annette Joseph Editorial Production Service: Electronic Publishing Services Inc. Manufacturing Buyer: Megan Cochran Electronic Composition: Jouve Interior Design: Electronic Publishing Services Inc. Cover Designer: Suzanne Behnke Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on the appropriate page within text. Copyright © 2013, 2008, 2002, 1997, 1992, 1988, 1983, 1979 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 07458, or you may fax your request to 201-236-3290. Many of the designations by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Clark, Barbara. Growing up gifted : developing the potential of children at school and at home / Barbara Clark.—8th ed. p. cm. ISBN-13: 978-0-13-262066-6 (casebound) ISBN-10: 0-13-262066-9 (casebound) 1. Gifted children—Education—United States. I. Title. LC3993.9.C58 2013 371.95—dc23 2011046793

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 ISBN-10: 0-13-262066-9 ISBN-13: 978-0-13-262066-6

To my beautiful mother, whose memory fills my days, my son, who allowed me to live with giftedness, my daughter, who taught me the gentleness of special gifts, my husband, who believes in growing and miracles, my dearest father, who loved us all, and my grandchildren, from whom I’m learning all over again.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Preface xv

PART ONE

Understanding the Gifted Learner

1

chapter 1

Who Are the Gifted Learners?

3

Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports Ideas about Intelligence 4 The Behavioral Concept of Intelligence 4

3

The Concept of Intelligence as a Process within the Brain 13 The Development of Intelligence 24 Nature Plus Nurture 24 The Gifted Brain 26 Intelligence, Gifted, and Talented: Definitions 28 Intelligence 29 Gifted, Giftedness 29 Gifted and Talented 30 Talent and Talent Development 31 A Declaration of the Educational Rights of the Gifted Child Review of Important Ideas 33

32

chapter 2

Developing Giftedness

35

Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports 35 Families and Gifted Children 36 Siblings of Gifted Children 40 Family Support for School 42 Characteristics of Gifted Children 46 Highly and Profoundly Gifted Individuals 51 The Beginnings of Giftedness: Birth through 2 Years Prenatal and Perinatal Interaction 61 From Birth through 3 Months 62

59

vii

viii

$0/5&/54

From 4 Months through 10 Months 64 From 11 Months through 2 Years 64 A Responsive Learning Environment for Early Learning

69 Early Childhood: Ensuring the Development of High Potential The Preschool Experience 74 Adolescence: Supporting Uniqueness 80 The Physical Transition 83 The Intellectual Transition 84 The Social-Emotional Transition 85 The Intuitive Transition 87 The Cross-Cultural Development of Identity in the Gifted Adolescent

The Brain and Our Electronic World Review of Important Ideas 90

73

88

88

chapter 3

Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports 92 Social-Emotional Development of Gifted Children 93 Emotional Intelligence and Giftedness 94 Social-Emotional Characteristics of Gifted Learners 95 Locus of Control 98 Competition 99 Perfectionism 99 Social-Emotional Well-Being of Gifted Children 102 The Self-Concept of the Gifted Child 107 Labeling Gifted Children 115 The Moral Development of Gifted Learners 116 Attitudes of Society, Teachers, and Other School Personnel Review of Important Ideas 121

chapter 4

Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

123

Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports 123 Views of the Concept of Creativity 124 Creativity as a Part of Giftedness 125 The Cognitive or Rational View of Creativity 127 The Affective or Emotional-Social View of Creativity 128 The Physical/Sensing View of Creativity 129

118

92

$0/5&/54

The Intuitive View of Creativity 129 The Holistic View of Creativity: Integrating the Views

130 Characteristics and Abilities Commonly Found in Creative Individuals

132

Rational Characteristics 132 Affective Characteristics 134 Physical Characteristics 135 Intuitive Characteristics 135

Creativity as a Process 137 Developing Creativity 139 Conditions That Enhance the Development of Creativity 140 Conditions That Inhibit the Development of Creativity 144

Measuring Creativity

145

Measures of Performance 147 Measures of Products 147 Problems in Measuring Creativity

Review of Important Ideas

PART T WO

148

150

Educating the Gifted Learner

153

chapter 5

Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports 155 The Mission of and the Rationale for Gifted Education and Talent Development 156 A Mission of Excellence and Equity 156 A Rationale 157 Excellence, Equity, and Gifted and Talented Learners 159 Interest in the Education of Gifted and Talented Learners 160 Barriers to Appropriate Gifted Education and Talent Development 169 Review of Important Ideas 174

chapter 6

Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports Recognizing Giftedness 178

177

Different Approaches to Recognizing Giftedness 180 Issues That Make Identification Difficult 182

177

155

ix

x

$0/5&/54

The Process of Identifying Gifted Students: Search, Screen, and Identify An Inclusive Search 184 Effective Screening 187 Equitable Identification and Placement 192 Identification: Assessing Intelligence, Abilities, and Aptitudes 194 Traditional and Nontraditional Assessments 195 Alternative, Authentic, and Performance-Based Assessment 195 Assessment of Intelligence, Ability, and Aptitude by Program Categories A Summary of the Identification Process 205

Review of Important Ideas

183

197

206

chapter 7

Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports 209 Multicultural Education and Giftedness 210 Global Education 214 Racially and Ethnically Diverse Gifted Populations

209

215

Learning Differences among and between Racial and Ethnic Cultures 215 Choosing Teachers for Racially and Ethnically Diverse Gifted Learners 221 The Choice between Academic Achievement and Cultural Affiliation 222

Identifying Gifted Learners from Culturally Diverse Populations

223

Search and Screen for Giftedness among Students in Culturally Diverse Populations 226

Underrepresentation of Culturally Diverse Groups in the Gifted Population: The Cultural Achievement Gap 231 The Discrimination Theory 233 The Distribution Theory 234 Economically Disadvantaged Gifted Learners: The Culture of Poverty, the Socioeconomic Achievement Gap 236 Learning Differences 239 Intervention 239 Gender and Giftedness 241 Gender Characteristics That Affect Learning 243 Issues Regarding Gifted Females 245 Issues Regarding Gifted Males 252 The Special Needs of Gifted Students Who Are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgendered (GLBT) 255

Review of Important Ideas

257

xi

$0/5&/54

chapter 8

Including Exceptionality and Underachievement Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports Gifted Learners with Disabilities 262

261

261

Characteristics of Gifted Children with Disabilities 263 Identification of Gifted Children with Disabilities 265 Education for Gifted Children with Disabilities 267

Underachievement and Gifted Students

270

Characteristics of Underachieving Gifted Students 271 Causes of Underachievement among Gifted Students 272 Prevention and Remediation of Underachievement 276

Review of Important Ideas

PART THREE

280

Delivering Effective Programs and Services for Gifted Learners

283

chapter 9

Exploring Programs, Models, Structures, and Organizations for Elementary and Secondary Gifted Learners 285 Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports 285 Programs, Models, and Practices for Elementary and Secondary Gifted Learners 286 Programs Organized by Level of Involvement 287 Programs Found in a Full-Inclusion Classroom 288 Administrative and Curricular Modifications Used in Gifted and Talented Education Programs 290 Enrichment 290 Acceleration 291 Grouping by Ability and Need 293 Models and Structures Used to Support Gifted Learners 297 Conceptual Frameworks 297 Educational Models 300 Program Organizations for Gifted Learners in Elementary School 306 Regular Classrooms 309 Individualized Classrooms 312 Special Classes 312

xii

$0/5&/54

Special Schools 313 Adjunct Programs 313

Program Organizations for Gifted Learners in Middle School and High School 313 Early Admission Programs 316 Core Academic Classes 316 Group Seminars 317 Honors Classes 317 Mini-Course Structure 317 School-within-a-School 318 Governor’s Schools 318 Advanced Placement Program 318 International Baccalaureate Program 319 Secondary Triad Model 319 Autonomous Learner Model 319 Purdue Secondary Model 320 Accelerated College Enrollment and Early Entrance Programs 320 Johns Hopkins University’s Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth The High School@Moorpark College (HS@MC) 323

Organizing for Optimal Development

321

324

The Response to Intervention (RtI) Model for Gifted Learners 324 The Integrative Education Model: Using Brain Research to Optimize Learning in Elementary and Secondary Classrooms 325

Homeschooling: An Alternative Approach for Elementary and Secondary Gifted Learners 334 Review of Important Ideas 339

chapter 10

Developing Effective Programs for Gifted and Talented Education 342 Ideas We Have Had/Ideas Research Supports 342 Developing Effective Programs for Gifted and Talented Education 343 Seven Actions Needed to Develop an Effective GATE Program 343 Standards for the Gifted and Talented Education Program 345 Teachers of Gifted Learners at School 349 Abilities, Values, and Characteristics of Teachers of Gifted Students 349 Teacher Education and Certification 352 The Coordinator of the Gifted and Talented Education Program 356 The Gifted and Talented Education Program Advisory Committee 359 The Importance of Support for Effective Programs 359 Gaining the Support of Teachers 361 Gaining the Support of Parents 362

$0/5&/54

Gaining the Support of the Administrator 364 Counselors and School Psychologists as Support Personnel Gaining the Support of the Community 371

366

Assessment and Evaluation of Programs and Services 376 Evaluating Program Effectiveness 375 Evaluating Teaching and Learning 377 Grading Gifted Learners 378 Reflect and Reform: The Final Step to Optimizing Learning and Maintaining an Effective GATE Program 381 Review of Important Ideas 382

References 385 Name Index 397 Subject Index 401

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

Preface This book is about educere, “to bring forth that which is within.” It is written for educators, at home and at school, to help them understand and carry out this important mission. The information and ideas found in these pages relate especially to the education of children who have amazing abilities that need to be allowed to grow. The information, ideas, and materials have been included to help educators guide and enrich their lives and allow all of us to gain from their gifts and talents. Whether you are now teaching or preparing to teach in the classroom or are a parent at home you will find these new data on teaching and learning, and the models for using the information, helpful in gaining a better understanding of gifted learners. These pages will also provide a rationale and methods that can help you support the growth of high levels of intelligence and the well-being of those you have chosen to serve.

NEW TO THIS EDITION Within this eighth edition you will find new data from brain research (to which attention is called in the margins), theories of intelligence, ideas on the methods of learning, and the impact these new data can have on our view of intelligence, its origins, and A P P LY I N G its development. Our understanding of these issues is important to the deciBRAIN RESEARCH sions we must make regarding how these new ideas will affect our underto Education standing of the nature of giftedness and the education of gifted learners. ■

■

■

■

At the beginning of each chapter you will find several ideas that have been previously accepted regarding the beliefs and educational practices used with gifted learners followed by more appropriate beliefs and practices based on newer data that affect the issue. The concept of intelligence has changed from being based on measures of the behavior of learners to understanding intelligence as a process within the brain. This has allowed educators to better understand the growth and development of the brain and its processes. Intelligence is no longer a question of nature versus nurture, but a combination of both that allows development of a child’s full potential. Current information and methods of actualizing this potential are also presented in this edition. By understanding the importance of the social-emotional development of atypical learners, such as the gifted, and the unique needs they develop, we can ensure their well-being and healthy self-esteem. Exploring current information on the effects of labeling, the attitudes of society and school personnel, especially teachers, will allow us to better guard against the problems of low self-esteem and waste of potential as gifted learners find it necessary to “fit in” to succeed socially. An unresolved debate regarding the mission of and rationale for gifted education requires thoughtful consideration. The presentation of current issues being considered nationally regarding excellence and equity provides the reader with new information xv

xvi

13&'"$&

■

■

■

■

and sources of inquiry. This allows thoughtful consideration and participation in the understanding of the issues involved. As concepts of intelligence change, issues of assessment and identification also change. New information regarding the different approaches to identifying giftedness, including both traditional and nontraditional assessments, becomes important to understanding the development of appropriate assessment and identification procedures. As more information becomes available to allow the field of gifted education to become more culturally responsive, it must become part of classroom practice. Expanding this section of the book was necessary to increase this understanding. With ever-increasing information from brain research has come a new knowledge of gender issues that are, as yet, not well circulated or incorporated in our belief systems. For those who work with learners who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, especially among gifted learners, such information is essential. This inclusion in the current edition is most important. Finally, the restructuring of the models, with the inclusion of two new models suggested for educating gifted learners, gives the reader a wider opportunity to establish programs that better fit the population and administrative structure used in their district to meet the needs of gifted learners.

The need to promote integration and connectedness as our best approach to help children grow up gifted continues to be very real. It is in this way that we as educators at home and at school can provide the best education possible for students who the schools have designated as gifted learners. The dual mission of educators of gifted learners to provide appropriate education for gifted students and, at the same time, to provide for optimal learning for all students still needs support if gifted learners are to be nurtured and the talent in all children is to reach its highest potential. Information from the study of the neurosciences, genetics, cognitive psychology, physics, and systems theory continues to be a rich resource that can aid us in this most worthwhile quest. Unfortunately this information is still not having the desired impact in classrooms today. This eighth edition is organized to help focus on this dual mission.

New! CourseSmart eTextbook Available CourseSmart is an exciting new choice for students looking to save money. As an alternative to purchasing the printed textbook, students can purchase an electronic version of the same content. With a CourseSmart eTextbook, students can search the text, make notes online, print out reading assignments that incorporate lecture notes, and bookmark important passages for later review. For more information, or to purchase access to the CourseSmart eTextbook, visit www.coursesmart.com.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the following reviewers for their comments on the manuscript: Sarah Harrison Burns, Wingate University; Jane C. Chauvin, University of New Orleans; and G. Heold Poelzer, The University of Texas–Pan American.

part one

Understanding the Gifted Learner The assessment instrument below will give you an opportunity to become aware of the level of knowledge that you have regarding some areas in the education of gifted learners. The items will allow you to become aware of information that is already known, beliefs that are presently held, and misconceptions that may be getting in the way of understanding gifted learners. Before each statement, place the number that you feel most closely represents your present position. The results are discussed at the end of this exercise. Be as open as you can. You may discover some new insights about giftedness and gifted learners. ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF GIFTED LEARNERS 1 = I strongly agree 2 = I agree 3 = I have no opinion 4 = I disagree 5 = I strongly disagree

____

1.

The term gifted can mean different things to different people and often causes confusion and miscommunication.

____

2.

Intelligence must be nurtured if giftedness is to develop and be maintained.

____

3.

We seldom encounter the exceptionally gifted children we could call geniuses; therefore, we know comparatively little about them.

____

4.

Thinking of, or speaking of, gifted children as superior people is inaccurate and misleading.

____

5.

As schools are currently organized, it is not always possible for gifted learners to receive appropriate educational experiences without special programs.

____

6.

Equal opportunity in education does not mean having the same curriculum and activities for everyone, but rather educational experiences adapted to meet the specific needs of each child.

1

2

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

____

7.

Gifted children, although interested in many things, usually are not gifted in everything.

____

8.

Difficulty conforming to group tasks may be the result of the unusually varied interests or advanced comprehension of a gifted learner.

____

9.

Teachers often see gifted learners as challenging their authority, disrespectful, and disruptive.

____ 10.

Some gifted children use their high level of verbal skill to avoid difficult thinking tasks.

____ 11.

The demand to create products or meet deadlines can inhibit the development of a gifted child’s ability to integrate new ideas.

____ 12.

Work that is too easy or boring frustrates a gifted learner, just as work that is too difficult frustrates an average learner.

____ 13.

Most gifted children in our present school system are underachievers.

____ 14.

Commonly used sequences of learning are often inappropriate and can be limiting to gifted learners.

____ 15.

Gifted children, who can be very critical of themselves, often hold lower than average self-concepts.

____ 16.

Gifted children often expect others to live up to standards they have set for themselves, resulting in problems in interpersonal relations.

____ 17.

Gifted learners are more challenged and more motivated when they work with students at their level of ability.

____ 18.

Some gifted children may perform poorly or even fail subjects in which they are bored or unmotivated.

____ 19.

The ability of gifted learners to generalize, synthesize, solve problems, study in depth, engage in abstract and complex thought patterns, and think at an accelerated pace most commonly differentiates gifted from average learners; therefore, programs for gifted students should stress using these abilities.

____ 20.

The persistent goal-directed behavior of gifted learners can result in others perceiving them as stubborn, willful, and uncooperative.

____ 21.

If not challenged, gifted children can waste their ability and become mediocre, average learners.

____ 22.

Gifted children often express their idealism and sense of justice at a very early age.

____ 23.

Not all gifted children show creativity, leadership, or physical expertise.

____ 24.

People who work with, study, and try to understand gifted learners have more success educating them than do those who have limited contact and have not educated themselves as to the unique needs of these learners.

____ 25.

I would be pleased to be considered gifted, and I enjoy people who are.

The questionnaire you have just completed should give you some indication of opinions of gifted learners that are supportive of their educational growth. The more “1 = I strongly agree” answers you were able to give, the more closely your opinions match those of people who have devoted their energy to understanding gifted learners. In the pages of this text, we examine these issues and others that augment our understanding of and ability to better educate gifted children.

1

Who Are the Gifted Learners?

Image 100 F Punchstock

IDEAS WE HAVE HAD

IDEAS RESEARCH SUPPORTS

■ Our intelligence is determined by heredity and is fixed

■ Our intelligence is educable, changeable, and dependent

at birth. ■ Intelligence is a matter of acting or behaving

intelligently. ■ The human organism is programmed or predetermined

to develop in a sequentially time-controlled way. We no longer add significant growth intellectually after 18 years of age, and at or near 45 years of age we begin to gradually lose intellectual ability.

on the interaction between our genetic inheritance and the experiences provided by the environment, especially those in which we engage early in our childhood. ■ Behavior is only one characteristic of intelligence. ■ While there are sensitive periods for learning, there is

need for stimulating activities and enriching environments throughout our lives. We do not plateau intellectually at 18 years of age; rather, we continue to grow intellectually moving either upward or gradually downward, depending on the environment with which we interact, the intellectual challenges in which we engage, and, also, on our personality characteristics.

3

4

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

IDEAS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE With investigations into how our brains work, how we learn, and how we develop intelligence, we are finding that we may not have the limits we thought we had. In fact, our belief systems may be the most limiting part of developing intelligence, giftedness, and talent. From the beginning of the concern for understanding and measuring intelligence, controversy has existed regarding its origins and development. Is it determined by heredity, or does the environment make a difference? Is intelligence fixed at birth, or could it change over time, depending on environmental experiences? Is it best understood and defined as a set of behaviors, or do its origins and development require understanding of the brain itself? We must look back to the late 1800s and the beginnings of the development of the concept of intelligence to understand the progress that has been made. We can still see how old concepts of intelligence continue to affect the beliefs we hold regarding giftedness and the education of gifted learners. Current discoveries can bring new dimensions and understanding to our view of intelligence, giftedness, and the educational practices we use. The idea of intelligence as an interaction between genetics and the environment has gained wide acceptance. However, many are still either unaware of the supporting data or, being convinced of another view, ignore current data altogether. To better understand the importance of the interactive view, we will review how the concept of intelligence has developed over the past century. The discussion will begin with an A P P LY I N G overview of the behavioral ideas of intelligence including the limiting BRAIN RESEARCH notion that intelligence is fixed at birth, making it predetermined and to Education unchangeable. As information on the development of intelligence began to accumulate, it became necessary to formulate a different theory to accommodate the new data. The result was the interactive theory of intellectual development that expressed the idea that behavior and experience in interaction creates intelligence. An inevitable next step was to focus on the brain itself as the major component in any theory of intelligence. The positive possibilities of the interactive theory of intellectual development, in combination with knowledge of how the brain develops intelligence, allows an understanding of the concept of intelligence as a process and clarifies how important educators are—both those at home and those at school. Figure 1.1 provides an overview of how the changes in our belief about how intelligence develops have affected our view of giftedness and the development of talent.

The Behavioral Concept of Intelligence FIXED INTELLIGENCE The term fixed intelligence expresses the idea that a person is born with a predetermined ability to think or process ideas and information. Some people, even some educators, believe that at birth each person is born with all the intellectual ability they will have throughout their lives. They believe that the person’s amount of knowledge will change with education and if given the opportunity, varying amounts of facts, skills, and ideas can be learned. But the process of thinking and the level and speed of thinking will remain fixed or set by their inherited mental ability. It is this belief that was challenged,

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

FIGURE 1.1

A Timeline of the Development of the Concept of Intelligence as It Affects Giftedness and Talent Development

1859

Charles Darwin (UK) began his investigation of the origin of the species.

1869

Francis Galton (UK) investigated the heritability of human intelligence and individual differences; developed the concept of fixed intelligence and the first intelligence test.

1905

Alfred Binet (France) developed intelligence scales, the concept of mental age, and intelligence quotient (IQ) to separate slow learners in schools for a special curriculum.

1921

Lewis Terman revised the Binet Intelligence Scale to establish the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale.

1930s–1940s

Intelligence testing became very popular, used especially by the U.S. Army, vocational counselors, and schools.

1930–1950

G. Stanley Hall and Arnold Gessell established the concept of predeterminism (maturation leads learning).

1930s–1970s

Montessori, Wellman, Skeels and Dye, Dennis, and Hunt developed concepts of educability of intelligence, inconsistency of IQ, and interactive intelligence.

1952

Jean Piaget described the growth and development of intelligence; drew attention to intellectual development during early childhood; evolved principles of active participation in learning and stages of development; contributed to the interactive view of intelligence.

1956

J. P. Guilford’s presidential speech at the American Psychological Association introduced the Structure of Intellect Model that expanded the concept of intelligence to 120 factors, including a strong focus on creativity, seen as divergent thinking.

1960s

Work done by Vygotsky in Russia in the 1920s was finally made available in the United States and challenged ideas of fixed intelligence; indicated that learning leads and directs maturation; stressed the importance of early stimulation. Many researchers, including Bruner, Hunt, Kagan, Rosensweig, and Krech, established a database for interactive intelligence.

1964

Bloom contributed to an increased awareness of the preschool years as essential to learning, the interactive intelligence theory, and the understanding of the learning process. Highlights of this work were the establishment of a database for the Head Start program and the publication of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, used as a guide in many gifted and talented programs.

1983

Howard Gardner proposed the theory of multiple intelligences, which includes linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences.

1984

Robert Sternberg theorized a triarchic concept of intelligence that includes metaprocesses, performance processes, and knowledge-acquisition processes.

1995

The accumulation of evidence indicated that intelligence is multidimensional and is affected by an interaction between that which is inherited and the environment in which one lives. (Continued)

5

6

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 1.1 2000

(Continued) Diamond, Kandel, LeDoux, Siegel, and other neuroscientists extend the concept of intelligence beyond the behavioral aspects of the past theories to an understanding of intelligence as it operates and develops within the brain.

A P P LY I N G

BRAIN RESEARCH to Education

2004

Hawkins suggests and explores a new framework of intelligence based on knowledge of brain function.

2010

Researchers continue to produce new findings on the brain and the development of intelligence. A wide variety of books suggesting ways to use information on understanding brain development, and increasing intelligence in classrooms and in personal life, become available (e.g., Brizendine, L., Carr, N., Doidge, N., Khalso, D. S., Nisbett, R., Shenk, G., Sylwester, R., and others).

first in the laboratories of researchers such as Krech (1969), Diamond (1988), and others, and then later through learning experiments such as those of Kandel (2006), LeDoux (2003), and Siegel (1999). These experiments led to a belief in a far different concept of intelligence, one that recognizes that mental abilities, such as the depth, speed, and complexity of thought, can grow depending on the opportunities for interaction the person has with rich and varied environments. The change in beliefs, from the limitations of inherited or fixed intelligence to the unlimited possibilities and educable power of interactive intelligence, frees human beings to develop far more of their intellectual potential. Learning and education take on a new level of importance. Instead of being “fixed” at birth, intelligence is seen as modifiable, growing to levels of ability that reflect the experiences of the individual. The degree of growth will be in direct correlation to the amount and level of enrichment experienced. Talents and abilities are unique to each individual, but the level of development of those abilities depends on the richness of the environment and the experiences that are made available. The history of the development of the belief in “fixed” intelligence will clarify why the ideas, though now known to be incorrect, remain so difficult to change. Nearly 150 years ago, Charles Darwin (1859) began his investigation of the origin of the species. His cousin, Francis Galton (1869), had great interest in the hereditary factors that Darwin was investigating and began asking important questions regarding how much of a person’s intelligence is inherited. The importance of his investigation into intellectual differences must not be minimized because, prior to Galton, no one had investigated the individual differences of human beings. The very success of this investigation, however, locked us into a limited concept of intellectual development for over a century. Galton, influenced by Darwin, pursued the heritability of intelligence to the exclusion of any investigation into the effects the environment might have on the growth and development of intellectual ability. His view resulted in the theory of fixed intelligence, the belief that the level and quality of intelligence possessed at birth remains intact

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

7

throughout a person’s life. This theory concluded that nothing could in any way change the inherited quantity or quality of a person’s intelligence. Many intellectually limiting practices followed from the belief in this theory. PREDETERMINISM In the first half of the twentieth century, a student of Galton, G. Stanley Hall, introduced another idea about human development that was a logical, but equally faulty, outgrowth of the concept of fixed intelligence. Hall believed development was predetermined, a view that was made popular largely by the work of Arnold Gesell (Gesell et al., 1940), a disciple of Hall. Again, as with Galton, Gesell was a man who made many valuable contributions to our understanding of children even as he became instrumental in solidifying misconceptions about how children grow and develop. “Predeterminism” assumes that the human organism is programmed in a sequentially time-controlled way. Regardless of events or environments, the program was thought to prevail. Maturation and learning were seen as distinct and, to some extent, separate processes. Heredity was thought to control maturation. Learning was considered to be dependent on the level of maturation achieved. With these beliefs, only maturation could lead to learning. This idea was carried to such an extreme that avant-garde schools of the day viewed any attempt to guide the growth of youngsters as a grievous fault. The educational abuses that followed—most notably, lack of stimulation—inevitably limited the growth and development of the human beings involved. Parents were advised to allow their children to “flower” unrestrained and unguided. Permissive patterns of child rearing and education were extolled as the model to follow. However, some dissonant information began to appear in this climate of nonintervention and nonstimulation. At first, people disputed, rationalized away, or simply ignored any ideas that varied from the accepted view. The slow implementation of the work of Maria Montessori exemplifies the lack of reception offered to educational methodology based on opposing ideas. Although Montessori’s work was highly successful educationally, it assumed the educability of intelligence and, therefore, the inconstancy of the IQ, ideas that were considered untrue. Not until decades later could the techniques and ideas of Montessori be incorporated into our educational practices. Determined and courageous researchers and practitioners in education and psychology risked their professional reputations to share findings that were in direct conflict with the concept of intelligence as fixed. Even today some still consider this area of inquiry controversial. INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE It was well into the 1960s when the challenge against fixed intelligence reached significant proportions. A veritable cadre of professional men and women now faced the issue. Armed with data resulting from their work, they proceeded from an examination of the dissonance between accumulating information and the old theoretic framework, through the postulation of a new theory of intelligence, to the collection of evidence to support the new hypotheses. From this point on, intelligence would be believed to be educable, changeable, and dependent on the interaction between the genetic inheritance and the

8

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

experiences provided by the environment. A wealth of studies followed that supported the new concept. Recorded here are only a few of the milestone events. From France, in a varying quality of translation, came the work of Jean Piaget (1952), who influenced educational theory and practice to an unprecedented degree. He began his inquiry in a most unscientific manner, one that no scientist would consider sound as a research design. Without objectivity, he selected only three subjects to observe and no control group. His own children were the subjects. However, he described so clearly and in such detail what he observed that his evidence enabled him to evolve principles of growth and development. Later examination of data from a multitude of studies that include respectable numbers of children verified many of his principles as viable and useful. Piaget was among the first to ask about intellectual development during the early years of human life. Drawn from his background in marine biology, his work emphasized the principles of assimilation and accommodation in interaction. He believed that intellectual growth resulted from the learner’s active participation in the learning process, invariably sequenced into stages. Although he set no strict time lines on the stages of development, he considered the order unalterable, with mastery of the lower stages preceding learning in the higher stages of cognition. Piaget stated that the age at which a child passes from one stage to another depends on both the genetic endowment and the quality of the environment. He espoused one of the first interactive theories of intelligence. In the 1960s, work done in the 1920s in Russia by researcher Lev Vygotsky began to reach the American academic community. Suppressed during his lifetime because it contradicted the beliefs and actions of the totalitarian government in his country, his work finally became known and discussed abroad. Contrary to the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky’s research supported the idea that learning led and directed the quality and speed of maturation. Vygotsky’s contributions provided data for the areas of language development, educational remediation, early stimulation, and remediation of physical disability (Vygotsky, 1962). The work of Benjamin Bloom (1964) made another important contribution to educational practice, particularly with regard to early intellectual development. A reexamination of previously published data allowed Bloom to suggest a startling hypothesis. It had long been assumed (and intelligence testing norms complied with the assumption) that humans learn in a regularly ascending line between birth and 18 years of age, after which they level off to a plateau until around age 45, when a gradual decline to senility is expected to begin. Bloom used the reassessed data to show a different pattern. Although he looked at many human characteristics, just the findings from the area of intelligence will receive comment here. According to Bloom, between birth and 4 years of age, children accomplish 50% of the deviation in IQ that they will acquire by 18 years of age. By 6 years of age, another 30% will have been added. With the data showing that 80% of the deviation in adult IQ would be actualized by age 6, educators developed a new awareness of the preschool years as an essential time for learning. As society’s concern for compensatory education also gained a following, many programs were then established to take advantage of the important early years of a child’s development. The educational community began to focus on the early years as educators became aware of the deceptions and limitations caused by the theories of fixed intelligence and

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

9

predeterminism. Reliance on these older concepts had left us with a near void in understanding how infants and young children develop intellectually. Bloom made an important contribution to classroom organization for learning with the publication of his Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain (1956) and his work with Krathwohl and Masia (1964) in Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain. For readers nearing or past the magic age of 45, let me hasten to add that subsequent studies done by the Fels Foundation (Kagan & Moss, 1962), the Berkeley Growth Studies (Bayley, 1968; Bayley & Schaefer, 1964) and the Terman data (Terman & Oden, 1947) give us a very different view of the “off to senility” phenomenon. Those studies indicate that we do not plateau intellectually at 18 years of age; rather, we continue to move either upward or gradually downward, depending on the environment with which we interact, the intellectual challenges in which we engage, and on our personality characteristics. Aggressive, inquiring, active, independent, sensitive people who seek new ideas and adapt comfortably to change tend to continue upward; passive, docile, dependent people who follow set patterns and seek security and repetition gradually lose intellectual facility. Data collected from the Terman studies show that growth patterns can continue as people reach their 60s and 70s. Later data on aging further support these possibilities. Bruner, Hunt, and many others began the task of establishing and supporting a new theory of intelligence. Bruner (1968) hypothesized that the young process information in three ways: through action, imagery, and symbols. He believed that the preschool experience should work toward translating from one into the other. Bruner stated, “The significance about the growth of the mind in the child is to what degree it depends not upon capacity but upon the unlocking of capacity” (p. 14). Later, you will note how the current findings from brain research mirror his focus on action, images, and symbols as powerful tools for learning. Hunt (1961) brought out the problem of the match, that is, finding the most stimulating circumstances for children at each point in their development. To him, the major challenge of our time was to discover a way to govern the encounters children have with their environment, especially during the early years of their development. With such a match of ability and experience, children could be expected to achieve a substantially higher level of intellectual capacity as they grew. High levels of intelligence, whether expressed in cognitive abilities (such as the capacity to generalize, to conceptualize, or to reason abstractly), specific academic ability, leadership, or creative behavior expressed through visual and performing arts, result from the interaction between inherited potentialities and experiences acquired from the environment. This interaction encompasses all of the mental, physical, emotional, and intuitive characteristics of the person and all of the people, events, and objects entering the person’s awareness. Just as no two people have identical mental, physical, emotional, and intuitive abilities, neither do they have the same environment. Reality is unique to each of us. Even so simple a perception as color differs vastly among individuals. We view color differently not only because we have biological differences, but also because our own emotional patterns cause us to develop a personal meaning for each color. That meaning may change, or be reinforced, as our experiences with objects of each color give us additional information.

10

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Newer data from many sources make the view of intelligence as fixed untenable. An interactive theory of intelligence best describes the data now available. From this interactive point of view, we could not say which is more important: the inherited abilities or the environmental opportunities to develop them. A restriction on either would inhibit high levels of actualized intellectual ability. High levels of intellectual development do not occur without a high level of interaction between the inherited abilities and appropriately enriching experiences. Further support for this interaction theory of intelligence must be noted in the renorming of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale in the 1970s. An analysis of the standardization results showed a dramatic rise in the IQ level, especially among the preschool population. We might assume that the higher levels of education among parents and a richer earlier environment—television, higher mobility, wider use of educational toys and books, better nutrition—have helped foster this change. Later studies indicated that the observed change is a genuine phenomenon and not a research error (Thorndike, 1975). This information is even more impelling as evidence when one considers that the new standardization population for tests of intelligence purposefully included broader minority and socioeconomic representation, which had been omitted from the previous data collection. EXPANDED VIEWS OF INTELLIGENCE BASED ON BEHAVIOR During the 1980s, expanding the concept of intelligence, first suggested by Guilford, was the concern of a number of researchers and scholars. Each has added a dimension to consider in our understanding of intelligence. In 1983, Howard Gardner, a Harvard University psychologist, proposed a theory of multiple intelligences, originally including seven of what he purported to be relatively independent intelligences—linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodilykinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. He believes that “only if we expand and reformulate our view of what counts as human intellect will we be able to devise more appropriate ways of assessing it and more effective ways of educating it” (p. 4). He later developed an eighth intelligence, naturalistic, that tries to capture the more unique aspects of each individual. You will note that Gardner has acknowledged that intelligence is not fixed when he speaks of “educating it.” In the process of formulating his original theory, Gardner drew from a wide range of studies on subjects including prodigies, gifted individuals, brain-damaged patients, normal children and adults, and individuals from diverse cultures. Gardner’s theory addresses many areas that had not previously been seen as a part of intelligence, and he brings additional clarity to the critical importance of the interaction between genetics and the environment in its development. Throughout the discussion of the eight intelligences, Gardner suggests using the power of one of the intelligences that is well developed as an alternative learning mode for others not as developed. This use of the multiple intelligences to support one another and thereby create powerful learning comes very close to the view of integrative education developed in this text, although the area of intuitive function is not yet included in Gardner’s model. Gardner shows a deep concern for optimal learning in his theoretic framework.

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

11

In 1985, a psychologist from Yale University, Robert Sternberg, theorized a triarchic concept of intelligence. To understand intelligence, he believes that we must view its development from three aspects: the internal world of the individual, exemplified by analytical thinking; the external world of the individual, for example, environmental awareness; and the interaction between these two worlds that synthesizes disparate experiences in insightful ways. According to the triarchic theory, three kinds of mental processes operate: (1) metaprocesses, used to plan, monitor, and evaluate one’s problem solving; (2) performance processes, used to carry out the instructions of the metaprocesses; and (3) knowledge-acquisition processes, used to figure out how to solve problems. These processes result in three types of giftedness: analytic giftedness—the academic type of reasoning measured by intelligence tests; synthetic giftedness—creative, intuitive, imaginative, insightful thinking; and practical giftedness—the ability to apply analytic and synthetic abilities to everyday issues and problems successfully. Sternberg includes wisdom, defined as concern for the needs and welfare of others, in the area of practical intelligence. He believes that the experiential expression of synthetic giftedness most impacts the world, and that augmenting our understanding of this area will permit us to develop a more complete theory of intelligence and provide a base for a more useful assessment. It is in the area of experience that Sternberg feels we fail the individual most notably, both in the development of his or her intelligence and in its identification. This concept is important to note in light of more recent developments that suggest the critical nature of the environment in understanding intelligence. The fields of psychology and education continue to define intelligence most often by behaviors and to measure it through tests of knowledge and skills. Such tests seem to be valid for ranking individuals and are highly predictive of performance on tasks of a similar nature, such as those related to school activities. Current theories of intelligence in these fields value the ease and speed with which individuals acquire new knowledge and skills. Intelligence is not just a matter of acting or behaving intelligently. Behavior is a manifestation of intelligence, but not the central characteristic or primary definition of being intelligent. . . . Ignoring what goes on in your head and focusing instead on behavior has been a large impediment to understanding intelligence. (Hawkins, 2004)

INTELLIGENCE TESTING Galton was the first to attempt an intelligence test based on scientific data. His test assumed a relationship between sensory acuity and general intelligence. Although general intelligence proved to be an inadequate base for such testing, Galton’s efforts, nevertheless, initiated the search for functional intelligence testing. As testing for intelligence became popular, the belief prevailed that if we could find a test powerful enough, we could predict from infancy exactly what the individual would become. The seeming unreliability of infant testing was thought to be a problem of the testing procedure, not of any change in actual intelligence. With our current information it is clear that intelligence grows or diminishes over time depending, in part, on the experiences provided in the environment, especially in the early years. Unfortunately, many disregard the newer information and hold to the limiting and disproven belief that intelligence is completely inherited and unchangeable.

12

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

During the twentieth century many significant events occurred that affect our educational practices today. In 1905, the French government asked Alfred Binet to develop a way to separate a group of slow learners from other schoolchildren in order to create a special curriculum and methodology that would aid in their learning. Unlike those who later utilized his intelligence scales and concept of mental age, Binet did not agree with the theory of fixed intelligence or with a unitary nonchanging “g factor” of intelligence. He believed intelligence to be educable, a belief not again heard until the 1960s. Binet’s articles and speeches would be considered quite radical even today. Many of the educational beliefs and practices he spoke out against during his day still need to be changed (Binet, 1969). Today, in the United States, Binet is best known through a revision of his intelligence scale, originally developed by Lewis Terman of Stanford University in 1921. This test, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, originated when no one questioned the validity of the concept of unchangeable or fixed intelligence. It is important to note that even later revisions of the test are, unfortunately, still based on these assumptions. The Intelligence Quotient (IQ) was introduced by Wilhelm Stern in 1912, to indicate the score on an intelligence test. In the development of intelligence tests, variations in test performance caused by age differences needed to be taken into account. This adjustment led to the idea of the IQ, which is computed by dividing the mental age by the chronological age and multiplying by 100. The average IQ for the general population at any age was set at 100. The IQ of the middle 50% of the population falls between 90 and 110. The IQ was used by Terman as the indicator of the score on the StanfordBinet Intelligence Scale. An IQ of 132 reflects the beginning of the upper 2% of the population and is often used as an indicator of giftedness. In 1921, using his revision of Binet’s intelligence scale, Terman began the most extensive longitudinal study of the characteristics and behaviors of gifted individuals. Working in California from Stanford University under a grant from the Commonwealth Fund of New York City, Terman chose more than 1,500 students with an average age of 11 years and an IQ exceeding 140 (in fact, the mean IQ was 150). He collected extensive personal and educational data on each student. The stereotype of a gifted person at that time was a bespectacled, frail youngster who was socially ill at ease, lost in a world of books and lofty thoughts, and usually isolated in some corner tenuously holding onto sanity. “Early ripe, early rot” was the motto of the day used to describe the gifted person. No clear-thinking parent would ever desire to have such a child. To encourage this type of development was unthinkable. Terman’s data went far to dispel these myths. Although his sample was limited culturally, socioeconomically, and racially, his findings were significant in influencing those who held extreme ideas about gifted individuals. His data allowed a more realistic opinion and a more accepting view of the gifted learner. Although conceived and mostly conducted during a period of belief in fixed intelligence, Terman’s longitudinal work was conducted for 30 years during his life and then was updated periodically by some of his colleagues. These data added to the information disputing fixed intelligence as a viable concept (Terman, 1925). Testing achieved great popularity during the 1930s and 1940s. Intelligence testing was valued to such an extreme that a test score placed on a school cumulative record

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

13

could be used for educational decision making without the availability of the protocol, the answer sheet, or even the name of the test. Parents were not permitted to know the IQs of their children because the prevailing belief was that this number gave evidence of the level of capacity for mental development, and such a powerful piece of information could not be trusted to the lay public. Some school districts and classrooms are still reluctant to share this information.

The Concept of Intelligence as a Process within the Brain Researchers in the neurosciences are currently investigating the actual process of developing intelligence. The focus for the understanding and definition of intelligence is now shifting from the observation of intelligent behaviors to the neural processes that underlie and create these behaviors. What we have A P P LY I N G been calling theories or definitions of intelligence can now be seen as BRAIN RESEARCH to Education the behavioral outcomes of being intelligent. A complete theory of intelligence must now include the processes within the brain. Understanding these processes will allow educators to affect the quality and quantity of intelligent behavior and lead to knowledge of how to design the most effective educational strategies to nurture higher levels of intelligence. In 1993, Wittrock suggested that educators not ask what the brain has to do with learning; rather, they should ask (1) How can we understand the operations of the brain so that we can create more powerful lessons? and (2) How can education use the processes of the brain more effectively? A number of researchers from the neurosciences have been defining and developing an understanding of intelligence from within the brain (Diamond, 1988, 1998; Edelman, 2004; Hawkins, 2004; Kandel, 2006; LeDoux, 2003; Restak, 2003; Siegel, 1999). Others from psychology and the cognitive sciences continue to explore the concept of intelligence by studying intelligent behavior (Gardner, 1999; Greenspan, 1997; Sternberg et al., 2000). Both groups have produced useful insights that can inform classroom practice. The advantage of the focus from the neurosciences is that, with the findings, we are able not only to improve some of the outcomes of teaching, but also to actually understand what is needed in the environment and in the teaching interactions with children to optimize learning. By defining intelligence as brain function, we can move to the level of creating conditions for the development of higher levels of intelligence. From this point of view, nearly all children at the beginning of their lives can be seen as possessing the equipment necessary to develop increasingly complex intellectual abilities. As we continue to learn more about the brain, educators at home and at school will be able to provide the essential opportunities that can establish the neural patterns that will result in increasingly higher intellectual behavior. It is important that we make better use of the information we now have to allow our children to develop the unique abilities embedded in their genetic patterns. To understand how some individuals become gifted and others do not, we need to become familiar with the basic structure and function of the human brain. As we seek to nurture giftedness, such knowledge will prove invaluable.

14

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BRAIN The human brain can be organized into four major functional areas (Figures 1.2 and 1.3), each with different structures and chemistry. “The idea that different regions of the brain are specialized for different purposes is central to modern brain science,” states Kandel (2006, p. 123). Use of these general areas will allow us to gain an overview of major brain functions and their approximate locations. Each use will also help us to develop more powerful learning experiences that take advantage of all of the ways the brain processes, remembers, and creates knowledge. Information is processed from a vast number of brain areas, through myriad neural pathways and linkages. It is analyzed and integrated in cellular structures at higher levels. This results in retention and storage of unbelievable amounts of data, all contributing to our uniqueness of self and our worldview. While we do not need to comprehend the complexity of this total system in order to understand some basic brain structures and functions, it is well to keep the amazing level of complexity of our brains in mind. What we already understand about brain function has changed our beliefs and procedures for

FIGURE 1.2

Areas of Function

Cognitive

Intuitive

Sensory Physical Emotional (This area is deep inside the brain and it includes the Hippocampus and the Amygdala)

Source: Based on a drawing by Allyson Balay.

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

FIGURE 1.3

15

The Universe of Intelligence Based on Areas of Brain Function

optimizing learning and teaching. As more information regarding the functioning of the brain becomes available, educators can expect amazing benefits, enriching and enhancing our ability to teach and to create more effective learning opportunities. It is so important that your students become engaged in building their own brain power that you must not wait until you feel that you have expertise in this area. Use their questions to lay the framework for projects and inquiries that they can pursue to build their knowledge base. They are sure to find inquiries into their own brains fascinating. To introduce your students to their brains, engage them in activities that will help them understand how the brain is formed and how it functions. By changing the language of the paragraphs that follow to fit your group, the following activity can be used with all ages of students so that they can develop an understanding of how they think, and how they can develop their thinking abilities. You may wish to display several views of the brain (e.g., Figures 1.2, 1.4) for the students to refer to as you guide them through the following exercise: Make a fist with each of your hands so that you can see your fingernails, and then place your hands together with the fingernails touching (Figure 1.5). As you look down at your hands, they now form a very good model of the brain.

16

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 1.4

The Human Brain Language Areas Parietal Lobe (body senses) Prefrontal Lobe

Occipital Lobe (vision)

Temporal Lobe (hearing)

Cerebellum (muscle coordination)

Brain Stem (regulation) Side View

From Below

Corpus Callosum

Limbic System (emotions, learning)

Thalamus (sensory relay) Pituitary Gland Spinal Cord Cross Section

FIGURE 1.5

A Hand Model of the Human Brain Motor Area

Vision Language Area

Prefrontal Cortex

Back View

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

17

Wiggle your little fingers and you have identified the occipital lobe, the area through which vision is processed in the brain. Isn’t it interesting that the visual area is at the back of your brain? Move your middle finger and you have located the motor area of the brain. It is in the parietal lobe. On your hand model, the area of the brain that you use for language is just below the middle knuckle on the right hand (left hemisphere). Please note that the left hemisphere is connected to the right hemisphere (left hand) by way of your touching fingernails. Your fingernails represent your corpus callosum. This connector between the right and left hemispheres of the brain has within it more neural connections than there are in any other part of the body. The functions of each of the two hemispheres are different. The left hemisphere is more responsible for linear, rational thinking, such as math and reading, and the right hemisphere is most responsible for spatial, gestalt thinking, such as making up stories and studying history. It is clear the interconnection and integration of the right and left hemisphere specializations are biologically intended. Nearly everything that you do needs to draw from both of your areas of ability. However, each of us is better at some activities than at others. Both your genetics and your gender influence the abilities you have and the nature and strength of your bilateral connections. Now, separate your hands, keeping one fist closed, and let’s explore the inside of your brain model. Begin with the area of the arm and wrist of one hand; this represents a part of the brain stem. It is the location of our autonomic (i.e., automatic) functions. Here is our primitive brain, the system that relieves us of consciously processing each breath and each beat of our heart. However, those working in the area of biofeedback have shown us that, while most of these functions are normally beyond our conscious control, we can, if we choose, bring these functions to our awareness allowing us to monitor or change the process if it has become destructive or inefficient. For example, people with high blood pressure can use biofeedback techniques to monitor and change an inappropriate distribution rate of their blood, consciously helping their bodies to better regulate this usually automatic function (Taylor, Tom, & Ayers, 1981). Look again at your arm-wrist area representing the brain stem. In the brain stem, we find the neural pathways for many higher brain centers. Here, too, are cells concerned with motor control and the communication link between the rest of the brain and the cerebellum, located at the base of the brain. The reticular formation is located in this area. This area is, in essence, the physical basis for consciousness and plays a major role in keeping us awake and alert. The brain can be discussed in further detail describing the activities of our four major areas of function: the physical, the affective, the cognitive, and the intuitive. The location of these functions can be seen in Figures 1.2 and 1.3. The Physical Function (Sensing and Movement). The first area of function to be discussed includes movement and the entire sensorium: sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. The access to our world is primarily through movement and physical sensing. Our level of intellectual ability, even our view of reality, will depend on how our brain organizes and processes this information. We know that gifted learners have a heightened ability to bring in information from their environment and process it in ways that expand their view of reality. They do, however, often define themselves by their

18

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

cognitive ability and may recognize their value through that ability alone. Therefore, gifted students may focus more and more energy toward the pursuit of cognitive excellence and may ignore their physical growth and development. Although many gifted children develop above-average physical skills, they often value physical pursuits far less than cognitive endeavors, denying the need for integration. It is common for gifted learners to develop a Cartesian split (i.e., a mental separation between mind and body) that if unrecognized and allowed to intensify, can limit the cognitive growth they so value. Activities that promote integration of the body and the mind are an essential part of a program for optimizing learning (see Chapter 9). The Affective Function (Emotional and Social). This second area of function is expressed in emotions and interactions. It is affecting and affected by every part of the brain/mind system. Affective functions are primarily regulated by biochemical mechanisms housed in the limbic area of the brain. This second area of the brain, the limbic area, includes the hippocampus and the amygdala or the emotional mind (Figure 1.2). It is wrapped around the top of the brain stem, located at midbrain, and contributes significantly to the learning process. With the hand model, you can symbolically view the limbic area by partially unclenching your fist and looking at the palm of the hand. One can see the ventricles of the brain represented by the folds within the palm of the hand as well as the mounds and depressions of the limbic area itself. Here are the biochemical systems that are activated by the emotions of the learner. Here, too, are processes that enhance or inhibit memory. This area affects such diverse functions as anxiety, rage, sentimentality, and attention span. In addition, our feelings of personal identity and uniqueness depend on this area of the brain to combine internal and external experience. It is in this area that affective feelings provide the connecting bridge between our inner and outer worlds and add significantly to our construct of reality and our model of a possible world. By the release of biochemicals from the limbic area of the brain, the cells of the cortex are either facilitated or inhibited in their functioning. One activator for growth of function in this area is novelty (Kandel, 2006; Restak, 1979). Using novelty as part of a learning experience supports learning and memory, an important thing to remember when you are planning a learning experience. The affective function does more than support cognitive processes; in fact, it provides the gateway to enhance or limit higher cognition. To allow optimal learning, families must include in the environment, and teachers must integrate into their presentations, activities that promote emotional growth. The Cognitive Function (Linear and Spatial). This third system of the brain is located in the convoluted mass known as the neocortex or cerebrum (Figure 1.4) represented by the exposed surface of the fingers and thumbs of both hands held together (Figure 1.5). It is the largest brain system, comprising five sixths of the total brain mass, and envelops the two systems previously mentioned, the brain stem and the limbic area. It is here that data are processed, decisions made, action initiated, and memory stored. The neocortex is necessary for language and speech. Its most overriding functions involve the reception, processing, storage, and retrieval of information. Hawkins (2004) considers the neocortex as the true seat of intelligence with its different parts working on common principles,

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

19

all hierarchical in structure. He considers the primary function of the neocortex to be prediction, a function he believes to be the foundation of intelligence. The cognitive function includes the linear analytic, problem-solving, sequential, and evaluative specializations of the left cortical hemisphere of the brain (in the hand model, your right hand) as well as the more spatially oriented gestalt specialization of the right cortical hemisphere (in the hand model, your left hand). The Intuitive Function. This function is in the last section of the neocortex to develop, the prefrontal cortex. In our hand analogy, with both hands fisted and pressed together, the thumbs represent the neocortex. This area of the brain focuses on behaviors associated with planning, organizing, and creating insight, empathy, and introspection. LeDoux (2003) and Luria (cited in Wittrock, 1980) considered the prefrontal cortex the basis of intuitive thought. It is engaged in firming up intention, deciding on action, and regulating our most complex behaviors (Restak, 1979). It seems to be the area that energizes and regulates other parts of the brain. The prefrontal cortex is believed to develop between 12 and 16 years of age, more fully maturing in the early 20s. As early as the late 1970s, Goodman (1978) placed the following functions in this area: ■

■

■

■

Foresight: Ability to see patterns of change, to extrapolate from present trends to future possibilities; this process uses imagination, prediction, and behavioral planning. Self-regulation: Regulation of bodily processes through insight, internal commands, and generation of visual images; this process is the basis for meditation and biofeedback strategies. Analytic systems thinking: High form of creativity, complex analysis of input requiring formal logic and metaphor. Holos: Social sense, rational and emotional; the foundation of altruism.

Intuition is defined and viewed by different researchers and writers in different ways. Webster’s Dictionary (1996) defines intuition as the direct perception of truth or fact independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension; a keen and quick insight; pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge. Jung (1933) referred to intuition as one of the four basic human functions. He stated, “Intuition does not denote something contrary to reason, but something outside the province of reason” (p. 454). He considered intuition vital to understanding. Bruner (1960) discussed intuition as an important part of the education process and encouraged its training. The physicist Capra (1975) tells us that rational knowing is useless if not accompanied and enhanced by intuitive knowing. The development and implementation of strategies for integrating intuition into the classroom can be facilitated by the work of Loye (1983). He has organized intuition in at least three levels: t Rational intuition is intuitive behavior that realigns known information in such a way that new insights emerge. t Predictive intuition expands on the processes of the rational level by including new information within existing patterns or sequences and then synthesizing unknown

20

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

or only suspected information. An unconscious impression or information from a seemingly unknown source becomes an important part of the new patterns formed, the insights, or the profound conclusions. This type of intuitive process is responsible for many breakthrough discoveries, the forecasting of trends, and the intuitive leap so valued in business, diplomacy, science, economics, and decision making in one’s personal life. t Transformational intuition seems to use a different kind of sensing that “picks up information through a means that has defied scientific understanding” (p. 52). Ideas come suddenly, unbidden, or in a dream, and what is written comes through as if from an outside source. This level of intuition can be experienced as transcendence and can be observed within the brain as a change in the rate of coherence of brain waves from separate regions of the brain. The function of intuition, which we all have, but use in varying degrees, represents a different way of knowing. Activating intuition gives a person a sense of completeness. This powerful tool leads to the understanding of concepts and of people and to an expansion of the reach of the mind. Intuitive insights tend to come suddenly and, characteristically, not when sitting at a desk working out equations, but when relaxing (e.g., in the bath, during a walk in the woods, on the beach). “During these periods of relaxation after concentrated intellectual activity, the intuitive mind seems to take over and can produce the sudden clarifying insights which give so much joy and delight to scientific research” (Capra, 1975, p. 31). Many of those working to include the development of intuition in the educational setting believe that the ability to concentrate and to work at complex tasks with unusual clarity results from the intuitive function. Identified as a part of the function of the prefrontal cortex, intuition becomes a part of the planning, future thinking, and insight so necessary to the intelligent person. From these perspectives, we end up with four somewhat different brains in one: (1) the brain stem—the smallest and oldest part of the brain; (2) the structures of the limbic area; (3) the neocortex or cerebrum—the sixlayered, largest part of the brain; and (4) the prefrontal cortex—the newest, most sophisticated section. For educators, it is important to consider that those involved in brain research agree that under stress, the neocortex begins shutting down, turning over more functions to the lower, limbic area of the brain. While rote learning can be continued, higher and more complex learning is inhibited. The brain changes to reflect what we learn, do, and think, rearranging its networks every day. New neurons respond best to tasks that are challenging, engaging, and most fun to learn. Stress is a cell killer; relieving stress, a brain booster. This is the reason we should seek to eliminate stress from learning. Not only will our students learn more easily, but also they will retain what is taught far better and longer. These are important outcomes for anyone who teaches. Creating opportunities for the effective operation of this total brain is our responsibility as parents and as educators. Research data from the neurosciences suggest that a high level of intelligence is the result of advanced, highly integrated, and accelerated processing within the brain. The concept of intelligence—and, therefore, “giftedness”—can no longer be confined to cog-

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

21

nitive function; it clearly must include all brain functions and their efficient and integrated use. THE NEURON: THE BASIC UNIT OF THE BRAIN It has been estimated that at birth the human brain contains some 100 billion to 200 billion brain cells or neurons. Each neural cell is ready to be developed and used for actualizing the highest levels of human potential. With a relatively small number of exceptions, all human infants come equipped with this marvelous, powerful heritage, made increasingly complex by unique genetic patterns. Such a structure allows us to process trillions of bits of information in our lifetime. How we use this complex system becomes critical to our development of intelligence and personality. It is vitally important to the very quality of our lives (Diamond, 1998; Hawkins, 2004; Kandel, 2006; LeDoux, 2003; Restak, 2006; Shenk, 2010; Sylwester, 2010). The billions of neurons within the brain are so small that 100,000 of them can fit into a space the size of a pinhead. A neuron is composed of the cell body, the dendrites, and a branching axon (Figure 1.6). If you open your hand to the fullest extent possible,

FIGURE 1.6

Three Interconnected Neurons

Axon Incoming Axon Synapse Dendrites Nucleus

Dendrite

Cell body

Myelin Sheath Dendrites

Axon Node of Ranvier

22

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 1.7

The Human Hand Representing a Nerve Cell

you will have a good model of the nerve cell (Figure 1.7). The palm of the hand is the cell body, with the indentation at the center representing the nucleus of the cell. Inside the cell body are the biochemical processes that maintain the life of the cell. The extended fingers are located in the appropriate place for the dendrites and would more closely resemble dendrites if branches grew from each finger. The arm extending from the hand makes a good model of the axon that extends from the cell body in much the same way. It is possible to use both hands as models of neurons to show the exchange of information as it occurs in the learning process. The neuron is a tiny information-processing system that receives and sends thousands of signals. No two cells are exactly alike, and no two brains are exactly alike. We are as different from one another as snowflakes, although overall we function with the same processes. The pathways for receiving information from nearby nerve cells are the dendrites, short fibers that branch out from the cell body. The axon, a long nerve fiber that extends from the cell body and often branches at the end, serves as a transmitter, sending signals that are picked up by the branches of the dendrites of the neighboring neural cells. The activity between neurons consists of the axon of one cell contacting the dendrites of another. The end of the axon does not actually touch the dendrite of the other cell, but

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

23

transmits the information biochemically across a region where the cells are particularly close. This junction, across which impulses travel from one nerve cell to another, is called the synapse. The transmission of a nerve impulse is an electrical-biochemical-electrical process. At the synapse, the electrical impulses that travel through the cell are converted into biochemical signals that can flow from one cell to another, and then, back to electrical impulses of the receiving cell. It is this synaptic activity that is thought to be the site for the neural mechanisms of learning and memory—here is the very seat of intelligence (Hawkins, 2004; Kandel, 2006; LeDoux, 2003; Shenk, 2010; Sylwester, 2010). Surrounding the neurons are special cells known as glia. These cells outnumber the neural cells 10 to one and can be increased by stimulation from the environment (Diamond, 1988; Hawkins, 2004; LeDoux, 2003). The glial cells provide the brain with nourishment, consume waste products, and serve as packing material that glues (i.e., from glial or glue) the brain together. They also insulate the nerve cell, creating a myelin sheath around the axon (Figure 1.6), a special coating that protects it and amplifies the signal leaving the cell. Myelin has an important function: It allows the myelin-coated axon to conduct information away from the neuron at a much faster rate than would be possible for axons with less of the myelin coating. It is like the difference in electrical conduction through insulated and noninsulated wiring: The speed and power of the charge are increased by the presence of insulation. As the glial cells in the brain increase and provide more myelination, the speed of learning accelerates. Higher intelligence requires accelerated synaptic activity and an increased density of the dendrites, which allows the establishment of complex networks of thought. Stimulating environments promote the growth and branching of dendrites, resulting in an advanced capacity to generalize, conceptualize, and reason abstractly. It is important to note that the rate of glial cell production is influenced by the richness of the experiences provided in the environment (Diamond, 1988; Hawkins, 2004; LeDoux, 2003; Siegel, 1999). The more glia there are, the more accelerated will be the synaptic activity, and the more powerful will be the impulse exchange from one cell to the next. This allows for faster and more complex patterns of thinking, two characteristics we find in gifted children. The speed of thought is amazing. If a nerve pathway is used often, the threshold of the synapse falls, so that the pathway operates even more readily. A wave front is started that may sweep over at least 100,000 neurons a second (Brierley, 1976). Another way to increase synaptic activity, thereby increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the brain system, is to strengthen the neuron’s cell body. Although the quantity of neural cells may not be readily increased, the quality of the cells can be (Diamond, 1988; Kandel, 2006; Krech, 1969; LeDoux, 2003; Rosenzweig, 1966). This quality enhancement allows for information to be processed more quickly and for more power to be conducted, resulting in the availability of more complex neural networks. An individual’s interaction in an enriched environment changes the chemical structure of the nerve cell, thereby strengthening the cell body. The result is more rapid, more complex thought processing. Integration, constant feedback, and vast experience in a rich environment are the keys to powerful learning and memory. Nobel-winning neuroscientist Gerald Edelman (2004) supports the importance of a variety of experiences and the essential nature of feedback to high levels of brain function. By providing quantity and quality of experiences, we build

24

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

memory, a basic component of the process of intelligence. With broadened memory comes accuracy of prediction, which Hawkins (2004) considers the basis of intelligence. This is an important reminder for the classroom.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLIGENCE The terms intelligence and intellectual ability express many different ideas. In our discussion, we have acknowledged intelligence as the result of the development, interrelationship, and integration of all functions of the human brain. We have shown that the development of intelligence can be enhanced or inhibited by the interaction between the genetic pattern and the experiences provided by the environment. To communicate the dynamic nature of this development, Cross (cited in Diamond, 1998) observes that “an animal is only as smart as it needs to be” (p. 29) and Diamond supports this statement by adding, “Nature programs parts of the brain to sharpen up when—and only when—experience demands it” (Diamond, 1998, p. 29).

Nature Plus Nurture What we believe about how people become intelligent will influence the way we plan for their educational development. If we believe that individuals are born gifted, we will probably feel that we can do little to influence their development. We may believe that enrichment will be sufficient to allow people with this ability to “get by on their own.” However, if we consider giftedness a dynamic process in which a person’s innate ability is in constant and continuous interaction with the environment, and if we believe that the strength of that interaction will determine just how much ability this person will be able to develop of that innate ability, then we will become highly sensitive to the level of needs he or she expresses. Our awareness will allow us to support and challenge this developing intellect. Without such efforts, intellectual abilities will be wasted, and untold potential will never be realized. A discussion of how intelligence develops is far more than an academic pursuit. For our children, it is a matter of who they are and who they may become. Children are not born gifted, but most are born with a unique potential. Clearly, there is an early and continuous need for intellectual development. As early as the 1970s, Cattell (1971) spoke of the human’s “capacity to acquire new capacity” (p. 8), alluding to the marvelous ability human beings have to actually change their own capacity. We can become more than we were at birth—not more in the sense of exceeding the limits of our inborn characteristics or physical structure, but most certainly more in our ability to use those characteristics A P P LY I N G and that structure. In some cases, we may modify the total to become BRAIN RESEARCH to Education more efficient and more powerful than these limits seemingly dictate. We have not properly appreciated the ability of our organism to expand or decrease as it interacts with the environment. As Diamond (1998) states, “The brain, with its complex architecture and limitless potential, is a highly plastic,

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

■ Just 2 days ago Sally had been given a present by her grandmother: a bag of brightly colored letters that had something on the back that made them stick to things around the house. She was already getting very good at spelling all kinds of words. Mother said that not many 3-year-olds could spell so many “unusual” words. It was great fun to have everyone guess what she had spelled. This morning she was putting her words on the side of the refrigerator because her daddy could see them as he ate breakfast. She was sure he would play the word game because he had to be there anyway. What Sally didn’t know was that as he ate, her dad would be distracted by mentally planning for a major presentation he was making at work that day. As her daddy sat down, Sally was ready. She took several letters from the bag and placed them on the side of the refrigerator. “What does that spell, Daddy?”

25

Her father looked up and said, “Honey, that doesn’t spell anything. It isn’t a word.” Sally put the letters back in the bag and carefully selected another handful. “What does that spell?” she asked eagerly. Looking up impatiently her father again disclaimed, “I told you, that doesn’t spell anything.” Sally was disappointed but determined as she replaced the offending letters and took two handfuls out, placing them carefully in sequence. “Now what word is that?” Clearly annoyed, Sally’s father restated, this time rather loudly, “Sally, it doesn’t spell anything. That is not a word!” Sally looked at the letters so elegantly placed across the refrigerator, thought a minute, and said with wonder, “Isn’t that amazing! I can spell all those words that you don’t even know.”

constantly changing entity that is powerfully shaped by our experiences in childhood and throughout life. . . . Our collective actions, sensations, and memories are a powerful shaper of both function and anatomy [emphasis added]” (pp. 2–3). Brain researchers today agree that the fabric and patterns of the brain are set down as a result of the interaction of genetic blueprints and environmental influences. While the basic features of brain organization are present at birth, the brain experiences tremendous growth in neural processes, synapse formation, and myelin sheath formation, declining around puberty. These processes can be profoundly altered by the organism’s environment. Furthermore, it has been shown that brain processes present at birth will degenerate if the environmental stimulation necessary to activate them is not experienced. It appears that the genetic contribution provides a framework which, if not used, will disappear, but which is capable of further development given the optimal environmental stimulation. Genes cannot be thought of as causing particular attributes; rather they have a wide range of effects in different environments. Genes do not make specific bits and pieces of a body; they code for a range of forms under an array of environmental conditions. Moreover, even when a trait has been built and set, environmental intervention may still modify what has been inherited. Even our beliefs about the absolute stability of genes must be reexamined. Genes provide us with a structure or pattern, but are dependent on the environment for the particular characteristics that they will express. While genes provide us with our own unique menu, the environment makes the actual selection within that range of choice.

26

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

It is misleading to think of either genes or the environment as being more important: Genes can express themselves only in an environment, and an environment has no effect except by evoking genotypes already present. Restak (2003) comments that no matter how powerful the genetic inheritance, the environment must be conducive to the development of a particular talent for it to develop to high levels. He believes that any reference to high-IQ genes must be seen as a misnomer. It would be equally incorrect to regard genetic endowment as “setting the limits.” Siegel (1999), Medical Director of the Infant and Preschool Service and Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine concludes the following: An infant is born with a genetically programmed excess in neurons, and both genes and experience determine the postnatal establishment of synaptic connections. Genes contain the information for the general organization of the brain’s structure, but experience determines which genes become expressed, how, and when. [emphasis added] (p. 14)

A wide range of studies over several decades now supports that development is a product of the effect of experience on the unfolding of genetic potential (Diamond, 1988; Edelman, 2004; Hawkins, 2004; Kandel, 2006; LeDoux, 2003; Rosenzweig, 1966; Siegel, 1999). The interaction between genetic and environmental contributions is complex and interdependent. Throughout this text, our exploration of this interaction will focus on the environment. This one-sided focus reflects our ability as educators to influence growth and development only from the planned and powerful use of the environment. We provide environments to deliver learning experiences, so we must be aware that decisions about those environments do, in fact, change the neurological and biological structure of our students.

The Gifted Brain A P P LY I N G

BRAIN RESEARCH to Education ■

■

■ ■

There are conditions needed to build the strong, integrated, flexible, complex brain we will call gifted. Among them are the following:

The provision of a variety of quality experiences from our early beginnings as the neural patterns and sequences are being formed. The development of the concepts of integration, choice, patterns, and sequences, starting with a child’s early experiences. The provision of feedback throughout the acquisition of knowledge and skills. The enrichment of the environment and the experiences that the environment provides so that the growth of intelligence is facilitated and expanded rather than limited and inhibited.

Creating these conditions will result in a brain that is more effective and efficient at processing information, not because the gifted brain has more cells, but because the

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

FIGURE 1.8

27

Differences in the Neural Cells

Gifted

Nongifted

Source: Based on a drawing by Allyson Balay.

neural connections have become more integrated, have been made more quickly, and have become far more complex. There are more dendrites to create more pathways and more richness within the cell itself (Figure 1.8). The glial cells have increased, and greater myelination of the axons enhances speed and power in the transmission of information from one cell to another, allowing speed of thought and adding power to the retention of ideas and memory to the neural data banks. We are now working with a gifted brain (Figure 1.9). In an interesting longitudinal study, Gottfried and Gottfried (1996) documented that heightened cognitive stimulation is a widespread finding among gifted children. They received more stimulation from their environment from the first year of life. As a result, they showed differences in the rate of development and in the level of performance as they grew. Frequently, early development of expressive language was observed. From these data, Morelock (1996) concluded, “Consequently, it follows that there are important differences in information processing characteristics of the young gifted

28 FIGURE 1.9

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

The Gifted Brain

More dendritic branches create more possibilities for synaptic connections and brain circuits = student's need for more complexity

More powerful biochemical content within the cell body = student's need for more depth and novelty

More glial cell production results in more myelination of the axon sheath and faster synaptic exchanges = student's need for acceleration

brain” (p. 9). In this way, gifted children become biologically different from average learners, not at birth, but as a result of using and developing the wondrous, complex structure with which they were born.

INTELLIGENCE, GIFTED, AND TALENTED: DEFINITIONS The field of gifted education does not have a single, unified definition of intelligence, gifted, or talented. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly review the various definitions, so that the reader will be able to distinguish the meaning of each term as it will be used in this text. Although there are no common definitions within the educational community

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

29

for the above terms, current research provides a common basis for agreement about these concepts.

Intelligence Definitions of intelligence often focus on behavior or performance as the defining feature. Observable behavior is often necessary for the identification of levels of intelligence, whether assessed by a test, a performance of skill, anecdotal reports, or other measures. However, using behavior or performance as a basis for understanding the development and nurture of intelligence is unnecessarily limiting. The concept of intelligence may be understood to be ■

■

■

the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity. Advanced, accelerated, and highly integrated processing within the brain that can be effective and efficient when developed to a high level. a within-the-brain process, largely at the synaptic level, wherein the cells communicate, integrate, and associate information drawn from all areas of the brain: cognitive, affective, physical (motor/sensory), and intuitive (insightful/creative). High levels of intelligence may be identified in any of these areas. developed by a dynamic process, enhanced or inhibited by the interaction between the genetic pattern of an individual and the opportunities provided by the environment throughout the individual’s life span. Such experiences can enhance or inhibit the development of the brain’s structure and function. This process allows parents and educators to provide for the realization of human potential. The quality and quantity of opportunities provided in the environment allow some individuals to enhance their intellectual abilities to the level of giftedness.

Therefore, the definition of intelligence used in this text includes all areas of brain function and their expressions as interactive (referring to the constant interaction between heredity and environmental opportunities) and integrative (referring to the relationship among all areas of the brain to function as interrelated and interdependent).

Gifted, Giftedness You will find a wide range of definitions of gifted and/or giftedness in the literature that relies on the behavior or level of performance of the individual. High levels of intelligence or giftedness are the result of a dynamic, stimulating, interactive process that leads to quantitative and qualitative differences in thinking and performance. How giftedness is expressed depends both on the genetic patterns of the individual and on the experiences provided by that individual’s environment. The opportunities provided in the environment to develop their genetic programs allow some individuals to enhance their abilities to the point of giftedness, whereas the lack of such opportunities inhibits others in their development. Children are not born gifted, but many are born with a unique potential for which there is an early and continuous need for development.

30

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

There are individuals who, through the interaction between their genetic endowment and environmental stimulation, have enhanced the development of their intelligence more than have others. This enhancement has resulted in accelerated and advanced brain function. These individuals may be labeled “gifted.” ■

The term gifted serves as a label for a high level of intelligence and indicates an advanced, highly integrated, and accelerated development of functions within the brain. Such development may be expressed in high levels of abilities such as academic aptitude, insight and innovation, creative behavior, leadership, personal and interpersonal skills, visual and performing arts, or other generative areas.

■

Giftedness is a biologically rooted concept that is the result of a high level of integration and acceleration among the neural cells within the brain. The level of intelligence and the structure and process of thinking and learning have become advanced, more complex, accelerated, and in-depth. Giftedness may be developed and expressed to a moderate, high, or profound level. Gifted individuals are those who have developed high levels of intelligence and, therefore, operate or perform, or show promise of operating or performing, at high levels in one or more of the areas of human ability. In schools, these abilities are usually identified in general intellectual aptitude, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, and/or ability in the visual and performing arts. Because of the dynamic nature of intelligence to grow or be diminished by the level of use, such advanced and accelerated development requires services not ordinarily provided by the schools. By providing such services these individuals and society as a whole can ensure continuing development and benefit rather than suffering the loss of such abilities.

■

The incidence of students identified as gifted learners varies from 2% to 5%, depending on the definition used. In talent development programs and in the Schoolwide Enrichment Program (Renzulli & Reis, 1985), 10% to 25% of students might be included in these populations.

Gifted and Talented A definition for gifted and talented children was developed in 1972 by U.S. Commissioner of Education Sidney Marland for a report, Education of the Gifted, to Congress on the status of the education of gifted and talented children. It is the definition used in most state legislation today. Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contributions to self and society. Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following areas: (1) general intellectual aptitude, (2) specific academic aptitude, (3) creative or productive thinking, (4) leadership ability, (5) visual and performing arts. (p. 2)

The most current federal definition of gifted and talented individuals was a part of the 2002 reauthorization of the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (P.L. 100–297).

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

31

The term gifted and talented when used in respect to students, children, or youth, means students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (Title IX, Part A, Section 9101(22)

The incidence of students identified as gifted learners varies from 2% to 5%, depending on the definition used. In talent development programs and in the Schoolwide Enrichment Program (Renzulli & Reis, 1985), 10% to 25% of students might be included in these populations.

Talent and Talent Development Programs developed for gifted learners are sometimes referred to as programs for students who are Gifted and Talented. Talent is a term that has been used at different times in quite disparate ways. When it was first added to the terminology in gifted education, as in “gifted and talented students,” it was often used as a term that allowed an extension of expressions of giftedness beyond those of an academic nature. The educational community spoke of the talented artist, musician, leader, or gymnast and sought identification procedures for these students that were far different from those used for academically able students. Some chose to use the term and separate procedures as a way to identify more students from the low socioeconomic and minority communities for gifted and talented programs. The implication was that these students could not meet the testing criteria then in place—generally, a single test of intelligence represented by an IQ score—and could be identified better using tests of creativity, leadership, or nonacademic or nonverbal performance. Because gifted programs often remained highly academic in content, the identification of low socioeconomic status and minority students using special criteria or nonacademic testing became a problem. Not only was the assumption that none of these students could test well often academically false, but also the premise that students identified for creativity or other expressions of giftedness would be well served by narrowly defined programs for the academically gifted student, proved to be clearly in error. Such identification and placement practices often put low socioeconomic status and minority students at risk. Some psychologists and educators use talent as a term to designate individuals who are not intellectually accomplished to the level of giftedness, but who show evidence of better-than-average intellectual potential. Confusion as to whether reference is being made to the quality of the performance or the type of performance still plagues the use of the term talent in education today. More recently, the term talented has been extended to include the mission of talent development and represents a philosophical commitment of those engaged in the education of gifted and talented individuals. Talent development indicates a belief in the need to nurture the highest capabilities within individuals who show potential for the development of giftedness, but who need additional support to achieve that potential. By adding a focus on the actualization of the highest abilities in promising individuals, the development of more students who attain the highest levels of their abilities could be better realized in our society.

32

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Many educators remain committed primarily to the education of the large underserved population of gifted, highly gifted, and profoundly gifted individuals. ■

■

Talent is a term that identifies an aptitude for a specific area or areas of ability, academic or artistic, that, if given appropriate opportunities for development, may grow to a highly advanced level of ability. Talent development is a process that involves the deliberate and planned effort to provide promising children with an enriched and responsive learning environment, both at home and at school. Such an effort would allow all of their budding talents and abilities to have the opportunity to develop to maximum levels.

In this chapter, we have begun the exploration of gifted and talented individuals by establishing a common understanding of the terms and concepts that will be used throughout our discussion. We have reviewed the historical development of the concept of intelligence and found that the interactive concept of intelligence is critical to understanding the development of giftedness. Brain research, as it relates to optimal development, allows parents and educators to more effectively create stimulating interactions that may lead to high levels of intelligence. This information about how learning occurs, what stimulates and what inhibits learning, and in what ways enriched environments change the neural structure is essential to nurturing intelligence and the continuous development of giftedness.

A Declaration of the Educational Rights of the Gifted Child Written by Barbara Clark In a democracy equal opportunity cannot, must not, mean the same opportunity. Every child is unique; all children have a right to develop their own potential. All children must include gifted children. ■

It is the right of a gifted child to engage in appropriate educational experiences even when other children of that grade level or age are unable to profit from the experience.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to be grouped and to interact with other gifted children for some part of the learning experience so that the child may be understood, engaged, and challenged.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to be taught rather than to be used as a tutor or teaching assistant for a significant part of the school day.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to be presented with new, advanced, and challenging ideas and concepts, regardless of the materials and resources that have been designated for the age group or grade level in which the child was placed.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to be taught concepts that the child does not yet know instead of relearning old concepts that the child has already shown evidence of mastering.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to learn faster than age peers and to have that pace of learning respected and provided for.

CHAPTER 1: Who Are the Gifted Learners?

33

■

It is the right of a gifted child to think in alternative ways, produce diverse products, and bring intuition and innovation to the learning experience.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to be idealistic and sensitive to fairness, justice, accuracy, and the global problems facing humankind and to have a forum for expressing these concerns.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to question generalizations, offer alternative solutions, and value complex and profound levels of thought.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to be intense, persistent, and goal directed in the pursuit of knowledge.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to express a sense of humor that is unusual, playful, and often complex.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to hold high expectations for self and others and to be sensitive to inconsistency between ideals and behavior, with the need to have help in seeing the value in human differences.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to be a high achiever in some areas of the curriculum and not in others, making thoughtful, knowledgeable academic placement a necessity.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to have a low tolerance for the lag between vision and actualization, between personal standards and developed skill, and between physical maturity and athletic ability.

■

It is the right of a gifted child to pursue interests that are beyond the ability of age peers, are outside the grade-level curriculum, or involve areas as yet unexplored or unknown.

These are some of the rights of gifted children that deserve advocacy. If we could only be sure that the educational experiences of all gifted children honored these 15 rights, we would have the assurance that society would be blessed with a continuous supply of gifted adults, for we would have nurtured our gifted children by providing opportunities for excellence and developed the talent within all children by providing educational equity.

REVIEW OF IMPORTANT IDEAS Ideas About Intelligence

The Development of Intelligence

■ With investigations into how our brains function, how

■ With the data showing that 80% of the deviation in

we learn, and how we develop intelligence, we are finding that we may not have the limits we thought we had. In fact, our belief systems may be the most limiting part of developing intelligence, giftedness, and talent.

adult IQ would be actualized by age 6, educators developed a new awareness of the preschool years as an essential time for learning.

■ Although the idea of intelligence as an interaction

between genetics and the environment has gained wide acceptance, many still are either unaware of the data or, being convinced of another view, ignore the data.

■ We do not plateau intellectually at 18 years of age;

rather, we continue to move either upward or gradually downward, depending on the environment with which we interact and the intellectual challenges in which we engage. ■ High levels of intelligence, whether expressed in

cognitive abilities (such as the capacity to generalize, to

34

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

conceptualize, or to reason abstractly), specific academic ability, leadership, or creative behavior expressed through visual and performing arts, result from the interaction between inherited potentialities and experiences acquired from the environment. ■ High levels of intellectual development do not occur

without a high level of interaction between the inherited abilities and appropriately enriching experiences.

Intelligence, Gifted, and Talented: Definitions ■ What we have been calling theories or definitions of in-

telligence can now be seen as the behavioral outcomes of being intelligent. A complete theory of intelligence must now include the processes within the brain. Understanding these processes will allow educators to affect the quality and quantity of intelligent behavior and lead to knowledge of how to design the most effective educational strategies to nurture higher levels of intelligence.

tion and integration of the right and left hemisphere specializations are biologically intended. ■ Using novelty as part of a learning experience

supports learning and memory, an important thing to remember when you are planning a learning experience. ■ The affective function does more than support

cognitive processes; in fact, it provides the gateway to enhance or limit higher cognition. To allow optimal learning, families must include in the environment and teachers must integrate into their presentations, activities that promote emotional growth. ■ Almost everything we think of as intelligence—

perception, language, imagination, mathematics, art, music, and planning—occurs in the neocortex. ■ The function of intuition, which we all have, but use

in varying degrees, represents a different way of knowing. Activating intuition gives a person a sense of completeness, or wholeness. This powerful tool leads to the understanding of concepts and people and to an expansion of the reach of the mind.

■ By defining intelligence as brain function, we can move

■ New neurons respond best to tasks that are challenging,

to the level of creating conditions for the development of higher levels of intelligence.

■ Stress is seen as a cell killer, and relieving stress as

Learning About the Brain ■ As we continue to learn more about the brain, educa-

tors at home and at school will be able to provide the essential opportunities that can establish the neural patterns that will result in increasingly higher intellectual behavior. ■ As more information regarding the functioning of the

brain becomes available, educators can expect amazing benefits, enriching and enhancing our ability to teach and to create more effective learning opportunities. ■ The functions of each of the two hemispheres are

different. The left hemisphere is more responsible for linear, rational thinking, such as math and reading, and the right hemisphere is most responsible for spatial, gestalt thinking, such as making up stories and studying history. It is clear the interconnec-

engaging, and most fun to learn. a brain booster. This is the reason we should seek to eliminate stress from learning. Not only will our students learn more easily, but they will also retain what is taught far better and longer. ■ The concept of intelligence—and, therefore, “gifted-

ness” as a label for high development of intelligence— can no longer be confined to cognitive function; it clearly must include all brain functions and their efficient and integrated use. ■ We provide environments to deliver learning experi-

ences, so we must be aware that decisions about those environments do, in fact, change the neurological and biological structure of our students. ■ Gifted children become biologically different from

average learners, not at birth, but as a result of using and developing the wondrous, complex structure with which they were born.

2

Developing Giftedness

©Shutterstock

IDEAS WE HAVE HAD

IDEAS RESEARCH SUPPORTS

■ Because our genes do not change from generation to

■ Genes do not produce specific traits. They actively

generation, the range and level of our abilities are preprogrammed from birth. ■ Gifted learners can have their needs met by being

grouped together, either within a class or in a pullout program, for the same lessons or learning experiences. ■ The use of a variety of technologies in the classroom will

allow teachers to present more information, make places and ideas more accessible, and support learning more fully.

respond to stimulation and enriching experiences from the environment, allowing the individual to grow and develop significantly in skill and ability. ■ While gifted learners often have advanced abilities and a

faster pace of learning, their interests, experiences, and level of knowledge in a given area may be very different. Individualized opportunities and planning will allow for success and higher levels of growth for advanced learners. ■ Indiscriminate and excessive use of technology in the

classroom has created an inability for children to focus their attention, and is changing how they reason, how they process mentally and how they form memories.

35

36

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

To further our understanding of giftedness and how it develops, early childhood is one of the most important periods to consider. Giftedness, including high levels of development in talents and/or intelligence, has its roots in our genetic inheritance and the beginning of its development in early childhood. Such development relies on a rich and appropriate interaction between the child’s genetic endowment and the environment in which the child grows. No child is born gifted, only with the potential for giftedness. Although nearly all children have amazing potential, only those who are fortunate enough to have opportunities to develop their uniqueness in an environment that responds to their particular patterns and needs will be able to actualize their abilities. Diamond (1998) explained that the brain grows smarter only when environmental stimulation demands it. An environment that is confining or lacking in intellectual challenges and support limits the growth of the brain. Nature responds by shrinking the cortex and reinvesting the energy that it would take to maintain a thicker cortex elsewhere. “Nature programs parts of the brain to sharpen up when—and only when— experience demands it . . . our learning capacity is boundless and lifelong” (p. 29). As Cross (cited in Diamond, 1998) explains, “An animal is only as smart as it needs to be” (p. 29). Shenk (2010) comments, “We know that genetic factors do not operate instead of environmental factors, they interact with them” (p. 39). Gopnik (2010) reports, “In the past three decades scientists have discovered that even the youngest children know more than we would ever have thought possible . . . studies suggest that they learn about the world in much the same way that scientists do—experimenting, analyzing, and forming theories” (p. 76). In every phase of a child’s growth, the family and the home play a significant part. The home is the true cradle of eminence.

FAMILIES AND GIFTED CHILDREN If we were to care for our children, all of our children, in ways we already know are enriching, we would significantly increase the population of children who could actualize their potential to the degree we now designate as gifted. Giftedness may be more “normal” than the behaviors and abilities we now accept as typical. It is important to understand average developmental patterns of infants and children so that advanced and accelerated development can be noticed. It is also important to be aware of how to optimize learning for all young children because it is during this early period that the beginnings of giftedness are best nurtured. Parenting for optimal development must include the health and living habits of the mother-to-be, even prior to conception. Researchers are finding clues to competent functioning in the prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal periods of human development. We must be aware of and use the sensitive and critical periods for development during the fetal period and the early years of life. The use of such periods for learning may make the difference between average and gifted development. At the very least, we can use current information to guide our children toward becoming healthier, more intellectually

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

37

able, more sensitive, and more motivated, self-directed learners. If the family of each child were to use what is now known about nurturing human bodies and minds, how very different our world would be. New knowledge comes from data showing us the responsiveness of the central nervous system (CNS), including the brain, to environmental demands and from new discoveries concerning the plasticity and propensities inherent in the early brain. As noted in Chapter 1, dendrites on human brain cells will shrivel and the cortex will grow thinner with lack of experiences and opportunities for mental activity. By increasing the level of environmental stimulation and challenge, we can increase the branching of the dendrites and cortical thickness. A thicker cortex means a smarter brain (Diamond, 1998). Shenk (2010) adds to a body of data that points to some key triggers that can interact with genetic factors to positively influence our genes. Adding to a growing body of data showing how the genes of our children can be influenced, Shenk (2010) suggests that parents speak and read to their children early and often, set high expectations for them, encourage their growth, and embrace failure as a learning experience. Studies have found that professional families give significantly more encouraging feedback than discouraging feedback while a welfare child receives far more discouraging than encouraging comments. Setting high expectations is important; the ability to develop more is possible only when the environment demands development. It is important to act on the belief that a child’s abilities are malleable and can be developed. Ability is not fixed from birth. Setbacks must be treated as learning tools rather than as signs of permanent built-in limitations. Encourage a “growth mindset.” The power of reading to a child in his or her first year cannot be overestimated. While genes themselves do not change from generation to generation, their epigenetic instructions (i.e., instructions for differentiation or diversification) can change. We can impact our genetic legacy. While, on their own, genes cannot directly produce specific traits, they participate in the process. The evidence points away from genes as fixed inborn assets toward buildable, developing assets. It seems that our lifestyle can alter our genes. One clue of advanced development would be children who show abilities ahead of their same-age playmates. For example, if a 3-year-old shows abilities typical of a 4- or 4-and-a-half-year-old, the child may be considered gifted in those areas of ability because he or she is showing abilities that add one-quarter to one-half of his or her actual age (Robinson, 1993). Early development of language skills, including reading, is perhaps the easiest to spot; however, advanced reasoning skills, a long attention span, and an unusual amount of imagination, curiosity, or risk taking could also be signs of an accelerating neural system. Gifted children typically exhibit a high energy level, often need less sleep, and engage in more complex activities by choice at an earlier age. Time for both high-level group activities and advanced individual pursuits of their choice need to be provided. Helping children grow so that they can make the most of their potential should always be a concern for the family, the child’s first teachers. Healthy, open, highly functional, wellintegrated children come from nurturing families. In such families, adults clearly show their own uniqueness and demonstrate their ability to share through understanding, kindness, and affection. They use their common sense and are realistic and responsible.

38

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Problems often occur in families when rules are created and enforced solely by a parent or parents who believe they know what is best for everyone. Other members of the family resist following such rules, because no other ideas or actions can even be considered. Only one way to do things is allowed—the right way, as these parents believe it to be. Although all children have different personalities, preferences, and abilities, there are some general rules and strategies that have been shown to help families support young children in their pursuit of actualizing their potential: ■ ■

■ ■

Allow time to develop understanding and empathy among family members. Develop clear communication among family members as they listen and respond to each other. Express pleasure at the accomplishments of each family member without comparison. Involve young children in planning and carrying out family trips or activities and in making family decisions as far as each child is able with each person’s contribution seen as valuable to the whole family.

The following factors have been found to be important to the development of special talent or ability: ■

■ ■

■ ■

■

Excellent early opportunities for ability to develop with encouragement from family and friends; Superior early and continuing guidance and instruction; Frequent and continuous opportunity to practice and extend their special abilities and to progress as they are able; Close association with others of similar ability; Opportunities for real accomplishment within their capabilities, but with increasing challenge; and Provision for strong success experiences and recognition of these successes.

Although genius may not result, there is every reason to believe that a level of giftedness may be attainable for many children. Another issue of major interest is the power of the family’s belief in the child. The family that believes the child has special ability will hold different expectations of the child, allow more opportunities for the child to develop his or her ability, and treat the child differently. Even if the child is, in fact, not significantly more able than others in the family, these beliefs and expectations cause the family, teachers, and the child to do things that result in the given ability reaching an outstanding level. It was further discovered that the values and interests of the parents will determine which traits and qualities will be given great encouragement and further cultivation and which traits and qualities will be ignored. The following factors seem to be most important in identifying and developing special ability: ■

Families who greatly value and enjoy music, the arts, sports, and/or intellectual activity and view this as a natural part of life so that the child learns to speak its language;

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness ■ ■

■

■

39

Families who believe in the work ethic; A first teacher who is warm and loving, makes lessons seem like games, instructs on a one-to-one basis, and includes parental interest; A second teacher who emphasizes skills and self-discipline and continues to individualize instruction; and Access to a master teacher who opens doors.

Data continue to show that most human beings are born with enormous potential. However, three characteristics seem to be necessary to achieve at high levels: an unusual willingness to do great amounts of work, a determination to do one’s best at all cost, and the ability to learn rapidly. These traits emerge from early socialization and attitudes in the home, exposure to varied and numerous opportunities and experiences, and the early training provided by teachers at home and at school. The absence of these traits can often be traced back to a lack of such experiences. The evidence that learning rates can be altered by appropriate educational and environmental conditions suggests that providing favorable learning conditions in the early years can markedly influence learning rate. The rate of learning is an expression of advanced and accelerated brain development, an indicator of a high level of developing intelligence (Diamond, 1998; Hawkins, 2004; Siegel, 1999). Learning should be a joy, not a punishment; a favor, not a duty. Family members can ensure this attitude if they allow the child’s natural curiosity to guide the task. Early research has confirmed that the amount of time families spend playing with their preschoolers is directly related to an increase in verbal intelligence test scores. Families of children who are later identified as gifted, read to their children three times as long each day as do families of children who are not. Families of later identified students foster language development, encourage freedom, and expose their children to a variety of experiences, including the arts, nature walks, and natural history museums. They engage in school-related activities six times more frequently than do the families of those who are not identified as gifted. Snowden and Christian (1999) reported that families of young gifted children provided choices and exposure to a variety of experiences that further these children’s cognitive, social, emotional, psychomotor, and communicative development. In an early study on parental style (“Stanford study,” 1986) the researchers found that children of authoritarian parents are not as successful in school as are the children of parents who use a more authoritative style. The researchers described authoritarian parents as ones who “attempt to shape, control, and evaluate the behaviors and attitudes of their children in accord with an absolute set of standards” (p. 3). In contrast, authoritative parents set clear standards, while recognizing children’s rights, expecting mature behavior, and fostering a healthy share of verbal exchange. Additionally, it was found that placing too much emphasis on either punishing or rewarding children for grades results in lower performance and less internal motivation for the child. The correlation between parenting style and success in school crosses ethnic boundaries and would be true of interactions with any person who is the caregiver.

40

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Siblings of Gifted Children When one sibling is identified as gifted, but others are not, families must clearly recognize the ability of the identified child and just as clearly recognize the abilities shown by the other children in the family in other areas. The situation is analogous to having one child recognized for athletic ability or artistic talent, while the other child is seen as only average in these abilities. A family that values cognitive and academic abilities over other human abilities will communicate that bias. The human and interpersonal consequences will be difficult for all concerned. While not all children may reach the same level of ability evident in those we acknowledge as gifted learners, every child will have some special interest that needs attention and development. Although care must be taken to ensure the healthy growth of intellect and self-esteem among all family members, each child need not have the same experiences. Sometimes in trying to be fair and model democratic principles, families make the mistake of eliminating unique activities that would benefit their gifted child, but that would be of no interest to or beyond the capability of other siblings. Such opportunities should not be eliminated in an effort to provide equal treatment for every child. Many of the problems encountered by the siblings of gifted children are similar to sibling problems found in any family, and no longterm effects have been found when one child is labeled gifted. On the contrary, Robinson (1993) found that it can be an advantage to be the brother or sister of a gifted child. Having an older gifted sibling was associated with the younger siblings having less anxiety. They generally were thought by their parents to be well behaved, have social competence, and exhibit few behavior problems. Robinson suggested that parents might ensure the conditions for such positive relationships between siblings if they work together to have their children enjoy and respect each other. Also, the children should understand that fair does not necessarily mean the same. It helps if each child has time alone with his or her parents that includes lots of hugs and fun. Be sure it is evident that they value each child for who they are and for their own special qualities, and that one child does not seem to be more favored or privileged than the other. Families with gifted children will have unique problems, but they will also have unique assets. THE FAMILY COUNCIL Our family organized a family council as an arena for solving family problems and exposing perceived inequities perpetrated by either parents or siblings. There we sought alternative solutions that could better meet the needs of all concerned. At first, we held a council meeting once a week, but later we found that calling council meetings on demand of any family member better served our needs. In the beginning, I often went to our meetings with a preplanned solution to a problem. My goal was to convince the others—my son, my daughter, and my husband—that I was right. This approach was not useful. I soon became aware that the others often had solutions that were far easier to carry out because all felt committed to a plan they had helped design. All kinds of problems came before our group, from my need for neat and tidy rooms (acknowledged to be unrealistic), to my daughter’s perceived harassment at the hands of an unaware older brother. Questions of allowance, homework, bedtime, house chores, teacher atti-

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

FIGURE 2.1

41

Establishing a Family Council

Steps: ■ At first, for at least several months, set a day and time to hold the family council each week. Change the date only when absolutely necessary and be sure everyone is informed. Later, if the family group prefers, the Council can be held only on request. ■

Every member of the family is a Council member and is expected to attend.

■ Get the agreement of all members that the Council is a trust situation and anything discussed does not go beyond the Council; ask for individual agreement to those terms before each meeting. ■

The position of Chair of the Council rotates each meeting.

Each member is given a time to present and initiate a discussion of an issue of concern. A member may pass. ■ ■

Each member is given a time to be heard on each issue discussed. A member may pass.

After everyone has had the opportunity to be heard and no further solutions are presented, the Chair should seek a solution by vote. All members of the group then support the solution that receives the most votes. ■

■ The solution decided on will be in effect until the next Council meeting, at which time it can be reevaluated if requested. Members who are not present must abide by the solution decided on by the group present. ■ Parents must be careful not to use the Council to lecture, impose their solutions, or judge other members’ solutions. Get the point across by modeling, suggesting, and posing alternatives.

Benefits: A family council ■ provides a forum for righting wrongs, making people aware of how their behavior affects others, appropriately expressing needs, and building good skills of communication and decision making. ■ provides a safe place for expressing feelings and helps children find appropriate ways to express their feelings, needs, and ideas. ■

strengthens self-concept and mutual respect of family members.

■

develops a sense of responsibility and empowerment in children.

■ creates a commitment of family members to helping each other to find solutions to problems and raises the sensitivity of each person to the others. ■

creates a sense of identity and belonging among family members.

tudes, and the comfort of visiting relatives all were handled with serious and cooperative planning. Through the years, the council served to lessen the frustration of the children, to increase the comfort level of all family members, and to provide us with excellent practice in developing our problem-solving skills, creative-thinking abilities, and feelings

42

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

of caring. The family council became a meaningful way to communicate and share within the family. I highly recommend this strategy, especially for families who live with gifted children. (See Figure 2.1 for suggestions for getting started.)

Family Support for School As children move into the school system, where their environment and their opportunities are no longer as closely controlled by the home, parents often begin to feel powerless. They may react as I did at first when my son was in need—trust that the school knows best and do nothing. Some parents of gifted children (fewer, I’m sure, than their public image suggests) attempt to change what is happening by complaining, attacking those they feel are responsible, and creating only enough conflict and pressure to make everyone defensive. There is a better way. Fortunately, both families and school personnel want what is best for the child—at least, what they perceive to be best. The most effective way to change or correct a bad situation is, in most instances, not by direct confrontation, but by an organized, knowledgeable, cooperative effort. When parents go to school to share their complaints, it is important to take some time to voice their appreciation for the wonderful efforts of the teacher and/or the school. Starting the discussion with only negatives will often cause teachers to shut down and become defensive. If there must be winners and losers, too often the child is one of the losers, no matter who wins. ORGANIZING FOR COOPERATION The first step is to organize parent groups, even before a problem arises. Parents should join with other parents of gifted children in the school or the district. Such organizations have accomplished many goals. As their child finds the school experience different than others do, parents also will find that their experiences differ from the more typical parental experiences. A review of the characteristics and unusual needs of gifted children will help parents understand why their role as a parent is often unusual. As a group, parents will find understanding, and even relief, in learning more about gifted characteristics and issues and by sharing their common concerns and experiences. Resources can be found to inform parents regarding what is known about giftedness, the identification procedures used in their district, and the structure of the gifted program in which their child participates. Parents should learn of the many alternatives and possibilities for providing quality education to their children both at home and at school. With a good knowledge base, parents will be in a position to offer knowledgeable support and to help change any inadequate or unfair practices. Many teachers, administrators, and school board members are anxious to make changes, try more challenging programs, or end detrimental practices. Knowing that the families support change empowers such educators. It is important that parents become involved in the school to give informed support for the practices they prefer for their children—not only showing what is wrong, but also presenting other alternatives, suggesting and supporting positive changes, and offering their help.

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

FIGURE 2.2

43

A Parent In-Service

Session 1: Understanding Intelligence, Creativity, and Giftedness—This session would include the following questions: Who are gifted learners? What is intelligence? How does high intelligence develop? How can giftedness be nurtured at home? At school? How can creativity be developed? Session 2: The Emotional and Social Development of Gifted Learners—The impact of giftedness on social and emotional development; development of self-esteem, values, leadership, and ethics; discipline and the gifted learner; and issues and problems associated with growing up gifted. Session 3: Meeting the Needs of Gifted Learners—Developing a responsive learning environment, creating program alternatives, differentiating curriculum for gifted learners, integrating all four brain functions to optimize learning, and evaluating gifted children and gifted programs. Session 4: Effective Teaching at Home and at School—The nurturing home, family practices that produce growth, communication skills, and collaboration between home and school. Session 5: Advocacy—Planning strategies for advocacy with the school, student-parent-teacher interactions, legislative procedures and possibilities, and helping gifted students to be their best advocates.

PARENT IN-SERVICE It is as important for teachers in the home to understand the needs of gifted children and how to meet these needs as it is for teachers in the schools. A parent in-service course can help parents understand giftedness and the impact it has on their children and their school’s programs. The five sessions set out in Figure 2.2 provide an outline for such a course. A knowledgeable coordinator or teacher could give the sessions, or they could be divided among interested parents, who study and prepare a presentation for the group. There are many materials available, such as this text, that could provide some of the information for the presentation. FAMILIES AS RESOURCES Families can cooperate with the schools in many ways in providing quality education for their gifted learners. One way is to offer their services as teachers. If the classroom is individualized and/or organized into centers, family members can offer to mentor, support a project, or create and implement a center for a specified period of time. For example, in a school near my campus, a kindergarten teacher assesses the interests, occupations, and abilities of the families of the children in her class each year. She invites them to share something they are especially good at with a small group of children in a learning center for 3 days. She has had language centers, construction centers, baking centers, Black history centers, Cinco de Mayo centers, and numerous others. The families have become more involved in the classroom, have provided many needed services, and have enriched the learning experience for everyone. Often a family member will be

44

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

comfortable sharing with a few children, even when he or she would never consider teaching the entire class. Families can also provide or solicit materials, help with construction when changing the classroom environment, run individualized learning labs in subjects such as reading and mathematics, provide transportation and additional supervision, and make arrangements for field trips. Some parents enjoy organizing other parents to make all of the above suggestions possible. It is important that teachers ask for the help they need and not waste family talent on busy work. Families can make important contributions to classroom learning if both they and the teacher take the responsibility to initiate and carry out such involvement. At the very least, parents should be involved in planning and evaluation conferences with their child and the teacher. Families can have a significant impact in the area of legislation. Most of the provisions for special education at the state and federal levels have been enacted because of the efforts of groups of families. They must stay informed about bills and legislative action and let their elected representatives know what they want. Government officials are asked to resolve many problems. It is easy for them to feel that the needs of gifted students, if they know of them at all, have very low priority. Teachers and other school personnel cannot influence boards of education, state superintendents, governors, and legislators with anywhere near the effectiveness that families can. In sheer numbers, families have the advantage. They have the real power in our school systems, and they must be made aware of it and use it for the benefit of the children. (See Figure 2.3 for suggestions.) An important resource for families of gifted children is their state or local gifted association. Many such groups include educators and parents in their membership. They often have local representatives that can answer questions on issues facing the family of a gifted child or can direct the family to the person or resource that can. Such associations usually offer an annual conference, and in some states, institutes or special sessions are offered during the year to provide the families with updates on advocacy and current research as well as basic information regarding giftedness and its effects on the child and the family. A nationally organized support group, Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted (SENG), focuses on parenting issues through small, facilitated groups of parents that discuss topics such as motivation, discipline, peer relations, stress management, depression, and communication of feelings. Since SENG’s inception in 1981, it has established parent groups in towns and cities throughout the United States. A national conference is held yearly. Through SENG, parents of gifted children can interact with other parents and trained leaders to receive support, guidance, and professional advice that promotes understanding and opportunities for gifted children. To obtain further information on resources for the social-emotional needs of gifted children and on the location of SENG groups, contact www.sengifted.org. Another important resource for families of gifted children is the magazine of the National Association for Gifted Children, Parenting for High Potential, that contains news, articles on issues and concepts that parents of gifted children confront daily, and advice columns written by experts. Contact the National Association for Gifted Children at www.nagc.org for more information. Teachers and families will also find a wide range of knowledge and activities available in Gifted Education Communicator, an online monthly journal. Check online resources for other available materials.

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

FIGURE 2.3

Suggestions for Parents

The following suggestions have been useful to me as a parent and as a teacher. Many of them came from other parents or from students, and some my children taught me. If you live with gifted children Create open communication that is available from birth on. Listen, listen, listen. Listening lets your children know that you think they are valuable, and careful listening lets them know that what they think is worth understanding. You become a safe and trusted friend. ■

■ Set aside a special time for each child to have you to himself or herself, to be interested in her or him alone, to be listened to nonjudgmentally, to share ideas. Don’t wait for problems or decisionmaking times. At our house I used the time when I tucked each child in bed, sitting down each evening for 10 to 30 minutes, with all our attention available to each other. Also try the family council described in Figure 2.1. ■ Do what you like doing and include the child, as well as doing things in which the child is interested. ■ Permit the children their own individuality and enjoy them for who they are, not what you would like them to be. Let them feel your acceptance of them as people. ■ Respect your child and allow the child as much dignity as you would a friend. ■ Allow your children to make lots of decisions, and consult them on issues affecting them whenever you believe they can understand the consequences. ■ Don’t confuse the IQ with the child; the child is much more.

Help the child understand and deal with his or her belonging and conformity needs. Often, especially for girls, the pressure to conform is great; the child must feel it’s really all right to be different. ■

■ Help children with their need for perfectionism and what that does to their self-image. Serve as an example by modeling your attempts to accept your own mistakes, and show them how you keep trying. ■ Help them set realistic standards and help them understand how unfair it is to hold others to their standards.

■ Arrange back-to-nature times and quiet together and apart times; show that you value reflection and daydreaming. ■ Help your child set time and energy priorities. So often the world is so exciting for these children that they seem to need to do everything at once. ■ Help them appreciate individual differences, both in themselves and in others. ■ Instruct by your actions more than by your words. If you want your child to be an avid reader, then you need to be one. Other interests develop this way, too. ■ Don’t insist that every project have closure before other things can happen. Often what the child wanted or needed to learn from an experience occurs before the project is “finished.” Sometimes other fascinating areas just have to be explored before the project can be finished properly. Otherwise, you may end up with a few finished projects and a turned-off child. Besides, this is a need that schools cannot meet. Your child will get lots of experience with closure and meeting deadlines at school. ■ Be careful about supporting teachers when they are doing stupid things (e.g., a homework assignment of 50 problems all on a concept that your child mastered 2 years ago). Help the child understand the consequences of doing or not doing the task, then plan a conference with the teacher and be sure the situation is understood. If the teacher remains unchangeable, then you have a right to discuss your perception with the principal. There is little value in obedience at any cost. ■ Provide a safe place by your nonjudgmental acceptance of the child. At times, your child will find being different very difficult. Neither the teacher nor the child’s friends will always understand, and your child will need a place where it is safe to be who he or she is. ■ Enjoy living with your child! Your life together will be a great adventure! Children are not comparable, so value each for what each offers. As parents, we are truly blessed to be able to become so intimately involved with such marvelous people, our children.

45

46

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTED CHILDREN As human beings develop higher levels of functioning, many unique patterns and traits emerge. Educating groups of gifted individuals is not easy. They are not a homogeneous group, and the more gifted a person becomes, the more unique that person may appear. Researchers have noticed significant differences between moderately gifted, highly gifted, and profoundly gifted children on every cognitive and affective trait, especially in their degree of intensity and energy. For the highly gifted the desire to know and create structure and organize data is greater and more efficient than for the moderately gifted. The profoundly gifted are children of rare genius. They seem to have a different value structure and tend to be invested in universal issues. (California Association for the Gifted, 2003)

There are many characteristics, however, that gifted individuals have in common. Knowing the possible range of behaviors and the concomitant needs and problems that result will help families and teachers better understand and nurture these gifted individuals. However, no gifted learner exhibits every characteristic in every area. Tables 2.1 to 2.4 are organized into the cognitive (linear and spatial, Table 2.1), affective (emotional and social, Table 2.2), physical (movement and sensation, Table 2.3), and intuitive (Table 2.4) areas of function, the same areas that we discussed in relation to the functions of the human brain. With each characteristic, there is a delineation of examples of related needs and of possible concomitant problems. High levels of cognitive development do not necessarily imply high levels of affective development. The same heightened sensitivities that underlie gifted intelligence can contribute to an accumulation of information about emotions that the student needs to process. The affect-based information comes from sources within and outside of the child. Gifted children need to learn that their cognitive powers applied to this material will help them to make sense of their world. Their educational program must provide opportunities to bring emotional knowledge and assumptions to awareness, and to apply verbal ability and inquiry skills in the service of affective development. The early appearance of social conscience that often characterizes gifted children signals an earlier need for development of a value structure and for the opportunity to translate values into social action. This can begin in the context of the society of the classroom and then be extended into the larger world as appropriate to the child’s increasing competence and widening concerns. People of highly developed intellectual ability may be unusually vulnerable to a characteristic Cartesian split between thinking and being: a lack of integration between mind and body. During school years, when the gifted student is experiencing large discrepancies between physical and intellectual development, the school may be unintentionally encouraging the student to avoid physical activity. If a child’s intellectual peers are physically more advanced so as to make him or her feel physically inadequate, while physical peers are less intellectually stimulating and not within his or her friendship group, the usual competitive playground games may be neither inviting nor satisfying to the gifted child. If the physical development of the gifted child is to be encouraged, programs should provide experiences that develop integration between mind and body in children with discrepant development patterns.

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

TABLE 2.1 Giftedness Expressed by Cognitive Function Cognitive development rests on the understanding and integration of a vast quantity of experiences of the environment. Educational programs should provide for an array of such experiences and encourage the processes of analyzing, organizing, and evaluating as well as those processes of a more visual, rhythmic, and holistic nature that seem to coexist within our cognitive functioning. Differentiation for gifted learners requires assessment of and planning for the academic needs of each child as well as the child’s unique characteristics, some of which may be found below. Differentiating Characteristics

Examples of Related Needs

Possible Concomitant Problems

Extraordinary quantity of information, unusual retentiveness

To be exposed to new and challenging information of the environment and the culture, including aesthetic, economic, political, educational, and social aspects; to acquire early mastery of foundation skills; to have fewer repetitions of foundational skills; rapid movement toward analytic, creative, and critical thinking

Boredom with regular curriculum; impatience with “waiting for the group”

Advanced comprehension

To be given access to challenging curriculum and intellectual peers; might not be in the same grade or age group; provide choices and products that require advanced analytic or critical thinking skills

Poor interpersonal relationships with less able children of the same age; adults consider a gifted child “sassy” or a “smart aleck”; a dislike of repetition of already understood concepts

Unusually varied interests and curiosity

To be exposed to varied subjects and concerns; to be allowed to pursue individual ideas as far as interest takes them

Difficulty in conforming to group tasks; overextending energy levels; taking on too many projects at one time

High level of language development

To encounter uses for increasingly difficult vocabulary and concepts

Sophisticated, precise, and academic language will deteriorate if it is not used, and students will lose significant vocabulary skills Perception as a “show off” by children of the same age

High level of verbal ability

To share ideas verbally in depth; to use oral and written language in a variety of settings in the classroom; to use reading materials that include sophisticated language

Domination of discussions with information and questions deemed negative by teachers and fellow students; use of verbalism to avoid difficult thinking tasks

Unusual capacity for processing information

To be exposed to ideas at many levels and in large variety

Resentment of being interrupted; perceived as too serious; dislike of routine and drill

Accelerated pace of thought processes

To be exposed to ideas at rates appropriate to individual pace of learning—often accelerated

Frustration with inactivity and absence of progress

(Continued)

47

48

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

TABLE 2.1 (Continued) Differentiating Characteristics

Examples of Related Needs

Possible Concomitant Problems

Flexible thought processes

To be allowed to solve problems in diverse ways

Perception by others as disruptive and disrespectful to authority and tradition

Comprehensive synthesis

To be allowed a longer incubation time for ideas

Frustration with demands for deadlines and for completion of each level prior to starting new inquiry

Early ability to delay closure

To be allowed to pursue ideas and integrate new ideas without forced closure or products demanded

If products are demanded as proof of learning, might complete the project quickly and without regard to quality

Heightened capacity for seeing unusual and diverse relationships, integration of ideas and disciplines

To mess around with varieties of materials, ideas, opportunities for multidisciplinary learning; complexity

Frustration at being considered “off the subject” or irrelevant in pursuing inquiry in areas other than subject being considered; considered odd or weird by others

Ability to generate original ideas and solutions

To build skills in problem solving and productive thinking; to be given the opportunity to contribute to solutions of meaningful problems

Difficulty with rigid conformity; may be penalized for not following directions; may deal with rejection by becoming rebellious

Early differential patterns for thought processing (e.g., thinking in alternatives, abstract terms; sensing consequences; making generalizations; thinking visually; using metaphors and analogies)

To be exposed to alternatives, abstractions, consequences of choices, opportunities for drawing generalizations and testing them; to solve problems by use of visual or metaphoric strategies

Rejection or omission of detail; questions generalizations of others, which may be perceived as disrespectful behavior; considers linear tasks incomplete and boring

Early ability to use and form conceptual frameworks

To use and design conceptual frameworks in information gathering and problem solving; to seek order and consistency; to develop a tolerance for ambiguity

Frustration with inability of others to understand or appreciate original organizations or insights; personally devised systems or structure may conflict with procedures or systems later taught

An evaluative approach toward self and others

To be exposed to individuals of varying ability and talent and to varying ways of seeing and solving problems; to set realistic, achievable short-term goals; to develop skills in data evaluation and decision making

Perception by others as elitist, conceited, superior, too critical; may become discouraged from self-criticism; can inhibit attempting new areas if fear of failure is too great; seen as too demanding, compulsive; can affect interpersonal relationships as others fail to live up to standards set by gifted individual; intolerant of stupidity

Unusual intensity; persistent goal-directed behavior

To pursue inquiries beyond allotted time spans; to set and evaluate priorities

Perception by others as stubborn, willful, uncooperative

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

TABLE 2.2 Giftedness Expressed by Affective Functions High levels of cognitive development do not necessarily imply high levels of affective development. The same heightened sensitivities that underlie gifted intelligence can contribute to an accumulation of information about emotions that the student needs to process. The affect-based information comes from sources within and outside of the child. Gifted children need to learn that their cognitive powers applied to this material will help them to make sense of their world. Their educational program must provide opportunities to bring emotional knowledge and assumptions to awareness, and to apply verbal ability and inquiry skills in the service of affective development. The early appearance of social conscience that often characterizes gifted children signals an earlier need for development of a value structure and for the opportunity to translate values into social action. This can occur in the context of the society of the classroom and should then be extended into the larger world, as appropriate to the child’s increasing competence and widening concerns.

Differentiating Characteristics

Examples of Related Needs

Possible Concomitant Problems

Large accumulation of information about emotions that has not been brought to awareness

To process cognitively the emotional meaning of experience; to name one’s own emotions; to identify one’s own and others’ perceptual filters and defense systems; to expand and clarify awareness of the physical environment; to clarify awareness of the needs and feelings of others

Misinterpretation of information, affecting the individual negatively

Unusual sensitivity to the expectations and feelings of others

To learn to clarify the feelings and expectations of others

Unusual vulnerability to criticism of others; high level of need for success and recognition

Keen sense of humor—may be gentle or hostile

To learn how their language and behaviors affect the feelings and behaviors of others

Use of sarcasm, teasing, and humor for critical attacks upon others, resulting in damage to interpersonal relationships

Heightened self-awareness, accompanied by feelings of being different

To learn to assert own needs and feelings nondefensively; to share self with others, for self-clarification

Isolation of self, resulting in being considered aloof, feeling rejected; perceives difference as a negative attribute resulting in low self-esteem and inhibited growth emotionally and socially

Idealism and sense of justice, which appear at an early age

To transcend negative reactions by finding values to which he or she can be committed

Attempts toward unrealistic reforms and goals with resulting intense frustration (suicides result from intense depression over issues of this nature)

Earlier development of an inner locus of control and satisfaction

To clarify personal priorities among conflicting values; to confront and interact with the value systems of others

Difficulty with conformity; rejects external validation and chooses to live by personal values that may be seen as a challenge to authority or tradition

Unusual emotional depth and intensity

To find purpose and direction from personal value system; to translate commitment into action in daily life

Unusual vulnerability; difficulty focusing on realistic goals for life’s work

(Continued)

49

50

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

TABLE 2.2 (Continued) Differentiating Characteristics

Examples of Related Needs

Possible Concomitant Problems

High expectations of self and others, often leading to high levels of frustration with self, others, and situations; perfectionism

To learn to set realistic goals and to accept setbacks as part of the learning process; to hear others express their growth in acceptance of self

Discouragement and frustration from high levels of self-criticism; difficulty maintaining good interpersonal relations as others fail to maintain high standards imposed by gifted child; immobilization of action due to high levels of frustration resulting from situations that do not meet expectations of excellence

Strong need for consistency between abstract values and personal actions

To find a vocation that provides opportunity for actualization of student’s personal value system as well as an avenue for his or her talents and abilities

Frustration with self and others leading to inhibited actualization of self and interpersonal relationships

Advanced levels of moral judgment

To receive validation for nonaverage morality

Intolerance and lack of understanding from peer group, leading to rejection and possible isolation

Society has unique needs for the services of gifted individuals. While we would not wish that education for the gifted learners focus on societal needs at the expense of the needs of these individuals, neither can education of gifted students disregard the importance of their mature social roles. Gifted students need direction in exploring all of the opportunities society has to offer them and the ways of contributing what they have to offer to society. They need opportunities to develop those skills that will make it possible for them to affect society. Educational programs should provide for the options, conceptual frameworks, and skills that will underlie effective social involvement of gifted students.

Strongly motivated by selfactualization needs

To be given opportunities to follow divergent paths and pursue strong interests; to receive help in understanding the demands of self-actualization

Frustration of not feeling challenged; loss of unrealized talents

Advanced cognitive and affective capacity for conceptualizing and solving societal problems

To encounter social problems; to become aware of the complexity of problems facing society and the conceptual frameworks for problem-solving procedures

Tendency for “quick” solutions, not taking into account the complexity of the problem; young age of gifted child often makes usable alternatives suspect; older, more experienced decision makers may not take the gifted child seriously

Leadership ability

To understand various leadership steps and practice leadership skills

Lack of opportunity to use this ability constructively may result in its disappearance from child’s repertoire or its being turned into a negative characteristic (e.g., gang leadership)

Solutions to social and environmental problems

To experience meaningful involvement in real problems

Loss to society if these traits are not allowed to develop with guidance and opportunity for meaningful involvement

Involvement with the metaneeds of society (e.g., justice, beauty, truth)

To explore the highest levels of human thought; to apply this knowledge to today’s problems

Involvement in obscure groups with narrow, perfectionistic beliefs

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

51

TABLE 2.3 Giftedness Expressed by Physical/Sensing Functions People of highly developed intellectual ability may be unusually vulnerable to a characteristic Cartesian split between thinking and being: a lack of integration between mind and body. During school years, when the gifted student is experiencing large discrepancies between physical and intellectual development, the school may be unintentionally encouraging the student to avoid physical activity. If a child’s intellectual peers are physically more advanced so as to make him or her feel physically inadequate, while physical peers are less intellectually stimulating and not within his or her friendship group, the usual competitive playground games may be neither inviting nor satisfying to the gifted child. If the physical development of the gifted child is to be encouraged, programs should provide experiences that develop integration between mind and body in children with nonnormative development patterns.

Differentiating Characteristics

Examples of Related Needs

Possible Concomitant Problems

Unusual quantity of input from the environment through a heightened sensory awareness

To engage in activities that will allow integration and assimilation of sensory data

Attention moving diffusely toward many areas of interest; overexpenditure of energy due to lack of integration; seeming disconnectedness

Unusual discrepancy between physical and intellectual development

To appreciate own physical capacities

Results in a gifted adult who functions with a mind-body dichotomy; a gifted child who is only comfortable expressing himself or herself in mental activity, resulting in limited development both physically and mentally

Low tolerance for the lag between standards and athletic skills

To discover physical activities as a source of pleasure; to find satisfaction in small increments of improvement; to engage in noncompetitive physical activities

Refusal to take part in any activities in which he or she does not excel; limiting experiences with otherwise pleasurable, constructive physical activities

Cartesian split—can include neglect of physical wellbeing and avoidance of physical activity

To engage in activities leading to mindbody integration; to develop a commitment to own physical well-being; to extend this concern to the social and political realm

Detrimental to full mental and physical health; inhibiting the development of potential for the individual

Highly and Profoundly Gifted Individuals Let us distinguish among moderately gifted individuals, the most commonly found group: highly gifted individuals, those with unusual levels of giftedness; and profoundly gifted individuals, those of rare genius. As Gross (2000) comments, “There are virtually no points of common experience and common interest between a 6-year-old with a mental age of 6 and a 6-year-old with a mental age of 12” (p. 6). Most of our discussion in this text will relate to the moderately gifted children, for they are the largest population of gifted students in regular classrooms or gifted programs. This level of giftedness would usually fall within an IQ range of 130 and 144 and comprise approximately 2% to 3% of the overall population. This is not an identification criterion; it is only an estimate of prevalence and gives an idea of the relationship of the levels of giftedness to the

52

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

TABLE 2.4 Giftedness Expressed by Intuitive Functions This area of the human experience is involved in initiating or insightful acts and in creative activity. While this is the least well-defined area of human endeavor, it is probably the area that promises the most for the continuance and fulfillment of humankind. All other areas provide support for, and are supported by, this area of function. As each area evolves to high levels, more of the intuitive and creative are available.

Differentiating Characteristics

Examples of Related Needs

Possible Concomitant Problems

Early involvement and concern for intuitive knowing and metaphysical ideas and phenomena

To be given opportunities to engage in meaningful dialogue with philosophers and others concerned with these ideas; to become aware of own intuitive energy and ability; to be guided in developing and using intuitive energy and ability

Ridicule from peers; not taken seriously by elders; considered weird or strange

Open to experiences in this area; will experiment with psychic and metaphysical phenomena

To be given guidance in becoming familiar with, analyzing, and evaluating such phenomena; to be provided a historical approach

Tendency to become narrowly focused toward ungrounded belief systems

Creative approach in all areas of endeavor

To be guided in evaluating appropriate uses of creative efforts; to be encouraged to continue development of creative abilities

Perception by others as deviant; becomes bored with more mundane tasks; may be viewed as a troublemaker

Ability to predict; interest in future

To be provided opportunities for exploration of “what if” questions and activities of probability and prediction

Loss of highly valuable human ability

larger population. Highly gifted students are as different from moderately gifted students as moderately gifted students are from average students. Highly gifted individuals tend to evidence more energy than moderately gifted individuals; they think faster and are more intent and focused on their personal interests. They exhibit a higher degree of ability in most of the traits that are identified with giftedness. Such children are less able to benefit from regular classroom experiences. Their educational programs need to have much more comprehensive and challenging experiences to meet their needs than are necessary for less gifted learners. The highly gifted child can be expected to have an IQ in the range of 145 to 159. Again, a score in this range should not be used as the only reason for identifying a child as highly gifted; however, such a score would be expected to occur only once in 1,000–10,000 children, and further follow-up would be indicated. Profoundly gifted learners differ in important ways from highly gifted learners. Scheibel (cited in Begley, 1993) suggests that they have differently wired neurons that provide more complex and efficient neural highways for transmitting information. They seem to have different value structures that usually allow them to cope with the dissonance they find between their perception of life and that of the average person. They

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

■ The 3-year-old jumped off the chair onto the carpeted floor of the university classroom and stopped, wide-eyed. “Did you hear that?” he asked. “Hear what?” I asked. “That sound,” he said, climbing back onto the chair. “Now listen,” he demanded and proceeded to jump again to the floor. Listening carefully, I could hear the gurgling from his stomach as he hit the floor. “Did you hear it?” I nodded.

53

“What is that?” he asked excitedly. “It’s the milk you just drank,” I informed him. “Oh, wow, isn’t that something?” he replied delightedly as he sat down on the floor, picked up a storybook, and began to read to my university students. This was the first time Nathaniel had been to my class of teachers of gifted learners. He was there to give them the experience of interacting with a profoundly gifted child. Confident and careful to be sure his audience could see all the pictures, our guest teacher obviously was enjoying himself immensely.

tend to be more isolated by choice and more invested in concerns of a metanature (e.g., universal problems). They seldom seek popularity or social acclaim. Typically, schools offer these students little, and many educators suggest that special schools, tutoring with eminent authorities, or homeschooling would be a far more productive educational plan. The IQ range found in profoundly gifted children is 160 to 180+. One child in 10,000 to 1 million would test in this range. Our identification would never be based on these scores because, at the higher end of most intelligence tests, the scores are quite arbitrary and irregular. For example, the highest score that can be obtained from the current revision of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is IQ 164 and that from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale is IQ 155. For further insight into highly gifted and profoundly gifted learners, the reader may wish to consult Hollingworth (1942), Feldman and Goldsmith (1986), and Silverman (1990). Although such a psychometric definition tells us little about these gifted children and how they learn, it suggests that, just as with the children at the opposite end of the normal curve, their learning needs will be significantly different from those of other groups of students. Think of it as the difference between an advanced second grader who reads at fourth-grade level and the second grader, reading since age two, who now curls up with The Self-Aware Universe. Of interest to those studying the development of gifted learners is the work of Dabrowski (1972). His research has special significance for gifted learners because it is based on populations of gifted and creative individuals. His theory of human development, with a central theme of developmental potential, determines the level of development a person may reach under optimal conditions. Using neurological data, Dabrowski suggests that as giftedness and creativity grow, individuals show response patterns to stimuli that involve unusually high levels of physical energy, sensory acuity, intellectual curiosity and drive, imagination, and empathy. The areas of mental activity— psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional—are included. Dabrowski’s developmental potential is composed of talents, special ability intelligence, and five forms of psychic overexcitability: psychomotor, sensual, intellectual,

54

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

imaginational, and emotional. Overexcitabilities, or areas of supersensitivity, are described as areas of expanded awareness, intensified emotions, and increased levels of intellectual and physical activity. The concept includes psychic overexcitabilities, defined by Piechowski, Silverman, and Falk (1985) as enhanced and intensified mental activity distinguished by characteristic forms of expression that are above what is considered common and average. Dabrowski’s work adds validation to the holistic nature of intelligence by including emotional, imaginational, sensual, and psychomotor functions in the investigation of intellectual potential. His theory describes the process of inner growth in which the guiding principle is to be true to oneself (Piechowski, 2002). A group of practitioners, parents, and theorists known as the Columbus Group was concerned about a movement in the field of gifted education to replace the term gifted with the term talented. Building from Dabrowski’s work, they suggested that giftedness be conceived of as “asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm” (Silverman, 1994, p. 113). They believed that this asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity, rendering such individuals vulnerable in their uniqueness. The group suggested that this provides a rationale for “modifications in parenting, teaching, and counseling in order for them to develop optimally” (p. 113). A continuing and pressing issue for both highly and profoundly gifted learners is the provision of an appropriate education. The higher the expressed intellectual ability, the more difficult is the problem of finding a match between the school programs and the student. Or, as the Columbus Group explains, “The higher the intellectual capacity, the greater is the degree of asynchrony requiring special consideration of exceptional needs in parenting, schooling, and counseling” (Lovecky, 1994, p. 116). Although many school settings give limited priority to differentiating learning experiences for gifted students in general, far less priority is given to such experiences for highly and profoundly gifted students. In an article decrying the dearth of true genius in our world, Begley (1993) suggests, “Everywhere, as long as egalitarianism rejects the mystique of genius in favor of the notion that everyone has it in him to be an artist, there will be no successors to Picasso or Mies van der Rohe” (p. 50). Advanced development is likely to include the area of mobility, which may begin early and progress with unusual speed (Gross, 1999). There also may be early and rapid development of speech and reading. As a result, highly gifted children move around independently, exploring their world, expressing their ideas, seeking information, and interacting fluently and meaningfully with parents, others, and their environment. Such interactions result in even more advanced and rapid intellectual growth. As early as the 1940s it was observed that moderately gifted children waste nearly half of their time in a regular classroom and profoundly gifted children waste almost all of their time (Hollingworth, 1942). These are the children about whom we know the least, yet they are those whose needs are most severe. Restak (2003) informs us “people with extraordinary abilities . . . have learned to use their brains differently from the average person” (p. 14). Their genius depends not

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

55

only on the amount of information stored in memory, but also “on the organization of those memories and how efficiently they can be retrieved” (p. 15). Some attention has been given to child prodigies as examples of “extreme giftedness” (Feldman, 1988; Goldsmith, 1990). These researchers define a prodigy as a child who is performing at the level of an adult professional in a cognitively demanding field before the age of 10. They suggest that the development of the prodigy’s ability requires expert instruction, emotional support, strict personal discipline, and a sustained commitment to study and practice over a considerable period of time. Ericsson (2002) believes that for the superior performer the goal is not just repeating the same thing again and again, but also achieving higher levels of control over every aspect of their performance. They do not become bored with practice because each time they are trying to do something better than the last time. The prodigies themselves seem to contribute to this high-level development by their persistence, passion, and commitment to their fields far in excess of what is observed in most of their age-mates. “The more we understand about the processes of development and the forms in which talent may be expressed, the more able we will be to foster individual expression at every age” (Goldsmith, 1990, p. 82). Highly and profoundly gifted individuals are characterized by their uniqueness; each is different from others who are their age and from others who are highly and profoundly gifted (McGuffog, Feiring, & Lewis, 1990). There are, however, some characteristics that seem to be common among such children. These include both marvelous traits that provide joy and fulfillment to the individuals and those that result in deep frustration and despair as they confront structures that have no space for them and attitudes that offer no understanding. Figure 2.4 shares some of the characteristics found again and again among highly and profoundly gifted individuals. In the following interview, some of the unusual learning differences of such students can be noted in this profoundly gifted young adult’s explanation of how his mind works. I seem to be much more aware than the people around me of the relationship between one event and another. Things and events have meaning and causes that to me are obvious, but other people have to work to understand. So I am always aware of relationships between events, the meaning behind events, and of the logic behind things. For me it is just present in the world; it is how my mind works. This is how I perceive and act in the world; I am not doing something when that happens. (Silberstein, 1995)

In another observation, he stated: I work a problem from the inside out. . . . I see failure as a thing you don’t learn from. . . . A mistake is learning that hasn’t taken place yet. Essentially what I am saying is that you can learn from anything, and if you learn it’s not a failure.

When I asked him to describe how he thinks differently, he commented: I think what I do is think fast, and fast can give you quality. The qualitative differences are that my mind tries lots of things, and therefore can come up with a solution because I can work through lots of different answers. . . . So mere quantitative differences can lead to qualitative differences.

56

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 2.4

Common Characteristics of Highly Gifted Individuals

An extraordinary speed in processing information A rapid and thorough comprehension of the whole idea or concept An unusual ability to perceive essential elements and underlying structures and patterns in relationships and ideas A need for precision in thinking and expression, resulting in need to correct errors and argue extensively An ability to relate a broad range of ideas and synthesize commonalities among them A high degree of ability to think abstractly that develops early Appreciation of complexity; finding myriad alternative meanings in even the most simple issues or problems An ability to learn in an integrative, intuitively nonlinear manner An extraordinary degree of intellectual curiosity An unusual capacity for memory A long concentration span A fascination with ideas and words An extensive vocabulary An ability to perceive many sides of an issue Argumentativeness Advanced visual and motor skills An ability from an early age to think in metaphors and symbols and a preference for doing so An ability to visualize models and systems An ability to learn in great intuitive leaps Highly idiosyncratic interpretations of events An awareness of detail An unusual intensity and depth of feeling A high degree of emotional sensitivity Highly developed morals and ethics and early concern for moral and existential issues Unusual and early insight into social and moral issues An ability to empathetically understand and relate to ideas and other people An extraordinarily high energy level A need for the world to be logical and fair

While discussing intuition, a most interesting pattern of thinking emerged: I think intuition is lots and lots of processing underneath, then it finds something close to the answer and brings it up . . . you look for things that are shaped like the answer until you find it. I am very geometric in my thinking. To me, things are shapes even if they are ideas or arguments. To me a chain of reasoning is almost a shape. What I frequently do is

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

57

look for things that are shaped the same as some concept. Therefore, while this thing about cells has a similar shape to this thing from mythology, for example, maybe there is a similarity in the argument. And then, now, let’s bring them up consciously and look and see. What I’m saying is about metaphors. For me metaphors are very powerful. They are powerful tools. I map ideas and sentences and thoughts so that I can see them and physically manipulate them. So if I have a problem, it takes on a shape, and I think, “Okay, what else looks like this?” Or if I am missing information, I think, “Okay, I need some information that looks like that.”

After discussing his dissatisfaction with his school experiences and the boredom and damage he felt he had sustained there, he summed up his need with this statement: Being really intelligent absolutely defines who I am. I perceive the world quite differently from most people. It is the essence of why I am who I am and not someone else. (Silberstein, 1995)

The abilities of highly and profoundly gifted children bring acclaim and awe from adults and age-peers alike; however, these children may find that with their abilities there are few educational settings into which they can fit comfortably and even fewer in which they can be challenged or allowed to grow. In addition, Silverman (1995) suggests that such a high degree of asynchronous development can result in many emotional problems. The goal, as with all children, is to build a healthy, balanced life, but when these children’s intellectual grasp exceeds their emotional capacity to cope with some ideas and events, frustration and depression may result. The fact of the matter is that, by their very excellence, they make it hard to find others with whom to share and places in which they can belong. This is an even more profound problem for girls. Koppel (1991) informs us that more than 50% of the gifted students in kindergarten are girls, but by junior high, their percentage is less than 30%. The unpopularity of being so different, the mixed messages of fitting in yet living up to their potential, and the need to find friends “like them” take their toll. It is very clear that, even in schools that have made adaptations in the curriculum and have devoted resources to gifted and talented programs, such programs are seldom designed for highly and profoundly gifted students. Modifications made for moderately gifted students do not meet the needs of these even more underserved gifted children. Another concern is the problem of testing (Silverman, 1990). Intelligence tests are normed with the assumption that a normal curve of intelligence exists within the population at large. Silverman believes that this assumption penalizes highly gifted children, whose scores are systematically depressed at the upper end of the curve to force-fit them into the theoretical normal distribution. Each time the tests are renormed, the problem becomes worse. The ceiling effect of tests also causes problems. Most tests do not have items of sufficient difficulty to fully assess the extent and strength of the abilities of highly and profoundly gifted children. Group tests present additional problems by being so easy that highly gifted children read more into the items than was intended by the test constructor. For example, a 7-year-old child being tested was asked, “Who discovered America?” The child thought a while and then replied, “Well some people think that it was Christopher Columbus, but I think it might have been a Viking like Leif Ericsson or maybe even . . . ,” and the child went on to relate a number of possible discoverers he found plausible.

58

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

After presenting rationales for each of the possible candidates, the child stopped and looked puzzled. The question was repeated, “Who discovered America?” More thought and then the child decided, “I guess I’d have to say in all probability it was [an obscure explorer not often mentioned relative to the question asked].” Of course, the directions for the test required the answer to be marked wrong. Only in the protocol could the examiner note the high level of thought that produced the “wrong” answer. Regarding testing, Silverman (1990) states: It is important to know the extent of a child’s giftedness, just as it is imperative to know the extent of a child’s retardation. A child with an IQ of 175 has unique needs beyond those of a child with an IQ of 145, just as a child with an IQ of 25 is significantly different from a child with an IQ of 55. A two standard deviation difference affects the child’s adjustment, learning needs, and school placement. It is time we found out just how gifted our highly gifted children really are. (p. 2)

Once these students have been identified, some of the services that have been found to provide for the needs of this unique population are special self-contained classes, special schools or programs, university-based programs, magnet schools, Governor’s Schools, the International Baccalaureate Programs, and special study centers. Whatever services are offered, these students must have access to intellectual peers, acceleration, programs offering continuous progress, flexible pacing, creative and innovative methods and products, independent study, mentors, and counseling. As we have seen, intelligence is dynamic. As relevant as the axiom “Use it or lose it” is when applied to abilities and talents, it is critical when it focuses on the highly and profoundly gifted learners. They, and we, have so much to lose. With a lack of appropriate stimulation, it takes only a few days to lose brain cell growth. Although many characteristics typical of highly gifted learners are also found among the moderately gifted, such characteristics exist in the former with a higher degree of intensity and energy. The desire to know and the capacity to create structure and organize data are noticeably greater and more efficient in the highly gifted population. However, an overly demanding view of self may result, along with even more difficulty in developing a realistic self-concept. Even more than with other children, we must rely on highly gifted children to guide our parenting and teaching to approaches that are appropriate for them. Their unique needs leave us with no norms to follow. As we look more closely at the characteristics and needs of gifted learners, we encounter a common problem in identifying these children. Teachers often attribute giftedness to high achievers. Although there can be no certainty as to clear distinctions in every instance, gifted individuals usually exhibit the ability to generalize, to work comfortably with abstract ideas, and to synthesize diverse relationships to a far higher degree. The high achiever generally functions better with knowledge- and comprehension-level learning. Although high achievers receive good grades and accomplish much, they lack the range and diversity of gifted students. Some high achievers need only increased opportunity to develop giftedness; others become frustrated by more complex opportunities. A responsive learning environment (see Chapter 9) is the teacher’s best guide for appropriate educational opportunities for all students. How do the characteristics of giftedness develop? What do we know about the origins and development of giftedness? Let us review the growth of high levels of intelligence.

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

59

THE BEGINNINGS OF GIFTEDNESS: BIRTH THROUGH 2 YEARS Infants are far more capable than most people believe. From the moment of birth, their world is available to them. From 1970 to the present, we have witnessed an explosion of information about the early childhood years. We can no longer “just let children be children” without an awareness that what we do will have permanent effects on their lives. Knowledge is now available that will allow more children to actualize more of their potential. Because the nerve cells of animals’ brains are A P P LY I N G virtually identical to those in human brains and work in the same basic BRAIN RESEARCH to Education ways, we can generalize this information. This is so important because it tells us that the brain can be shaped and enhanced by stimulation and use. Beginning in the 1960s a team of researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, including Krech (1969), Rosenzweig (1966), Diamond (1988), and their colleagues, discovered some of the effects experience has on learning at the cellular level: ■

The cortex of the brain expands significantly and grows thicker and heavier when conditions are stimulating rather than deprived.

■

Glial cells increase in number, and the body and the nucleus of each neural cell increase in size.

■

Measurable chemical changes occur within the cells that correlate with higher levels of problem-solving ability.

■

Emotional stability, curiosity, and learning ability increase.

One of the most thought-provoking findings was that animals with inherited superior learning ability can lose their advantage over animals from a dull strain when both are raised in restricted environments. Even genetically superior animals that are not stimulated can be surpassed in ability by hereditarily dull animals that have been environmentally enriched. Researchers in the 1970s explored the specific factors within the environment that interact with the characteristics of human infants to promote or facilitate development, such as home qualities, patterns of mother-child or father-child interaction, and forms of communication (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Lewis & Rosenblum, 1974; White & Watts, 1973). Haynes, White, and Held (1965) importantly found that once children operate at a higher level, they assimilate more information, allowing their cognitive development to proceed even more rapidly. A substantial amount of research is continuing regarding the cognitive-affective-social capabilities of infants and the mechanisms that contribute to their development. Techniques to accelerate infant development include those that make available more color, more complex patterns, and more accessibility to the world around them. Hunt (cited in Pines, 1979) added that development does not come just from exposure to stimulating environments. The child must be allowed to interact with the environment. Acting on things, interacting with people, and having the people and the environment be responsive are critical.

60

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

For educators, these studies and similar findings mean that with early stimulation, we may reverse the effects of deprivation that have occurred over past generations. Of course, negatively, it also means that we could equally restrict an environment to the degree that a leveling effect takes place, regardless of the genetic advantage enjoyed at birth. We can no longer leave early stimulation to chance. Although genetic differences among human beings certainly exist, such differences are insufficient to explain the extent of the intellectual differences. It is vitally important to realize that early experience can validate or restrict the genetic contributions to our intellectual growth. “Longlasting effects occur as a result of experience. The more complex the experience, ‘the richer’ the environment, the more complex the brain” (Restak, 1986, p. 91). To use the environment as a powerful interacting agent, we must know more about our children and their capabilities. We must be effective observers of our children and provide an environment rich in opportunities responsive to each individual child if we are to ensure optimal growth. After decades of studies, brain researchers concur that experience is crucial in organizing the way the basic structures of the brain develop, especially early in life. As documented by Siegel (1999), “A wide range of studies has in fact now clarified that development is a product of the effect of experience on the unfolding of genetic potential” (p. 18). Seigel states, “Genes contain the information for the general organization of the brain’s structure, but experience determines which genes become expressed, how, and when” (p. 14). Kandel (2006) observes, “In every cell type some genes are expressed only at certain times, whereas others are turned on and off in response to signals from within the body or from the environment” (p. 257). Early opportunity for achievement and early stimulation cannot alone create giftedness. However, with so much past and current data available we can be assured that such opportunities allow the developing child to actualize more of the potential the genetic inheritance makes available. Such potential may fall within the range of development we call gifted, however, without appropriately enriching experiences, such potential may never reach its full expression. During the first 4 years of life, patterns for both the personality and the actualization of learning ability are being formed. The personality established and the type of learning opportunities available will facilitate or inhibit the development of inherited intellectual ability. However, we have the choice. We can plan to provide the most nourishing environment possible within our current knowledge, or we can allow this important period of development to occur by chance. Regardless of how we choose to approach these formative years, interactions will occur and intelligence will develop, leading to the growth or loss of human potential. Previous models of development have seriously underestimated the abilities of infants. We now know that infants are active at birth—they are perceiving, learning, and information-organizing individuals. Infants are born with depth perception, eyehand coordination, sensory coordination, and skin sensitivity. They demonstrate, learn, remember, and show distinct preferences for certain sounds, shapes, and tastes. Siegel (1999) reports that, from the first days of life, the infant’s brain is capable of creating mental models from a variety of sensory inputs. This suggests that the ability to create generalizations from experience is possible from the very beginning. Infants less

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

61

than 1 month old have recognized images of objects that they have only felt in their mouths (Baillargeon, cited in Raymond, 1991). Rovee-Collier (cited in Grunwald, 1993) found that, even at 2-and-a-half months, “an infant’s memory is very developed, very specific, and incredibly detailed” (p. 49). We can already see evidence by 3 months of age of the limitations the environment may be inflicting on intellectual growth. Researchers have observed that tests administered during this period can predict to a certain extent future language development, quality of interaction with the environment, and personality characteristics that help determine future learning patterns. Touch is important in the development of the infant. Nash (1997) reports that researchers at Baylor College of Medicine have found that the brains of children who are rarely touched or who engage in little play are 20% to 30% smaller than normal for their age. Touch is indispensable for establishing normal feelings of affection and care, and for developing attachment and maintaining optimal physiologic function. Spelke (cited in Grunwald, 1993) suggests that babies as young as 4 months of age have a rudimentary knowledge of the way the world works. She believes that there is biologically programmed core knowledge not only of physics, but of other cognitive skills as well. Other researchers (cited in Grunwald, 1993) concur, including Wynn, who has found a rudimentary ability to add and subtract as early as 5 months; Strauss, who finds infants of this age clearly thinking about quantities and applying numerical concepts to their world; Kuhl, who regards infants as universal linguists, who from birth to 4 months are able to distinguish each of the 150 sounds that make up all human speech and then by 6 months are able to recognize speech sounds of their native tongue; and Clifton, who discovered that experiences that infants have at 6 months can be remembered 2 years later. Restak (2003) affirms, “The brain can most efficiently and easily encode phonemes from different languages during infancy” (p. 10). Such evidence indicates that infants are far more capable than has been assumed. Studying the brain’s organization and responses to learning in infants will continue to help psychologists and educators enrich and optimize development.

Prenatal and Perinatal Interaction Interaction with the environment begins to affect the infant significantly during the prenatal period. Diamond (1998) found that there is no period with a more direct and formative effect on the child’s developing brain than the 9 months of pregnancy. Some researchers investigating this area of growth warn that the history of the mother governs occurrences during this period. Use of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes by the mother prior to conception will affect her ability to conceive a healthy fetus. Her diet, health habits, anxiety, and mental health will all be reflected in her child. Poverty, poor nutrition, and violence have also been cited as having a direct physical effect on eggs and sperm even before a child is conceived. Even more dramatic effects can be noted during the fetal period. There is a cause-and-effect relationship between diseases, malnutrition, and drug use by the mother and damage to the growing fetus. Quoting research from many sources, Verny (1981) showed the fetus to be a hearing, sensing, feeling being. By the fourth month of gestation, the unborn child can

62

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

frown, squint, and grimace. By the fifth month, the child is sensitive to touch. At 4 to 5 months, the unborn child reacts to sounds and melodies; Vivaldi and Mozart cause the child to relax, while Beethoven and Brahms stimulate movement. It has been reported that the fetus hears clearly from the sixth month in utero and can be seen to move in rhythm to the mother’s speech. It is now concluded that the auditory experience of the unborn child is significant. DeCasper (cited in Diamond, 1998) found sound preferences in newborns, such as the mother’s voice and her heartbeat. He also found that the fetus is not just listening, but, more important, learning in the womb as well. By 5 months in utero, the fetus is very sensitive to light (Verny, 1981). By the seventh or eighth month in utero, the neural circuits of the fetus are as advanced as a newborn’s, and the cerebral cortex is mature enough to support consciousness. Memory may begin somewhere between the sixth and the eighth month of gestation. Reconfirming earlier data, Chamberlain (1993) found that the fetus is highly complex. The senses of sight, taste, and hearing are in place long before birth, and the sense of smell begins as gestation ends. The rapid eye movement (REM) style of dreaming is thought to occur while the infant is still in the womb. Choosing natural childbirth and using relaxation techniques during fetal development and birth promote more alert and responsive mental states for the infant. Verny (1981) showed evidence that how children are born—how painfully, violently, or smoothly—affects who they will become and how they will view the world around them. Study after study shows that happy, contented women are far more likely to have bright, outgoing infants. The when and how of optimal development—the beginning of giftedness—must be seen as occurring before birth. Intelligence depends in part on the life of the unborn child.

From Birth through 3 Months The first 3 months of postnatal life may be the most critical for the infant’s developing brain since the first trimester of intrauterine fetal life. During this period, the infant has no mobility and depends on the caregiver for all intellectual stimulation. We know that the baby can see, hear, and smell and can do all these things with discrimination. Here is a baby ready to interact with the environment, ready to learn. In too many cases, this interaction is severely limited—so much so that some researchers have called this period the greatest deprivation period for many human infants. Researchers (cited in Goode & Burke, 1990) indicate that parenting must be very flexible and tailored to the unique needs of each infant. Infants vary greatly from birth in temperament, activity level, and reaction to sound, light, and touch. Strong preferences are already being shown at 6 weeks of age. Parents have for years approached the cognitive areas of learning cautiously for fear of harming their child or teaching something the “wrong” way, so that it would need to be unlearned at a later time. With a responsive learning environment approach, there can be no wrong way of learning. In a situation in which the child and the parent respond sensitively to each other, only growth and pleasure in learning can be the outcome. The human infant has the ability to pick up logical rules. This important competency is basic and available from birth. Not only do infants notice detail in the

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

63

environment, but they also actively invent rules or theories to explain what they observe. Even at 3 weeks, an infant will have complex hypotheses about the world and will react with concern if proven wrong. Over and over in the literature on development of intellectual capacity, we find reference to the importance of responding to an infant’s cues or signals of distress. One of the differences for infants who are raised in an institution when compared to those who are raised in a home is that institution personnel do not attend to crying behavior. The results indicate that institutionalized infants lose their sense of control over the environment and become passive, externally motivated children. This does not produce optimal intellectual growth. The quantity, timing, and degree of consistency of the caregiver’s responses to the infant play important roles in developing and reinforcing the infant’s belief that his or her behavior can affect the environment. This belief regarding inner locus of control, the belief that one matters in the world, seems to be learned early in life. At around 6 weeks, infants can distinguish color, calculate distances as being reachable or nonreachable, and see shapes and intensity of light. Between 8 and 12 weeks, infants’ capacity for interaction dramatically develops, and infants begin to smile, vocalize, and hold eye-to-eye contact. By 3 months of age, infants begin to show curiosity, anger, pleasure, and assertiveness. They know what to expect from their mothers and are disturbed by deviation too far from the usual routine. Animation and simple playful exchanges of vocalizing and smiling with caregivers begin to establish the patterns of healthy socialization. Not only is cognitive stimulation necessary, but also the amount of emotional involvement has been shown to predict later intellectual development. Early laughter at complex events is probably one of the best predictors of growing intelligence because it taps the motivational, attentional, affective, and cognitive abilities of the infant. Rocking and cuddling infants will reassure them and allow them to feel wanted and loved. Parents should also respond to babies’ coos and giggles. In this way, infants learn that they can influence the world and that they really matter. Infants will learn that actions other than crying bring attention. However, one need not wait for these signals. Playing regularly with babies, enjoying them, and displaying spontaneity and affection will establish a basis for loving that will last a lifetime. Such care will allow infants to develop into trusting, loving, warm human beings. Children prior to 2 years of age require demonstrations and modeling behaviors on the part of the caregiver. The person in charge of the infant needs to provide a variety of language patterns, visual encounters, and other sensory opportunities for the growing infant. However, such interaction should be responsive to the child. Fear of overstimulation is unnecessary as infants rarely allow themselves to be overstimulated without giving some indication to the offending adult. In this context, consider the response some thoughtless parents get when they take tired infants into restaurants or public meetings. We can all vouch for the unmistakable messages the infant is sending. To be most facilitative in developing a child’s potential, direct guidance is advisable and necessary before 2 years of age, whereas opportunities for discovery and encounters within a rich environment are preferred after that age. Guidance will, of course, still be necessary. A responsive learning environment can occur only through an aware adult who responds to signals initiated by the child. Stimulation and demonstration of language

64

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

and skills are available only if the adult provides them. Be aware that most social interaction with a baby from birth to 18 months occurs during caregiving activities such as changing diapers, dressing, bathing, and feeding. These activities should be treated not as chores to get out of the way as quickly as possible, but as learning opportunities and as times to communicate with the baby. Parents are encouraged to smile and talk a lot even if they feel the baby cannot understand. These are important moments in the baby’s life. A major factor in their successful development of competent infants is the parents’ belief that they can influence their child’s mental development. Siegel (1999) reminds us that “parenting has a direct effect on developmental outcome, even in the face of significant inherited features of physiological reactivity” (pp. 20–21). Table 2.5 gives specific suggestions to families for activities most appropriate to this age group.

From 4 Months through 10 Months Much physical activity occurs from 4 months through 10 months and will remain a dominant factor throughout infancy. Societies that value and use physical affection and bodily contact in rearing their young produce relatively nonviolent adults (Restak, 1979). Among the most productive methods of providing such contact are holding, carrying, rocking, and cuddling the child. Restak considers movement and physical closeness absolute requirements for normal brain development and believes that immobility alone can create abnormal mental experiences and disturbed behavior. Understimulation can result in later hyperactivity. During this period, interest in active exploration will also be noticeable; infants explore by touching, by mouthing, with sounds, by reaching, and always visually. The amount of visual experience, the decor and colorfulness of the home, the presence of a variety of responsive play objects, and the freedom to explore the environment are seen to have a significant relationship with performance on infant testing from 5 months to 36 months. The infant enjoys people now more than before and develops obviously affectionate ties. The period from 4 months through 10 months can be delightful for both child and caregiver. Table 2.6 gives specific suggestions of activities appropriate for infants 4 through 10 months old.

From 11 Months through 2 Years White (1975), in his work at the Harvard Pre-School Project, established this period as the most decisive for intellectual development. White thinks it essential to nurture balanced development in many areas, including children’s interests, people, exploration of the world, and use of motor skills. This period will bring essential development in language, curiosity, motivation, social skills, and intelligence. The major driving force seems to be curiosity. The infant’s curious nature establishes roots and begins to flower into motivation. Unreasonably applied limits and controls can cause frustration, leaving the child aimless and internally unmotivated. Allowing a baby to freely explore the environment, made safe by having dangerous items placed out of reach, is important to intellectual growth. The environment need not be filled with expensive toys. Any small,

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

TABLE 2.5 Creating a Responsive Learning Environment for Early Learning: From Birth through 3 Months Caregiver Activities

Because

Respond to infant’s activity and signals (e.g., awakening and looking); offer objects for baby to look at.

Establishes feeling of inner locus of control, ability of child to affect the environment.

Respond to distress signals (crying) and give attention to cause. Crying it out is definitely not recommended.

Establishes a code of mutual expectancy.

Breastfeed if possible, for the benefits to both the infant and the mother. If you must bottle feed, change positions for each feeding (e.g., right arm holding baby, then left). This happens naturally when breastfeeding.

Encourages development and coordination of both eyes.

Change position of crib in room.

Increases visual stimulation.

Place mobiles over crib, patterned with a variety of shapes, colors (make your own); use patterned sheets, clear bumpers; change position and surroundings of infant.

Develops visual complexity skills, nourishes growth of intelligence through heightened interaction with the environment, stimulates curiosity.

Rock infant while holding next to chest for 10-minute periods; pick up infant and place on the shoulder. Rocking chairs are most useful at this age.

Infants handled in this manner show more visual attention than other infants.

Allow bare-skin cuddling, yours and baby’s; rub baby’s skin with nubby towel when drying; tickle, squeeze, and pinch a little in games; give baby “feely” objects, put them in hand (e.g., velvet, silk, sponge).

Stimulates sensory development; baby learns about feeling.

Turn lights on and off for visual stimulation.

Infants are normally overly sensitive to bright sunlight; care must be taken not to create discomfort.

Provide a variety of sounds and speech patterns (music box, a variety of rhythms, voices).

These are important prelanguage experiences.

Sing songs to your baby throughout the day and end with an evening lullaby. Move baby’s arms and legs to rhythm of songs on occasion.

Intimately and familiarly introduces music and rhythm; soothes baby.

Play vocal games, imitate baby’s cooing, introduce real words by naming body parts and toys.

Familiar sounds are of high interest to infants; builds vocabulary, initiates conversation, establishes babies’ perceived control of their lives.

Allow lots of different smells.

Stimulates olfactory sense.

Introduce the playpen or a hard, broad surface, not carpeted. It allows baby to move from room to room with you. Cover the floor with a plastic mat and turn baby loose on tummy. Keep temperature up so that baby can play without restrictive clothing (85°F). Play on floor with baby, be near; encourage movement (e.g., rolling over, creeping).

Allows intellectual stimulation.

Place baby in an infant seat or baby swing and move it from room to room as you do your chores.

Allows visual, intellectual stimulation while having security of nearness to caregiver.

Carry baby in front pack or other soft carrier when possible.

Allows parent to do chores and talk to baby while baby watches, listens, and naps next to heartbeat.

65

66

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

TABLE 2.6 Creating a Responsive Learning Environment for Early Learning: From 4 through 10 Months Caregiver Activities

Because

Use playpen only until baby becomes mobile; if used later, only for very short periods (5 to 10 minutes).

Playpen restricts environmental interaction, limits intellectual development.

Provide toys of interest, such as mirrors (very appealing to baby now; be sure they are safe, unbreakable); stacking toys; moderately small objects for dropping, throwing, banging. Moving and pop-up toys are interesting late in this period. Be cautious about expensive “educational toys”; it is not necessary to buy toys; homemade toys, designed to baby’s needs, are often far better.

Provide intellectual stimulation.

Play games with fingers and toes, stroke legs, pat back; talking and identifying parts of baby can also be added. Encourage baby to pat caregiver, touch fingers, play pat-a-cake; allow to play unrestrained by clothing.

These activities contribute to the baby’s perception of self and the beginnings of cognitive experience.

Play peek-a-boo games.

Provide visual, auditory, problem-solving stimulation; encourage cognitive anticipation.

Play, talk, and interact with infant during all caregiving activities.

Most important for language development and motivation.

Encourage new games invented by baby such as drop toy—caregiver picks it up—baby drops toy.

Baby develops beginnings of inner locus of control, senses an active influence on environment; increases motivation.

Play games using eyes and language in games, such as “Look at Daddy, look at Mommy, look at baby’s foot, look at kitty, look at. . . .” (include things above, below, to right, to left).

Promotes eye coordination and focus, language experience, coordinating sight and sound, words with things.

Take trips to the grocery store, drugstore, department store (only when baby is rested, not during usual nap time). While on trips, talk about what is being seen.

Alert attention to varied environments and allow enrichment of sensory experience.

Cook and talk to baby, talk at meals, encourage baby to use words (infant seats are useful on trips or to have baby nearby as you work).

An important language experience.

Look at books and talk, read to baby; use different voices or create funny faces while reading.

Symbols of language become familiar, important, a source of fun and pleasure.

Carry baby in backpack for walks and while doing chores.

Allows baby to see the world and all that you do.

Use familiar lullaby tapes at nap and bedtimes.

Provides security in routine and encourages language skills.

Introduce baby to activities set to music; musical instruments.

Enjoyable and helps familiarize baby with music and rhythms.

67

Terrence Clark

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

Early exploration is important to mental development.

manipulatable, and visually detailed articles, objects on which to climb, and objects to move, all easily accessible, will provide much stimulation. As the baby increasingly experiments and interacts with the environment, guidance is necessary. Whenever possible, the natural environment should be used to provide correction for the baby’s misjudgments. In this way, natural consequences can themselves become teachers, and the baby can learn to change or adapt in his or her own way. Table 2.7 gives specific suggestions for activities appropriate for young children 11 months through 2 years old. A toddler I observed waiting for a plane with his mother was engaged in exploration of the airport environment. Suddenly, as the child was walking along a railing, he came to a hinged gate that opened into the area behind the counter. The hinge was fairly strong, but the child could swing the gate open a short way before it returned to a closed position on its own. The toddler pushed the gate open over and over, intent upon watching the hinge and the automatic return of the gate. He was neither hurting nor bothering anyone. Even if the gate had closed on his hand, it would have caused little discomfort and would have provided a lesson the child would likely have incorporated into his schema for swinging doors. However, his mother saw him moving the gate and rushed to scold and spank, hurting him far more than the gate would have. Noisy crying followed, accompanied by more spanking. What should have been a useful learning experience became a power struggle, ending with a frustrated, sobbing little boy commanded to sit in an overly large adult chair until his mother felt he could “behave himself.” This was in contrast to a mother I observed on a ferry one afternoon cautiously monitoring her toddler’s actions while appearing unconcerned. Only when the child approached a dangerous situation, such as an open ventilation duct, did the mother move up to him to distract him to some new interest. She never interfered with his dignity or attempted to be overly controlling. Both the mother and the little boy were enjoying the trip.

68

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

TABLE 2.7 Creating a Responsive Learning Environment for Early Learning: From 11 Months through 2 Years Caregiver Activities

Because

Organize and design a safe physical environment that allows for a variety of sensory experiences; family living areas and outdoor areas should be available for exploration of the senses.

Gives intellectual stimulation, supports later learning, strengthens perception and problem-solving abilities.

Visual: plants, fish in bowls, pictures, patterned objects, mirrors. Auditory: exposure to many types of music, voices, rhythms, singing, bells, drums, shakers, music boxes, animal sounds. Tactile: a variety of textures to feel (soft, hard, rough, smooth), sculpture, finger food, mud play, finger paints, painting with Jell-O. Olfactory: bakery smells, flower smells, farm and field smells. Gustatory: snacks of differing tastes and textures. Provide a variety of toys and household objects to play with: for stringing, nesting, digging, pounding, screwing; construction toys (pieces not too small), pegboards, record players, magnets, magnetic letters, alphabet blocks, prisms, water toys, flashlights, spin tops, jigsaw puzzles, magnifying glasses, dolls, collections of small objects, toy animals, various household tools, books, and art materials. Play games like hide-and-seek, treasure hunts, guessing games, matching and sorting, finger games, circle games; encourage and provide materials for imitative play, such as “I do what you do.”

Facilitates concept development, practice in planning and carrying out complicated projects, anticipating consequences, developing skills of problem solving.

Teach child to be aware of and name objects in the environment (including baby’s own body parts). This can be done by playing games with the caregiver, giving names to objects as they are used.

Provides language experience.

Look at scrapbooks with child, read books to child, make books familiar. Be sure to involve the child in the reading activities; help child “read” stories to dolls, other siblings, and relatives.

Provides symbolic language experiences.

Make scrapbooks with the child of pictures of animals, cars, trips. These can become the child’s own books.

Gives language experience.

Talk to baby during all caregiving activities: bathing, dressing, eating; use patterns of speech with baby that you use with other members of the family; short 20- to 30-second “conversations” are important.*

Helps baby to understand more complicated sentences, increases language background and experience.

Take neighborhood walks to library, stores, playgrounds, on collection excursions, out to feed birds; always discuss what is seen and experienced.

Provides a background of experiences for future concept building.

Include child in your activities whenever possible: cooking— use bowls and utensils; writing—child can write with crayons; painting—child can paint with water.

Builds self-esteem while giving the child a better understanding of your work.

*When engaging children in “conversation” try to talk about what they are doing from their perspective. Try to understand their meaning for the activity and what they may be learning from it. Then try to give them something new and interesting to think about along the same lines. Allow children to initiate the activity and then respond enthusiastically, but be careful not to insist on doing it only your way.

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

69

Toddlers spend most of their time gaining information, building concepts, and observing. Children are remarkably curious from 10 months to 2 years of age about things adults would find totally uninteresting, such as hinged doors, cellophane wrappers, tiny pieces of dust, and plant leaves. Parents should expect fascinated repetitions and allow for them. As children become more mobile, they need to interact with a rich environment for optimal intellectual development to occur. Access to the living areas and outdoor areas enhances children’s discovery and self-initiated activities. In this way, children can begin their own self-initiated, autonomous learning. To develop the goal-directed behavior so important to learning activity, children from 10 months through 2 years of age must experience satisfaction from their efforts, response to their actions, support for reaching out, safety, acceptance, and trust. Only as these are made a part of their lives will children begin to explore and move cognitively toward mastery of more complex skills. If deprived of these experiences, their motivation for learning and potential for wonder and discovery will be stunted. Creativity as well as competence will suffer.

A Responsive Learning Environment for Early Learning A responsive learning environment that promotes optimal learning is rich in experiences and varied in materials and responds to a child’s abilities, needs, and interests. It is one of the first steps in optimizing learning. Brown and Pollitt (1996) have shown that a lack of environmental stimulation between 1 to 3 years of age can lower IQ scores and learning ability. We can best provide a responsive learning environment by relying on the child to select, from a large quantity of activities provided, those events or experiences that are personally stimulating. These would provide the best match for each child’s point in development. Based on research from the neurosciences, a responsive learning environment should provide a nutritious diet with adequate amounts of protein, vitamins, minerals, and calories. It should stimulate all the senses, though not necessarily all at once, and provide a dependable source of positive emotional support free from undue pressure and stress. The environment should present a series of novel challenges that are neither too easy nor too difficult for the child at his or her stage of development, and promote the development of a broad range of skills and interests that are mental, physical, aesthetic, social, and emotional. To be responsive and nurturing, the environment should allow for social interaction for a significant percentage of activities and give the child an opportunity to choose many of his or her own activities. It is most important that the child’s environment provides an enjoyable atmosphere that promotes exploration and enjoyment of learning and allows the child to be an active participant rather than a passive observer. In such an environment we must give the child a chance to assess the results of his or her efforts and to modify them. The best guide to any child’s optimal development will be the observations of the child during interaction within a responsive learning environment. DISCIPLINE During this period of beginning mobility, the pattern for discipline will be established. As a part of creating a responsive learning environment, the way in which children are disciplined communicates the beliefs and values of their families, contributes to their

70

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

understanding of appropriate ways to handle problems, and models behaviors of support and guidance or anger and fear. Methods of discipline can enhance or inhibit the curiosity, inquiry, and confidence that optimize learning. As we have seen, the authoritarian style of parenting has been linked to lower levels of cognitive function (Campbell & Ramey, 1995). Although each child responds differently to various methods of discipline, keep in mind that your actions teach far more than your words and that each action has long-term as well as short-term consequences. Positive guidance has proven far more productive of good behavior than punishment. Larson, Ham, and Raffaelli (1989) found that over time any gains made by external rewards and punishments erode with rewards leading only to interest in gaining more rewards and punishment leading only to frustration, dependence, and hopelessness. Only activities that elicit intrinsic motivation and sustained attention allow children to experience high levels of enjoyment and learning. Misbehavior should indicate to the caregiver that some guidance is needed. Rather than watching children make an error and then punishing them, try to anticipate the error and warn them that they are approaching a decision point. We can prepare children to look ahead. We should encourage reflection, give practice in alternative thinking, and share our knowledge of the consequences. Children must also have some alternative coping techniques. The answer to how children can develop the ability to think in terms of consequences and alternatives, to build rationales, and to become good problem solvers and good choosers can be found within the family. Family acceptance and the child’s response to that acceptance are critical factors in developing self-esteem and intellectual potential during this period. SENSITIVE AND CRITICAL PER IODS FOR LEARNING The concept of a sensitive period was suggested by Bloom’s (1964) hypothesis that the environment in which the individual develops will have the greatest effect on a specific characteristic during its most rapid period of change. During this period, all systems—visual, mental, and motor—are ready to be used. If activated by the environment, they will be used together at peak efficiency. The time when an organizational process (e.g., depth of vision) accelerates most rapidly is a critical period for the resulting organization. Failure to use such a process during this time results in loss of the process or function (Vygotsky, 1974). Visual Complexity. The period from birth to 2 months is one of the first intellectually sensitive periods when visual complexity is best learned. The classic study conducted by Fantz in 1961 established that babies see from the moment of birth. They seem to have an innate ability to perceive patterns, thereby facilitating the development of form perception (Fantz, 1965). Given opportunities to interact with patterns of varying degrees of complexity, infants seem to prefer more complex designs. In their order of preference, the complexity of printed matter is second only to a preference for the human face. This information allowed delineation of the first sensitive period for learning, birth to 2 months, as the time when the human infant can most easily acquire form perception. It is critical that the environment provide patterns to be viewed during this sensitive learning period if the ability is to be optimally used. The need for visual stimulation makes it important to use body packs and carriers when moving through the environment and doing daily chores.

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

71

If this period is not used, the infant will still need to develop visual skills. However, the delay not only retards development, but also may result in less than optimal use of the child’s potential. Hearing. Brazelton and Als (1979) have shown that at birth babies can orient themselves to sound and synchronize their body movements to rhythm. In addition to hearing very early, babies seem to have an inborn genetic ability to elicit and respond to the meanings expressed through inflections in conversation (Restak, 1986). When the talk becomes gibberish or is just the recitation of the alphabet, babies do not respond. Language. Another sensitive period, in addition to those mentioned for visual complexity and hearing, exists for language development. Linguists have theorized that between 18 months and 4 years of age, every human has available an innate ordering device for learning language, referred to as the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) (Chomsky, 1966; McNeill, 1966). During this LAD period, the environment of the child must be rich in language experience. Never again will the child have the ability to learn language-related activities with such ease. Early language development is a trait often found in gifted children. In her studies of highly gifted children, Hollingworth (1942) found this to be consistently true. By 2 years of age, many children have extensive vocabularies and speak in complex sentences. The experience of seeing, hearing, and forming words stimulates neural dendrites and circuits in the brain and causes the left hemisphere’s language centers to grow and specialize. This, in turn, allows the baby to understand and speak more efficiently. As a result, the child reaps both brain stimulation and emotional development if bathed in communication. (Diamond, 1998, p. 135)

Young children will acquire language effortlessly if they are surrounded by language, but the kind of language they acquire—whether an instrument of clarity, precision, and imagination or only a tool to handle biological and social exchanges—will depend on the linguistic environment supplied by adults. According to Vygotsky and Luria (1994), language is a mental tool that allows thinking to be more abstract, flexible, and independent from any immediate stimuli. Language builds the cognitive processes in part by allowing the child to imagine, manipulate, and create new ideas and in part by facilitating a shared experience in which the child exchanges social information with others. “Opportunities to hear and practice language will directly influence the future development of higher mental functions” (Bodrova & Leong, 1995, p. 23). Children who are developing higher levels of mental ability tend to use more complex words than is usual for children their age (Tucker & Hafenstein, 1997). Reading as a visual language experience is analogous to speech as an auditory language experience. Both represent receptive language, and both may present similar cognitive problems to the learner. As early as the 1960s, researchers (Chomsky, 1966; Moore, 1961, 1967) believed that the LAD period presented the child with an advantage in organizing visual language input (reading), as it does for other language experiences. I found with my research that children express the same confidence and joy expressed in earlier research (Durkin, 1966; Fowler, 1962) on the outcome of early

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Terrence Clark

72

Reading to children is an enjoyable activity that supports the ability to learn.

reading activity. I am convinced that reading is a natural, happy event if introduced during the LAD period. What we do at 6 years of age may be remedial reading. In an environment that responds as the children direct, that is rich in good language experiences, children enjoy learning in their own way. Learning to read is no exception, yet some years ago educators informed parents that early learning was a waste of time. People accepted the notion that children who learned later would catch up anyway. Too many people, without looking at newer data, still believe this to be true. In the middle 1960s, Durkin (1966) gave a different view of children who read early. Her research showed that children who enter school already reading have a learning advantage that continues to accelerate during the school years. By sixth grade, far from “catching up,” the late readers (those learning to read in first grade) are increasingly lagging behind the early readers in performance. Fowler (1963) found much the same to be true and believed that early reading significantly supported the higher intellectual development of his children. He not only found that reading was easily accomplished by younger children, but also felt that it enriched their play life and resulted in happier, more well-rounded children. It seems that, as Diamond (1998) contends, early exposure to a rich language environment does more than just build a big vocabulary or complex speech; it actually structures the brain’s entire cognitive mechanism and the level at which the child will interact with and understand the world. We have long known that gifted children may read early. Could it be that children are gifted because they read early? Could this activity and other types of stimulation set into motion structural changes in the brain that result in high-level intellectual

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

73

development? The data now available support this possibility. Learning is cumulative. If we are to optimize the learning opportunities of our children, we must take advantage of those periods when learning proceeds most rapidly and efficiently.

EARLY CHILDHOOD: ENSURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH POTENTIAL From 2 through 5 years of age, the child’s mental powers show rapid growth. Speech, mobility, and increasing social involvement all add to fast-paced intellectual development. From the work of Campbell and Ramey (1995) come essentials for positive nurture: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Encourage children to explore. Praise their accomplishments. Help them practice and expand their basic skills. Protect them from disapproval, teasing, and punishment. Surround them with a rich, responsive language environment.

Two-year-olds may seem inflexible and are often very vocal about their demands. Their energy is abundant and their curiosity is high. Children at this age enjoy routine because they have difficulty making up their minds. Three-year-olds seem to feel much more secure about their world. As language and motor activities rapidly develop and social skills increase, this age group needs caregivers to explain and model behaviors such as generosity, altruism, and care for others. Other important conditions for 3-year-olds include affection and responsiveness to the child’s needs, a stimulating and varied environment, encouragement of exploration and independence, and fair discipline. The play materials from previous periods are useful, but in different ways. Threeyear-olds create, draw, pretend, and imagine, but only if allowed to and if provisions for these activities have been made. Space to explore their way and time to “do it myself” are needed. Children at this age are now thinkers. However, what most cognitive psychologists are describing is the development of only one of our mind functions, the linear, rational function. What about our other functions of the mind, those integrated into the metaphoric, intuitive, more holistic thinking valued by Einstein, Bruner, da Vinci, Salk, and a myriad of other creative thinkers who have changed our culture? Where the linear, rational mind views by seeing the differences, the creative, intuitive mind views by seeing the connections, allowing an extension or expansion of the original idea. “The petal of the flower looked like white velvet” provides two unlike objects that serve, by the connection, to extend and enhance your view of the flower. The creative, intuitive mind is available throughout our lives and its use can be shown to result in higher feelings of self-confidence, self-esteem, and compassion; a

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

©Shutterstock

74

Children at this age are now thinkers.

wider exploration of traditional content and skills; and higher levels of creative invention. However, current teaching strategies, environments, and curricula often neglect its use. The acceptance of the metaphoric, holistic functions of the creative, intuitive mind that occur at the beginning stages of young children’s learning experiences seems to disappear as they progress in school. Teachers at home and at school must accept and value this important part of each child, encourage its development, and create spaces for its use. This will allow the development and integration of both linear, rational and creative, intuitive functions of the mind, thereby optimizing the actualization of the child’s fullest potential.

The Preschool Experience After 3 years of age, learning experiences with other children become important. Such experiences allow children over age 3 to enrich their personal, social, intellectual, and language development. Children who have preschool experiences that are focused on planned exploration and development of learning skills do significantly better in school achievement than children placed in programs focused on free play. Gross (1999) has found that early reading, speech, and mobility among highly gifted children allow them to explore for themselves earlier than their age-peers of average ability, while their early speech enables them to express their ideas, seek information, and interact verbally with their families and teachers. By age 4, gifted children are often very verbal, and teachers use high levels of this ability to identify very able children. In addition, 4-year-olds are alert, curious, attentive, and active and can easily be engaged in the excitement of learning. At this age,

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

75

children show emotions that make it relatively easy for an observant teacher to provide an appropriate learning environment responsive to the child’s needs and interests. Each 4-year-old seems to be a bundle of sensorimotor energy. Four-year-olds are still living in a “me first” world. As with younger children, discovering how and at what level these children function, and then challenging and supporting their growth, comprise the primary job of their teachers, both at home and at school. This Herculean task begins by simply watching the children interact with a responsive environment. They will let you know everything you need to know in order to enhance and educate them. However, some gifted children experience problems at preschool age because some preschool and kindergarten teachers have trouble accepting the accomplishments of such advanced learners. The curriculum may be at too low of a level and focus on skills already mastered by these children (Dalzell, 1998). Developmental theories provide the basis for many preschool programs and are often interpreted as age-related development instead of being focused on the actual development of the child. Gifted children seldom find age-peers who have similar interests, and Dalzell notes that the preference for older playmates and the joy they find in the company of adults are difficult to satisfy in such settings. Their advanced vocabulary can make it difficult for them to relate to others their age and they fail to understand why other children cannot keep up with them. Too often the result is frustration, and the gifted child chooses to either hide knowledge and skills or become an assistant teacher. Although gifted children need to be allowed to select meaningful and challenging activities, in many preschool programs this may not be possible. Chris Hoehner, an outstanding teacher of gifted learners, shares the following suggestions for creating a productive, healthy social-emotional climate in the learning setting: 1.

Share much of the decision making by placing more of it in the hands of the children.

2. Include the children in resolving their arguments and differences. One procedure is to take both children aside and follow this plan: STEP 1: Child A is allowed to tell what happened without being interrupted. Then child B is allowed to tell what happened without being interrupted. Child A responds to child B, and then child B responds to child A until what has happened has been exhausted. (Remember, they are discussing just what happened, not what will happen or what should have happened.) STEP 2: Child A tells what he or she wants (example: child B must stop hitting child A in the shoulder); child B tells what he or she wants (example: child A must stop pulling the ball out of child B’s hands). STEP 3: The teacher asks child A if child A can agree to what child B wants and then asks child B if child B can agree to what child A wants. STEP 4: At agreement, the teacher excuses both children. Most often an agreement is reached, but when one is not, the teacher reconvenes the meeting to determine an action on which they both can agree.

76

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

3. Use questions as a tool for growth. For example, if a child who has a cut hears the teacher say, “How can I help?” the child then can decide if a hug, a bandage, or an ice cube is needed. The teacher then moves to help. When a child says, “I can’t find anything to do,” the teacher can respond with “What have you missed here today? Let’s look. Do you see a center that you’ve forgotten? How about trying that one? How long would you say is fair? Will you let me know how it works out?” On occasion, however, questions have a deleterious effect and must be redirected. When a child is revealing something sensitive in a trust group, expressing a loss or a joy, or needing to relate an experience, the child’s intense look should remind the teacher, “No questions—this child needs to unload this.” Patient, eye-to-eye contact helps teachers know when to ask questions. 4. Use “I” statements. As with children and adults of all ages, “I” statements empower both the teacher and the learner. When a teacher says, “You need to help me,” “You need to try harder,” and “You need to go out now,” the statements not only are misleading, but also may be untrue. What is actually being revealed is the teacher’s need, and statements such as “I need you to help me,” “I need you to try harder,” and “I need you to go out now” set an honest emotional climate, inviting much more cooperation. 5. Promote the spontaneous spark. As the child rushes to the board with “I can do it!” do not insist on a raised hand or a wait-your-turn lesson. Listen, evaluate, approve, encourage, and then invite the child to carry the idea further after sitting back down. For example, a guest speaker has just given a lecture/demonstration of the instruments of a symphony orchestra. The children are invited to experience the instruments at centers around the room. Roger walks thoughtfully to the center where the drums, cymbals, bells, and a baton have been placed. He picks up the baton and with great authority raps on a desk for attention from all the “musicians” in the room. He then carefully conducts a symphony of his own for the next 10 minutes with all of the children participating with their instruments. The rules about rotating and taking turns can be suspended for those 10 minutes with a nonverbal understanding between the teacher and the children. (Hoehner’s suggestions are included here with permission.) Vanessa Lucas, a highly successful director of a child care center, believes that the most important thing to remember in establishing a responsive learning environment for early learners is to frame all comments and instructions in the positive. Instead of saying “Don’t run inside” or “Please don’t be so loud,” try saying “Use your walking steps now, please” or “Please use your inside voice.” Although she admits that it is hard to remember sometimes, the more teachers can use positive statements, the better the climate is and the more supportive the children become. Diezmann and English (2001) have found another area young gifted learners should have the opportunity to explore. Most young children have a limited understanding of large numbers. This lack of understanding can be problematic for young gifted children, as such concepts are important to topics that interest them, such as space travel. If they are to be able to delve into space resource material, they need to

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

77

develop multidigit number sense; that is, “understanding of and flexibility in using multiunit numbers . . . include intuitive feelings for numbers and their uses” (p. 11). Young children are often unaware of the existence of large numbers. They are amazed at the number of digits needed to represent large numbers symbolically in contrast to the number’s verbal name. Diezmann and English report that, once aware of these concepts, “the children developed a fascination for large numbers, and derived enjoyment from conducting mathematical investigations” (p. 13). This early learning opportunity would later empower their work as mathematicians. The curriculum for all preschool children must be rich in variety and stimulating in process. For those who are developing faster and show higher levels of intelligence, such variety and stimulation are even more necessary. In their experiences, we can include more activities allowing self-direction, exposure to more abstract concepts, and more involvement with the tools and skills for operating in the areas of reading, mathematics, science, research, art, music, and writing. A home or classroom that seeks to optimize growth in young children will incorporate the same elements found in Chapter 10 for organizing responsive, individualized learning environments. The differences will be found in the timing, strategies, and the amount of support needed. Decentralization of the classroom is appropriate with centers or areas for academic and artistic activities. Choice making can be developed and used by children as young as age 2 and gives the children a sense of competency and achievement as it does to children further along in their learning. Even very young children can learn to manage their own choice of centers or areas in which to participate, their use of time, and other experiences leading them toward becoming independent learners. It takes more complex planning and structuring to allow the necessary freedom and independence that develop high levels of interaction for young children and ultimately produce higher levels of intelligence. However, the results are so valuable and so important to the future of the child that any parent or teacher would be well advised to expend this extra effort. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) supports the idea of “developmentally appropriate practice” for early childhood education (Willis, 1993). Such practices are intended to be responsive to the aspects of teaching and learning that change with the age and experience of the learner and to provide schooling that reflects what we know about how children develop and learn. Included must be each child’s own development, interests, and cultural background. It is not enough to know what is age-appropriate; one must also consider the individual child in all areas of development. This philosophy of teaching offers guidelines that reflect the complexity of the child as shown in Figure 2.5. The curriculum for young gifted children must play to the ages and stages of growth by always stretching just a bit beyond the normative expectations. Viewing each stage of development as an exciting opportunity for growth will allow a far more appropriate learning situation. For example, the “terrible twos” are seen as a time for testing the limits, for risk taking; the threes begin real involvement with opportunities

78

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 2.5

A Parent’s Guide to a Toddler’s Responsive Learning Environment

Make use of famous works of art: Change the pictures in the child’s room once a month. Have available varied pictures, posters, charts, etc. Traditional children’s pictures can be mixed with reproductions of famous works of art (usually available on loan from libraries, museums, or universities). Hang some of the reproductions at the child’s eye level. Hayward states, “A two-yearold child I knew would often get out of her bed at nap time and sleep on the floor underneath a picture that she adored which was taped about two and one-half feet above the floor” (p.17). ■

■ Have a surprise bag: Change the object once or twice a week. Without looking inside the bag the child puts his or her hand inside, then feels the surprise and tries to guess what it is. Begin with objects that are easy to identify and, as the child’s ability to observe and analyze increases, use objects that are less readily distinguishable. Treat the child’s mistakes as helpful clues and encourage risk-taking. ■ Hang educational charts: Have charts of the alphabet, animals, the development of a seed into a plant, etc., on the wall for the child to observe and discuss. (These charts are available at educational supply stores.) Clear contact paper extends the life expectancy of pictures or paper materials that children will be handling.

■ Use child-sized bookshelves: Place the bookshelves low enough to allow children to reach books, magazines, catalogs, department store fliers, and other reading materials that are an important part of the child’s environment. ■ Use the yard as a laboratory: The yard can be a marvelous laboratory wherein the child can observe and experiment. Such things as where puddles go, why shadows change their size and shape, how rocks can be so many different colors, etc., can be fascinating. Do some of the experiments listed in children’s science books.

Use the community for learning: Libraries, museums, children’s theaters, concerts, tide pools, markets, and businesses all enrich the child’s experience. Prepare for the “field trip” by discussing and reading about the whats and whys of the place you will be visiting. Have the child ready to look for some specific item or event when you go. Be sure to discuss the trip when you return, and allow the child to do something to record or remember the important things that were observed. An increasing number of resources and classes to help children develop important skills are now available for the toddler. ■

Source: Adapted from Early Learners (pp. 16–18) by A. Hayward, 1985, Los Angeles: The Education Institute.

to build social skills; during the fours, children move from “me” to others; and the fives provide endless possibilities for developing independence. A responsive learning environment allows the organic needs of the child to be met. Examples of an appropriate curriculum for pre-school children ages 1 to 3 can be seen in Table 2.8. When selecting a preschool for their gifted children, families can improve the likelihood of choosing an appropriate program by carefully observing at the preschool and answering the following questions: ■ ■

How do the teachers interact with the children? Do the teachers genuinely like children?

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

79

TABLE 2.8 Preschool Curriculum: 1–3 Years Caregiver Activities

Because

Provide objects for manipulation, such as blocks, bowls, and boxes.

Through touching, moving, and banging coordination is learned; relationships can be experienced.

Label your actions as you do them; label the child’s actions as he or she does them; encourage talking while thinking.

Facilitates the use of language for thinking.

Model use of print showing the emotional and social meanings; encourage children to explore and experiment for themselves; encourage writing to communicate and play.

Modeling promotes and encourages reading and writing activity.

Use the children’s intuitive insights and personal language to teach mathematics; promote self-confidence and autonomy for mathematical thinking; use sticks, stones, and other physical materials.

Children bring considerable mathematical experience to school with them; it should be acknowledged and used.

Teach the relationship between art and academic skills; transform their experience into artistic representations.

Enriches academic understanding and skills.

Provide intellectual peers to interact and play with.

Facilitates development of language, self-concept, and sensory-motor thinking.

Provide opportunities for drama and storytelling.

Promotes language, imagination, and the integration of thinking and emotion.

Allow children to make decisions and take increasing responsibility for learning and behavior.

Helps children develop independent thinking and action.

■

■

■ ■ ■

■ ■

Are the teachers being authentic, showing their real feelings, and letting the children know them as people? Is the environment nurturing for children? Is it attractive, colorful, and thoughtfully organized? Is it flexible, pleasant, and inviting? Does the environment change to stay interesting? Are there lots of different activities at different levels of difficulty? Are there activities to challenge and stretch the children’s thinking? Feelings? Intuition? Physical/sensing abilities? Can the children go as far as they want with an activity? Are there lots of skills for the children to master creatively?

Kerr (1994) suggests that parents should look for preschools that allow for individual differences and avoid those that segregate girls and boys. It is important that parents choose a preschool where there are lots of books and where looking at books, and even reading books, is encouraged. Children should have time with puzzles, mechanical toys, musical instruments, and art materials. Examples of preschool curriculum for 4- and 5-year-old children can be seen in Table 2.9.

80

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

TABLE 2.9 Preschool Curriculum: 4–5 Years Caregiver Activities

Because

Organize an environment that allows choice and a high degree of variety and novelty. Organize so that the child can follow through on an activity to its conclusion (e.g., when writing a story, illustrate it and bind into a book; when planting seeds, water and care for plant as it grows).

Helps develop an independent, autonomous learner; inner locus of control; intellectual stimulation; sense of responsibility.

Centers or areas where children can discover basic concepts (e.g., in math or science); practice specific school skills (e.g., writing, hole punching, use of ruler); and develop awareness of themselves.

Provide intellectual stimulation, cognitive skills, problem-solving abilities.

Provide inspiration and materials for children to write their own books and poems, with the help of an encouraging adult who will write as the story/poem is dictated.

Useful in developing creativity, basic reading skills, language experience, intuitive skills.

Provide a variety of art materials, such as glue, colored paper, scissors, beans, bits of yarn, ribbon, scraps of wood, crayons, large-sized paper, marking pens, water paints, clay; materials that will stretch them beyond where they have gone (e.g., “Find something inside the clay and let it come out with your hands.”).

Facilitates developing creativity, sensory skills, artistic and intuitive abilities.

Provide sharing times and social outings with other children; organize group games and cooperative activities; allow opportunities to settle differences with other children, guiding only when necessary.

Research shows that young children can increase their cooperative social interactions, ability to overcome obstacles and to talk with peers, and decrease negative behavior. This allows children to grow in social problem solving.

Make use of the community and the surrounding areas for field trips and exploration.

Develops a sense of competency, autonomy, deeper understanding and appreciation of nature.

Provide opportunities to establish a relationship with a significant adult friend.

Allows children to get another point of view on issues; acquaints them with other interests, language patterns, and vocabulary; allows them to be guided and listened to when they feel parents cannot.

Involved, caring families and teachers who provide ways for children to learn things that both they and the children find interesting produce the most effective environment for learning.

ADOLESCENCE: SUPPORTING UNIQUENESS Neuroscientists agree that one of the brain’s greatest growth spurts is around 10 years of age. Then the brain begins to scan and remove the weakest synapses, preserving only those that have been transformed by experience. There seems to be a huge surge in brain

81

©Shutterstock

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

Field trips provide important learning experiences.

rewiring just as we enter adolescence. In this way, the patterns of the brain’s functioning are formed. By the end of adolescence, the brain declines in plasticity, but increases in power (Nash, 1997). Neurologically, an enriched environment is critical during infancy and early childhood. However, during adolescence the impact of the environment may be just as great. During this period, the brain goes through reorganization and a thinning of the cells of the cortex; the patterns of adulthood emerge. Areas developed for weighing priorities, controlling impulses, forming strategies, A P P LY I N G and planning for the future, found in the prefrontal cortex, continue to BRAIN RESEARCH develop well into early adulthood. As the brain reorganizes, it goes to Education through a process of pruning, keeping the most used and activated functions and thinning out less used connections. A boring environment will allow a stronger thinning effect of the cortical scanning, making adolescent students very susceptible to losing mental ground (Diamond, 1998). Adolescents are often overwhelmed by the physical and emotional changes occurring during this period of growth, sometimes to the detriment of academic challenges. Personal goals that become the focus of adolescence include the need to ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

achieve independence. discover one’s identity as a person. establish personal and social values and philosophy. develop self-guidance, self-motivation, and self-esteem. become aware of the needs of others and of how they can contribute to meeting those needs.

82

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

explore and accept sexuality. acknowledge intellectual power. acquire life maintenance, career, and self-actualization skills. develop meaningful interpersonal relationships. explore reality structures by use of personal experiences.

Our society seems to be organized to ignore, and often actively inhibit, the physical, mental, and emotional transitions from child to adult. In some cultures, the transition is supported by ritual or is allowed to occur naturally as a useful phase of life. But in many cultures, including ours, achieving any meaningful place in the society must be delayed. Training for one’s life work is continued well beyond puberty, and control of one’s life is denied until well into the productive and creative phase of early adulthood. For many adolescents, such practices have forced the creation of subcultures of teenagers with values, morals, and lifestyles that seek to depart from the accepted values and traditions of the established culture. Many of the problems of this period are the result of the conflict between the teenagers’ feelings of who they are and what society wants them to be. Many try to transform themselves through various identities and roles with resulting periods of introspection and experimentation, with different substances, activities, and groups of friends. A teenager’s future may be radically altered by the ways in which identity and meaning are sought during this transition period. Gifted adolescents may be better equipped in many ways to meet the biological and psychological challenges of this period. Their ability to conceptualize, to see alternatives, to seek out diverse patterns and relationships, to delay closure (which allows them a higher degree of tolerance for ambiguity), and to express themselves in fulfilling ways will serve them well during this period of constant and often threatening change. But these very qualities that can lead to competence and power can result in some unique and sometimes overwhelming problems for these adolescents. Gifted adolescents have few role models of their own age to emulate, and they seldom find peer guides, which can result in a feeling of isolation. Existing guidelines for the average teenager often are not applicable to their needs. For example, consider the question of overload: How much is too much extracurricular activity or attempted academic coursework? Often there is a lack of challenge, no chance to push to their limits, to make mistakes, and to learn to cope. Because they do so many things well, how much exploring should they do? In how many areas? When should they begin to focus? Make career choices? Specialize? Gifted girls are especially vulnerable during this period. Society sends adolescent girls mixed messages. More than ever before, they are urged to contribute their abilities and talents to society. More careers are open for their choosing and higher levels within those careers now accept women. At the same time, the belief in male superiority still exists and sex-role stereotyping still inhibits socialization and development. If families, teachers, and peers view assertiveness, independence, leadership, and analytic and critical thinking as masculine, then the gifted girl will be forced to choose between being gifted and being feminine. Such a choice can be devastating to future goals and should never have to be made.

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

83

Gifted adolescents often see their own giftedness as an advantage in terms of their personal growth and academics, but as strongly negative in terms of its social implications. Manaster, Chan, Watt, and Wiehe (1994) found that the majority of their population of gifted adolescents did not sense a negative effect of their giftedness on their parents and friends, although many felt there was a negative reaction from their classmates. Social advantages reported were high regard and opportunities for leadership; the social disadvantages involved stereotyping. Both studies reaffirm the gifted adolescents’ view of their giftedness as multidimensional and that their perception of how others view their giftedness differs from their own. Both studies agree that counselors and school psychologists need to work more closely with gifted adolescents, clarifying and easing the struggle of being adolescent as well as gifted. Adolescence may be the most frustrating time for youth and those who care about them, but it is also the best time for encouraging self-initiative, independence, and the growth of the creative mind. This period of reconstruction can be the beginning of mature personal excellence.

The Physical Transition Not since the fetal period and the first 2 years of life has the physical structure of the human body changed as much or as quickly as it does during adolescence. The development of sex organs and new hormonal balances add to the bewildering array of physical changes to which adolescents must adjust. Unlike during infancy, these changes occur with the full awareness of the young person, who can observe the whole complex process with both joy and frustration. Gifted students who have been accelerated now find themselves with a physically more mature peer group, which can lead to more pronounced feelings of difference. Their proclivity for separating the activities of the mind and the body is now most evident, and unless opportunities are provided for integration, gifted adolescents may avoid physical pursuits. By using their verbal and rational strengths, they can achieve an understanding of the dramatic changes that are occurring. Teachers in the home and at school should address the gifted learners’ need to integrate mind and body by providing experiences that ■ ■

■

■ ■ ■ ■

heighten and clarify sensory awareness. promote awareness of the student’s own body and the creation of a positive body image. provide awareness of the need and the means for health maintenance and growth, emphasizing the pleasures of having a healthy body. clarify the physical responses to emotions. teach techniques of relaxation and tension reduction. allow self-expression through movement, pantomime, and dance. develop individual physical competence and the satisfaction of physical activity. Such experiences can be chosen by the student from a wide range of structured and nonstructured competitive, cooperative, and individual processes.

84

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner ■

■

■

teach one of the disciplines devoted to mind/body integration (Yoga, T’ai Chi Ch’uan, etc.). make the care and development of the student’s own body a part of an individual lifestyle. examine the implications of current social and political policies for the health of people in the community and throughout the world.

The Intellectual Transition For most adolescents, the intellectual transition marks the beginning of what Piaget (1952) calls formal operational thought. They now become capable of reasoning with alternative hypotheses and of entertaining the possible and the probable in addition to the real and the concrete. The gifted student has been performing many such tasks for years and is now faced with an intolerable amount of repetition and conceptual stagnation. Schools commonly use the middle school grades to review and reintroduce concepts developed in the later elementary years. For gifted students who have been allowed to accelerate according to their needs and abilities, such repetition is regressive. Even for those who have not had opportunities for acceleration, the repetition of known concepts can create boredom and indifference to classroom achievement. The organization of most middle schools makes personalized instruction, which was found to be highly beneficial for the gifted student during the elementary years, difficult to continue. The student is now faced with discrete time blocks and segregated subject matter as most middle schools begin the practice of educational departmentalization. The incidence of underachievement rises during this time. Boredom with school offerings, the need to challenge parental and teacher-related values, and the desire for group acceptance combine to create the denial of academic ability. Girls, especially, may succumb to the conformity needs of this period. Research shows that 10% to 20% of high school dropouts tested in the gifted range (Rimm, 1997). Reports from as early as the 1980s (Whitmore, 1980) confirm that at least half of the population of gifted adolescents does not achieve to the level of their tested ability. Gifted students are less teacher-motivated and more self-motivated; are more persistent; prefer some sound to quiet during concentrated study; prefer visual, tactile, or kinesthetic to auditory modes of learning; and prefer to learn alone. More than 80% of the highly gifted children studied by Gross (1993a, 1993b) reported intense social isolation in the inclusion classroom. Attempts to conform to the social and cultural expectations of the age-peer group, along with the unchallenging and repetitive curriculum, resulted in extreme and continuous intellectual and emotional frustration. The following suggestions can alleviate many of these problems: 1. Develop an academic core within the departmentalized setting by combining three periods with a team of two or three teachers. Gifted students can then be brought together for more appropriate instruction. Within such a core, flexible grouping can occur. Permitting able students to group for instruction at their level of need is far superior to the tracking plan employed by many middle and senior high school admin-

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

85

istrators. Core grouping allows recognition that the gifted student is not gifted in every subject, facilitates appropriate curricular modifications, and permits the advantages of mental peer interaction. Through the elective period choices, such a structure also allows broader exposure to students whose abilities may be in less academic areas. 2. Use mentors to help provide for the acceleration and depth of interest of gifted learners. Such specialized instructors can be found among the retired community, among parents, and within the business community of any city or town. 3. Use the resources of neighboring senior high schools, junior colleges, and universities. Many universities make special provisions for middle school students during summers, allowing them to take regular courses and accumulate credits on an official university transcript. Some institutions of higher education offer specially designed programs to middle school gifted and talented learners in selected disciplines throughout the academic year. Adolescent gifted students generally need opportunities to ■

■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■

■ ■

be exposed to various environments and cultures, including the aesthetic, economic, political, educational, and social aspects. work with peers, adults, and other students with expertise in the student’s areas of interest. explore advanced or unusual subject matter. acquire the skills to identify data needs, establish data organization, and collect data. develop data evaluation and decision-making skills. identify and clarify standards of comparison and evaluation. develop original applications of knowledge and understandings, including hypothesizing and testing hypotheses. examine and alter existing patterns physically and mentally. evaluate personal choices in terms of available data, individual needs and goals, and choice consequences. communicate and exchange ideas, information, and opinions in a variety of ways. apply their ideas to real-world situations.

The Social-Emotional Transition Acceptance, belonging, and self-esteem are areas of critical concern to the maturing adolescent. Up to this point in time, modeling, guidance, rewards, and punishments have been used to give them an external value structure and their own moral system. Giftedness brings special advantages and disadvantages to this process. Although all adolescents can be characterized as intense and can show rapid fluctuations in emotion and widely ranging mood swings (partly a result of biochemical changes that are occurring), gifted adolescents confound this behavior by interspersing

86

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

periods of unusual maturity and marvelous insight. Gifted adolescents experience conflicts between achievement and affiliation needs. Unfortunately, they may develop coping strategies to deal with anticipated peer rejection that may involve denying their talents (Moon, Kelly, & Feldhusen, 1997). This has been found to be especially true of gifted and highly gifted females. Often the changes in programs or schools occurring at this time require that gifted students reassess their competence in relation to the new social environment (Wright & Leroux, 1997). Self-concept is now highly influenced by social comparisons, normative standards, and the desire for social acceptance in relationships. In middle school, academic competence may drop as attempts at social acceptability increase. However, the overall perception of self-worth has been found to improve for gifted girls to above the norm through high school, whereas gifted males tend to drop toward the norm (Wright & Leroux, 1997). The push/pull of special classes both supports the self-concept of gifted students involved and heightens the problem of their social acceptance; they seem to be caught between their personal values and their educational needs. Bright adolescents appear to develop autonomy and time perspective faster than their average counterparts. For gifted students who have in the past been threatening to teachers, a new assertion of independence during this period may result in verbal or even physical confrontation. The teachers least equipped to deal with this situation are those who see their role as one of authority that must be preserved. Those teachers who are successful in guiding the gifted adolescent can admit their own inadequacies and meet the gifted student as a person because they care more about understanding problems or miscommunications than about being in charge. The more typical adolescent admires those who are athletic or socially gregarious. If academic success is to be given approval by his peers, the gifted boy must be athletically able, which is often an impossible task for the accelerated student who is younger and less developed than his classmates. For both boys and girls, good grades must be earned with seeming ease because studious habits are often looked on with suspicion and penalized. For girls, high intelligence is seen as too aggressive, too masculine; for boys, it is seen as too feminine. These perceptions can cause internal conflicts for gifted students. Adolescents are on an emotional roller coaster. After in-depth study of the lives of teenagers, Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1987) concluded that typical teenagers come down from extreme happiness or up from deep sadness within 45 minutes, compared with adults, whose happy/sad “fluctuations” can take several hours. Teenagers get the most satisfaction from meeting challenges that fit their developing skills and provide them with meaningful rewards. They like to develop new levels of expertise and accomplishment, and their success stimulates them to search for fresh challenges that are slightly harder, but within reach. It is this pattern of growing ability that helps them make the transition between the impulsive, egocentric activities of childhood and the world of adults. Too many teenagers use their time seeking challenges in aimless activities with friends or escape through social networking, television, or computers. Such short-term pleasures deny them the personal fulfillment of more productive activity. Without guidance, high levels of cognitive ability can be used to meet adolescents’ needs in ways that will prove to be socially destructive. Too often these very able youngsters manipulate others to gain personal goals. Often the intense desire to know, to

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

87

follow up on concepts, and to pursue ideas results in a social insensitivity that can lead to rejection and isolation. Large gaps among intellectual, physical, and emotional growth will need sorting out with adult help. It is important that nonjudgmental, open communication exists among teachers, the family, and the adolescent student. Schools need to develop more expedient ways for the gifted to contact counselors and advisors. Too often secondary systems, with their departmentalization, administrative hierarchies, numerous faculty members, and large student bodies make immediate personal contact almost impossible. By the time a counseling session has been scheduled, with the proper hall passes and classroom permissions secured, students have given up on seeking help through the system. Overburdened counselors may be available only to disruptive or acting-out students. Gifted students complain that the counselor relates to them only to develop class schedules or provide college preparation information. Some schools recognize the problem and set aside one day per week for counseling gifted students or run small counseling groups. Some have developed a crisis contact system available to all students. Gifted students can be helped to enjoy their unique abilities. Their emotional and social transition should include opportunities to ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■

■ ■

identify and name their own emotions, perceptual filters, and defense systems and those of others. experience and learn attitudes of receptivity and suspended judgment. actively seek ideas and feelings from others. practice open communication. learn how to construct, clarify, and express personal values. clarify short-term goals and examine them in relation to personal values and to achievability. make personal values the foundation for career choice. develop effective community membership by participating in activities with a variety of groups, examining their roles in groups and the effect of those roles. develop skills with group process, including leadership skills and use of power. develop commitment to groups and to the larger community.

The Intuitive Transition Gifted adolescents have an early concern for and interest in intuitive knowing. They need opportunities to converse meaningfully with philosophers and others who share their interest. Such inquiry can be made through independent study, with mentors, through group experiences led by guest experts, and through class discussions. It is important for gifted adolescents to be open to experiences in this area so that they can recognize their own intuitive energy and ability and see how these qualities contribute to their cognitive and emotional growth. They need guidance in becoming familiar with analyzing and evaluating such phenomena. Because this dimension of brain function seems to be available to everyone, but is found to be more active in the gifted and talented

88

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

populations, guidance in evaluating appropriate uses of this type of creative effort should be made available. The intuitive function is involved in initiating insightful acts and creative activity. It is an area that promises much for the fulfillment of individuals and of humankind.

The Cross-Cultural Development of Identity in the Gifted Adolescent All adolescents have difficulties making the transition from childhood to adulthood; for gifted adolescents, there are many different issues to face. In addition, when the adolescent has grown up in a different cultural setting, or even more challenging, as RanceRoney (2004) points out, in a different country, they face the same needs and transitions without the support of their familiar environments and friends. Issues regarding a future career and personal identity, difficult for most maturing teens, will be even more confusing for gifted adolescents from other cultures. Individual attention becomes less available in secondary schools at the same time the curriculum and the required thought processes become more complex. Although most gifted adolescents emigrating from other countries have some knowledge of the English language, they may find it hard to compete with native language speakers as academic requirements advance. They may be unfamiliar with the culture, beliefs, and values of American teens. The ways of learning they have developed may differ significantly from the learning styles found in U.S. schools. Acculturation will take time, enormous energy, and often a deep sense of loss. For both groups, the gifted adolescent from a culturally diverse group in the United States and the foreign-born gifted adolescent immigrant, the transition to adulthood and the way in which the old and new cultures are combined will be made easier or more difficult, depending on the understanding and support teachers of the gifted and other educational professionals can offer. The better of two cultures combined into one acculturated and successful gifted person should be the goal.

THE BRAIN AND OUR ELECTRONIC WORLD Brain plasticity is the ability of the brain to change to reflect what you learn, do, and think. It has become an accepted principle of brain growth and though brain plasticity is most available during infancy and early childhood, it is a lifetime characteristic. In fact, we have learned that our brain is physically rearranging its networks every minute of every day. This characteristic makes it possible for the brain to continue to grow and develop as long as the environment provides appropriate stimulation. Researchers are now studying the response of the brains of children and youth to the ever-growing influx of technology. Data are accumulating about the effects technology is having on the brain. What began as a support system for acquiring a larger base of information, increasing our productivity, and allowing a broader range and ease of

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness

89

communication, is now creating serious concerns. Recently, this substantial and positive database has begun to reflect warnings and cauBRAIN RESEARCH tions regarding the effects on the brain of the indiscriminate and to Education pervasive use of technology. Restak (2003) reported on the abundance of research showing that the brain literally changes its organization and function in response to today’s electronic world. He suggests that this is the biggest modification of the brain in the last 200,000 years. One consequence is that children now face constant challenges to their ability to focus their attention. Restak strongly suggests that families and educators pay attention to creating a balance for the children in their environment. It would be inappropriate and probably impossible to ban the focus on technology; however, in addition to their experiences with television, electronic toys, play-stations, computers, and ever-increasing numbers of electronic devices, children must have active play, imaginary and fantasy adventures of their own making, and interaction with a variety of areas of our real world. Restak believes that the increase of behavior disorders and personality characteristics we are labeling dysfunctional (e.g., hyperactivity, impulsiveness, distractibility) may, in part, be the response of the brain to the overemphasis on our electronic world. It is becoming evident that technology has begun to reshape the circuitry of our brains. Experiments have revealed changes not only in our understanding, but also in how we process mentally, how we reason, and how we form memories (Carr, 2010). Another brain processing issue that is being faced by today’s classroom teacher is the growing problems surrounding multitasking. While it is important to be able to skim as well as read deeply, there is a concern that by our overuse of technology, skimming is becoming our dominant mode of reading and seeking information. In the attempt to complete several tasks in a shorter period of time, as well as attend to numerous sources of electronic-input from the environment, students have attempted to perfect their skill of multitasking. The very term is a misnomer. The brain focuses exclusively on one task at a time. The brain pattern during attempts at multitasking is to focus on one input, then stop the processing of thinking concerning that issue and refocus on a different task, giving focused attention to all issues concerning the alternative task. The mind is then asked to reengage in the original task, stopping the consideration of the issues involved in the second task. Under these conditions the brain does not process either task efficiently or effectively and by the process of constantly focusing and refocusing, can lose depth and breadth of thought regarding both tasks. This chapter has presented evidence to show the importance of optimizing the early learning periods if the child’s potential is to be actualized. It is increasingly clear that the roots of intelligence can be found not only in the genetic endowment of the individual, but also in that individual’s early experiences with the environment. Even the finest, most richly endowed brain cannot function at its optimum without an equally enriched environment. It is important to integrate growth within all of the human functions if we are to optimize the development of intelligence. Even cognitive function is limited if integration of the emotional/social, physical, and intuitive functions are left to chance. Both homes and schools have an important part to play in the processes of growing up gifted. A P P LY I N G

90

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

REVIEW OF IMPORTANT IDEAS Families and Gifted Children

Characteristics of Gifted Individuals

■ It is increasingly clear that the roots of intelligence can

■ Knowing the possible range of behaviors and the

be found not only in the genetic endowment of the individual, but also in the early experiences the individual has with the environment.

concomitant needs and problems that result will help families and teachers better understand and nurture gifted individuals.

■ In every phase of a child’s growth, the home environment

plays a significant part and influences the outcome; the home is the true cradle of eminence. ■ It is the values and interests of the parents that will

determine which traits and qualities will be given great encouragement and further cultivation and which traits and qualities will be ignored. ■ If we were to care for our children, all of our children,

in ways we already know are enriching, we would significantly increase the population of children who could actualize their potential to the degree we now designate as gifted. Giftedness may be more “normal” than the behaviors and abilities we now accept as typical. ■ We must be aware of and use the sensitive and critical

periods for development during the fetal period and the early years of life. The use of such periods for learning may make the difference between average and gifted development. ■ The authoritative parenting style consistently pro-

duces children who are more successful in school and in life than does the use of the authoritarian parenting style. ■ Gifts and talents cannot be actualized without the

encouragement, support, and environmental opportunities provided by families and teachers. ■ The amount of time families spend playing with their

preschoolers is directly related to an increase in verbal intelligence test scores. Families of children who are later identified as gifted read to their children three times as long each day as do families of children who are not. They encourage language development, encourage freedom, and expose their children to a variety of experiences, including the arts, nature walks, and natural history museums.

Highly and Profoundly Gifted Individuals ■ Before we can develop the best educational plan for a

student, we must distinguish among moderately gifted individuals, who are the most commonly found group; highly gifted individuals, those with unusual levels of giftedness; and profoundly gifted individuals, those of rare genius. ■ Although many school settings give limited priority to

differentiating learning experiences for gifted and talented students in general, even less opportunity is given to such experiences for highly and profoundly gifted students. ■ Highly gifted students are less able to benefit from regular

classroom experiences, and more comprehensive modifications to their educational programs are necessary to meet their needs than is the case for less gifted learners. ■ Profoundly gifted learners differ even from highly

gifted learners, have different value structures, and are more isolated by choice. Typically, schools offer little that is appropriate for these students.

The Beginnings of Giftedness ■ When conditions are stimulating rather than deprived,

the cortex of the brain expands significantly and grows thicker and heavier, glial cells increase in number, and the body and the nucleus of each neural cell increase in size. There are also measurable chemical changes within the cell that correlate with higher levels of problem-solving ability. ■ “Long-lasting effects occur as a result of experience. The

more complex the experience, ‘the richer’ the environment, the more complex the brain” (Restak, 1986, p. 91).

■ Providing contact points for meetings and conferences

■ Interaction with the environment begins to affect the

on parental involvement in the school program assure both the teacher and the parents that the child’s development will proceed effectively.

infant significantly during the prenatal period. There is no period with a more direct and formative effect on the child’s developing brain than the nine months of pregnancy.

■ Families can provide significant resources for school

programs and can be important advocates for legislation and program development.

■ We now know that infants are active, perceiving, learn-

ing, and information-organizing individuals at birth.

CHAPTER 2: Developing Giftedness ■ In the process of developing intelligence, infants and young

children have a great need for a rich and varied environment that responds to their abilities, needs, and interests; this is referred to as a responsive learning environment. ■ The way in which children are disciplined communi-

cates the beliefs and values of their families, contributes to their understanding of appropriate ways to handle problems, and models behaviors of support and guidance or anger and fear. Methods of discipline can enhance or inhibit the curiosity, inquiry, and confidence that optimize learning. ■ Sensitive periods are periods of growth that occur

when all systems—sensory, mental, and motor—are ready to be used, and during which the environment of the individual will have the greatest effect on a specific characteristic. If activated by the environment, the systems will be used together at peak efficiency. The times when an organizational process proceeds most rapidly are critical periods for the resulting organization. If not activated by the environment during this time, the systems will lose function. ■ It is theorized that between 18 months and 4 years of

age, every human has available an innate ordering device for learning language, referred to as the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). During this LAD period, the environment of the child must be rich in language experience, for never again will the child have the ability to learn language-related activities with such ease.

Early Childhood: Ensuring the Development of High Potential ■ Through the work of Piaget and his stage theories,

Vygotsky and his zone of proximal development, and Dabrowski and his theory of developmental potential, we find clues and strategies for optimally developing the rational mind. ■ Although less explored than the rational mind, the

metaphoric, intuitive, holistic mind is seen by many individuals of eminence as equally valuable and essential to the development of creativity. ■ The curriculum for all preschool children must be rich

in variety and stimulating in process and must keep pace with those who are developing faster and who show higher levels of intelligence.

Adolescence: Supporting Uniqueness ■ During adolescence, the impact of an enriched

environment is critical neurologically because gifted

91

students who are not challenged are especially susceptible to losing mental ground during this period. ■ Not since the fetal period and the first 2 years of life

has the physical structure of the human body changed as much or as quickly as it does during adolescence. The physical transition can be especially challenging to gifted youth. ■ For most adolescents, the intellectual transition marks

the beginning of what Piaget calls formal operational thought; however, gifted students have been performing many such tasks for years and are now often faced with an intolerable amount of repetition. ■ Acceptance, belonging, and self-esteem are areas of

critical concern to the maturing adolescent. Giftedness brings special advantages and disadvantages to this social-emotional transition. ■ Gifted adolescents have an early concern for and

interest in intuitive knowing and need opportunities to grow during their intuitive transition.

The Brain and Our Electronic World ■ Researchers are now studying the response of the brains

of children and youth to the ever-growing influx of technology. What began as a support system for acquiring a larger base of information, increasing our productivity, and allowing a broader range and ease of communication, is now creating serious concerns. ■ An abundance of research shows that the brain literally

changes its organization and function in response to today’s electronic world, the biggest modification of the brain in the last 200,000 years. ■ Children now face constant challenges to their ability to

focus their attention. ■ It is becoming evident that technology has begun to

reshape the circuitry of our brains, not only in our understanding, but also in how we process mentally, how we reason, and how we form memories. ■ While it is important to be able to skim as well as read

deeply, there is a concern that by our overuse of technology, skimming is becoming our dominant mode of reading and seeking information. ■ Another brain processing issue that is being faced by

today’s classroom teacher is the growing problems surrounding multitasking. ■ Children must have active play, imaginary and fantasy

adventures of their own making, and interaction with a variety of areas of our real world.

3

Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

Toby Manzanares

IDEAS WE HAVE HAD ■

Learning is a cognitive task; therefore, explanation, repetition, and practice are the most important activities to create learning.

■

Classroom time is limited and must be focused on our learning goals. There is no time to become involved in social or emotional problems.

■

How you feel about issues and ideas does not change the facts and is not relevant to classroom activities.

92

IDEAS RESEARCH SUPPORTS ■

If the goal is not only to cover information in the learning process but also to understand and remember what we have covered, creating an emotional impact during the learning process is critically important.

■

Our social-emotional functions support our cognitive processes and provide the gateway to enhance or limit higher cognition. Events experienced with emotional intensity can have the greatest impact on the connections within the brain allowing us to learn faster and remember longer.

■

When emotions are a part of our learning process, we remember the lesson better and longer.

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

93

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF GIFTED CHILDREN Children who develop high levels of cognitive potential seem to experience a different set of social and emotional consequences than do more typical children. Therefore, in addition to the cognitive development of gifted learners, their social-emotional development is important to understand. The social-emotional or affective function does more than support cognitive processes; it can enhance or A P P LY I N G limit higher cognition. From the beginning of our lives we are most BRAIN RESEARCH to Education strongly motivated by things that matter to us. What we care about shapes our world. The parts of the brain that process emotion grow and mature relatively early in a child and are very sensitive to parental feedback and handling. An atmosphere conducive to healthy emotional development is an important part of the foundation parents provide for their infants and toddlers. Sylwester (1995) believes that emotion drives everything and that the only problems that we attempt to solve are those that are emotionally important to us. Our feelings create conscious attention and allow problem-solving behaviors (Brandt, 2000). However, schools often focus primarily on linear, cognitive development, so that even the basics of social and emotional development are not included and are likely to be overlooked. Housed in the limbic area, located deeply within the center of the brain, our emotionalsocial functions are primarily regulated by biochemical mechanisms. They affect and are affected by every part of the brain. The cells of the entire cortex are either facilitated or inhibited in their functioning by the release of bioA P P LY I N G chemicals from the limbic area. How we construct our beliefs, our BRAIN RESEARCH to Education sense of reality, and our feelings of personal identity and uniqueness depend on this area. It is most important for teachers to be aware that our ability to learn and remember what we have learned is significantly enhanced or blocked by the functions of our limbic area and the emotions we process. Researchers from University of California–Berkeley to Harvard to MIT, and an increasing number of others, including linguists, neuroscientists, and experts in early learning are in agreement. What infants most need to grow to emotional wholeness and personal excellence is the assurance that they are valuable, cared about, important, and secure. It is the social and emotional part of their lives that predict long-term mental health and intellectual growth. The first item on a list of conditions offered by brain researchers for an enriched environment is “a steady source of positive emotional support” (Diamond, 1998). High levels of cognitive development do not necessarily imply high levels of affective development. The same heightened sensitivities that underlie gifted intelligence can contribute to an accumulation of information about emotions that these children need to process. The affect-based information comes from sources within and outside of these children. The educational programs must provide opportunities to bring emotional knowledge and assumptions to awareness, and to apply verbal ability and inquiry skills to the exploration of their affective development. In the 1920s, it was assumed that very bright children were emotionally borderline neurotic or even psychotic individuals (Terman, 1925). Their advanced performance

94

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

was viewed with great suspicion. Although attitudes have changed, some of these types of emotional responses to advanced development still linger. In this climate of suspicion and rejection of advanced development, Terman (1925) began his study of gifted children at Stanford University, which was mentioned in Chapter 1. Terman collected data for 35 years on the emotional and social characteristics of children whom he identified as gifted. What Terman found did not support the prevalent view of his day. The majority of children in his 140-and-above IQ group were physically more attractive than the more typical children, probably due to their early experiences and to better nutrition. Far from being the misfits and drudges people expected, the gifted youngsters in his population became leaders, organizers, football captains, and class officers. They enjoyed significantly greater popularity, and their classmates viewed them positively. They showed marked superiority in moral attitudes, as measured by tests of character, and Terman found that their moral judgment developed earlier than that of the average population. These children seemed well rounded and achieved well in most school subjects. Later data showed this population to be socially more able to adjust. As adults, they suffered less from social problems such as divorce, alcoholism, and suicide than the average population. This group also had a lower prevalence of ill health and insanity and a lower mortality rate than the average population (Terman & Oden, 1947). In our discussion of intelligence in Chapter 1, it was apparent that both positive and negative emotions play an important part in the functioning of the brain. Growth of intelligence can be enhanced or inhibited, depending on the emotional health of the learner as well as the emotional climate in which the learner interacts. Experiences that support the identification and understanding of emotional information and give practice in awareness and expression of emotions and feelings need to be an important part of the environment at home and at school.

Emotional Intelligence and Giftedness Salovey and Mayer (1990) were the first to use the term emotional intelligence to identify a set of skills that “contribute to the accurate appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and others, the effective regulation of emotion in self and others, and the use of feelings to motivate, plan, and achieve in one’s life” (p. 185). Goleman (1995) later popularized the term in his best-selling book Emotional Intelligence. Goleman suggests that there are two fundamentally different ways of knowing that interact to construct our mental life, the rational mind and the emotional mind. Goleman primarily explores the emotional behaviors that result from the functions of the process of intelligence. Rather than discussing the process itself, he chooses to use the term emotional intelligence to talk about the expressions and behaviors of the emotional mind, such as the ability to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustrations, control impulses and delay gratification, regulate one’s moods and keep distress from overwhelming the ability to think, empathize with others, and hope. These emotional abilities serve as a contrast to balance the cognitive intellectual abilities of the rational mind. The use of the term intelligence in this construct is com-

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

95

parable to its use in Gardner’s concept of multiple abilities, a theory he discusses as multiple intelligences. Both theories use intelligence as synonymous with ability and are referring to behaviors. Goleman offers suggestions for gaining emotional literacy and shares a rationale for the need to do so. Those who have used the concept of emotional intelligence to extend the concept of giftedness, such as Mayer, Perkins, Caruso, and Salovey (2001), view it as the perception, facilitation, understanding, and management of feelings. The outcomes of their studies indicate that students with higher emotional intelligence are able to identify their own emotions and those of others, use that information to guide their actions, and resist peer pressure better than students who score lower on measures of emotional intelligence. Practices designed to promote emotional intelligence can be found in schools in classes involved in self-study, socio-emotional learning exercises, and character education programs. Pfeiffer (2001) suggests that, if the level of social competence and emotional maturity of gifted learners is considered when differentiating their curricular activities, their learning experiences become more positive. He finds the emotional intelligence construct useful to counselors working with gifted learners who present problems with social, emotional, or interpersonal behaviors. Although there can be no question of the importance of the emotional skills and attributes recognized by the concept of emotional intelligence, the term itself is misleading. Rather than a collection of abilities as the term is defined, intelligence is a withinthe-brain process, as noted in Chapter 1. Most problematic, according to Pfeiffer (2001), the construct of emotional intelligence lacks sound objective measures. Whatever we choose to call the integration of emotional functions of the brain into the process of intelligence, recognizing the importance of the brain functions involved in emotions and their contributions to the efficient and effective use of intelligence is critical to the social-emotional development of children and, in particular, for the purposes of this book, gifted children.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTED LEARNERS It is as difficult to generalize the social-emotional characteristics of gifted individuals (see Chapter 2, Table 2.2, Giftedness Expressed by Affective Functions) as it is their other characteristics. Indeed, social aptitudes cannot be predicted by high academic ability (Jones & Day, 1996). Discussions of generalizations about social-emotional ability bring out characteristics commonly found in the gifted population, but seldom found in any one gifted individual. High levels of developed cognitive ability do not guarantee high levels of affective or emotional development. Although affective capabilities exist, opportunities to develop them must be made part of the child’s experience. One trait that appears very early in the emotional growth of gifted children is their intense sense of justice and unwavering idealism. Often the parent or teacher of a gifted child will experience the futile effort

96

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

of explaining why injustice exists. In attempting to convince my children that “the world just isn’t fair,” I had limited success. “If it isn’t, it should be, and why aren’t you [the adult] doing something about it?” my son responded. Trying to discuss with a 3-year-old how one person could affect only a limited amount of inequity was frustrating for both of us. My reasons were not acceptable to my son’s worldview. This sense of justice can be tremendously valuable to society and beautiful in its motivating power for humanistic action. It can also be highly frustrating for their parents and teachers. Both teachers at home and at school must guide the idealism of gifted children so that they do not become so frustrated that they lose it early and replace it with the sense of being powerless. If gifted children are not provided opportunities for positive growth and participation in real-world and global issues where they believe that they can make a difference, then this very important and admirable quality of the highly intelligent can be reduced to cynicism and antisocial behavior. Parents need to be alert to seeking alternatives with the child when seemingly inequitable solutions are posed. A real sharing of problem solving at the child’s level of understanding cannot begin too early. Classic research done in 1926 by Hollingworth pointed out that gifted children could be readily disciplined by appealing to reason, presenting alternative views, and modeling consistency of expressed values. With this approach, gifted children have a better chance of keeping their sense of justice intact. Self-confidence and independence are personality traits of gifted children suggested by Davis and Rimm (2004). They comment that the generally higher levels of internal control and personal responsibility of gifted students often lead them to set high goals for themselves. However, not attaining unrealistic goals can result in frustration and feelings of incompetence and inadequacy. It has often been observed that this frustration occurs not because the students have produced an inferior product, but because they expected their performance to match their vision. Known as perfectionism, this common trait of gifted individuals can be very difficult to modify. The personality traits believed most common among gifted individuals and that demonstrate their emotional complexity are sensitivity, perfectionism, intensity, and introversion. Of these, sensitivity seems to be one of the earliest and most central traits. Sensitivity may include feelings that are easily hurt, strong response to criticism, compassion for others, and even strong physical reactions to light, noise, texture, and foods. The perceptions nongifted classmates hold regarding gifted boys differ significantly from their perceptions of gifted girls as measured by ratings conducted in a heterogeneous school setting (Luftig & Nichols, 1991). Gifted boys were given higher status than gifted girls and nongifted boys and girls. They were identified as most popular, attractive, and creative and as more skilled at sports. Gifted girls were perceived as least popular, aloof, and bossy, placing them at risk socially among their age-peers. When studies of the social-emotional characteristics of gifted children are compiled, a generally positive profile emerges (see Figure 3.1), although many of these characteristics can create needs to which we must attend if the positive aspects are to flourish. Human beings need to love and to feel loved, to be in physical contact with one another, to associate with others, and to participate in groups and organizations. The

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

FIGURE 3.1

97

Social-Emotional Characteristics of Gifted Learners

In general, gifted children ■ have a high energy level, which can result in emotional excitability, high sensitivity, rapid and compulsive verbalization, abundant imagination, and emotional reactions that can be extremely elevated or depressed. ■

show better emotional adjustment than do nongifted children.

■ tend to be very idealistic, seeking what is fair and just at an early age. They are more sensitive to values and moral issues, understanding “good behavior” and “bad behavior” very early. ■ usually are sensitive to the feelings and rights of others and empathize with their problems. It is not unusual for gifted students to be deeply concerned about social issues—those in their school as well as those half a world away. ■ show concern for universal problems and the welfare of others much earlier than do more typically developing children. ■

often show leadership ability and become involved in community projects.

■ when involved in group leadership emphasize parliamentary procedure and minimize the use of more autocratic or laissez-faire approaches to governance. ■ show a high level of persistence, curiosity, enjoyment of learning, and orientation toward mastery and challenge. ■ are more independent and less conforming to peer opinions, more dominant, more forceful, and more competitive than typical learners. ■ prefer their intellectual peers to their chronological-age peers, resulting in a social preference for older children and adults. they lack interest in children of lower mental age and choose friends among children like themselves. they relate well to adults and may have problems playing with less able playmates. ■

exhibit a tendency for excessive self-criticism and a pattern of unrealistic self-assessment.

■ have unreasonably high expectations of their performance resulting in one element of perfectionism. ■ show dissatisfaction with the difference between their expectations of ideal performance and their assessment of their actual performance. ■ hold a high social status among their classmates, who often prefer them as companions (this is especially true of boys); this is more dependent on the students’ self-concept than on their level of giftedness. This factor seems to diminish at the secondary level, especially if other preferred factors of popularity (e.g., athletic ability) are not also displayed.

family establishes the foundation and climate of love and caring that then influence how each member views the others and operates in the world. Feeling affection is important; shared affection is even more fulfilling for human needs. Families must provide sufficient opportunities for the development of affection and a model for the child’s understanding of love and caring. Children will benefit from learning about themselves and others as loving beings.

98

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Locus of Control The term locus of control is used to express the idea that a child’s perceived control can be located internally (as when the child makes a choice on the basis of his or her own interest) or externally (as when the child makes a choice on the basis of the reward given for making that choice). Gifted children characteristically are found to have more of an internal locus of control at a younger age than average children. This means that they often do things for the pure pleasure of it. They can get very excited about learning new information, and they derive much satisfaction from discovering solutions to problems. It is one of the notable differences that should be considered when planning educational experiences for gifted children. The perception of responsibility for and control over one’s life has been recognized as the single most important condition for success, achievement, and a sense of wellbeing. Success in later life directly correlates to the extent to which the individual has developed an internal locus of control. The more that the environment, either home or school, provides external controls, the greater will be the loss of an internal locus of control and intrinsic motivation. Schools use external rewards, such as grades, prizes, gold stars, special privileges, threats, and punishment, without considering whether or not the child has a strong internal locus of control. When external rewards are consistently used, the child with an internal locus of control either will refuse to do the task or will no longer work for the joy or satisfaction of accomplishment, focusing instead on the learning task as a means to a different goal, the reward. Then, once the reward stops being offered, the task ceases to be worthwhile. An external reward system can be especially devastating for young gifted students because they normally develop an internal locus of control at an earlier age and are more sensitive to the demands of the environment. For them it is important that an internal locus of control and heightened perception of choice be a dependable part of their environment. Successful experiences are not enough. If students succeed, but believe they were given that success, it does not add to their perceived control. Even failure can be viewed as positive if students believe that by their own effort success would be possible. To support high levels of achievement, the world must be seen as a place where one’s actions create a response; it must not be viewed as a place where one is helpless and unable to affect what happens to oneself (i.e., an internal versus an external locus of control). This perception is established very early, within the first 2 months of life. It is one of the triggering mechanisms for developing higher levels of intelligence. An example of the internal locus of control is intrinsic motivation. When we act from our own personal beliefs, values, and moral convictions, we can say that we are exhibiting intrinsic motivation. Needing direction or rewards to cause action shows dependence on external or extrinsic motivation. Students who are intrinsically motivated exhibit curiosity; accept challenges willingly; are persistent with tasks that are difficult; remain task-committed; are satisfied with or critical of their efforts, irrespective of the opinions of others; and are found to have lower academic anxiety (Amabile, 1989; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996). Academic intrinsic motivation is highly correlated to

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

99

school achievement and to measured intelligence. Teachers can promote intrinsic motivation by instituting flexible deadlines; eliminating overt supervision; creating an environment that is stimulating and safe for taking risks, questioning, and making choices; and allowing only minimal competition (Lashaway-Bokina, 2000). Gottfried and Gottfried (1996) have found that intrinsic motivation can be further encouraged if the curriculum is designed to provide the optimal level of challenge. External rewards are also highly problematic in developing or maintaining intrinsic motivation. Gifted children may have a voracious appetite for learning; however, traditional schooling, with its norm-referenced evaluation systems and its extrinsic rewards, can be highly detrimental to their intrinsic motivation. The responsive learning environment, described in Chapter 9, is important, in part, because it strengthens the internal locus of control and intrinsic motivation. In addition to high levels of intrinsic motivation, Lovecky (1992) finds that gifted individuals often show a strong desire for self-determination, an inner strength, a high motivation to achieve all that one is capable of being, and a single-mindedness in the pursuit of one’s own goals. Lovecky calls this entelechy, a vital force that directs life and growth toward one’s own destiny and allows one to pursue goals despite any obstacles. Such a trait can be seen in those who have made meaningful contributions to the society, as well as accomplishing important personal achievements.

Competition Competition may serve as an incentive for some students to achieve immediate classroom goals; however, the long-term goal of education—to foster the will to learn for the love of learning—cannot be nurtured in this way. The intent of task-oriented competition is to improve performance, while that of other-referenced competition is to win or outdo others. It has been suggested that some competition may be necessary for motivation and quality of performance, and taskoriented competition has been shown to be far more successful, both academically and socially (Udvari & Schneider, 2000). Classmates view other-referenced competition as aggressive behavior, and the majority peer group dislikes children who use this style. Most students enjoy competition among equally matched participants. However, gifted students have expressed concern that their classmates often exploit their abilities during special projects, but were unwilling to remain friends afterward.

Perfectionism An affective characteristic often observed in many gifted learners is perfectionism. It can be healthy or unhealthy. Hewitt and Fleet (1991) spoke of perfectionism as a threedimensional construct that includes self-oriented, socially prescribed, and other-oriented perfectionism. They believe that self-oriented perfectionism results when students sets high personal standards for themselves and then evaluate their performance against these standards.

100

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Because students may be highly critical of their own work, they sometimes show depression and anxiety with their own efforts. With self-oriented perfectionism, it was found that early successes fueled the students’ own desire for perfection by raising their expectations for themselves. Neumeister (2004) found that parent perfectionism affected this style, but only through modeling. Socially prescribed perfectionism may result when a student perceives that significant others hold excessively high standards for them and that these standards must be met to please others. The result may be that the student develops avoidance of the task, even anxiety and/or learned helplessness. Neumeister (2004) found that socially prescribed perfectionism was influenced by parental perfectionism and authoritarian parenting, resulting in a strong fear of disappointing others and the equating of self-worth with achievement. To avoid disappointing others and preserve their self-worth, these students strove for perfection. Other-oriented perfectionism can occur when the gifted student imposes excessively high standards on significant others in his or her life. The gifted students participating in Neumeister’s study adopted what they saw modeled (e.g., characteristics of perfectionism). They felt that experiencing a challenging curriculum throughout their education might have resulted in their earning grades that were less than perfect and, therefore, they did not adopt perfection as their standard of success. An obsessive preoccupation with perfection that inhibits a person from trying new experiences for fear of failing is referred to as unhealthy perfectionism and is a serious and limiting problem, especially for gifted learners. Greenspon (2000) believes that the heart of unhealthy perfectionism is fear, an inordinate fear that, unless one is perfect, one is worthless. To be gifted, for many students, is to be expected to be never less than perfect. With this belief, one can never feel good enough to be acceptable as a person. “Pressing oneself to do better is healthy; feeling that one must be either perfect or worthless is not” (Greenspon, 2000, p. 180). For gifted learners, this fear may be compounded by the knowledge that they have extraordinary ability and a record of outstanding achievement, making it actually possible for them to do something perfectly. Their goals are high, often unrealistically high, because they can envision an exemplary outcome. The negative aspects of perfectionism may also interfere with the student’s relationships with others. Not only must gifted persons meet their own high standards and attain specified levels of performance, but also their acceptance of others is often based on the ability of these other people to meet their high standards. These expectations of others can seriously interfere with interpersonal relationships, the view gifted students have of their world, and, certainly, how other people view them. Unfortunately, unless someone helps gifted learners to understand the dynamics of this problem and provides some alternative behaviors, it can continue throughout their lives. In addition, Neumeister (2004), Baumrind (1991), and Fleet, Hewitt, and Singer (1995) suggest that unhealthy perfectionism may be related to authoritarian parenting, defined as focused on controlling the behaviors and attitudes of their children, emphasizing unquestioning obedience, and resorting to punitive measures for discipline. The environment of unhealthy perfectionists reflects nonapproval or inconsistent

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

101

approval and their attempts to win approval with perfection. The environment may also include conditional positive approval, resulting in the person using perfection to ensure approval and love. Conversely, authoritative parenting, defined as focused on guiding and speaking from experience or gained expertise, had high levels of demand and responsiveness, with rules that were set and enforced using nonpunitive forms of discipline. These parents encourage their children to express their own views of the rules and keep these views in mind, incorporating many of their ideas. The first step toward intervening in the problems of unhealthy perfectionism is to acknowledge and clearly affirm what appears to be occurring. If open communication exists with the student, a discussion of this need usually will follow. Early research found not only that the unhealthy perfectionist is less productive, but also that unhealthy perfectionism contributes to loneliness, relationship problems, limited selfacceptance, and moodiness. It was suggested that students be taught to deal with their perfectionism problem and become more self-accepting if the student is helped to ■

■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■

learn how to mentally filter thoughts, focusing on their successes instead of their mistakes. reevaluate their current standards by comparing them to set criteria used by others. celebrate their successes. learn from their mistakes. practice making mistakes while noticing their feelings and learning how to cope with them. list the advantages and disadvantages of being a perfectionist. look closely at their current level of self-acceptance. surround themselves with positive situations and people.

Siegle and Schuler (2000) suggest that gifted students who show signs of unhealthy perfectionism could be helped by parents, teachers, and counselors who guide them to focus on present behavior, plan realistic goals, make reasonable commitments, and accept the consequences of their actions. Parents can help by modeling priority setting and acceptance of mistakes and by teaching strategies for relaxation and self-evaluation. Teachers can help by setting high, but realistic standards; encouraging relaxation techniques; and teaching more realistic self-evaluation skills. Schools can help by fostering collaboration with parents in meeting student needs, providing more flexibility in educational services, and implementing a counseling program with attention to issues found often in the lives of gifted students. But what about those persons who derive great pleasure from striving toward perfection? What about those who would consider their lives less fulfilling without constant pursuit of impossibly high goals? Results of a study conducted by Siegle and Schuler (2000) support the multidimensional theory of perfectionism that places it on a continuum from healthy to dysfunctional behaviors. Attributes of healthy perfectionists include

102

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

an intense need for order and organization, self-acceptance of mistakes, high parental expectations, the use of positive coping strategies with their perfectionist tendencies, an absence of role models who insist on always attaining one’s “best,” and a view of personal effort as an important part of perfectionism.

Characteristics of negative or dysfunctional perfectionists include ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

anxiety about making errors, extremely high standards for oneself, perceived excessive expectations of and criticisms from others, the questioning of one’s own judgments, a lack of effective coping strategies, and the need for constant approval.

Parker and Adkins (1995) address the dual possibilities of perfectionism, suggesting that educators too often look only at the negative aspects of this common characteristic of gifted students and adults. Although perfectionism that leads repeatedly to frustration, dissatisfaction, and low feelings of self-worth is certainly problematic and needs attention and alternative coping strategies, they acknowledge the positive aspects of the pursuit of excellence: perseverance, higher standards, extraordinary effort, and maximum use of talent. How do the positive motivational possibilities of perfectionism turn into a negative experience? Davis and Rimm (2004) suggest one way: When gifted students receive and internalize extreme praise from both their parents and their teachers, they become dependent on such praise for their self-definition. This adds strong external pressure to the motivation to achieve at increasingly high levels just to “deserve” the praise. If students are to perform to their own satisfaction, they require the psychological safety that comes from reduced tension and stress. For gifted students, external or selfimposed pressure for achievement can become unreasonable. Webb, Gore, Amend, and DeVries (2007) feel that such pressure may be one of the major causes of depression among gifted youngsters. An environment where risk taking is valued, trust is developed, and mistakes are seen as clues to aid learning relieves students of the need to be perfect in unhealthy ways. Acknowledging the success of gifted learners is quite different from expecting or demanding constant successes.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING OF GIFTED CHILDREN The very fact of being different in a society that does not value difference, even positive difference, brings adjustment problems to the individual who is gifted. However, the ability that creates the problem can supply the solution. Gifted children need help in

103

Marc Balay

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

Shared affection shows a high correlation with positive emotional and social development.

learning to accept themselves as they are and to appreciate the ways in which they are both similar to and different from others. Teachers, parents, and counselors must create opportunities for gifted students to experience themselves positively and value themselves as unique persons. Social-emotional adjustment can be confusing for gifted students. Young children may start out trying to become what their parents value. When they begin school, they must shift to their teachers’ values. How closely the values of parents and teachers are aligned will determine the energy that must be expended. Later, students discover peer values. For example, a gifted girl may discover that, if she wishes to be considered feminine and gain acceptance, the perfect papers required by parents and teachers become a liability. The challenge of inquiry into unusual subjects becomes less rewarding. For boys, the masculine ideal of athletic competence may dictate refocusing in that direction. Again, peer values may cause a reordering of accepted parental and teacher values. In either case, students may decide to use their giftedness to appear not at all gifted. As we have seen from the dynamic nature of intelligence, such denial and disuse can have the long-lasting consequence of diminished intellectual development. In the 1950s and 1960s a number of researchers focused their attention on the issues involved with social-emotional development. Table 3.1 uses the theoretic constructs from the work of three of these researchers to inform our knowledge base for thinking and planning for our students in the area of their social-emotional growth.

TABLE 3.1

Origins of Social-Emotional Development Self-Concept (Maslow, 1968)

Moral Development (Kohlberg, 1964)

Personality Development (Erikson, 1950)

Infancy

Individuals have basic needs that form a hierarchy of growth 1. Basic physical needs (e.g., food, shelter)

Stage 1. Authority figures dictate the child’s actions. Children follow moral rules to avoid punishment. During the first 5 to 8 years of life, most children find this belief reinforced regularly.

1. Trust vs. mistrust: Here we find the roots of inner and outer locus of control. If as infants children experience affection and consistency, they form the belief in a secure world wherein they are effective, they matter. If instead their experience is threatening, unpredictable, stressful, or apathetic, they will believe their world to be untrustworthy, unmanageable, one in which they have no control.

Childhood

2. Protection, safety, security (physical and psychological) 3. Love, a sense of belonging (as in a family, a community), and friendship

Stage 2. The child gradually becomes aware of the idea of reciprocity: “If I do something for you, you will do something for me.” The child is concerned with rewards: “What’s in it for me?” Throughout both these stages, which generally continue through the primary grades, the emphasis is on external control and on concrete consequences.

2. Autonomy vs. shame or doubt: Toddlers who are allowed to feel pride and success in their experiences of learning to care for themselves gain a sense of self-confidence and self-control. If continually limited, criticized, or punished, they will believe themselves to be inadequate or bad and experience shame and self-doubt.

4. Respect, esteem, approval, dignity, and self-respect

Stage 3. The child seeks to meet the expectations of others, being a “good” child. Being “nice” is now seen in a broader context. The ability to see situations from the position of other persons helps determine the action a child will take. Stage 4. Concern for others now encompasses more of society. The law, rules of the social system, and a desire to do one’s duty gain consideration. Avoidance of guilt and social disapproval motivate the child. These last two stages bring us through adolescence. Kohlberg estimated that only 10% of the adult population goes beyond this externally controlled level of development.

3. Initiative vs. guilt: As 4- to 5-year-olds begin to explore the world beyond themselves, they discover how the world works and how they affect it. If this exploration is challenging and effective, they learn to deal with people and things in positive ways and gain a strong sense of initiative. If, however, their efforts are always criticized and punished, they will feel guilty for self-initiated actions. 4. Industry vs. inferiority: From 6 to 11 years of age, children develop numerous skills at home, at school, and in the outside world. An evaluation of competence when compared with peers is important at this time. Mistakes must be viewed as growth experiences if further inquiry and exploration are not to be limited.

Period

Adolescence

104

Continuation of growth to higher levels

5. Ego identity vs. ego diffusion: The adolescent explores and affirms belief systems and basic values. If all the roles and beliefs found in their lives cannot be resolved into an integrated identity, the result is what Erikson calls ego diffusion. 6. Intimacy vs. isolation: In late adolescence and young adulthood, the focus is on developing the ability to share one’s self with another and still retain the essential self. The success one has in doing this reflects the success of the previous five areas of experience.

Period Adulthood

Self-Concept (Maslow, 1968)

Moral Development (Kohlberg, 1964)

Personality Development (Erikson, 1950)

5. Self-actualization; the fullest development of one’s talents and capacities (see Figure 5.1)

Stage 5. The maturity of internal commitment to principles of one’s own conscience develops. At this stage, responsibility, the rights of others, and human dignity are also truly understood. Avoidance of self-condemnation is now important.

7. Generativity vs. self- absorption: As adults with the problems of earlier stages at least partially resolved, individuals can now direct their focus toward assisting others, one’s own children, social issues, etc. Unsuccessful resolution of earlier issues can result in over concern for one’s health, comfort, and psychological needs.

6. Transcendence of self, culture, and dichotomies; primarily metamotivated; behaving and relating to self, others, and nature at the very highest and holistic levels of human consciousness

8. Integrity vs. despair: As one views one’s life from the perspective of age, the evaluation may reflect meaning, purpose, and satisfaction or a series of bungled attempts, unresolved efforts, and lost opportunities. The attitude of worth will be affected by this evaluation.

Levels of Social-Emotional Development (Dabrowski, 1972) Level I

Self-involved interests such as self-protection and survival; others seen only as involved with self, exploitative.

Level II

Externally directed, confused value structure; contradictory behaviors; fragmented view of self.

Level III

Awareness of a hierarchy of values; sense of the ideal with one’s own inconsistent behavior creating inner conflict; multilevel development; sense of higher (ideal) and lower (actual) in personal values and beliefs; moral concerns.

Level IV

Self-actualization (see Maslow, Figure 5.1); inner drive for ideals; actions based on ideals and sense of responsibility; seeking self-perfection; lives ideals and gains strength from them.

Level V

Living inspired life, harmony, transcendence, and oneness with humanity and nature.

105

106

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

For highly and profoundly gifted students, social-emotional adjustment presents even more problems. There are fewer students to whom they can relate. They become bored with schoolwork more quickly and find fewer mental challenges within the school setting. Fellow students and even teachers may display mediocrity and poor decision making. Highly and profoundly gifted learners may end up feeling disrespect for the judgment and actions of those in authority. The more highly gifted the student, the greater the risk for social-emotional maladjustment. Gifted children who have difficulty coping tend to choose one of three patterns for adjusting to their world. They may choose to withdraw, to isolate themselves from the group. This occurs most often when the situation offers no challenge. They may become the class clown, showing off in an effort to be accepted and to gain favorable attention. This behavior may be carried to the point that teachers and the peer group reject such attempts as being inappropriate or silly or view the child as a nuisance. Finally, gifted children may seek conformity by hiding their superior intellect, by pretending not to know answers in an effort to seem like everyone else. This dangerous game of nonuse may result in loss of function, because growth cannot be nurtured through this subterfuge. In this way, gifted children may find themselves becoming role players or what our educational system calls “underachievers.” Three similar negative coping strategies used by gifted students were researched by Cross (1997) and Webb et al. (2007). It was found that blending in and underachieving are common and problematic. Gifted students may now account for as much as 20% of the students who drop out of high school. Suicide is a third, more extreme, coping strategy now growing in incidence and causing great concern. In the late 1990s it was the second leading cause of death among adolescents, with 10% of all adolescents making such attempts (Cross, 1997). Positive strategies suggested by Cross (1997) for coping with the problems created by the unmet social-emotional needs of giftedness include participation in extracurricular activities, hobbies, and physical activities. Such activities also reduce stress, teach useful life skills, and allow the student to meet people who have similar interests. Cross also suggests that it is important to create opportunities for gifted students to spend time together. They benefit by recognizing that they are not alone, that it is acceptable to have serious academic pursuits, and, additionally, that time spent with gifted peers can become a catalyst for future academic careers. Concerned that adults may assume smart children have the ability to work through all emotional problems on their own, Tomlinson (2002a) has suggested a number of emotional issues that uniquely affect gifted students. Among them are the following: ■

■

■

Belonging and safety needs. Speed of thought and high-level questions and comments may cause rejection by classmates. Mature and immature actions expressed simultaneously. Such responses occurring in close time proximity cause frustration for adults, other children, and the gifted student as well. Lack of real and meaningful intellectual and academic challenges. An unchallenging curriculum often is responsible for achievement that is unsatisfying, provides little

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

■

107

growth, and results in failure to build real learning skills that will be needed when advanced study is required. Use of intellectual power. Guidance is needed to prevent students from becoming overwhelmed, confused, or frightened by their unusual mental ability. Help with making decisions and setting appropriate limits is needed.

These are just some of the issues that Tomlinson recognized from her experiences as a teacher. Many gifted students grouped by chronological age in classrooms find themselves unable to meet either their intellectual needs or their social-emotional needs. Without intellectual peers, they may feel isolated and frustrated. They may even try to hide their giftedness to be more socially acceptable. This, of course, brings the risk of slowing or arresting their development. However, in classes that include other gifted learners they have the opportunity to interact with intellectual peers, value their own mental ability, and engage in appropriate educational challenges. Their social-emotional relationships as well as their intellectual growth can flourish. Although gifted children have the potential for highly positive development of social-emotional and moral strength, this is a dynamic process that needs guidance. We must assure gifted learners that we are concerned with their social interaction with others, not just their social adjustment to others.

The Self-Concept of the Gifted Child The self may be defined as a complex and dynamic system of beliefs that individuals hold to be true about themselves. It is our own construction, the result of the interactions we have with others. The beliefs we have about ourselves literally determine our actions and our perceptions of the world and other people. We construct our own reality from these beliefs and often operate as though our view is the only view possible. In the 1960s researchers offered a wealth of information about how the concept of self is organized and how it can be modified to support social-emotional growth (Maslow, 1968; May, 1967; Purkey, 1966; Rogers, 1961; and others). Two categories of self-concept have been identified: the academic self-concept, which gifted students most often rate highly; and the social self-concept, an area that may receive a very low rating among some gifted students (Colangelo, 1991; Davis & Rimm, 2004). Silverman (1991) found that, especially among highly gifted students, intellectual self-concepts were much stronger than social self-concepts. One of the first people to look at the healthy emotional development of human beings was the psychologist Abraham Maslow. Neither satisfied with the view that humans need control nor content with the focus of most psychologists on pathology and remediation, Maslow (1971) believed “well” individuals could become even healthier. He called the development of one’s potential self-actualization. Maslow identified a group of people who he felt exhibited outstanding health, both physically and emotionally. He then collected data, coalescing the characteristics they had in common (see Figure 3.1, Social-Emotional Characteristics of Gifted Learners ). Although the concept of self was far from new (in fact, many psychologists, philosophers, and researchers had referred to

108

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 3.2

Characteristics of Self-Actualization

Self-actualizing people show a high degree of ■

awareness, perception, and realistic orientation.

■

acceptance of self, others, and the natural world.

■

spontaneity, naturalness, and authenticity.

autonomy, self-directedness, and resistance to conformity and are largely free of the need to impress others or to be liked by everyone. ■

■ intrinsic motivation, and especially meta-motivations (e.g., fulfillment of life’s mission or purpose, self-knowledge, growth toward unity and synergy). ■

desire for unity, oneness, integration, and increased identification with humanity.

■

devotion to a cause, a task, or a calling and view work and play as one.

■ identification with universal values (beauty, justice, truth) that are important to well-being. ■

capability for rich emotional reaction and freshness of appreciation.

frequency of peak experiences (moments of highest happiness or fulfillment) and mystic, natural, or cosmic experiences. ■

■ capability for deep empathy and profound relationships with others and a great ability to love and to enjoy sexuality. ■

need for privacy on occasion for periods of intense concentration.

■

creative, less constricted thought processes.

■

humor that is not hostile.

■

democratic character structure.

■

wonderment about life: treating each day as new.

Source: Adapted from The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, by A. Maslow, 1971. New York: Viking.

it), Maslow was the first to identify characteristics that could indicate a high level of development in the social-emotional domain. Remarkably, many of these characteristics are commonly found in gifted children (see Figure 3.2). In his study of self-actualizing people, Maslow (1968) conceptualized a hierarchy of human needs and used it to explain how emotional development is facilitated or inhibited. According to this hierarchy, human energy is used to provide for needs at six levels: (1) basic physical needs, (2) safety needs, (3) love and belonging needs, (4) needs for self-esteem, (5) needs for self-actualization, and (6) needs for transcendence. If needs at any one level remain unmet, energies will be drained off at that level, inhibiting further progress and causing overemphasis on meeting needs at that level. Such a limitation would make it difficult to become an integrated, self-actualizing person. Parents and teachers who are aware of need levels can develop a model for directing home and school efforts toward healthy, integrated development. It is important to

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

109

note that as growth occurs individuals may be operating on several levels at the same time with more or less emphasis. Under certain circumstances and under differing conditions, one may regress or progress through the various levels of need. Gifted children have tremendous potential. Both the child and society benefit from their progress toward self-actualization. The greatest contributions to our culture have come from individuals who developed their potential at all levels of functioning, allowing them to integrate ways of knowing, to risk taking unknown or unpopular stands, and to implement the insights their expanding beliefs made possible. The classroom that values, encourages, and provides opportunities for diversity, selfexploration, introspection, interaction, and quiet contemplation is the classroom where self-actualization will likely be nurtured. Maslow (1971) suggested that each of us take the following actions to facilitate self-actualization: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■

Experience each moment fully, vividly, and with total concentration. Think of life as a process of choices, your choices. Listen to your self; trust your inner voice. Take responsibility for yourself. Dare to be different, nonconforming, real. Do what you do with joy, and do it well. Set up conditions that will allow more peak experiences; perceive the world and life positively. Open up to yourself, identify your defenses, and find the courage to give them up.

The goal is to have access to all of your life, all of your potential—to be the most of who you can be. Although the goal of self-actualization has not been actively sought in most school systems, it has for decades been declared a goal in most public schools’ philosophical statements of purpose. As work in the area of understanding and facilitating selfactualization has evolved, it has become apparent that the concept of self is central. Acknowledgment is another response often missing for gifted children. Because a person seems to accomplish a difficult task with ease or to do many things very well, others in the environment soon come to expect such behavior and may seldom show appreciation for the quality of performance or effort involved. They are expected to accomplish the task, create a solution, or come up with a new idea. It is too easy to take their achievements for granted. Personal, individual recognition of their work, their originality, and their efforts is essential and should be provided by families, teachers, and students on a regular basis. Without appropriate comments, it becomes difficult for gifted students to develop a realistic idea of the quality of their contributions. The parent or teacher who communicates only “constructive” criticism can seriously damage the child’s developing self-concept. Sharing genuine appreciation of or admiration for excellence is never inappropriate. However, extreme praise by parents may cause gifted children to believe that they expect much more of them than the parents really do. Extreme praise may also result in the children feeling pressured, especially if they believe that the

110

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

expectation cannot be met. Too frequent praise from teachers openly in the classroom can draw unwanted attention. When the expectations are too high, children may feel pressured or may resist attempts to reach high goals through oppositional behavior and underachievement. DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ESTEEM Many intellectually gifted learners have no major deficits in self-esteem; however, there are vast numbers of case studies and individual accounts of problems in this area (Webb et al., 2007). Low self-esteem results in higher levels of anxiety, more frequent psychosomatic symptoms, less effectiveness, and more destructive behavior. Children with low self-esteem find it hard to believe that any personal action can have favorable outcomes. Instead, they believe themselves to be powerless and unworthy of love or attention. Children with high self-esteem tend to acquire a sense of independence, exhibit exploratory behavior, assert their own rights, develop a strong inner locus of control, and express self-trust. These traits lead them to more effective functioning and personal happiness. Parents of gifted children often are gifted themselves, and many of them have not yet dealt with the differences that they felt when growing up. In their writing, Delisle (1998) and Webb and colleagues (2007) discuss the need for parents to come to terms with this possibility and resolve any buried feelings, such as those toward asynchronous development and the problems these have caused in their lives. If they underappreciate the effect of their experiences as gifted children—how they coped with the social or emotional problems, discomfort, and isolation they may have experienced— they may overreact or try to prevent their children from experiencing similar situations. The quality of our lives depends on our level of self-esteem, so why do we find so many who lack adequate levels? The concept of self develops quite early as information from the environment begins to affect the development of our self-esteem. We are born with genetic patterns that are unique to us and that combine with our experience to become our definition of who we are, our “self.” Children receive messages about their ideas, their competence, and their image of who they are very early in life. Even children from very nurturing homes find their lives filled with individuals, groups of people, and institutions ready and very willing to show them how often they are wrong—to acquaint them, often forcibly, with the “right way” to see and do things. Such experiences are included in the formation of the concept of self. Babies have no problem communicating to us the real needs or desires they feel. Expressing the self is never a problem at the beginning. But, it does not take long before other information causes us to doubt our personal definition. After enough dissonant information enters our awareness, we begin to form a shell around this initial “self image.” At some point, however, it becomes far too difficult to present ourselves to the world as the inadequate person this shell has led us to believe we are. At around 10 to 13 years of age, we begin to look around for another image to adopt. Often we completely forget the inner core of our real self and remember only the shell as the definition of who we are. We form a second shell from all of the nice and enjoyable things we find

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

111

in other people. “There is someone who smiles a lot,” we notice. “People seem to like that, so I’ll smile a lot.” “That person wears clothes a certain way that others find attractive; I can do that!” And the second shell grows. Soon we have an image to present to the world that is great; our image is filled with nice ways of doing things and an agreeable appearance. Unfortunately, this image of self may have little to do with who we really are, and we know it. Now we must spend time and energy to keep other people far enough away that they do not see through our shell. We are sure that if we let them in too close they will find out about the “real” person we are—the inept, incompetent person we believe we really are. We have forgotten the beautiful, unique center core, our real self. No matter how loving or how caring our family is we all experience this shellbuilding phenomenon. Parents must find ways to recognize, accept, and support the center core. Educators can establish classrooms that allow self-discovery and support individual and unique development. As growing people, we must keep in touch with this essence, accepting ourselves and allowing others to know us as the unique people we are. Work in this area shows us that from the earliest days of our lives and as long as we live, our awareness and understanding of who we are will have the most effect on determining the quality and direction of our existence. For more on this issue of building self-esteem you may wish to read the pioneering work of Briggs (1970), Maslow (1971), Rogers (1961), and Satir (1972). For gifted children, the pattern of shell building is intensified. Both self-imposed and external expectations are so great that gifted children often develop and maintain the second shell in desperation. Focus on the second shell may result in children who try to meet everyone’s expectations and to become “perfect” children, never allowing themselves to knowingly disappoint parents, teachers, or any other significant person. These children have an impossible task. They may try to meet their parents’ needs and find that these differ from their teacher’s needs; both may conflict with peer ideals and pressures. Gifted children often attempt a trade-off, with varying degrees of satisfaction for themselves. Unrealistic self-expectations can result in another way of behaving. When others know a child is gifted, they may expect the child’s work to have the aura of quality. Sometimes this results from a heterogeneously grouped regular classroom environment where the work of the gifted child is indeed outstanding compared with that of others in the room. In such cases, gifted children become used to being “best.” They begin to consider everything they attempt to be exemplary. They may put forth small amounts of effort to achieve success. Many gifted children under these circumstances learn poor study habits, develop disrespect for the efforts of others, and bluff their way through educational experiences, using their advanced verbal ability or their facile and nimble brain to guess answers and outcomes. They may seldom need to develop their skills or integrate their abilities. When finally challenged to engage in academic thought or called on to synthesize and evaluate, perhaps in university work, they become lost. Such a sudden loss of power may cause them anger or frustration. Again, good communication of realistic expectations based on the assessed needs and abilities of the child and the opportunities for challenging educational experiences can prevent this situation.

112

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

A young woman around 20 years of age who was in one of my classes at the university came to me at the end of class after we had been discussing the common characteristics and problems associated with being gifted. Hesitantly and with much confusion, she began to relate how she personally identified with the concepts we had been discussing. She stated that she knew she could not have been gifted because she remembered always having questions when everyone else had been satisfied with the information given. She was often told that she spent too much time investigating a subject when the class needed to move on. Other students often groaned audibly at her remarks or shared insights, an occurrence that she interpreted as proof of her stupidity. She had, since junior high school, changed most of these “bad habits” and had withdrawn into her own world of interests, accepting some B’s, mostly C’s, and occasionally D’s as appropriate representation of her ability as a student. She was, however, intrigued by a number of ideas we discussed that seemed personally applicable. After sharing her bewilderment, later that evening she decided to call her parents in Pennsylvania. At our next class session, she shared with me the news that her parents had been told when she was in the third grade that she was highly gifted with an IQ around 165, but they did not mention it to her on the advice of the school personnel. Because of inadequate information about the reasons for her differences, what started as the natural curiosity and expectations of a very bright mind turned into self-doubt and self-criticism to the point that her actual performance was inhibited and her growth arrested. During the time she was in my class, she used the new information to reexamine the attitudes she had developed about herself and her abilities. She began to take more risks, to become more aggressive in pursuing academic and personal knowledge. She will never compensate for the lost years, but she began making remarkable progress. Children do not need to know their IQ score, but they must understand the behaviors associated with a high level of intellectual development. Becoming aware of the needs and responsibilities of giftedness will allow gifted children to examine their actions and the expectations they have of themselves and others. They will view their own progress more realistically and be able to clarify their beliefs and motives. These children must have adequate feedback on how others feel when the gifted children’s expectations are placed on them. For more effective and fulfilling interpersonal relations between the gifted child and others, the child must become aware of what may happen when others experience nonacceptance just because they do not meet the child’s personal standards. ENSURING SELF-ESTEEM FOR GIFTED CHILDREN Families that produce children with highly actualized potential and self-esteem have been found to commonly show the characteristics listed in Figure 3.3. Children need positive responses from others, starting within the family, to experience well-being and self-satisfaction. Responses received by gifted children from those outside of the family may often be less than positive and can lower their view of themselves. Statements such as “If you are so gifted, figure it out” and “Of course you don’t need any help, you know everything” and “You’re capable of better work than that” are unlikely to support a positive self-view.

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

FIGURE 3.3

113

Characteristics Commonly Found in Families That Produce Children with Highly Actualized Potential and Self-Esteem

■

Parents accept their children as individuals, are loyal sources of support, and openly express acceptance.

■

Parents set clear limits based on each child’s ability to understand consequences; goals are clear; success is expected as a right of the child, not of the parent.

■

Parental guidance is reasonable, realistic, and appropriate to each child.

■

The family tends to be liberal and flexible, but not permissive.

■

The family is aware of the environment and relates to the environment in a caring, protective way. Children are helped to see their part in the natural order and to respect this unity.

■

Parents are relatively self-assured and are on good terms with one another; they accept the responsibility for their own actions.

■

Parents lead active lives outside the family and do not rely on their families as the sole or necessarily major source of gratification and esteem.

Gifted children, especially children who are highly or profoundly gifted, often see themselves as different, alien, and not belonging to the group. The gifted label itself may create problems between these children and others in the classroom. By identifying with the label, these children may feel isolated and unnoticed for any reason other than their ability level. Teachers must make sure that they relate to these children in ways not related to their level of achievement. These children must feel they are valuable for some reason other than their giftedness. It is very important for teachers at home and at school to understand what is known about the brain, how it functions, and how its functioning relates to intelligence and to giftedness. It is even more important that the child be informed if this sense of not belonging is to be understood. Through knowledge of how intelligence develops, what it means to be gifted, and how that level of development affects a person’s life, the child can become involved in that development. Such understanding can empower children and allow them to become partners in their own education. Besides, they find it fascinating. Table 3.2 lists a series of steps that provide one way to share information on giftedness with those who most need to know. To ensure a rich learning environment, teachers should establish a climate of trust within the classroom that allows each child to see each other child as a person rather than just an object. Where such a climate exists, learners can learn from each other and from the environment as well as from the teacher. Language patterns and vocabulary can be important teaching tools. A teacher’s choice of words can make even young children feel either suppressed and helpless or supported and competent. For instance, when the child is involved in an activity that is

114

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

TABLE 3.2

Sharing Information on Understanding Giftedness

Step 1: Use the hand model of the brain outlined in Chapter 1 to explain the function of the brain and its integrative nature. ■

Step 2: Use your hands as models of neurons (see Figure 1.7) to explain how learning occurs in the brain. ■

Step 3: After introducing some of the known information about the brain, ask the children to choose four to six other children with whom they can work, give each group a large sheet of paper and markers, and ask the children to write down everything they know about the brain. Allow time for them to work on the task, approximately 20 minutes. You will be the best judge of when most have recorded a good sample of what they can remember. ■

Step 4: Use a spokesperson from each group to report back to the total group. After each report, clarify any information that is unclear, extend any information that you can, and be sure to correct any information that is faulty by giving more current research. You need not say their ideas are wrong; instead, say, “We now know . . .” or “Later research has found that. . . .” ■

Step 5: Use models, slides, pictures, film, video, or any other support materials to help the students develop the concepts further. An extremely powerful approach is to use actual brains preserved for display. I have found in working with students of all ages that they were very interested in seeing the brains of various animals, comparing them, and discussing the limits each size or organization presented. The most impressive way to present such information is to allow the students to learn to dissect the material. Later, a visit from a neurobiologist or neurosurgeon can allow the children to watch an actual human brain dissection. It is a most memorable experience. ■

Step 6: Discuss how the brain changes when it is stimulated appropriately (see “The Concept of Intelligence,” Chapter 1). Discuss high levels of intelligence as the result of these changes and the kinds of behavior we can observe that tell us a person is intelligent (see “Characteristics of Gifted Children,” Chapter 2). ■

Step 7: Discuss the label we have used to identify people who exhibit high levels of intelligence (i.e., gifted). Be sure to help the children understand the dynamic nature of intelligence (i.e., that we must challenge ourselves or we can lose brain power). ■

Step 8: Ask the children to identify some of the problems people who are gifted might face in our society. Look at possible solutions or alternative ways these problems can be handled. Identify and discuss some of the advantages a gifted person might have. ■

■

Step 9: Share with the children tools and ideas for nurturing their intelligence

All of the above steps can be used with students of any age at home or at school with modifications. Parents will find such discussions a good base for open communication and later consideration of problems that arise from the child’s experiences as a gifted child.

not allowed, the parent or teacher can use language suggesting an alternative choice, such as “You can’t do , but you can do or ,” thus directing the child to a more appropriate activity. This language produces choice and allows the child to begin to develop alternative thinking skills. Set up situations where the child can be invited to explore and test hypotheses.

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

115

When a child encounters an obstacle, ask, “How can we do that?” If the child encounters something too risky or too scary, suggest, “I’ll do it with you this time and then you can do it yourself next time if you want to.” Be sure to use lots of verbal reminders of the child’s worth just because the child is who he or she is, not just because the child has done something well. In the classroom, as you pass by, say briefly, “I really like you.” Do be sure that you also share your negative human feelings clearly. Children notice when things are unpleasant. It would be better to state your feelings, such as “What you are doing makes me angry,” rather than leaving to chance the interpretation of what is happening. By giving accurate feedback, you give the child the opportunity to change, and he or she need not misinterpret your feelings, adding to a negative self-concept. Always use lots of humor with gifted children; they delight in it. Another way teachers can promote belonging needs among gifted students is to ensure that for at least part of the school experience the gifted students spend time with their intellectual peer group. When we ask gifted students to remain with their age-peers as academic models in the classroom, there may be few challenges to ensure their growth. Perhaps they do not wish to always be models. Isn’t it possible that they would rather belong to an actual peer group? Belonging does not just occur. To be effective, interpersonal interaction needs to be a priority for the teacher. It becomes as important to acknowledge and respect the differences between groups as it does to look at the similarities.

Labeling Gifted Children Labeling children results in a change in parent and teacher expectations as well as in the self-concept of the child. Sometimes parents feel suddenly inadequate to guide their child’s development once they know their child is gifted. Sometimes the label results in unrealistic expectations. For example, in high school, labeling a student as gifted can result in placement in every honors class, whether the student is advanced in that particular discipline or not. Labels create expectations. When using labels such as gifted or honors, the precise meaning of the term must be very clearly stated—not only what it is, but also what it is not. Parents deserve more than an announcement of a new label for their child. An administrator needs to arrange a meeting with the parents to explain the concept of giftedness and answer questions about its development at home and at school. How the school experience will be different for the child after identification should be communicated. Sending out additional information outlining ways the family can be involved in the further growth of the student, both at home and at school, is important. The gifted student also needs to know what the label gifted means. Part I of this text contains information all gifted children should understand and be allowed to investigate. The information on understanding the brain and giftedness in Chapter 1 should be an important part of every gifted program. This information has been used for students

116

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

from the early elementary grades through high school and is always one of their favorite topics. When a school establishes a program for gifted learners, it should include inservice training for the entire faculty and staff regarding the meaning of giftedness and the importance of the new program. For the welfare of these children and the success of the program, the school must work as a unit and all of the personnel must see how the program will fit within the goals and structure of the school. Without such information, misunderstandings, hostility, and unnecessary obstructionism might be focused on the program, the responsible teacher, and the gifted students. However, planning a program around the students’ needs and purposefully communicating information on the program and on giftedness in general to the entire faculty and staff can result in favorable, even supportive, attitudes. If children are labeled gifted to improve their educational experience, then there is an obligation to keep the negative aspects of labeling from becoming the major effect. Gifted is a label known worldwide that alerts educators to the needs these children have and to the possibilities for making their learning experiences more meaningful and growth producing. Let us be sure that as we reach out to children from all areas of ability and diversity we do not forget or diminish our concern and effort to understand and provide for all of the very bright children we call gifted.

THE MORAL DEVELOPMENT OF GIFTED LEARNERS From an early age, gifted children often show evidence of moral concerns, including empathy, compassion, idealism, awareness of global problems, and advanced understanding of moral issues. Highly gifted children are reported as being far beyond their age-peers in understanding fairness, justice, and responsibility for self and others (Gross, 1993a). Inadequate moral development could allow intellectual ability to be inhibited by the need to be accepted and validated by others, keeping gifted individuals from contributing their abilities to society. As history has shown, the power of thinking at high and complex levels can be used for or against society. For more than 30 years, Lawrence Kohlberg of Harvard studied, hypothesized, and tested his theories in seeking to explain how we acquire moral character. His work is important to gifted education because he believes that maturity in the intellectual realm influences a person’s maturity in terms of moral development (Kohlberg, 1984). Kohlberg used the term moral development to indicate the level of internalization of principles that regulate one’s conduct in human relations. His focus is on reasoning about principled actions. The data he amassed came from longitudinal studies that followed 50 individuals for some 20 years. These studies with members of differing cultures, social classes, races, and socioeconomic groups and of both sexes were designed to show how moral development can be stimulated. His stage theory asserts that all humans must pass

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

117

through five stages sequentially, although not necessarily at the same age (Table 3.1, Moral Development column). He believed that the majority of adults in our culture never reach the fifth stage of principled morality. Kohlberg (1984) believed that differences in moral development among groups are related not to any cultural values or beliefs, but to the amount of social participation and responsibility individuals have been allowed within those groups: the more interaction, the more maturity. The sense of participation and involvement in an overall moral environment heightens the growth of moral conduct much more than direct teaching from the family or other institutions. In his theory, it is important to establish moral climates that will benefit development. Although some short-term benefits may arise from direct teaching of moral principles, the overall environment and the child’s interactions within that environment have far more significance in later life. The establishment of a moral climate or environment could be the most critical factor to the child both in the home and in school. By establishing a just environment, one can teach justice. A child who experiences moral, humane behavior from others progresses in moral development. One component of this environment is discipline. The goal is to help children take responsibility for their own behavior, and to Kohlberg, authoritarian or power-assertive techniques fall short of this goal and can create uncooperative, aggressive behaviors. Warm, love-oriented discipline—making use of acceptance, understanding, frequent explanations, and reasoning—results in internalization of moral concepts and cooperative, nonaggressive behavior. Even when authoritarian discipline uses fear of physical punishment to squelch overt hostility, the child’s anger remains and is only temporarily suppressed. In establishing a moral environment, adults do not give up their authority; rather, they change it. Instead of fear, threat, punishment, or rewards, the basis for their authority becomes the ability to mediate conflict fairly, to guide and facilitate successful solutions to problems, and to help discover alternatives for evaluation. Providing opportunities for role playing is favored as a way of fostering progress through the stages. This technique allows the child to assume the viewpoint of others or to play the part of one of the other participants. This can be used in the family or in the classroom. The situations can be real or imagined problems. Acting on the basis of moral reasoning is an important step for children. Sharing responsibility for decision making and the evaluation of that decision allows moral growth. Adults who use authority only unilaterally teach a child that morality is not for everyone, thereby retarding his or her movement to higher levels of development. Another element important to producing a positive moral climate is good, open communication. Children can be taught to communicate respectfully and clearly with others. Again, the example set by the adults in their environment will have the most impact, but there are games and strategies that can be directly taught. The family council described in Chapter 2 can provide interactive opportunities for all family members. Similar strategies can be used in the classroom. Webb and colleagues (2007) point out that one of the most serious problems in gifted children’s early concern for moral issues is that their ability to understand the issues cognitively is often far beyond their ability to cope with the issues emotionally.

118

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Being told that they are the hope for the world puts an awesome burden on children. We must be aware of their limits in understanding as well as delight in their idealism. Silverman (1994) suggests another concern regarding the early sensitivity of gifted children. Very young, highly compassionate children are especially vulnerable when they express moral concerns about the problems of the world. Because they have not developed effective ways to deal with strong emotional content, they may be overwhelmed by the pain that such global problems can create and their misunderstanding that they have to do something about it. Gifted children develop their moral identity through those around them, their values, and their moral responses to life’s situations. In the first year of life, the foundations of moral development are laid. Although some may show exceptional levels of sensitivity to justice, fairness, and the problems of others, others will be limited by the actions and development of the adults in their environment. Once again, we see the importance of establishing a responsive learning environment morally as well as intellectually. Previously in this chapter, we considered the importance of self-esteem. Low selfesteem seems to limit growth in moral development, which, in turn, affects children’s views and treatment of others. Children grow morally only as much as their self-esteem allows. The social-emotional growth of gifted children must be considered by every parent and teacher not only because such growth can sharpen intellect, but also because such growth becomes the basis for the use of that intelligence.

ATTITUDES OF SOCIETY, TEACHERS, AND OTHER SCHOOL PERSONNEL The gifted individual faces another social-emotional problem while growing up— attitudes. This is a little like discussing the age-old problem of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Do other people’s attitudes result from the actions of the gifted person or is the gifted person’s behavior the result of other people’s attitudes and prejudices? A little of both is probably true. The moral teachings of nearly all cultures contain the idea that what you give forth will be returned to you in kind: Those who view life positively will have positive experiences; those who give generously will receive generously from others; love begets love. This seems to be quite true of attitudes of groups toward each other. Because the literature on attitudes tends to agree that attitudes are learned and, therefore, can be influenced by teaching, we need to be more aware of the attitudes toward gifted learners that we communicate. In an ageless, thought-provoking article on attitudes, Margaret Mead (1954) revealed the plight of the gifted child in the American culture of the time. Her observations, unfortunately, are just as applicable to the American culture of the twenty-first century. She observes that Americans have a narrow competitive range: like must com-

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

119

pete with like; to be approved, all success must result from effort, abstinence, and suffering. The very term used to label children who exhibit high intellectual ability, “the gifted,” indicates that their success has been given, not earned. Therefore, giftedness is to be viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. American society also tends to grade or rate attributes rather than allowing uniqueness and incomparability. Therefore, we reduce giftedness to an IQ score. By our refusal to recognize special ability in intellectual areas, we waste the ability of uncounted numbers of gifted children (Mead, 1954). If they learn easily, they are penalized for being bored when they have nothing to do; if they excel in some outstanding way, they are penalized as being conspicuously better than the peer group. . . . The culture tries to make the child with a gift into a one-sided person, to penalize him at every turn, to cause him trouble in making friends and to create conditions conducive to the development of a neurosis. Neither teachers, the parents of other children, nor the child’s peers will tolerate a Wunderkind. (p. 213)

As a remedy for such outcomes, Mead suggests The more diversified, the more complex the activities within which children are encouraged to play a role the better the chance for. . . . the gifted child to exercise his special talent. . . . much more than rewards and praise, the gifted child needs scope, material on which his imagination can feed, and opportunities to exercise it. He needs inconspicuous access to books, museums, instruments, paints, ideas, and a chance to feed himself with the accumulated heritage from the genius of other ages. He needs a chance for contact, however fleeting, perhaps only on television or in a special movie, with those who are masters in the abilities with which he has been specially endowed. And within our sternly Puritan tradition, he may well need also a special sense of stewardship for the talents that he has been given, and explicit moral sanction against selling his birthright for a mess of pottage. (p. 214)

The work of Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1969) and others showing that the teacher’s level of expectation can so easily lead to self-fulfilling prophecies gives us a clear picture of how important the teacher’s attitude is to the performance of the student. A surprising finding in the 1970s (Aspy & Bahler, 1975) indicated that teachers’ perceptions of their own ability and worth are more significant in the success of their students than the students’ concepts of themselves. These research results readily show the power of the teacher to affect the achievement and growth of the student. Numerous studies over time have shown that the attitudes held by the majority of school personnel toward gifted individuals are not positive. The School Staffing Survey (1969–1970), conducted by the U.S. Office of Education, revealed that 57.5% of school administrators in American schools stated that they had no gifted children. The Advocate Survey appended to Education of the Gifted and Talented (Marland, 1972) described pupil personnel workers as ranging from apathetic to hostile in their attitudes toward gifted students. Although early entry to school is often sought as a solution for precocious children and such early entrants have a record of performing well academically, this practice is favored neither by school administrators nor by teachers. A study that assessed

120

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

the attitudes of kindergarten and first-grade teachers toward academically talented early entrants found that these children were ranked the lowest of all candidates to be considered for these classrooms (Jackson, Famiglietti, & Robinson, 1981). Perception improves among those who have had more direct experience with gifted children and among those who have had courses aimed at understanding and educating gifted children. Dettmer (1985) looked at the attitude differences among regular classroom teachers, teachers of the gifted (who had received training), building principals, and school psychologists on a number of questions concerning gifted students and their education. The statistically significant findings include the following: All groups except for the regular classroom teachers strongly agreed that gifted students are influenced greatly by the emotional climate in the home or schoolroom; the regular classroom teachers and principals questioned the practice of omitting usual assignments or altering requirements if tests indicate that a gifted student has acquired the basic skills; principals believed that gifted children should remain with their age-peers for better social adjustment, whereas teachers of the gifted disagreed. Dettmer suggests that because unsupportive attitudes or misinformation among the school staff can result in the debilitation of the education of gifted students, school districts would do well to prepare all faculty and staff members through in-service training in gifted education. The beliefs expressed in this earlier study have not changed among school personnel today, only the reasons for holding such attitudes and beliefs. Today’s school personnel are far more concerned about out of norm procedures because of the effects such practices might have on current federal requirements. The attitudes of teachers and school psychologists who work with the gifted are more favorable than the attitudes of those who do not. Experience with the gifted and a background in gifted education foster attitudes of acceptance. The higher people rate themselves in mental ability, the more favorable they tend to be toward gifted children. Teachers of regular classes, education administrators, and community leaders tend to have unfavorable attitudes toward gifted learners. Instruction and experience seem to be the most successful ways to improve attitudes. Lack of preparation for working with or understanding the needs of gifted students may account, in part, for the negative attitudes reported. In-service opportunities in gifted education need to be made available for all school personnel because attitudes of teachers, principals, and counselors toward gifted students clearly affect not only the students and their performance, but also the acceptance and effectiveness of the gifted program. It seems, then, that attitudes within society, and specifically within the educational community, may be a prime force in furthering or denying educational opportunities for gifted children. The origins of social-emotional development are to be found in the child’s early interaction with the world. The child’s evolving self-concept critically influences social-emotional development. Both the concept of self and moral development can facilitate or inhibit intellectual growth. For gifted learners, the social-emotional aspects of growth present special opportunities and special problems. The attitudes of both gifted people and those who work and live with them affect their development significantly.

CHAPTER 3: Supporting Social-Emotional Growth of Gifted Learners

121

REVIEW OF IMPORTANT IDEAS The Social-Emotional Development of Gifted Children ■

Children with high levels of cognitive potential experience different social and emotional consequences than do more typical children.

■

Events experienced with emotional intensity are most easily remembered and repeated emotional experiences can have the greatest impact on the connections within the brain.

■

The development of higher levels of intelligence depends, in part, on the emotional health of the learner and the emotional climate in which the learner operates.

■

Emotional intelligence is a term used to identify the perception, facilitation, understanding, and management of feelings.

■

The concept of emotional intelligence assumes two fundamentally different ways of knowing that interact to construct our mental life, the rational mind and the emotional mind.

Social-Emotional Characteristics of Gifted Children ■

High levels of developed cognitive ability do not guarantee high levels of affective or emotional development.

■

One trait that appears very early in gifted children is their intense sense of justice and idealism.

■

Self-confidence, independence, sensitivity, perfectionism, and intensity are common personality traits of gifted children.

■

The family establishes the foundation and climate of love and caring that influence how each member views the others and operates in the world.

■

Gifted children have more of an internal locus of control at a younger age than do average learners.

■

Success in later life directly correlates to the extent to which the individual has developed an internal locus of control.

■

The more the environment provides external controls, the greater can be the loss of the internal locus of control.

■

Teachers can promote intrinsic motivation by instituting flexible deadlines; eliminating overt supervision; creating an environment that is stimulating and safe for

taking risks, questioning, and making choices; and allowing only minimal competition. ■

The constant use of external rewards is highly problematic in developing or maintaining intrinsic motivation.

■

The will to learn for the love of learning is inhibited by the use of competition.

■

Classmates view other-referenced competition as aggressive behavior and children who use this style are disliked by the majority peer group.

■

Unhealthy perfectionism, a characteristic of many gifted learners, is a serious and limiting problem in that it inhibits the gifted child from trying new experiences for fear of failing.

■

Authoritarian parenting, defined as focused on controlling the behaviors and attitudes of their children, emphasizing unquestioning obedience and resorting to punitive measures for discipline, may be related to unhealthy perfectionism.

■

A focus on present behavior, realistic goals, reasonable commitments, and acceptance of the consequences of their actions can help gifted students who show signs of unhealthy perfectionism.

■

The positive aspects of perfectionism are the pursuit of excellence, perseverance, higher standards, extraordinary effort, and maximum use of talent.

Social-Emotional Well-Being of Gifted Children ■

The very fact of being different in a society that does not value difference, even positive difference, brings adjustment problems to the individual who is gifted.

■

Many gifted students grouped by chronological age in classrooms find themselves unable to meet either their intellectual needs or their social-emotional needs.

The Self-Concept of the Gifted Child ■

Children with high self-esteem tend to acquire a sense of independence, exhibit exploratory behavior, assert their own rights, develop a strong inner locus of control, and express more self-trust. These traits lead them to more effective functioning and personal happiness.

■

Children do not need to know their IQ score, but they must understand the differences in their behaviors that are associated with a high level of intellectual development.

122 ■

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Teachers can promote belonging needs among gifted students by ensuring that for at least part of the school experience the gifted students spend time with their intellectual peer group.

Labeling Gifted Children ■

Labeling students results in a change in parent and teacher expectations as well as in the self-concept of the child.

■

Labels create expectations. When using labels such as gifted or honors, the precise meaning of the term must be very clearly stated—not only what it is, but also what it is not.

The Moral Development of Gifted Children ■

From an early age, gifted children often show evidence of moral concerns, including empathy, compassion, idealism, global concern, and advanced understanding and judgment of moral issues.

■

Highly gifted children are reported as being far beyond their age-peers in understanding fairness, justice, and responsibility for self and others.

■

The establishment of a moral climate or environment could be one of the most critical factors for the development of the child both in the home and in school.

Attitudes of Society, Teachers, and Other School Personnel ■

Teachers’ perceptions of their own ability and worth are as significant in the success of their students as are the students’ concepts of themselves.

■

Numerous studies over time have shown that the attitudes held by the majority of school personnel toward gifted individuals are not positive.

■

The attitudes of teachers and school psychologists who work with the gifted are more favorable than the attitudes of those who do not.

■

In-service opportunities in gifted education need to be made available for all school personnel because attitudes of teachers, principals, and counselors toward gifted students clearly affect not only the students and their performance, but also the acceptance and effectiveness of the gifted program.

4

Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

©Shutterstock

IDEAS WE HAVE HAD ■

Creativity is found in only a relatively few very talented people.

■

People are either creative or they are not. Real creativity cannot be taught.

■

Research on creativity has focused on ways to combine, reorganize, or reshape knowledge structures to generate new understandings needed to solve problems. The solutions are then translated into action plans to bring creative ideas into being. This is how creativity occurs.

IDEAS RESEARCH SUPPORTS ■

Creativity is a process that is the very essence of life and can be found in the synthesis of enriched rational and spatial thought, heightened physical sensing and movement, sensitive emotional and social involvement, and high intuitive consciousness available to all human beings.

■

As parents and teachers we can create conditions and nurture skills that enhance the possibilities for creativity to be expressed and nurtured.

■

Creativity can occur through self-expression and personal development, curiosity, interest, and the ability to feel the joy of discovery.

123

124

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

VIEWS OF THE CONCEPT OF CREATIVITY Creativity is a very special condition, attitude, or state of being that nearly defies definition. Over the years, scholars and researchers, artists and musicians, philosophers, and educators have tried to use words to communicate this amazing phenomenon. Probably the most unexplainable part of creativity is the fact that, even though few agree on a definition, when we say the word, everyone senses a similar feeling. We may not be able to explain what it is rationally, but we know it just the same. When we are being creative, we are aware of its special excitement. The definition and conceptualization of creativity differ widely among researchers and fields of study. In an investigation of the range of views held on creativity, Piirto (2004) found different definitions and processes in use by developmental, social, cognitive, educational, and humanistic psychologists. Still other definitions are used in philosophy, business, and technology, while psychometric approaches add still different aspects to consider. In this chapter, creativity will be defined holistically, using the brain as a metaphor, as was done to define the concepts of intelligence and giftedness in Chapter 1. This holistic view focuses on creativity as the synthesis of enriched rational and spatial thought, heightened physical sensing and movement, sensitive emotional and social affect, and high intuitive consciousness. Restrict any one of these functions, and you reduce creativity. (See Figure 4.1.) Such a synthesis suggests even more: Creativity may well include a spark from another dimension. Using a holistic view acknowledges that creativity may express the uniqueness of a person through ideas, insights, processes, acts, and/or products. The focus may be in one area or discipline or be universal. The purpose of creativity in this model is to recognize and bring forth that which is new, diverse, advanced, complex, and/or previously unknown so that humankind can experience life as fuller, richer, and/ or more meaningful. When viewed from a synthesis model, different phenomena or even different types of creativity, as are now commonly described in the literature, can be seen not as contradictory, but as parts of a larger whole. Some writers and researchers have used creativity synonymously with giftedness, some have limited it to feelings and affective development, some believe that creativity must be expressed in a product, and some define only the spark or insight as the entire process. A holistic definition of creativity integrates all these ideas and allows far more understanding of the concept by removing the limitations any one view can present. It is as though everyone who has defined or discussed creativity is right, although the positions sound disparate. At the same time, they are wrong because they speak of only the part of creativity that they see or that fits their belief system. Such limited views of creativity have resulted in recognition of only an isolated part of what is a far more complex, more integrated whole. These researchers may have viewed and discussed only a small, exposed segment, most often the rational part, while only hinting at the other important facets. While a holistic view provides a structure that allows our discussion to take advantage of all of the research on creativity now available, regardless of the point of view of

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

FIGURE 4.1

125

Creativity Circle

the researcher, it does not explain creativity. The mystery and wonder of how the human being creates still exist.

Creativity as a Part of Giftedness The federal definition of gifted students includes creativity as an expression of giftedness, along with leadership, intellectual or academic achievement, and ability in the visual and performing arts. Sternberg and Lubart (1993) express the view that creativity is a dimension of intelligence that supplements the IQ, and they believe that it should be seen as a type of giftedness. They suggest that creative giftedness contrasts with

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

academic giftedness and bodily-kinesthetic giftedness. In their view, creativity involves “cognitive, stylistic, personality, motivational, and environmental aspects that differ from those involved in academic giftedness” (p. 8). Although still seeing creativity as a part of giftedness, Renzulli (1978, 1992) conceptualizes it as a condition for the identification of gifted behavior, when combined with motivation and above-average ability. He believes that creativity can be claimed only when a product results. Runco (1992) also believes that creativity is a vital component of giftedness and suggests that children will express creativity in specific domains. The view that creativity is an extension of giftedness comes from Feldman (cited in Piirto, 1998). He sees giftedness as achieving advanced mastery within a domain, creativity as extending mastery to find new meaning in the domain, and genius as remaking that domain. Limiting creativity to a cognitive view allows it to be more easily measured, researched, and taught; however, it does not capture the complexity of creativity or bring understanding to its other dimensions. Gowan (1981) discussed the relationship between giftedness and creativity by first distinguishing between personal and cultural creativity. He believed that anyone could be taught personal creativity, but that giftedness is necessary for cultural creativity—the form of creativity that produces major discoveries and ideas that significantly add to and inevitably change the future of humankind. He viewed giftedness as only the potential for creativity. Csikszentmihalyi (1995) also believes there are two types of creativity: the type found in big C creative people, whose works are considered eminent in their field or domain and lead to change, and the type expressed by little c people, whose use of creativity affects only their everyday lives.

©Shutterstock

126

Creativity is one way of expressing giftedness.

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

127

While many researchers believe there is a relationship between giftedness and creativity, most find that the relationship has a one-way association: To have high levels of creativity, there must be giftedness present; however, high levels of giftedness do not imply the presence of creativity. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2011) state a most important association between creativity and giftedness: “Creativity is important for giftedness because it is the component whereby one generates the ideas that will influence others” (p. 36).

The Cognitive or Rational View of Creativity How we define creativity will depend on our belief systems about other concepts. For example, if we believe that intelligence is defined as linear, rational thinking and that giftedness is identified only by a high IQ and/or outstanding academic ability, then we would look at creativity and intelligence as separate constructs, and our investigation of creativity would focus on problem solving, problem finding, or some other cognitive processing model. Classic examples are found in Guilford’s (1956) “The Structure of Intellect,” Parnes’s (1967) Creative Behavior Guidebook, Taylor’s (1985) “Multiple Talents,” Torrance’s (1966) Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, and Williams’s (1968) Creativity at Home and in School, which includes the Plank Model. Such a belief suggests that creative people must combine, reorganize, or reshape knowledge structures to generate the new understandings needed to solve problems. Such solutions are then translated into action plans to bring the creative idea into being. This is the cognitive or rational view of creativity, the view that has been most researched and that has accumulated the most literature and nearly all of the testing. For example, Torrance (2003) defined creative thinking as “taking place in the process of sensing difficulties, problems, gaps in information, missing elements; making guesses or formulating hypotheses about these deficiencies; testing these guesses and possibly revising and retesting them; and, finally, communicating the results” (p. 8). In the cognitive or rational view of creativity, problem solving and divergent thinking are the central focus for the development of creativity, although from the earliest conceptualization of creativity, many researchers also included problem finding and critical thinking (Albert & Runco, 1986; Gardner, 1993; Guilford, 1967; Renzulli, 1978; Torrance, 1964). After considering the research on problem solving and problem finding, Runco (1992) defines creative thinking as “finding a problem and solving it in one’s own way” (p. 13). Amabile (1989) defines the cognitive or rational view of creativity as having expertise in a given field and a high level of divergent skills. She believes these functions are necessary for all creative behavior. Creative giftedness, as a part of Sternberg’s (1985) conceptualization of giftedness, highlights the cognitive aspect by including insight, planning, and research. Gardner (1993), on the other hand, hypothesizes that creativity is a part of all of his original seven, now eight, “intelligences.” He believes that creativity is expressed by solving problems and devising products that may at first be novel or unusual, but that must be accepted by society before they can be considered creative. He further believes that the expression of creativity is focused on a specific domain or discipline. He concludes that it is regularly exhibited and includes devising new questions or fashioning products as well as solving problems.

128

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Mumford (1998), from his review of the studies on the cognitive models of creative thought, suggests that there are two basic categories, both of which focus on problem solving. There are those that see creative thought as an unconscious, uncontrollable phenomenon and those that consider it a directed, controlled phenomenon that depends on the use of reasoning in the active manipulation of available information. In the first set of models, solution occurs after a period of preparation and incubation, and it relies on associations and rule systems, even though such associations may be outside of conscious awareness. The models that involve conscious reasoning stress the importance of the acquisition and manipulation of knowledge. Combination and reorganization of available information are considered the most important skills. Mumford suggests that an integrative model that incorporates both types of creative thought might be more useful in explaining the phenomenon than either view used alone. This cognitive or rational dimension must be considered in attempting to understand the process of creativity, though it is probably the least exciting part. Efforts are frequently made to measure this dimension of creativity through tests. This raises the question of just how much we can learn about creativity from tests. It is doubtful that test results can ever identify or explain the creative process.

The Affective or Emotional-Social View of Creativity Other researchers and educators find that investigating only the cognitive processes restricts the understanding of creativity and its development. The majority of the studies of creativity have investigated either the cognitive view or the personality and motivation of creators. Csikszentmihalyi (1998) chooses to think of creativity as a result of the interaction among a person, a social system, and a cultural system. He believes that the affective-motivational dimension of creativity needs to be studied further. As he states, “While most of the field has been pursuing the cognitive angle, I have been always under the impression that what counts most in creativity is curiosity, interest, and the ability to feel the joy of discovery” (p. 81). Dudek and Cote (1994) believe that creativity can occur through self-expression and personal development and may not address a problem at all. When we shift from the realm of the rational to the realm of feeling, a whole new list of classic authorities on creativeness emerges. Among these are Maslow (1971), Moustakas (1967), Rogers (1959), Krishnamurti (1964), May (1959), and Fromm (1959). Maslow (1971) explained creativity by the actions and characteristics of the creative person rather than focusing on creative products or creative behaviors. He found that the correlation between the characteristics of persons who evidenced creativeness and those of persons who were healthy, self-actualizing, fully human people was nearly total. He stressed personality over achievement and the expressive quality over the problem-solving or product-making process. He considered a holistic view of creativity important. Moustakas (1967) saw creativity as experiencing life in one’s own way, drawing on one’s perceptions and personal resources. Rogers (1959) called it the mainstream— the tendency for human beings to actualize themselves, to become who they truly are. Krishnamurti (1964) claimed that creativity has its roots in the initiative, which comes into being only when there is deep discontent. For him, one must be wholly discontented—not complainingly, but with gaiety, joy, and love. May (1959) believed

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

129

that creativity is an encounter between an intensely conscious human being and the world, and for Fromm (1959), creativity is the ability to see and to respond with intense uniqueness. Along with the cognitive aspects of creativity, having expertise in a given field and a high level of divergent skills, Amabile (1983, 1990) sees an affective aspect, having intrinsic task motivation, as the third of her basic ingredients of creative work. In Dabrowski and Piechowski’s (1977) view of creativity, life is the creative product. Popspisil (1994) identifies a number of fields of inquiry that impact on our understanding of the affective or emotional-social aspect of creativity: linguistics, with arguments that suggest that meaning and reality are formed from the interaction of the mind and the environment; the new physics, with ideas that are radically changing our concept of reality as old structures and beliefs give way to continuously forming new patterns and possibilities; and brain research, with ideas of the dynamic nature of creativity and its physiological basis. He believes that linear, rational thought represents only one level of reality, but he does not consider such thought as reality in the broad sense. If we are to really develop a feeling for the nature of the concept, Popspisil (1994) believes that it is necessary to explore the bases for our beliefs, assumptions, and values regarding creativity.

The Physical/Sensing View of Creativity Creativity from the physical/sensing view is most related to the products of creativity. Art and music are examples of the expression of physical/sensing aspects of creativity, although, unfortunately, visual artists, writers, and musicians are too often seen as the only representation of creativity. By limiting creativity to a focus on creative products, we deny the possibility of private and personal expressions of creativity that may not be expressed so tangibly. Runco (2001) has a different concern: “An emphasis on actual products and achievement may prevent us from identifying the children with creative potential who need us the most” (p. 23). Harrington (1980) argued for the inclusion of kinesthetic and muscular modes of representation and expression in the creative process. He believed that such involvement facilitates creativity by encouraging the transformation of information into analogy and metaphor.

The Intuitive View of Creativity The intuitive dimension of creativity may be the most intriguing, as it requires a focus on a higher level of consciousness than do the others. It focuses on the spark that enters into all the other aspects of creativity that we have been considering. For decades, scholars including Gowan (1980), Koestler (1964), Krippner (1968), MacKinnon (1965), and Samples (1976) tried to describe this dimension of creativity. Each had a somewhat different view. Gowan (1980) referred to creativity as “the first in a series of increasing operations of more and more order. Some very spectacular effects occur in these higher and rarer states” (p. ix). He believed human consciousness to be Divine. Koestler (1964) believed that you relinquish conscious control and thus liberate

130

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

the mind; Krippner (1968) believed creativity to be an alternative level of awareness; and MacKinnon (1965) believed it to be a perception. Samples (1976) believed creativity produces an attitude that nurtures diversity, change, optimal involvement, and selfregulation. He felt that we must learn and relearn to honor the creativity within ourselves. From my experience, it is almost as though a person opens up, taps into, and links with the universe. The person becomes part of a unity with a higher expression rather than just a conduit for it.

The Holistic View of Creativity: Integrating the Views Even though a person can generally categorize aspects of creativity into one of these four different dimensions, each is actually a part of the whole. Unless all of these views and the information related to them are integrated, we may not be talking about creativity in a total sense. The researchers, scholars, and practitioners who gave rise to different perceptions of creativity added clarity to the total picture, but their views were limited, as they kept the whole from being understood. Each of us as an individual has the capacity to integrate all of these dimensions of creativity holistically within ourselves. A number of individuals have recognized the limitations of focusing on only one aspect of creativity and have combined several of these areas in their work. They viewed creativity from the full range of process and product, from skill development to expressions of personal emotion, and from the production of the arts to the use of intuition. As early as 1972, Gowan pointed out the holistic nature of creativity. In his discussion, he grouped the investigations of creativity into five areas: (1) cognitive, rational, and semantic; (2) personal and environmental; (3) mental health and openness; (4) Freudian and neo-Freudian; and (5) psychedelic, existential, and irrational. He viewed these subdivisions on a continuum and presented helpful overviews of all the areas and of their relationships to the total concept. In his later work, he expanded his involvement with the irrational aspect (Gowan, 1974, 1975, 1980). He stated: Creativity is a characteristic not only of individual human behavior, but also of the species in general. What is true of the development of the superior individual is also true of the developing aspects of mankind. The emergence of creative abilities is a triumph not only of individual development, but . . . the harbinger of evolutionary progress. (Gowan, 1972, p. 70)

Gowan (1981) suggested that far more attention should be paid to the development of our creative abilities. He believed that at the very least we should study creativity directly in high school and university classes; help young children learn techniques of relaxation, stress reduction, and the incubation of creative thought; help children practice the use of imagination and imagery; and encourage creative production appropriate to their developmental phase. Another model of creativity in which all components must work together in an integrated way is suggested by Urban (1995). He defines creativity as “the highest form of evolution and that, which leads to evolution.” He echoes Maslow as he cautions us to regard creativity as a “human-bound potential or aptitude . . . linked with, dependent on, demonstrated and manifested by a person, his/her thinking, acting, and doing. This special human activity results in a new, innovative product.” He introduces a six-component

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

131

model of creativity that includes (1) divergent thinking and doing, (2) a general knowledge and thinking base, (3) a specific knowledge base and specific skills, (4) focusing and task commitment, (5) motives and motivation, and (6) openness and tolerance of ambiguity. His use of six components moves us beyond a divergent thinking or cognitive processes approach because he believes that no one approach can be used alone, and he has constructed a more holistic structure than previous divergent thinking models. He is working toward “the dynamic balance of the unbalanced,” which he suggests lies not in the middle between opposites, but in the full development of both in an integrated manner. In a review of the brain studies that looked at brain functioning, giftedness, and creativity, Geake and Dodson (2005) observed that a high rate of activity in the prefrontal cortices was a consistent finding. On all measures of level of activity and density of cellular and neuroglial systems, the gifted subjects more than doubled those of their nongifted age-peers. This resulted in “an exponentially higher number of interconnections (synapses) in these critical frontal areas” (p. 9). The researchers believe that this explains why gifted people have the potential for high-level creative intelligence and “can manage the interflow of vastly greater amounts of information, and thus create more opportunities for new conceptual relationships” (p. 9). It would be inappropriate to conclude that these differences in brain development between gifted and nongifted age-peers can be found only in the prefrontal areas. Other researchers from the cognitive sciences, the neurosciences, and cognitive psychology reported by Geake and Dodson have found that the fully interconnected brain of the gifted population is capable of dynamic activation of brain areas, relaying and integrating information over direct and indirect brain routes. This results in a deeper knowledge base and a larger number of creative ideas from which the gifted person can self-select. Geake and Dodson believe that by studying creativity from a neuropsychological level they can account for some of the cognitive behaviors that characterize gifted students. In the early 1970s, Leonard (cited in Ferguson, 1973) proposed what was then an incredible hypothesis, that the ultimate creative capacity of the brain may be, for all practical purposes, infinite. Brain researchers today agree that the brain is seemingly without limits to its capacity, that it cannot be filled up (Diamond & Hopson, 1998). As Ferguson noted in 1973, “Emotion and intellect, freedom and discipline, reason and intuition, the precise and the gossamer, primary and secondary processes, chaos and order—all of these apparent opposites can exist in creative harmony in the human brain” (p. 295). This conclusion continues to be reflected in the findings of today. From the view of the holistic model, creativity depends on the balance among action, emotion, and cognition, with the addition of insight or intuition and the ability to synthesize the components of a situation into a meaningful whole. “The creative attitude requires a holistic view of reality, awareness of all levels of experience—physical, emotional, and mental, and a balance of inner and outer directedness” (Miliora, 1987, p. 145). Why is there so much interest in developing, enhancing, and releasing creativity in so many fields of study? If the only reason was to produce more creative products, we might question why. But, regardless of how we view creativity, we all can agree that creativity involves discovery cognitively, deep satisfaction emotionally, beauty and grace in our physical world, and the thrill and peace of knowing and touching a higher, unlimited part

132

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

of ourselves intuitively. For those who can call on its essence continually and in abundance, there is no question of why such interest exists. For those learning to release creativity in themselves and others, the answer is that we study creativity and its processes, and creative people and their products, because just as creativity can be enhanced and developed, it can be diminished and misused. Since we are assured that everyone can be creative, it must be part of our concern as educators to develop and enhance this aspect of ourselves so that we can contribute to being all we can be. The alternative would be to lose part of our identity and the wholeness of who we are as human beings.

CHARACTERISTICS AND ABILITIES COMMONLY FOUND IN CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS As early as 1964, Torrance compiled an extensive list of 84 characteristics found in one or more studies that differentiate highly creative persons from less creative ones. MacKinnon (1964) developed a list that characterized highly creative people in much the same way. Maslow (1968) found that many of the characteristics on his list of self-actualizing people, whom he considered to be synonymous with creative individuals, were essentially the same as the earlier lists. Lists from researchers today still tend to agree and mention the same characteristics (see Figure 4.2).

Terrence Clark

Rational Characteristics

Playing pretend encourages characteristics of creativity.

Researchers who talk about creativity as a rational process frequently describe creative people as independent, persistent, and highly motivated; as excited and involved. Gruber and Davis (1988) found that creative scientists engage in a wide interconnected network of projects, all sharing a strong sense of purpose, in which they are emotionally engaged. They consistently create and use images to give understanding to the interconnections evolving over time. A somewhat different listing of characteristics was hypothesized by Renzulli (1992), with the idea that one or a combination of these factors usually found in persons viewed as creative may help us to better understand their complexity. His list includes moral courage, optimism, vision, charisma, hope, personal choice, positive feelings from hard work,

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

FIGURE 4.2

Characteristics of Creative People

Cognitive/Rational Creative Individuals ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Self-disciplined, independent, often antiauthoritarian Zany sense of humor Able to resist group pressure, a strategy developed early More adaptable More adventurous Greater tolerance for ambiguity and discomfort Little tolerance for boredom Preference for complexity, asymmetry, openendedness High in divergent thinking ability High in memory, good attention to detail Broad knowledge background Need think periods Need supportive climate, sensitive to environment Need recognition, opportunity to share High aesthetic values, good aesthetic judgment Freer in developing sex role integration; lack of stereotypical male, female identification

Affective/Emotional-Social Creative Individuals ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■

■

■ ■ ■ ■

133

A special kind of perception More spontaneous and expressive Not frightened by the unknown, the mysterious, the puzzling; often attracted to it Resolution of dichotomies: selfish and unselfish; duty and pleasure; work and play; strong ego and lack of ego Able to integrate More self-accepting; lack fear of own emotions, impulses, and thoughts Have more of themselves available for use, for enjoyment, for creative purposes; waste less of their time and energy protecting themselves Involved in more peak experiences, integration within the person and between the person and the world, and transcendence Capacity to be puzzled Ability to concentrate Ability to experience self as creative, as the originator of one’s acts Willingness to be born every day

■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■

Ability to accept conflict and tension rather than avoiding them Courage to let go of certainties, to be different, to be concerned with truth, to be certain of one’s own feelings and thoughts and trust them Identify closely with the feelings and expectations of others Less repressed and defensive More curious More maturely autonomous and less dependent on views of others

Physical/Sensing Creative Individuals ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Openness to experience, new ideas An internal locus of evaluation An ability to toy with elements and concepts Perceiving freshly Concern with outside and inside worlds Ability to defer closure and judgment Skilled performance of the traditional arts High theoretical and aesthetic values

Intuitive Creative Individuals ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■

More intuitive and open to admitting turbulent inner conflicts Have their energy field accessible Have ability to tap and release unconscious and preconscious thought Are able to withstand being thought of as abnormal or eccentric Are more sensitive Have a richer fantasy life and greater involvement in daydreaming Are more enthusiastic and impulsive Often show abilities of synesthesia (e.g., tasting color, seeing sound, hearing smells) Show different brain wave patterns than the less creative, especially during creative activity Get excited and involved when confronted with novelty of design, music, or ideas (less creative people get suspicious and hostile) When given a new solution to a problem, get enthused, suggest other ideas (less creative students analyze the defect rather than explore potentials)

Sources: The listed characteristics are from the research of Albert, 1998; Amabile, 1990; Fromm, 1959; Guilford, 1959; Koestler, 1964; Krippner, 1968; MacKinnon, 1964; Maslow, 1959; May, 1959; Miliora, 1987; Parnes, 1967; Rogers, 1959; Runco and Nemiro, 1994; Sternberg and Lubart, 1993; Williams, 1968.

134

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

a sense of power to change things, a sense of destiny, sensitivity to human concerns, physical and mental energy, and a romance with a topic or discipline. The childhood of creative people often included a lot of diversity and a great deal of freedom to explore and make decisions—they were allowed to be creative. Creatively gifted individuals are able to see problems in ways that others do not; they use divergent thinking and the processes of insight to solve problems or complete projects (Amabile, 1989; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993).

Affective Characteristics To be creative in the sense of feeling requires a special kind of perception. Important qualities of a creative attitude according to Miliora (1987) are trust, curiosity, and the capacity to take risks and to be spontaneous in the moment. She conceptualizes trust as receptivity to what emerges, to change, and to the unknown, without needing to manipulate, concretize, or analyze. Trust also, she believes, needs a nonjudgmental, accepting attitude toward oneself at all levels of experience and a willingness to let go of control when appropriate. A trusting attitude about ourselves, the world, and the unknown allows change to emerge. In the past, many people assumed that those who were highly creative were less emotionally stable, less mature, and more childlike; indeed, many have equated highly creative acts with madness. Rothenberg (1990), in his study of the relationship of creativity to psychosis, has found that psychotics and the highly creative do share some types of thinking. The thinking for both transcends the common modes of logical thinking. Both combine paradoxical or antagonistic objects into a single entity and use metaphors that superimpose multiple, discrete objects. Jamison (1993) noted that another shared thought process was fluency, rapidity, and flexibility of thought, with the ability to combine ideas and categories of thought to form new and original connections. While there are certainly distinct differences and the links are not seen as numerous or invasive, Neihart (1998) concludes, “The research suggests that differentiated emotional support should be available to students who are in pursuit of superior creative achievement” (p. 50). The creative individuals who emphasize feeling are expressive; they are unafraid of the unknown or the mysterious and, in fact, are often attracted to it. They are selfaccepting and relatively unconcerned with what others may say. They have themselves available to use for enjoying and creating. They waste little time protecting themselves, even from themselves. The people who express this quality of creativity are able to integrate within the person as well as between the person and the world. There is resolution of dichotomies such as selfish/unselfish, duty/pleasure, and work/play. They lack fear of their own emotions, impulses, and thoughts. They have the ability to be puzzled, to concentrate, and to experience themselves as creative (Maslow, 1959; Rothenberg, 1990). In a sense, those who bring feelings into creativity have the willingness to be born every day. Conflict and tension are seen as opportunities rather than as conditions to be avoided. These people have the courage to let go of certainties, to be different, to trust their inner thoughts. They model creativity and as a result allow others to be creative. The more they grow, the more others around them grow. This type of creative student

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

135

can also be unconventional, individualistic, and nonconforming and typically is viewed as “difficult,” even though such behaviors may, in fact, reflect the development of creative behavior (Runco & Nemiro, 1994). High ego-strength, an attraction to complexity and unconventional ideas, moderate rebellion, impulsivity, an openness to the unconscious, and a passion for their creative efforts are identified by Albert (1998) as cross-cultural personality traits that have characterized exceptionally creative persons in Western cultures through the ages. He concludes that creative activity is intrinsic to humans, literally built into our nature, and serves us as an important tool of our adaptation. Self-confidence (e.g., ego-strength) and discretion are seen by Runco (2001) as indicators of creativity.

Physical Characteristics Even those who focus on products as examples of creativity talk about intangible characteristics of the creative person, such as openness to experience, an ability to play with concepts, and a tendency to perceive things freshly. The ability to defer closure while accepting conflict and tension and a concern for aesthetic value are identified as characteristics of those who create the physical products. Amabile (1990) found a positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and creative performance. Creative people seem to combine skilled performance with high theoretical and aesthetic values.

Intuitive Characteristics Intuition may be the highest form of human cognition and is highly synthetic in nature. People who express their creativity in intuitive ways use and value imagination in their thinking. Fantasy, daydreams, and dreams often help to release the creative processes. Intuition seems to express notions of deep mystery, of things that are unexplainable, yet totally known. It is like soaring while being deeply grounded. Feldman (1988) has been particularly interested in the role of insight and transformation in the development of creative behavior. In some classrooms, these behaviors are seen as problematic. Little children use the intuitive aspects of the creative process and, when they feel safe, will share with you the kinds of things that are happening to them. At a summer gifted program in another state, an 8-year-old boy recorded a relaxation tape as a gift for me so that I could take it to my room on campus and use it to relax myself. He was inspired to do this for me because I had been sharing short relaxation exercises with music for his class as an introduction to the day or to specific lessons. Later that evening when I listened to his tape, I was amazed to find that his tape, recorded the night before, was almost a word-forword match to the relaxation session I had done in his class that morning! Miliora (1987) comments: In contrast to cognition via thinking, cognition via intuition has the following characteristics: immediate and direct knowing of the totality of a situation; experiential and synthetic or holistic. It does not operate from the part to the whole as the analytical mind does. . . . For those that choose to pay attention to it, the awareness of intuition can be developed as a valuable faculty in the creative process. (pp. 139–140)

136

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Miliora finds imagination to be the bridge between rational thought and feelings, with cognition via imagination preceding conceptual thinking as an important part of the creative process throughout our lives. She believes that “the capacity of images to unite physical, mental, and emotional levels of experience accounts for its potential usefulness to effect healing, growth, and learning” (p. 142). Paradoxically, in addition to creating the conditions and allowing the freedom to develop, the intuitive aspects of creativity are enhanced by the absence of trying. The more one strives to succeed, the more anxious or competitive one feels; the more out of tune and insensitive one becomes. Feelings of self-confidence, self-acceptance, and selfesteem provide the basis for growth in this aspect of creativity. Emotions are inseparably involved in creative activity, inspiration, and intuition. Rationality, positive emotions, and intuition all seem to lead to creative actions. There are several components found to be involved in the development of the intuitive aspects of creativity. The ability to relax and reduce tension and anxiety is the first skill needed. The ability to make use of imagery and imagination also facilitates creativity and the development of higher levels of consciousness. Imagination is more than the ability to be creative, according to McKim (1980), a former Stanford professor who taught some of the first courses on visual thinking and imagining. Imagination is all that you have ever learned or experienced; it is central to your every perception and act. . . . Imagination also rules what you choose to see or ignore, to like or dislike. Every moment you match your immediate experience with past experiences stored in image form. (pp. 88–89)

McKim points out that our awareness of self, our self-image, is an ability of imagination. While some have attempted to treat imagination as something destructive, to be feared, McKim clearly shows it to be a necessary and needed human ability. He concludes that only if we are familiar with and aware of our ability to imagine and only if we have active and trained imaginations, can we use this ability to enrich our reality instead of mindlessly following illusions. He believes that “those who are passively unaware of their imaginations are easy targets for promulgators of illusion” (p. 89). Other characteristics associated with the intuitive form of creativity include having an accessible energy, the ability to release unconscious thought, the ability to withstand being considered abnormal, and a rich fantasy life. Also, being sensitive, enjoying great involvement in daydreaming, and being enthusiastic and impulsive. Some people who emphasize this form of creative expression in their lives say they have the ability to taste color, see sound, and hear smells. When confronted with such things as novelty of design, music, and ideas these people get excited and involved. People who are less comfortable with the intuitive aspects of creativity tend to become suspicious and hostile to these ideas. Galbraith and Wentzel (2001) suggest an interesting list of common traits found among creatively gifted children. Among them are children who ■ ■ ■ ■

have imaginary friends. enjoy acting and pretending. invent words, objects, or concepts. respond to a question with a list of possible answers.

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness ■ ■

137

create complicated games. add new details and twists to stories, TV programs, movies, and games.

Brain wave patterns in creative people are significantly different from those in less creative individuals. Theta waves seem to be highly productive of creative thought and occur most frequently during the state of consciousness bordering on sleep. Preadolescent children exhibit significantly more theta wave activity in the waking state than most adults, and this may explain children’s natural tendency toward creative play, silly behavior, and fresh perceptions (Golemen, Kaufman, & Ray, 1992). Geake and Dodson (2005) report research that confirms that gifted learners have more brain cells, nearly double the density within the neuroglial support systems, and an exponentially higher number of interconnections or synapses in the critical frontal areas of the brain than their nongifted age-peers. Among other results, this allows gifted people to manage significantly greater amounts of information and creates more opportunities for new conceptual relationships. While others have looked at the common characteristics of creative people in the hope of understanding what creativity is and how it can be nurtured, Gruber and Davis (1988) suggest a different approach. Following the premise that each person has a unique combination of creative traits, they believe that the most challenging aspect of research on creativity is to construct and explain each such unique combination. They believe that any theory of creativity that is based only on looking at common characteristics among creative people may be missing the way in which the characteristics within one person interact to create the uniqueness of the individual and the complexity of creativity.

CREATIVITY AS A PROCESS Golemen, Kaufman, and Ray (1992) support the idea that everyone has a creative spirit and deplore the fact that so many do not see themselves as creative. In describing how creativity feels, Golemen et al. suggest, “when creativity is in full fire, people can experience what athletes and performers call the ‘white moment.’ Everything clicks. Your skills are so perfectly suited to the challenge that you seem to blend with it. Everything feels harmonious, unified, and effortless” (p. 44). They believe that there is too much focus on big C creativity, defining it as limited to the achievements of geniuses. Adding to our understanding of the experience of being creative is the work of Csikszentmihalyi (1993). He coined the term flow to describe the feelings of “concentration, absorption, deep involvement, joy, a sense of accomplishment . . . using psychic energy in a harmonious pattern . . . a sense of discovery, the excitement of selfdiscovery . . . going beyond what one has already achieved” (pp. 176–177). The flow experience includes ■ ■ ■ ■

clear goals with immediate feedback; personal skills well suited to given challenges; a merge of action and awareness; task concentration that suspends worries, concerns, and other stimuli;

138

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

a sense of potential control; loss of self-consciousness; a sense of growth and being part of a greater entity; an altered sense of time; and a sense that the experience is worth doing for its own sake.

According to Csikszentmihalyi, “A creative product is never random or arbitrary; it must be true to something deeply sensed or felt inside the person” (p. 62). He believes that, if society is to allow all of us to become, it must not enshrine the creative solutions of the past in permanent institutions; rather, it must give people the opportunity and support to bring forth new ideas to be evaluated, selected, and joyously implemented. “The most satisfying way to actualize the self is by building that most complex system—a good society” (p. 272). A well-known process for being creative is that introduced by Wallas in 1926. The stages of this process include preparation, clarifying the problem and collecting information about the problem and possible solutions; incubation, thinking about or reflecting on the problem; illumination, the stage at which the solution appears (i.e., the “Aha!” experience); verification, trying out and evaluating the solution; and implementation, elaborating the solution and carrying it out. Another familiar model for looking at the process of creativity is known as the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Model. As developed by Osborn in 1963, it included three stages: fact-finding, idea-finding, and solution-finding. Parnes in 1981 and Treffinger, Isaksen, and Dorval in 1994 extended the model to five stages, including an initial step, mess-finding or locating a problem. Fact-finding was followed by the new stage of problem-finding and the original stages of idea-finding and solution-finding. Later acceptance-finding was added at the end to reflect the need for implementation. Very similar to the Wallas conceptualization, the model makes use of divergent and convergent thinking at every stage. In trying to understand the act of creating, I have interviewed a number of people who have been acknowledged for their creative products and are successfully using their creative talents in their careers. Sharing some of their comments will serve to broaden our understanding of the process of creativity, while raising new questions regarding the nature of this elusive human ability. When asked from where in her physical body her creative ideas come, a writer responded that the material comes through from the back of her head, low, near her neck. She suggested that she simply flowed with the material, writing it down as it came. She said she was sometimes unaware of what she had written until later when she read “her” work. She shared that she really enjoyed what had been written, especially delighting in the humor of the material. She has found that she is highly energized by long periods of this flow of creativity; time passes without her awareness. When asked the same question, a sculptor expressed this dilemma. He told me that as he began to free his creative ideas, he found that an idea would come, and as he was beginning to work with this idea another would surface. He said that at first he used to stop the first project and begin on the second only to find that shortly a third and a fourth would come into his mind. There seemed to be a flow of ideas waiting to be

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

139

noticed, and he could not work fast enough to capture them all. He said that he was afraid that he would lose some of the ideas and he tried to complete others. Then, he said, he discovered the solution. He could store new ideas while he carried one to completion and then tap into the next when he was ready. “Where did you store the ideas?” was my query, thinking that he would suggest some area of his head as the holding area for these creative ideas. Instead, he pointed to his upper arms. After thinking about this, it seemed a perfect solution. His arms were the part of his body that helped release the idea and turn it into a completed product that communicated his thought to the world. Another friend who is an internationally known conductor-composer shared the notion that, when she awoke, her scores and arrangements were found fully formed in her head. She would then go immediately to her studio, at the back of her home, and begin the task of putting these musical patterns onto paper. She would work, sometimes days at a time, until all of the music that she could hear was recorded on paper. Her family was used to this behavior, and they had worked out a signal that allowed her to be undisturbed when one of these creative periods was in progress. Meals were delivered to the studio, and all other day-to-day business was taken over by her husband or members of her staff. It was not unusual for her to spend more than a week in isolation with her muse. Conditions that produce the creative act are not always the same among those to whom I spoke. I prefer solitude, as does my composer friend, although she can re-create internal conditions of flow when she is interrupted, thus returning to a productive state. However, when asked to write on demand within a time frame, the composer shows evidence of discomfort and finds that a panic reaction begins to set in (e.g., she sweats profusely and begins to doubt her ability). Under these conditions, she cannot produce. A young musician friend, who has not yet achieved the success of the other creative artists and performers previously mentioned, finds a different climate necessary for her productivity. She writes original music best when sitting in a very interactive, noisy environment like a live music club, the louder the better. Her product, however, may be a gentle ballad. She agrees with the others that music comes through her, not from her. Edison, Tessla, Mozart, and Hemingway all wrote of the creative product coming through them, not from them. How conditions should be arranged and what is necessary to allow the creative spirit to flow vary with each person. Only one thing seems sure in any discussion of creativity: It is a complex matter unique to each individual. The best we can do as teachers or facilitators may be to model our own valuing of the creative act, provide a rich and varied environment, and allow each person the safety, support, and time to find his or her own way.

DEVELOPING CREATIVITY Over and over in discussions of creativity, we find statements to the effect that everyone has a great deal of creativity as a child, but that very few retain it as adults. All who comment on this state of affairs go on to ask, “Why must it be so? How does it happen?”

140

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

Conditions That Enhance the Development of Creativity Most writers and researchers agree that all people have the ability to be creative, at least while they are young. For decades, it has been accepted that the behaviors of youth and adults have their roots in infancy and early childhood. This is also true of giftedness and creativity. To be supportive of the developing creativity in very young children, adults must understand it, value it, and encourage the expression of it. The behaviors of creative children are often unique and different and may contribute to disturbance and chaos. Being the teacher or parent of a creative child is not easy. NURTURING CREATIVITY AT HOME Parents of creative children are often themselves creative and show self-assurance and initiative. Comfortable with change, they prefer unstructured demands. They value their own autonomy and independence, but are conscientious and dependable toward their children. Both parents have more interest in cultural-intellectual pursuits than in social-civic organizations or sports. They engage in creative hobbies and/or play musical instruments. They read more than average, read more to their children, and often take them to the library. Clearly, they serve as role models for their children. Creative children tend to be found in homes that are less authoritarian. The entire family stresses openness and expresses an enthusiasm for life. Parents value the expression of feelings and individual divergence. More permissive parents seem to have more spontaneous, original, self-initiating, and independent children. These children also seem less hostile, more outgoing, and more friendly. Their parents allow them more freedom in making decisions and in exploring the environment. Parents of gifted and creative children prefer guidance to punishment and seldom use physical punishment. Playfulness has been cited as a quality that supports creativity both for children and for adults. Imagination, make-believe, and fantasy are essential. These qualities require patient, interested, nonjudgmental listening on the part of parents as their children explore endless tales from their imagination and the impossible accomplishments of their imaginary friends (Amabile, 1989; Dansky & Silverman, 1980). Just as with all optimal development, actualization of creativity requires environments that provide psychological safety and freedom, are risk-free, and are filled with a variety of creative settings, outlets, and activities. Such environments should include materials and experiences that involve the cognitive, physical, affective, and intuitive domains. In these richly responsive environments, there must be sufficient time for both free play and playful exploration guided by an interested adult who can be responsive to the child’s unique personality, interests, and pacing (Clark, 1986; Meador, 1992; Piirto, 2004). Gardner (1993) suggests that the quality of these early years is crucial. From his work, he believes that individuals who ultimately make creative breakthroughs tend, from their earliest days, to be explorers and innovators, never satisfied to follow traditional paths. He uses the term capital of creativity, which can be available to children later in their lives if they are given the opportunity to discover their world in a comfortable, exploring way.

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

141

NURTURING CREATIVITY AT SCH OOL Schools can make important contributions toward advancing creativity, for this aspect of development is considered learned behavior and, therefore, is capable of improvement through instruction. When students are taught in a way that enables them to encode information in a variety of ways and to capitalize on their strengths, they learn better, teaching students to think creatively not only allows them to express and develop their creativity, but to learn better. (Sternberg, 1998, p. 87)

Smutny and von Fremd (2009) suggest important benefits of creativity for gifted learners in the classroom. Its use offers an environment that increases their motivation, engagement, and initiative. It stimulates higher-level thinking, deeper analysis of problems, more flexible thinking across disciplines, heightens discovery of connections, and fosters more nuanced understanding of issues. These are some of the reasons that students must be taught the skills and attitudes of creativity at school. Geake and Dodson (2005) recommend teaching to emphasize the interconnections available within the brain. In our ideal classroom, students would be motivated to explore how any concept or piece of knowledge is like another, and what insights these possible analogical relationships might afford. The key variable is complexity, and academically gifted students should be pushed to the limits of their working memory capacity for conceptual complexity . . . the aim of promoting creative intelligence is to help gifted children balance knowledge, speculation, invention, and evaluation as core components of their learning. (p. 12)

Skills such as those measured on the Minnesota Test of Creative Thinking (MTCT) have been significantly improved through special programs. If schools are to do this job, they must change their focus. Although the process may differ slightly from program to program, most agree with Wallas (1926) that it must include preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. From a compilation of research for over 50 years it has been consistently found that teachers who successfully develop creativity tend to have the following common behaviors: ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

They provide more thinking activities (convergent, divergent, evaluative). They use fewer memory activities. They use evaluation for diagnosis, not judgment; rewarding correctness of spelling, punctuation, grammar, neatness, handwriting, or quantity inhibits the production of original ideas. They give opportunities to use knowledge creatively. They encourage spontaneous expression. They provide an atmosphere of acceptance. They provide a wealth of stimulation from a rich and varied environment. They ask provocative questions. They value originality.

142

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner ■

■ ■

■

They encourage students to examine new ideas on their merit and not dismiss them as fanciful. They provide for unevaluated practice and experimentation. They teach skills of creative thinking—such as originality, fluency, flexibility and elaboration, deliberate idea finding, deferred judgment, forced relationships (the ability to find the common traits of unrelated or dissimilar objects and issues), alternative thinking, and hypothesis setting. They teach skills of researching, such as engaging in self-initiated exploration, observing, classifying, questioning, arranging and using information, recording, translating, inferring, testing inferences, representing experience and observations, communicating, generalizing, and simplifying.

Another clue: Creative teachers have proved more effective at teaching creativity than those who do not see themselves as creative. Piirto (1998) reminds us, “the most enhancing rewards for creative endeavor are in the pleasure the creator takes in doing the work itself, and in achieving the result, and not from the pay or the prize” (p. 356). Often creative individuals become intrinsically motivated and set their own standards. The fear is that placing such children in the traditionally conformist setting of many schools may lead to inhibition of intellectual and creative growth, frustration, and often the denial and abandonment of creative potential. Creative students fare somewhat better with creative teachers. However, school peers also influence learning. In the case of creative students, their peer interactions do not seem to facilitate creative growth. In grades 2 through 6, peer sanctions operate against the most creative children. Few are credited for their contributions to the group, so they develop a tendency to work alone. In the sixth grade, highly creative children often encounter open hostility, aggression, criticism, and rejection. Their peers may use organized efforts to limit their scope of operation and to impose sanctions. By junior high school, creative students who are not intellectually gifted are discounted, with their ideas being considered wild and their behavior deviant and wrong. Creative boys gain more acceptance from their peers when engaging in divergent behavior than creative girls. Is it any wonder that the more creative the students are too often the less they like school? Sternberg and Lubart (1993) believe that knowledge is an essential component in fostering creativity. Their research shows that knowledge helps a person produce novel work, be a contrarian: that is, bring incompatible or opposite points of view to bear to form creative solutions, and introduce novelty and fundamental abilities for creative performance. In addition to intrinsic motivation, it is necessary to develop a high level of skill to support the creative process (Bailin, 1988). Knowledge and skill are considered essential to opening the way for creative achievement. The knowledge must be more than a body of facts and must include in-depth understanding of the principles and procedures of the disciplines, the methods of inquiry, and the overall goals, issues, and controversies involved. Higher-order skills involving critical judgment applied to flexible and changing circumstances must be taught. The synthetic or inclusive nature of creativity links skill development to the importance of imagination.

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

143

Mumford (1998) believes that the production of novelty is an important part of creativity and is facilitated by knowledge of higher order cognitive systems. He suggests that the processes and strategies used to generate new ideas operate on such knowledge. To promote creativity, Mumford suggests providing ways that students can actively work with and apply new concepts and engage in problem-solving experiences consistent with the students’ goals and interests. There is a need for creative students to develop a mastery of their field, which will then allow them to move beyond the known. Schools should be about giving those tools of excellence, which would be seen as a beginning point. Schools, however, often tend to exaggerate the mastery functions and see the mastery level as the end point. As early as 1964, Torrance, a leader in the field of creativity research, found that the growth of creativity defined by test performance is not continuous, but rather increases from 3- to 4-and-a-half years of age and then takes a small drop. It begins to rise again, but makes a sharp drop in the fourth grade. The scores in fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration drop so significantly that some students have lower scores on tests of creativity in the fifth grade than they had in the third grade. The scores begin to rise again and continue to do so through the junior year of high school, except for a slight drop in the seventh grade. These studies showed that as early as third grade girls were more reluctant to think creatively than were boys. Torrance believed girls by this time have been conditioned to be more passive and accept things as they are rather than trying to manipulate or change things. He also found that contributions made by boys were more highly valued by their peers. In 1981, Torrance reported interesting results from an investigation of the patterns of various cultural groups in an attempt to understand the universality of the slump in creative development at the fourth-grade level. Looking at seven different cultural groups—advantaged United States; disadvantaged minority United States (African American); primitive Western Samoan; West Germany; Western Australian; East Indian; and Norway—he concluded that cultural factors strongly influence the course of creative development, the level of creative functioning, and the type of creativity most evident. He found that most cultures show discontinuities in creative development; for some it occurred in the fourth grade, in some not until the sixth grade. Also, children in the advantaged cultures show a higher level of creativity. The school environment is important in establishing the conditions that lead to the expression of creativity. Safe, accepting environments that are rich and varied in stimulation and that allow disagreement and controversy without hostility have been found to be most productive of behavior that underlies creativity. Creativity thrives in situations that present incompleteness and openness, allow and encourage questions and self-expression, and foster positive change. Opportunities to investigate ideas, to try out intuitive behavior, and to explore, observe, analyze, infer, predict, and find integrative elements in differences enhance the possibility of creative production. Teachers allow children’s own creativity to emerge when they help children learn from their mistakes, reduce anxiety in the classroom, allow rather than control, treat children with respect, and value and model creative and intuitive behavior (Runco & Nemiro, 1994). From Renzulli’s work (1992), we can add what he considers to be “starting material” for teachers who seek to facilitate creativity: flexibility; openness to

144

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

experience and new ideas; high levels of energy, optimism, and enthusiasm; and a commitment to excellence. SOME STRATEGIES TO DEVELO P OR RELEASE CREATIVE BEHAVIOR Creative Writing Pry-Mer. As a way of getting creative writing started, write the following categories across the top of the blackboard: Characters, Goals, Obstacles, and Results. Ask the students to help you list 10 items under each category, for example: Characters

Goals

Obstacles

Results

1. Wonder Woman 2. Abraham Lincoln

1. Peace 2. Moon flight

1. Fire 2. Stupidity

1. A big bang 2. Elected President

When you have 10 in each category, ask the students to take their own telephone number, drop the area code and the first three digits, and match the last four digits to the numbers of the items in each of the four categories (e.g., for the phone number (213) 555-1121, the items would be Wonder Woman, peace, stupidity, and a big bang). Ask them to write whatever story comes to their mind using these items. Have those who want to share their stories with the class do so. Maximize, Minimize, Integrate. Identify a problem. Ask the students to find a solution by taking a familiar object(s) and applying one or all of these actions: maximize, minimize, and/or integrate. For example, the solution to reducing the injury to drivers and passengers in cars was to maximize a pillow, fill it with air, and place it in front of the driver or passenger. Allow students to share their solutions with the class.

Conditions That Inhibit the Development of Creativity Conditions that inhibit creativity include low self-esteem, anxiety, competition, perfectionism, authoritarianism, external reward systems, the need for closure, rigid timelines, and disrespect for fantasy and daydreams. Runco (2001) suggests that an emphasis on products and achievement and the practice of identifying creativity exclusively by performance indicators may prevent us from finding children with creative potential. Amabile (1986) found in her research that creative production takes more than talent, personality, and cognitive ability. The most important factor seems to be the creator’s love of creating. She found that the most creative individuals do it for the fun and satisfaction they personally receive. Creative solutions to problems occur more often when the activity is done for pleasure than when an external reward is attached. Opportunities for creativity are reduced with supervisory restrictions, deadlines, evaluation, and reward structures. With the help of observations from famous creators, controlled experiments, and interviews with research and development (R&D) scientists, Amabile discovered some additional factors that undermine creativity and interest in the creative task: being watched while working, being engaged in a competition, and focusing on

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

145

extrinsic reasons for completing the task. Calling them creativity killers, Amabile identifies other inhibitors that can be found in the classroom such as over-control, telling children how to do everything, and placing too high expectations on them. The more unaware we are of how often we may be seeking the familiar, seeing things in the same way, following traditions and societal expectations, negatively predetermining the results of a situation, and wanting the comfort of routines, the more we will unknowingly inhibit our creativity. Figure 4.3 summarizes conditions that facilitate and inhibit creativity. In too many cases, we do not find a climate for creativity in our schools. Where we do acknowledge it, we tend not to recognize and nurture all four dimensions. As a society, we seem to have no plan for developing creativity within people. Individuals instead are convinced that they are not creative. It is a strange paradox that, although creativity is inherently human, it is an attribute that we accept the least within ourselves. We are often frightened of our creativity and unprepared to share it with each other.

MEASURING CREATIVITY The criterion for selecting and evaluating creative students has usually been a high score on a test designated as a creativity measure, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Torrance, 1966), the Remote Associates Test (RAT) (Mednick & Mednick, 1967), or the Group Inventory for Finding Creative Talent (GIFT) (Rimm, 1976). If tests are to be a part of the identification, creativity tests should be used with other data for evaluation of either individuals or programs, as there is disagreement in the field about the reliability and validity, and especially the predictive validity, of creativity tests. Reliability refers to the assurance that a person would have about the same score each time the test was taken. Validity refers to the idea that a test measures what it says it measures; predictive validity indicates that the score on the test can predict future accomplishments or actions. Not only is there a wide range of beliefs regarding the theory of creativity, but also there is the reality that it is impossible for any test to represent the complexity of any of the concepts of creativity. The view of creativity that one holds determines the type of testing that is given and the use that will be made of the results. Some suggest that the value of such testing may be found not in identifying creativity, but in assessing the processes involved in creative thinking that are available to the student. Making the identification more complex are the many attributes of creativity that seem to resist measurement. Callahan (1991) categorizes creativity tests (1) as performance- and/or productoriented—for example, the TTCT (Torrance, 1966) and the Seashore Measure of Musical Talent; (2) as oriented toward measuring the personality characteristics, attitudes, and/or values of the individual—for example, the GIFT (Rimm, 1976); or (3) as relying on biographical information. The different measures may be self-reported or rated by others such as teachers and/or peers. Davis (1995) prefers to identify ways to find creativeness as formal or informal, depending on whether formal testing is used or opinions of teachers, parents, and

146

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 4.3

Facilitating or Inhibiting the Development of Creativity

Conditions That Facilitate ■

■

■

■ ■

■

■

■ ■ ■

■

■

■ ■ ■ ■

■

■ ■ ■

Provide an environment that is rich and varied in stimulation, is safe, and is accepting. Teach with materials and methods harmonious with each other and with the teacher. Delineate clearly and repeatedly the aims of this type of program. Allow free interplay of differences. Make environment and materials friendly and nonthreatening, thereby allowing disagreement and controversy without hostility (this allows children to engage freely in behavior underlying creativity). Reduce anxiety in classroom, especially that created by the teacher. Handle differences as confrontations, not as conflicts. Find integrative elements in differences. Allow unifying concepts to emerge. Allow individuation and differentiation within the unity. Foster positive change in directions congruent with student’s predilections in cognitive and affective areas. Provide situations that present incompleteness and openness. Allow and encourage lots of questions. Produce something, then do something with it. Grant responsibility and independence. Emphasize self-initiated exploring, observing, questioning, feeling, classifying, recording, translating, inferring, testing inferences, and communicating. Provide bilingual experiences resulting in development of greater potential creativity due to the more varied view of the world, a more flexible approach to problems, and the ability to express self in different ways that arise from these experiences. Allow rather than control. Be receptive. Value and model intuitive behavior.

■

■

■

■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Give opportunities to investigate ideas of successful, eminent people who used intuitive processes. Give opportunities to try out intuitive behavior (e.g., in problem solving). Treat the child with respect and allow freedom to explore the universe. Create an atmosphere with really good music, books, and pictures as a natural part of the child’s world. Treat ideas and questions respectfully. Respect the child’s privacy. Value the unusual, the divergent. Help the child learn by mistakes. Avoid sex-role stereotyping. Encourage self-expression. Teach the child to look and really see. Help the child learn to trust the senses. Permit the child’s own creativity to emerge.

Conditions That Inhibit Need for success, limiting risk-taking or pursuit of unknown. ■ Conformity to peer group and social pressure. ■ Discouragement of exploration, using imagination, inquiry. ■ Sex-role stereotyping. ■ Differentiation between work and play (e.g., learning is hard work). ■ Adherence to “readiness” viewpoint for learning. ■ Authoritarianism. ■ Disrespect for fantasy, daydreams. ■ Reward systems. ■ External locus of control. ■ Need for closure and rigid timelines. ■ Need for security and acceptance of product. ■ Perfectionism. ■ Low self-concept. ■ Trying to be creative. ■ Anxiety. ■ Competition. ■

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

147

others are sought. The formal category is much the same as the first two test categories discussed by Callahan (1991). The informal category includes biographical information, Callahan’s third category, such as the existence of an imaginary playmate during childhood or involvement in theater as a youth or an adult, to predict creativity. Awareness of the personality traits of creative persons—positive traits such as independence, risk taking, and open-mindedness; negative traits such as uncooperativeness, sloppiness with details, and lack of respect for authority; and creative abilities such as fluency, sensitivity, and ability to visualize—are other possible informal guides to the identification of creativity.

Measures of Performance Among the most popular tests used in the educational setting are the performance and/ or product measures, most notably those of divergent thinking (Hunsaker & Callahan, 1995) such as the TTCT. These tests are scored for fluency (the number of responses) and originality (the infrequency of the responses statistically). Such tests are favored because they result in observable, quantifiable information thought to generalize to common situations, although such responses are actually limited to items found on the test and cannot represent the full range of creativity that might have been developed by the person taking the test. Those studying cognitive, rational creativity also favor creativity tests that focus on problem solving and divergent thinking. Such tests include situations that present incompleteness and openness, situations that can then be brought to closure through a process of reasoning. The process would include the use of provocative questions and seek cleverness in evaluating the responses. These researchers and theorists prefer to see independence and responsibility as manifestations of creativity. They encourage self-initiated exploring, observing, classifying, recording, inference testing, and abundant communicating. They focus a child’s interest and attention on a task and then let the child guide the activity. The environment must be stimulating. In the end, their analysis of creativity is based on the uniqueness of and the variations in the reasoning that they see exhibited. It is from such controlled and guided experiences that the tests of creativity are typically created.

Measures of Products Another way of measuring creativity that has been in use for decades is the external evaluation of creative products. Assessment of creative products by experts has been found to be a valuable approach to measuring this area of creativity. Amabile (1983, 1996) studied the assessment of performance using the creative products of original writing and art and recommends consensual agreement of experts as one measure of creativity. The criteria often used to evaluate the products of creativity are originality, inventiveness, and imaginativeness. Although experts with detailed criteria most often judge creative products, the more inclusive views of creativity have added other ideas for evaluating. Amabile (1996) has developed and researched

148

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

a method, the Consensual Assessment Technique, that relies on the agreement of judges who are guided by a definition of creativity rather than explicit criteria in evaluating products. The reliability of her product evaluation tool has been noted even when relatively little training is used (Plucker & Runco, 1998). Reporting on studies of performance tests, Baer (1994) found that such tests could be structured to provide reliability and stability as tests of creativity. In addition to the more formal types of measurement of creative performance, more informal methods are being developed. As student achievement assessment more generally has focused on techniques of authentic assessment, the use of portfolios, exhibits, open-ended tasks, and performances has also increased in the area of measuring creativity. As with any use of such products for assessment, clear standards and knowledgeable judges are required. Social consumption may be used as the criterion for creativity in product evaluation. However, the longer a work survives, the closer the creator has come to touching an essential, human value that does not diminish with time.

Problems in Measuring Creativity Problems related to testing for creativity lie in the questions being raised regarding the more complex theories of creativity; questions of the reliability and validity of commonly used tests as measures of these more complex views. How the use of fluency affects originality scores is also under investigation. Such questions make it even more important to use more than a single test of creativity in any decision-making procedure concerning student identification or placement. It has not been possible to demonstrate that creativity tests are valid, Gardner (1993) contends, although he does consider creativity tests reliable. That is, they do seem to produce approximately the same rating of a person time after time, but what they are testing is not what many believe to be creativity. People regarded by those in their field as creative are not identified as creative by such tests. Another measurement problem is cited by researchers who believe that there are limitations to treating divergent thinking as synonymous with creative thinking and, therefore, to using divergent thinking tests to identify creativity (Runco & Nemiro, 1994). Although researchers believe that divergent thinking is involved in some creative performances, it may not be involved in every creative task or in every domain. And yet Fuchs-Beauchamp, Karnes, and Johnson (1993) found that most standardized measures of creativity for young children emphasize divergent thinking. There are many theories that do not base their construct for creativity only on divergent thinking, so tests of divergent thinking such as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) would not, from this point of view, be testing creativity. It has been suggested that creative thinking may be specific to a task or content domain, but does not necessarily require mastery of that domain as a goal (Plucker & Runco, 1998). That would mean that creativity could not be generalized and creative acts within one content area would be independent of activity considered creative in another area of content. With such specificity, generic tests of creativity such as the TTCT would again have questionable validity. However, it should be noted that the TTCT has been

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

149

extensively researched, provides updated norms, and shows evidence of long-term predictive validity regarding adult productivity after some 20 years (Fishkin & Johnson, 1998). For several decades, giftedness was identified on the basis of either high performance on a test of intelligence or high academic achievement. Some groups of students did not seem to do well on such tests and were, therefore, not included in programs for gifted education. As the country became aware of the issue and tried to find ways to bring diversity to such programs, some school districts began the practice of separate identification, or identification by use of alternate means of assessment. The use of creativity tests became very popular for this purpose. It was assumed that students from diverse populations would do better on creativity tests than they had on the previous measures used for identification. There were several problems with this practice. Many of the students tested under the special criteria did no better on the creativity tests than they had on the intelligence tests. Those who did do well were placed in the programs for gifted students who had been identified by their needs for advanced or more complex material, as evidenced on intelligence or achievement testing. High scores on the tests of creativity did not necessarily mean that the special-criteria students had these same needs, and when no changes were made to meet their needs, they found themselves often placed more inappropriately than they had been in the regular classroom. The result was that many of these students placed in gifted programs by special criteria were overwhelmed and less able to work to their level of ability. This practice also gave the false impression that students from minority groups could not do well on intelligence or achievement testing. Instead of broadening the population served in gifted programs by broadening the screening and identification for all students, special-criteria testing became as discriminatory to diverse groups as the single intelligence or achievement test had been. The current emphasis on alternative identification and the increased data on such procedures now available from projects funded by the Javits Program should ensure that no student would again have to experience the problems of special-criteria identification. Hunsaker and Callahan (1995) reported problems in the testing of creativity in their study of 418 school districts throughout the country. They found three major problems: Creativity was often assessed by a single test, the test of creativity chosen did not match the district’s stated definition, and often tests devised by teachers were used without the support of background data available in the field. When used as one of many types of evidence of a student’s special needs, creativity testing can be useful. Such tests can point to the need of some students for differentiated materials and instruction. Creativity tests can show the degree of effectiveness of the strategies used in a program to develop creative thinking. Many of the skills needed for some types of creativity can be measured. Whether a creativity test can really measure the presence or absence of skills involved in creativity or of actual creativity is debatable. Creativity is a complex concept; however, it is certain that more than cognitive skills are needed to achieve high levels of creativity. Creativity is truly a holistic concept, and even the most creative individuals are unlikely to behave creatively or produce creative products when they are not involved and motivated. In summary, creativity is best defined as a holistic concept that includes rational, emotional, physical, and intuitive aspects. Characteristics and conditions for the nurture

150

PART I: Understanding the Gifted Learner

of intelligence, giftedness, and creativity can be drawn from each of these aspects. Integrating all of the dimensions of creativity is a dynamic process that requires synthesis. It necessitates that we draw from all our other human functions. It seems to elevate us beyond just self into a linkage with the entire universe. It is possibly the most exciting thing with which humans can be involved, truly the highest form of human purpose. There is a growing awareness of the difference that an integrated approach to creativity could make in our world. For example, physics and other areas of science are talking about wholeness and oneness. Perhaps as we become more aware of how our universe operates, we will be able to see more clearly how each of us creates the universe within which we live. Creativity will not be about something someone else does— it will be about us, about each and all of us. To create is beyond giftedness; it is to become a part of the universe.

REVIEW OF IMPORTANT IDEAS Views of the Concept of Creativity ■

Creativity is a highly complex human ability that is beyond giftedness and can bring forth that which is new, diverse, advanced, complex, and/or previously unknown so that humankind can experience life as fuller, richer, and/or more meaningful.

■

Creativity can be enhanced or inhibited in its development depending on the opportunities provided by the environment of the home and the school.

■

Some believe that creativity is a component of giftedness or an extension of giftedness requiring higher levels of development than giftedness.

■

The literature and research on creativity present four viewpoints.

■

The holistic or integrative view of creativity depends on the balance among cognition, emotion, action resulting in products, and the insight of intuition, synthesized into a meaningful whole. Restrict any one of these functions and you reduce creativity.

■

Viewing creativity holistically allows the research from all other concepts of creativity to be used to better understand the phenomenon, its attributes, and its nurture.

Characteristics and Abilities Commonly Found in Creative Individuals ■

By knowing the characteristics commonly found in creative individuals, it is thought that creativity might be better understood, the identification of creative individuals easier, their needs more clearly defined, and the learning experiences to enhance their creativity more accurate in reaching their goals.

■

The possibility exists that, instead of focusing on common characteristics, the task should be to construct and explain the unique combination of traits each person exhibits and in this way discover the interaction of the characteristics within one person that creates the uniqueness of the individual and the complexity of creativity.

1. The cognitive and rational view of creativity focuses on problem solving and divergent thinking. It is this view that is most researched and that has accumulated the most literature and nearly all of the testing. 2. The affective or emotional-social view of creativity includes the personality and motivation research, such as that on intrinsic motivation, self-expression, and personal value structures. 3. Products, such as music and art, result from a wide range of creative human endeavors, and their evaluation is the concern of those who support the physical/sensing view of creativity. 4. The intuitive view of creativity requires a focus on a higher level of consciousness and seeks understanding of the relationship between the person who creates and a higher expression, a rare state of energy, or perhaps the universe itself.

Creativity as a Process ■

Csikszentmihalyi (1993) coined the term flow to describe the feelings of “concentration, absorption, deep involvement, joy, a sense of accomplishment . . . using psychic energy in a harmonious pattern . . . a sense of discovery,

CHAPTER 4: Integrating Creativity and Giftedness

■

■

■

151

the excitement of self-discovery, . . . going beyond what one has already achieved.”

■

Creativity is considered learned behavior and, therefore, is capable of improvement through instruction.

Wallas (1926) identified five stages of the process of creativity that include preparation, clarifying the problem and collecting information about the problem and possible solutions; incubation, thinking about or reflecting on the problem; illumination, the stage at which the solution appears (i.e., the “Aha!” experience); verification, trying out and evaluating the solution; and implementation, elaborating the solution and carrying it out.

■

Intrinsic motivation, openness, and the development of high levels of knowledge are cited by many researchers as the most critical factors for nurturing creativity. External rewards, pressure to achieve, evaluation, and lack of opportunity are often cited as the undermining factors.

■

Ideas for facilitating our own creativity include allowing relaxation time; discovering our best time and best space for generating ideas; finding other creative people to be with; and trying things we thought we didn’t like or haven’t tried.

Another model of the process of creativity, the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Model, includes six stages: messfinding, fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding, and acceptance-finding. The model makes use of divergent and convergent thinking at every stage. The best we can do may be to model our own valuing of the creative act, provide a rich and varied environment, and allow each person the safety, support, and time to find his or her own creativity.

Developing Creativity ■

To support and develop creativity in very young children, adults must understand it, value it, and encourage the expression of it.

■

Creative children tend to be found in families that are less authoritarian, stress openness, and express an enthusiasm for life.

■

Playfulness, imagination, make-believe, and fantasy are essential to support creativity both for children and for adults.

Measuring Creativity ■

The criterion for selecting and evaluating creative students has usually been a high score on a test designated as a creativity measure.

■

A way of measuring creativity that has been in use for decades is the external evaluation of creative products.

■

Tests of creative personality characteristics and attitudes, along with biographical information, are another way of testing for creativity.

■

Problems have been found in measuring creativity, including the use of a single test to determine creativeness, questions of reliability and validity, the exclusive use or overuse of divergent thinking test items, the use of generic tests of creativity in specific content domains, and the use of creativity testing for special criteria identification of giftedness.

This page intentionally left blank

part two

Educating the Gifted Learner

This page intentionally left blank

5

Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

©Shutterstock

IDEAS WE HAVE HAD

IDEAS RESEARCH SUPPORTS

■ In a democratic society it is important that all children be

■ All students must be given opportunities to have

given the same opportunities to succeed; therefore, every classroom should have learners from a full range of ability. That is the most democratic setting for learning. ■ All teachers should have the advantage of having a few

bright children in their classes. It would be unfair to put the gifted students in one class. ■ Gifted children can reinforce their learning of new

information by tutoring other children who have more difficulty learning than they do.

challenging learning experiences. However, those challenges will not be the same for every student, either in content or in pace of instruction. Having a full range of ability in one classroom makes meeting the educational needs of all of the learners unreasonably difficult. ■ Gifted students learn faster and process information more

quickly. It would be as unfair to ask a gifted student to slow down this process as it would be to require a slower learner to think more quickly; neither student can do what is being asked. Success for all students cannot be equated with achieving the same results. Research shows that when a wide range of learning ability is in one class, the teacher will teach at grade level. Gifted learners will gain very little in this process. ■ The use of gifted students as tutors will prevent them

from engaging in their own educational challenges. Educational research indicates that there is a limit to the

155

156

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner educational value of repeatedly reviewing materials and concepts that have already been mastered. Brain research finds that if learners are not challenged with new information, repeating only ideas and information already learned, they will lose intellectual power.

THE MISSION OF AND THE RATIONALE FOR GIFTED EDUCATION AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT In the United States, where the quality of the system of government depends on the population being well educated, there are tens of thousands of children who achieve far below an average level in even the most basic skills. How then can we consider the education of gifted learners of critical importance? We must, because the consequences of ignoring the educational needs of the brightest and most promising among us, allowing them to lose ability, could be devastating. If society is to move forward, find solutions to the overwhelming problems it faces throughout the world, realize its goals for peaceful coexistence of all humankind, and ensure the very continuation of its existence on this planet, we need the ideas our brightest minds can produce, now and into the future. As we saw from Chapter 1, bright minds do not come fully formed at birth; giftedness must be nurtured.

A Mission of Excellence and Equity Research from the field of neuroscience into the development of the human mind/brain has repeatedly shown that high levels of intelligence occur only when the unique genetic inheritance of each individual has early and continuous stimulation from the environment. Such opportunities result in complex, efficient, and effective use of the brain. What a person is and can become relies on this neural interaction. Restricting appropriate stimulation limits the very existence of the person’s intellectual and creativity abilities. Both those who are in the early stages of human development and those who have begun to function with characteristically gifted behaviors will be limited by lack of appropriate stimulation. Knowledge of the dire consequences that result when the critical need for appropriate stimulation is not met make the rationale for and the mission of gifted education acutely clear. The fullest achievement of each person must be encouraged, not only for the well-being of the individual, but also for the benefit of all humankind. Excellence for all must be a global goal. To achieve this goal of excellence, it follows that society must have a companion belief in equity of opportunity and provide for it from the earliest life experiences. All too often, societies have allowed skin color, religious ideals, personal beliefs, and even gender stereotypes to block the ability of some of their citizens to reach their highest development. It is critical that we continue to pursue this ideal. For many years, the manner in which both excellence and equity have been addressed in schools—and even the terminology used—has been obscure, contentious, and frustrating. Therefore, let us be sure that we agree on the meaning of the terms.

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

157

As Coleman, Sanders, and Cross (1997) point out, “On the surface [when we speak of equity and excellence] we seem to be talking the same language, but at a deeper level there is not a match in the ideas. . . . The result is that the situation remains confused and unsettled” (p. 109). When we speak of equity, we must agree that having equal opportunity does not mean having the same opportunity. Equity means making experiences available that are uniquely appropriate for each individual. If there is equity, whatever your talent or interest, whatever your skill or ability, you will have every opportunity to develop that uniqueness to its fullest extent. Offering a talented musician and a brilliant scientist the same experience is not equity. Equity is offering them equal opportunities to pursue their individual paths toward excellence. Data clearly indicate that if there is to be progress toward developing potential, the dynamic nature of the brain requires appropriate challenge at the level of the person’s intellectual development. In response to this evidence, some educators believe strongly that the efforts of the field of gifted education and talent development must be focused on modifying learning experiences for those children whose thinking process is accelerated and/or who are advanced beyond the age-graded curriculum. Others just as strongly believe that the field’s efforts must be focused on developing the ability and talent in every child. One point of view should not negate the other because both are vitally important to all of society and its children. Therefore, the mission of the field of gifted education and talent development is to engage in two equally critical tasks: (1) to support and enhance the appropriate education of gifted learners, those who function or show the ability to function at high levels of intelligence, so that they can make continuous progress toward their greatest potential and (2) to support and enhance the ability and talent of learners who show evidence of intellectual promise so that they may realize their potential to the highest level possible. The field of gifted education and talent development should support the pursuit of both excellence and equity. With such a mission, educators can ensure that gifted students continue to increase their level and range of ability and can add to the gifted population through the early and continuous development of the ability and talent of promising students. To further such a pursuit of excellence and equity, the following rationale will explore some of the ideas that support the need for gifted education and talent development as a field of study, as an area of teacher preparation, and as a needed practice in our schools.

A Rationale 1. Gifted is a label used to indicate a high level of intelligence. As we found in our earlier discussion of the development of intelligence, it is the result of an interactive process that involves challenge from the environment to stimulate and develop innate capabilities. Giftedness has a dynamic quality that can continue to grow only by participation in learning experiences that challenge and expand the already accomplished level of intelligence, ability, and interest. It is the result of an interactive process that involves challenge from the environment to stimulate and increase innate capabilities. We either progress or regress intellectually; stability or maintenance of a fixed quantity of intelligence is not possible. Programs for gifted education and talent development must provide learning experiences that ensure early and continuous challenges.

158

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

2. Equal opportunity cannot and must not mean the same opportunity. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequal people.” The school, as an extension of society’s principle of equity, purports to provide an equal educational opportunity for all children so they can develop their intellect and individual talents to the fullest potential. For truly equal opportunity, all children must be educated at their individual level of development with a variety of learning experiences available at many levels. Gifted education must ensure that an intellectually challenging variety and range of learning experiences are included for all students who are ready for them. Talent development must ensure that experiences are included that nurture the promise of potential ability. 3. When human beings are limited and restricted in their development, we run the risk of creating both physical and psychological dysfunction. When humans are not allowed to move beyond what they have previously accomplished, they often become bored, discouraged, frustrated, and even angry and feel diminished as persons. To have high levels of ability and to feel a power of mind that you are never allowed to use can be traumatic. In 1925, as a result of his research, Terman believed that gifted children were the largest group of underachievers in education. In 2000, Van Tassel-Baska reported that at least 63% of students with an IQ of 130 or above were seriously underachieving and many of these students had a record of truancy. Gifted education can reduce the limits and restrictions on intellectual and academic progress and can contribute to positive emotional development for these students. 4. Society gains from the greatest advancement of all the abilities and from the highest development of all the talents of all of its members, whatever their areas of strength. That which nurtures and actualizes each individual nourishes the society. To be superior to others in physical abilities (e.g., boxers, runners, skaters, tennis players) or artistic abilities (e.g., pianists, photographers, conductors, actors) is valued and rewarded in our society. Everyone accepts the idea that such athletes and artists must work or train continuously to maintain and extend their skills. Therefore, it is believed that they earn their prestige and status. Although those with high levels of intellectual ability must also work to maintain and extend their proficiency, they are too often viewed with suspicion and their achievements are assumed to be unearned. Those educators or parents who advocate for the continuous development of high levels of ability are often accused of trying to promote elitism, even when appropriate educational opportunity is all they seek. The establishment of effective programs for gifted students results not in the type of elitism feared, but in better attitudes of gifted learners toward themselves and others. Gifted education should establish programs that improve the social-emotional and intellectual development for gifted learners. Talent development should provide appropriate educational experiences for those who are capable of learning beyond their typical age-mates. 5. Re-creation, innovation, and initiation are typical traits of gifted children and youth, resulting in a different view of the world and different educational needs. Gifted youngsters often think differently and have different interests than their age-mates. They usually enter school having already developed many of the basic skills, sometimes to high levels. They have areas of interest that have developed into advanced areas of knowledge. Almost from the day they

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

159

start school, many gifted students begin to sense wariness or rejection because others consider them to be different. If the school does nothing, the seeds of poor self-concept and disillusionment with school and society may be planted. Most schools seek to develop skills for participation in society, but not re-creation of society; they tend to develop consumers of information, but seldom innovators and initiators. Gifted education provides learning experiences that can develop needed innovators, initiators, and those who are equipped to re-create society for the betterment of all. Talent development establishes the environment that acknowledges individual progress and recognizes and advances unusual ability. 6. When the needs of gifted and talented students are recognized and the educational program is designed to meet these needs, these students make significant gains in achievement, and their sense of competence is enhanced. With appropriate learning experiences, gifted students learn to work even more efficiently and effectively. They develop good problemsolving skills and see solutions from many viewpoints. They experience concepts and materials in a dynamic relationship and can use their vast amount of knowledge as a background for unlimited learning. Talented students experience themselves as successful learners and become more aware of their potential abilities. Educators knowledgeable about gifted education and talent development can design and implement appropriate educational programs and experiences that allow gifted and talented learners to grow academically and intellectually at their own pace and to their own level, a right of every child. 7. Contributions to society in all areas of human endeavor come in overweighted proportions from gifted individuals. Society needs gifted adults to play far more demanding and innovative roles than those expected of more typical learners. We need a significant number of integrated, highly functioning persons to carry out tasks that will lead us to a satisfying, fulfilling future. Gifted education can create the programs and experiences that will allow gifted individuals to better meet their own needs as well as the needs of society. Talent development can provide awareness of all those whose unique areas of ability need further nurture to realize their potential. From the rationale established by these seven principles, we will explore who the gifted individuals are and how they become gifted; who the talented individuals are and how they can develop their abilities; and what we, as educators at home and at school, can do to aid these children in growing up gifted. To understand why there is such a critical need for improving education for gifted and talented learners in our schools today, let us look further at the issues of excellence and equity and the impact the debate between the proponents of each has had on shaping current educational decisions.

EXCELLENCE, EQUITY, AND GIFTED AND TALENTED LEARNERS Most schools currently organize by age, not by assessed needs, talents, or achievements. Therefore, there is a wide range of diverse and unique needs to be met in each classroom. A practice we will explore later in this chapter, the practice of age grouping, does

160

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

not provide the equity of opportunity students require to develop excellence. The same curriculum cannot meet such a wide range of needs when the focus is on providing services for learners to meet grade-level expectations. Many special provisions and services are available for learners who are delayed in their learning or who have disabilities, whether they are placed in inclusion classrooms or in special programs. However, much of the educational community believes that gifted students will intellectually and emotionally succeed on their own with no special planning needed; therefore, often little is done to further their academic growth. With needs that range far beyond the age-graded curriculum in which they are commonly placed, both gifted and talented students are often among the most poorly served in the school population. Equity requires that each individual have the right to learn and to be provided opportunities and challenges for learning at the most appropriate level and at a pace that allows growth to proceed most efficiently toward excellence. For gifted and talented learners, appropriate educational programs and planning could provide such equity.

Interest in the Education of Gifted and Talented Learners The interest in educating gifted individuals has a long history, beginning with the earliest records of human civilization. Efforts to develop individual talents and gifts have varied over time, not only as to which abilities should be nurtured, but also as to the extent to which, and by whom, their education should be provided. Figure 5.1 presents an overview of this issue. FIGURE 5.1

Interest in Gifted Education and Talent Development Over Time Including Discoveries Regarding the Brain and Intelligence

Early recorded history

Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, and Japanese provided for the nurture of outstanding talents and abilities for the good of the state.

1400–1600

Governments in Renaissance Europe encouraged and supported the arts and creative artists. Apprentice models were used to foster outstanding abilities and gifts. The church provided sponsorship for artists, sculptors, and musicians.

1700–1800

Period of low interest in America: concern grew for equity and conformity. Private tutoring was considered the birthright of male children of the aristocracy and wealthy families. Royalty and noblemen sponsored persons with notable gifts and talents in Europe (e.g., Mozart). In the U.S., Jefferson recommended using public funds for education of the brightest males.

1869

Francis Galton published Hereditary Genius, a study of high abilities families.

1916

Interest rises. Special classes for gifted students were opened in Los Angeles and Cincinnati.

1921

Lewis Terman began the famous longitudinal study of the characteristics and behaviors of gifted individuals. Included were 1,500 students with IQ scores of 140 and higher whose average age was 11 years. This study resulted in the five volumes of the Genetic Studies of Genius (1925). The first results of the 30-year study were published in 1925.

161

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

FIGURE 5.1 1930

(Continued) Period of low interest began with a focus on equity throughout the country and the advent of financial chaos during the Great Depression.

1942

Leta Hollingworth published Children Above 180 IQ, a study of highly gifted children.

1946

Interest rises. The American Association for the Study of the Gifted was established as the first professional society in the field of Gifted Education.

1950

National Science Foundation Act directed resources to programs to improve science curriculum.

1954

The National Association for Gifted Children was established.

1956

J. P. Guilford suggested the importance of the study of creativity in his American Psychological Association presidential speech that also expanded the concept of intelligence.

1957

Period of high interest. The launch of the Russian rocket Sputnik brought demands for better provisions in schools for highly able students, especially those with abilities in science and math. The focus on producing excellence created the intensified growth of gifted programs and a reform of curriculum that better supported the needs of gifted students.

1958

The National Defense Education Act (1958) was enacted to support the development of talent, especially in math, sciences, and foreign languages. The Association for the Gifted, an affiliate of the Council for Exceptional Children, was established. Discoveries regarding the Brain and Intelligence. Diamond (1988) pubA P P LY I N G research results showing that genes interact with their environment. BRAIN RESEARCH lished The same genetic strain placed in different environments produces different to Education outcomes. Different life conditions interacting with the same genetic strain causes different genes to become active. Children develop only as the environment demands development. Genetic factors do not operate instead of environmental factors; they interact with them. Period of low interest. Concerns for equity and a focus on school desegregation diminished support for the education of gifted students. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) was passed, creating support for the development of model programs and state personnel in gifted education. Discoveries regarding the Brain and Intelligence. 1963—Diamond A P P LY I N G reported that with stimulation the brain actually changes in structure and BRAIN RESEARCH function, now referred to as neuroplasticity. Data are now clear that the to Education brain changes its size and function due to environmental interaction (Diamond, 1998; Diamond, Krech, & Rosenzweig, 1964). 1960

1970

Interest rises. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965), “Provisions related to Gifted and Talented Children,” established federal recognition of the need for education of gifted and talented children. The law called for development of model programs, and made programs eligible for federal financial assistance under ESEA. Congress requested a report on the status of programs.

(Continued)

162

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 5.1

(Continued)

Discoveries regarding the Brain and Intelligence. The Nobel Prize is to Hubel and Wiese for the discovery of critical periods in human BRAIN RESEARCH awarded development. These are different periods of time when each neural system to Education requires environmental stimuli to develop; a window of time during which the brain is especially plastic and sensitive to the environment. For example, language development has a critical period that begins in infancy and ends between eight years and puberty. After this critical period closes, a person’s ability to learn a second language without an accent is limited. For other brain functions such as sight, the outcomes of missing critical periods are even more serious.

A P P LY I N G

1972

Period of high interest. Sidney Marland published Education of the Gifted and Talented, the report requested by Congress. It established the first federal definition and data based rationale for educating gifted and talented students.The Marland Report alerted the nation to the fact that 57.5 % of schools surveyed reported no gifted individuals among their students, at least 500,000 gifted students in the United States received no special instruction, and no gifted students were officially served in 21 states.

1975

The Federal Office of Gifted and Talented within the Office of Education was established with an appropriation from Congress of $12.5 million. It also created a National Clearinghouse for Gifted and Talented and made funds available to state and local educational agencies along with grants for training and research projects.

1978

The Gifted and Talented Children’s Education Act (1965) became law and provided for programs for gifted and talented children. Financial assistance to states to plan, develop, operate, and improve gifted and talented programs was allowed.

1981

Period of low interest. The Gifted and Talented Act was repealed. With the passage of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (P.L. 97-35), federal funds for gifted and talented students were decreased 40% and placed into a block grant with 29 other programs to be distributed at the discretion of the states. The Federal Office of Gifted and Talented was dissolved and grants canceled, suspending direct federal involvement in gifted and talented education.

1982

The National Commission on Excellence Report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform was published.

1988

Interest rises with the passage of the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (1988). The Federal Office for Gifted and Talented Education, competitive grants, and the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented were reestablished with an appropriation of $7.9 million.

1993

National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (Ross, 1993) is released by the U.S. Department of Education.

1994

The Javits Act is reauthorized at $9.51 million, only to be cut in half as a new political party takes control of the U.S. Congress. Priority for funding educational programs focuses on economically disadvantaged, disabled, and limited English-speaking students.

1998

A new U.S. President requests $7 million for funding the Javits Act.

2000

Interest in Gifted and Talented Education continues high as a new millennium begins.

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

FIGURE 5.1 2002

163

(Continued) Interest wanes. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as a reform act “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) by a new U.S. President results in a shift of resources in schools to accommodate testing and accountability and many gifted and talented programs are lost.

2004

The U.S. Congress funds The Javits Act at $11.11 million. The Templeton Report on Acceleration—A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students is published. Discoveries regarding the Brain and Intelligence. Hawkins contributes A P P LY I N G the memory-predictive framework of intelligence based on how the brain BRAIN RESEARCH functions.

to Education

2006

Schools continue to be pressured by NCLB regulations on proficiency testing. While programs continue to be lost, providing for gifted and talented students concerns many teachers and conferences and workshops on gifted education are well attended. Though not included in the U.S. President’s budget for 2 years, the U.S. Congress appropriates $9.2 million for the Javits Act program.

2011

In a climate of economic pressure the Javits Act falls victim to budget cuts and the funding for gifted education is completely removed from the federal budget. Discoveries regarding the Brain and Intelligence. The research commuA P P LY I N G focuses on understanding the principles of Neurogenesis—the process BRAIN RESEARCH nity involved in the birth of brain cells; Neuroplasticity—the process of making to Education changes in the brain; and Epigenetics—the process involved in how genes change within and between generations. These areas of research will add greatly to our understanding of intelligence, giftedness, and the process of creating powerful learning.

Education of gifted learners is a growing concern in countries worldwide. In 1975, the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children was formed, and through its international conferences, journal, and newsletters, the organization is continuing to develop a worldwide network and support system to benefit gifted learners from many nations and those who work with them. Currently, the World Council headquarters is located at Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA, 42101-1030, email: [email protected]. The Director is Dr. Julia Link Roberts. U.S . FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN GIFTED EDUCATION Although currently there is no federal mandate for programs or services for gifted learners in the public schools, during several periods of American history, programs for educating gifted and talented learners were encouraged. Terman’s study during the 1920s brought on one such period. The dramatic accomplishments of the Russian space

164

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

program in the late 1950s and early 1960s, which became a concern for the United States with the public launching of Sputnik, heralded another. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was legislated, and in 1970, a section added to the act established the first federal recognition of the need for education of gifted and talented children. In 1972, Commissioner of Education Sidney Marland published Education of the Gifted and Talented, a report requested by Congress, that established the first federal definition of gifted students and databased rationale for educating gifted and talented students. The Marland Report alerted the nation to the fact that 57.5% of schools surveyed reported no gifted individuals among their students, at least 500,000 gifted students in the United States received no special instruction, and no gifted students were officially served in 21 states. Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (The Javits Act). From the Marland Report came the only federal involvement in gifted education. The Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (Javits Act), a small federal program, was created in 1988 and was embedded in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The federal definition of gifted and talented students and a rationale for involvement in their education are included in the Javits Act. The original authorization of the Javits Act in 1988 provided $7.9 million to be used for establishing a National Office for Gifted and Talented Education, a National Center for Research and Development in the Education of Gifted and Talented Children and Youth, and competitive grants and/or contracts that could be awarded to institutions of higher education, states, and/or local educational agencies. Javits Competitive Grants. Each year since the passage of the Javits Act, demonstration grants have been awarded to institutions of higher education and state and local education agencies to develop and expand models serving students who are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. Many states have participated in the Grants to State Agencies and School Districts that have been awarded as part of the Javits grant program to implement programs to enhance gifted education and talent development offerings statewide. The competitive grants were “designed to meet the educational needs of gifted and talented students, including the training of personnel, and in the use, where appropriate, of gifted and talented services, materials, and methods for all students” (H.R.6 Improving America’s Schools Act, P.L. 103–382). The available outcomes have been disseminated through professional conferences and journals. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Funded through the Javits Act and directed by Dr. Joseph Renzulli, a professor at the University of Connecticut, the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) was originally a collaboration among four universities, the University of Connecticut, Yale University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Virginia. The collaboration also included 54 state and territorial departments of education and 329 public school districts and private schools. Involved from the beginning were over 200 content area consultants and professionals.

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

165

The NRC/GT has produced and disseminated important research studies and other products, including practitioners’ guides, video training tapes, and resource books. It has provided national databases where researchers can deposit and gain access to data from studies of gifted and talented learners. It also has served as a national repository of identification and evaluation instruments. Since 1995, the NRC/GT has been more involved in long-term studies and in the development of a comprehensive training package that will provide a set of practical materials for teachers to use to differentiate the curriculum in classrooms with gifted and talented learners. Each year funds for the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act must be re-appropriated by the U.S. Congress, creating constant concern for the stability of the program’s funding. In April of 2011, as part of a budget negotiation in Congress, the Javits Act was cancelled. The Gifted Education community immediately began working to reinstate the Act and its funding. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The trend of rising interest in gifted education found at the beginning of the twenty-first century did not continue. The federal administration at that time began to refocus and reform educational policy. Priority was given to improving the performance of the students who do not test at levels of proficiency, and the interest in gifted and talented learners fell in 2002. This reform effort focused on the accountability of public schools for every child meeting national standards in the basic skills of mathematics and reading. Known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the new law put pressure on schools to bring up the scores of the lowest-performing students by requiring that all students, including those with disabilities and those who were English language learners, met average grade-level standards in mathematics and reading by 2014. Goals were set for achievement for each school each year. Students may individually make progress; however, if all the students in a school do not meet the required level of annual progress toward their goals, the school risks being declared a failing school. This would result in heavy financial penalties, and teachers and principals in failing schools could lose their jobs. As a result of this focus on testing for gradelevel achievement, learning time and resources from all other programs were redirected to meet the NCLB standards. Under these conditions, gifted education and talent development were given even less attention. According to a study conducted by the University of Virginia for the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, since the passage of the NCLB, teachers’ practices have emphasized test preparation over academic challenge, regardless of the type of classroom in which they are teaching (Moon, 2005). Teachers were quoted as commenting, “I do spend most of my time—95% to 98%—preparing for the test” and “There is so much emphasis on testing and the format until teachers aren’t able to teach concepts . . . all we are doing is educating students to PASS THE TEST!” (p. 19). As a result of this redirection of the classroom focus on basic skills development and testing skills, it has been reported that gifted students are bored and disengaged. The report finds that the pressure has made it increasingly difficult for teachers to serve all students appropriately, especially those with special needs. Recently, in a Fordham Foundation report (Loveless et al., 2008) it was found that because of the pressure of NCLB on teachers and school administrators, the most academically advanced students have shown reduced achievement.

166

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

The 2002 reauthorization of the Javits Act was not part of the President’s original budget request for the NCLB, but fortunately, Congress added it. In a final session of 2004, Congress approved just over $11 million for the Javits Program. Also, in 2004, for the first time Congress included gifted and talented students with disabilities in their reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This allowed the needs of students who are both gifted and disabled (sometimes referred to as twice exceptional) to receive priority when the U.S. Department of Education awarded grants for research, personnel preparation, and technical assistance. As noted above, the NCLB revision of the ESEA did include provisions, such as the Javits Program, that were not in the President’s initial legislative proposal. Nevertheless, under this new revision, gifted and talented programs in the United States began disappearing. By 2003, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) reported that 17 states had no money set aside for the education of gifted and talented learners. By 2004, more states were significantly reducing or eliminating previously funded programs, leaving programs for gifted and talented learners highly vulnerable. This was especially evident among those gifted and talented programs in areas with low-income minority students, where money was needed by the schools just to survive. Unfortunately, these are the gifted and talented students whose parents cannot provide an alternative for the lost support or transfer their children to private schooling in hope of meeting their needs (News Briefs, 2004). By 2005, some districts within states were rebelling against the NCLB and exiting the program by refusing the federal funds attached. While no one would find fault with a plan to help students improve their achievement levels, expecting only minimal achievement from all of the nation’s students is far from a useful approach to raising the national educational standards. If, as suggested by Tomlinson (2002b), the NCLB were amended to include a systematic plan that focused on monitoring and ensuring the growth of every child rather than just testing for proficiency, the maximum number of learners could move toward excellence. With this type of plan, all students, including those not yet proficient, would be far better served, as would society as a whole. Tomlinson suggested that any equity initiative that discourages attention to excellence cannot help us achieve what we must as a nation. “We must ensure that we raise ceilings of performance as fervently as we raise floors” (p. 38). NATIONAL REPORTS The Marland Report. Historically, this report is an important part of the struggle for national recognition of gifted education. In 1970, when it passed the provisions related to gifted and talented children as a section of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Congress requested a report on the status of the programs serving gifted and talented learners within 2 years. The resulting report, Education of the Gifted and Talented, published by U.S. Commissioner of Education Sidney Marland in 1972, included a suggested definition of gifted and talented students, a survey of the education these students were receiving, and a database of research in the area, and recommendations for needed legislation. The definition that was enacted read: Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contributions to self and society.

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

167

Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following areas: (1) general intellectual aptitude, (2) specific academic aptitude, (3) creative or productive thinking, (4) leadership ability, (5) visual and performing arts. (p. 2)

Today most definitions found in state legislation for gifted and talented students retain all or parts of this definition. National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent. A significant event that brought favorable attention to the national discussion of excellence and equity was the publication of the U.S. Department of Education’s report, National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (Ross, 1993). The report made a case for what was called “a quiet crisis in educating talented students” (p. 5). The crisis referred to is evidenced by the low achievement of gifted and talented students in the United States compared with national criteria and international student achievement, the lack of concern about the quality of education being delivered to these students, the inability of regular classroom teachers to challenge these students, and the low level of funding made available for appropriate education for them (less than $.02 out of every $100 spent on general education students). Of special concern is the lack of learning opportunities available to economically disadvantaged and minority children with outstanding abilities. A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. A Nation Deceived (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004a, 2004b), a two-volume work also referred to as the Templeton National Report on Acceleration, was published in 2004. A grant made publication of the report possible. The report was written in an effort to change the national climate regarding the understanding and use of acceleration as an educational intervention for bright learners. The authors present evidence to support the belief that forcing high-ability students to learn in a lockstep manner is a national scandal. They point to the result as an erosion of American excellence. The report, which explores the history and myths surrounding the practice of acceleration and reviews the research supporting its advantages, portrays acceleration as a powerful educational tool. Here is a focus on a strategy that can include parents, students, and teachers in the pursuit of excellence and equity in the schools. To that end, the report sought to change opinion and additionally give educators the tools to administer acceleration programs effectively. STATE PROVISIONS FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED LEARNERS While federal acknowledgment and support of gifted education and talent development are important and highly influence the programs for gifted and talented students, by law the responsibility for providing the actual programs lies with each of the individual 50 states. The definitions of gifted and talented students and the quality and quantity of the provisions made for such programs vary widely from state to state. Most states follow the 1972 federal definition and other states use a similar definition that was adopted for the 1988 Javits Act. In addition to the Javits Act’s small amount of federal support, the majority of the states provide some support for gifted education, according to State of the States Gifted and Talented Education Report, 2008–2009. The survey completed in 2010 by the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and conducted by the National Association for Gifted Children found that most states have legislated policies

168

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

that provide programs and services to gifted and talented students that are mandated, or permissively mandated (i.e., districts do not have to serve gifted and talented students, but if they do apply and receive money to serve them they must follow the state requirements).The implementation and funding of the state policies are highly variable. A few states require Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for the gifted and talented students they serve. IEPs are required for all students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a provision passed by Congress in 1997. Gifted and talented students were not included in the provisions of this law. However, the legislatures of these nine states passed special amendments to apply this requirement and some of the other provisions of the IDEA to their gifted and talented students. The majority of states providing services to gifted and talented students do so in the regular classroom. Cluster grouping within the classroom, resource rooms, continuous progress curriculum, and independent study are provisions used in many of these programs. Magnet classes and telescoped learning are in use in some programs. A small number of states mandate regular staff development on education of gifted learners. However, among the majority of general education teachers there is no requirement for any training in gifted education. While universities in 31 states offer graduate degrees in the Education of Gifted and Talented Learners, such a degree is not required for any teacher. In the opinion of teachers and administrators regarding instructional practices for gifted learners, differentiated instruction and ability grouping receive the most positive commentary. The pressure of the No Child Left Behind Act is seen as the most negative factor affecting the instruction of gifted learners. The resulting lack of time to work with the gifted students was seen as the biggest problem. The current focus on bringing every child in every school up to an average performance level has resulted in a decrease in the number of states providing service to gifted and talented learners and in the quality of such programs. Changes cited as most needed were the need for preservice training at the undergraduate level for general education teachers, assessment issues that produced a need for higher representation of minorities in programs, and the need for a national mandate. Mandating services has been found to be an important part of the process of obtaining desirable programming for gifted students (Coleman, Gallagher, & Foster, 1994). Although mandates do not ensure the quality of the education offered to gifted and talented learners, it takes more intense and continuous advocacy efforts just to maintain healthy programs in states that do not have mandates (Purcell, 1995). Even some states with mandates for service have made deep cuts in their programs for gifted and talented learners (Davidson Institute for Talent Development, 2005). Although a state mandate is of limited value when funds are not properly appropriated to implement adequate programs, it does create an expectation of what each local district should be doing to appropriately educate gifted students. Continuous state-level advocacy is critical to the development and maintenance of quality programs for gifted students. While a federal mandate is not now in existence, creating one would give visibility to the need for gifted education and approval for advocates to seek appropriate services. Such a mandate would serve as a moral and political base for parents and educators who want to ensure that gifted and talented students are having their unique educational needs met.

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

169

Barriers to Appropriate Gifted Education and Talent Development EGALITARIANISM VALUED AS ME ANING SAMENESS The sameness of abilities, sameness of opportunities, and sameness of outcomes is one barrier to appropriate gifted education and talent development. It is interesting that few people would perceive themselves to be against giving everyone the opportunity to achieve the highest level of excellence of which they are capable. Yet many think it is unfair for one person or group of people to gain a position in which they are seen as having more ability or being more clever or “smarter” than others. Americans love freedom and the right to pursue individual ability to its fullest, yet many resent those who have developed high levels of intelligence. Egalitarianism actually means human equality with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges. While egalitarianism as sameness is consistently supported in school practices, the demand for high achievement in the economic and professional fields at home and in competition with other nations of the world is consistently valued. In a report on national excellence Ross (1993) commented, “These two beliefs—a distrust of the intellect and an assumption that people should be allowed to develop to their full potential—have clashed throughout American history and have muddled efforts to provide a quality education for the nation’s most promising students” (p. 13). It is interesting that the American public, in general, does not seem to show this level of concern. According to a Gallup poll (Larsen & Griffin, 1992), the American public not only understands, but also overwhelmingly agrees with the need to appropriately educate gifted and talented children. Sternberg (1996) argues, in the Jeffersonian tradition, that people are all equal in terms of political and social rights and should have equal opportunities. However, he believes that the goal of gifted education is not to favor or foster an elite, but to allow children to make full use of the differing kinds of skills they have and can develop. In his opinion, society should provide for any child the type of education that best suits the child, and for those children who excel in a given area, society should provide the extra challenge that will move them to the highest level of accomplishment of which they are capable. According to Sternberg, it is the extra challenge, the tasks that are new and more difficult than the tasks previously encountered, that will require gifted children to use their abilities. As we learn more about who the gifted and talented learners are and how they can be nurtured, it becomes apparent that providing appropriately for all of society’s children is the most democratic and egalitarian approach. It is this approach that has the greatest chance of providing excellence and true equity for each child. AGE-GROUPED CL ASSES One of the major barriers to the development of appropriate educational experiences for advanced and accelerated learners is the traditional, age-grouped, graded classroom found in most public schools. In many such classrooms, the teacher attempts to develop a more manageable learning environment by using flexible ability grouping to modify the inappropriate age grouping. However, the educational achievement levels in chronologically

170

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

age-grouped classes can vary from 4 to 8 years, depending on the grade level. As a result of this vast range of achievement levels, teachers typically plan the instructional program for the at-grade-level learners. For the below-grade-level learners, remediation programs, often mandated and specifically financed by the state, are available in most schools. For learners in the bottom 2% of the achievement scale or 2 years behind grade-level achievement, public schools provide appropriate special education modifications. These provisions are accepted and expected by both parents and educators alike. At the other end of the scale, public schools may be organized quite differently. The learners in the upper 2% of the achievement scale or 2 to 4 years ahead of grade-level achievement need as much special instruction to continue their growth as do students at the lower end. However, special resources or specially trained personnel are rarely made available. These students are too often expected to adjust to the grade-level materials and curriculum. This situation leads to unnecessary loss of ability, especially among girls and minority students. The observed outcome is regression toward a more average ability level. A wealth of literature in the field of gifted education and talent development could be used to establish standards for programs that can adequately serve gifted and talented students. Also contained in the literature are a variety of options for delivery of services that have been shown to be successful. Knowledge of these standards and practices would make the efforts of teachers to educate gifted and talented students more effective and more efficient and would ensure the delivery of services at a more consistently appropriate level. A gifted education and talent development program that provides the best match for the needs of the students, the expectations of the parents, the philosophy of the school administration, the resources of the community, and the commitment of the school staff is attainable. This book will introduce many of the resources needed to make such a program possible. MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTION S Uninformed attitudes about the education of gifted and talented learners have often become strongly held beliefs among educators and decision makers who are most responsible for the educational services that these students receive. Among the beliefs that limit appropriate educational practices are the following: ■ All children are gifted. All children are valuable, all children are important, and all children should be allowed to develop to their highest potential; however, all children are not gifted. The term gifted designates the students “who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop such capabilities” (Javits Act, P.L. 100-297). The capabilities to which the Javits Act refers include high levels of intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, or academic abilities. Obviously, not all children have high levels of development that create needs for modification of the curriculum, and yet, in a misguided effort to assert the value of all children, a statement such as “all children are gifted” is mistakenly made. The problem is that such a statement can cause the unique educational provisions needed by gifted students to seem unnecessary, and, therefore, they will not be provided.

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

171

■ Gifted students are not at risk. If they are really gifted, they can get by on their own. This would be true only if intelligence was solely inherited and, therefore, did not change. The well-documented fact is that intelligence is developed from an interaction between genetic patterns and environmental opportunities. It is dynamic rather than fixed, which puts children who are not appropriately stimulated at the level of their growth at risk. They do not progress; rather, they regress. Additionally, the growth of intelligence is less limited than was once supposed, and the level to which any child can achieve, when given appropriate stimulation, is unknown. This possibility alone makes the belief that these children can get by on their own very problematic. Gifted students, like all students, need challenges presented to them by their educational experience at the level congruent with their ability and development. The problem for the gifted learner is that schools often do not present curriculum aimed at higher levels of thought. ■ Giftedness can easily be measured by intelligence tests and tests of achievement. Brain research has indicated that the brain has at least four major areas of function: physical/ sensing, affective, cognitive (both linear, rational and spatial, gestalt), and intuitive. The functions of these areas integrate to form a person’s intelligence, and the brain seems to be nearly unlimited in its potential for development. Any of these areas of function or a combination of them can be involved in expressing intelligence, making the concept of intelligence quite complex. Intelligence tests generally measure only a sample of the linear, rational ability of a person, and because intelligence can be expressed in many other ways, such a small sample cannot be viewed as an adequate measure of the universe of intelligence or the potential of any person. Although current intelligence tests give valuable estimates of abilities in the area of intelligence that can be predictive of success on school-related tasks, these tests cannot identify giftedness in many areas of intelligence or predict an individual’s potential. Identification of giftedness is a complex task and requires a variety of samples of a person’s abilities from many areas of function. ■ A good teacher can teach any student; good teaching is all that is needed. What is good for gifted students is good for everyone. Although good teaching practices must be the basis for all teaching excellence, the appropriate education of gifted students does not end with these important concepts and strategies. In addition to using exemplary educational techniques that support the learning of all students, teachers of gifted and talented students need some special skills. They must know how to change the pace of instruction, provide in-depth learning, and advance the level of content because these are common needs of gifted students. Teachers must know how to develop high degrees of complexity and interrelationships in the content as well as develop and provide novelty and enrichment. They must accept intensity and divergence, and they must encourage creative solutions. These are but some of the added teaching skills that teachers of gifted and talented students need because these students have specific needs, require additional challenges, and produce differently in terms of both quantity and quality. ■ If you accelerate the curriculum for all students, you do not need programs for gifted learners. All students must be given opportunities to have challenging learning

172

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

experiences. However, those challenges will not be the same, either in content or in pace of instruction, for every student. One of the commonly accepted characteristics found as the brain becomes more efficient and expresses higher levels of intelligence is the increased speed of thought processing. Gifted students learn faster and process information more quickly. It would be as unfair to ask a gifted student to slow down this process as it would be to require a slower learner to think more quickly; neither student can do what is being asked. With the “dumbing down” that admittedly is occurring within the curriculum in many schools, some acceleration of content and pace might be positive; however, to speed up the learning process to the pace of the gifted learner would be inappropriate for other learners in the regular classroom and would inhibit their chances for success. In National Excellence (Ross, 1993), this vision of schools of excellence was offered: “All children progress through challenging material at their own pace. Students are grouped and regrouped based on their interests and needs. Achieving success for all students is not equated with achieving the same results for all students [emphasis added]” (p. 29). ■ You really learn something when you teach it. It never hurts students to review what they have learned. This belief has led to the practices of using gifted students as tutors for slower students in the classroom and having them do more work at the same level. Such activities have been used to fill the time of the student who finishes assigned work quickly, relieving the teacher of additional planning for such a student and simultaneously providing help to students who require extra support. This practice is commonly used by teachers and draws the most complaints from all ages of gifted students and their parents. For them it is often frustrating and seldom seen as useful or fair. This situation has been especially noticeable since cooperative learning groups have become an integral part of classroom organization. Too often, in an effort to maintain the standards they require of themselves, gifted students who are placed in a heterogeneous cooperative learning group will take on the major part of the research, writing, and presentation tasks, while also trying to tutor other members of the group, so that the group result, that also represents these students, will not be unacceptably low. Although sharing with classmates is an important social experience for gifted students, the overuse of group projects and the use of such students as tutors will prevent them from engaging in their own educational challenges. The increasing number of gifted students writing articles on their frustration with experiences in inappropriately constituted cooperative learning groups adequately validates the idea that there is a limit to the educational value of repeatedly reviewing materials and concepts that have already been mastered. However, cooperative learning groups comprised of only gifted learners can be stimulating and provide important interaction among intellectual peers.

UNBAL ANCED EDUCATIONAL R EFORM For decades, America’s schools have been engaged in efforts to make education for the nation’s children more effective, more inclusive of all populations and cultures, and more productive of quality performance. These efforts must include not only remediating unfair practices for those who have not benefited from school practices, but also instituting challenges for those who have been stifled by them. Our focus must include

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

173

approaches that develop unused talent and those that nurture outstanding talent. Balance seems to be the key. The Inclusion Movement. In an attempt to better meet the learning needs of students in special education programs and allow handicapped and disabled students a more normal, richer learning experience that would include learners without disabilities, the inclusion movement was put in place. In such classrooms disabled students who previously attended only classes with other special needs students are placed in regular classes. Such learning experiences can be a most positive force in education if it is used to benefit students. Too often it is used to support an abstract principle of narrowly interpreted egalitarianism. Every student has a right to receive a quality educational experience; however, again, that should not be interpreted to be the same experience. The inclusion movement has drawn attention to some of the provisions necessary to optimize learning for all students. Inclusive classrooms can support diverse learners and honor their diversity by establishing and maintaining a warm, accepting classroom; implementing a multilevel, multimodality curriculum; using authentic assessment; and including academic and cognitive challenges at many levels. A classroom can accommodate diversity and support many levels of learners only to the extent that it has these elements in place. The majority of gifted and talented students are served primarily in regular classrooms. Including enrichment and acceleration in these classrooms benefits gifted and talented students as well as other students with special needs. However, the regular classroom may not be the best placement for many students with special needs, either socially or educationally. Inclusion of students in classrooms where they are not able to benefit from the experiences being offered is of questionable value to them and often a detriment to the pace, depth, and level of instruction for other students. This is true whether the students are too far ahead of or too far behind the others. The problems of implementing the inclusive classroom today are common. Important among them is the lack of teacher preparation for inclusion such as instruction in how to work with students with special needs, and the ability to design and implement differentiated instruction. The sheer numbers of students in classes create another set of problems. Add to that the tremendous and growing diversity found in classrooms, and the reason why many regular classrooms typically do not meet the needs of these students with special needs and thus are not the best placement for them becomes clear. Decisions about how much inclusion is useful must be made on an individual basis and carefully considered from the perspective of the students, both those who are to be included and those who are regularly attending these classrooms. De-Tracking. It is a movement that has attempted to correct the structuring of learning experiences that allowed placement of students together in the same tracks over time. Some of those involved in the de-tracking movement have taken this needed correction to the level of abuse by making the idea a “moral” issue, obfuscating the important educational issues. The result has been that in an effort to improve the structure and organization of instruction, teachers have often been denied the valuable tool of flexible

174

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

grouping, which they can use to structure students’ experiences to best meet their needs. It is both moral and beneficial to provide advanced, appropriately paced, complex, and divergent materials and instruction to students who need such modifications to grow academically and intellectually. Flexible grouping will always be an important organizational strategy for teachers to use to effectively manage the many and varied needs of students within and among classrooms. As long as age is the major criterion for organizing learning, both homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping—flexibly practiced and carefully planned around the assessed needs, pacing, and learning patterns of students—will be necessary to ensure success for every learner. Educators must continue to reflect on how teaching and learning can be made more effective and meet more of the diverse needs of students. A balance of old and new practices and of social and intellectual concerns needs to include appropriate, challenging educational experiences for all students and incorporate both excellence and equity. There are many current issues now faced by the field of gifted education and talent development. For some issues, such as its name and mission, welcome breakthroughs have occurred. Others, such as the misinformation that continues to result in unfortunate attitudes and beliefs among educators and decision makers, still must be addressed more effectively. Additional issues, such as teacher preparation, minority underrepresentation, equitable identification, appropriate programming, and funding, remain current concerns even though a great deal of effort and research has been focused on these issues for several decades. Throughout this text, these issues will be explored and possible solutions suggested. Excellence and equity are best assured in balance because, in an effective and just society, equal opportunity cannot and must not mean the same opportunity. Every child is unique; all children have a right to develop to their own potential. All children must include gifted and talented children.

REVIEW OF IMPORTANT IDEAS The Mission of and a Rationale for Gifted Education and Talent Development A Mission of Excellence and Equity ■ The mission of the field of gifted education and talent

development is to engage in two equally critical tasks: (1) to support and enhance the appropriate education of gifted learners, those who function or show the ability to function at high levels of intelligence, so that they can make continuous progress toward their greatest intellectual potential and (2) to support and

enhance the ability and talent of all learners who show evidence of developing intelligence so that they may realize their intellectual potential to the highest level possible. ■ Excellence for all as a goal ensures that all children can

aspire to develop their uniqueness to its fullest extent, regardless of their skill or ability, talent or interest. This will require the recognition of individual differences. ■ Equity means providing equal access to opportunities

and experiences that are uniquely appropriate for each individual. Equal opportunity does not mean the same opportunity.

CHAPTER 5: Providing Appropriate Education for Gifted Learners

A Rationale ■ Giftedness is a label used to indicate high levels of intel-

ligence and is the result of an interactive process that involves experiences from the environment that stimulate innate talents, capabilities, and processes throughout the individual’s lifetime. Gifted education and talent development must provide learning experiences that ensure that this stimulation is early and continuous. ■ The principles of a just society are based on equal

opportunity (not the same opportunity), and it is in keeping with these principles to allow gifted and talented children the right to educational experiences appropriate to their developed level of ability. The provision for gifted education and talent development ensures that a variety and range of learning experiences are available and can be utilized toward optimal development of gifted and talented learners. ■ When human beings are limited and restricted in their

development, we run the risk of creating both physical and psychological dysfunction. Gifted education and talent development reduce the limits and restrictions that can contribute to emotional problems for gifted and talented learners. ■ Society gains from the greatest advancement of all the

abilities and from the highest development of all the talents of all its members, whatever their areas of strength. Gifted education and talent development contribute to the establishment of appropriate programs that improve the social and intellectual opportunities for gifted and talented learners who otherwise may lack opportunities for appropriate advancement. ■ Innovation, initiation, and the ability to re-create soci-

ety are typical traits of gifted children and youth, resulting in a different view of the world and different educational needs. Gifted youngsters often exhibit a different process and pace for thinking and learning and have different interests than their age-mates. They require modified or differentiated learning experiences. Gifted education provides learning experiences that can develop needed innovators, initiators, and those who are equipped to re-create society for the betterment of all. ■ When the needs of gifted and talented students are rec-

ognized and the educational program is designed to meet these needs, these students make significant gains in achievement and their sense of competence and well-being is enhanced. ■ Teachers of gifted education and talent development

programs can design and implement appropriate educational programs and experiences that allow gifted and talented learners to grow academically and intellectually

175

at their own pace and to their own level, a right of every child. ■ Contributions to society in all areas of human endeavor

come in overweighted proportions from gifted individuals. Society needs gifted adults to play far more demanding and innovative roles than those expected of more typical learners.

Excellence, Equity, and Gifted and Talented Learners ■ Equity requires that each individual have the right to

learn and to be provided opportunities and challenges for learning at the most appropriate level and at a pace that allows growth to proceed most efficiently toward excellence.

Interest in the Education of Gifted and Talented Learners ■ Beginning with the earliest records of human civiliza-

tion, efforts to develop individual talents and gifts have varied over time, not only as to which abilities should be nurtured, but also as to the extent to which and by whom such nurturing should be provided. ■ Federal involvement in the education of gifted and tal-

ented students in the United States increased with the 1988 enactment and the subsequent reauthorizations of the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. Its provisions include funding for an Office of Gifted and Talented Education, a National Center for Research and Development in the Education of Gifted and Talented Children and Youth, and competitive grants and/or contracts designed to meet the educational needs of gifted and talented students. ■ A refocus of national educational policy in 2002

resulted in the No Child Left Behind Act and the emphasis on test preparation over academic challenge. The outcome has been fewer programs for gifted and talented learners and pressure that makes it increasingly difficult for teachers to serve all students appropriately, especially those with special needs, such as the gifted learners. ■ The U.S. Department of Education Report National

Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (Ross, 1993) made a case for what was called “a quiet crisis in educating talented students.”

Barriers to Appropriate Gifted Education and Talent Development ■ There is consistent agreement that all of our children

should have educational opportunities that allow them to develop to their highest level of intellectual ability.

176

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

However, it is widely felt that it is unfair for some students to receive educational opportunities that are more advanced and in great depth, even though such experiences would not benefit all students. Having the same opportunities and outcomes offered in schools is one of the barriers to the growth of excellence among gifted learners. ■ In age-grouped classes, teachers typically plan the

instructional program for the at-grade-level learners, making it difficult for gifted learners to progress academically or intellectually. Gifted education programs with a modified curriculum more adequately serve gifted learners. ■ Uninformed attitudes about the education of gifted

learners have often become strongly held beliefs among those who are most responsible for the educational services that these students receive. Among the beliefs that limit educational practices are the following: ■ All children are gifted. ■ Gifted students are not at risk. If they are really

gifted, they can get by on their own. ■ Giftedness can easily be measured by intelligence

tests and tests of achievement. ■ A good teacher can teach any student because good

teaching is all that is needed. What is good for gifted students is good for everyone.

■ If you accelerate the curriculum for all students,

you do not need programs for gifted and talented learners. ■ You really learn something when you teach it. It

never hurts students to review what they have learned by teaching it to others. ■ Ongoing efforts to make education for the nation’s chil-

dren more effective, more inclusive of all populations and cultures, and more productive of quality performance are unquestionably desirable. However, there must be a balance between remediating unfair practices for those who have not benefited from school practices and instituting challenge for those who have been stifled by them. Unbalanced educational reform has resulted in new problems. ■ The inclusion movement can be a most positive force in

education if it is used to benefit students. Too often, it is used to support an abstract principle of narrowly interpreted egalitarianism. ■ As long as age is the major criterion for organizing

learning, both homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping—flexibly practiced and carefully planned around the assessed needs, pacing, and learning patterns of students—will be necessary to ensure success for every learner.

6

Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

© Shutterstock

IDEAS WE HAVE HAD

IDEAS RESEARCH SUPPORTS

■ Giftedness is easy to identify. Such children are quick to

■ Discovering giftedness in a class of students can be a

answer questions over assigned material, speak and write well, have ability and willingness to teach slower learners, and make good use of their time in class. ■ It is better to wait to identify giftedness in children until

at least third grade. They need the opportunity to become accustomed to working in a classroom and to schoolrelated procedures.

difficult task. All gifted individuals may not possess the same characteristics as do other gifted individuals or exhibit them in quite the same way. The extra energy they often possess does not show when the educational situation is unchallenging. They may even actively attempt to appear quite “ungifted” to better “fit in.” Not all gifted students are cooperative in a classroom. Many resist routine, exhibit nonconformist behavior, and may be classified as behavioral problems. Alternatively, they may withdraw into the “good child” syndrome; passively doing only what is required and drawing attention to themselves only for spending excessive time in schoolapproved activities such as reading.

177

178

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

■ It would be unfair to the other students in class to have

special provisions made for any students that are gifted. They should cooperate and work with the other students in the class. Equal opportunity in education is important in a democratic country.

■ Intelligence must be nurtured to grow and develop. The

richer the experiences and the more appropriate for the child’s level of intellectual development, the more the child will grow. Brain development has the characteristic of plasticity. It is either growing or diminishing in ability; it cannot just maintain the level of growth. The sooner the appropriate educational experience can be offered, the more growth the child will make. “Use it or lose it” is an appropriate slogan. ■ Equal opportunity in education does not mean having the

same curriculum and activities for everyone, but rather educational experiences adapted to meet the specific needs of each child.

RECOGNIZING GIFTEDNESS The following are very limited descriptions of children who are applying for the gifted and talented program in your district. You are a member of the selection committee and are asked to screen these children using the data you are being given. Read the descriptions of each student and decide whether you would recommend them for admission to the gifted program, or to the highly gifted program, or whether you would deny the request for admission. If the student is to be admitted to the gifted program, designate the area of giftedness in which you believe the student will have gifted needs (e.g., general intelligence, general academic achievement, specific academic achievement, creativity, leadership, or visual and performing arts). Record the reasons for your decisions and discuss your decisions with others in your class. What other information would you have liked to have when making your decision? Hint: Some of these children grew up to be famous adults. Their identities are given at the end of the chapter. CASE NO. 1 Fictitious Name: Margaret Howe Age: 11 Grade Level: 5 Height: 5'8" Weight: 98 lbs. Appearance: Unattractive, homely IQ: 110 Social Q: 76 Achievement Q: 82 Creativity Q: 95 Nationality: American Race: Caucasian School Adjustment: Seeks attention; at times withdrawn; prefers isolation; fails often; daydreams Special Skills: Patience with children and elderly or infirm

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

179

Vocational Goals: None General Physical Health: Sickly; bedridden; hospitalized often; wears back brace from spinal defect General Emotional Health: Bites nails; phobias; attention-seeking behavior; dominates Family: Conservative; father was alcoholic; father completed BA, mother completed high school; parents deceased. CASE NO. 2 Fictitious Name: John Krane Age: 11 Grade Level: 5 Height: 4'11" Weight: 142 lbs. Appearance: Average IQ: 108 Social Q: 98 Achievement Q: 112 Creativity Q: 104 Nationality: American Race: Caucasian School Adjustment: Good performer Special Skills: Active in sports, Boy Scouts Vocational Goals: Work in dad’s computer sales business General Physical Health: Good General Emotional Health: Good Family: Conservative; parents are high school graduates, active in church CASE NO. 3 Fictitious Name: Herman Adler Age: 9 Grade Level: 4 Height: 5'1" Weight: 94 lbs. Appearance: Homely IQ: 82 Social Q: 74 Achievement Q: 82 Creativity Q: 110+ Nationality: Born in Germany; Race: Caucasian became an American as an adult School Adjustment: Very poor; considered unsociable and disturbed Special Skills: Plays violin; likes to be alone to read Vocational Goals: None General Physical Health: Often sickly General Emotional Health: Had emotional breakdown and was removed from school temporarily Family: Parents born in Germany; father self-employed, bankrupt; parents have high school education; family interested in reading and music

180

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

CASE NO. 4 Fictitious Name: Pearl Johnson Age: 16 Grade Level: 10 Height: 5'11" Weight: 195 lbs. Appearance: Heavy, unattractive IQ: 138 Social Q: 126 Achievement Q: 149 Creativity Q: 108 Nationality: American Race: African American School Adjustment: Top 5% of her inner-city class Special Skills: Debate team Vocational Goals: Wants to be a lawyer General Physical Health: Good General Emotional Health: Good; self-confident; ambitious Family: Conservative; parents high school graduates; father a Baptist minister and store clerk; family loves music, plays instruments together

Different Approaches to Recognizing Giftedness Giftedness would begin to emerge very early in children if, from the beginning of their educational experience, they were encouraged to be curious in a varied, responsive environment and allowed to pursue ideas and activities at their own pace to whatever level possible for their ability. Then, with an educational program designed to meet each child’s needs from the beginning of schooling, high intellectual abilities could more easily be revealed than is possible with any test instrument. Such a program could be advantageous in continuously building on the strengths of all students. Thus, the problems usually encountered by gifted children in traditional age-group-oriented school programs would be less inhibiting and continuous progress would be a reality. To provide educational experiences that lead a child to the next level of development, we must be aware of what the child has already accomplished. In schools that provide individualized learning opportunities, give access to many levels and types of ideas and knowledge simultaneously, allow choice among learning activities, and observe, assess, and evaluate as part of the learning experience, giftedness is more easily identified, and continuous progress and challenge are the natural outcomes. In schools that use single-grade placement primarily determined by chronological age, use group instruction a majority of the time, and focus on getting every child to perform at grade level, identification of giftedness is more difficult, and labeling is necessary to allow appropriate learning and academic and intellectual progress. In secondary schools, where departmentalization by subject is the most commonly used way to present the world to a learner, gifted behavior may change from class to class. Secondary schools often use Advanced Placement (AP) classes and honors sections to accommodate the needs of gifted learners; however, such provisions do not

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

181

take the place of conducting individual assessments and planning appropriate experiences for each learner. An AP or honors class should not be the entire gifted program at the secondary school. When public education began in the United States, students often moved through their educational program as their ability allowed. There were fewer pupils and they studied in smaller, multigraded classrooms. Bright children in classrooms where materials were available over a range of grade levels, often as many as eight, could easily learn with older children and become involved in work beyond that being assigned to their own age groups. The early system not only made it possible for students to complete eight grades of schoolwork in a shorter time period, but also encouraged them to do so. The ability to pursue higher levels of education depended on the financial support available to the student. Often only bright students had these opportunities because most families could not afford advanced learning for their less able students. This was a time when much education stemmed from the home and experience was viewed as a good teacher. It was possible for eminent people such as Thomas Edison, Jessie Benton, and Albert Einstein to be educated by their families when they could not remain in the public education system. There are numerous advantages to this more individualized approach to education. Some years ago I taught a cross-graded class of elementary-age gifted youngsters in a rural area of Kansas. The school was committed to providing any resources necessary to further their educational growth, and it was possible to develop a program that allowed the children to work at their own levels of ability and interest. The class was organized into large and small groups for instruction, individual conferencing, contracts, and group projects. I made much use of peer and cross-grade tutoring. Students worked with a variety of levels of materials; at times, second graders worked with eighth-grade material for some subject areas and with third-grade material for others. This was true of the third graders and the fourth graders as well. They soon lost sight of what “grade” they were in and dealt with knowledge and skill development as they were ready. Those exceptionally accomplished in one area used very advanced materials in that area while working at a less advanced level in other areas of learning. Some project work or recreation activities included the entire class, for learning was a joint venture. We had an exciting time. As a child became ready for a new level or interest area, appropriate learning opportunities were made available. Their abilities did not need to be identified; they could just “bubble up.” That is, rather than needing to formally assess each skill set, with more advanced resources available, the children could move forward at their own pace in their own time. We could use a wide range of materials and school and community resources, including a variety of people, to ensure continued growth. Later, I observed a similar plan in Illinois, where children in kindergarten classes who showed ability in any particular area were given the opportunity to expand their skills and talents as they moved forward at their pace. Provisions for advanced learning became a normal part of these classroom situations. These schools were committed to providing for individual needs and encouraging unique growth. Identification of giftedness and advanced learning needs was a continuous occurrence. Special grouping and specialized instruction were normal parts of the classroom routine.

182

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

A few years later, in another area of the country, I taught in a different classroom with a way of organizing instruction that, unfortunately, is now more common. Here my classroom had children all at or near the same age. However, their learning abilities were extremely divergent. The students’ IQs ranged from 80 to 180, with three children above 130. Several children in the class spoke only Spanish. It seemed obvious that this would have to be a very individualized program that would need a wide variety of experiences and an even broader range of materials and learning opportunities. To my dismay, I was expected to teach the third-grade curriculum to all the students, to use the state-adopted text at grade level, and to give standardized tests at regular intervals to all the students. Whether appropriate to the learner or not, the tests had to be administered and turned in for scoring. Using any of the tests to diagnose learning needs was impossible because the test booklet or protocol was not returned. Only a printout of the stanines achieved by the students was available for classroom use. The administration then used the results of the testing to compare schools within the district and to make decisions based on these comparisons. My classroom was regularly visited to see that the furniture was in the proper place (fire marshal’s rules) and that the children were seated and quiet (principal’s mandate). My final defeat came with the declaration that teachers in the first through the third grades (mine was a third-grade classroom) would be prohibited from using materials from the upper-grade bookroom and that it would be locked with keys issued only to eligible staff members. This was to prevent children from going ahead of their grade level so that they would not be bored when they were given material in following years! In educational settings such as this, identifying atypical learners becomes a concern. In such rigid situations, the energy necessary to meet the needs of the school administration and still provide meaningful individualized learning for such diverse students is overwhelming. Of course, one can try to enrich the learning experiences of children such as the three with such bright minds. More likely, the push for conformity will prevail, and any extra energy will be spent trying to bring the children with learning problems up to the pace and norms the school expects of their grade level. Gifted learners are allowed to grow in such situations through identification, clustering, curriculum differentiation, individualized instruction, and intellectual peer interaction. In Chapters 9 and 10, we will discuss the possibilities for teaching in classrooms with gifted learners.

Issues That Make Identification Difficult What is known about discovering giftedness in large populations of students? This is indeed a difficult task, for although certain characteristics can be generalized within this population, some gifted individuals may not possess the same characteristics as other gifted individuals or exhibit them in quite the same way. They may not appear to have any physically observable differences. The gleam in their eyes and the extra energy they seem to possess in exciting learning situations do not often show when the educational situation is unchallenging. Depending on how their giftedness has previously been dealt with, they may even actively attempt to appear quite “ungifted.” Some may, too willingly, go along with the inappropriate curricular experiences.

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

183

To confound the issue, not all gifted students cooperate in a classroom. Many resist routine, exhibit nonconformist behavior, and may be classified as behavioral problems. Alternatively, they may withdraw into the “good child” syndrome; passively doing only what is required and drawing attention to themselves only for spending excessive time in school-approved activities such as reading. This is especially common among girls. Others may be labeled “slow learners” because they are bored, uninterested in material learned long ago, and nonresponsive to classroom activities. Unless observed in activities of their own choosing, at their level of achievement, they may even appear to be educationally retarded or emotionally disturbed. Many gifted youngsters are discovered only after their frustration leads them, by teacher request, to the office of a counselor for testing for a learning disability or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). A major problem in finding gifted children among students who have been identified as disabled is that once labeled, teachers expect the child’s needs and behavior to correspond to those normally found in the identified disability group. Giftedness would be unlikely to be considered as the reason for the behavioral differences the student may be exhibiting. Another reason why it would be unlikely that students showing disabilities would be identified and placed in gifted programs is the fact that far more fiscal and human resources are at the disposal of the child with disabilities than would be available in gifted programs: Therefore, identification usually is conducted for special education placement rather than gifted education placement. We need to be aware of some identification procedures because the very qualities that cause a person to be gifted can be successfully used to hide giftedness. Most children and teachers do not find themselves in situations in which the “bubble-up” method of identification, mentioned earlier in this chapter, can work. Therefore, it is important to understand how assessment, case studies, and alternative procedures are used to find gifted children.

THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING GIFTED STUDENTS: SEARCH, SCREEN, AND IDENTIFY Prior to the implementation of any identification procedures, a school advisory committee should take an inventory of available resources and make some initial recommendations regarding which areas of giftedness the program should serve. Answering the following questions will help the committee in developing these recommendations: ■

■

■

What resources (material and personnel) are available in the school or community for providing programs for advanced learners? Are the resources adequate to provide for all five areas of ability identified in the federal definition of giftedness—intelligence, general academic achievement, specific academic achievement, creativity, leadership, and/or ability in the visual and performing arts? If not, which areas should be included in the program?

184

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

Intellectual giftedness should always be included over as broad a range of abilities as possible. The areas of general academic and specific academic abilities will usually be included, for these are the areas on which the schools primarily focus. Probably creative ability should also be included, as abilities in this area support the cognitive, intellectual functions and are not totally separable. Also, leadership may become an important subcomponent of the gifted program in which the learners could choose to participate. Visual and performing arts talent requires very special resources that are significantly different from those needed for the other ability areas. The school may need to enlist professional artists, musicians, actors, and dancers from the community to supplement the program if they choose to serve students in this area. Finding children with ability or aptitude in each of the areas the district has decided to serve will require varied and numerous resources.

An Inclusive Search When students who exhibit high levels of ability in the regular classroom are not challenged by their academic program, placement in gifted programs is highly recommended. A list of classroom behaviors that are typical among gifted children can be found in Figure 6.1. To facilitate fair and appropriate identification of students for the gifted program, a search committee should be established. It should consist of school personnel in a variety of positions that have some experience with the school’s student population. It is important that the district have, as a basic part of its plan for the gifted program, a concept of the type of gifted students that the program is designed to serve. Is the district equipped to serve all categories of giftedness listed in federal law (e.g., intellectual, academic, creative, leadership and/or visual and performing arts) or will the program, and therefore the search, be confined to only a few of these types of giftedness? This decision will provide the basis for the identification procedures that are to be used. Along with its overall agenda, the search committee should discuss the district’s plans for identification and provision of an appropriate educational program for gifted learners, including the logistics and time elements that may be used. In addition, a schoolwide teacher in-service in gifted education is usually needed to ensure an effective search as well as to provide the faculty support needed to maintain a successful program. During the search component of the identification process, a list should be generated of students who may possibly meet the criteria that the district has established in the category or categories of giftedness to be served. The list will include students from all school sites. All students in the district must have an equal opportunity to be placed on the list. Gifted children may exhibit any of the characteristic behaviors discussed in Chapter 2. In addition, children from diverse cultures who show the potential for high levels of intelligence may need special attention in the identification process. As a first step in the search procedures, nominations should be obtained from teachers, principals, psychologists, parents, and peers who regularly observe students and are aware of behaviors that may show giftedness. Patterns of achievement on standardized tests should be analyzed. The student’s academic behavior and production should be

185

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

FIGURE 6.1

Classroom Behaviors of Gifted Students

Does the student ■

ask a lot of questions?

■

show a lot of interest in his or her progress?

■

have in-depth information on many things?

■

often want to know why or how something is so?

■

become unusually upset at injustices?

■

seem interested in and concerned about social or political problems?

■

often have a better reason for not doing what you want done than you have for asking him or her to do it?

■

seem bored and often have nothing to do?

■

complete only part of an assignment or project and then take off in a new direction?

■

stick to a subject long after the class has gone on to other things?

■

seem restless and leave his or her seat often?

■

daydream?

■

seem to understand easily?

■

like solving puzzles and problems?

■

resist requests to drill on spelling, mathematics, facts, flash cards, or handwriting?

■

have his or her own ideas about how something should be done? And argue for it?

■

criticize others for dumb ideas?

■

talk a lot?

■

become impatient if his or her work is not “perfect”?

■

love metaphors and abstract ideas?

■

love debating issues?

■

seem to be a loner?

This child may be showing giftedness through cognitive ability. Does the student ■

show unusual ability in some area— maybe reading or mathematics?

■

get mathematics answers correct, but find it difficult to tell you how?

■

show fascination with one field of interest? And manage to include this interest in all topics discussed?

■

enjoy graphing everything? Seem obsessed with probabilities?

■

■

enjoy meeting or talking with experts in this field?

invent new obscure systems and codes?

This child may be showing giftedness through academic ability. Does the student ■

try to do things in different, unusual, imaginative ways?

■

create problems with no apparent solutions? And enjoy asking you to solve them?

■

have a really zany sense of humor?

■

love controversial and unusual questions?

■

enjoy new routines or spontaneous activities?

■

have a vivid imagination?

■

love variety and novelty?

■

seem never to proceed sequentially?

This child may be showing giftedness through creative ability. (Continued)

186

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 6.1

(Continued)

Does the student ■

organize and lead group activities? Sometimes take over?

■

enjoy decision making? Stay with that decision?

■

enjoy taking risks?

■

■

seem cocky, self-assured?

synthesize ideas and information from a lot of different sources?

This child may be showing giftedness through leadership ability. Does the student ■

seem to pick up skills in the arts—music, dance, drama, or painting, for example—without instruction?

■

invent new techniques? Experiment?

■

see minute detail in products or performances?

■

have high sensory sensitivity?

This child may be showing giftedness through visual or performing arts ability.

observed. Student portfolios used as assessment tools can provide evidence of the quality and breadth of a student’s work. Referrals generated by the search process should be given to the coordinator of gifted programs, who will then initiate the collection of information necessary for the identification A P P LY I N G process. BRAIN RESEARCH to Education Searching for giftedness should begin as early as possible in the child’s school career. The dynamic nature of brain development requires that intellectual abilities be continually nurtured if the loss of early abilities is to be avoided. Early identification of giftedness at the kindergarten level, at least through informal means, allows the school to provide children an appropriate education throughout their school experience and can prevent the waste of ability and talent that too often occurs. Strategies that are useful as part of the search process include ■ ■

■

■

a search of all student files for indications of giftedness. a staff meeting focused on increasing the ability of teachers to recognize traditional and nontraditional gifted students (use student profiles and case studies for discussion). a checklist that can be used by teachers to increase their ability to recognize underachieving gifted students. an automatic procedure to refer for further assessment all students who achieve a designated score or a designated percentile on academic evaluations.

Peers have been extremely helpful in identifying potentially gifted children for screening. Identifying questions such as “Who is the student you would choose to help

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

187

you if you were having difficulty with your arithmetic?” and “If you were planning a learning center on [subject], who is the student you would choose to be in your group?” and “Who is the smartest person in your room?” can produce important and often otherwise unnoticed information about the intellectually advanced students in a class. Student information that has been found to indicate giftedness includes evidence of high levels or the potential for high levels of abstract reasoning ability, advanced vocabulary, advanced academic performance, an accelerated rate of learning, and/or honors or recognition for outstanding accomplishments. Such evidence can also include analyses of group tests of cognitive ability, an individually administered intelligence test, group or individual achievement test results indicating high-level performance, and/or a pattern of advanced academic ability. Also a student’s work can be useful in the search for giftedness. Both school and extracurricular activities should be considered. The work done on a hobby or toward solving a unique problem at home often indicates advanced thinking and creative ability. It is important to create a database that includes information from a wide range of sources. An analysis of such information can validate the existence of gifted needs that testing data alone may miss. The more information that can be obtained, the greater will be the likelihood that the search will be successful in locating gifted students.

Effective Screening Following the search, the students identified as possibly needing a different kind of educational experience are screened. As shown in Figure 6.2, data for screening that could be used for all areas of ability include the following: ■

■

■

■ ■

■ ■

Nomination forms—from teachers, the principal, the counselor, the psychologist, parents, peers, the student in question, or any others who work with the student; Teacher reports of student functioning—including intellectual, physical, social, and emotional functioning; learning style; and motivation; Family history and student background—provided by parents—including historical and developmental data on the student, the health and medical records of the student and the family, the educational and occupational backgrounds of the parents, a description of the family unit, anecdotes of the student in the home that indicate unusual capacity and early development, family activities and interests, and the student’s extracurricular activities and interests; Peer identification; A student inventory of self-concept, values, interests, and attitudes toward school and out-of-school activities; The student’s work and achievements; and Multidimensional testing, both traditional and nontraditional.

188

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

For best results, none of these data should be used alone; instead, as many sources and kinds of data as possible should be used in combination as part of the data bank for the identification process. The procedure most commonly used to find those who will be tested for giftedness is teacher nomination. Logically, one would believe the teacher to be the one most familiar with the child and best qualified to make such a recommendation. However, one teacher may work with 35 to 45 children during the day; at the secondary level, the number can be sixfold greater. The curriculum aimed at the norm may not elicit any obviously brilliant performance. Depending on how many years the child has been in the system, the child may have developed adaptive skills to “fit in.” Much of this “adjustment” has already occurred by the third grade, especially among gifted girls. The particular beliefs and attitudes of the teacher must also be considered. How does the teacher imagine a gifted child? As early as 1959, Pegnato and Birch found that junior high school teachers most often choose children like themselves as gifted. Whatever the teacher values will be the criterion for selection. That is understandable. How can we select children based on those aspects that we do not experience as valuable or good? Often the quiet, well-behaved, well-dressed youngster who gets good grades is a prime target for teacher selection. Unfortunately, teachers in this study identified only 45% of the children in their classes who actually were cognitively gifted, and only 26% of those they named actually tested high enough to qualify. This problem exists to an even greater extent in lower grades. Nor can it be assumed that even the highly gifted are easily identified. Lack of knowledge regarding giftedness is one of the basic causes of identification problems. If teachers cannot recognize the gifted in their classes, there may be waste of human potential. However, administering individual tests of intellectual abilities is expensive. If teachers select too many students who do not qualify as gifted when tested, the teachers’ errors can waste the limited monetary resources designated for the education of gifted students. The dilemma then is to select enough students not to miss those who are gifted (effective screening) and yet not to select too many who will not test as gifted (efficient screening). Teachers must be both effective, correctly nominating a high percentage of children who are the gifted learners in their classes (i.e., not missing a lot who are gifted), and efficient, having a high percentage of those they nominate identified for the gifted program (i.e., not nominating a lot of children who are not gifted learners). A way to improve teacher selection is to conduct training programs to increase effectiveness without any loss in efficiency. When given a list of specific behaviors to rate or a list of common characteristics found in gifted learners like the one in Figure 6.2, the ability of teachers to predict those who will qualify as gifted learners is quite high. Teachers themselves often have concerns about misidentifying students or may feel that sending a student from their class to attend a special gifted program implies that they are inadequate in their ability to teach (Siegle & Powell, 2004). It is important to provide all teachers with the characteristics of gifted children and the criteria for the district’s gifted program. They must understand that it is just as important for the gifted student to have specialized learning experiences as it is for the student with a disability to have special education services.

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

FIGURE 6.2

Identification Procedures

189

190

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

It is important for teachers to be a part of the selection process. First, they have data to offer that are not available to other members of the identification team. Second, they need to become aware of, understand, and support the program for gifted learners if it is to succeed. Without some involvement in the selection process, teachers will be less likely to cooperate in or contribute to any further planning or implementation. Group intelligence testing might be useful as part of the screening procedure. The Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test (cited in Abeel, Callahan, & Hunsaker, 1994) is one of the most frequently used group intelligence tests, although questions have been raised regarding its construct validity when used for the identification of giftedness. Group achievement tests can be added to the generic screen. A functional assessment of just what the child can do would also be most useful. Often a student’s ability to demonstrate achievement in subject matter areas is limited by the curricular range deemed appropriate for a particular grade level. If the child has never had an opportunity to show how high he or she can achieve in reading or mathematics, discovering his or her giftedness or planning for continuous progress becomes more difficult. Multiple abbreviated tests can be used as a possible screen. Such testing can reduce the cost of identification, can be administered by untrained examiners, and lacks cultural bias. Although having advantages as a screen, this abbreviated testing approach should not replace the use of the complete test when making identification decisions. A matrix system that compresses multiple and varied measures into a single numerical score could be used for screening; however, this practice reduces the sensitivity of the tests and has been found to be indefensible for identification and placement decisions (Fishkin & Johnson, 1998). Table 6.1 gives an overview of the screening process and possible tools that can be used to find students falling within the categories of giftedness given in the following federal definitions: ■

■ ■ ■

■ ■

Intellectual ability: general cognitive intellectual development that is significantly more advanced than that of chronological peers; High academic achievement: consistently high functioning in academic areas; Specific academic ability: consistently high functioning in one academic area; Creative ability: high levels of ability in creating unusual, unique, meaningful contributions and solutions; Leadership ability: unusual ability to inspire, guide, direct, or influence others; and Ability in the visual and performing arts: high levels of ability in origination, performance, and production in an area of the arts.

Once the data on a child who is being considered for the gifted program have been collected, they must be put into a usable form for the selection committee. A case study can be developed that organizes the student information. At a minimum, a student’s case study should incorporate family history and student background. Provided by parents, this information includes historical and developmental data on the student, the health and medical records of the student and the family, the educational and occupational backgrounds of the parents, a description of the family unit, anecdotes of the

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

191

TABLE 6.1 Suggestions for Screening and Identifying Gifted Learners Expression of Giftedness

Screening

Generic

Nomination forms Reports of student functioning Family history and student background Peer identification Student inventories Student work and achievements Multidimensional screen tests (e.g., Baldwin; Kranz; Perrone & Male)

Intellectual

Group intelligence tests (e.g., California Test of Mental Maturity; Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability; Kuhlmann-Anderson Intelligence Tests; Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test; Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test; Otis-Lennon School Abilities Test; Pinter General Ability Test; SRA Primary Mental Abilities Tests) Individual intelligence tests (e.g., Leiter International Performance Scale; Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System; Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; Raven’s Progressive Matrices; Slosson Intelligence Test; SOI Screening Tests for Gifted and Talented Children; Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities)

Academic

Student’s work Functional assessment of content areas Group achievement tests (e.g., California Test of Basic Skills; California Achievement Tests; Iowa Tests of Basic Skills; Metropolitan Achievement Tests; Peabody Individual Achievement Test; the “new SAT”; Sequential Tests of Educational Progress; Stanford Achievement Tests)

Creative

Identification

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children Cognitive Abilities Tests Differential Aptitude Tests Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities Tests in specific areas of content

Divergent thinking tests (e.g., Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking; Exercise in Divergent Thinking; Guilford tests; Wallach & Kogan tests) Scale for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students Personality inventories (e.g., Creative Attitude Survey; Group Inventory for Finding Talent; Preschool & Primary Interest Descriptor) Observation of open-ended problem-solving skills

Leadership

Observation in and out of the classroom Scales on leadership from Kranz; Perrone & Male

No formal standardized tests available

(Continued)

192

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

TABLE 6.1 (Continued) Expression of Giftedness Visual and Performing Arts

Screening

Identification

Observation and recommendations from professional artists Peer nominations

Seashore’s Measures of Musical Talents Arts Standardized Tests of Musical Intelligence Horn Art Aptitude Inventory; Meier Art Tests On-site task completion Juried student work

Alternative test procedures for identification of gifted and talented children among the students who are atypical, underachievers, from culturally diverse populations, or from low socioeconomic-status families: Portfolio assessment procedures Krantz Talent Identification Instrument Baldwin Identification Matrix Torrance’s Creative Positives Raven’s Progressive Matrices System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA)

student in the home that indicate unusual capacity and/or early development, family activities and interests, and the student’s extracurricular activities and interests.

Equitable Identification and Placement The major purpose of identification is to obtain information that will help educators provide the program that is best suited for the development of the gifted student’s potential. It is very important to identify children who can be served by the particular gifted program that the district is planning to provide. A child who is a highly gifted artist will not be well served by being identified for a program that provides no advanced work in art. In the same way, students who excel in mathematics will be frustrated by a gifted program that is limited to the study of advanced literature or writing. The opportunities provided to the student would ideally match the needs that were identified. I am aware that this must sound like common sense, however, you would be surprised how often the gifted program is not an opportunity for the gifted student to participate in advanced study, but an enrichment experience that does not match the student’s needs. The actual identification for the purpose of placement in a gifted program is best done by a committee of professionals representing a variety of areas of expertise, such as the principal, a teacher, a counselor or psychologist, and the program coordinator. All of the materials developed for screening now become a part of the data that provide

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

193

a basis for the identification decision. A case study or profile should be developed for each child to aid in that decision and, if the child is identified, to provide enough information to make appropriate educational planning and placement possible. Care must be taken to use tests and procedures that are valid measures both of the skills being sought and for the population being tested. It has been noted that many of the tests and instruments used for identification have often been used for purposes and populations completely different from those for which they were intended and were designed. Such data may serve only to confuse the identification process and the program planning that must follow. An analysis of state and local identification policies (Coleman, Gallagher, & Foster, 1994) found that states often rely on multiple areas of input to find gifted students. Sources such as parents, teachers, and students as well as extracurricular activities, work samples, and expressions of creativity are incorporated into the formal identification. Following are some of the procedures that have been suggested for identification: ■

■ ■

■ ■

■

Establishing student study teams to make placement decisions and coordinate services, Documenting giftedness using portfolios of student work samples, Reevaluating students who show compelling reasons why existing scores underestimate their abilities or who fall within one standard error of measurement below the score needed to qualify for program services, Using alternative identification methods with students from special populations, Placing students who show potential into the program for a trial period to find out if they would benefit, and Informing those involved in the identification process about multicultural and nonsexist education and identification of special populations of gifted students.

A wider population of gifted students will be served if we establish incentives, such as grants, awards, or special honors for districts that include underserved gifted students; encourage alternative programs for underachieving gifted students; and assist regular classroom teachers in meeting the needs of bright students not placed in gifted programs. Smith et al. (1990) suggest that a comprehensive identification program should provide the following: ■

■ ■ ■

■

Evidence that students demonstrate extraordinary ability in relationship to their age-level peers; Evidence of the students’ range of capabilities and needs; Processes that measure potential as well as achievement; Methods that seek out and identify students from varying linguistic, economic, and cultural backgrounds and from special populations; and Implications for educational planning. (Reprinted by permission of the California Association for the Gifted.)

194

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

Learning needs created by abilities outside of the linear, analytic thinking for which tests are available are seldom considered when planning learning experiences and programs. Developing an integrated, balanced gifted person becomes difficult when we neither seek the full range of abilities nor educate to enhance such abilities.

IDENTIFICATION: ASSESSING INTELLIGENCE, ABILITIES, AND APTITUDES Numerous tests, checklists, questionnaires, and inventories have been used to screen and identify students for gifted programs. Many of these tools are listed in Table 6.1. A brief discussion of the tools used to identify students in each category of giftedness can clarify the choices available. The standardized tests for individual administration that are most useful in identifying potential giftedness are those that appraise general cognitive development, such as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children. Shortened versions of individual intelligence tests have been published, and although they may be useful for screening, they have been found unsuitable for identifying gifted or potentially gifted individuals. Because the time limits, content, or directions of the test have been changed, the data on reliability, validity, and norms for that test are no longer applicable. Also, the number and variety of cognitive skills appraised by these shortened tests are limited. In many of the school districts, assessment activities for identifying giftedness currently start in the third grade with actual placement beginning in the fourth grade. By then, children who have advanced abilities may already find themselves bored by school. To prevent such frustration and, more importantly, the erosion of intellectual and academic development, it is strongly suggested that schools plan for the differentiation of learning experiences for children from the beginning of their schooling, even if they do not start formal identification procedures until the third grade. By developing data on where each student is in the year’s goals as part of their entry into school, we could allow for their continuous growth.

■ One such young lady came home from her first day in her first-grade class depressed and frustrated. When her mother asked what had happened, having sent her off that morning an eager and happy child, the little girl replied, “You remember when I was a little girl and we used to play with paper and crayons and you taught me all the colors? And remember when I went to kindergarten and the teacher taught

me all my colors all over again? You said that that was ok, because first grade would be exciting with lots of new things to learn. Well, today, the first-grade teacher spent lots of time teaching us the colors again.” The child became silent for a moment, deep in thought, and then spoke earnestly to her mother. “Do you think that when I get to college they will still teach me my colors?”

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

195

At the other end of the educational program, we cannot assume that the departmentalization of the curriculum subjects and the choice allowed by this organization in middle school and high school will enable these schools to meet the needs of gifted secondary students. Advanced work that is more complex and covers the subject matter in more depth will still need to be provided; therefore, identification of these older gifted students will still be necessary. In addition to all of the other screening and identification tools that will be suggested in this chapter, Feldhusen, Hoover, and Sayler (1997) have developed the Purdue Academic Rating Scales (PARS) and the Purdue Vocational Rating Scales (PVRS) specifically to meet the need for secondary school screening and identification.

Traditional and Nontraditional Assessments Assessment of students for each of the categories of giftedness that the district intends to serve often takes the form of testing that is traditional such as standardized intelligence tests. For children who express their intelligence through creative thinking, other tests and activities will be indicated. Identifying leadership or artistic abilities will require observation and judgment of products or events. Nontraditional assessments such as the use of student portfolios or other ways of showing evidence of the quality of a student’s knowledge and skills will better meet many of the district’s needs and are highly recommended for use in addition to the more traditional assessment procedures. This is especially true in regard to the search for the level of aptitude children of diverse populations may have because aptitude is not as evident or measurable as children’s knowledge or developed abilities. For some groups of children, the more commonly given tests of intellectual abilities may not provide enough information. For some, the child-rearing practices of their parents, the language they use most often, and their past experiences may depress the scores giving an incomplete picture of the level of their developed intellectual abilities. Binet (Binet & Simon, 1973), in originating his intelligence scales in 1906, and Terman (1916), in revising and popularizing these scales, both warned that they were only one piece of evidence and should be used in combination with other important information about the student in any educational decision-making process. However, even now, such a combination is seldom used. The intelligence test still looms very large as a selection tool. Even with its limits the intelligence test is considered so important that to correct for the perceived weaknesses of many group intelligence tests and the expense of individual tests, nonverbal tests of intelligence have become the focus of the identification process for students from diverse backgrounds. These tests are often used instead of multiple sources of assessment. By becoming familiar with other forms of assessment, educators will have a broader choice of tools that can lead to a more accurate identification process.

Alternative, Authentic, and Performance-Based Assessment Using more than one type of test or assessment tool ensures that more relevant data are considered in the process of identification. The discussion of new or different

196

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

assessment forms and practices requires that the reader understand a number of related terms and concepts. Alternative assessment is any way of finding out what a student knows or can do that differs from the standardized or traditional test. This could include performancebased or functional assessment, collections of evidence of projects completed, or work done over time. Poteet, Choate, and Stewart (1993) find that the major difference in alternative assessment lies in the response required by the student. In traditional testing, students are asked to select and mark correct answers, whereas in alternative assessments, students are asked to produce, construct, demonstrate, or perform a response. Authentic assessment requires that students demonstrate the knowledge and process of the content in real-world settings (i.e., demonstrations that give information regarding actual progress toward instructional goals or performances that show acquired knowledge are authentic). Such demonstrations allow direct examination of the student’s knowledge and skill rather than relying on indirect, limited substitutes such as paper-and-pencil tests from which inferences are made. Some authors suggest that valid authentic assessment must be worthwhile, significant, and meaningful. At the least, the tasks used for authentic assessment should mirror the priorities and challenges used in the learning process, such as analyzing current events, revising writing products, or conducting research. To be valid and reliable, such assessment, as well as all performance assessment, must have appropriate criteria for standardizing and grading the outcomes related to what the student is expected to know and to be able to do. As Wiggins (1990) commented, “If our aim is to monitor performance, then conventional testing is probably adequate. If our aim is to improve performance across the board, then the tests must be composed of exemplary tasks, criteria, and standards” (p. 2). Performance-based assessment is a broad term that refers to opportunities given that allow students to demonstrate and apply their knowledge and understanding of content and skills. Such tests are designed to assess what the student can do with knowledge. An advantage of performance-based assessment is that it measures thinking rather than being limited to the measurement of recognition and retention as more traditional tests often are. Performance-based assessment can take many forms, including observations, journals, group work, and presentations. Not all performance-based or alternative assessment is authentic. Although the terms alternative assessment, performance-based assessment, and authentic assessment are often used synonymously, they have distinct connotations that distinguish each of them. For gifted learners, these types of assessment can remove the ceiling effect from the testing procedure by allowing them to demonstrate the full extent of their understanding. Such products and the students’ reflection on their production are often collected into student portfolios, a strategy that allows students to accumulate evidence of content mastery. Although student portfolios should be used with many other measures to assess potential, the development of such portfolios allows students to take more responsibility for their own learning and to have more choice and flexibility in demonstrating that learning than would be possible with more traditional testing.

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

197

Assessment of Intelligence, Ability, and Aptitude by Program Categories ASSESSING GENERAL INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES AND APTITUDES General intellectual ability is the program category most frequently adopted for gifted programs (Abeel et al., 1994). Intellectual abilities are areas of skill that have already been developed through education or self-exploration. General intellectual abilities include abstract reasoning, sequencing, conceptualizing, generalizing, associating, integrating, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating. These are the abilities that intelligence tests try to measure. Intellectual aptitudes are those inclinations, tendencies, talents, and potentials that are part of the child’s character or uniqueness and often show themselves in intense interests or ease of learning. The work of Feuerstein (1978) was focused on assessment of learning potential and has produced instruments aimed at finding aptitudes rather than skills or abilities that have already been developed. Nontraditional assessments such as Feuerstein’s add information valuable in the planning of a program for gifted learners. The measurement of intellectual abilities has often depended on the results of traditional paper-and-pencil-tests, although the limited tasks on such tests narrowly reflect the possibilities for the growth of human intellectual abilities. Researchers in the 1970s and 1980s (Hunt & Kirk, 1971; Sternberg, 1985) perceived a need for a different way of assessing intellectual development. They felt that our reliance on tests comparing people against a standard or norm (decided by taking the average of what many people can do and assigning a score to it) prevented us from developing more useful measures. They believed that we must discover which activities and skills include both cognitive and motivational ability and in what sequence these activities or skills usually appear. From that information, criterion measures could be established that would indicate not only what the present level of a child’s development was, but also which experiences would best create the challenge for further growth. In 1986 Sternberg commented that the tests used then were little better than the tests used decades before and were, in many cases, the same tests. He believed that the weakness of those tests was not the kind of items they contained, but rather their lack of a viable theory base. For this reason, Sternberg and others have focused their work on developing a theoretical base for intelligence in an information-processing framework. These researchers believed that such a theory base would prove more useful than the factor-analytic, psychometric base previously used for measuring, understanding, and nurturing intelligence. The conventional standardized tests currently in use measure analytic abilities fairly well, but fail to measure synthetic abilities—those allowing for invention, creativity, and personal contribution (Sternberg, 1996). Individual Tests of Intelligence. Although, as noted, no single test can measure the entire universe of intellectual abilities, the most commonly used individually administered tests of linear, rational cognitive ability are the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). A person’s score on both intelligence tests is given as an intelligence quotient or IQ. In the development of intelligence tests, variations in test performance caused by age differences were taken into

198

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

account. This adjustment led to the idea of IQ, which is computed by dividing the mental age by the chronological age and multiplying the result by 100 as discussed in Chapter 1. Standardized and normed on the general population, the tests evolved to set the average IQ at any age at 100 with a standard deviation of 15 points. The middle 50% of the population falls between 90 and 110 IQ. On the Stanford-Binet an IQ of 132 reflects the beginning of the upper 2% of the population and a score of 68 IQ reaches the top of the lower 2%; on the WISC, the top 2% begins at 131. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale was written in 1916 at Stanford University by Lewis Terman and was an adaptation of a test developed in 1906 in France by Binet and Simon. Terman used the test to identify children for his longitudinal study of giftedness that began in 1921. Curiously, it has been used to show fixed intelligence, although Binet himself believed that intellectual ability was dynamic and could be influenced by education. The test was standardized and normed on 1,000 children and 400 adults found in and around Stanford, California, a high socioeconomic university environment. The test was revised in 1937, using 3,184 U.S.-born Anglo-American persons of 1 to 18 years of age with equal numbers of males and females. Seventeen communities, both rural and urban and in widely separated states, represented the geographical distribution. In 1960, the revision Form L–M was made, again with a geographically diverse group. Another revision, the Fourth Edition, was produced by Thorndike, Hagen, and Sattler in 1986, with the 1960 norms updated to take into account the apparent changes in the intelligence of populations over time. However, Form L–M continued to play an important part in gifted assessment as the upper limit of the Fourth Edition was lower than that of the third edition Form L–M. The Fourth Edition had an IQ ceiling of only 164 and produced scores that ran 13.5 points lower than scores on Form L–M; thus, a child who previously received an IQ score of 140 would receive an IQ score of 127 or less using the Fourth Edition. Many students who needed to be considered for challenging and differentiated instruction would be easily missed with this form. The current Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, SB5, was completed in 2003 and, because of the problem with previous revisions, had as one of its goals the development of extremely challenging items at the upper end (Roid, Carson, & Madsen, 2004). Roid et al. comment that the search for the best advanced items was a priority from the time work began on the revision in 1995. To identify, recommend, and verify the accuracy of high-level items, specialists in the assessment of giftedness and intelligence theory and some gifted individuals previously assessed on former editions of the Stanford-Binet were consulted. In addition, an innovative scoring system was devised that included a way to provide more adequate testing and scoring for very young bright children, the changesensitive score (CSS), and for highly gifted to profoundly gifted individuals, the extended IQ (EXIQ). It was the intention to revise the test in such a way that it would be possible to measure the highest ends of the spectrum of cognitive abilities, even at a very early age. It is now possible to score IQs of 161 to 225. While such individuals are rare, Roid (2003) estimates that in the United States there are about 930 indi-

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

199

viduals with IQs above 160. Having a test that can measure a true span of ability is important. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale was constructed to test general intellectual ability, including five broad cognitive abilities: fluid reasoning, crystallized ability (knowledge), quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory (Roid, 2003). At the beginning, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale gained wide acceptance because it did just what was expected of it. Those intuitively judged to have high intellectual ability did well on the test, whereas those who exhibited subnormal ability, in fact, did poorly. The test was never based on an exact definition of intelligence, nor did it reflect any commitment to a rationale for how we develop intelligence. It was based, rather, on relative performance. Large numbers of people have taken the test, lending stability to it, but its predictive nature is limited to performance in similar activities such as schoolwork. The predictive validity of such tests ranks highest on the performance of school-related tasks, especially for those tested after the age of 5 years. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), the individual test of intellectual abilities most commonly used in schools, was developed in 1949 by David Wechsler. The test is divided into two scales, the verbal and the performance scales, each with its own IQ score. It also gives a total IQ score. With gifted children, the scores of the separate scales are often found to be discrepant. The test was standardized and normed on only 100 boys and 100 girls who were chosen to represent each age group from 5 to 15 years of age and are reported to have been white, American children. The test abandons the concept of mental age found in the Stanford-Binet and instead uses scores derived from comparing the child with a sample of same-age peers. The sampling of very bright children in the standardization group was quite small. The WISC–III was developed in 1991, and the standardization group included Anglo-American, African American, Hispanic American, Puerto Rican, American Indian, and Asian American students in about the same proportion as they appear in the American population. This newer edition has the same problem that the Fourth Edition of the Stanford-Binet showed. The scores have now been shifted down 8 or 9 points at the higher end with the highest possible score now at 155. The test revision does not differentiate well for gifted learners and does even worse for those who are highly gifted. Other individually given intelligence tests commonly used in schools are the Leiter International Performance Scale, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT), the Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS/2), the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities (WJIII), the Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS), and Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Group Intelligence Tests. There are cautions against using IQ scores derived from group tests to make discrete decisions; however, such tests are helpful at the screening stage of identification, and scores are often already available in student files. Group tests are timed; are less reliable than individual tests, especially at high levels; and tend to miss children with diverse ability. The higher the ability that is tested, the greater the

200

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

discrepancy between the student’s group IQ and his or her individual IQ. Because of such misrepresentation, group tests must be used as a screen for identifying gifted students with an attitude of inclusion, not exclusion. The danger of missing a student in need is very real. The more commonly used group tests of intellectual abilities are the Otis-Lennon School Abilities Test (OLSAT), the SRA Primary Mental Abilities Tests, the KuhlmannAnderson Intelligence Tests, the Cognitive Abilities Tests (CogAT), the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT), the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, and the Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability. The Nature of the IQ. Unfortunately, many people, including too many educators, believe that the IQ score gives an accurate description of a person’s capacity or potential. It does not. Currently, there are no tests of capacity or potential. The most any test will reveal is how well a person can handle the type of problem that is on the test at that point in time. Because IQ tests were designed to predict success in school and resemble the material covered in formal schooling, performance on these tests will very likely predict how well the child will do in school-related activities. The strengths and weaknesses of each test must be understood before any inferences about a person’s potential can be made. Much more must be known before decisions about the person’s future should be attempted on the basis of such tests. The advantage of IQ tests lies in their ability to identify exceptionally gifted students and their unique educational needs as well as students who are underachievers, have low verbal ability, or have disabilities, such as learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, and visual, hearing, or physical impairments. IQ tests are also useful in making legal decisions regarding the eligibility for participation in gifted programs. They are less useful for determining the most appropriate educational experiences. For individualized educational planning, Pyryt (1996) suggests a comprehensive assessment that incorporates high-ceiling measures of specialized abilities, motivation, interests, and other factors. Sternberg (1986) believes that traditional tests benefit students who can quickly solve problems in the intermediate range of difficulty and penalize those who can solve very difficult problems, for such problems have been eliminated. Further, he believes that the kind of planning and evaluating needed for good performance in everyday life differs from the kind of planning and evaluating assessed by these traditional tests. Psychologist-researcher Reuven Feuerstein (cited in Mohs, 1982) saw an entirely different problem. Feuerstein suggests that traditional IQ tests measure what people already know, which is not as important as what they can learn or where their cognitive deficiencies lie. Feuerstein believes that such additional information would allow learners to overcome their deficiencies, such as impulsiveness, lack of precision, and failure to discriminate the important from the unimportant. The real task is to effect change. “We are not interested in providing the child with information or specific skills. We are interested in endowing the child with capacities to benefit from his encounters” (quoted in Mohs, 1982, p. 24).

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

201

Callahan (2001) finds that standardized assessments have benefits. They provide data on students who do not fit the usual behavioral assumptions of giftedness, are annoying in ways that mask their abilities, or have learning disabilities that may hide their potential. Underachievement may be recognized through such tests by revealing a very different pattern than classroom grades show. Students who had not been seen as having gifted abilities may show such advanced patterns of abilities by their responses to test questions that were thought to be beyond their level of academic accomplishment. The concern with such testing, especially in the current testing climate, is the mismatch between the achievement measured by standardized tests and the curriculum appropriate for gifted students. Showing any growth or achievement is difficult when the student scores at the highest levels in the initial testing. Also, the focus may shift from developing an appropriate curriculum to obtaining appropriate test scores. Callahan (2001) believes that this can be especially detrimental for gifted students from diverse cultures who are being drilled in low-level basic skills in order to improve test performance instead of receiving the type of instruction needed to bolster their understanding of high-level concepts and cognitive skills. We are encouraged to use our knowledge of traditional and nontraditional testing to balance the approach to judging the outcomes of instruction. Until more productive measures of intellectual ability are developed, available measures will continue to be used. It would be wise to supplement their use with other evaluative tools such as observation of the processes, performance, or products of learning; the results from a variety of measures of achievement and creativity; input from parents, teachers, and peers; and self-reporting. Emotional Intelligence. According to Goleman (1995), one’s IQ contributes only 20% to the factors that are responsible for success in life. Goleman suggests that emotional intelligence may be as important as or even more important to a person’s success than the more familiar IQ. He considers emotional intelligence to be composed of five components: ■

■ ■

■ ■

Awareness of one’s feelings and the ability to use that knowledge in decision making; Ability to manage one’s feelings to prevent distress from blocking thought processes; Ability to motivate oneself despite setbacks, remaining positive and hopeful and delaying gratification; Ability to empathize with others; and Ability to develop rapport and cooperate with others and to handle feelings in relationships.

These abilities show high correlation with success in careers, good relationships, good health, and lower rates of delinquency, violence, and drug use in children. According to Goleman, better performance on achievement tests is also a result of improving emotional skills.

202

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

ASSESSING ACADEMIC ABILITIES AND APTITUDES Achievement tests are used to measure academic abilities and, more specifically, can predict how well students will do on particular school-related subjects. Generally, the best predictor of future academic achievement in particular subjects will be the work done and/or grades received in previous classes. However, for an overall view of academic or subject matter mastery, achievement tests are used. For gifted students, there are cautions in the use of achievement tests to identify giftedness or academic placement. Too often such tests do not reflect the extent of the knowledge or skill the student has developed. As with some of the intelligence tests, gifted students may reach the ceiling of the test without reaching the extent of their knowledge or ability. It also makes it difficult to measure any growth the students have made from previously administered tests. Once a student scores at the 95th percentile or higher, any future testing is likely to produce the same score, even if significant growth has occurred. While off-norm or higher grade-level testing may help with this problem, many teachers or psychometricians may not modify the testing procedure to allow this more accurate result. Also, the scores indicate the grade level at which the student is performing on the test; even when higher-level testing is allowed, it is easy for teachers and parents to think that the student should be moved to the grade level indicated by the resulting scores. The problem is that, while the student might do well in a particular subject at that grade level, the student’s skills in other subjects might not be developed to that level, nor would such a score indicate that the social-emotional maturity of the student would support such advanced placement. While other factors must be considered in accelerated placement, the highly developed knowledge and skill of the student indicated by the higher grade-level score mean that academic accommodations must be made in some way or continuous growth cannot be ensured. The Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) are basic achievement tests. They are often used to assess how well students have learned information in various academic subjects such as science, reading, social studies, and spelling. The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K–ABC) (Kaufman, 1984) is an individually administered measure of achievement intended for children from 2- to 12-years-old. Based on work in cerebral specialization, the test A P P LY I N G focuses on the processes of the brain, especially in regard to sequenBRAIN RESEARCH tial processing, simultaneous processing, and a combination of the to Education two, the mental processing composite. The designer believes that this focus on process, rather than content, and the de-emphasis of factual knowledge and applied school-related skills make the test useful in assessing the intelligence and achievement of all children, and especially gifted children, gifted minority children, and gifted children with learning problems. Some other sources for evidence in this category include the Stanford Achievement Tests, the California Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS), the California Achievement Tests (CAT/5), the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), the Peabody Individual

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

203

Achievement Test, a representative collection of student schoolwork, tests in content area, teacher observation, and pupil self-inventories. The best single indicator of future academic achievement is the present level of achievement in the area of interest. An instrument that has been very popular for identifying highly gifted children for advanced study and programs for radical acceleration is the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), developed by the College Entrance Examination Board (now the College Board), a group of 4,300 educational institutions including most of America’s leading universities. A form of this test had been used since the 1920s as a college entrance exam, and at that time, it consisted of multiple-choice questions and included sections on definitions, arithmetic problems, classification, artificial language, antonyms, number series, analogies, logical inference, and paragraph reading. The test has also been used to identify students who can profit from highly accelerated studies such as those found in a program for profoundly gifted students at the Center for Talented Youth (CTY), established by Julian Stanley at Johns Hopkins University. A revised SAT, the “new SAT,” was introduced in the spring of 2005. Some of the purported changes in this revision center around the College Board’s intention to upgrade the curriculum standards and requirements for what is taught to high school students (Cloud, 2003). Improvement in writing, grammar, and mathematics, on the part of the schools and the students, is necessary to score well on the revised test. More advanced and complex knowledge and skills are required. Cloud reported that, where the purpose of older versions of the test was to measure students’ general reasoning abilities and aptitudes, the new test is more focused on assessing achievement or mastery of subject matter. Instead of the old mathematics and verbal sections, there are three segments (reading, writing, and arithmetic) with a perfect score now of 2,400 instead of the previous 1,600. With the differences in philosophy and in content, the new SAT will be watched to see if it succeeds not only in selecting students for higher education and advanced study, but also in fulfilling its creator’s self-selected mission, improving schooling for all students. ASSESSING CREATIVE ABILITIES AND APTITUDES A test measuring divergent thinking ability or a personality inventory might be used to find abilities in or aptitudes for creative production. These are often referred to as tests of creativity, although, just as with the concept of intelligence, no test measures all facets of the concept of creativity. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Torrance, 1966) are the tests most often used to find the cognitive, rational type of creativity. Torrance (1999) observed that the evidence of more than 30 years indicates that factors including motivation, persistence, courage, and loving what one is doing are more important in predicting creative performance than is creative ability alone. Data from a 40-year follow-up of Torrance’s test data (Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos, & Zuo, 2005) indicate that the IQ, fluency, and originality scores from the

204

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

TTCT obtained in childhood were the best predictors of the quantity of creative achievement. The quality of creative achievement was best predicted by adding the creativity index from the TTCT to the IQ, fluency, and originality scores. There continues to be a high correlation between the quantity and the quality of the ideas produced. Torrance’s longitudinal studies show the critical role that environmental interactions play in the development of the creatively productive individual. Piirto (2004) finds that there are two groups of theorists that seem to be involved in the assessment of creativity. One group has spent decades working to develop tests of creativity that could be considered valid and reliable. This group includes Torrance, Guilford, Meeker, Treffinger, and others. A second group, including Gardner, Sternberg, Borland, and Perkins, insists that such tests have little value or should be seen only as measures of divergent production. Another issue concerns the necessity of including high levels of intelligence in the construct of creativity. While most agree that high levels of intelligence can be seen as an advantage for any type of creativity, many feel that it should not be seen as a requirement. There are so many possible realms and expressions of creativity that the level of intelligence needed for outstanding creative production depends on the type of creativity being developed. Observations could be made of a child in an open-ended problem-solving situation that would provide useful anecdotal material for assessing creative ability. The predictability of future levels of creativity would be another use for authentic assessment. Caution is necessary when using the data from tests for creativity as an alternative identifier for giftedness. This has been a practice used with students from diverse populations. Unless the gifted program in which they are placed includes methods and content that are measured on the creativity tests used to identify them, these students may not do well in the gifted program. Their cognitive abilities that were not measured by such tests may be unfairly compared with the more advanced cognitive skills of the other students in the program. The results often create failure experiences and prevent growth of these diverse students’ potential. Other tests that purport to measure creative thinking or divergent production are the Creativity Scale in the Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales (GATES) (Gilliam, Carpenter, & Christiansen, 1996), Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) Nonverbal Battery, Differential Ability Scales (DAS), Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, and subtests of many of the tests previously mentioned. ASSESSING LEADERSHIP ABILI TIES AND APTITUDES Observation of leadership skills in and out of the classroom will provide anecdotal material for screening in this area. The multidimensional scales mentioned in the generic area include sections related to leadership abilities. Abeel et al. (1994) report that the most commonly used measure of leadership is the Scale for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) (Renzulli et al., 1976). Sections of the Kranz and the Renzulli-Hartman scales also provide data in this area. A combination of nominations from the student, peers, and teachers can be used as a predictor of leadership ability, according to Friedman, Friedman, and Van Dyke (1984). Of the three, self-nomination was the most powerful predictor, leading the researchers to suggest that a simple, straightforward “volunteer” approach should be tried and its power tested.

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners

205

ASSESSING VISUAL AND PERFORM ING ARTS ABILITIES AND APTITUDES Little is known about the early indicators of gifted performance in the visual and performing arts. Currently, the best indicator of giftedness in these areas is the ability to perform in the specific area chosen. If this is an area the school or district wishes to serve, a panel of experts should be assembled to judge such performances. It is believed that the general level of cognitive skills and achievement in academic areas should receive no weight in these decisions because no evidence exists that such measures can predict artistic achievement (Hagen, 1980). Tests of creativity have not demonstrated validity as measures of artistic and musical talent. When combined with other data, Seashore’s Measures of Musical Talents has been found useful (Kavett & Smith, 1980) as has Measures of Musical Abilities (Bentley, 1966). The Primary Measures of Music Audiation (Gordon, 1979) was designed to measure aptitudes in young children. The Horn Art Aptitude Inventory and the Meier Art Tests (Rubenzer, 1979) are measures used in the field of art.

A Summary of the Identification Process After the student has been identified, the parents must be informed of the decision and asked for permission to place their child in whatever program the school provides. The signed permission form will then be placed in the student’s permanent case study file. Administrators should explain to the parents the concept of giftedness and the purpose of the program and clearly invite their participation. A review of the literature on identification practices by Abeel, Callahan, and Hunsaker (1994) drew the following recommendations. Experts in the field of gifted education recommend that those who are developing identification practices ■

■

■

■

■

base identification procedures on a broad and well-defined conception of giftedness to ensure appropriate service to the gifted population designated for the program. use multiple criteria, including standardized and nonstandardized instruments, process and performance indicators, and multiple sources of data, in the identification of gifted learners. use identification strategies and instruments that are appropriate for each area of giftedness that the program is designated to serve. select instruments for the identification process that are reliable and valid for the construct they are expected to measure. For example, Abeel et al. suggest that, “Although tests of intelligence provide relatively objective, valid and reliable measures of general intellectual ability in the sense of predicting general school achievement, they give little information about specific talents, even in the intellectual domain” (p. 4). recognize the limitations of using the score of a single test or the summed matrix score as the basis of identification and include a more comprehensive selection of evaluation data.

206

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner ■

■

base identification and placement on student need rather than on the number or prespecified percentage of students a program can accommodate. use appropriate instruments and strategies to identify underserved populations that account for the different behavioral aspects of giftedness exhibited in different cultures.

In this chapter, the rationale and procedures for selecting gifted children who need differentiated education to continue their growth have been reviewed. Search and screening procedures and the problems involved in using them have been discussed. Identification has been viewed from a variety of perspectives, including the importance of assessment and case studies. The main purpose of identification is to provide placement that allows appropriate educational experiences that can enhance the continuous growth and progress of every gifted child.

REVIEW OF IMPORTANT IDEAS Recognizing Giftedness ■ Giftedness would begin to emerge very early in chil-

dren if, from the beginning of their educational experience, they were encouraged to be curious in a varied, responsive environment and allowed to pursue ideas and activities at their own pace to whatever depth possible for their ability. Then, with an educational program designed to meet each child’s needs from the beginning of schooling, high intellectual abilities could more easily be revealed than is possible with any test instrument. ■ Giftedness is more easily identified and continuous

progress and challenge are the natural outcomes for schools that adopt the following best practices: provide individualized learning opportunities, give access to many levels and types of learning simultaneously, allow choice among learning activities, and observe, assess, and evaluate as part of the learning experience. ■ Most schools use single-grade placement primarily

determined by chronological age, use group instruction a majority of the time, and focus on getting every child to perform at grade level. In these schools, identification is more difficult, and labeling is necessary to make appropriate learning and academic and intellectual progress possible. ■ Advanced placement classes and honors sections in

secondary schools do not take the place of conducting individual assessments and planning appropriate experiences for gifted learners. ■ For identification of giftedness, use multiple measures

of intelligence and ability. These could include observation of the processes, performance, or products of

learning; the results from a variety of measures of achievement and creativity; input from parents, teachers, and peers; and self-reporting.

The Process of Identifying Gifted Learners: Search, Screen, and Identify ■ The function of the search component is to generate a

list of possible gifted students, making sure that all students have an equal opportunity to be selected. ■ Placement of students in gifted programs is highly rec-

ommended when such high levels of ability cannot be furthered in the regular educational program traditionally provided by the schools. ■ As a basic part of its plan for the gifted program, it is

important that the district have a concept of the gifted students it wishes to serve. ■ As a first step in the search procedures, nominations

should be obtained from teachers, principals, psychologists, parents, and peers who regularly observe students and are aware of behaviors that may show giftedness. ■ Searching for giftedness should begin as early as possi-

ble in the child’s school career. ■ Student information that has been found to indicate

giftedness includes evidence of high levels or the potential for high levels of abstract reasoning ability, advanced vocabulary, advanced academic performance, an accelerated rate of learning, and/or honors or recognition for outstanding accomplishments. ■ The procedure most commonly used to find those who

will be tested for giftedness is teacher nomination.

CHAPTER 6: Assessing and Identifying Gifted Learners ■ The screening process can limit or broaden the types of

students that will be considered for identification of giftedness. ■ The dilemma is to select enough students not to miss

those who are gifted (effective screening) and yet not to select too many who will not test as gifted (efficient screening). ■ Teachers must understand that it is just as important

for the gifted student to have specialized learning experiences as it is for the student with a disability to have special education services.

Identification: Assessing Intelligence, Abilities, and Aptitudes ■ The major purpose of identification is to obtain infor-

mation that will help educators provide the program that is best suited for the development of the gifted student’s potential. ■ Prior to the implementation of any identification pro-

cedures, a school advisory committee should take an inventory of available resources and make some initial recommendations regarding the areas of giftedness the program should serve, such as high levels of intelligence, general academic achievement, specific academic achievement, creativity, leadership, and/or ability in the visual and performing arts. ■ The categories of intellectual, general academic, and

207

does not. Currently, there are no tests of capacity or potential. ■ IQ tests tend to be good predictors of success within the

school environment. ■ For gifted learners, alternative assessment, perfor-

mance-based assessment, and authentic assessment can remove the ceiling effect from the testing procedure by allowing them to demonstrate the full extent of their understanding. ■ Because of the focus on individual student progress,

the use of a student portfolio allows gifted students to demonstrate their actual level of achievement and their own unique abilities. ■ Although student portfolios should be used with

many other measures to assess potential, the development of such portfolios allows students to take more responsibility for their own learning and to have more choice and flexibility in demonstrating that learning than would be possible with more traditional testing. ■ Generally, the best predictor of future academic

achievement in specific subjects will be the work done and/or the grades received in previous classes. However, for an overall view of academic or subject matter mastery, achievement tests and student portfolios should be used. ■ Tests measuring divergent thinking ability and person-

specific academic abilities will usually be included in the plan for the district program, for these are the areas on which the schools primarily focus.

ality inventories are often referred to as tests of creativity and may be used to find abilities or aptitudes in this category.

■ To prevent the erosion of intellectual and academic

■ Self-nomination is the most powerful predictor of lead-

development, it is strongly suggested that schools plan for the differentiation of learning experiences for children from the beginning of their schooling, even if they do not start formal identification procedures until the third grade. ■ Using more than one type of test or assessment tool

ensures that more relevant data are considered in the process of identification.

ership abilities and aptitudes. ■ No evidence exists that the general level of cognitive

skills and achievement in academic areas can predict artistic achievement. Therefore, such measures should receive no weight in decisions regarding the assessment of visual and performing arts’ abilities and aptitudes. ■ The actual identification for the purpose of placement

mark correct answers, whereas in alternative assessments, students are asked to produce, construct, demonstrate, or perform a response.

in a gifted program is best done by a committee of professionals representing a variety of areas of expertise, such as the principal, a teacher, a counselor or psychologist, and the program coordinator.

■ One assumption of most intelligence tests is that intel-

■ A case study or profile should be developed for each

ligence is a single, invariable factor. More current data indicate that intelligence is neither a single factor nor constant.

child to aid in the identification decision and also later in program planning if the child is identified.

■ In traditional testing, students are asked to select and

■ Unfortunately, many people, including too many

educators, believe that the IQ score gives an accurate description of a person’s capacity or potential. It

■ After the student has been identified, the parents must

be informed of the decision and asked for permission to place their child in whatever program the school provides.

208

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

■ Administrators should explain to the parents the con-

cept of giftedness and the purpose of the program and clearly invite their participation. ■ When a school establishes a program for gifted learn-

ers, it should include in-service training for the entire faculty and staff regarding the meaning of giftedness and the importance of the new program. ■ A major problem in finding gifted children among stu-

dents with disabilities is that once labeled, teachers

Answers for the activity on pages 178–180. CASE NO. 1 Eleanor Roosevelt CASE NO. 2 Nongifted Student CASE NO. 3 Albert Einstein CASE NO. 4 Barbara Jordan

expect the child’s needs and behavior to correspond to those normally found in the identified group. ■ Because most special education programs in schools

have far more fiscal and human resources at the disposal of the child with disabilities than do gifted programs, identification usually is conducted for special education placement rather than gifted placement.

7

Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

©Shutterstock

IDEAS WE HAVE HAD

IDEAS RESEARCH SUPPORTS

■ To be truly democratic, we should identify an equal

■ Because all cultural groups do not share the same values,

number of gifted learners in each cultural group. It has been suggested that percentage quotas reflecting each group’s share of the overall population be required to bring all populations to the appropriate level of participation in gifted programs. Many school districts have imposed such quotas. ■ The underrepresentation of some cultural and

socioeconomic groups in gifted programs is usually the result of test bias, underreferrals by teachers, and/or deficit-based views of the minority groups.

knowledge base, and access to economic and educational resources, children from all groups do not share the same quality of intellectual experiences and support for learning from their earliest years. This disparity creates greater numbers of children from these more disadvantaged groups who are seriously limited in their intellectual growth and are unable to develop their intellectual potential. The democratic approach would be to provide remediation supporting intellectual progress for those who need it while recognizing and furthering the development of those children who show potential for higher intellectual development. The current practice of establishing quotas within each cultural group is not the most helpful solution. Giftedness at the highest level can be developed in every racial and ethnic group.

209

210

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

■ The only valid learning comes from rational inquiry,

cognitive analysis, and in-depth, complex thinking. These mental processes are typical of functions of the left hemisphere of the brain. Such ways of thinking and processing information are most typical of males.

■ The development of high levels of intelligence requires a

variety of intellectually challenging experiences from the earliest years of the child’s life. The cause for the underrepresentation of some cultural and socioeconomic groups in gifted programs usually can be found with the specific cultural or family patterns that did not provide intellectually appropriate experiences, rather than with the assessment procedures. The limitations of the environmental interactions that were provided for the child were unfair, not the testing procedures. ■ For most mental and physical activities, a person functions

best when the processes of both brain hemispheres act in close integration. Valuing only the process and products of the left hemisphere limits the style and breadth of thinking and knowing. The integration of the processes of both hemispheres allows the understanding of the computation and the conceptualization of mathematics, the structure and the melody of music, and the syntax and the poetry of language.

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION AND GIFTEDNESS It is important that when the issues and concerns regarding culturally diverse students are considered the term culture be understood to mean more than the beliefs of racial or ethnic groups. Culture can be shared by any group of people and is communicated from one generation to the next. It includes the group’s shared knowledge, social values, worldviews, traditions, and preferred standards of behaving. Culture reflects the social and political relationships created, shared, and transformed by a group of people bound together by a common history, geographic location, language, social class, religion, or any other shared identity. Culture is a group’s concept of personal and social responsibility, of time, and style of communication. Most important, culture includes one’s concept of self and perception of control as internal or external. Often the cultural heritage is confused with the biological heritage. The cultural heritage is learned, not innate. For example, a child from a middle-income, fourth-generation Chinese American family will have many different values and behaviors than a child from a family who has recently emigrated from China to the United States. However, because of our lack of understanding of culture, both of these children may be known as Asian American, treated similarly, and be expected to hold the same cultural values. Perhaps more problematic is the possibility that a middle-class African American child would be thought to understand and share the values and beliefs of the low socioeconomic-status African American child living in poverty and be treated similarly in the classroom. Although both may grow to be gifted, their knowledge base, values, and needs will be very different. Cultural identity is influenced by ethnic and racial heritage, religion, gender, age, socioeconomic status (SES), primary language, geographical region, disabilities, and any other exceptional conditions. In reality, these many influences can be seen as changing,

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

211

enriching, and possibly comprising microcultures. All people within the microculture share distinctive cultural patterns, while at the same time, sharing some cultural patterns with members of the larger macroculture. The term culturally diverse identifies those who are being reared in any group that differs significantly in values and attitudes from the dominant culture. Confusion may arise from use of the terms economically disadvantaged, socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED), and culturally diverse. Although these terms are often used interchangeably in program reports, informational articles, and research reports, there are important differences. Some economically disadvantaged children, also referred to as SED children, are ethnically or racially diverse; however, it is important to remember that many are not, and yet both groups may be culturally diverse. SED parents are out of the economic mainstream, and members of this population are often characterized by the values and attitudes that often result from poverty. Such values can include a victim orientation, survival thinking, short-term planning, and dependency. When poverty and cultural diversity are found together, the results can be overwhelming for children and can require thoughtful planning regarding their educational experiences. You will recall from Chapters 1 and 2 that how or if giftedness is expressed depends both on the genetic inheritance of the individual and on the support and opportunities provided by that individual’s environment. Environments significantly change the brain. Stimulating environments allow the development of the accelerated, A P P LY I N G complex, and integrated functions of the brain that can result in high BRAIN RESEARCH levels of intelligence or giftedness. Deprived environments may inhibit to Education such development and can result in limited intelligence. It is this dynamic nature and origin of intelligence that must be kept clearly in mind as we pursue the issues of cultural diversity. The beliefs and practices of the culture that support and enrich the growth of the child’s potential can be viewed as positive and essential; however, the beliefs and practices of a culture that would inhibit and diminish the growth of the child’s brain functioning, thereby denying potential development, must be seen as negative and in need of change if the intellectual potential is to be realized. All cultural groups, including economically disadvantaged groups, can create conditions for their children that either facilitate the growth of intelligence and support achievement or limit both in many ways. The amount of support from the cultural group can enable children to reach outstanding achievement or prevent the emergence of their innate talents. In too many cases, our educational system may be unsupportive of children who are raised with significantly different values and attitudes from those found in the dominant culture. Families that give the school the total responsibility for the education of their children, even allowing their children to come to school without prerequisite school skills, create conditions that make learning difficult for them. The problems, and therefore the solutions, seem to lie partly with the family and its representation of the culture, partly with the dominant society expressed through the people of the mainstream culture, and partly with the school as a translator of the dominant society’s values and attitudes. The following discussion of pluralism, multiculturalism, and the issues involved in each concept reflect the work of Bennett (2011); Gollnick & Chinn (2009); Koppelman (2011); Nieto & Bode (2012). For further information on each issue the reader may wish to consult these authors.

212

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

The equal coexistence of diverse cultures, institutions, and/or individuals within a mutually supportive relationship within the boundaries of one nation is known as pluralism. This point of view accepts human differences as enriching, and values diversity. A pluralist society encourages autonomy within each cultural group to develop its own structures and beliefs. Cultural pluralism is the process of compromise characterized by mutual appreciation and respect between cultural groups. In a culturally pluralistic society, members of different ethnic groups are permitted to retain many of their cultural traditions such as language and religion, asking only that all groups conform to those practices found necessary for social harmony and the survival of society as a whole. The concept of pluralism fits well with the democratic ideals of the United States (e.g., majority rule with minority rights). Another concept of societal organization is multiculturalism. A multicultural society is composed of a number of subordinate groups based on race, ethnicity, religion, language, nationality, income, gender, sexual orientation, and degrees of physical, mental, or emotional ability. A multicultural society encourages awareness and acceptance of other cultural structures and beliefs beyond its own. Members of each diverse ethnic and racial group are expected to participate in their own traditional culture while attempting to compete with those from other cultures for their livelihood. Members of a multicultural society will find participation in a true multicultural education essential if they are to have enough understanding of other cultures to allow them to be successful in a multicultural society. Such an education offers a process of comprehensive basic education for all students. It challenges and rejects racism and other forms of discrimination in society and accepts and affirms a pluralistic approach to ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, economic, and gender issues that are a part of the cultures of the students, their communities, and their teachers. The tenets of multicultural education promote democratic principles of social justice such as cultural pluralism, antiracism, and the elimination of structural inequities related to other ethnic groups (e.g., race, class, and gender). Multicultural education respects the importance of culture in teaching and learning and the need for academic excellence and equity. Banks and Banks (2010) suggest that the educational programs we provide at school may not give our children a multicultural experience. Learning about culture at school often addresses only the expressive side of a culture’s heritage, such as its customs, dress, and some aesthetic aspects. At the same time, schools are giving these children learning experiences to help them prepare for assimilation into the dominant culture. These practices miss the important issue that culturally diverse children with very different beliefs and life experiences must grow up in what is becoming an increasingly pluralistic society. The United States has taken pride, in the past, in being a “melting pot” for all nationalities and ethnic and racial groups and a haven for all religions. This assimilationist ideology has made it difficult for the growing multicultural reality to find its way into our schools and curricula. Those who share the multicultural view agree with the assimilationists that Western civilization should receive a major emphasis in education in the United States, but also believe that this focus should be reconceptualized to recognize contributions from other world cultures, such as those in Africa, Asia, Mexico,

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

213

Central and South America, the Middle East, and America as it was before the Europeans arrived. Our laws have become progressively more protective of individual rights so as to ensure the equality of diverse groups, and this is moving us toward a pluralist society. The establishment of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reflects the trend toward pluralism (Karnes, Troxclair, & Marquardt, 1997). One of the primary purposes of the OCR is to investigate complaints regarding a school district’s lack of compliance with federal civil rights legislation. Discrimination is prohibited on the basis of race, color, and national origin (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), sex (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), disability (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), and age (Age Discrimination Act of 1975). One interpretation of this mission of prohibiting discrimination, although it may not be the actual intent of either the ACLU or the OCR, has been to try to enforce the concept that the representation of racial and ethnic minorities in gifted programs should be equal to the representation of such minority groups in the school community, regardless of any other factors. This position does not acknowledge that the values and circumstances of families within cultural groups, including those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, support the use of child-rearing practices that encourage intellectual development more than do other families. The unrealistic expectation is that all cultural groups, regardless of their practices, will produce the same number of highly intelligent students as any other group. Such expectations result from the lack of awareness that giftedness is not dependent on the conditions of birth alone, but is highly affected by the early intellectual experiences of the child. Without this awareness, there have been and continue to be attempts to only change the identification practices rather than to make more productive learning experiences available to every child. Instead of just insisting that giftedness be identified in the same proportion in each group, it would be more fair to these children to be sure the essential experiences needed for optimal brain development and the resulting development of intelligence are available to them as early as possible. The premise on which we must build our identification procedures for diverse populations is that all children should be educated in an enriched, responsive learning environment from birth if their potential is to be developed. The degree to which a child’s environment is limited in enriching experiences and opportunities is the degree to which the child is at risk of limited development, intellectually and academically. No form of identification can correct that problem. However, the extent to which identification procedures limit the types of abilities and aptitudes or the expressions of intelligence that are asked for, measured, or accepted is the extent to which the child’s strengths remain unknown. The process and procedures for identification should clearly discover the abilities, aptitudes, and expressions of intelligence a given school system is willing and able to serve. Such services should be organized to give opportunities to every child at the level at which the child is operating and allow each child to move at his or her own pace as far, as quickly, and in as much depth as the child can accommodate. For some, that may mean starting at or below the level expected for their age-peers, filling in the skills and

214

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

knowledge not yet learned, and then moving rapidly forward to advanced and complex study. The identification process may need to include opportunities to fill in the skills needed to operate well in the culture of American schools (e.g., skills of test taking, expressing ideas and knowledge in writing, and using appropriate terminology). What is the purpose of the resulting identification? What kind of program should then be offered? What would be different in the student’s educational experience? What is the goal? If we include types of learning experiences other than cognitive learning in the identification, we must include a plan for growth of the same types of learning experiences in the program offered. Identification must be related to the program provided and the educational experience of the child. We have a long way to go to reach our goal of valuing each individual for his or her uniqueness and creating opportunities for every child to have the essential experiences that lead to high-level intellectual growth, regardless of the child’s cultural origin or level of socioeconomic disadvantage. Yet the dream is there, and that is what can make it happen. The rights of culturally and economically diverse children are of concern at many levels, and equality, equity, and excellence are important issues in education today. The intent of multicultural education is to recognize each individual’s values, regardless of cultural differences. Multicultural education as a concept incorporates cultural diversity and seeks to provide equality and equity in schools. Although it is common to consider students with racial and ethnic diversity as the major recipients of multicultural programs, it is necessary for all educators to examine the challenges faced by gifted learners who are a part of other cultural groups so that they can get a full understanding of the issues faced by students from each culture. It is essential that all members of every culture become aware of experiences and practices that allow children to develop their intelligence. Every cultural and socioeconomic group must be encouraged to provide such practices and experiences at home within their cultural values and beliefs and at school in a multicultural environment.

Global Education The concept of global education expands the reach of multicultural education and draws from its assumptions. Global education is defined as a social movement that calls for changes in schooling to include learning about the problems and issues that affect all nations and systems—ecological, cultural, economic, political, and technological. It is seen as perspective taking, as seeing our lives through the eyes and minds of others with the realization that, although these views may be different, all peoples worldwide have common needs and desires. The goals of global education are interdisciplinary and include not only perspective taking, but also awareness of the state of the planet, crosscultural awareness, familiarity with the nature of systems, and the creation of options for participation in local, national, and international issues. We are now in a globalized economy where the success of all nations and peoples will depend on the availability of people who can think and act knowledgeably across our ethnic, cultural, and linguistic divisions. Our students will need to understand other cultures not just at the surface of how they look and act, but also at the level of

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

215

their values, their ideas, their intentions, and their deepest concerns. Our children must be able to learn from people whose beliefs and ways of being grew from different experiences and opportunities found in vastly different places. It is our responsibility as the parents and teachers of the brightest growing minds to help them challenge conventional patterns and reach out to the far more complex issues that are facing them in a rapidly changing, far more interrelated world. Multicultural education is no longer only a national issue; it is now an issue of the world community. To learn more about global issues in gifted education, you may wish to contact the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Inc., with headquarters located at Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, email: [email protected], Director, Dr. Julia Link Roberts.

RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY DIVERSE GIFTED POPULATIONS Learning Differences among and between Racial and Ethnic Cultures As we have seen, attitudes and skills for thinking and learning are established in the family, the base that forms the future of the intellectual abilities of children. Every cultural group instills both advantages and limiting attitudes in its children before they enter school. It is the family unit that makes the decisions as to how the values and beliefs of racial and ethnic groups are to be interpreted and practiced. It is the responsibility of the family, the cultural group, and the school to foster attitudes and practices known to bring out the highest levels of intelligence and ability in each child by understanding what facilitates and what inhibits intellectual growth. The contributions families in each culture make to the educational development of their children have been generalized and oversimplified. However, such generalizations can be useful to show trends that may help parents and teachers be more prepared to support these children. All researchers in this field repeatedly warn against generalizing cultural attributes in decision-making processes because a great deal of variation exists even within cultures, especially for those who, in addition to their other cultural differences, must deal with the limitations of poverty. All racial and ethnic cultures have strengths, and if only each culture could learn from and incorporate the strengths from the other groups, we could all improve our own abilities. For example, the achievement orientation of the Asian American culture combined with the outgoing, cooperative spirit of the Hispanic American culture would enrich both. The practical, solution orientation of the dominant Anglo-American culture of the United States combined with the concerned respect for nature and the intuitive understanding of the American Indian culture could preserve the Earth’s fragile ecosystems. The possibilities are exciting when we let go of the view of superior and inferior groups and notice that we have all just learned to experience life differently.

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

Annie Fuller/Pearson

216

Learning with students from different cultural backgrounds can provide an enriching experience.

A brief overview of some of the attitudes and abilities relevant to learning in some of the diverse cultures will help to identify possible steps educators can take to meet the needs of these populations and support their development more effectively. The average classroom provides best for students who are competitive, work well independently, use linear logic rather than intuition, emphasize rational thought over feeling, prefer abstract thinking over using their senses, and require little physical mobility. As we have seen from the research on how the brain best learns (see Chapters 1 and 2) such practices in classrooms are far from ideal; however, as we view the learning success of students from various cultures the structure and learning emphasis of the current classroom should be kept in mind. Changing the current classroom organization to include more brain-compatible ways to learn, as we will discuss in later chapters, may lessen learning failures of children from other cultures. THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURE Many gifted African American children continue to confound those who attempt to identify and nurture their talents. This is the only cultural group in the United States to have been involuntarily removed from its root culture and then systematically prohibited from continuing or furthering its cultural traditions. As a result, a large part of this population shows more clear alignment to the behaviors of its socioeconomic level than does any other group we will discuss. The majority of African Americans are far from realizing their potential with alarming numbers dropping out of school, becoming teenage parents, finding themselves involved in the penal system, or dying at an early age.

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

217

The gifted among this population find limited opportunities within either the schools or the professional world. The culture of poverty within African American communities is too often producing children without a promising future. Ford (1994) suggests guidelines for recruiting and retaining African American students in gifted programs that include identifying and serving them early; involving parents and extended family members early, consistently, and substantively in the process; and providing comprehensive services to increase the belonging and ownership in gifted programs. Most high and middle income and higher-SED African American parents accept as valid the values and attitudes of the dominant society’s middle class. As a result, they value education from the early years, provide their children a variety of experiences, and hold high expectations for them. Cooley, Cornell, and Lee (1991) found that, despite some differences in achievement and social status, high-ability African American students are accepted by other high-ability peers across cultures and share comparable levels of self-concept and academic self-esteem with them. For many years, researchers such as Baldwin (1989), Bowman (1993), Ford (1994), Frasier (1989), and Maker and Schiever (1989) have found that children in this population are often resourceful, self-sufficient, and people oriented. When opportunities for physical action and experience are part of the learning experience, they seem to learn quickly and show good retention. They often add rich imagery to language and project imagination and humor. Boykin (1994) has developed an Afro-centric model in which he identifies nine cultural styles that African American students may show. It is important not to stereotype African American students into these categories, but to use the framework as a beginning for understanding and teaching these students. As with all lists of characteristics, children raised in this culture may show a majority of these behaviors or just a few. ■

■

■

■

■ ■

■

■

■

Spirituality: Hold deep belief systems; give great validity to the power of spiritual forces in their lives; value spiritual activities. Harmony: Feel that self and environment are interconnected; read the environment and nonverbal behaviors well; when they feel unwelcome in class, they can become uninterested and unmotivated to learn. Oral tradition: Gain and transmit knowledge orally; enjoy engaging in oral presentations and debates. Affect: Value and trust emotionally gained information far more than cognitive learning. Verve: Understand by performing; use imagery and individual style. Communalism: Use a cooperative, interdependent style of learning and prefer to learn in groups; competition is devalued within their peer group. Movement: Organize through movement; learn tactilely and kinesthetically; prefer to be actively involved in the learning experience, and if not, become easily distracted and off task. Social-time perspective: Time with friends more important than being “on time” for class. Expressive individualism: Enjoy and value entertainment and entertaining.

218

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

Asa Hilliard (1976) adds to this picture the following characteristics of African American learners: They prefer to focus on the whole picture rather than the parts; use inferential reasoning rather than deductive or inductive reasoning; prefer to approximate numbers and time rather than use exact accuracy; and prefer to focus on people and their activities rather than on things. With these characteristic learning preferences in mind, educators should consider creating the following learning opportunities: ■ ■ ■ ■

■

Using small groups for instruction and building trust and belonging; Providing structure by using contracting, clear goals, and individualization; Providing successful African Americans as mentors and role models; Emphasizing the use of oral language to communicate new information and providing many opportunities for debate, discussion, and oral presentations; and Providing visual learning experiences, manipulative materials, and active real-life experiences in learning.

Walton and Cohen (2011) investigated the importance of noncognitive factors that affect the learning of Black students. In a study that examined the relationship between self-esteem and achievement the researchers confirmed that a student’s sense that they fit in and are capable of doing academic work made a significant difference in their learning outcomes. They found that minority students are especially prone to the fear of failing. As early as kindergarten three times the number of African American boys as their White classmates are convinced that they lack the innate ability to succeed in school. This belief undermines their performance, resulting in the students doing badly, which then confirms their opinion of self. In the study by Walton and Cohen a group of Black male college freshmen was asked to write essays and record short speeches responding to a survey of a group of Black upperclassmen. The survey responses detailed how, when they were freshmen, they had felt snubbed by their fellow students and intimidated by their professors, but as they gained self-confidence the situation had improved. The study group was instructed to tell how they might see themselves overcoming this type of intimidation and initiating a higher level of belonging, as had the Black students in the survey. These exercises changed the view the freshman students had of their ability to overcome adversity and allowed them to see intimidating circumstances as transient not as a meaningful expectation. As a result, the students in the study received higher grades throughout their college careers and a higher percentage graduated than other Black students that had not been involved in the self-image changing experiences of the study. THE AMERICAN INDIAN CULTU RE American Indian tribes, organizations, and communities now seek to provide educational opportunities for gifted American Indian children. More than 510 different tribal nations are recognized by the U.S. government, with each unique in its culture and language. They are sovereign nations with the people holding dual citizenship with the United States. Nearly 4.1 million American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts were recorded in the 2000 U.S. census as having American Indian lineage (Mohawk, 2002) with more

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

219

than half living on federal reservations. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), more than 90% of American Indian children attend public schools, and, interestingly, a higher percentage of these children enroll in and receive baccalaureate degrees from college than do children from Hispanic American or African American populations. As with many other racially and ethnically diverse populations, a large number of American Indians fall within the SED group, but important cultural factors and practices support these children and create the potential for identification of gifted learners among them. Bradley (1989), Davidson (1992), Klug (2004), Maker and Schiever (1989), Montgomery (1989), and Pfeiffer (1989) have offered observations of the educational preferences of the American Indian learner. These researchers find that American Indian students often work well in groups, are good mediators, and communicate effectively. These children are found to accept the responsibility and discipline of leadership and can be quite resourceful. They have often been taught to value oral traditions and create stories, poems, and legends. Such practices result in well-developed intuitive ability, excellent memory, and good spatial ability. Children from the American Indian cultures often understand design and symbols as communication and can be very talented in visual arts. Their attitudes toward nature and natural resources are personal and conservationist. They seem to learn best holistically and often have long attention spans. Because of their cultural values, they do not seek attention, and being recognized for their accomplishments can be most uncomfortable for them. Klug (2004) makes this observation: Embedded in native wisdom are many of the solutions to problems that plague our world today, and tapping in to these resources through pedagogy that encourages contributions from Native cultural teachings provides a way for students to thrive in their home and school environments. (p. 68)

Educators should consider the following learning opportunities: ■

■ ■

■

■

Developing personal and group goals relevant to those of the tribal community as well as to the student, and honoring beliefs in the collective tribal self; Using storytelling, metaphor, and myths as media for delivering information; Using peer and cross-age tutoring and cooperative learning to take advantage of the core values of cooperation and sharing; Providing instruction through listening, observing, and visual/spatial experiences, and teaching from whole to details; and Giving opportunities to use intuition in learning (see Chapter 9).

THE ASIAN AMERICAN CULTURE Curiously, the image of Asian American students as model achievers in the schools works against the ability of many gifted children in this population to get appropriate services. Even when a concept or skill has not been learned, it is assumed that the Asian American child’s quiet nature is the cause of the inability to perform, not a lack of understanding. Although the majority of Asian American students give credence to the stereotype of high achievement, there are students from SED families among this population

220

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

who have problems similar to those we have seen in other culturally diverse populations in poverty conditions. Far from being a homogeneous group, the Asian American community includes persons with a wide variety of origins, beliefs, and languages. Given this great variety of Asian Americans, including those who come from low socioeconomic conditions, traditional measures for identification of the gifted are unlikely to be appropriate for all (Chen, 1989; Kitano, 1989). Those studying this population (Chen, 1989; Kitano, 1989; Maker & Schiever, 1989; Tanaka, 1989) have suggested some common attitudes and abilities that affect the learning experience. Asian American children often have a serious and caring attitude toward their families and respect for their teachers and other adults. The families are usually very supportive of their children’s achievements. The children are often found to possess a high degree of self-discipline and self-motivation. They are known to value academic achievement and have learned a strong work ethic. There is evidence of practices in the home that rely on memorization and drill. However, there is often evidence of excellent problem-solving ability and ability to listen and follow directions, resulting in high test scores. Because of family values, these children are familiar and comfortable with the use of intuitive ability in their learning and thinking. Educators should consider the following learning opportunities for the Asian American learner: ■

Giving opportunities to learn in teams and small groups;

■

Giving opportunities to use intuition in learning;

■

Providing visual learning experiences;

■

Encouraging expressions of feelings, verbally and in writing; and

■

Including creative expression in the learning experience.

THE HISPANIC AMERICAN CULTURE The Hispanic American population rapidly has become the nation’s largest ethnic group. A large part of this population is also deeply immersed in the culture of poverty, with all of its inherent physical and intellectual deprivation. As with the other racially and ethnically diverse populations, the Hispanic American population includes a variety of groupings. The population does, however, share strong cultural beliefs, a common language, and similar traditions. These very factors make it essential that we avoid stereotypes as we plan for the needs of the gifted Hispanic American child. The lack of success Hispanic American students have with identification procedures and their low representation in gifted programs have consistently been shown to be related to family socialization practices that do not encourage autonomy. In other words, the traditional Hispanic American cultural attitudes and values related to family cohesiveness have been associated with the lack of development of a separate sense of identity. Their learning strengths include a facility to communicate fluently with their peers within their community and to learn a second language once there is literacy in their native language. The children are very cooperative and share their parents’ value of education. Families are supportive of and affectionate with their children and eager for them

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

221

to succeed. Expectations are often different for males than for females within the culture with accepted roles for females seen as far more limited. The children often show unusual maturity and responsibility for their age and seem eager to try new ideas. The oral tradition is valued, as is the history of family and community. Educators should consider the following learning opportunities: ■

■ ■

■ ■

Using cooperative intellectual peer groups for learning and encouraging independent production; Providing visual and kinesthetic learning experiences; Providing extensive experience with both English and Spanish with special attention to the acquisition and use of language at higher levels than that used conversationally (e.g., language used in academic settings); Using successful Hispanic Americans as mentors; and Including the family as an active part of the educational team. This will often need to include sending invitations in more than one language and making translation services available. Asking family members to organize and “sponsor” such events will create greater attendance from the community.

Choosing Teachers for Racially and Ethnically Diverse Gifted Learners Those who want to improve the educational experience for racially and ethnically diverse gifted learners have been heard to request teachers who deeply and intimately understand the culture of a particular group. At the same time, the same people often desire integrated classrooms, expressing a need for cultural pluralism and exposure to the values of the dominant culture. Such contradictory demands place teachers in an impossible position. Few people have the experience or information to understand the values and attitudes of the dominant culture and even one additional racial or ethnic culture intimately. If we select a teacher for an integrated class because of upbringing in one racial or ethnic group, how will the teacher relate to others in the class from other racial or ethnic groups? Wouldn’t it be better to select teachers on the basis of their sensitivity, openness, self-esteem, and desire to work with culturally diverse children, and excellence of teaching skills? Focusing on the qualities that create student success in a classroom seems a far better rationale for teacher selection than is race or ethnic membership. One way to create a model of racial and ethnic diversity in a classroom is to form a team of teachers from differing backgrounds. The children can then truly benefit from seeing and experiencing a model of the interface of cultures. Think what both teachers and learners could gain from such experiences. Raising the awareness of all teachers and parents to the differing needs of children from diverse backgrounds should be a concern for every teacher and should be a part of every in-service education program. Some of the characteristics suggested for teachers

222

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

in settings that serve gifted students from diverse cultures are the ability to develop methods, materials, and environments that can be used by diverse gifted students; skills in addressing individual and cultural differences; and the ability to recognize the strengths and needs of students who are gifted and diverse (Ford & Trotman, 2001). Research suggests that some of the important intellectual skills that parents, counselors, and teachers need to help racially and ethnically diverse students learn are questioning skills, introspective attitudes, and the ability to remediate any areas of skill that they are lacking, especially limited language skills. As they begin to succeed, they will need help coping with peer pressures not to succeed, when they exist, and learning how to align their cultural values with those of the dominant culture, when they choose. As they become more independent and mature, they will need help exploring opportunities in a variety of career options, understanding and exploring the problems they may face as they become upwardly mobile, and developing their own individuality and personal cultural identity. There are few more difficult or more important teaching tasks facing educators today.

The Choice between Academic Achievement and Cultural Affiliation Recognizing one of the most difficult issues facing parents, educators, and culturally diverse underrepresented gifted students, Ford (2004) offers suggestions for facing the forced choice such students often must make between academic achievement and affiliation with their cultural classmates. Ford suggests that the parents be as involved as possible in their child’s school and classroom, be an advocate for the child, and work with teachers to provide safe, responsive learning environments and multicultural activities, programs, and curricula. She asks that children of diversity be involved in diverse and achievement-oriented organizations, participate in cultural events, and visit colleges and universities where people of diverse cultures are successfully engaged in academic settings. Parents and teachers alike must acknowledge the negative peer pressure, the accusations of “acting White,” and support the child in becoming assertive, deliberate, and consistent in facing, understanding, and resisting such negative pressure. At present, the conflict many minority students feel between achievement and some of the values of American Indian, Hispanic American, and African American cultures only adds to the problem of underrepresentation. Commenting on the experience of a subject of their study, Grantham and Ford (1998) illustrate the problem: “The student is expected to be a high achiever and an outstanding citizen as a student, and to lead social change amongst her African American peers” (p. 99). Yet the student feels powerless to influence social problems that are beyond her control. She wants to successfully integrate within her gifted classes, yet not sacrifice her close ties with her African American friends. She is in danger of being misunderstood by both groups because accommodating to either is likely to distance the other. Students who find themselves in this situation will need to learn to value all persons, regardless of cultural identity, and to understand and value the strengths of each culture and the importance of unity for all people. In addition, many will need help in

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

223

dealing with the excessive pressures to succeed, as they are perceived to be models for others. As Grantham and Ford point out, after being identified as gifted, culturally diverse students may be faced with superhuman expectations to be a role model, a spokesperson, and a leader for other students and for their entire cultural group. The problems of identifying and nurturing talent potential are not resolved by formulating constructs of giftedness solely for minority and economically disadvantaged students that differ from those for the majority populations, or by watering down the criteria or standards for excellence or outstanding performance, or by seeking different areas of talent in various populations. The challenge is one of creating paradigms that take culture and context into account in order to enhance the possibilities for identifying potential of many kinds in all populations so that appropriate opportunities and conditions can be provided to nurture potential to talented performance. (Passow & Frasier, 1996, p. 199)

IDENTIFYING GIFTED LEARNERS FROM CULTURALLY DIVERSE POPULATIONS A range of explanations have been offered for the low number of culturally diverse students identified for gifted programs, including bias, selective referrals, deficit-based paradigms, and lack of multiple criteria, multiple data sources, and modified selection criteria (Frasier, Garcia, & Passow, 1995). Attempts have been made to develop and use more effective and inclusive identification procedures. Indeed, a great many of the projects funded under the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act, especially in the early years, were focused on this task. Many of the previous attempts, such as redesigning tests, using alternative criteria, and developing culture-specific rating scales, produced highly questionable data. Of particular concern is the statistically inappropriate practice of summing scores derived from different tests, scales, and checklists. The premise on which we must build our identification procedure for diverse populations is that all children should be educated in an enriched, responsive learning environment from birth if their potential is to be developed. The degree to which a child’s environment is limited in experiences and opportunities is the degree to which the child is at risk of limited development, intellectually and academically. No form of identification can correct or ameliorate that problem. However, the extent to which identification procedures limit the types of abilities and aptitudes or the expressions of intelligence that are asked for, measured, or accepted is the extent to which the child’s strengths remain unknown. The process and procedures for identification should clearly discover the abilities, aptitudes, and expressions of intelligence a given school system is willing and able to serve. Such services should be organized to give opportunities to the child at the level at which the child is operating and allow the child to move at his or her own pace as far, as quickly, and in as much depth as the child can accommodate. For some, that may mean starting at or below the level expected for their age-peers, filling in the skills and knowledge not yet learned, and then moving rapidly forward to advanced and complex study. The identification process may need to include opportunities to fill in the skills

224

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

needed to operate well in the culture of American schools (e.g., skills of test taking, expressing ideas and knowledge in writing, and using terminology). Regarding the use of quota systems in the identification process, it is important to understand that limited experience in the early environment provides limited skills, and the child’s need is for development of such skills, not for more advanced or complex work. If there is no match between the experiences needed by the child and the goals and curriculum of the gifted program, placing a child in the program will lead only to frustration and further damage intellectually and academically. However, we must be careful that the screening procedure does not block candidates who might express needs for advanced and complex study differently. While there are many types of tests that attempt to identify giftedness (see Chapter 6), including some that are especially concerned with diverse students, one has to ask, what is the purpose of the resulting identification? What kind of program should then be offered? What would be different in the student’s educational experience? What is the goal? If we include types of learning experiences other than cognitive learning in the identification, we must include a plan for growth of the same types of learning experiences in the program offered. Identification must be related to the program provided and the educational experience of the child. It is important that diverse populations of children not be overlooked for identification. Children who are truly disadvantaged by their family patterns and circumstances and by the values and opportunities available within their culture must be provided with more growth-producing alternatives. Delcourt, Loyd, Cornell, and Goldberg (1994) suggest that differences, such as those between two groups of identified gifted learners that make one group (e.g., culturally diverse students) difficult to identify, can be eliminated if students are identified as potentially gifted early and placed in challenging programs. They report that racial and ethnic minority students in their study who participated in a gifted program for 2 years were able to overcome significant differences found in their achievement when they were initially identified. Tests of intelligence are currently being looked at very critically; at the same time, tests sampling other human abilities are being developed. We are learning more about how humans develop high levels of ability and may soon be able to measure all types of abilities more appropriately in a wider range of our human populations. Until then, we must be cautious about how we use current tests. If we use them as only one bit of information added to many other observations and types of data, such as case studies, peer reports, and parent interviews, then intelligence tests have value. By themselves, as the sole criterion for selecting educational experiences for children, their limitations will unnecessarily limit our children. Currently, suggestions for finding ability in culturally diverse populations are drawing heavily from the measurement of noncognitive skills. This practice needs close examination. For example, tests of creativity are not the primary tools used to identify the major population of cognitively or academically gifted children. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to use creativity measures to identify children to include in the cognitively or academically gifted population to satisfy our desire for diversity. Some data indicate that children with creative ability may be a different population and that they

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

225

may or may not be cognitively or academically gifted. If the gifted program for which the children are being identified is serving students who are both cognitively and creatively able, using scores from creativity tests could be a justifiable practice; however, if we are using only measures of cognitive intelligence and developing our programming for this ability, while including those few diverse students identified by tests of creativity, then we are placing the diverse children in an unfair situation. Programs developed for highly cognitive students, in most cases, will not meet the needs of the creative student. Is our problem with identifying students from diverse populations that their achievement or their expressions of intelligence look different? To know to what level brain function has been developed, we must know how it is expressed: what the person values, what the person believes, and what is motivating. Frasier and Passow (1994) suggested that the identification process would be more effective if we sought the basic intellectual abilities common to all gifted students, regardless of their cultural background and the manner in which they express their abilities, such as ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

a strong desire to learn; an intense, sometimes unusual interest; an unusual ability to communicate with words, numbers, or symbols; use of effective, often inventive strategies for recognizing and solving problems; an exceptional ability to retain and retrieve information, resulting in a large storehouse of information; use of extensive and unusual questions, experiments, and explorations; a quick grasp of new concepts and connections and a sense of deeper meanings; logical approaches to figuring out solutions; an ability to produce many highly original ideas; and a keen, often unusual sense of humor.

The inequities and ineffectiveness of the identification process should be remedied by comprehensive practices, such as ■ ■

■

■

■

■

development of consensus on the concept of giftedness in diverse cultures and groups, exploration of components of performance-based designs for assessing the aspects of giftedness that are related to cultural and socioeconomic differences, examination of ways of extending the source of referrals and improving the accuracy of nominations, investigation of the value and validity of data from a variety of sources so that “data from multiple sources” becomes more meaningful, establishment of the relationship of assessment procedures to program and curricula design and vice versa, and development of enriched learning opportunities through which youngsters can actually demonstrate their potential by their performance and products, making self-identification an integral part of the assessment process (Frasier, Garcia, & Passow, 1995).

226

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

Search and Screen for Giftedness among Students in Culturally Diverse Populations The search and screen process can limit or extend the types of students that will be considered for identification of giftedness. In the case of diverse populations, traditional screening processes such as group testing and behavioral checklists of gifted characteristics may limit consideration of the very students that could most benefit from the opportunities provided by gifted programs. It is important that such students be provided with an approach to screening that uncovers their interests and abilities. Kaplan, Rodriguez, and Siegel (2000) suggest that the screening process use curricular activities rather than instruments to assess the abilities of students, engaging them rather than measuring their outcomes with numerical indices. Such a process would focus on tasks related to verbal abilities that encourage personal expression. These could include thoughtful discussion of open-ended questions, prediction from action pictures, examination of questioning skills and problem-solving strategies, and expression of varying forms of creativity. Curricular activities could be designed and placed in centers to give the students an opportunity to show more of their potential through interaction with the materials. Kaplan et al. suggest that such a screening process facilitates the inclusion of diverse students in the identification process. Some of the screening tools that have been used successfully with diverse populations are the Bella Kranz Multidimensional Screening Device (Kranz, 1978), the Frasier Talent Assessment Profile (F–TAP) (Frasier, 1987), the Baldwin Identification Matrix 2 (Baldwin, 1985), and the SRBCSS (Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan, & Hartman, 1976). TRADITIONAL TESTS IQ tests are currently constructed with built-in limitations and assumptions that can be unfair to groups who are not closely identified with the dominant culture. One assumption of most intelligence tests is that intelligence is a single, invariable factor. More current data indicate that intelligence is neither a single factor nor a constant one (see Chapter 1). Although our beliefs about the reality of intelligence have changed, our measuring tools still proceed from our previous beliefs. Another problem results from the choice of items on the tests. From an infinite number of human accomplishments and interests, the items have been restricted to concepts and skills found in school curricula, and especially the more basic abilities: reading, language arts, and arithmetic. For this reason, IQ tests tend to be good predictors of success within the school environment. A wide variety of other human activities and abilities that could be well developed in our atypical learners (e.g., fluency, reasoning and problem solving in other than academic areas, or complex insights) are not even represented. To make sure the variation of the growing intellect from younger to older children would not disturb the IQ scores, all items were deleted that did not fit the smooth growth pattern that the tests assumed. Items that displayed bias toward either sex also were deleted. By such limiting selection procedures, the tests can be very narrow in their focus. Knowing the population used for standardization of any test is important when measuring its usefulness. Most of the commonly used IQ tests have been standardized

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

227

within the major culture. For example, the Stanford-Binet was standardized and its scores for success were established on Anglo-American children of English-speaking parents. It has become known as the “Anglo test.” Many believe that such a bias makes this test inappropriate as a measure of ability for children reared outside the Anglo culture. While later revisions have included a broader population in the standardization, the changes have not affected this concern. These restrictions have led many educators and psychologists to call for the construction of “culture-free” tests. Although many have tried (Cattell, 1949; Davis & Eells, 1953), the results have been disappointing. Jensen (1969) found that African Americans not only score higher on conventional tests such as the Stanford-Binet and the WISC than they do on culture-free tests, but also score higher on verbal subtests than on nonverbal subtests. Another possible problem in obtaining valid test results seems to lie in the test administration. As early as 1965, Katz, Roberts, and Robertson reported that in several experiments the race of the test administrator had an effect on the test results of African American students. They believed that the Anglo-American environment in general may be stressful and threatening to African American children and can induce inaccurate test results. Examiner variables, such as bilingualism, ethnic group membership, and style of test administration, have been found to have an effect on the test performance of culturally diverse children. VERBAL VERSUS NONVERBAL TES TING Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1983) attempts to provide measures that do not require the use of verbal symbol systems. The authors of the test suggest that identification instruments should match the programs for which they are being used and that by using the Raven’s as a screening test, along with other assessments, academic potential in diverse populations can be found. By then providing these students with educational opportunities to develop their academic skills, they can better realize that potential. School districts using the Raven’s have reported increased identification of students from culturally diverse and economically disadvantaged populations that have benefited from gifted programs (Wescott & Woodward, 1981). However, educators must not rely too heavily on the Raven’s in any gifted program identification process. Its low correlation with achievement measures makes it questionable as a primary selection tool for identifying students for special programs that involve advanced academic coursework (Mills & Tissot, 1995). The strong consensus is that this test should not be used as the only tool for identifying students for gifted programs. As one of several measures or as part of a screening process, use of this test may be justifiable. Naglieri and Ford (2005) support the use of nonverbal tests in general, and the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) in particular, as a way of demonstrating potential. They believe that a child may be intellectually gifted, but not demonstrate high academic achievement. In their view, such children can be found through nonverbal testing, allowing them to be placed in gifted programs. As a result of participation in enriched gifted programs, they believe that the children’s academic skills will improve. Naglieri uses the term nonverbal assessment to describe methods that measure the construct of general intelligence, not a theoretical construct of “nonverbal ability.”

228

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

He considers nonverbal tests of general ability more appropriate, or fair, for culturally or linguistically diverse populations than more traditional verbal tests. While he recognizes that children from high-poverty or low-SED backgrounds often have unequal opportunities to learn because of a lack of enrichment in the home, he believes that it is traditional tests of intelligence and achievement that penalize these students, denying them access to gifted programs. Naglieri and Ford (2005) state: Whereas we continue to support the identification of academically gifted children, we also support the identification of very intelligent children from any racial, cultural, or economic group who may not be academically advanced. Gifted education is a need, not a privilege, and as educators, we must find ways to open doors to all children who stand to benefit from gifted education programs and services. (p. 35)

Lohman (2005) expresses quite a different view of the issues involved when nonverbal testing is used to identify gifted students. He believes that nonverbal items either require verbal or mathematical knowledge or use tasks whose solutions are greatly facilitated by the use of verbal or mathematical cognitive processes. Lohman argues that most nonverbal tests really measure cognitive processes that are verbally mediated. Thus, they are neither “culture free” nor “culture fair,” and any claim that they are is misleading because abilities cannot be measured in ways that are independent of culture and experience. He also finds that limiting identification to nonverbal tests excludes the most academically accomplished students in all ethnic or cultural groups who would benefit from advanced instruction and includes many who could not profit from it. For example, he shows that many of the most academically capable African American students score poorly on such tests. “Therefore, eliminating written or spoken words does not somehow render problems the same for all, nor does reducing or eliminating verbal directions somehow level the playing field. In fact, it more commonly raises the slope for some” (p. 114). Another issue regarding nonverbal testing concerns the readiness of those identified to work at a more complex, advanced, and accelerated pace than other students in their age group. Identification is done for the purpose of making appropriate placement so that gifted learners can have their needs met and can continue to make progress academically and intellectually. “The primary question to be addressed in selecting students for special programs is one of readiness for a particular type of educational opportunity, not innate ability . . . [T]he predictors of current and future academic excellence are the same for minority and majority students” (Lohman, 2005, p. 113). Lohman believes that, if some students have not had opportunities to develop verbal or quantitative reasoning abilities in the same way that others have, the solution is not to change the type of testing. Rather, he supports measuring these critical aptitudes and comparing the test scores with those of others who have had a similar lack of learning opportunities. Those scoring highest would be good candidates for talent development experiences. Within the field of gifted education, there are questions regarding the place of nonverbal testing in the identification of gifted learners. Many who are especially concerned about finding ways to identify more students from diverse populations to participate in gifted programs have supported the inclusion of nonverbal testing, believing that these tests add one more avenue to find such children. Others are concerned that, when nonverbal tests are used, and especially when they are used alone or as the major means

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

229

of identification, children will be placed in programs from which they cannot profit because they do not have the needed skills and knowledge base. Also of concern is the problem that children from diverse populations who need the services that gifted programs could provide will be missed because African American students often score better on tests that use verbal or quantitative content than on tests with spatial/figural content. As early as 1977, Jerison contended that a nonverbal test of intelligence might be a contradiction in terms because, even if words are avoided, the language and languagerelated functions of the brain are inevitably dominant in most human performance. By using nonverbal testing, Jerison argues, we are not sampling the basic skills needed to show the level of the development of intelligence. While tests of nonverbal, figural reasoning abilities may be a helpful addition to the range of assessment tools that a district uses for identification for all students, they should not be used alone, as evidence shows that such tests actually increase selection bias while appearing to reduce it (Lohman, 2005). This again reinforces the need to use multiple sources of information and a range of types of tests in the identification process. BEHAVIORAL IDENTIFICATION Behavioral identification has been used with success as an alternative to testing in identifying gifted students among diverse populations. Torrance (1978) developed a system that used “creative positives” to identify students gifted in the area of creativity among the culturally diverse and economically disadvantaged. He believed that this system could be used to identify and develop more talent among these populations than testing could. Perrone and Male (1981) developed the GIFTS Talent Identification Procedures that consist of behavior rating sheets and scoring and interpretation materials. Raters are asked to rate the students only in the areas of talent they have had the opportunity to observe. Some areas that can be assessed are mathematics, English, music, science, reading, interpersonal relations, and art. A performance-based identification process was developed by Maker (1996) to better identify culturally diverse gifted students, who she believes are too often missed by traditional identification methods. Referred to as DISCOVER assessment and curriculum development, the process is intended to evaluate the spatial, linguistic, and logicalmathematical components of intelligence. As students work on five tasks, they are observed and their specific behaviors recorded. A rating is given on overall problemsolving ability. Maker states, “Tasks believed to be developmentally-appropriate, intelligence-fair, and equally engaging across varying groups of students were devised” (p. 46). Behaviors the students show while completing these tasks initiate the assessment process, which uses multiple, context-based criteria. Maker reports, “collaborative decision-making, curriculum development and diversity are central to its mission. All phases are consistent with the important goal of diversity and can be implemented within the context of existing schools, classrooms, and programs for gifted learners” (p. 48). Maker reports success with finding gifted children among Navajo and Mexican American populations, although the test takes considerable time to administer.

230

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

MULTIDIMENSIONAL ASSESSMENT Forms of assessment that use multiple sources for the outcomes provide a more comprehensive view of the student than any single dimension could allow. One of the most helpful strategies found among the authentic assessment methods is the student portfolio. This method of assessment demonstrates the level of mastery of knowledge and skills. It may also show the relationship between school tasks and those found in the real world. Because of the focus on individual student progress, the use of a student portfolio allows gifted students to better demonstrate their actual level of achievement and their own unique abilities. Although a portfolio can be planned to be multidimensional, it should be used with other measures to assess and identify student potential. Some forms of multidimensional assessment include the entire community. In an effort to develop effective leadership within the American Indian community, an organization known as American Indian Research and Development, Inc. (AIRD), was formed. Because it has concerns that standardized test scores by themselves cannot measure total achievement, AIRD suggests that multidimensional assessment be used to evaluate student performance. In addition, AIRD recommends that professionally trained psychometrists, preferably American Indian, administer the evaluation to American Indian students and that group achievement and intelligence tests be developed and normed with American Indian student populations. To gain a tribal perspective of giftedness and talent, AIRD surveyed tribal members, asking them to list the characteristics of their tribe’s gifted and talented students. The results are being used as part of the gifted student identification and selection process and form the basis for a critical, ongoing review of the curriculum. Another test developed to correct the problems found in traditional testing is the System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA) (Mercer & Lewis, 1978). The SOMPA uses three assessment models: (1) the medical model, a deficit model that focuses on pathology; (2) the social system model, that compares the behaviors of the child to the behaviors of those in the social system to which he or she belongs; and (3) the pluralistic model, that assumes that learning potential can be assessed only if factors such as exposure to skills and materials, motivation, and learning experiences are held constant. The authors believe that the use of adaptive behavior and estimated learning potential to identify gifted children from culturally diverse or disadvantaged backgrounds is an approach that shows promise. Bernal (1978) suggested three techniques for identifying gifted Hispanic students: (1) culturally pluralistic assessments, (2) Piagetian measures for K–3 (to identify the use of advanced schema in problem solving on a test such as the Cartoon Conversation Scales, which are available in English and Spanish), and (3) bilingual language proficiency scales (to identify rapid and advanced growth in language, which could be a good indicator of high intelligence). DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT Dynamic assessment is a diagnostic procedure that considers the context of the testing situation and the ability of the student to learn from experience in that context (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979). It is essentially a test-intervene-retest format. The focus is on the learning ability of the student rather than the knowledge obtained. Kirschenbaum

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

231

(1998) recommends the use of this process as a means for assessing economically disadvantaged, disabled, and limited English proficient students who have not demonstrated high ability on traditional tests of intelligence and creativity. Low-SED children have the best chance to show their abilities when we use multiple sources of assessment and testing, especially those that are nontraditional (Slocumb & Payne, 2000). “Their giftedness is shaped differently and, therefore, must be examined differently” (p. x).

UNDERREPRESENTATION OF CULTURALLY DIVERSE  GROUPS IN THE GIFTED POPULATION: THE CULTURAL ACHIEVEMENT GAP Giftedness at the highest level can be found in every racial and ethnic group. The incidence of giftedness varies from group to group as a result of differing values, attitudes, and opportunities. Cultural groups differ in availability of support systems, provision of resources, priority given to certain kinds of talent, and individual initiative and leadership among other factors. What is valued by the culture is produced by the culture. The term underrepresentation refers to the low participation in gifted programs by some of the cultural and socioeconomic groups in society. It has even been suggested that percentage quotas reflecting each group’s share of the overall population be required to bring all populations to the same level of participation. However, regardless of the “fairness” of the procedures used for identification including intelligence testing, our understanding of the development of intelligence as an interactive process must be considered in any discussion of underrepresentation. As we have learned (review Chapters 1 and 2), the growth of intelligence depends on the interaction between the inherited patterns of the individual and the environment in which the individual is developing. A high level of growth of intelligence requires a variety of intellectually challenging experiences from the earliest years of the child’s life. It must be acknowledged that any cultural or family pattern that restricts rather than supports intellectually nurturing experiences will cause its members to experience limited growth intellectually and, therefore, receive low scores on any type of intellectual assessment. We should then find fault not with the assessment procedures, but rather with the specific cultural or family patterns that brought about such low performance. The limitations of the environmental interaction that was provided for the child were unfair, not the test. Gallagher (1991) concluded from the evidence regarding racial and ethnic differences in performance on commonly used intelligence tests that such differences are not an artifact of the measuring instrument or test bias, but are real differences between these groups at the time of measurement. It is evident that the incidence of participation in gifted programs by racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups in society varies from group to group; it is far lower among some of the culturally and linguistically diverse groups such as Hispanic American, African American, and American Indian than participation of Anglo-American and Asian American groups. The reasons for this are complex. Among those suggested are

232

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

the use of traditional IQ-based definitions and theories of giftedness, identification practices and programming based on middle-class and dominant culture values, inadequate identification practices, a lack of attention to different ways of expressing giftedness, the limited belief systems of educators regarding potential among diverse learners, and limited opportunities for intellectual development (De Leon, 1983; Ford, 1994; Frasier, 1991; Lynch & Mills, 1990). Frasier, Garcia, and Passow (1995) focused on the African American population and suggested three reasons for their underrepresentation in gifted programs: test bias, underreferrals by teachers, and deficit-based views of the underrepresented minority groups. Ford, Harris, Tyson, and Frazier (2002) added underachievement and negative peer pressure. Frasier (1997) found that, even with the use of multiple-criteria testing, minority populations are still underrepresented. She related this to differences in test performance among racial and ethnic groups and to the effects of language, economics, and cultural differences, causing some of these groups to be unable to achieve at gifted levels. The National Task Force for Minority High Achievement reported in 1999 that, in fact, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and American Indians are severely underrepresented among the nation’s top students. This occurs at all levels of the educational system, by all traditional measures of academic achievement, including grade point average (GPA), class rank, and standardized test scores (Miller, 2004). In developing his concern regarding this underrepresentation, Miller reports studies by Phillips (2000) showing substantial differences in the scores of African American and Anglo-American children at age 3 on a commonly used vocabulary test for preschoolers. Borman, Stringfield, and Rachuba (1999) add data on African Americans and Hispanic Americans who were found to be underrepresented among high scorers at the beginning of the first grade on reading and mathematics tests. Miller also includes data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study being conducted by the federal government. These data show such underrepresentation evident at the start of the first grade when A P P LY I N G basic literacy and mathematics concepts are measured. These data BRAIN RESEARCH again support the conclusions from brain research that high levels of to Education the growth of intelligence require a variety of intellectually challenging experiences from the earliest years of the child’s life. To help us better understand some of the factors contributing to this underrepresentation, Miller (2004) has synthesized the work of many researchers to reach the following conclusions and suggestions: 1.

Larger percentages of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and American Indians grow up in SED circumstances than do Anglo-Americans and Asian Americans, and SED students are generally much less likely to be high academic achievers than students from high socioeconomic circumstances. This is true in all industrialized nations.

2. Within all social class strata, students from the underrepresented groups achieve at significantly lower levels than Anglo-American and Asian American students. 3. High-performing students from all of the populations of underrepresented minority students do less well academically, on average, than high-performing AngloAmerican and Asian American students.

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

233

4. There is evidence that many outstanding African American students are performing well below their ability to avoid being viewed by members of their culture as a negative stereotype. (Reprinted by permission) The report also points out that improvement for the underrepresented students is difficult for the following reasons: ■

■

■

There are few educational strategies, from preschool to higher education, that have been shown to increase the number of high-achieving students from underrepresented groups, and finding more workable strategies has never been a high operational priority in schools. The focus for improvement has been on the academic outcomes of the worstperforming SED minority students because of their risk of school failure, with little attention being given to the achievement gap that exists between the high-achieving underrepresented students and the high-achieving Anglo-American and Asian American students. The lack of attention to the preschool years and the primary grades is the most destructive condition because achievement patterns and intellectual skills must be established early for all groups. (Reprinted by permission)

To maximize progress toward eliminating the achievement gap between the underrepresented students and the Anglo-American and Asian American students, and especially between those who are high performing from each of these populations, Miller (2004) suggests that specialization, government and foundation funding, and work in the areas of early childhood education and parent education are the most important starting points. Grantham (2004) found mentoring to be effective and to have positive results for gifted African American males in developing strong racial identities and in strengthening their motivation to participate in academically challenging experiences. Mentoring has been found to make a significant change for all underrepresented students. Gottfredson (2004) has examined two theories on the causes of the unequal representation of racially and ethnically diverse groups in gifted education: the discrimination theory and the distribution theory.

The Discrimination Theory This theory holds that the ways we define giftedness are narrow and skewed toward certain cultures. To correct for this, the current popular conceptions of giftedness should reflect a multidimensional view, either by including traits beyond intellectual thinking skills or by redefining intelligence to include the practical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, kinesthetic, civic-minded, emotional, and spiritual aspects of the lives of students (e.g., Ford, 2003; Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1985). These multidimensionalists believe that their definitions of giftedness are more democratic and inclusive and allow a more egalitarian means for identifying diverse forms of talent (Gottfredson, 2004). Those who adhere to this theory believe that giftedness is evenly distributed across all demographic groups, but that the traditional methods of identifying students for

234

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

gifted programs are culturally biased. If we were more willing to change the standards of what information must be known and what skills must be learned, it is claimed, we would find equal numbers proportional to the group’s representation in the overall population of gifted learners in every racial and ethnic group. All other points of view are regarded as deficit thinking and dismissed as racially biased and without merit. Gottfredson (2004) points out that much of the current writing, thinking, discussion, and activity in the field of gifted education consider the discrimination theory to be the only possible explanation for underrepresentation.

The Distribution Theory A second theory suggests that giftedness is unequally distributed across demographic groups. The work of Miller (2004), Gottfredson (2004), and others has shown that there are real differences in the levels of important intellectual and achievement skills exhibited by racial and ethnic groups and that these IQ/achievement gaps are crucial in understanding these unequally distributed abilities. Look again at Chapters 1 and 2 of this text to understand how lack of knowledge and early opportunities for intellectual development can later result in unequal distribution of high levels of intellectual development across groups that differ in experiences and belief systems. Neisser et al. (1996) confirm with refined investigations that the major normreferenced tests of intellectual abilities measure such abilities equally well and without bias among all native-born Americans, including African Americans. There is interesting and impelling evidence (Boothe & Stanley, 2004; also see Chapters 1 and 2 of this text) that a reexamination of the distribution of giftedness among the cultures through an inquiry into the factors involved in the development of intelligence and the causation of achievement could be an important starting point for changing the unequal representation our children are facing. The remedy for the unequal distribution among the cultures of students who test in the gifted range is not to use alternative tests or different criteria for placement. Placing students who have not developed their skills to the level other students have in the same gifted programs will only result in further widening of the achievement gap among the groups. Instead we must place the underachieving students from all backgrounds and cultures in classes in which the individual instructional needs of each student are the focus for the instruction, regardless of race, language, culture, and socioeconomic standing. By optimizing learning for each student and giving them the tools they need to think in analytic, creative, and critical ways, every student has the same opportunity to grow and progress; they will just not do so at the same rate (Littrell, personal communication, 2011). The following are conditions that can appropriately be said to create underrepresentation: ■

■

Biased beliefs about diverse populations. The appropriate action is to work to change these beliefs. Lack of opportunity for early learning. The appropriate action is to provide opportunities to learn basic skills that may be missing.

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive ■

■

235

Lack of opportunity to learn school skills and testing skills. Act to make sure the students are exposed to these skills. Use of dynamic assessment or the “test-learn-test” framework has been found to be beneficial. Fear of rejection.One of the most difficult problems to remedy is the fear students have of rejection by their culture and peer group if they participate, and especially if they are successful. Having students examine the consequences of participation and nonparticipation, both short term and long term, may be of help in removing this self-defeating block.

Terms like underrepresentation and quota requirements are less applicable when the limitations of opportunity the student has previously experienced are considered. Ultimately, we must decide what we want gifted education to be. Do we really want to trade our focus on and support of intellectual excellence for one that seeks to achieve equal representation under any conditions? Disparity cannot be completely alleviated through changes in either the definition of giftedness or the identification process. Here is the dilemma of excellence versus equity. Why shouldn’t we strive for both? To optimize brain development, it will take a long-term effort requiring systemic change in the belief systems and cultural practices that shape early learning and child rearing. Benbow and Stanley (1996) ask, “Should the goal be to equalize educational outcomes across the races, rather than provide appropriate instruction to unusually gifted individuals of any race?” Gottfredson’s (2004) answer is Gifted programs should continue to search out the extraordinarily talented in all social groups by using the soundest techniques at their disposal. They should likewise continue to do what they do best and what no other education program attempts to do: provide a menu of developmental opportunities for exceptionally able children so that they may realize their potential. (p. 155)

Perhaps, considering carefully the dilemma of the trade-off of excellence for equity now being espoused by many in gifted education, here is another mission for talent development: finding ways to change the IQ/achievement gap between cultures at the level of its causation instead of the level of its symptoms. If we could help families in all cultural groups understand what experiences are essential to the development of their children’s intelligence, the current waste of human potential would decrease. If we accept this challenge, our job as educators will then be to find those essential experiences and discover ways to communicate them in culturally sensitive ways that can allow all children to develop more of their intellectual potential. To do this, we will need help in learning more about the educational clues from brain research, about each other and our deepest beliefs and values, and about how to honor these values as we share the need all of us have for developing intelligence and understanding giftedness. It is clear that opportunities for growth must be provided for culturally diverse students, but in so doing, we must guard against changing cultural and family patterns just because they are different. Diversity is the cornerstone of developing potential, and only patterns that inhibit the development of that potential need modification.

236

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED GIFTED LEARNERS: THE CULTURE OF POVERTY, THE SOCIOECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENT GAP WHEREAS, the impact of poverty on young children is significant and long lasting, limiting chances of moving out of poverty, poverty is associated with substandard housing, homelessness, inadequate child care, unsafe neighborhoods, and underresourced schools, and poor children are at greater risk than higher income children for a range of problems, including detrimental effects on IQ, poor academic achievement, poor socioemotional functioning, developmental delays, behavioral problems, asthma, poor nutrition, low birth weight, and pneumonia. (American Psychological Association, 2000)

As can be concluded from reading just this one of the 25 rationale statements from the American Psychological Association’s Resolution on Poverty and Socioeconomic Status, the culture of poverty can be highly problematic for the development of the potential of any child. When a lack of diversity in gifted programs is mentioned, it usually means that the number of children in each racial and ethnic group in the program does not represent the racial or ethnic demographics of the school’s community. Many believe that the larger issue is not race; rather, it is economics. “Identifying gifted students from middle-class homes, regardless of their racial or cultural group, is easier than identifying giftedness in poverty. It is under-representation of gifted children from poverty that crosses all racial and cultural groups and that presents the greatest challenge” (Slocumb, 2001, p. 6). Poverty is not just about money. Rather, it is important to understand that poverty involves the extent to which an individual does without resources—not only financial resources, but also emotional, intellectual, and physical resources; relationships and role models; and innumerable external support systems. The major difference between children from poverty and other children, say both Slocumb and Payne (2000), lies in the type and quantity of opportunities inherent in the environments of these children. As a result of these different experiences and lack of opportunities, children from poverty have different perceptions, different ways of responding, different expectations, and a different set of rules for how the world works. An example of this difference can be seen in their language ability. Often their spoken language is casual to the point of failing to be understood, personal, emotional, loud, and neither chronologically nor grammatically sequenced, and it has little regard for cause and effect, say Slocumb and Payne. In contrast, they observe, the language of the non-SED child is used to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas that contribute to higher-level thinking, complex symbolic systems, and the formation of abstract mental models. The first task is to make parents, teachers, principals, and boards of education aware that gifted learners can be found in economically disadvantaged homes; then they must know how to identify them. Some observable traits of low-SED gifted learners that can help with their identification (where testing often fails) include ■ ■

having higher mathematical abilities than verbal abilities; showing alertness and curiosity;

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

237

■

acting independently;

■

showing imagination in thinking;

■

being flexible in approaching problems; exhibiting divergent thinking;

■

learning quickly through experience;

■

retaining and using ideas and information well;

■

showing a desire to learn in daily work;

■

showing originality and creativity in thinking;

■

responding well to visual media;

■

exhibiting leadership ability in the peer group;

■

having varied interests;

■

being able to generalize learning to other areas and to show relationships among apparently unrelated ideas;

■

showing resourcefulness—the ability to solve problems by ingenious methods;

■

exhibiting entrepreneurial ability—readily making money on various projects or activities;

■

being imaginative storytellers, using language rich in imagery; and

■

having a mature sense of humor.

Although the low representation of racially and ethnically diverse low-SED students in gifted programs is often attributed to inappropriate testing, it is evident that their learning skills must be built and their experience and knowledge bases broadened if these students are to benefit from opportunities in gifted programs. By including the strengths and special needs of low-SED gifted learners in the curricular planning, these children can have a better chance to develop their potential. This should be a part of the talent development program in every school. Passow and Frasier (1996) commented that the problems of identifying and nurturing talent potential are not resolved by formulating constructs of giftedness solely for minority and economically disadvantaged students that differ from those for the majority populations, by lowering the criteria or standards for excellence or outstanding performance, or by seeking different areas of talent in various populations. They believed that the challenge is one of creating opportunities that take culture and context into account in order to enhance the possibilities for identifying potential of many kinds in all populations. Appropriate opportunities and conditions can then be provided to nurture potential into giftedness. In a study of the role played by the family of SED children, Van Tassel-Baska (1989) reports that families of successful SED students encourage them and monitor their progress, communicate high expectations and standards for academic achievement, and view socioeconomic circumstances as motivators to succeed. Successful students in the study perceived their families as a major source of encouragement and influence. The message they received from their families was “You must work hard, get an education, and achieve what your parents and grandparents did not, even though they too were bright and eager. You will have the chance that we did not have. Don’t waste it” (pp. 34–35).

238

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

In addition to the racially and ethnically based differences that may influence the functioning level of diverse children, as early as 1973, Baldwin brought to our attention other factors found among those raised in SED homes: ■

■

■

■

Parents may not be able to speak English, preventing them from fostering English language skills. Home environments may lack toys and other playthings, denying the stimulation of cognitive and other developmental skills. Homes may lack conversation, denying the opportunity to listen to the discussion of topics and to learn the art of dialogue. The type of discipline may not encourage the development of an inner locus of control, self-motivation, and problem-solving skills.

Additionally, in many SED homes, parents and older family members are busy working on more than one job, leaving the “home” jobs to younger family members. In the matter of self-concept, research findings indicate that some differences in selfconcept and social support among gifted students were based on ethnicity and gender, but most differences occurred between lower- and higher-SED groups (Van Tassel-Baska, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Kulieke, 1994). The researchers suggest that the results of these disadvantages should be viewed not as a generic condition, but as a pattern specific to each economically disadvantaged child. Differentiating traits were found between low-SED achievers and nonachievers. Economically disadvantaged achievers had a strong sense of identity; supportive, inspiring relationships; a questioning orientation; an awareness of alternative paths; and a risk-taking capacity. The researchers concluded that economically disadvantaged gifted students perceived that they have less support from classmates, friends, parents, and teachers than do advantaged students. They were less scholastically competent and less correct in social conduct than were advantaged gifted students. Children who withstand difficult circumstances and succeed despite the problems they encounter have been referred to as “resilient children” (Werner, 1989). Werner found that what seemed to best support their resilience was their informal support networks, from teachers, to ministers, to friends. These people helped the children keep control of self and difficult situations. These children also developed personal characteristics that they used as protective factors, such as high ability, a sense of humor, and a knowledge of how to gain support from an adult or a family member (Zetlin, 1998). The school can also be a supportive force. Zetlin suggests that schools with high expectations for student achievement, challenging curricula and instructional activities, a clear sense of mission, nurturing and supportive teachers, and strong administrative support are associated with developing resilience: Schools must seek ways to build upon and strengthen the enabling role of families in fostering competence and school success; schools must become resource centers for families and proactively encourage home-school connections that support and reinforce ongoing family efforts . . . educators must recognize the crucial nature of their roles as models, mentors, and nurturant supporters. (p. 155)

Although states have been philosophically committed to providing for the low-SES gifted students, they have been slow in incorporating equity and pluralism into the

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

239

definitional and funding structures of their gifted programs. Differentiated curricula, mentorships, counseling, and special tutorials should be provided if the students from low-SED backgrounds are to have an opportunity to develop their intellect and have any chance of school success. Torrance (2003) found that, through mentoring, many students who live in poverty might become qualified for gifted programs. Once identified as gifted, these low-SED learners may be grouped with more advantaged gifted students. Such grouping can aid them in many ways, but only if the teacher is aware that their needs may be quite different.

Learning Differences The most serious deficiencies for SED children are reported to be in cognitive functioning (e.g., a decreased ability to observe and state sequences of events, to perceive causeand-effect relationships, and to categorize); language skills (e.g., limited vocabularies and nonstandard-English grammar); and reading. These deficits may result in classroom behavior we seldom associate with gifted students: negative attitudes toward school, toward teachers, and toward their own achievement; an inability to focus on long-term goals; and the use of violence in resolving problems. Also, as with most underachievers, SED gifted students exhibit an external locus of control (i.e., the belief that their actions have no relationship to what happens to them). Other differences in learning styles include a preference for spatial rather than temporal, physical rather than aural, content-centered rather than form-centered, and inductive rather than deductive. Therefore, the importance of planning alternative activities when low-SES children are in the program is evident.

Intervention A major problem encountered in providing for gifted students among the low-SES population is the attitude, shared by teachers and parents alike, that giftedness cannot exist in this population. For parents living in poverty, development of the conditions that nurture giftedness is not easy, but it is possible. Review again the activities suggested in Chapters 1 and 2 and notice how many could be achieved in homes that have limited resources. The literature contains many suggestions to consider when planning and implementing services for SED gifted learners. Two major factors to consider are the characteristics of the teacher and the relevancy of the curriculum. Teachers must enjoy working with these children and experience real personal satisfaction from their achievements and growth if the program is to be successful. Also, the curriculum must be involved with the immediate lives of the students. For Instruction of Students ■

■

Extend the time students spend learning by providing after-school, weekend, and summer enrichment and accelerated courses. Offer special programs to prepare students for acceptance into gifted programs.

240

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner ■ ■ ■ ■

■

Provide advanced courses at local universities. Use hands-on learning techniques. Provide explicit instruction in academic English. Provide community programs designed to enhance students’ cultural and intellectual development, such as those in museums and with mentors in business and industry. Teach students to think critically and use analytic, creative, and critical thinking to solve problems that engage the learners. For Support of Students

■ ■ ■ ■

Set external goals. Provide career awareness programs. Provide social-emotional support. Encourage parent participation.

To increase the probability that SED students who are identified as gifted are successful in gifted programs, Slocumb and Payne (2000) suggest that the programs be changed from pullout programs that offer part-time services for full-time needs to fulltime programs. “Of all of the program designs, the one that is least defensible for gifted students from poverty is the pullout program” (p. 161). Note from a district level supervisor: When SED students at a GATE middle school were introduced to the same design thinking and STEM (Science Technology Engineering Math) curriculum, and given the opportunity to learn language arts in a class of similar-skill students that used appropriate intervention materials, it was found that they out-performed the groups that had one language arts class and one intervention class (B. Littrell, Personal communication, 2011). Teachers who work with children from poverty should not assume that the low level of readiness they often exhibit means that they have no school skills. It is very possible that they just do not know how to transfer their skills to the school setting. For that reason, instead of assigning outside projects and products that need to be completed in the home, Slocumb and Payne (2000) suggest that class time be used for such products so that resources and support will be available. An emphasis needs to be placed on teaching the value of academics to broaden the students’ perspective and motivation. A high priority for children from poverty, at every age, is the development of significant relationships. Positive relationships with fellow students and the school make learning more possible, but a positive accepting relationship with the teacher is crucial to the success of these children. Underrepresentation is a far more complex problem than a change of testing can solve. The special problems encountered in identifying culturally diverse and economically disadvantaged gifted learners have been presented. To better understand the areas of diversity that we hope to serve, we must examine the sources of this diversity in more depth and focus on ways to change the origins of the problem. Improving our ability to discover the gifted children from these populations is not enough. We must

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

241

plan programs that will allow them continuous progress, intellectually and academically. We should not trade excellence for equity. We must aim to increase both. In this chapter, we have explored gifted learners who are culturally diverse, including racially and ethnically diverse gifted students and economically disadvantaged gifted students. The hope is that, by creating an awareness of some of the problems of teaching in a culturally responsive manner, increased efforts will be made and solutions may be found to better educate the culturally diverse gifted learner at home and at school.

GENDER AND GIFTEDNESS

©Shutterstock

It is clear that the behavior of most girls differs from the behavior of most boys on most things most of the time. It has been only fairly recently that we have begun to understand why. Moms and dads have noticed that, from the beginning of their lives, little girls and boys seem to behave differently, so they have treated them differently. Of course, researchers noted that moms and dads treated boys and girls differently and assumed that this was why they behaved differently. Both observations are true to a degree, and both assumptions do contribute to the observed differences between genders. Although, the genes and hormones organize the patterns of the brain, the environment strongly affects the brain’s capability and the child’s behavior. Data from brain

Many differences in ability and behavior between men and women are rooted in biological differences established during prenatal life.

242

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

research indicate that many differences in ability and behavior between men and women are rooted in biological differences that are established in the brain during prenatal life (Brizendine, 2006, 2010). These gender differences are later shown in A P P LY I N G differences in brain organization, and enhanced by hormones throughBRAIN RESEARCH out the life span (Diamond, 1988, 1998; Hawkins, 2004; Kandel, 2006; to Education and LeDoux, 2003). How the sexes differ genetically in the way their brains develop, how the outside environment modifies this development, and how much we as parents and educators can affect the development of brain organization are questions now being asked and studied by those in the neurosciences. Generally, male and female brains differ in anatomy and biochemistry, although male and female brains are more similar than different. Males and females have the same number of brain cells. Ninety-nine percent of the genetic coding of males and females is exactly the same. However, every cell is influenced by this one percent of difference. Genetic and hormonal influences beginning during prenatal development establish patterns of behavior and capabilities that we consider stereotypically male or female (Brizendine, 2006, 2010). The environment strongly affects the brain’s capability and the child’s behavior, but genes and hormones organize the patterns of the brain. Until the eighth week, all fetuses are female. At that time a testosterone surge in-utero can change the fetus and forms the male brain (Brizendine, 2006, 2010). The extent of the surge and the amount of the hormone testosterone determines the extent of femaleness or maleness the fetus will develop during the rest of the gestation period. The testosterone may delay the development of the left hemisphere of the brain in male fetuses, giving female fetuses a head start in their use of left-brain hemisphere functions. This difference in timing causes boys to rely more on right-brain hemisphere functions, resulting in greater development of their visual-spatial skills (Brizendine, 2006). Males and females use different brain areas and circuits to solve problems, process language, and experience emotion. More of the female brain is devoted to verbal ability, emotion, nurture, and caring. The male brain focuses more on action and aggression. Male and female brains are already different at birth. Overall, females experience less lateralization of the hemispheres, showing less distinction between their right-and left-brain functions, using both to support their characteristically more developed verbal skills. This also results in a more unified double mind that may assemble information more quickly than can males, creating the source for what is often called female intuition. Women seem to have stronger connections between the amygdala and regions of the brain that handle language and other higher-level functions. This may contribute to the fact that it is easier for women to talk about their emotions. On average, the female brain matures 2 to 3 years earlier than the male brain. From his ongoing research at the National Institutes of Health, Giedd (cited in Ripley, 2005b) has found that different areas of the brain mature faster for boys and for girls. Some of the regions involved in mechanical reasoning and visual spatial reasoning mature 4 to 8 years earlier in boys. The parts of the female brain that mature faster are involved in verbal fluency, writing, and recognition of cues from the environment. The prefrontal cortex, the seat of decision making and judgment, matures 2 to 3 years earlier in females. The behavioral differences found between males and females that are related to the anatomy and chemistry of the brain are impressive and seem to indicate certain

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

243

cognitive advantages and disadvantages for children of each sex. While a review of the research will show advantages in some areas for females and in other areas for males, these differences should not be equated with either sex being seen as superior or inferior. They are just different. It is up to educators to make sure that we change the environment at school so that these differences do not become liabilities. As has been noted, the brain is not a closed system; it is highly malleable and can be dramatically influenced by experience. Education is of great importance, and as the brains of males and females respond differently, the success of their educational experiences depends on their environmental conditions. Enriching environmental stimulation can change brain patterns, thereby mitigating many of the disadvantages established by the response to anatomical and hormonal predispositions. Experience includes not only encounters with the outside world, but also such things as mental attitude, determination, beliefs regarding self, and the sense of well-being. “All aspects of experience or one’s environment can alter brain circuits and induce changes that may diminish or even reverse the cognitive organization originally established by biology” (Restak, 2000, p. 65).

Gender Characteristics That Affect Learning FEMALES Female infants from birth are more sensitive to sounds, particularly their mother’s voice. They will find comfort in sounds and voices earlier than will males. Female babies orient more to tones and are more startled by loud noises. Females can sing in tune at an earlier age than males. The enhanced hearing performance of females persists throughout life, with the falloff in hearing occurring at a much later age than with males. Females develop more sensitivity to odor and to taste as well. Females are more proficient at fine motor performance than are males and develop the sense of touch more rapidly than they do. Rapid sequential movements are carried out more quickly and more efficiently by females than by males, and they exhibit manual dexterity and fine muscle coordination that exceeds those of males (Diamond, 1998). Females seem to be at an advantage compared to males in verbal functioning and in a wide range of abilities that require organizing data in sequence due to more efficiency than males in the development of their left hemisphere. Females speak sooner, generally possess larger vocabularies, and rarely demonstrate speech defects. Stuttering occurs almost exclusively among males. Therefore, females exceed males in language and linguistic abilities, allowing them to read sooner and learn foreign languages more easily. They develop a greater facility with language, both spoken and written. However, females seem to also use the left hemisphere for both verbal and spatial functioning, creating an interference phenomenon. The result may be slowed, incorrect, or even absent responses in areas of spatial functioning. Females are more attentive than males to social contexts such as faces, speech patterns, and tones of voice. By 4 months, female infants can distinguish photographs of familiar people. Even more important, females understand the meaning of facial expressions, have better face recognition, and identify the affective implications of the tone of

244

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

voice. They can read affective and motivational states of others better than males and show empathy and interest in people to a higher degree. Many of these capabilities may be changing for both males and females as the use of electronic media becomes a more common way of communicating (Carr, 2010; Small & Vorgan, 2008). Females favor a communicative mode in their approach to gaining knowledge about the world and tend to conform by relying more than males on social cues. For this reason, social and interpersonal skills appear at an earlier age and are maintained throughout their lifetime. MALES Males are found to be more curious than females, especially in regard to exploring their environment. They will begin more quickly to explore their surroundings, touching and handling anything that they can reach. The male brain learns by touching and manipulating the environment. Males are driven to actively explore and examine even those things that are prohibited. Yet schools are organized in such a way that the typical student must often sit still for long periods of time in the classroom. In some classrooms exploration, touching, and manipulation of materials that contribute to their learning are not allowed in their learning environment and often are prohibited. Males specialize in right-hemisphere visual functions, show early development of visual acuity, and show higher skill than females on visual-spatial tasks. They deal analytically with spatial relationships and with mathematics easily, especially geometry and trigonometry. They are more interested in and are better at manipulating three-dimensional objects and space than are females. This difference remains throughout life. They can mentally rotate or fold an object, overwhelmingly outperforming females on such tasks. Males perform better than females in gross total body movement, and especially those tasks requiring fast reaction times and rapid muscular responses, yet there is little opportunity for expression of such ability in classrooms. While it has been found that males have difficulty with fine hand coordination, at school, they still must learn to express themselves in writing at an early age. Combine this need to move around, to touch, and to examine with the male reliance on sight as a major learning tool and it is evident that the continued use of lectures given while students sit in rows of chairs becomes a real obstacle to equity in the classroom. Male skills are highly valued at more advanced levels of instruction, especially in subjects such as physics, engineering, and architecture, and females are at a disadvantage. The elementary classroom seems to be organized for skills that come naturally to girls, with their enhanced hearing, question asking, and analytic listening, all skills that develop slowly in boys. However, later in schooling, girls need more help in areas where visual-analytic, spatial, and manipulative skills are needed. The teaching methods at all levels could and should be changed to include more approaches that incorporate the strengths of both genders. Testing is another area that needs reconsideration. Many of the standardized tests used to check ability and learning have been shown to favor males and their strong spatial sense and facility with mathematics. Males have been found to outperform females in tests that require rotating an object, manipulating objects in space, using mathematical reasoning, and navigating through a route. Even in professions where mathematics is

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

245

rarely used, such as law, tests used as identifiers for eligibility discriminate against those less able in mathematics. Women are better in identifying matching items rapidly, working with details, and calculating arithmetic problems. Perhaps restructuring schools and testing to take better advantage of the skills of both males and females would give both groups a better chance at success over a broader range of subjects and produce more equity in terms of quality learning outcomes. To actualize the potential we possess, we must develop both types of brain functions and integrate our learning experiences. The teacher or parent who has been unaware of the need for such integration and who has felt that the only valid learning comes from rational inquiry, cognitive analysis, and in-depth, complex thinking will need to reconsider the possibilities. For most activities, both mental and physical, the human requires both brain hemispheres to function in close integration, thereby allowing the understanding of both the computation and the conceptualization of mathematics, the structure and the melody of music, and the syntax and the poetry of language. Students that we are labeling gifted show evidence that their brain A P P LY I N G integration process is more developed than that of other students. Because BRAIN RESEARCH of increased stimulation, there is an increase in the production of neural to Education cell growth, both biochemical and physical, allowing accelerated processing and more complex patterns of thought. More coherence and integration of functions within the brain result in more effective and efficient brain processing. The observation that very bright children seem to be more androgynous may show that this integration of function has developed and is indeed possible and highly preferable. Remember, the brain changes in anatomy and in function as a result of experience. The environment in which a brain operates determines in large part the functioning of that brain. An enriched environment is critical to determining whether gender differences are limitations or contributions to the lives of our children. Gender plays a role in the actualization of intelligence and the development of giftedness, especially in the acceptance of high levels of giftedness and the use to which it is put. For gifted women, there is a long history of the suppression of intellectual development and lack of acceptance of those women who would use their bright minds to explore the limits of where they can reach.

Issues Regarding Gifted Females EFFORTS OF THE NINETEENTH A ND TWENTIETH CENTURIES TOWARD EQUITY The January 1977 supplement of the National/State Leadership Training Institute Bulletin featured attitudes of the past toward gifted women. The following are some examples. After 29 American medical schools rejected her, Elizabeth Blackwell (1821–1910) was accepted by New York’s Geneva College. She graduated at the head of the class, but was barred from practicing in city hospitals, so she opened a one-room dispensary in a New York slum that became the New York Infirmary for Women and Children. Because “her presence would distract the male students,” Belva Lockwood (1830– 1917) was refused admittance to law school for 2 years. When she finally was admitted

246

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

she completed the course, but she had to petition the school’s honorary president, U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant, to get her diploma. She was denied access to federal courts to try cases, so she persuaded Congress to pass a special bill, and in 1879, she became the first woman to practice law before the U.S. Supreme Court. Ellen Swallow Richards (1842–1911) was the first woman graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the founder of ecology as a science. She was also the first female faculty member at MIT, where she was denied a doctorate by the narrow policies of the school. She received an honorary Doctor of Science degree from Smith College at the age of 69, just 1 year before her death. Although women have made progress toward equality in some areas, the change has been very slow, for example, in higher education. During 1981, as few as 26.7% of the faculty positions in the United States were filled by women. By 2000, this figure had risen to only 37.5 % (U.S. Department of Education 2002a). Of tenured faculty, only 34.8% are women (U.S. Department of Education 2002b). The disparity is even greater when the salaries within faculty rank are compared. In 2005 the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that the average salary for men professors was $91,102, while for women professors the average salary was $81,719 (Knapp et al., 2006). This imbalance continues to favor men even though one third of the women aged 25 to 29, compared to one fourth of the men of this age range, have college degrees. These data clearly show ongoing discrimination. Progress is being made in the fields where women traditionally were seldom represented. Ripley (2005) reported that, according to the National Science Foundation, in 2005 women earned one third of all science and engineering doctorates compared to the 1970s, when they received only 1 of every 10 science and engineering Ph.D.s. However, they occupied only 15% of the science and engineering faculty positions in the top 50 research universities and only 23% of the science and engineering jobs.

■ Jane stood at the board between Tommy and her best friend, Doris. As the teacher pronounced each word, they wrote it on the board, after which the teacher spelled the words and they checked their own work. Doris had missed two already, and then Tommy misspelled a word. Doris and Tommy exchanged supportive glances and gestures. Jane noticed that because she hadn’t missed any, they were excluding her. After four more words, Doris missed another one. Tommy missed the next one. Again Doris and Tommy smiled at each other with obvious camaraderie. Jane felt really uncomfortable. She liked Doris and Tommy; why did they have to act like that? There were only two words left on the test when Jane decided that they would like her better if she missed some words, too.

When Tommy noticed her next word was wrong, he grinned at her encouragingly. She felt much better. Both Tommy and Doris looked sympathetically at Jane. When the teacher took the “good students” for a special treat while the rest of the class had to write correctly the words they had missed 100 times, Jane wanted to go, too. After all, she knew those words. After everyone left, Tommy and Doris began talking to her. She thought a moment about the treat and wondered what it was, but as she looked again at her friends happily chatting with her included, she thought it was really worth it.

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

247

Women earned 29% of the Bachelor of Science degrees in science and engineering, but only 18% of all scientists and engineers employed are women. Women account for less than 10% of the physicists and engineers. The percentage of doctorates awarded to women has increased during the past decade; however, unemployment rates for women with doctoral degrees are two to five times higher than for their male counterparts. Even outside of academia, women’s salaries do not equal the salaries of men. Despite a decrease in workplace discrimination and an increase in women with college and professional degrees, in 2009, women working full time in the United States still earned just 77% on average of what men earn, a gap of 23% or about 80 cents for every dollar men made, which is only 20 cents up from what they made in 1970 (Levine, 2000). This gender pay gap is not accounted for by women’s and men’s choices of college major, occupation, hours worked, workplace flexibility, experience, educational attainment, enrollment status, GPA, institution attended, age, race/ethnicity, region, marital status or number of children. Regarding comparisons in race and ethnicity, compared to white men: Asian women earn 91%; white women earn 80%; African American women 70%; Hispanic women 60%. The gender pay gap is smallest among the youngest workers. At age 35 earnings for women grow much more slowly. After 35 women’s earnings fall to between 70% and 80% of men’s earnings. Also the pay gap is in nearly every line of work. The progress has stalled in recent years, and the pay gap does not appear likely to go away on its own (American Association of University Women, 2009). The more female dominated a profession is, the lower salaries are likely to be for women. Women are graduating from high school and college at higher rates than are males, even though the numbers of young men graduating from high school is at an all time high. Women continue to make gains in earning college degrees and the gender gap has almost disappeared from those entering college directly after graduating high school. Both women and men are more likely to graduate from college than ever before. Overall educational outcomes for both girls and boys have generally improved. While women have achieved parity with men in earning 4-year college degrees, and more work in managerial and professional careers today than 25 years ago, they are still not prepared to move into the better-paying, higher-status, and fastest-growing occupations, such as systems analysts, software designers, and engineers. Instead, national census data show that most women with college educations are still in traditionally female careers: teaching and nursing. Large discrepancies by race/ethnicity and family income level remain. These longstanding inequalities could be considered a “crisis” in the sense that action is needed urgently. But the crisis is not specific to gender; rather, it is a crisis for African American, Hispanic, and low-income children. Even in the famous Terman study of gifted children becoming adults (Terman & Oden, 1959), some data raised questions about the loss of contributions of the gifted and talented women to society. Seven of the most talented writers in Terman’s group of gifted children were girls, yet practically all the eminent adult writers were men. A similar contradiction was observed in a follow-through study of artistic ability. Although nearly all of the eminent adult artists were men, the gifted girls, as a group, had been superior to the boys in artistic ability.

248

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

Although men and women still tend to work in different jobs, occupational gender segregation has decreased over the last 40 years with women. Despite widespread backing from the American public and the support from the White House, the Senate defeated the Paycheck Fairness Act in 2010. Efforts continue to close the gender pay gap at local and national levels. Entry level salaries are becoming more equal. However, women who stay in the workforce lose ground to their male peers because they are not promoted as readily as men. Studies have confirmed that women are not being promoted at the same rate as men and fewer women move into top leadership positions (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006). Why does this happen? If females have outstanding ability at one point in their lives, why not at another? To understand, we must look at society’s expectations for women, the type of encouragement that is given, and the consequences of achievement for women. BARRIERS TO EQUITY At Home. In our dominant culture, and even more intensely in many other cultures, girl babies have an entirely different experience as a member of the family and the larger community than do boy babies. The colors and the volume of sound surrounding them, the type of material used to clothe them, the toys given to them, and the activities they are allowed to engage in, as well as the way in which they participate are all very different. From the beginning, girls are taught to be passive, accepting, and nurturing. They are expected to enjoy quieter games and activities and not to take risks. They receive these messages from many places and many people in our society. Mothers encourage daughters to stay close by, to work with them. They buy irons and ironing boards, miniature kitchens, dollhouses, tiny brooms, and baby dolls with cradles for them so they can imitate and learn the woman’s role. Little boys are discouraged from playing with these “sissy” toys, and even when dolls are included for boys, they are male action figures or stuffed animals. Little boys learn to cope with stress and switch to an independent mode by the age of 2 years. At School. As children enter school, some subtle, and some not so subtle, clues inculcate their role expectation. Preschool teachers reinforce the same types of behavior noted in the home. Little girls are allowed to stay near and are patted and spoken to quietly, whereas little boys are given directions for independent activity and sent on their way. Boys get more attention when they actively misbehave, and teachers are more active in controlling them. A report from the American Association of University Women (AAUW) (1992) pointed to the early education environment as the beginning of the schools’ educational neglect of girls. Such environments often concentrate on areas in which girls already are competent and fail to provide the investigatory and experimental activities that would develop needed skills so critical to their development. The AAUW report concluded that boys in school are consistently given more instructional time and more teacher attention. Boys are called on more often than girls and are allowed, even encouraged, to

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

249

call out answers for which they receive acknowledgment. In groups, the teacher actively seeks their participation, whereas girls are ignored if they do not voluntarily participate. Detailed and precise feedback, praise, criticism, and remediation greet the participation of boys, whereas girls seldom experience such useful teacher behaviors. The AAUW report cited numerous studies that suggest that these concerns and differences in teacher behavior toward boys and girls are far greater among those scoring in the top 10% of the school population. Callahan (1992) suggests that the learned helplessness exhibited by many girls in later years of schooling may begin when they are ignored in these early school experiences. From the first years of school, girls learn to conceal their talents by imitating the behavior of the children with whom they are placed (Silverman, 1993). As they easily pretend to be less capable, they are rewarded and taught to show less of their intellectual abilities in order to receive more social acceptance, as was Jane in the earlier vignette. One is reminded of the brain research from Chapter 1, which shows that we are only as intelligent as we need to be in our environment, and troubled by the predictable results in the warning “use it or lose it.” Boys actually learn more than girls because teachers explain how things work and encourage them to try out toys and materials. Girls are shown passively because with them teachers usually do the manipulation. Boys can explore and get involved in games and activities that are considered too rough for girls and from which they are protected. Another problem may be the limitations that females impose on themselves. The report from the AAUW (1992) stated that by sixth grade girls report more concern about being popular and well liked than about being perceived as independent and competent. Boys reverse the priority of these concerns. In addition, the decline of selfesteem and self-confidence begins for girls at the onset of adolescence (Callahan, 1992). One of the barriers to gifted women becoming more involved in nontraditional careers is their lack of mathematics preparation. A study of 1,324 children in grades 2 through 12 found no significant differences between boys and girls in reported enjoyment of mathematics. However, when mathematics became an optional course of study in high school, few girls enrolled. Gifted females take fewer demanding high school mathematics and science courses (Benbow, 1992). In this study 72% of the males majored in mathematics or science in college, and only 40% of the females did so. Only 24% of the gifted females considered mathematics- or science-related careers while 56% of gifted males did. The problem seems to start in the early years of school. Few gender differences in locus of control exist until the sixth or seventh grade. In a study of sixth- to eleventhgrade students and their parents, Jacobs and Weisz (1994) found that girls already hold more negative beliefs about their abilities in mathematics, even when they consistently earned the highest grades in the class. Girls seem to attribute any success they have in mathematics or sciences to external factors, whereas they believe their failures are the result of their own lack of talent (Heller & Ziegler, 1996); the attribution is just the opposite for boys. These gender differences increase with higher ability levels and result in unrealistically low expectations for success among highly gifted females. They tend to give up more readily after failure, which they attribute to their low ability.

250

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

The difference seems to mirror findings that the parents attributed their daughters’ successes to diligence and effort and their sons’ successes to special abilities or talents. Similar attribution patterns were found in teachers. In a study of the problem of low self-concept regarding mathematical abilities among gifted girls, Dickens and Cornell (1993) found that it would be advisable for educators and counselors to study the expectations of the parents and the effect that these expectations have on the development of such concepts. Parents should become aware of how their expectations may be influenced by their own successes and failures in mathematics and how these influences may be impacting the expectations they hold for their daughters. Silverman (1993) suggests that one area in which gifted girls need special help is goal setting. From middle school on, gifted girls need to have their aspirations raised and to be taught effective strategies for reaching these higher goals. One day in a freshman honors class that I taught at the university, the students were sharing their future career goals. One young man, Steven, informed us that he was planning to get his degree in political science, go to law school, and then begin his political career. He stated confidently, “I plan to be president of the United States.” A young woman, May-Ling, spoke next and quietly said that she thought she would take more mathematics courses because she “really liked to play with math ideas.” She thought she would probably be a bookkeeper or something. Steven exploded! “You like to play with math and you just think you’ll be a bookkeeper!” he shouted. “Why not shoot for a think tank, or be an astronaut, or a CEO for some big company? People who like to ‘play with math’ are in demand, you know. There aren’t many of you and you could really name your price!” May-Ling smiled shyly and looked surprised. Although she thought the idea was interesting, she did not think it was very realistic for her. Role models, internships, mentorships, speakers, professionals willing to be shadowed, films, and biographies can be used to change the level of aspirations and teach the strategies needed to achieve the higher goals appropriate for gifted girls. Silverman (1993), among numerous researchers, asks that same-sex schools be considered for their educational experience because such settings promote leadership and higher achievement for girls. In Society. The literature on achievement need should provide some clues as to why girls start out so well, only to achieve in very small numbers. However, such clues are not provided for the simple reason that in the impressive and theoretically consistent body of data about the achievement motive women have been excluded altogether. The need to achieve has been defined as an internalized standard of excellence, motivating the individual to do well in any achievement-oriented situation involving intelligence and leadership ability. Women get higher test-anxiety scores than men, probably because a woman who is motivated to achieve directly contradicts the role expectation of femininity. Women often equate intellectual achievement with loss of femininity. They respond to success in one of three ways: (1) by showing anxiety about becoming unpopular, unmarriageable, and lonely; (2) by feeling guilt and despair and doubting their femininity or normality; or (3) by denying the possibility that a mere woman can be successful.

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

251

Noting the continuing lack of adult creative productivity in women and the prevailing attitudes that continue to support this occurrence, Reis (1987) has drawn our attention to attitudes held by women that may be contributing to self-sabotage. Gifted women often believe that they must excel in every role they play and that they must play every role assigned. Such women expend high energy to simultaneously maintain their femininity, succeed as a wife, have an outstanding career, be a perfect parent, have an attractive body, and run a beautiful, well-managed home. This perfection complex causes women not only to set impossible goals, but also to continually strive to achieve at ever-higher levels. Reis believes it is important to teach gifted girls that they cannot possibly be perfect in everything they do and that they must make choices about careers, marriage, and children. When bright women do achieve success, their self-sabotage continues to work. They attribute their success to factors other than their own efforts and see their outward image of success as undeserved or accidental. Bright men, on the other hand, attribute their success to their own efforts. Expectations of society also enter into career decisions. To resolve the home/career conflict, women may choose to delay their education or their pursuit of appropriate career placement until after the family’s needs have been mostly met and the children are less dependent; thus, they are beginning their career at an older age. Or they may choose an occupation, such as teaching or nursing, that is more compatible with the approved female role. These careers also meet the need of availability because where the family lives usually hinges on the husband’s career. If a woman chooses a more maledominated career, she might work only part time and choose specializations that are more compatible with the female role expectations. As with achievement motivation research, career development theory is derived almost entirely from research on males. Society helps to establish mixed expectations by expressing attitudes that give mixed messages. Women should fill a supportive, nurturing role, but they are expected to assertively develop their own talent. Teachers and parents reward girls for good grades and high performance in school, but society relays the message that intellectual pursuits are unfeminine. With these mixed expectations and a limited number of successful women role models to follow, it is easy for gifted girls to become confused about how to pursue a truly satisfying future. WHAT CAN BE DONE? Silverman (1993) calls for use of nonsexist child rearing and teaching practices; use of nonsexist language in every classroom; elimination of the emphasis on processing speed in standardized testing; funding of support for assistance to girls in mathematics in the same proportion as there is for boys in reading; and availability of special counseling assistance in developing self-esteem and in career planning. Bright girls need to learn about their unique interests, needs, and values and to fantasize about their future, setting goals that reflect their deeply held values. Career programs for gifted females should include information that dispels the myths of a forced choice between career and family, irreversible life planning, and the distribution of family responsibilities. Also include experiences that help girls develop their autonomy, self-esteem, self-confidence, tolerance for ambiguity, willingness to compete, and

252

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

assertiveness; and information and role models that illustrate a variety of possible satisfying lifestyles. Gifted girls should be encouraged to engage in appropriate career planning and should be taught how to incorporate interruptions and delays for child rearing into their career plans. Suggestions for teaching methods to remediate the gender gap in the United States include more emphasis on authentic curriculum (Kreinberg & Wahl, 1997); use of active learning and the applications of science and technology to solve real problems as well as the integration of science and mathematics curriculum material with social studies and language arts (Fox, Engle, & Sooler, 1999); and exposure to women who have careers in science as role models from middle school through graduate school (Seymour, 1995). A report from the AAUW (2005) on women and work contains these recommendations for change: ■

■

■

■

Increase educational access and opportunity for women and girls in underrepresented racial-ethnic communities. Promote the benefits of pursuing education in computer science, engineering, mathematics, and technology to women and girls. Enhance women’s education and training in financial management and economic self-sufficiency. Promote equitable access to flexible work arrangements and additional research on work-family policies and programs.

Silverman (1991) considers eight areas essential to the development of the potential of gifted girls: parent education, early identification, gifted peers, early entrance, teacher in-service, special programs, career counseling, and conferences for gifted girls. Both Kitano (1994/1995) and Kerr (1994) suggest that the research on mainstream gifted women may not necessarily generalize to gifted women from minority ethnic and racial groups. The values and customs of each diverse group may override the issues found in this discussion with more contradictory concerns and barriers for these women to overcome. Further research is needed to provide the understanding and the strategies that can allow the gifted girls in these populations to become achieving and fulfilled adults. Although gifted females are continuing to find advocates and the understanding of the issues they face is growing, many questions about the development of the potential of gifted women still exist. There is still much to be done.

Issues Regarding Gifted Males The literature provides information on the differences males experience in their development and helps us to better understand how those differences affect the male point of view. The following summary generalizations about male behavior are categorized in seven major areas: 1. Aggression. Males are far more aggressive, as expressed in play, in fighting behavior, in preference for more adventurous and aggressive films and stories, and in greater competition.

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

253

2. Activity. Males play outside more, more actively, and with more variety, and they find it harder to stay still. 3. Curiosity and Exploratory Behavior. Males want to know how things work, and they engage in more exploratory activities than females. 4. Impulsivity. Males find it more difficult to resist temptation, distractions, risk taking, and involvement in dangerous situations. 5. Importance of Social Relationships. Males are less nurturing from an early age, express less concern for the welfare of the group, and cooperate and compromise less. 6. Self-Concept. Males view themselves as being more powerful and having more control over events in the world, and they believe that they make a difference. They see themselves as more effective, more ambitious, more assertive, and more able to make things happen. 7. Achievement-Related Behaviors. Males expect to do better than females and set higher levels of aspiration for themselves. Females tend to underestimate their performances and are less confident. Males blame failure on external circumstances and take credit for their successes; females reverse this view. While it is evident from our previous discussion that gifted females face many barriers to developing their academic and career potential, gifted males have need for attention to be paid to the somewhat different issues in their lives that can be detrimental to their fulfillment. Those who have inquired into the issues that gifted males often find limiting have identified the following: ■

■ ■

■

■

They are often taught not to express their emotions, resulting in limitations to the development of their creativity and intuition. To fit into their social group, they often hide their intelligence. The majority of gifted boys and men like competition and will often pursue success at the expense of personal growth and understanding. Male students in the mathematics/science track in school find it difficult to move into a study of any humanities areas. The “boy culture” includes ideas about masculinity that limit and misinform males of what is expected of them by society: for example, that they must be independent, stoic, and stable; macho, risk-taking, and tough; and powerful, forceful, and dominant; and that they must never show warmth, empathy, or sympathy (Alvino, 1991; Kerr & Cohn, 2001; Pollack, 1998).

Hébert (2000) found that a strong belief in self was seen as the most important factor in success among high-achieving males in an urban high school. However, he also cautioned that sensitive, intelligent young men who experience criticism and ridicule growing up in a culture that does not value male sensitivity might suppress such characteristics and withdraw emotionally. Hébert observes that both gifted men and gifted women often exhibit psychological androgyny, defined as an ability to be aggressive and nurturing, sensitive and rigid, dominant and submissive. This characteristic can be

254

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

most freeing for the males that adopt it as part of their identity, allowing them to have a broader idea of appropriate and inappropriate male behavior. Viewing the identity issues encountered by gifted males from the perspective of diverse cultural backgrounds, even more possible psychological, social, and emotional problems have been found. For Hispanic American male students to succeed in school, Cordeiro (cited in Hébert, 2002) suggests that they must separate themselves from the family, neighborhood, and school minority Hispanic cultures. Crucial to their success are friendships with other achieving Hispanic students and mentors. For African American students, mentors are also important as they may feel less accepted by peers, teachers, and parents when they begin to identify with the achievement value system held by the dominant culture (Ford, 1995). Hébert (2002) suggests that for gifted males across cultural groups, community service activities that focus on addressing social problems can be very beneficial and will help address many social and emotional needs of these gifted young men. Typical of all gifted children, gifted boys often have an inner desire to do an excellent job at whatever they attempt. If they think they might not be really good at something, they will seldom try to do it. Many boys seem to know what they will not do well and will not enjoy trying to do and use that as a guide to the activities or areas of study they pursue. Also typical is the confusion about what to choose as a life’s work when the gifted male may do so many things so well. To add to my understanding of the reports found in the research, I asked my son, who was identified as highly gifted in the third grade and is now well along in his career as a television producer/director, to discuss his vocational choice with me. He confirmed that he had experienced confusion about what he wanted to do as he grew up. He took each opportunity as it came along, not really seeking a path, just taking advantage of what came his way. He told me that he didn’t realize what it was that he really wanted to do until he was already making very good money for his age and then felt he couldn’t step back, track a new course, and devote his time and energy to a different career. He got used to being the youngest to succeed at each job he tried. He realized some years ago that he didn’t love what he was doing. He liked it and felt proud of the work that he had accomplished, but he had discovered that he would have loved writing. However, all of the successful professional writers he has known have focused on developing their talent through college and built up their careers slowly, in a very purposeful way. He does write, however, but just in what little spare time he manages to have. With a home and family of his own, he does not feel that this is the time to change course. While being successful in a career that you only like is certainly not a tragedy, it does cause one to wonder how many other gifted men realize too late that there was a career passion that they failed to notice. The tragedy would be the failure of those of us in gifted education to confront the stereotypes of what it is to be masculine. The gifted male can have any of the characteristics of giftedness we found in Chapter 2 such as unusual intensity, heightened sensitivity, emotional depth, empathy and idealism, high expectations of self, a tendency toward perfectionism, openness, and creative approaches to all areas of endeavor. These characteristics do not flourish under the conceptions of male identity held by many cultures and areas of society. If we allow the stereotypes to become the goals for our

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

255

gifted boys, the loss will be incalculable, not only to these bright minds, but also to the future of all of us.

The Special Needs of Gifted Students Who Are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgendered (GLBT) The last group of students with special needs that we will discuss can have any or all of the problems experienced by those in the previously mentioned groups. They must also deal with all of the adjustments involved in being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. This approximately 9% of the student population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) will have the issues of being gifted, perhaps belonging to a racially diverse group, and facing the discrimination that may be a part of being a gifted female or gifted male and then add yet one more concern to their development of identity and self-worth. As Brizendine (2006) writes: Sexual orientation does not appear to be a matter of conscious self-labeling but a matter of brain wiring . . . prenatal exposure to an opposite-sex hormonal environment, like testosterone in a genetically female brain, leads the nervous system and brain circuits to develop along more male-typical lines . . . scientific findings indicate that the wiring of the female brain for sexual orientation occurs during fetal development, following the blueprint of that individual’s genes and sex hormones. The behavioral expression of her brain wiring will then be influenced and shaped by environment and culture. (pp. 186–187)

Gifted GLBT students are trying to make sense out of their feelings of being different, while vaguely suspecting that there is something wrong with them. Young people who speak about these feelings talk about their invisibility problem. A person who is GLBT is not as easily seen as those whose differences result from racial or cultural diversity. It is easier to stay hidden, resulting in far more danger of being misunderstood, hurt, or lonely and alienated. Resources are not readily available to help gifted GLBT students make sense of what they are feeling or to educate other students and teachers about who these students are and what they are facing. Instead, too often, they must try to work through this powerful awareness by themselves. While their giftedness gives them the belief that since they are so smart they should be able to figure this out, the challenge does not resolve easily. As one GLBT student remembered her adolescence, “I had a feeling I was different. I hid this unnamable identity as best I could, terrified that the mainstream social prejudices and their subliminal and blatant messages were right; that there was something wrong with me, that I was sick, that I was a mistake” (Flournoy, 2002, p. 22). Interestingly, this decade is seeing the emergence of unprecedented numbers of openly gay youths, hundreds of thousands according to Cloud (2003). Along with this trend, more young Americans, even those who identify themselves as conservatives, are accepting their classmates who are bisexual, gay, and lesbian with nonchalantly positive regard. There are more groups being formed as support systems as mental health professionals nearly all agree that trying to reject or change one’s homosexual identity is nearly useless and can lead to depression, even suicide. While walls are coming down, many still exist, and finding one’s way between cultures requires skill, patience, and a great deal of loving support.

256

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

Parents of gifted GLBT children are advised to understand the demands of giftedness, accept and support their children as they are, and seek resources to assist them and their children in understanding the needs and issues raised by being GLBT (Roseberry & Flournoy, 2002). Roseberry and Flournoy ask that, when their child confides this information about self to them, parents be especially aware that he or she has not changed, but rather has shared an essential part of self. “There is no difference between the child now and the child you knew before the information was shared. The fear of rejection may be present, so we need to be reassuring and supportive” (p. 20). A suggestion for teachers from those who have experienced this dilemma is to create an environment that is safe and inclusive where the language used does not marginalize or alienate students who are GLBT. In such an environment, a broader view of families and love relationships can be expressed, more acceptance is shown of different personalities found among historical figures, and there is sensitivity to the use of sexist and heterosexist language. Flournoy (2002) believes that teachers can have a tremendous impact on GLBT students if they take actions to create the inclusiveness for which GLBT students are looking, find ways to reduce the isolation, and help them feel safe. While adolescence is a difficult time for all students, being gifted causes problems of social adjustment and feelings of being different. Adding other dimensions of difference makes this time even more challenging. The suggestions of those young people who have spoken out about resolving their issues consistently focus on making the classroom safer and more accepting of everyone, regardless of their needs and what is being confronted in their lives. Teachers can play an important role in creating a school climate that provides the caring and acceptance necessary to support the growth and welfare of their students. Such teachers are especially needed when these students are learning about diversity, both their own and that of others. In this chapter, we have briefly discussed additional populations of gifted learners who present educators with special concerns: gifted learners with disabilities, gifted females, gifted males, and gifted learners who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. Although we are learning more about working successfully with these gifted students, questions continue to arise, and more research is needed. This limited discussion was meant to create an awareness of some of the problems in these areas in the hope that such awareness might foster increased efforts toward solutions, both in the home and at school. READER NOTE In this chapter the following two terms were used: ■ ■

The Cultural Achievement Gap The Socioeconomic Achievement Gap

These terms refer to two of the dominant causes for the depression of the intellectual development and achievement of learners. The practices adopted by some cultural or socioeconomic groups create for their children the inability to fully develop their intellectual potential. Such practices create a gap in the progression of their learning, resulting in lowered school achievement. Such practices include ■ ■

use of child-rearing methods that do not support intellectual development. the effects of poverty on intellectual development.

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

257

“Closing the achievement gap” is an appropriate goal if it means finding ways to enhance the learning of all members in the learning community. When it is used in such a way that it would deny advanced educational experiences appropriate to high achievers, focusing only on advancing the achievement of low achievers, it is not only inappropriate, it is harmful. Some educators would use the concept of an “achievement gap” as a rationale for creating alternative testing practices. In their minds this would be a remedy to “unfair” testing. However, the fact remains that some practices of some groups are detrimental to the nurture of intellectual development. Changing testing practices is not a remedy for this problem. It is the unfair rearing practices that must be changed to allow for optimal growth and development if full intellectual abilities are to be developed. Changing only the way in which the abilities of some learners are evaluated will not solve the problem. Educating all teachers and caregivers to understand how to provide the highest level of nurture for intellectual growth while honoring family beliefs and traditions is what will make equal opportunities available to all children. Continuing to develop different kinds of testing with the idea that the problem is finding different ways to express intelligence is not the answer. Providing a wide range of experiences in a nurturing environment appropriate to that culture as early as possible should be the goal.

REVIEW OF IMPORTANT IDEAS Multicultural Education and Giftedness ■ Culture can be shared by any group of people and is com-

municated from one generation to the next. It includes the group’s shared knowledge, social values, worldviews, traditions, and preferred standards of behaving. ■ The cultural heritage is learned and is not innately a

part of the child. ■ Culturally diverse students are those being reared in

any group that differs significantly in values and attitudes from the dominant culture. ■ Cultural groups can create conditions for their children

that can either facilitate the growth of intelligence and support achievement or limit both in many ways. The procedures and content of our educational system may be unsupportive of children who are raised with significantly different values, attitudes, and practices from those found in the dominant culture. ■ Our laws have become progressively more protective of

individual rights so as to ensure the equality of diverse groups and move us toward a pluralist society.

■ Rather than being restricted to ethnic and racial heri-

tage, cultural identity is influenced by religion, gender, age, socioeconomic status (SES), primary language, geographical region, disabilities, and any other exceptional conditions. ■ Multicultural education as a concept incorporates cul-

tural diversity and seeks to provide equality and equity in schools.

Global Education ■ Global education is defined as a social movement that

calls for changes in schooling to include learning about the problems and issues that affect all nations and systems—ecological, cultural, economic, political, and technological. ■ The goals of global education are interdisciplinary and

include not only perspective taking, but also awareness of the state of the planet, cross-cultural awareness, familiarity with the nature of systems, and the creation of options for participation in local, national, and international issues.

258

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

Underrepresentation of Culturally Diverse Groups in the Gifted Population ■ The term underrepresentation refers to the low partici-

pation in gifted programs by some of the cultural and socioeconomic groups in our society. ■ Giftedness at the highest level can be found in every

cultural group. The incidence of giftedness varies from group to group as a result of differing values, attitudes, and opportunities. ■ Cultural groups differ in availability of support systems,

attitudes toward development of giftedness, provision of resources, priority given to certain kinds of talent, individual initiative, and leadership, among other factors. What is valued by the culture is produced by the culture. ■ A range of explanations is offered for the underrepresen-

tation of culturally diverse students in gifted programs. ■ Identification concerns include test bias, selective refer-

rals, deficit-based paradigms, and lack of multiple criteria, multiple data sources, and modified selection criteria. ■ Larger percentages of African Americans, Hispanic

Americans, and American Indians grow up in low-SES circumstances than do Anglo-Americans and Asian Americans, and low-SES students are generally much less likely to be high academic achievers than high-SES students. This is true in all industrialized nations. ■ High-performing students from all of the populations

of underrepresented minority students do less well academically, on average, than high-performing AngloAmerican and Asian American students. ■ There is evidence that many outstanding African Ameri-

can students are performing well below their ability to avoid being viewed by members of their culture as a negative stereotype. ■ The lack of attention to the preschool years and the pri-

mary grades is the most destructive condition because achievement patterns and intellectual skills must be established early for all groups. ■ At present, the conflict many minority students feel

between achievement and some of the values of American Indian, Hispanic American, and African American cultures only adds to the problem of underrepresentation. ■ Opportunities for growth must be provided for cultur-

ally diverse students, but in so doing, we must guard against changing cultural and family patterns just because they are different. Diversity is the cornerstone of developing potential, and only patterns that inhibit the development of that potential need modification.

Economically Disadvantaged Gifted Students: The Culture of Poverty ■ Poverty is not just about money. Rather, it is important

to understand that poverty involves the extent to which an individual does without resources—not only financial resources, but also emotional, intellectual, and physical resources; relationships and role models; and innumerable external support systems. ■ Economically disadvantaged students, also referred

to as low-SES students, are being reared by low-SES parents who are out of the economic (but not necessarily the ethnic or racial) mainstream. This population is often characterized by the values and attitudes that result from poverty, including a victim orientation, survival thinking, short-term planning, and dependency. ■ Some low-SES children are ethnically or racially diverse;

however, it is important to remember that many are not, and yet both groups are culturally diverse. ■ Poverty alone can be the most debilitating factor in the

circumstances of a child, and where it exists, enormous amounts of potential can be lost. If the circumstances of poverty are added to cultural differences, then the growing child risks alienation and very limited intellectual development. ■ Studies have found that the family’s role in the success

of low-SES gifted learners is most important. They encourage and monitor progress, communicate high expectations and standards for academic achievement, and view socioeconomic circumstances as motivators to succeed. ■ Children who withstand difficult circumstances and

succeed despite the problems they encounter have been referred to as “resilient children.” ■ The most serious deficiencies for low-SES children

are  reported to be in cognitive functioning (e.g., a decreased ability to observe and state sequences of  events, to perceive cause-and-effect relation ships, and to categorize); language skills (e.g., limited vocabularies, nonstandard-English grammar); and reading. ■ A major problem encountered in providing for gifted

students among the low-SES population is the attitude, shared by teachers and parents alike, that giftedness cannot exist in this population. ■ By including the strengths and special needs of low-SES

gifted learners in the curricular planning, these children have a better chance to develop their potential for giftedness.

CHAPTER 7: Being Culturally Responsive and Gender Sensitive

Racially and Ethnically Diverse Gifted Populations ■ The attitudes and skills for thinking and learning are

259

than they do on “culture-free” tests, but also score higher on verbal subtests than on nonverbal subtests. ■ While tests of nonverbal, figural reasoning abilities may

established in the family, the base that forms the future of the intellectual abilities of the children. Every cultural group instills both advantageous and limiting attitudes in its children before they enter school.

be a helpful addition to the range of assessment tools that a district uses for identification for all students, they should not be used alone as evidence shows that such tests actually increase selection bias while appearing to reduce it.

■ It is the responsibility of the family, the cultural group,

■ While behavioral identification has been used with suc-

and the school to foster attitudes and practices known to bring out the highest levels of intelligence and ability in each child by understanding what facilitates and what inhibits intellectual growth. ■ Information about the contributions various ethnic

and racial groups make to the educational development of their children is generalized and oversimplified in the literature because it is the family unit that makes the decisions as to how the values and beliefs of the ethnic or racial group are to be interpreted and practiced.

Identification of Gifted Learners from Culturally Diverse Populations ■ The process and procedures for identification of gifted-

ness among diverse populations should clearly discover the abilities, aptitudes, and expressions of intelligence a given school system is willing and able to serve. ■ In the case of diverse populations, traditional screening

processes such as group testing and behavioral checklists of gifted characteristics may limit consideration of the very students who could most benefit from the opportunities provided by gifted programs. ■ It must be acknowledged that any cultural or family

pattern that does not support, but, in fact, restricts the growth of intelligence will cause its members to experience limited growth intellectually and, therefore, receive low scores on any type of assessment.

cess as an alternative to testing in identifying gifted students among diverse populations, the “effective use of behavioral characteristics in the identification process is dependent upon an appropriate environment for observation of superior mental abilities and awareness that a gifted child may excel only in very specific areas or may be underachieving in one or more of the basic skills.” ■ Dynamic assessment is essentially a test-intervene-

retest format. The focus is on the learning ability of the student rather than the knowledge obtained. This process is recommended as a means for assessing culturally diverse and economically disadvantaged students who have not demonstrated high ability on traditional tests of intelligence. ■ The identification process will be more effective if we

seek the basic intellectual abilities common to all gifted students, regardless of their cultural background and the manner in which they express their abilities.

Gender and Giftedness ■ One of the most consistent determinants of parental

expectations and perceptions and organizers of behavior is the sex of their infant. ■ Bright girls consistently underestimate their own abil-

ity; the brighter the girl, the less expectation she has for intellectual success.

■ Regarding the use of quota systems in the identifica-

■ The early education environment often concentrates

tion process, it is important to understand that limited experience in the early environment provides limited skills, and the child’s need is for development of such skills, not for the more advanced or complex work found in gifted programs.

on areas in which girls already are competent and fails to provide the investigatory and experimental activities that would develop needed skills so critical to their development.

■ IQ tests are currently constructed with built-in limita-

tions and assumptions that can be unfair to groups who are not closely identified with the dominant culture. ■ Most of the commonly used IQ tests have been stan-

dardized within the major culture. ■ Some culturally diverse groups not only score higher on

conventional tests such as the Stanford-Binet and WISC

■ Boys actually learn more than girls because the teacher

explains how things work and encourages them to try out toys and materials. ■ Girls seem to believe that, if they succeed, it is luck; if

they fail, it is their fault. Boys reverse this view for their successes and failures. ■ Women often equate intellectual achievement with

loss of femininity.

260

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

■ Gifted women often believe that they must excel in

■ The “boy culture” includes ideas about masculinity that

every role they play and that they must play every role assigned.

limit and misinform males of what is expected of them by society.

■ As with achievement motivation research, career devel-

■ The gifted male can have characteristics of giftedness

opment theory is derived almost entirely from research on males.

that are not valued in the conceptions of male identity held by many cultures and areas of society.

■ With society’s mixed expectations that women should fill

■ This decade is seeing the emergence of unprecedented

a supportive, nurturing role, but also assertively develop their own talent and with few role models of successful women to follow, it is easy for gifted females to become confused about how to pursue a truly satisfying future.

numbers of openly gay youths and often higher levels of acceptance.

8

Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

©Shutterstock

IDEAS WE HAVE HAD

IDEAS RESEARCH SUPPORTS

■ The education of teachers preparing to teach children

■ Just as all gifted learners, gifted learners who are also

with disabilities does not include information regarding the characteristics or education of children who are gifted. There is no expectation that there will be any gifted learners among the children with disabilities. ■ The administration should establish restrictions to financial

resources and program qualifications so that the money allocated for disabled students is properly spent only on their education and the remediation of their disabilities.

blind, deaf, physically disabled, or learning disabled need educational experiences for enhancing their giftedness. However, they often find it impossible to be included in learning experiences beyond their disability group. For these reasons recognition of and accommodations for gifted learners with disabilities in special education classes should be made available.

261

262

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

■ Gifted students who produce at grade level most of the

time, hand in most of their assignments, and maintain at least an average level of performance on examinations are not a concern for underachievement.

■ Teacher education programs, including those preparing

teachers to work with children with disabilities must include information on children with gifted abilities. Without this background it is difficult to notice giftedness in the children identified for the disability program or to provide appropriately if they are noticed. The teacher in the gifted program, in addition to having little knowledge of strategies for teaching students with disabilities, may have such limited time and resources that finding a place for the child with disabilities may be seen as too difficult. ■ Most of the gifted population could probably be included

in the category of underachievers, because they are so rarely challenged to use their full ability. The key features found to distinguish gifted achievers from gifted underachievers are the goals they set for themselves and the effort they make to achieve those goals.

GIFTED LEARNERS WITH DISABILITIES Gifted learners appear in every population of students with disabilities, with the obvious exceptions of students who are mentally retarded and severely developmentally disabled. Gifted students are found among those who are visually impaired, communication disordered, hearing impaired, behavior disordered, emotionally disturbed, physically disabled, and learning disabled. The majority of gifted students with disabilities will be found among the students who are learning disabled (LD). Three subgroups of gifted LD students have been recognized: those who are gifted, but are having difficulty at school, so they have been placed in an LD classroom; those identified as LD whose exceptional abilities have not been recognized; and those in the largest group, students in regular classrooms who are balancing their disabilities and their exceptional abilities, so that they mask each other. Students in the second group may have experienced inadequate assessment that led to an underestimation of their intellectual abilities, and they may have no opportunities in their LD class to demonstrate their strengths. Students in the third group do not show any evidence of being qualified for services from either the gifted or the LD program. It can become frustrating for all three groups of students with exceptional abilities in some areas to continuously experience failure in school, especially if they are successfully learning and creating at home (Beckley, 1998; Bisland, 2004). Children who are gifted and have disabilities have needs beyond the modifications necessitated by their disabling condition. Special education programming to address the educational needs resulting from deficits in learning caused by their disability requires schools to modify their learning experience to minimize the impact of the disability (the condition with which the child was born) and any resulting impairment (the degree to which the disability interferes with the child’s growth and function). However, these

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

263

students must also be provided opportunities to explore their special abilities if they are to develop their giftedness. Often, neither special education programs nor gifted programs are prepared to handle the gifted learner with disabilities. The focus of special education teachers is usually on the modified instruction needed by the student because of the presence of a disability. The amount of time spent meeting the student’s special needs in special education programs may effectively preclude any support for or instruction toward the development of higher cognitive abilities. Montgomery (2004) finds that it is atypical for gifted students with learning difficulties to be taught at levels commensurate with their intellectual needs. The expectations of their teachers are set too low, and the curriculum is inadequate. The result is that significant numbers of highly able students are never identified as gifted or learning disabled and curricular programming is neither challenging enough to help them become higher achievers nor focused enough to help them overcome their learning disabilities. Because students with learning disabilities make up the largest of the special education populations and include within their numbers many gifted children, efforts must be made to inform all teachers of the nature of the child who is both learning disabled and gifted. It would be even more valuable educationally if all teachers would develop knowledge of student abilities and disabilities and how these individual differences affect learning.

Characteristics of Gifted Children with Disabilities Many of the characteristics of underachieving gifted children and those of gifted children with learning disabilities are identical, including evidence of lack of social skills, social isolation, unrealistic self-expectations, perfectionist tendencies, distractibility, frustration in response to school demands, low self-esteem, and failure to complete assignments. Both populations are usually identified by the discrepancy between aptitude and achievement. It seems increasingly possible that students who are learning disabled and gifted either may be identified only for the Learning Disability class, with the giftedness masked by the learning disability, or may be using giftedness to compensate for the learning disability so successfully that both conditions go undetected and the student continues functioning near or just below grade level. The children within the group called gifted/learning disabled (GLD) often show high verbal expressive ability and good conceptual understanding concurrently with significant academic underachievement, frustration, and lack of motivation (Crawford & Snart, 1994). Their metacognitive performance resembles that of gifted students more than that of LD students (Hannah & Shore, 1995), and fear of failure, inconsistent social skills, and fluctuating self-image are found to be other examples of the unique characteristics of this population (Vespi & Yewchuk, 1992). GLD students resemble gifted students in positive emotional characteristics and nongifted LD students in negative academic characteristics. They are primarily internally motivated, share gifted children’s trait of independence, and accurately interpret and use nonverbal communication. Like nongifted LD children, they show frustration and anxiety about academic

264

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

tasks, avoid or hurry through such tasks, and have difficulty concentrating. However, they are not as rejected by their peers nor have they learned helplessness. Self-efficacy is a person’s perception of the ability of self to organize and complete an action. It is self-efficacy or belief in self that determines academic performance and career choice. This quality is found to be significantly lower in the GLD child. These children may fail easier items on a test and then pass far more difficult ones. Twice-exceptional is a term used to identify students who are gifted and mildly to moderately disabled (LD, communication disordered, and/or behavior disordered). A project, jointly sponsored by the University of New Mexico, the university’s Department of Special Education, and the Albuquerque Public Schools, was established in the early 1990s to identify, serve, and evaluate the progress of twice-exceptional students (Nielsen, Higgins, Hammond, & Williams, 1993). The development of a detailed screening and identification model led to high rates of referral and identification—over 80% of the children identified as exceptional were found to be gifted and learning disabled or gifted and communication disordered. The students attended general education, special education, and gifted education classes in a blended program design. Teachers were better prepared to meet the diverse needs of these children because of their ongoing training as part of the project. Many classroom teachers, including teachers of gifted students, have stereotypical views of both students who are LD and students who are gifted. Because of this bias, they may not even consider children with learning disabilities to be eligible for placement in a program for gifted learners (Minner, 1990). LD students and emotionally disturbed students have diverse problems that reflect the wide array of characteristics under these designations. Problems of attention, perception, and ability to evaluate adequately are the most commonly found. A subgroup of children with other health impairments that have characteristics in common with gifted students are those who have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). ADHD is a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. These symptoms begin before 7 years of age (Schlozman & Schlozman, 2000). Both gifted children and those with ADHD have high levels of energy; however, the energy of the gifted child is focused, directed, and intense, whereas the energy of the hyperactive child is diffuse, random, and erratic. Although both challenge authority, the challenge from gifted children may arise from the curiosity and questioning that is part of their nature, and the challenge from ADHD children has been observed to be more hostile and aggressive in manner. Similarly, both groups can disrupt the school environment, but again the causes are different. For gifted children, the cause is often boredom with an unchallenging curriculum, whereas for ADHD children, it could result from any or all of the ADHD core symptoms: inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. When these symptoms are combined with understimulation, oppositional behaviors commonly are the result among these children. When these characteristics of giftedness and ADHD combine in one child, there is a heightened sense of alienation, sensitivity, and overreaction (Mendaglio, 1995). A developmental disorder that has been increasingly found among the LD population is Asperger’s Syndrome (AS). Deficits in social communication tend to be typical and are combined with repetitive patterns of behavior or interests. When combined

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

265

with giftedness, both the disorder and the giftedness tend to be missed. Neihart (2000) identifies characteristics that have been found to be common between the two: verbal fluency or precocity; an excellent memory; a fascination with letters or numbers; an absorbing interest in specialized topics, acquiring significant amounts of factual information about them at an early age; limitless talk about topics of their interest; hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli; a wide range of abilities; average performance in subjects of little interest; and uneven development at a young age. There are, however, characteristics that differentiate AS children from ordinary gifted children. Among them are the following: ■

■

■

■

Children who are gifted and have AS often show pedantic, seamless speech, while gifted children often have the normal, but advanced language of older children. Gifted AS children not only are resistant to routine, but also are rigid and have problems coping with change. They can panic or become aggressive. Both may be different from nongifted children; however, gifted AS children are unaware of how others see them and do not have a sense that they have done anything out of the ordinary. Both may exhibit distractibility; however, gifted children are distracted by external events, while gifted AS children have more internal distractions that impair their school performance.

Neihart suggests that a thorough developmental history be obtained and inquiry into the motivation behind unusual behaviors be made. It requires an experienced interdisciplinary team to make the accurate diagnosis that is necessary to obtain appropriate assistance. Students who are blind or visually impaired seem to be capable of the same ability levels as the sighted, but they attain their maximum intellectual levels later. These students often show deficits in meaningful verbal memory.

Identification of Gifted Children with Disabilities Identification of the gifted learner with disabilities follows many of the same procedures of screening and multiple data collection that produces the best results with nondisabled students (Chapter 6). However, some special considerations must be made to alleviate masking of ability. Gifted children with disabilities are often able to use their superior abilities, especially in the areas of predictive ability, vocabulary, conceptual ability, and verbal expression, to compensate for areas of weakness (Crawford & Snart, 1994). Beckley (1998) also mentions the use of oral language, memory skills, problemsolving capabilities, curiosity, and drive as indicators often associated with GLD students and suggests portfolio assessment as an important tool for the identification of these children. A major problem in finding giftedness among children with disabilities is a function of the expectations resulting from being labeled as having a “disability.” Because most special education programs in schools have far more fiscal and human resources at their disposal than do gifted programs, the primary identification will be for the

266

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

special education program. Once children are labeled, teachers of special education classes expect their needs and behaviors to fall within those normally found in the identified group. With these needs as the primary concern, evidence of giftedness is often obscured. Another problem is that so few teachers in the special education setting have been exposed to the characteristic behaviors of gifted children that they may interpret any observed deviations from the norm as being unique to or caused by the disabling condition. Even when giftedness is suspected, it is often difficult for a child receiving special education services to find a place in a gifted program. The teacher in the gifted program, in addition to having little knowledge of disabilities and strategies for teaching students with disabilities, may have such limited time and resources that finding a place for the child with disabilities may be seen as too difficult. The administration may have established restrictions as to financial resources and program qualifications. For these reasons, gifted learners who are also blind, deaf, physically disabled, or learning disabled may find it impossible to be included in learning experiences beyond their disability group. Gifted learners in disability classes often find opportunities for enhancing giftedness at school quite limited. The gifted child who is labeled as learning or educationally disabled has an even more complex problem. Often such a child has gifted ability in one or two areas and learning problems in others. The child may also have a behavioral problem and find working with groups difficult. The assessments given to diagnose the learning problems resulting from hyperactivity, disruptive classroom conduct, or extreme withdrawal are often the way that the gifted abilities are discovered. The excessive energy that creates problems may also be behind the student’s achievement in areas of interest. The giftedness of these children often goes unnoticed because they may use it to mask their learning difficulties or simply because they have been identified as children with learning disabilities. Unfortunately, gifted children who act out because they cannot cope with the structures of a rigid regular classroom may be perceived as learning disabled or emotionally disturbed and placed in special education classrooms. These children may be highly gifted and have extreme issues of adjustment that cannot be met in a classroom that is organized to meet the needs of the child with learning disabilities. Self-concept is important to the success of all students and the potential for the development of a negative self-concept in this situation is great. The lack of school psychologists trained to interpret intelligence and achievement test scores that might indicate giftedness poses another problem and can be viewed as one of the difficulties in identifying this population. The training program of all school psychologists and special educators should, but often does not, include information regarding gifted children. Reis, Neu, and McGuire (1995) have reported obstacles to the identification of Gifted Learning Disabled (GLD) students. These include the stereotypical expectations held about gifted children, developmental delays that may occur with learning disabled (LD) children, and lack of the availability of information that might indicate giftedness about the child. Also, existing programming for students with learning disabilities limits the opportunities for these students to demonstrate superior mental abilities.

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

267

Further, characteristics such as learned helplessness, lack of motivation, disruptive classroom behavior, lack of organizational skills, and hyperactivity, can create difficulties in the identification of these children as gifted learners as they can mask all of the characteristics of giftedness that these students may have. The limited life experiences and environmental interactions of children with mobility impairments may make it difficult to find their abilities. The usual tests often register depressed scores, and performance or nonverbal testing may be just as limiting. For children with physical disabilities, however, unless the condition is also related to mental retardation, the rate and type of cognitive processing can be comparable to the ranges found in the overall population. Speech- and language-impaired children cannot perform adequately on tests that require verbal responses, and for children with hearing or visual impairments, modifications in the identification process are even more necessary. Although there are standardized tests that can be used to assess the cognitive abilities of students with physical disabilities, these tests and the way in which they are used often result in information on areas of needed improvement rather than on areas of high abilities. Informal assessments, a positive classroom atmosphere, classes structured for individualization, advanced work, and an emphasis on achievement are recommended as necessary components to make identification and development of high-ability children with physical disabilities more possible (St. Jean, 1996). Guidelines suggested by Silverman (1989) for identifying gifted children with disabilities include the following: ■

■

■

■ ■

Distribute lists of characteristics of gifted children with disabilities to teachers and parents. Look for discrepancies in performance, including passing hard test items and failing easier ones. Compare the understanding of material orally presented with the comprehension of material read; compare mathematical analysis skills with mathematical computation skills; use timed and untimed assessments. When evaluating for disability, look for unusual abilities. Observe the learning adaptations children make; note special strengths and difficulties.

Education for Gifted Children with Disabilities Strategies and programs developed for children with disabilities have tended to assume cognitive limits and often fail to provide opportunities for self-directed learning, creative self-expression, and exploration of the sciences and the arts—all of which are areas critical to programming for gifted learners. More collaboration between teachers of children with disabilities and teachers of gifted children is needed to make the resources of both programs available to gifted learners with disabilities. Approaches to remediation and enrichment are traditionally in opposition in form and content. Most remediation is provided through noncontextual learning, which is focused on isolated basic skills, and the interests and strengths of students are seldom

268

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

used in remedial settings. But it is questionable if this model of remediation provides the best approach for students with learning disabilities, much less gifted students with learning disabilities. One of the interventions often used with ADHD is medication. Although medication may be successful in controlling behavior, it has been found to inhibit creativity and intellectual curiosity in bright children (Baum, Olenchak, & Owen, 1998). “The most serious concern is that gifted behavior is sacrificed for more manageable behavior in some creative, bright students who are medicated for ADHD” (p. 98). Those working in this area recommend highly structured, individualized school environments with challenging and meaningful curricula for successful intervention (Leroux & Levitt-Perlman, 2000). Perhaps a program using many of the elements of the responsive learning environment and the Integrative Education Model, described in Chapter 9, could be incorporated into the learning disability curriculum so that the learner would have the opportunity to address his or her needs resulting from both the learning disability and giftedness. In planning programs that address the needs of the Gifted Learning Disabled (GLD) learner, another problem may be encountered. Remediation for the Learning Disabled student usually is based on structuring learning into manageable tasks to ensure success. For a gifted learner, accomplishing such simple, routine tasks may be viewed as neither a challenge nor a success, as can be seen with Mike, the GLD learner in the vignette that appears on the next page. Those who work with gifted students need to become aware of what can and is being done to promote services for gifted learners with disabilities so that these students’ educational experiences can work not only toward keeping the disability from becoming limiting, but also toward actualizing the high potential of these students. Vespi and Yewchuk (1992) emphasize the need for attention to fostering competency in social relationships and enhancing peer acceptance, developing the coping skills necessary for maintaining a commitment to tasks, and including social/emotional needs in any program for GLD children. They report that these GLD students have expressed a need for involvement in less protective, more integrated educational environments and for more opportunities to explore the environment using their other, more operable abilities. There are special problems that people who are both disabled and gifted have in developing a positive self-concept. When the low self-esteem that develops around the disabling condition is combined with the often unrealistic expectations of the gifted learner, a level of dissonance between the real self and the ideal self can occur that contributes significantly to the inability of the child with a disability to relate and succeed. Successful postsecondary GLD students reported using study and performance strategies such as note taking, time management, and weekly and monthly organizers; cognitive/learning strategies such as mnemonics and information chunking; and compensation supports such as word processing and books on tape (Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000). They also used individualized strategies such as interviewing professors, comparing notes with friends in class, taking reduced class loads, and requesting extended time for examinations. By using such support systems and carefully developing good work habits, these students were able to succeed in rigorous university

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

■ Mike sat staring off into space, munching on a stick of high protein that was given in his class as a “reinforcer.” He was seated at a desk alone, or as alone as one can be with 15 students, 2 teachers, and 3 teacher aides. The room was arranged so that each student was somewhat isolated, sometimes achieving this with the use of cardboard dividers between the desks. Rock music played in the background. This was a special class, and Mike had been sent here at the beginning of the year—7 months, 4 days, and 2 hours ago. He was selected because he was learning disabled—“passive-aggressive,” the psychologist had said. He supposed he was; he sure wouldn’t do the work in those dumb junior high classes, partly because the teachers were so “stupid” and partly because he’d already done all that stuff for about 3 years running. Once, he remembered, in third grade, there was this neat teacher who had let them all make a movie about a story by Shakespeare and had let some of the kids use her trig book for their math lessons. That was his best year, Mike thought. “What are you doing, Mike?” came a voice close by. “Huh! Oh, nothin’,” Mike responded. “Well, it will be checkup time in 5 minutes, and I don’t see much student behavior going on.” Mike grunted at the teacher, shifted his slouch to a forward lean, and picked up his pencil. The “task” before him, the completion of which would show “student behavior,” was a page out of a seventh-grade workbook on basic science. Oh, they had taken it out of the book and clipped off the identifiers so that Mike, an eighth grader, wouldn’t know it was baby work, but he knew. “Boy, they must think I’m really stupid,” he groused, looking over the low-level questions on the page. But he didn’t bother to put in the answers; instead, he reached over to a plant near his desk and deposited his protein stick wrapper in its pot. “Take that out of there, Mike,” came the voice again.

269

“It’s OK,” Mike answered. “It’s really an ash tray.” Actually, it was. Last month one of the “creativity projects” was to take a bunch of old ashtrays the teacher brought in and papier-mâché them into pots for these new plants. Of course, Mike realized he was stretching it a bit, but he was right. “I said take it out, now,” said the voice. Mike did and then made an elaborate and very grand passage to the wastebasket to deposit the wrapper and back, which took 3 of the remaining minutes before checkup time. On the way back, Mike managed very cleverly to start a fight between two other boys, who each thought the other responsible for the jabs and bumps they received. Mike looked the soul of innocence. One quickly executed swipe of his pencil completely dislocated the mast of a model ship the boy two tables back was assembling; then he slid back into his seat. A little bell rang, checkup time was announced, and the teachers and aides hurried through the room giving check marks on cards presented by the students to redeem later that day for protein sticks, puzzles, and other prizes. One of the aides approached Mike, who now was sitting straight, feet on the floor, the perfect model of the attentive student. “You get one check for following directions,” referring, Mike supposed, to his wastebasket trip, “and one check for behaving like a student.” Mike wasn’t sure how she arrived at that assessment. “But, Mike, I can’t give you a check for work completed. You have another half hour now before lunch to finish your task.” As she moved away, Mike slid back down into his seat, eyes glassy, staring off into space, and quietly began munching on another protein stick. Oh, yes, they all knew Mike tested around 165 IQ, but the gifted class wouldn’t take him until he learned to behave like a student. In the regular classroom, he was too disruptive and never accomplished anything, so here he was, and they were going to have him complete his work successfully no matter how long it took.

270

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

settings. These compensation strategies had to be learned in the university setting because neither learning disability programs nor gifted programs taught these skills. Suggestions for providing service for gifted children with disabilities include the following: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■

Actively look for gifted students among students with disabilities; Modify instruction as needed, but no more than is necessary; Use many modalities to provide different types of learning experiences; Individualize pace and choice of learning activities; Provide in-services for both general education teachers and special education teachers that include characteristics and behaviors found with gifted learners including their educational needs; Provide strong advocacy for gifted education from organizations whose historical role has been primarily associated with children with disabilities such as the Council for Exceptional Children.

The concern for gifted learners with disabilities gives educators an opportunity to appreciate the value of working in an interdependent, cooperative, collaborative style because these children can be served in no other way. The skills of the regular classroom teacher, the special educator, the educator of the gifted, the parents, the counselor/psychologist, the administrator, and the researcher are needed if these children are to actualize their potential abilities.

UNDERACHIEVEMENT AND GIFTED STUDENTS Underachievement in gifted children is one of the most baffling, most frustrating problems parents, teachers, and students can face. Parents and teachers can see the child’s possibilities and are occasionally given a glimpse of brilliance, but then it is gone, replaced by a wall of apathy or apparent unconcern. But all of this may be just a facade because the underachiever may be even more frustrated than anyone. The problem, unfortunately, is growing. In 1993, Seeley estimated that nationwide 15% to 40% of identified gifted students might become involved with significant underachievement. In 2000, of gifted students testing at 130+ IQ, Van Tassel-Baska found 63% underachieving. Among the major population of underachievers, two types have been designated: situational underachievers and chronic underachievers. Situational underachievers are those who underachieve only on occasion, such as when a particularly difficult home problem erupts or a clash occurs with one particular teacher. They generally cause little real concern beyond getting help with the immediate problem. The chronic underachiever, whose pattern recurs again and again, presents a problem particularly resistant to remediation. With this type of underachiever, the proper diagnostic tests for physical problems should be given to ensure that the origins are not organic. When

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

271

gifted students do not perform at least at the average level for their grade, we must be seriously concerned that they are, in fact, underachieving. Most of the gifted population could probably be included in the category of underachievers because they are so rarely challenged to use their full ability. As early as 1980, Whitmore reported that if the scores of all gifted students on individual aptitude tests were compared with their level of performance as many as 70% would probably be underachieving. To further complicate our identification of these children, they may be aggressive and act out their frustration by seeking attention negatively, or they may withdraw and quietly allow their talents to waste away. In this text, the underachieving gifted student is defined as a student who has shown exceptional performance on standardized achievement or intelligence tests or some alternative measure of knowledge and skills, but who, nevertheless, shows performance on school-related tasks that is consistently average or lower for the age or grade level, as evidenced by grades and teacher reports. Underachievement becomes clear when you observe a student over time and find a noticeable pattern—especially when you see the special moments of brilliance. Davis and Rimm (2004) point out that lack of motivation, negative attitudes toward school or teachers, or years of being involved in learning experiences far below the student’s knowledge level may make current test scores inadequate to detect underachievement. Check back to see if the child’s old tests show higher results, indicating early potential.

Characteristics of Underachieving Gifted Students What is known about underachievers? What are they like? The traits or characteristics of underachieving gifted students are varied and have been reported in many studies, although no one student would be expected to have all or even more than a few of these traits. The characteristics fall into the categories of personal, family, social, and schoolrelated behaviors (Figure 8.1). Most commonly mentioned and a significant predictor of academic underachievement is evidence of a low self-concept, especially in academics (McCoach & Siegle, 2003). Negative attitudes toward school and/or teachers, low motivation regarding academic achievement, classroom activities and assignments, and goal valuation are other attributes often found. Self–regulation, including the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies and self-management, is an area often minimally developed in underachievers. Underachieving gifted students are reported to attribute success to innate ability and do not believe that achievement is related to effort. Anger, frustration, hostility, and rebelliousness may be present. Poor study habits, lack of persistence, dependency, and impulsiveness will probably be part of the profile. The key features found to distinguish gifted achievers from gifted underachievers are the goals they set for themselves and the effort they make to achieve those goals. In addition to the larger group of consistent underachievers, there is another group of gifted students with different characteristics who underachieve with some regularity and are also at risk academically. Delisle (2004) calls them “Selective Consumers” or

272

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

FIGURE 8.1

Characteristics of Underachieving Students

1. Have low self-concept: negative evaluations of self; feelings of inferiority demonstrated by distrust, indifference, lack of concern, and/or hostility toward others. 2. Are socially more immature than achievers; lack self-discipline, procrastinate, refuse tasks deemed unpleasant; highly distractible; highly impulsive; unwilling to face realities and consequences. 3. Have feelings of rejection; believe no one likes them; feel that parents are dissatisfied with them. 4. Have feelings of helplessness; may externalize conflict and problems, avoid challenges. 5. Do not see the relationship between their efforts and subsequent achievement outcomes; negate personal responsibility for failures. 6. Are irresponsible, rebellious; feelings of being victimized; have poor personal adjustment. 7. Have few hobbies or strong interests.

9. Are hostile toward adult authority figures; distrust adults in general. 10. Are resistant to influence from teacher or parent. 11. Have lower aspirations for future; lack future plans or career goals; resist goals that have been set for them. 12. May withdraw in classroom situations and be less persistent, less assertive. 13. Lack study skills and academic curiosity; have weak motivation for academic tasks. 14. Dislike school and teachers; choose companions who also have negative attitudes toward school. 15. Often leave schoolwork incomplete; frequently nap during study time; often test phobic. 16. Perform at higher levels on tests that require synthesizing than on detailed, computational, or convergent problem-solving tasks that require precise and analytic information processing.

8. Are unpopular with peers, hold lower status in class, have few friends. Sources: Davis & Rimm, 1994; Frey, 1989; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Karnes & Pearce, 1981; Laffoon, Jenkins-Friedman, & Tollefson, 1989; Redding, 1990; Rimm, 1986; Whitmore, 1980.

“Nonproducers.” These are students who get fairly good grades most of the time, but do just enough to get by. They see themselves as academically competent and expect a good grade, but are reluctant to put forth much effort, especially when “busywork” is assigned. The level of performance or evaluation that is the outcome of their work does not bother them. They look for the easiest problems and, by avoiding challenges, do not build study skills or find the excitement of intellectual pursuits.

Causes of Underachievement among Gifted Students Reasons for underachievement are quite complex and must be individually assessed for each learner. However, some patterns of possible causation have been reported to correlate highly with underachievement and seem to occur with great frequency. Causes of underachievement can be found in the personality of the child; in the behavior of the parents or some other home-related problems; or in the classroom, where inappropriate curriculum and instruction are especially problematic.

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

■ Rich attends a large, diverse high school where the majority of students come from middle-class families. The school is in the suburbs of a large city. His family has fairly traditional values and aspirations of achievement for their children. Rich, the third of the children, has an older brother and sister who were both high academic achievers. His father was a high school dropout, but has worked his way from a dock loader to an office job with his firm. His mother was a college graduate, and her family is from a decidedly higher social stratum than her husband’s. Although Rich has been identified as a gifted learner, he does not belong to the group of school leaders and achievers who determine school activities. Instead, he has chosen a peer group of underachievers like himself among whom he is considered a leader. Rich is known to be very good at sports and is probably one of the best tennis players in his school, although he refuses to try out for the school tennis team. Rich has been placed in advanced classes, although he maintains about a C average. His teachers often comment that he is not living up to his capability. Part of the reason for his low grades is his habit of putting off all assignments until the last minute and then doing only enough to get by. He is a good reader, has an exceptional vocabulary, and reads extensively in books unrelated to his school subjects. When Rich “tunes in” to a class, which is rare, he can pull an A without any problem. But that occurs only when he gets excited about the class or the subject, as when he got into government last year and became so involved with politics, political systems, and strategies that he spent hours before and after school questioning the teacher about everything she knew. He was chosen to attend a model government conference in the state capital last summer where he was seen as a leader,

273

but now, with his new classes, he has “tuned out” again. Rich is outgoing and open with his peers, but he is extremely nervous and uncomfortable around authority figures such as teachers. He lacks confidence in himself and is not very self-accepting. Once he was allowed to contract cooperatively with his teacher for a project in which he felt he would be interested. He set unrealistically high standards for himself, even though the teacher insisted that she would settle for far less. He procrastinated for weeks and then gave up the entire project, saying, “If I can’t do a good job on something, I just won’t do it.” In trying to understand Rich and help him with his underachieving pattern, one of his teachers met with him and his family several times in his home. Although his father expressed the desire for Rich to attend college, he seemed to have a very negative attitude toward education. His father was very insistent on his son’s strict obedience to the rules, seeing each act of compliance as a minor victory for himself and a defeat for his son. Rich’s father seemed to express only two attitudes toward his son: indifference and hostility. He seemed totally incapable of responding to any of Rich’s achievements, no matter how excellent. The teacher’s effort to discuss the accomplishments Rich had made in the government class was met with stony silence. It seemed as if there was actually a competition between the two. Thus, for Rich to attempt any new task meant risking almost certain reaffirmation of his inabilities and his  self-perceived worthlessness. That would be even more traumatic should his efforts actually produce less-than-average grades or results. Thus, failure became the one thing Rich could not allow. To quote Rich, “If I can’t do a good job on something, I just won’t do it.

274

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

THE PERSONALITY OF THE CH ILD In a classic work, Whitmore (1980) did a thorough job of bringing together the findings that aid us in understanding the gifted underachiever. Her research findings indicate that the personality traits of underachievers listed in Figure 8.1 are deeply involved in this problem. However, she believes that such traits are only a part of the reason for underachievement. According to Whitmore, certain internal pressures influence the observed behaviors, such as the gifted person’s supersensitivity, deficiency in social skills, and/or need for perfection. External factors may be equally at fault in creating this problem. Society’s pressure to isolate a person who is different—even if that difference would be beneficial to the group—and the pressure of societal expectations intensify the problems of sensitivity and perfectionism found within many gifted learners. To all of these, we may often add inappropriate educational provisions, including an inappropriate curriculum, a counterproductive instructional style, the philosophy of the teacher, and the punitive social climate created by classroom age-peers. These pressures, both internal and external, intensify the vulnerability of the gifted learner, and the very characteristics typical of their high level of intelligence make it easy for them to feel rejected and valueless. Even their teachers and parents may feel uncomfortable with and irritated by how quickly these children learn and their creative way of thinking. There are some indications that underachievement is a different problem for girls than for boys. Male underachievers begin getting lower grades than achievers in first grade with underachievement becoming significant by third grade and more apparent each following year. Female underachievers begin their decline in sixth grade. The difference becomes most apparent in ninth grade. For both groups, the data demonstrate that the problem of underachievement worsens each year between the third and twelfth grades. Some gifted students, especially adolescent girls, feel that they risk unpopularity if they reveal their high academic ability. In many high school settings, students do not value academic achievement; conformity is the yardstick of success. In all the studies reported, the incidence of underachievement in boys was at least twice that found in girls. Another cause of underachievement unique to gifted learners stems from their varied and numerous interests. They may, without proper guidance, extend their interests in too many areas, engage in too many activities, and be unable to set appropriate priorities. It is possible for gifted students to get involved in so many things that they do nothing well. Underachieving gifted students in the culturally diverse populations present many possible causes; however, generally the factors that distinguish them from achievers in their groups are the lack of a strong belief in self and the lack of resilience to overcome negative experiences (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Many learners who are gifted and have disabilities underachieve in school. However, Reis and McCoach warn that it is critically important to distinguish between chronic underachievement and processing deficits, learning disabilities, or attention deficits because the appropriate interventions for each of these subgroups may be radically different. THE HOME AND/OR THE PARE NTS Many of the causes of underachievement can be found in the home and/or in the interaction between the children and the parents. The families of underachievers differ in many ways from those of achieving students.

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

275

In families of high-achieving students, often ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

parents are interested in their children. fathers are important life influences. mothers are responsible and independent. parents have high educational aspirations for their children. parents are well educated. families are small. the high achiever is the first born or only child.

In families of underachieving students, often ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

the child is dependent on the mother. the father is rejecting and domineering and gives little warmth or affection. the relationship between child and father is negative or nonexistent. parents set unrealistic goals for their children, and the children imagine that they are only as valuable as their accomplishments. achievement goes unrewarded. the children do not identify with their parents. deep social and emotional problems are present in the family. parents are not active in their children’s schools. parents are not supportive of their children. children’s achievements present a threat to the parents and their adult superiority. parents do not share ideas, affection, trust, or approval. parents are restrictive and severe in their punishment.

Baker, Bridger, and Evans (1998) find that typically, the families of underachievers are reported to live in an environment that is disorganized with unclear guidelines about behavior and academic performance; lack cohesion and parental agreement regarding parenting; and present their children with emotional distance. The environment is filled with mixed messages regarding the value of achievement, and there is a lack of or inconsistent modeling of achievement behavior. The parental style most conducive to academic achievement entails setting clear standards while recognizing children’s rights, expecting mature behavior, and fostering a healthy share of discussion and dissent. Researchers have found an association between low grades and authoritarian parenting, which includes attempts to shape, control, and evaluate the behaviors and attitudes of their children in accord with an absolute set of standards. Such parents place a heavy emphasis on unquestioning obedience, respect for authority, and the preservation of order, discouraging any open communication between themselves and their children. This parenting style and the resulting grades correlate across ethnic boundaries. Placing too much emphasis on either punishing or rewarding children for grades makes students less motivated internally toward schoolwork and leads to lower school performance.

276

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

What does seem to work is for parents to instill confidence, encourage some risk taking, and praise the effort and progress of their child, rather than emphasizing the child’s smartness or high performance alone. They need to let the child know that mistakes are a part of learning. For teachers, it is important to know that students must see classwork as relevant to them (Eisenberg, 2005). In some cases, the entire neighborhood devalues education. This has caused some researchers to observe that low-achieving, low socioeconomic-status students seem to fail not because they lack motivation to learn, but because the basic learning processes used in their own communities are not contiguous with those required for academic success. THE SCHOOL A school can be not only a principal cause of underachievement, but also one that is most likely to yield to remediation. By changing the unproductive patterns traditionally found in many classrooms, we may prevent a large amount of the underachievement. Students have identified lack of respect for the individual, a competitive social climate, inflexibility, stress on external evaluation, and an unrewarding curriculum as elements of their previous classroom environments that they believe contributed significantly to the development of their underachievement (Davis & Rimm, 2004; Whitmore, 1980). The heavily competitive classroom contributes to underachievement by emphasizing extrinsic rewards that detract from the intrinsic rewards of learning and creativity so highly correlated to achievement. Continuous overemphasis on errors and failures, negative expectations, unrewarding curricula, and inappropriate goals may also cause or support underachievement. Predominant in this causal cluster is a teacher who is incompetent, insecure, or all controlling. Teachers known to contribute to underachievement are teachers who ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

present a nonstimulating environment. believe they must maintain superiority over the child in the field of knowledge. impose unrealistic goals and standards. use threats, ridicule, warnings, and ultimatums. rarely show warmth or acceptance, but remain cold and impersonal. are too easy; do not present a challenge. have predictable, routine schedules.

Prevention and Remediation of Underachievement Underachievement is a learned behavior and, therefore, can be prevented or unlearned. Prevention is better than any form of remediation. THE PERSONALITY OF THE CH ILD A belief that one’s actions can affect outcomes is a key dimension in academic achievement. Often underachievers do not attribute either success or failure to their own behavior. To achieve more of an internal locus of control, students need to be taught

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

277

to make realistic attributions and to learn from their failures. Students need to learn how to be self-monitoring and use self-instructions. Having such skills would allow them to be more persistent, less helpless, and more conscious of the results of their efforts. THE HOME Often underachievement can be a conscious decision that is seen by the student as the best way of coping with a painful situation. Children who find that their endeavors are always seen as inadequate may decide that doing nothing is less painful and far less disappointing than is constant criticism of their work. Children like Rich who find their work constantly compared with work done by other family members or classmates may decide that they can deter comparisons by producing no work at all. For others whose self-image is not secure, producing nothing prevents the mistakes that they are fearful of making and allows them to entertain the possibility that they could do fantastic things if they wanted to. It is important for parents to develop a sense of partnership with school personnel. Wherever the problem exists, it can best be solved if all members of the educational team are working together. What parents can do: ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Provide an intellectually stimulating, curiosity-producing atmosphere in your home. Establish a close, mutually respectful relationship with your child. Become a role model of behavior you desire your child to have. Show interest in your child’s activities at home and at school. Be careful not to compare siblings; each child is unique. Help your child establish effective time priorities. Teach your child to compete against self and to deal with losing to others. Guide your child toward goals of his or her interest; do not set goals for your child. Make your demands and rules reasonable and mutual. Show your affection, trust, and approval. Get involved with the school.

THE SCHOOL Underachievement is most easily remediated in elementary school and largely resists reversal when left to secondary school intervention. Gifted students generally do not develop behavior problems when they are ■ ■ ■

■

placed with a teacher who enjoys teaching gifted children and learning with them. given frequent opportunities to learn with intellectual peers. actively engaged in learning that is appropriately complex, challenging, and meaningful. provided guidance in how to understand and cope with their giftedness in society.

278

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

Gifted children placed in regular classrooms may regress to the achievement level of their classmates, may develop discipline problems as a result of boredom, and/or may withdraw to their own interests. Students in the highest range of intellectual ability may have the greatest difficulty with adjustment in the regular classroom. Even when the child is willing to make the effort, the reward may be an assignment of additional work that is equally unstimulating, typically unchallenging, and largely unsatisfying. There needs to be a better match between the needs of the student and the curricular and instructional requirements. Kanevsky and Keighley (2003) have explored factors contributing to the boredom of gifted high school students. The students in their study equated “schooling” with boredom. What they experienced as schooling was teacher directed and textbook based and offered content the students had already mastered. The students’ idea of learning had five interdependent features: control, choice, challenge, complexity, and caring. Their “schooling” did not match their expectations for “learning.” The researchers concluded that the students’ role in learning, boredom, and academic productivity were not discrete, but interdependent, and that while their boredom was partly about their personality, it was equally about the “schooling” they were receiving. “We should not be surprised when students choose not to engage in activities from which they learn little or nothing” (p. 27). Teachers, although unintentionally, may contribute to underachievement in other ways: by holding too low expectations or by creating undue pressure for high achievement. Peers may create a climate where gifted students underachieve to allow them to better fit in. This is especially true with middle and high school students, when peer relationships assume a higher priority than learning. Previous success may also create a background for underachievement among gifted students who have had unchallenging curricular experiences throughout elementary and even into middle school. As they enter high school they find that they must now begin to choose a specialization in their subject matter, forcing them to take higher level courses that present more depth and complexity. They may now encounter problems due to their undeveloped study skills, created by years of effortless academic success. Sometimes this confrontation with undeveloped study skills does not occur until college, where it can be especially damaging. Teaching such skills must be approached within the context of high-interest, meaningful, self-directed activities if students are to gain from the remediation experience. Underachieving gifted pupils enrolled in homogeneously grouped classes with only gifted students were found to have made greater gains in academics, creativity, and perceived peer acceptance than underachieving gifted students enrolled in classes heterogeneously grouped with both gifted and nongifted learners (Davis & Rimm, 2004). The researchers suggest that schools may be teaching gifted children to underachieve by abolishing homogeneous ability grouping and emphasizing cooperative learning in forms that minimize challenge and appreciation for personal success. Counseling approaches to remediation. Group counseling is a successful intervention strategy for underachievement. Counseled students reduce inappropriate behavior and

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

279

raise their grade point averages and standardized achievement test scores more than students who did not receive counseling. Family counseling has long been reported as successful at treating underachievement (Colangelo, 1991; Rimm & Lowe, 1988; Satir, 1972). Often changing the behavior of the student only creates more problems unless the family understands and adjusts to provide the support needed. When the family had been involved in creating the problem, it is essential that the pattern be understood and changed if the remediation is to be a lasting solution. As with Rich in the previous vignette, unless his father changes his attitude and the relationship becomes less competitive, the counseling Rich receives will be of limited use. Counselors suggest that teachers can help by ■ ■

■ ■

■

■

■

■

■ ■ ■

showing high-ability students that you value their achievements. assessing each student regularly, beginning in elementary school so that you know your students’ changing profiles. providing opportunities for students to build their self-concept. creating a responsive learning environment, one that is open, accepting, warm, and intellectually challenging. giving the underachievers an opportunity to focus on an area of their ability (e.g., music, art, athletics). being available when help is needed; also, have conferences periodically about personal as well as academic matters. establishing daily/weekly/monthly written contracts for completed work and using student portfolios for reporting. allowing students to evaluate and grade their own work immediately upon completion, before discussing it with you. looking for ways to meet individual needs (e.g., a place to study, tutorial help). involving parents in school activities. offering college and vocational guidance early and helping the students understand the relationship of higher education to current coursework.

If more than 15% of the gifted learners in a school are seriously underachieving, then the program must be carefully reviewed. THE PRISM METAPHOR FOR REVE RSING UNDERACHIEVEMENT The metaphor of a prism was selected to create a focus on the transformation that occurs when a complex set of enrichment experiences is made available to meet the unique needs of underachievers, thereby causing the students to deviate from their pattern of underachievement (Baum, Renzulli, & Hébert, 1995). In this model, students are allowed to become producers of creative products through the collection of raw data, use of advanced-level problem-solving techniques, and application of research strategies or artistic procedures used by firsthand investigators within various fields of study. Underachievement was reversed for 80% of the study population, regardless of the cause of

280

PART II: Educating the Gifted Learner

underachievement. Opportunities to build a positive relationship with the teacher, use self-regulation strategies, investigate personal issues of underachievement, work in an area of interest, and interact with an appropriate peer group supported this change process. The largest gains were experienced by students working with teachers who took time building the relationship with the student, accepted the student, provided the time and resources needed, encouraged investigations with a real-world purpose, saw the reversal of the underachievement as a dynamic process, and consistently believed in the student. There are many common elements in all of the intervention programs available. The approaches that were more successful were student centered, accentuated student strengths, and valued student interests. In these approaches, the process of learning was active rather than passive and students had choice in their learning. Optimizing learning in every classroom by following the suggested structures and practices described in Chapter 9 would create these conditions and reduce the underachievement now found in our schools.

REVIEW OF IMPORTANT IDEAS Gifted Learners with Disabilities ■ The needs of students in special education programs

are usually needs created by their disabilities and meeting these needs is the primary concern. This climate often obscures evidence of giftedness. ■ Few teachers in the special education setting know the

characteristic behaviors of gifted students, so they may interpret deviations from normal behavior as being part of the disabling condition. ■ The teacher in the gifted program is usually unfamiliar

with the needs of students with disabilities and often has such limited time and resources that developing a program for these students can be very difficult. ■ Gifted learners can appear in every population of stu-

dents with disabilities, with the obvious exceptions of students who are mentally retarded and severely developmentally disabled. ■ When we look at a student who will not do the work,

we may actually be seeing a child who cannot do the work because the key characteristics of underachieving gifted students and gifted learning disabled (GLD) students are very similar. Both populations are usually identified by the discrepancy between aptitude and achievement. ■ GLD students either may be identified only for the

learning disability class with the giftedness masked by the learning disability, or may be using giftedness to compensate for the learning disability so successfully

that both go undetected and the student continues functioning at or near grade level in the regular class. ■ Many classroom teachers, including teachers of gifted

students, have stereotypical views of students who are gifted and students with disabilities. As a result, they may not even consider students with learning disabilities to be eligible for placement in a program for gifted learners. ■ Informal assessments, a positive classroom atmo-

sphere, classes structured for individualization, advanced work, and an emphasis on achievement are recommended as necessary components to enhance the identification and development of high-ability students with physical disabilities. ■ Strategies and programs developed for students with

disabilities have tended to assume cognitive limits and often fail to provide opportunities for self-directed learning, creative self-expression, and exploration of challenging academic subjects—all of which are areas critical to programming for gifted learners. ■ When the low self-esteem that develops around the dis-

abling condition is combined with the often unrealistic expectations of the gifted learner, a level of dissonance between the real self and the ideal self can occur that contributes significantly to the inability of the student with a disability to succeed. ■ The skills of the regular classroom teacher, the special

educator, the educator of the gifted, the parents, the

CHAPTER 8: Including Exceptionality and Underachievement

counselor/psychologist, the administrator, and the researcher are needed if children who are gifted and have disabilities are to actualize their potential abilities.

Underachieving Gifted Students ■ The underachieving gifted student is defined as a stu-

281

underachievement largely resists reversal when left to secondary intervention. ■ Causes of underachievement can be found in the per-

sonality of the student, in the home, in the behavior of the parents, or in the classroom, especially when the curriculum and instruction are inappropriate.

dent who has shown exceptional performance on a standardized test of intellectual ability or achievement, but who does not perform at grade level as evidenced by grades or teacher reports.

■ A school can be not only a principal cause of under-

■ To indicate underachievement, the measures should

fore, can be prevented or unlearned. Prevention, however, is better than any form of remediation.

show a considerable amount of discrepancy and be evident over time.

achievement, but also one that is most likely to yield to remediation. ■ Underachievement is a learned behavior and, there-

■ Teachers, although unintentionally, may contribute to

nated: situational underachievers (those who underachieve only on occasion) and chronic underachievers (those whose pattern recurs repeatedly).

underachievement by holding too low expectations; or by creating undue pressure for high achievement and by having unfair grading practices for gifted students.

■ The underachieving student must be given diagnostic

■ Gifted students who have had effortless academic suc-

tests for physical problems to ensure that the underachievement is not of organic origin.

cess because of unchallenging curricular experiences throughout elementary and middle school may have failed to develop effective study skills and may show underachievement patterns when they enter high school.

■ At least two types of underachievers have been desig-

■ Gifted students generally do not develop behavior

problems when they are (1) placed with a teacher who enjoys teaching gifted children and learning with them; (2) afforded frequent opportunities to learn with intellectual peers; (3) actively engaged in learning that is appropriately complex, challenging, and meaningful; and (4) provided guidance in how to understand and cope with their giftedness in society. ■ The most commonly mentioned traits of underachiev-

ing gifted students are evidence of a low self-concept, lack of motivation and interest in classroom activities and assignments, and social immaturity. Poor study habits, lack of persistence, dependency, and impulsiveness often are part of the profile. ■ Although underachievement is difficult to reverse,

it is most easily remediated in elementary school;

■ Group and family counseling have been successful in

treating underachievement. ■ Underachieving gifted pupils enrolled in homoge-

neously grouped gifted classes made greater gains in academics, creativity, and perceived peer acceptance than underachieving gifted students enrolled in heterogeneously grouped classes. ■ The approaches that are most successful in remediating

underachievement in gifted learners are those that are student centered, accentuate student strengths, and value student interests. In these approaches, students have choice in their learning, and the process of learning is active rather than passive.

This page intentionally left blank

part three

Delivering Effective Programs and Services for Gifted Learners

This page intentionally left blank

9

Exploring Programs, Models, Structures, and Organizations for Elementary and Secondary Gifted Learners

© Shutterstock

IDEAS WE HAVE HAD

IDEAS RESEARCH SUPPORTS

■ Age is a good organizer for learning. All 6-year-

■ Experience with ideas and learning intellectually changes the

olds will have a lot in common and should be placed together for their early learning experience.

ability and knowledge base of the learner regardless of age. New and challenging experiences are needed to allow continuous learning and growing. Staying at the same conceptual level and repeating information already known will not only result in boredom, but will also cause loss of interest and learning ability.

285

286

PART III: Delivering Effective Programs and Services for Gifted Learners

■ By placing children who have different levels of

ability and learning needs together, those who learn more slowly or have different needs can learn from each other. ■ By continuing to build gifted programs on

recognizing and further developing their cognitive skills and abilities we can help gifted learners develop their highest intellectual potential.

■ While children can learn from each other, they should be able to

learn new ideas and challenge each other with high levels of inquiry. It is unfair to ask gifted children to be the teachers in the classroom or spend their learning time repeating what they already know. ■ In addition to cognitive ability, the integration of all of the brain

functions in the teaching/learning process, will allow the gifted learners to reach their highest potential intellectually as well as make it possible for all learners to strengthen their ability to develop to higher levels of thinking and understanding.

PROGRAMS, MODELS, AND PRACTICES FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY GIFTED LEARNERS Organizing programs that will deliver educational services to gifted and talented learners is one of the most complex, most researched, and least clarified areas of gifted education. The primary purpose of gifted programs is to provide opportunities for gifted children and youth to meet their educational needs not being met in regular classrooms as they are now organized. For talent development, the purpose is to provide opportunities for enrichment that can nurture budding talent. With appropriate opportunities, gifted and talented students will be able to continuously grow toward their full potential. The specific plan for each gifted student will depend on the assessment data and the range of services that are available. Educational planning for gifted and talented learners must begin with the resources, both the personnel and the material that the district is willing to provide. The needs of the learners should dictate the learning opportunities. For the gifted and talented students the learning opportunities will be different in the same way that the needs of the gifted and talented learners are different. The level of educational achievement found in any traditional, age-grouped class can span from 4 to 8 years. The range broadens as the students progress from kindergarten through the grades. Because the span of achievement can be so wide and varied, most teachers plan the instructional program for the average, at-grade-level learners. Modifications are often made for children below the average group, but most instruction falls within the normal range. For learners who are in the bottom 2% of the intelligence scale or who have disabilities, the state and federal government mandate special education programs to meet their needs. They are well financed and available in most schools. These provisions are expected and accepted by parents and educators alike. For the students with learning problems, special tutors and special materials are usually available as well as part-time resource rooms or special classrooms where these students participate in appropriate educational programs until they are able to keep pace with the more average learners. The time spent in the special educational programs depends on the level of need of each student.

CHAPTER 9: Exploring Programs, Models, Structures, and Organizations

287

At the other end of the learning spectrum, the school’s organization may be quite different. The learners in the upper 2% of the intelligence scale also need an appropriate level of instruction to continue their intellectual and academic growth. Yet, advanced instruction or special classes are not always provided, and resources and personnel are made available on an inconsistent basis, if at all. Of all the students that try to adjust to the average classroom program, the gifted and talented students lose the most as they constantly must repeat previous learning to work at the level of instruction provided as shown in Figure 9.1. This situation leads to a loss of ability as regression toward a more average ability level is the observed outcome. This loss can be prevented by an educational structure that provides opportunities for learning that are appropriate for each student.

Programs Organized by Level of Involvement The same programming model for atypical learners at the upper end of the intelligence scale is needed as much as for those at the lower end. The three types of gifted learners— the moderately gifted, the highly gifted, and the profoundly gifted—parallel the three levels of impairment—mild, moderate, and severe—found in learners with disabilities. Educational modifications for gifted learners should focus on the atypical needs of the gifted learners not just on their IQ scores. For talented learners, attention must be paid to their promising abilities with the expectation that they may need learning experiences beyond those usually provided. Moderately gifted students could be clustered in groups of at least five in a regular classroom if the teacher is skilled in assessing, differentiating curriculum, working with flexible grouping, and individualizing instruction. A resource room to supplement the experiences provided in the regular classroom would add strength to this type of program. Mentorships and, at the secondary level, advanced core-subject placement could provide additional program options. Highly and profoundly gifted students are found far less often, but because of their more demanding needs, they require greater opportunities for accelerated pacing, more advanced materials, and higher levels of complexity and depth in their work. These

FIGURE 9.1

Range of Traditional Classroom Instruction

Range of Instruction Presented Special Class Placement

Students with Learning Problems

288

PART III: Delivering Effective Programs and Services for Gifted Learners

needed modifications are most effectively offered by special classes such as resource or advanced placement classes, or by special schools such as magnet schools or governor’s schools. In middle school and high school, academic subjects could be offered in special classes or in an academically advanced core with heterogeneously grouped elective classes added. A few gifted learners are so exceptional that many educators have suggested that schools as they are now organized have little to offer them. Special schools, radical acceleration, and private tutoring can provide appropriate programming options for such students. For some families, homeschooling is a feasible and meaningful alternative. In Figure 9.2, the concept of the levels of involvement of giftedness is shown as a tower of blocks, with the types of program structures that would be most effective for each level. The programs build on each other, and as the students climb, the demands of higher intelligence and more advanced knowledge and skills create the necessity for more specialized programs. It is important to note that all programs for gifted learners, regardless of how they are structured, must provide differentiation, flexible grouping, continuous progress, intellectual peer interaction, continuity, and teachers with specialized education regarding this population if optimal learning is to occur. It is unreasonable to expect that any program can provide all of the support needed by gifted learners unless all of the conditions suggested in Figure 9.2 are included. Although no one structure by itself can appropriately provide for all atypical learners, there is clearly a parallel need between gifted learners and students with other exceptionalities. Modifications to educational programs and structures to meet the needs of gifted learners will allow all atypical students to optimize their potential.

Programs Found in a Full-Inclusion Classroom As long as the administrative philosophy contends that every teacher can and should be responsible for the learning of every student and should have all the knowledge and skills necessary to provide for each child’s appropriate educational experiences, and as long as equity is interpreted to mean that students of all levels of ability and need must learn together the same material, in the same way, at the same time, very bright students are at risk. While students at the lower end of the learning curve may have specialists available to support the teacher in meeting their needs when they are placed in the regular classroom, this is seldom true for gifted learners. Acknowledging the need for program modification is especially necessary if gifted and talented learners are to have any opportunity for appropriate educational experiences in a classroom that is inclusive of students of all ability levels on a full-time basis. Teachers in full-inclusion classrooms may seek a solution by combining several program options that allow gifted students to have choices of high-end learning in a variety of settings. Among these may be ■

team teaching with at least one member of the team knowledgeable regarding gifted needs and planning for appropriate modifications of the regular program;

CHAPTER 9: Exploring Programs, Models, Structures, and Organizations

FIGURE 9.2

289

Structuring Gifted Programs

Appropriate Challenges Radical Acceleration

Exceptionally Gifted Learners Level 3 (