Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Frank C. Worrell
University of California, Berkeley
Web site: atdp.berkeley.edu/Frank.html
Abstract
This study compared academically talented students (n = 23) who were not at risk for school failure and
resilient at-risk students (n = 27) on risk factors and protective/promotive factors. Participants’ risk status was
determined by student assignment. The academically talented students were attending a summer program at
a major research university and the at-risk students were graduates of a continuation high school for students
who had had numerous infractions at regular high schools. As expected, the two groups differed on risk
factors and on factors related to academic status. However, the groups did not differ on psychosocial variables
related to positive functioning, suggesting that some of the factors that act as protective factors in at-risk
youth may serve as promotive factors in gifted and talented youth.
Students who are at-risk for school failure and students who at-risk students differed from the academically talented
are identified as gifted and talented often experience schools group on eight of nine risk factors. The at-risk group had
in very different ways, and these two groups seldom significantly lower GPAs, greater involvement in problem
operate in the same sphere in school settings. Similarly, behaviors, lower rates of participation in extracurricular
these two groups are rarely compared in the research activities, and more frequent confrontations with parents.
literature. However, I have argued that resilient at-risk However, the groups did not differ on several factors, such
youth may share certain psychosocial characteristics with as rates of receiving help from teachers and relatives,
academically talented youth (Worrell, Latto, & Perlinki, numbers of close friends, and global self-esteem. The only
1999). Using the language of the risk-resiliency paradigm, variables that the at-risk and talented groups differed on
these psychosocial characteristics act as protective factors were academically focused ones, including scholastic
for youth who are at risk, but serve as promotive factors for competence and self-ratings of competence as students, with
youth who are not at risk. In other words, the same the academically talented students obtaining higher scores.
characteristics that lead to outstanding performance in These findings are in keeping with Hoge and Renzulli’s
talented youth who are not at risk promote resilience in (1993) finding that the only consistent difference on self-
youth who are at risk. In this study, I compared concept variables between gifted and non-gifted students is
academically talented students to resilient at-risk students on academic self-concept.
on a variety of risk and protective/promotive factors.
Worrell et al. (1999) compared students in a continuation
In brief, the risk-resiliency paradigm originated in the high school (n = 33), an after-school mentoring program (n =
clinical literature on coping with stress and negative life 20), and a summer program for the academically talented (n
events (see Garmezy, 1987; Rutter, 1987; Werner, 1989, = 50). Both the continuation school and the mentoring
1990). Researchers in this field distinguish among risk program students were at-risk for dropping out. These
factors and protective factors. Risk factors are “biological or researchers reported that that the three groups did not differ
psychosocial hazards that increase the likelihood of a on global self-esteem. However, the students in the
negative developmental outcome” (Werner, 1990, p. 97), mentoring and talent development programs obtained
whereas protective factors are individual and significantly higher scores on the Measure of Perceived Life
environmental characteristics that “ameliorate or buffer a Chances (Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1990) than the students
person’s response to constitutional risk factors or stressful at the continuation school. Worrell et al. suggested that the
life events” (Werner, 1990, p. 98). Vulnerability increases or similarity between the mentoring program students and the
decreases with the number of risk and protective factors that talented students had to do with the former’s resilience—
affect an individual, and an individual who is at-risk but they chose to be in the mentoring program, which was not
does not succumb is described as resilient. mandatory, perhaps in part because they had high hopes for
the future, as did the talented students.
Only a few studies have compared academically talented
students and at-risk students on risk and Both the Worrell (1997a) and the Worrell et al. (1999) studies
protective/promotive factors. Worrell (1997a) compared 24 were conducted in urban areas. Worrell, Gibbons, Starks,
academically talented students attending a talent and Nicosia (2003) reported similar findings in a sample of
development program and 17 resilient at-risk students
attending an alternative high school. He reported that the
(continued on next page)
References
Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1997). The relationship between students’ sense of their school as a community and their involvement in
problem behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1997-2001.
Braskamp, L.A., & Maehr, M.L. (1988). Instructional Climate Inventory: Form S. Champaign, IL: MetriTech, Inc.
Garmezy, N. (1987). Stress, competence and development: Continuities in the study of schizophrenic adults, children vulnerable
to psychopathology, and the search for stress-resistant children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 159-174.
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profile for adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Harter, S., Whitesell, N.R., & Junkin, L.J. (1998). Similarities and differences in domain-specific and global self-evaluation of
learning-disabled, behaviorally disordered, and normally achieving adolescents. American Educational Research Journal, 35,
653-680.
Hoge, R.D., & Renzulli, J.S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63, 449-
465.
Jessor, R., Donovan, J.E., & Costa, F. (1990). Personality, perceived life chances, and adolescent health behavior. In K. Hurrelmann
& F. Lösel (Eds.), Health hazards in adolescence (pp. 25-42). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Kagan, D.M. (1990). How schools alienate students at risk: A model for examining proximal classroom variables. Educational
Psychologist, 25, 105-125.
Markus, H.R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
Moon, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Social/emotional issues, underachievement, and counseling of gifted and talented students. Essential readings in
gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. R. (1990a). Possible selves and delinquency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 112-125.
Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. R. (1990b). Possible selves in balance: Implications for delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 141-
157.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg
& J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Serving gifted and talented students: A resource for school personnel (pp. 285-300). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Roberts, J. K., & Henson, R. K. (2002). Correction for bias in estimating effect sizes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62,
241-253.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.
Seligman, M. E. (1995). The optimistic child. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Shaunessy, E., Suldo, S. M., Hardesty, R. B., & Shaffer, E. J. (2006). School functioning and psychological well-being of
International Baccalaureate and general education students: A preliminary examination. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
17, 76-89.
Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004). Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a temporal
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 121-139.
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation of
the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321-335.
Thompson, B. (2002). “Statistical,” “practical,” and “clinical”: How many kinds of significance do counselors need to consider?
Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 64-71.
Werner, E. E. (1989). High-risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study from birth to 32 years. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 59(1), 72-81.
Werner, E. E. (1990). Protective factors and individual resilience. In S. J. Meisels & J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood
intervention (pp. 97-116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Worrell, F. C. (1997a). Academically talented students and resilient at-risk students: Differences on self-reported risk and
protective factors. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 4(1), 10-18.
Worrell, F. C. (1997b). An exploratory factor analysis of Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents in academically talented
students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 1016-1024.
Worrell, F. C. (2000a). The reliability and utility of self-concept instruments with at-risk populations. The Journal of At-Risk Issues,
7(1), 31-41.
Worrell, F. C. (2000b). The reliability and validity of the Instructional Climate Inventory – Student Form. Psychology in the Schools,
37, 291-298.
Worrell, F. C., Gibbons, T. A., Starks, M. T., & Nicosia, M. W. (2003). Self-reported differences on risk and protective factors in
rural honor students, at-risk dropouts, and at-risk graduates. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 9(1), 5-13.
Worrell, F. C., & Hale, R. L. (2001). The relationship of hope in the future and perceived school climate to school completion.
School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 370-388.
Worrell, F. C., Latto, I., K., & Perlinski, M. A. (1999). The relationship of risk status to self-esteem and perceived life chances. The
Journal of At-Risk Issues, 5(2), 33-38.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness
to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.
Meihua Qian, Graduate Assistant, Center for Evaluation & Education Policy,
Indiana Univerisity
Creativity has been a well researched topic in the western England) students’ creativity. According to Hu, Lin, and Shen
world, but that has not been the case in China. There have (2003), by and large, the creativity level of British adolescents
been two major stages in the history of creativity research in was significantly higher than that of Chinese adolescents.
China. The first stage (1970’s to mid-1990’s) primarily focused However, no follow-up research has been done to uncover the
on studying the relationship between intelligence and reason for this phenomenon.
creativity. One of the conclusions is that there is a positive
In February 2006, the Outline of the Nation’s Mid- and Long term
correlation between intelligence and creativity. High-level
Plan of Science and Technology Development (2006-2020) issued
intelligence is necessary for creativity, and vice versa (Dong,
by the State Council of China, re-emphasized that creativity is
1993). In contrast to the first stage, the second stage (mid-
the long-lasting impetus of a nation’s development, and
1990s to present) concentrates more on investigating the
required schools “to bring education into full play in the
nature of creativity, such as cognitive and neurocognitive
fostering of creative minds.” However, there is still no
mechanisms of creativity (Niu, 2006). Many studies indicate
empirically supported research that proscribes how creativity
that creative personality and environmental factors (e.g.,
can best be nurtured in schools. Currently, the Creative
parents’ educational level, educational quality) also have an
Education and Creative Person project is being funded by the
important impact on creativity beyond intelligence (Hu, W.P.,
Ministry of Education of China. This project aims to answer
Lin, C.D., & Shen, J.L., 2003; Nie & Zheng, 2005). But
the above question and contribute to the cultivation of
researchers have yet to parse how creative personality,
Chinese students’ creativity. In sum, much work has yet to be
intelligence, and environmental factors interact and influence
done regarding creativity research in China, but it is drawing
creativity. A new trend in creativity research in China is
more and more attention as it is becoming a rising star in both
cross-cultural comparison, hoping to find whether (and why)
academic and applied fields in China.
there are significant differences between Chinese students
and other western countries’ (e.g., the U.S., Germany,
References
Dong, Q. ( 1993). The developmental psychology of children’s creativity. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Educational Press.
Hu, W.P., Lin, C.D., & Shen, J.L. (2003). The development of British adolescents’ creativity. Science of Psychology, 26(5), 775-777.
Nie, Y.G., & Zheng, X. (2005). A study on the developmental characteristics of adolescent's creative personality. Science of Psychology, 28(2),
356-361.
Niu, W.H. (2006). Development of creativity research in Chinese societies. In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The international
handbook of creativity (pp. 374-394). New York: Cambridge University Press.
State Council of PRC. (2006). Outline of the Nation’s mid- and long term Plan of Science and Technology Development (2006-2020) (part
10).
Upcoming Conference
For further information and to register please visit the Web site:
www.worldgifted2007.com
Also see article by Alison Rowan on page 14 of this issue.
In 2006, the Florida Department of Education drafted a increase the number of mainstream learners considered
proposed revision to the state's gifted rule (6A-6.03019) gifted, while it would simultaneously deny gifted placement
which would eliminate the option for districts to develop to the relatively few Florida students from
alternate plans and criteria for identifying gifted learners underrepresented backgrounds (see Shaunessy, Matthews,
from low-income and limited English proficiency & Smith, 2006) who have qualified under current
backgrounds. The admittedly laudable goal for this revision procedures. By this two-pronged assault on the diversity of
is to provide a uniform identification process for its gifted the student body eligible for gifted programming, the
learners, but I find there are several aspects of the proposed proposed rule would subject educational institutions in
new rule that may have unintended adverse consequences. Florida to the sorts of costly and time-consuming legal
As I write this, the full text of the current rule is available challenges that produced the current two-track
online at http://www.firn.edu/doe/rules/6a-63.htm#6A- identification plan. Furthermore, no additional state funding
6.03019, and the proposed revision is available as a PDF file would be provided to districts despite the huge increase in
published by the Florida Administrative Weekly at the number of psychological evaluations that the new
http://faw.dos.state.fl.us/newfaw/FAWVOLUMEFOLDE criteria would mandate. I would prefer that the Department
RS2006/3242/SECTI.pdf. Because the state of Florida has of Education take advantage of the golden opportunity a
one of the largest and most diverse school populations in rule revision offers to become a national leader in gifted
the United States, as well as relatively strong gifted identification, rather than return to being a proving ground
education mandates and funding, it is important to consider for civil rights lawsuits.
Florida's experiences as an indicator of where other states
If a new rule is indeed necessary, it should be one that
may be heading in the future.
clearly takes into account research findings on
The new gifted rule that has been proposed would allow identification, as well as the experiences of other similar
students who obtain scores of 4 or 5 (of the five possible states such as Georgia that have adopted a multiple-criteria
outcome categories) on the statewide Florida identification approach (e.g., Krisel & Cowan, 1997). The
Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT) to be identified Georgia approach retains IQ (mental ability) as part of the
as gifted if they obtain IQ scores of 120-129. An IQ score of gifted identification process, but also recognizes creativity—
130 or higher would be sufficient on its own for gifted which would be removed from consideration in Florida
placement. No student with an IQ score below 120 would be under the new proposed rule—as well as criteria based in
able to qualify. In contrast, the current rule does not motivation and academic achievement. Portfolio evaluations
mandate a minimum IQ score for gifted students from low- are also specifically provided for under the Georgia rule
income or limited English proficient backgrounds, and most (McBee, 2006), offering an alternative entry path for those
districts currently allow these learners to qualify if they gifted learners who may be unable to meet strict test-based
obtain IQ scores of 115 or higher. criteria due to their emerging language proficiency in
English, specific learning disabilities, or other issues that
From the standpoint of equity, the proposed new criteria are
adversely influence test performance.
less than ideal. As noted in Part II, paragraph 4 of the
National Excellence report (Ross, 1993): Other aspects of the proposed rule also are troublesome. As
written the rule would require high marks in both IQ and
Several categories of talented children are
achievement, measures that tend to be correlated. Despite
particularly neglected in programs for top students.
their strong relationship, requiring both criteria is likely to
These include culturally different children (including
yield false negatives, i.e., a failure to identify some learners
minority and economically disadvantaged students),
who are in fact gifted. Allowing lower IQ scores if
females (who are underserved in mathematics and
achievement scores are high is likely to identify
science programs), students with disabilities, high
substantially more high-achieving learners as gifted, adding
potential students who underachieve in school, and
many students who already are well served by other
students with artistic talent. Some schools are
program options such as AP and IB coursework. A more
discouraged from serving these students by state
equitable approach would set a high standard, but would
laws or regulations which require the schools to use
certain IQ cutoff scores or specific levels of
performance on standardized tests [italics added]
District data shared at one of the public hearings held on the
(continued on next page)
proposed new rule demonstrate that it would dramatically
References
Krisel, S., & Cowan, R. (1997). Georgia’s journey toward multiple-criteria identification of gifted students. Roeper Review, Gifted
Education Supplement (December 1997), A1-A3.
Lee, S.-Y., Matthews, M. S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (in press). A national picture of talent search and talent search educational
programs. Gifted Child Quarterly.
McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103-111.
Ross, P. O. (1993) National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Available online at
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/DevTalent/toc.html
Shaunessy, E., Matthews, M. S., & Smith, D. (2006). District policies in the identification of underrepresented populations in gifted
education. Presented at the 53rd annual convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Charlotte, NC,
November 1–5, 2006.
Gifted education as a field is rich in resources to assist section is a particularly strong feature of the book, as case
teachers of the gifted and other school personnel in how to examples of clients who are gifted are presented, often with
identify, characterize, and plan instruction for gifted and dialogues from client sessions, interspersed with comments
talented students. There is also a growing literature on the by the practitioners. Most of the contributors have had
social and emotional development of gifted students to experience in counseling gifted individuals. Unlike most
assist parents and teachers in addressing the affective needs counseling texts, however, the models they present go
of the gifted. Beyond the field of gifted education, however, beyond familiar theories to present the unique models that
knowledge about working with gifted persons in counseling have evolved in those contributors’ practices.
situations is less available. Among CACREP-accredited
The challenge in edited books is often what to include vs.
programs, e.g., only 62% included information on
what to leave out. One particular perspective that is
developmental concerns and counseling issues related to
missing is that of diversity. While Kerr and Thomas et al.
students of high ability (Peterson, 2005). Similarly, few
do discuss some issues of cultural difference, there are no
clinical or counseling psychology programs prepare their
case studies of such students. Likewise, there is some
graduates to work with the gifted. Although the American
discussion in Peterson’s chapter on group work with gifted
Psychological Association’s Center for Gifted Education
students, but a chapter written from the perspective of
Policy has begun sponsoring continuing education
group counseling would be extremely helpful to school
workshops and professional literature targeted at informing
counselors or others who work in group settings. Another
practicing psychologists about people with gifts, few books
addition that might be helpful would be a case that deals
are available that integrate counseling and giftedness in a
more explicitly with career counseling issues.
single publication. Into this void comes Models of Counseling
Gifted Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. The book is suitable for courses dealing specifically with
counseling the gifted, although a supplementary book of
Mendaglio & Peterson’s book is an excellent addition to the
readings in the social and emotional development of the
professional literature on counseling the gifted. The book is
gifted might be needed in some cases. There is really no
divided into three sections: 1) two initial chapters
book on the market at this time comparable to Mendaglio &
introducing the book and providing an overview of research
Peterson’s, but perhaps the book’s release will result in
related to counseling the gifted, 2) a series of chapters
additional titles about this topic.
presenting various models for counseling the gifted, and 3)
a final integrative chapter comparing and contrasting the In 1981, John Feldhusen, as President of the National
models in the book. All of the chapters in the models’ Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), appointed NAGC
section use a similar structure, including conceptions of Board Members George Betts and Jim Webb to found
giftedness and personality, an explanation of the model NAGC’s Division of Counseling and Guidance because of a
presented, and an application section in which a case growing recognition of the affective needs of gifted children.
example is included. There is great variety among the Some 25+ years later the field has its first real book to assist
models discussed with developmental, systems, family those in the helping professions conceptualize counseling
therapy, and other models represented. The application issues with the gifted. It’s about time!
References
Peterson, J. S. (2005). Survey of CACREP-accredited school-counseling programs regarding attention to giftedness. Unpublished
raw data.
The Genesis of Artistic Creativity: Asperger’s Syndrome and the Arts (Book ref no: 8305
By Michael Fitzgerald, (Jessica Kingsley Publichers, London, 2005)
Review by: Dr. Ruth Hewston, Research Fellow at the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, The
University of Warwick.
This text poses the question ‘What features of Asperger’s artistically creative environment in order for these talents to
Syndrome might foster artistic success?’ Fitzgerald has be expressed, this book does present a comprehensive
already made significant contributions to the debate on autism argument concerning the association between AS and
and creativity and this new book from him is to be welcomed. creativity.
It offers compelling insights into the association between
Fitzgerald writes clearly for the layperson. His writing takes a
creative genius and autism spectrum disorders – ranging from
psycho-historical approach by documenting the life history
Arthur Conan Doyle’s interest in cricket statistics and Ludwig
and family background of persons with artistic genius and AS.
van Beethoven’s inappropriate proposals of marriage to Andy
The text could be criticised for linking, and indeed the
Warhol’s obsessions with work, publicity, and his health.
diagnosis of such individuals after their death. However,
The book’s subdivision into parts discusses the creative talents Fitzgerald presents a comprehensive wealth of biographical
of genius ranging across music, painting, literature, poetry and autobiographical information about their lives. His work
and philosophy. The text covers the recognised criteria for broadly references and describes indicators of AS including
diagnosis of high-functioning autism and Asperger’s social behaviour, language, humour, and obsessive interests
Syndrome (AS). However, it is written in an uncomplicated and routines. With these criteria in mind, in reading accounts
and well explained manner, assuming the reader has only a of their lives Fitzgerald proposes that these individuals
moderate level of understanding of AS. behaved like persons with autism. Despite Fitzgerald’s
conclusions being rather limited, the text will provide the
Fitzgerald brings together a number of individuals in whom
reader with a greater understanding of AS and creative
genius and AS coincided, including George Orwell, Immanuel
genius. This is an affordable and highly recommended read.
Kant, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Vincent van Gogh.
Although the author acknowledges the partial need for an
Review by: Dr. Ruth Hewston, Research Fellow at the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, The
University of Warwick.
Feinstein presents a comprehensive discussion concerning the basic concept of creativity and the patterns of development for
individuals engaged in creative endeavour. This text is clearly the fruit of many years of questioning in the field and demonstrates
a well grounded empirical basis to the author’s line of enquiry.
The core of creative development consists of three elements, and this text adopts this same structure: the formation of creative
interests; the process, exploration and development of the interest creatively; and the defining and execution of projects rooted in
this interest and growing out of its development. The book is filled with case study material of individuals who have achieved
across a wide range of creative fields. Individuals famous in the arts and social sciences, technology and business include Virginia
Woolf, Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, and Piet Mondrian. This rich contextualised information is integrated with the creative
development of contemporary individuals interviewed by the author.
The author himself acknowledges that some may see his text as too sweeping and an attempt to seek a false generality regarding
the development of creativity. However, I consider the text to be an important step in attempting to understand individual
differences in the creative process. Feinstein adopts a theoretical framework which integrates both rich case study detail regarding
the individual and the wider cultural and environmental place of these individuals in society. The text is highly affordable and a
recommended read for any professional interested in the field.
Review by Dona Matthews, Hunter College, The City University of New York
My friends, family, colleagues, and students know all about Although giftedness per se is discussed only briefly, the
my enthusiasm for Carol Dweck’s new book on mindsets, book is full of important concepts for the field. Implications
where she synthesizes her research findings on motivation for gifted education begin with conceptual foundations: our
and achievement spanning the past 35 years and involving conception of what giftedness is and how it develops shifts
multiple triangulating studies and collaborations. I can’t dramatically when we move from a fixed mindset, where
stop talking about it or writing about it because I think it has some students are categorized as inherently smart and some
huge and important consequences for much of what we do are not—to a growth mindset--where intelligence is
as educators, psychologists, and parents, and because of its conceptualized as dynamic, as developing over time with
validation of the importance of moving intentionally toward appropriately scaffolded opportunities to learn. Looked at
the mastery model perspective on giftedness that I’ve been from this perspective, teachers who encourage their
writing about recently (Matthews & Foster, 2005, 2006). For students’ continued engagement in the learning process are
those of us involved in gifted education, I think that Mindset fostering gifted development, quite independently of where
may come to represent the tipping point in a paradigm shift their students may start in ability or intelligence test scores:
in the field. At the very least, it stands to change the way we “The great teachers believe in the growth of the intellect and
do business. talent, and they are fascinated with the process of learning”
(p. 188).
In Mindset, Dweck distinguishes between a fixed mindset on
the one hand (what she has previous called the entity theory I will discuss the details of the fixed/growth mindset
of intelligence) and a growth mindset on the other hand (the distinction using as a framework the major implications I
incremental theory, to those who have been following work see for gifted education:
in this area for some time). From a fixed mindset, ability is
1. The Nature of Intelligence. From a fixed mindset, some
seen as innate and permanent: some people are intelligent
people are inherently smart, and some are not, and
and some are less so. From a growth mindset, ability
there are ways to measure this (e.g., IQ tests). From the
develops incrementally over time with appropriate
growth mindset, intelligence develops over time with
opportunities to learn: intelligence develops. Mindsets are
appropriately scaffolded opportunities to learn (think
domain-specific—you might have a fixed mindset about
Bloom’s Taxonomy, Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal
your mathematical ability, for example, and see yourself as
Development, and recent findings on neural
terrible (or great) at math; but have a growth mindset about
development and plasticity). From the growth
sports, and realize that you can’t just pick up a tennis racket
mindset, there are many fewer limits on who might or
and expect to be good at tennis.
might not be gifted, and many opportunities along the
As reviewed in this book, the outcome differences for these developmental trajectory to “become” gifted. This is
two mindsets are strikingly large and persistent across age, consistent with emerging findings about gifted
sex, culture, ability level, and socioeconomic status. development (Gottfried, Gottfried, & Guerin, in press).
According to study after study in a number of lines of It is also an important perspective for those who are
research conducted by Dweck and her associates, and concerned about minority under-representation and
published in the major journals in education and giftedness (Graham, in press; Worrell, in press).
psychology, there is a big advantage for those holding the
2. Praise. Rather than praising children for their
growth mindset: they are happier, healthier, more fulfilled,
personality or innate and permanent attributes, we
and more successful in school, work, sports, business, love,
should instead praise students for their growth-
friendships, and life. Happily for those whose mindsets are
oriented processes, what they accomplish through
fixed in one or more domains, mindsets can be changed.
practice, study, persistence, and good strategies. It is
Dweck addresses the topic of extreme giftedness, referring even better to ask them about their work in ways that
to Ellen Winner’s work with child prodigies. She concludes appreciate their effort and choices. “Praising children’s
that people tend to focus too much on what they see as the intelligence harms their motivation and it harms their
innate component of exceptionality, and ignore the performance” (p. 170).
temperamental and motivation dimensions that are
3. Effort. When I ask parents or teachers who are new to
connected to mindsets: “Most often people believe that the
the field if there any recognizable signs of giftedness,
‘gift’ is the ability itself. Yet what feeds it is that constant,
almost invariably I get a response concerning speed of
endless curiosity and challenge seeking.” (p. 63).
(continued on next page)
References
Gottfried, A.W., Gottfried, A.E., & Guerin, D.W. (in press). Issues in early prediction and identification of intellectual giftedness.
In F.D. Horowitz, R.F. Subotnik, & D.J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the life-span.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Graham, S. (in press). Giftedness in adolescence: African American gifted youth and their challenges from a motivational
perspective. In F.D. Horowitz, R.F. Subotnik, & D.J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the life-span.
Washington: American Psychological Association.
Matthews, D.J., & Foster, J.F. (2005). Being smart about gifted children: A guidebook for parents and educators. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential Press.
Matthews, D.J., & Foster, J.F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28(2), 64-69.
Worrell, F.C. (in press). What does gifted mean? Personal and social identity perspectives on giftedness in adolescence. In F.D.
Horowitz, R.F. Subotnik, & D.J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the life-span. Washington:
American Psychological Association.
Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence.
Educational Psychology Review, 15, 215-246.
By H. H. Steiner and M. Carr.
Review by: Marion Porath, Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Research in gifted education and cognitive development model of strategy development, applied longitudinally and
traditionally have proceeded in parallel. With some notable microgenetically, is suggested as a valuable framework to
exceptions, our understanding of gifted children’s thinking is help us understand how gifted children acquire and use
not informed by cognitive developmental theory and strategies and the nature of the strategies themselves. This
methods. Cognitive developmental studies relevant to model also allows for the possibility of articulating how
understanding gifted children’s cognition are reviewed in this cognitive processes, usually studied in isolation, are part of
paper with the goal of informing a research agenda that unites intelligent behavior.
models of intellectual development and gifted education in
Studies of strategy development need to be united with
meaningful ways. As we move from IQ as a primary
“complex systems” theories of intelligence. Sternberg’s (1985)
determinant of giftedness to more complex views of what
triarchic theory and Ceci’s (1996) bioecological theory are
giftedness is and how it develops, research can capitalize on
suggested as compatible with the study of strategy
the explanatory frameworks of cognitive developmental
development because of their recognition of the complex
theories.
situated nature of cognitive development. The research
Four areas of cognitive developmental research – processing dialogue suggested in this paper includes the integration of
speed, nature of the knowledge base, metacognition, and contemporary models of gifted education (e.g., Barab &
problem solving and strategy use – provide a framework for Plucker, 2002) in cognitive developmental research. This
thinking about what we know, what we need to know, and research agenda will inform assessment, education, and
how we might forge research directions that will give us a conceptions of intelligent behavior in ways that honor the
more complete picture of what develops in gifted complexity of giftedness and the developmental processes
performances and how. Siegler’s (1996) overlapping waves that underpin it.
References
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated
approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165-182.
Ceci, S. J. (1996). On intelligence: A bioecological treatise on intellectual development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Yale University Press.
Alison Rowan
Press & Publications Officer, NAGTY
In August 2007, England will play host to the World feed into differing policies and practices. In addition to
Council for Gifted and Talented Children’s 17th Biennial celebrating the homecoming of the conference and over 30
World Conference at the University of Warwick, Coventry. years of the World Council for Gifted and Talented
Children, the conference also marks 10 years of government
This conference marks over 30 years of international
policy on gifted and talented education in England, an
collaboration on gifted and talented education.
important milestone.
Whilst preparations are well underway for the 2007
In keeping with the global theme of the conference, lead
conference it is useful to reflect on the homecoming of this
speakers have been invited from Africa, Canada, China,
international event which was the brainchild of Englishman
Finland, The United Kingdom, and the United States of
Henry Collis. Collis, with a keen interest in gifted
America. One of the lead speakers will be Professor Loyiso
education, was aware that nationally educators and
Nongxa, Vice Chancellor of Witwatersrand University,
researchers were pooling their ideas on gifted education and
Johannesburg. Professor Nongxa was South Africa’s first
realised the need to look beyond what we are doing in our
black Rhodes scholar and first black Vice Chancellor and
own country and share policies and best practice from
has developed an important programme to improve access
across the globe. It was due to Collis’ vision of an
to university for children in the South African townships.
international community of educators interested in gifted
and talented students that the first World Conference on Also speaking will be Nancy Green, Executive Director of
Gifted Children was held in London in 1975. The National Association for Gifted Children, America; Dr
Chris Yapp, Head of Public Sector Innovation at Microsoft
Over 500 people attended the first conference, representing
UK - well known for his thinking about learning in the
53 nations with keynote papers from 24 countries. It was at
future, and Dr Elena Grigorenko, Associate Professor of
this conference that the notion of a permanent international
Child Studies and Psychology at Yale University and
collaboration was proposed. At the second World
Associate Professor of Psychology at Moscow State
Conference in 1977 in San Francisco, the World Council for
University.
Gifted and Talented Children was established as an
association, its mission to focus attention on gifted and Hosted by the University of Warwick and generously
talented children and ensure the realisation of their valuable supported by the DfES, the 17th Biennial Conference
potential benefit to humankind. promises to be an exciting event and a wonderful
opportunity for colleagues from around the globe to meet
Today, the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children
and share ideas and policies. With a full social programme
is a diverse organization networking the globe with an
already well into its final planning stages and the possibility
active membership of educators, scholars, researchers,
of a student event running concurrently, this is an event not
parents, educational institutions, and others interested in
to be missed by anyone with an interest in gifted and
giftedness from over 46 countries. Conferences have been
talented education. We look forward to meeting you there!
held every two years since 1975 at locations spanning the
globe including: Turkey, Spain, Australia, Hong Kong, and
in 2005 in New Orleans, USA.
Full details on the conference programme and speakers is now
The 17th Biennial Conference, ‘Worlds of Giftedness: From available on the website at www.worldgifted2007.com.
Local to Global’, echoes the ethos behind Henry Collis’ Registration and booking can be completed online and any
initial ideas on international collaboration. The overarching queries should be directed to the Conference Secretariat at:
theme for this conference is the way different cultures create worldgifted2007@warwick.ac.uk, Tel: +44 (0) 24 7657 4620
different conceptions of giftedness and talent, which in turn
GIFTED CHILDREN
An Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent.