TALENT Talks
The official newsletter of The International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence (IRATDE)
Issue 2 - July 2010
FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Welcome to the second edition of our
newsletter. The members of IRATDE
have been quite active and there are sig-
nificant events to report since the last edi-
tion of Talent Talks. At the top of the
list is the recent Scientific Symposium of
Giftedness and Creativity, which was held
Prof. to great success at King Faisal University
Abdullah M.
on May 31st through June 2nd in Al-Ah-
Aljughaiman
sa, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The
title of the Symposium was “Nurturing Giftedness Starts
Early” and it explored the themes of the importance of the
early identification and nurturing of gifted children (more
details about the symposium are available in the IRATDE
report – available on our website). Similarly, reflecting the
truly international nature of our organization, the first inter-
national conference of the IRATDE was held from October
30th through November 2nd in Xi’an China and was enti-
tled “International Conference on the Cultivation and Edu-
cation of Creativity and Innovation”. This period has also
witnessed a rapid increase in membership in IRATDE, with
215 members representing 48 countries. In addition, the new
issue of our journal – Talent Development and Excellence
(available from our homepage) is now available.
I would also like to take this opportunity to encour-
age members to be more involved in IRATDE activities
– these are momentous times for our organization and we
welcome all members’ participation and involvement. Lastly,
I would like to thank the editors of Talent Talks, Prof. Shane
N. Phillipson, and Dr. Sivanes Phillipson, as well as the Ed-
itors-in-Chief of the IRATDE Journal Prof. Albert Ziegler
and Prof. Jiannong Shi for their tireless efforts in helping to
spread the message and vision of IRATDE.
Abdullah M. Aljughaiman
IRATDE President
TALENT Talks
T lk Content
C
Conten
IRATDE Report pp 2-4 Research Briefs pp 5-10
Conference Corner p 10 Spotlight on Talent pp 11-12
Talent News pp 13-16 Student News pp 17-19
Page 1
FROM THE EDITORS
The first issue was very well received by mem-
bers of IRATDE and we thank everyone for
their kind words and encouragement. The sec-
ond issue of Talent Talks has been a pleasure
to put together. This issue reports on the re-
cent symposium on giftedness and creativity at
Sivanes Phillipson
King Faisal University in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Ara-
bia. We also bring you an update of research
trends in the study of giftedness, focusing on the years 2008
to early 2010. In the Spotlight on Talent, we learn about Devil
Sticks and the German virtuoso Markus Furtner. For this inter-
view we thank the team of five interviewers from University of
Munich.
In Talent News, we bring you an article describing ex-
cellence from the Russian perspective. Marina Fidelman’s report
provides an overview of the domains of talent development and
their research in understanding excellence. Marold Reutlinger’s
report in Student News brings to us an innovative application
of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness in understanding the re-
lationship between learning environment and academic achieve-
ment. Marold’s brief report highlights the idea that the learning
environment is a subjective concept and that different learning
environments contribute in different ways to academic achieve-
ment.
Talent Talks belongs to the members
of IRATDE. Please support Talent Talks by
contributing items of interest and by letting
your colleagues know about us. We welcome
submissions in all areas, including short pro-
files of researchers, concise research findings
and discussions of recently published and in- Shane Phillipson
teresting research. We particularly welcome
contributions of students’ research, including undergraduate
and doctoral studies. If you wish to advertise a forthcoming
course, workshop or conference, please also let us know. Please
contact us by email (newsletter@iratde.org). We would also like
to sincerely thank Mr. Jan Gube, our talented and efficient re-
search assistant for his work.
Best wishes,
Sivanes Phillipson1 PhD and Shane N. Phillipson2 PhD
1
Hong Kong Baptist University
2
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
Hong Kong
 IRATDE REPORT
The Scientific Symposium of Giftedness & Creativity
"Nurturing Giftedness Starts Early"

Prof. Abdullah Aljughaiman

Director of the National Research Center for Giftedness and Creativity, King Faisal University and President of IRATDE
Introduction

T he city of Al-Ahsa in the Kingdom

of Saudi Arabia played host to a
truly groundbreaking event on May 31
through June 2, 2010. The Scientific
Symposium of Giftedness and Creativ-
ity, sponsored jointly by the National
Research Center for Giftedness and
Creativity at King Faisal University, The
International Research Association for
Talent Development and Excellence
(IRATDE), and the Al-Ahsa School
District, brought together experts in
the field of Gifted Education to ex-
plore the theme of the symposium:
"Nurturing Giftedness Starts Early".

Key Themes & Objectives:

In keeping with the main theme of the
symposium, “Nurturing Giftedness
Starts Early”, the activities of the sym-
posium focused on four core areas in
the field of Gifted Education:
1) Nurturing giftedness among
children in pre-school and early ele-
mentary grades.
2) Identification of giftedness
among children in pre-school and early
Prof. Albert Ziegler conducts a workshop entitled “Fostering Students’ Motivation” on the campus of
King Faisal University as part of the Scientific Symposium of Giftedness and Creativity.
elementary grades. The themes of the symposium were
3) Presentation of pre-school closely related to and supportive of the
and early elementary gifted education symposium objectives:
programs.
4) Presentation of teacher edu- 1) Bringing about awareness of
cation programs for educators of the pre-school and early elementary gifted
gifted. education programs among all parties
concerned with the development of
children; including academicians, edu-
cators, counselors, and parents.
2) Investigation of practices for
the identification of gifted children in
pre-school and early elementary grades.
3) Introduction of novel models

Female attendees at the Scientific Symposium of Giftedness & Creativity enjoy a presentation at the Prof. Abdullah Aljughaiman addresses the attend-
Intercontinental Hotel, Al-Ahsa Saudi Arabia, May 31 - June 2, 2010. ees at the Intercontinental Hotel.

Page 2
Prof. Albert Ziegler and Prof. Abdullah
Aljughaiman discuss events in the workshop enti-
tled “Fostering Students’ Motivation”
from international and Arabic arenas
for pre-school and early elementary
grades.
4) Exchange of experiences be-
tween regional and international spe- Prof. Albert Ziegler, Dr. Ali Jassam and Prof. Jiannong Shi engage in a scholarly discussion in the pro-
cialists in the pre-school and early el- ceedings of the Scientific Symposium of Giftedness and Creativity.
ementary stages. IRATDE practical workshops given by keynote
speakers as well as scientific sessions
Participants • Prof. Nansook Park – Professor including lectures and the presenta-
The Scientific Symposium of Gifted- of Psychology at the University of tion of scientific papers related to the
ness and Creativity was fortunate to be Michigan, USA key themes of the symposium. Twenty
able to provide attendees with expertise three papers were presented covering a
gathered from a broad range of inter- • Prof. Abdullah Aljughaiman – broad range of research topics related
national leaders in the field of Gifted Conference Chair, Director of the to the symposium themes. In addition,
Education and research. 260 attendees National Research Center for Gift- the creative projects of some of the
benefitted from the range of knowl- edness and Creativity at King Faisal gifted students of the Al-Ahsa school
edge and mastery from 23 presenters, University, President of IRATDE district were on exhibition throughout
representing 9 countries, including our the symposium. Workshops were held
keynote speakers: Symposium Activities at the King Faisal University campus
Activities at the symposium included and included the following topics:
• Prof. Albert Ziegler – Institute of
Psychology and Education, Ulm
University, Germany, Secretary
General of IRATDE

• Prof. Heidrun Stoeger – Chair for

School Research Development and
Evaluation, Regensburg Univer-
sity, Germany, Vice President of
IRATDE

• Prof. Jiannong Shi – Director of

the Division of Developmen-
tal and Educational Psychology,
Director of the Research Center
for Supernormal Children at the
Institute of Psychology, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, People’s Re- Prof. Heidrun Stoeger during an evening visit to the historic Ibrahim Palace (located in downtown Hofuf)
public of China, and Treasurer of as part of the tourist activities of the symposium, June 1 2010, Hofuf, Saudi Arabia.

Page 3
Female attendees of the symposium enjoy an excur-
sion to Gara Mountain, overlooking the Al-Ahsa
oasis – the largest sweet water oasis in the Arabian
Peninsula, June 1 2010.
• “Fostering Student Motivation”
Prof. Albert Ziegler
• “The ENTER Model: Identifying
and Nurturing Pre-School Gifted
Students”
Prof. Heidrun Stoeger
Social Activities
Attendees to the Scientific Symposium
were treated to the myriad recreational
and historical opportunities that Al-
Ahsa offers its guests. Chartered buses
delivered participants to the unique lo-
calities of the region, including:
- Gara Mountain and Caves
- Pottery and Handcrafts Market
- Al-Okair Beach
Attendees pose for a picture at the conclusion of the workshop entitled “Fostering Students’ Motivation” on the campus of King Faisal University as part
of the Scientific Symposium of Giftedness and Creativity held in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia, May 31-July 2, 2010.
Attendees enjoy the cool refuge provided by the caves of Mount Gara as part of the tourist activities of the
Scientific Symposium of Giftedness and Creativity in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia May 31-July 2, 2010.
- Ibrahim Historical Palace children. In addition, the symposium
- Al-Ahsa Historical Museum served to increase awareness about
these key themes and to point towards
Participants commented on important directions for future practice
their amazement and enjoyment in and research in gifted education.
finding such a rich combination of so-
cial, historical and distinctive cultural Acknowledgements
experiences in Al-Ahsa. The editors would like to thank Rami
Shebab and Sameera Lag for provid-
Conclusion ing the journalist photos, and Matthew
The Scientific Symposium on Gifted- Berki for the photo captions.
ness and Creativity achieved the objec-
tives of bringing together international
experts in the field of Gifted Educa-
tion and research to push forward the
discussion of the key themes of the
symposium – the importance of early
identification and nurturing of gifted
Page 4
 RESEARCH BRIEFS
Recent trends in the study of giftedness

Cristina Oarga1, Bettina Harderr2, Heidrun Stoegerr3, & Albert Zieglerr2

1
Universityy of Munich, Germany, y 2Ulm University, y Germany, y 3Universityy of Regensburg,
g g Germanyy

T he objective of this contribution

is the identification of the main
trends in recent giftedness research. To
The articles
All in all, 187 publications were ana-
lyzed. Interestingly, the number of
structured interviews.

The most frequent methods

this end all articles published between
the beginning of 2008 and February
2010 in four influential scholarly jour-
nals solely dedicated to giftedness re-
search (Gifted Child Quarterly, High
Ability Studies, Roeper Review, and
Talent Development & Excellence)
were analyzed. We will start with a short
overview of some basic characteristics
of research conducted in this area and
then discuss the most interesting find-
ings. This selection is, of course, highly
subjective and reflects our own research
interests.
empirical and non-empirical studies is
nearly equal with 90 empirical and 97
non-empirical studies.
Only three of the empirical
studies were based on a longitudinal
design. Within educational sciences
such a low rate usually indicates that
a research branch was underfinanced.
Among the 90 empirical studies, the 70
using quantitative research designs sig-
nificantly outnumber the 20 based on
qualitative approaches. The methods
of the qualitative studies usually fo-
cused on groups, case studies, or semi-
used for the identification of gifted
study participants are, in descending
order:
• Intelligence tests (e.g.,
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(WAIS) and Children Intelligence Scale
(WISC), Stanford Binet Test, Raven’s
Progressive Matrices Test),
• Ability/achievement tests (e.g.,
SAT, Add Health Picture Vocabulary
Test, Cognitive Ability Test, Gifted
Rating Scales, Clark’s Drawing Abilities
Test),

Number of researched topics in themes

Number of Studies
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Identification

Twice exceptional
Research Topics

Motivation

Program evaluation

Development theories

Cultural aspects

Others

Figure 1. The most frequently researched topics in the examined 187 studies (total numbers reported)

Page 5
i. grade point average,
ii. teacher’s nomination,
iii. parent recommendation,
iv. essays,
v. portfolios.
Only a minority of the studies com-
bined multiple methods of identifica-
tion.
Overview of topics
While the topics investigated are char-
acterized by high diversity, some recur-
rent themes can nevertheless be noted.
Figure 1 illustrates the most common
research topics.
The studies mainly focused on
identification procedures (validation of
different tests), motivation (self-con-
cept, self-efficacy, coping with stress),
development theories related to gifted-
ness, the link between psychological
disorders / disabilities and giftedness
(twice-exceptional students), evalua-
tion of programs, and cultural aspects.
For almost all of these variables, the
authors usually investigated whether
there were differences between gifted
and average children. Numerous stud-
ies did, however, focus exclusively on
gifted children by analyzing in depth
their personality or cognitive character-
istics.
Selected findings
a) Identification of gifted students
One frequent topic was the identifica-
tion of gifted students. Studies usually
focused on the reliability and validity of
procedures and tests. The authors of-
ten referred to general ability tests, but
they also employed specific ones (of,
for example, drawing abilities or verbal
abilities). Most of the studies were em-
pirical, but some were literature reviews
concerned with different identification
procedures.
An interesting screening pro-
cedure used in the studies was the
Gifted Rating Scale (GRS), which was
validated for preschoolers (Pfeiffer &
Petscher, 2008) and for school children
between the ages of 9 and 13 (Pfeiffer,
Petscher, & Kumtepe, 2008). With re-
gard to the preschool form, the authors
pointed out that two factors in particu-
lar, the early identification of gifted
preschool children and the timely pro-
vision of an appropriate educational in-
tervention, increased the probability of
future extraordinary achievement. That
was why it was critical to use a compre-
hensive method in assessing the poten-
tial of preschool children. An impor-
tant aspect of the screening method for
preschool children was that it has been
shown to be effective independently
of the cutoff score used to demarcate
intellectual giftedness (115, 120, 125,
or 130). The scales for school children
touched upon very similar topics. Both
forms included scales for:
- Intellectual ability (verbal and
non-verbal mental skills);
- Academic ability (the ability to
deal with early childhood curriculum
material);
- Creativity (the ability to pro-
duce original thoughts or products);
- Artistic talent (in the field of
drawing, theatre, music) and;
- Motivation (refers to child’s
drive persistence and desire to suc-
ceed).
In addition, the school form
also included a leadership scale which
measured the student’s ability to mo-
tivate others toward a common goal.
In a cross-validation study the authors
could not find any differences regard-
ing gender, race, or age. However, in a
study by Li, Pfeiffer, Petscher, Kumpt-
epe, & Mo (2008) using a Chinese
version of the GRS-S, the sample of
Chinese elementary and middle-school
students showed gender and age differ-
ences. Most interestingly, Chinese girls
were rated higher than Chinese boys on
all of the scales.
Besides taking a close look
at the procedures used to assess one’s
potential in general, several articles
focused on specific abilities. For ex-
ample, the scores on the Impossible
Figures Task (IFT-14), the Mental Ro-
Page 6
tation Test, and self ratings on the Ar-
tistic Characteristics Rating Scale were
found to differentiate among fine arts
students, architecture students, and stu-
dents from arts faculty (Chan, 2008).
Several studies examined the
identification of giftedness by meas-
urements of fluid reasoning ability via
nonverbal tests. One of the widely as-
sumed strengths of such measurements
is that they can be used for assessing
the ability of students who are not flu-
ent speakers of the test instructor’s lan-
guage (Lohman, Korb, & Lakin, 2008).
Frequently used tests were, for exam-
ple, the Raven Standard Progressive
Matrices (Raven), the Naglieri Non-
verbal Ability Test (NNAT), and the
Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT). Two
studies arrived at important conclu-
sions (Carman & Taylor, 2010; Lohm-
an et al., 2008). First, it was investigated
whether the nonverbal reasoning tests
leveled the field for English Language
Learner (ELL) children. Yet ELL chil-
dren scored eight to ten points lower
than non-ELL children on the three
aforementioned non-verbal tests. Sec-
ondly, Carman and Taylor (2010) inves-
tigated whether socioeconomic status
(SES) had a significant effect on per-
formance on the Naglieri Nonverbal
Ability Test (NNAT) and arrived at
results similar to those of Lohman et
al. (2008). Indeed, the nonverbal tests
did not level the field for all students;
on the contrary, in this study students
from average to high SES families were
twice as likely to be identified as gifted
than those from low SES families. One
can thus conclude that nonverbal tests
designed to identify gifted and talented
children should be applied with great
caution in the case of children from
families of low SES or who are non-
native speakers. The studies’ authors
recommended avoiding the use of only
one such test at any point in the screen-
ing process and suggested employing
multiple identification methods.
Several contributions offered
significant conceptual analyses on the
topic of identification. Callahan (2009)
thoroughly discusses the myth that
there must be “winners” and “losers” in
the identification procedure. She points
out that state policies usually regard the
labeling process of gifted children as
being more important than the devel-
opment of an appropriate curriculum.
And, as a consequence, this attitude
encourages the aforementioned myth
by unduly stressing the conviction that
gifted students are “elite students” and
thus implying that other students must
in turn be “losers.” As there are fewer
programs targeting minorities, second-
language, and low-income students,
gifted students within these groups are
often not identified.
b) Motivation
Another issue which has been the
subject of recurrent empirical inves-
tigation is motivation with a focus on
self-concept, self-efficacy, passion, and
perfectionism. For example, Schick
and Phillipson (2009) emphasized the
importance of self-efficacy and per-
sonal identity. They came to the con-
clusion that these variables were more
important than general intelligence for
the prediction of learning motivation.
Moreover, self-efficacy has been shown
to directly influence scientific inquiry
skills; it even has a greater impact than
self-regulatory strategies (Yoon, 2009).
Hoogeveen, Hell, and Verho-
even (2009) examined the self-concept
of accelerated and non-accelerated stu-
dents. While accelerated students pos-
sessed a more positive social self-con-
cept, they achieved a lower social status
among peers than their non-accelerated
counterparts and were considered to be
less cooperative. Clearly, this finding is
extremely important for gifted educa-
tion.
The validity and reliability of
both Marsh’s Self-Description Ques-
tionnaire III and Harter’s Self-Percep-
tions Profile for College Students was
also investigated (Rinn & Cunningham,
2008; Rudasill & Callahan, 2008). In a
further study, the validity of Harter’s
Self-Perceptions Profile for Children
and Adolescents was analyzed (Rudasill
& Callahan, 2008). Both investigations
provide evidence indicating the high re-
liability and validity of the self-concept
questionnaires and thus support their
use for high-ability students.
Preckel, Goetz, Pekrun, and
Kleine (2008) examined gender dif-
ferences in the areas of self-concept,
interest, and motivation. The authors
found that girls scored lower in these
areas while gender differences were
more pronounced in high-ability than
in average-ability students.
The issue of ability and effort
attribution and its connection to inter-
ests was judged by research literature
dealing with motivation to be of the ut-
most importance. The study by Siegle,
Rubenstein, Pollard, and Romey (2010),
for example, showed a positive rela-
tionship between students’ interest in a
talent domain and their assessment of
their skill in that domain. The strong-
est relationships tend to exist in non-
academic areas. This result is consistent
with the findings of a study by Fre-
dricks, Alfeld, and Eccles (2010), which
highlighted that males put considerably
more emphasis on ability, while females
indicated that personal effort is more
important for high performance, a
finding also supported by the study of
Tang and Neber (2008).
Concepts such as positive
and negative perfectionism were ana-
lyzed in some studies as well. A five-
dimensional model for perfectionism
evaluation includes constructs of per-
sonal standards, parental expectations,
parental criticism, concern over mis-
takes and doubts, and organization.
The results indicated that the negative
perfectionists had high scores on all
five dimensions, whereas the positive
perfectionists scored high on standards
and organization, and low on parental
criticism and concern over mistakes
and doubts (Chan, 2009). In another
study, Chan (2008) showed that gifted
students were more willing to embrace
positive perfectionism, and that learn-
Page 7
ing and social goal orientations emerged
as significant predictors of positive
perfectionism, whereas performance
and avoidance goal were more relevant
for negative perfectionism.
c) Twice-exceptional students
Another common topic in research lit-
erature is that of gifted students with
psychological disorders/disabilities,
a group for whom the term twice-ex-
ceptional students has been suggested.
Hannah and Shore (2008) compared
meta-cognitive strategies for problem-
solving in gifted vs. learning-disabled
and gifted students. Twice-exceptional
students used meta-cognitive strategies
similarly but they demonstrated a lack
of confidence in their own knowledge
when confronted with inconsistent in-
formation.
Assouline, Nicpon, and Doo-
bay (2009) compared two profoundly
gifted girls, one with autism spectrum
disorder (ASD) and the other one with-
out ASD. In terms of academic and
cognitive functioning, these profoundly
gifted girls were almost indistinguish-
able on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children (WISC-IV) and on the
Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Bat-
tery. To distinguish a gifted child with
social difficulties from one with a disa-
bility, additional measures and in-depth
analysis would be more useful. The
necessity of a more comprehensive ap-
proach to identifying twice-exceptional
students is also supported by Assouline,
Nicpon, and Whiteman (2010).
A comprehensive neuron-de-
velopmental framework for the analysis
and understanding of twice-exception-
al children is suggested by Gilger and
Hynd (2008). They argued that deficits
and strengths may originate from one
and the same atypical brain develop-
ment mechanism and that, therefore,
symptoms of twice exceptionality
should be viewed in a holistic but mul-
tifaceted manner.
d) Program Evaluation
In their study of data provided by six
major talent search centers, Lee, Mat-
thews, and Olszewski-Kubilius (2008)
found disproportionally higher repre-
sentations of Caucasian children and
participants with higher socioeconomic
backgrounds. Some other studies ex-
amined programs targeting minority
students in particular. Lee, Olszewski-
Kubilius, and Peternel (2009), for in-
stance, described the EXCITE project
that focused on math and science. The
authors found several positive effects
of the EXCITE project, for example
on students’ persistence and aspira-
tions. Another program was that of
the Leonardo Laboratory (Newman et
al., 2009) which targets underachiev-
ers with visual-spatial gifts. It consists
of ten workshops that invite students
to complete experimental projects by
building models in the areas of arts,
architecture, engineering, and science.
The results of this study showed that
although the students in the program
did not demonstrate statistically sig-
nificant gains in academic skills, they
did show gains in self-efficacy and im-
provements in organizational skills.
Duan, Shi, and Zhou (2010)
demonstrated positive effects of ac-
celerated programs. They investigated
developmental changes in processing
speed, finding that the reaction time of
gifted children who had received accel-
erated education in gifted programs was
significantly faster than that of children
who had received standard education at
every age. The importance of advanced
placement is also supported by Burney
(2010) and Gavin, Casa, Adelson, Car-
roll, and Sheffield (2009). The latter
research group found that the develop-
ment of specific mathematics curricu-
lum units, which were challenging and
engaging with a focus on important
mathematics concepts and which en-
couraged students to think and act like
practicing mathematicians, contributed
to students’ mathematics achievement.
Although parents of gifted
children reported great satisfaction
with advanced placement (Noble,
Childers, & Vaughan, 2008), student
reports showed rather mixed results. In
a qualitative study by Hertberg-Davis
and Callahan (2008), evidence present-
ed showed that students believed that
advanced placement (AP) and Inter-
national Baccalaureate (IB) programs
provide a greater level of academic
challenge and more favorable learning
environments than other existing high-
school courses. However, the curricu-
lum and instruction within AP and IB
courses were not perceived as fitting
the needs of all learners, particularly
not of those from traditionally under-
served populations. Still, when asked
to choose between academic success
and social lives, students enrolled in
international baccalaureate programs
were quite optimistic that they could
maintain both high levels of academic
success and healthy social lives (Foust,
Hertberg-Davis, & Callahan, 2008).
e) Models of development
Various contributions are concerned
with models of development applica-
ble to studying giftedness. One theory
applied quite often, however mostly in
non-empirical studies, is the positive
disintegration theory of Dabrowski
(Ackerman, 2009; Jackson & Moyle,
2009; Laycraft, 2009; Mróz, 2009; Pi-
irto, Montgomery, & May, 2008; Rinn,
Mendaglio, Rudasill, & McQueen,
2010). According to Dabrowski, posi-
tive disintegration is mental develop-
ment described by the process of tran-
sition from lower to higher levels of
mental life and is stimulated by tension,
inner conflict, struggle, anxiety, and de-
spair.
Another model employed in
various studies is Ziegler’s Actiotope
Model of Giftedness (Ziegler, 2005).
This model conceptualizes the devel-
opment of giftedness as a complex se-
ries of interactions between a person’s
action repertoire, his or her subjective
action space, goals, and environment.
Phillipson and Sun (2009) did research
on this model. Their publication repre-
sents a major step in giftedness research
as it was the first work to propose and
lay the foundation for computer simu-
Page 8
lation of a giftedness model.
f) Cultural aspects
Various contributions aim at raising
awareness about cultural factors that
play an important role in processes
such as identification, acculturation,
and academic advancement. Whit-
ing (2009), for example, highlighted
the achievement barriers that gifted
black males are facing. These barriers
are identity and self-perception, peer-
pressure, social injustices, beliefs about
achievement, and notions of masculin-
ity. Similar results were found in the
study by Yoon and Gentry (2009). They
emphasized the under-representation
of ethnic groups like American Indi-
ans, Alaska Natives, Hispanics, and Af-
rican Americans.
References
Ackerman, C.M. (2009). The essential elements
of Dabrowski’s theory of positive disinte-
gration and how they are connected. Roeper
Review, 3, 81–95.
Assouline, S.G., Nicpon, M.F., & Doobay, A.
(2009). Profoundly gifted girls and autism
spectrum disorder: A psychometric case
study comparison. Gifted Child Quarterly,
53, 89–105.
Assouline, S.G., Nicpon, M.F., & Whiteman, C.
(2010). Cognitive and psychosocial charac-
teristics of gifted students with written lan-
guage disability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54,
102–115.
Burney, V.H. (2010). High achievement on
advanced placement exams: The relation-
ship of school-level contextual factors to
performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54,
116–126.
Callahan, C.M. (2009). Myth 3: A family of
identification myths – Your sample must be
the same as the population. There is a “sil-
ver bullet” in identification. There must be
“winners” and “losers” in identification and
programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53,
239–241.
Carman, C.A., & Taylor, D.K. (2010). Socio-
economic status effects on using the Naglieri
Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to identify
the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly,
54, 75–84.
Chan, D.W. (2008). Assessing visual-spatial tal-
ents: The use of the impossible figures task
with Chinese students in Hong Kong. High
Ability Studies, 19, 173–187.
Chan, D.W. (2009). Dimensionality and typology
of perfectionism: The use of the Frost Mul-
tidimensional Perfectionism Scale with Chi-
nese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 53, 174–187.
Duan, X., Shi, J., & Zhou, D. (2010). Develop-
mental changes in processing speed: Influ-
ence of accelerated education for gifted chil-
dren. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 85–91.he
Foust, R.C., Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan,
C.M. (2008). “Having it all” at sleep’s ex-
pense: The forced choice of participants in
advanced placement courses and Interna-
tional Baccalaureate programs. Roeper Re-
view, 30, 121–129.
Fredricks, J.A, Alfeld, C., & Eccles, J. (2010). De-
veloping and fostering passion in academic
and non-academic domains. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 54, 18–30.
Gavin, M.K., Casa, T.M., Adelson, J.L., Carroll
S.R., & Sheffield L.J. (2009). The impact of
advanced curriculum on the achievement of
mathematically promising elementary stu-
dents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 188–202.
Gilger, J.W., & Hynd, G.W. (2008). Neurode-
velopmental variation as a framework for
thinking about the twice exceptional. Roeper
Review, 30, 214–228.
Hannah, C.L., & Shore, B.M. (2008). Twice-
exceptional students’ use of metacognitive
skills on a comprehension monitoring task.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 3–18.
Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C.M. (2008). A
narrow escape; gifted students’ perceptions
of advanced placement and International
Baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quar-
terly, 52, 199–216.
Hoogeveen, L., Hell, J.G., & Verhoeven, L.
(2009). Self-concept and social status of ac-
celerated and nonaccelerated students in the
first 2 years of secondary school in the Neth-
erlands. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 50–67.
Jackson, P.S., & Moyle, V.F. (2009). With Dab-
rowski in mind: Reinstating the outliers in
support of full-spectrum development.
Roeper Review, 31, 150–160.
Laycraft, K. (2009). Positive maladjustment as a
transition from chaos to order. Roeper Re-
view, 31, 113–122.
Lee, S.-Y., Matthews, M.S., & Olszewski-Ku-
bilius, P. (2008). A national picture of talent
search and talent search educational pro-
grams. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 55–69.
Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Peternel,
G. (2009). Follow-up with students after 6;
years of participation in project EXCITE.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 137–156.
Li, H., Pfeiffer, S.I., Petscher, Y., Kumptepe,
A., & Mo, G. (2008). Validation of the Gift-
ed Rating Scales-School Form in China.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 160–169.
Lohman, D.F., Korb, K.A., & Lakin, J.M.
(2008). Identifying academically gifted
English-language learners using nonverbal
tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT,
and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52,
275–296.
Mróz, A. (2009). Theory of positive disinte-
gration as a basis for research on assisting
development. Roeper Review, 31, 96–102.
Newman, T.M., Brown, W., Hart, L., Macomb-
er, D., Doyle, N., Kornilov, S.A., Jarvin, L.,
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2009).
The Leonardo Laboratory: Developing tar-
geted programs for academic underachiev-
ers with visual-spatial gifts. Talent Develop-
ment & Excellence, 1, 67–78.
Noble, K.D., Childers, S.A., & Vaughan, R.C.
(2008). A place to be celebrated and un-
derstood; the impact of early university en-
trance from parents’ points of view. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 53, 188–202.
Pfeiffer, S.I., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Identifying
young gifted children using the Gifted Rat-
ing Scales-Preschool/Kindergarten Form.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 19–29.
Pfeiffer, S.I., Petscher, Y., & Kumtepe, A.
(2008). The Gifted Rating Scales-School
Form: A validation study based on age, gen-
der, and race. Roeper Review, 30, 140–146.
Phillipson, S.N., & Sun, R. (2009). Modeling
mathematical Actiotopes: The potential
role of CLARION. Talent Development &
Excellence, 1, 27–43.
Piirto, J., Montgomery, D., & May, J. (2008). A
comparison of Dabrowski’s overexcitabili-
ties by gender for American and Korean
high school gifted students. High Ability
Studies, 19, 141–153.
Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine M.
(2008). Gender differences in gifted and
average-ability students. Comparing girls’
and boys’ achievement, self-concept, inter-
est, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 52, 146–159.
Rinn, A.N., & Cunningham, L.G. (2008). Using
self-concept instruments with high-ability
college students: Reliability and validity evi-
dence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 232–242.
Rinn, A.N., Mendaglio, S., Rudasill, K.M., &
McQueen, K.S. (2010). Examining the re-
lationship between the overexcitabilities
Page 9
and self-concepts of gifted adolescents via
multivariate cluster analysis. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 54, 3–17.
Rudasill, K.M., & Callahan, C.M. (2008). Psy-
chometric characteristics of the Harter
Self-Perception Profiles for Adolescents
and Children for use with gifted popula-
tions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 70–86.
Schick, H., & Phillipson, S.N. (2009). Learning
motivation and performance excellence in
adolescents with high intellectual potential:
What really matters? High Ability Studies,
20, 15–37.
Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L.D., Pollard, E., &
Romey, E. (2010). Exploring the relation-
ship of college freshmen honors students’
effort and ability attribution, interest, and
implicit theory of intelligence with per-
ceived ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54,
92–101.
Tang, M., & Neber, H. (2008). Motivation
and self-regulated science learning in high-
achieving students: Differences related to
nation, gender, and grade-level. High Abil-
ity Studies, 19, 103–111.
Whiting, G. (2009). Gifted black males: Un-
derstanding and decreasing barriers to
achievement and identity. Roeper Review,
31, 224–233.
Yoon, C.-H. (2009). Self-regulated learning
and instructional factors in the scientific in-
quiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle
school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53,
203–216.
Yoon, S.Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and
ethnic representation in gifted programs:
Current status of and implications for gift-
ed Asian American students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 53, 121–136.
Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of
giftedness. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson
(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411-
434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Who is Cristina Oargă?
Cristina Oargă is pursuing a master’s degree in Psychology of Excellence in Business and Education
at the Ludwig Maximillian University (LMU) of Munich. She is also an intern at the LMU Center for
Leadership and People Management. Having specialized in organizational and educational psychology,
she has actively participated in various conferences and trainings in commercial, medical and education
sectors across Germany, Romania and Italy.

Who is Bettina Harder?

Bettina Harder - Institute of Education, Educational Psychology, Ulm University, Germany
Bettina Harder holds a Master degree in psychology from the University of Wuerzburg (Germany).
Her research interests include critical factors in the development of expertise, diagnosis and nurtur-
ing of gifts, development of pupils’ English ability. As a research scholar Bettina currently conducts
a longitudinal study comparing the effects of special classes vs. regular classes for gifted children at
secondary school level.
Who is Heidrun Stoeger?
Heidrun Stoeger, PhD, is a Full Professor for Education at Regensburg University, Germany. She holds
the chair for School Research, School Development, and Evaluation. She has published books, chap-
ters and articles in the fields of talent development, educational psychology and education. She is also
Editor-in-Chief of the Journal High Ability Studies and member of the editorial board of the German
Journal of Talent Development. Her main interests in the field of talent development and excellence
are underachievement, teacher trainings, the Actiotope Model of Giftedness, learning and motivational
training programs.
Who is Albert Ziegler?
Albert Ziegler, PhD, is a Full Professor for Psychology at the University of Ulm, Germany. He is the
head of Educational Psychology at the Institute of Educational Sciences. He has published approx.
250 books, chapters and articles in the fields of talent development, excellence, educational psychology
and cognitive psychology. He is also Founding Director of the “State-wide Counseling and Research
Centre for the Gifted”. His main interests in the field of talent development and excellence are the
development of exceptional performances, the Actiotope Model of Giftedness and motivational train-
ing programs.

11th Asia Pacific Conference of Giftedness
A Message from the Chair
On behalf of the Australian Associa-
tion for the Education of the Gifted
and Talented (AAEGT), we look for-
ward to welcoming you to Sydney, Aus-
tralia for the 11th Asia Pacific Confer-
ence on Giftedness.
The theme of our conference
is “Thinking Smart: Effective Partner-
ships for Talent Development”, which
signals our belief that we all need to
work collaboratively to ensure that
gifted students are provided with the
best possible education. It is an impor-
tant time for gifted education interna-
tionally and we have secured dynamic
gifted educators from across the globe
to stimulate and challenge our thinking.
It will be a great opportunity to hear
new ideas and to renew connections
CONFERENCE CORNER
with old friends and colleagues from cific rim an opportunity every year to
the Asia-Pacific rim and beyond. Aus- gather together, to share ideas, and re-
tralian educators, too, are keen to share new enthusiasm for meeting the needs
their practices in gifted education with of gifted children, their families, and
our international colleagues. their teachers. We invite you to join us
for an engaging and thought-provoking
The AAEGT is committed conference in 2010.
to raising the profile of gifted educa-
tion through the promotion of pro- Wilma Vialle, PhD
fessional knowledge and skills, policy Chair, 11th Asia Pacific Conference on
development and advocacy, research Giftedness
and scholarship, and the dissemination
of information. Hosting the Asia Pa-
cific Conference in 2010 is part of that
commitment. The Asia Pacific Federa-
tion is affiliated with the World Council
for Gifted and Talented Children and
holds its biennial conference in even
years while the World Council holds its
biennial conference in odd years. This
provides members from the Asia Pa-

Page 10

Sometimes the absence of other talents or skills helps you focus on one talent
Steffen Beiten, Albulena Grajcevci, Hannelore Govela Palau, Deborah Schnabel, Lorena Shalari
Ludwig Maximillian University of Munich, Germany
Markus Furtner - A devil stick virtuoso, tak-
en in a studio in Vienna 2009
M arkus Furtner is the reigning
world champion in juggling with
devil sticks. For this reason, Albulena
Grajcevci, Deborah Schnabel, Han-
nelore Govela Palau, Lorena Shalari
and Steffen Beiten met him in Munich
(Germany) to ask him about his exper-
tise, practice and creativity.
A. Bio
1. When did you begin to practice the devil
sticks and why?
• I started to play with the devil
sticks in 1996 at the age of 15. My
brother introduced me to juggling.
He was quite good, which motivat-
ed me and raised my interest into
this field. In the beginning, I tried
different forms of juggling, but
the devil sticks attracted me most.
It was sometimes frustrating to
practice, because initially I did not
succeed, but I could not let it go so
I kept on improving until I finally
mastered it.
B. Deliberate Practice
2. How many hours per day do you practice?
• Usually, I practice intensively 1-2
hours per day, six days a week. In
addition to the pure practice, I also
think a lot about things related to
the devil sticks and also talk with
SPOTLIGHT ON TALENT
other people about it. This helps
me to keep focusing on my moti-
vation.
3. Do you have a coach or somebody that
helps you in becoming better?
• I do not have a professional coach,
but friends often give me ideas and
tips for new tricks. Especially my
brother, who knows my abilities
very well, has had a lot of creative
ideas for tricks, that seemed to be
“impossible” in the past, but af-
ter 14 years of practice I am able
to master them and go even fur-
ther for more challenging ones.
Moreover, one of my best friends
is the world champion of juggling.
He has good ideas as well and we
also push each other, which is very
important to me. Finally, the au-
dience’s feedback is also kind of
coaching for me.
4. Do you use certain strategies to practice?
• Something very important to me is
to have fun while practicing, so I
can continue to improve and also
keep my focus (e.g. if I plan to do
one trick 15 times successfully, I do
not stop until I succeed). Practic-
ing with other people is helpful as
well, thus I can see what they do
better and get feedback for me to
improve.
5. What is your future plan in terms of
practicing the devil sticks?
• I want to keep practicing and es-
tablish my own show. Another
project is to create my own Sticks
(e.g. sticks with light and other ide-
as for clubs). I think there is always
something new.
C. Life
6. What are you doing besides performing
and practicing the devil sticks?
• I finished Mathematics at the Uni-
Page 11
versity a year and half ago and I
also do some mathematics coach-
ing for younger students and take
language courses as well. Right
now, I am organizing the European
Juggling Convention 2011, which
will take place in Munich with
more than 5000 people from all
over the world. I do a lot of sports
(e.g. triathlon); I just like the variety
to do different things.
D. Howard Gardner: Multiple In-
telligence (Body-Kinesthetic)
7. Do your skills with the devil sticks help
you in any way with your studies?
• One skill that is definitively impor-
tant for both, studying and playing
the devil sticks, is concentration.
I do not really know the relation
between them, but an important
thing for both is to experiment and
try out new things. Juggling can
also function as a relaxing activity
if you study a lot, because you use
the brain in a different way. Inter-
estingly, you can find a lot of math-
ematicians, engineers or physicians
in the juggling community. Maybe
an explanation for that could be
that we like being good in what we
do: a good scientist or a good jug-
gler.
8. Do you practice devil sticks while you do
other things?
• I normally do not do other activi-
ties while playing the devil sticks.
But I think, once you feel safe or
 good enough with what you do,
you can start thinking or doing
something else when you practice.
9. Do you have one dominant hand (left/
right handed)?
• I am slightly more right-handed
than left-handed. Since you need
both hands for juggling, it is an
advantage to have no big disparity
between the skills of your hands.
Unfortunately, I do not know if
this is common within jugglers.
E. Creativity
10. Do you have a unique approach, which
sets you apart from others who practice
the devil sticks?
• No, I do not think so. I just con-
centrate on it a lot and try to do
some unusual tricks. Sometimes
the absence of other talents or
skills helps you focus on one talent.
Maybe this is also the case for me.
11. How do you come up with new tricks?
Watch others? Being creative?
• There are a lot of ways to come up
with new tricks. Often, even with
mistakes or misunderstandings, I
develop new tricks; when I do not
succeed to do something, I come
up with a “mutation” of a trick.
Also, seeing other “devil stickers”
and listening to their suggestions
helps me to invent new tricks.
Stage competition at the IJA Festival 2007,
Winston Salem, NC, USA
F. Unique ability/practice
12. Would you think other individuals could
reach similar levels of performance with
the devil stick? Why?
• Definitely yes, they can. But there
are some requirements that need
to be fulfilled such as patience,
motivation, luck and support from
your relatives and friends. But for
new players it will be hard, because
they may follow my example while
I continue improving and develop-
ing new tricks.
G. Parenting/nurturing talent/
Support
13. Did you and do you have support from
your family, peers etc, or do you have to
encounter obstacles?
• Of course, my brother always sup-
ports me and encourages me if I
encounter obstacles. In my youth,
my parents gave me a lot of free-
dom to do what I wanted, so they
neither pushed me to master the
devil sticks nor discouraged me.
H. Mastery or performance ap-
proach
14. Are there certain things that motivate you
to become better?
• People that care about the devil
sticks and my audience always keep
me motivated.
Thank you very much!
To get an impression of Markus
Furtner juggling his devil sticks,
go to http://www.youtube.com/
user/MarkusFurtner#p/u/2/gKjb-
3Zuh0XA.
He also has his own website that is
worth browsing:
http://www.markus-furtner.de/
‘Marcos Furtnero’ - the new stage character of
Marcus in his Mexico-Latino dance performance,
Vienna, Austria, June 2010.
(Photo courtesy of Mark Probst)

Behind the scenes: Furtner performing propeller Team members of the Devil Stick interview from left to right, Albuene Grajcevci,
throw in a shower pattern Tokyo, Japan, 2006 Lorena Shalari, Steffen Beiten, Hannelore Palau and Deborah Schnabel at the Psy-
chology Building Ludwig Maximillian University of Munich.

Page 12

Excellence from the Russian point of view
F ollowing the collapse of com-
munism, Russia has found a new
economic and social strength. This ar-
ticle explores one of the most fascinat-
ing countries in the world. Russia has
progressed through three stages since
the beginning of the 1990s. The first
stage involved dismantling the previ-
ous economic system. It brought with
it upheavals to individuals’ way of life
as well as serious political and social
clashes, and was thus a very difficult
time for Russia’s society. The second
stage involved clearing the aftermath
of the dismantling of the former edi-
fice. At the same time, the country
sought to take control of the most
dangerous tendencies in economic and
political life. Unfortunately some de-
cisions taken in those years were not
long-term in nature. But, for the most
part, the federal authorities were react-
ing to the serious warnings expressed.
TALENT NEWS
Marina Fidelman
State University of Ulm, Germany
Russia has only recently reached the
third stage and has been attempting to
accomplish more rapid development
and reach high ambitious national tar-
gets. The state is attaining the necessary
practical knowledge and instruments in
order to reach its long-term goals.
Russian Science and Technology
Russian science and technology are well
known because of the country’s history
of achievements in these fields. These
include: the invention of radio by A.
Popov; the creation of the Periodical
Map of Russia
table of elements by D. Mendeleev; the
formulation of the principles of the in-
terplanetary space flights on multistage
rockets by K. Tsiolkovskiy; achieve-
ments of the Russian space program
led by S. Korolev, which incorporated
the first unmanned space flight of
“Sputnik” and the first manned space
flight of Yu Gagarin; the pioneering
Page 13
contributions to the theory of super-
conductors and superfluids of Vitaly L.
Ginzburg; the invention of the laser by
N. Basov & Yu Prokhorov; and many
other discoveries. Russia is proud of its
more than 20 Nobel laureates in medi-
cine, literature, chemistry, physics, and
economics as well as peace prize win-
ners. There are around 4000 organiza-
tions in Russia engaged in research and
development with approximately one
million personnel. Half of those peo-
ple are doing scientific research. It is
coordinated by the Ministry of Indus-
try, Science and Technologies, where
strategy and basic priorities of research
and development are being articulat-
ed. Fundamental scientific research is
concentrated in the Russian Academy
of Sciences, which now comprises
hundreds of institutes specializing in
all major scientific disciplines such as
mathematics, physics, chemistry, biol-
ogy, astronomy, Earth sciences, and so
on. The applied science and technology
is mainly undertaken in Institutions and
Design Bureaus belonging to different
Russian Ministers. They are involved in
research and development in nuclear
energy (Ministry of Atomic Energy),
space exploration (Russian Aviation
and Space Agency), defense (Minis-
try of Defense), telecommunications
(Ministry of Communications) and so
on.
Russian Academy of Sciences
The Russian Academy of Sciences
is the community of the top ranking
Russian scientists and is the principal
coordinating body for basic research
in the natural and social sciences, tech-
nology and production in Russia. It is
composed of more than 350 research
institutions. Outstanding Russian sci-
entists are elected to the Academy,
where membership is of three types:
academicians, corresponding members,
and foreign members. The Academy is
also engaged in post-graduate training
of students and in publicizing scientific
achievements and knowledge. It main-
tains close links with many internation-
al scientific institutions and works to-
gether with foreign academies as well.
Without doubt, the Russian
tradition of fostering its brilliant minds
is world-renowned and highly appre-
ciated. The launching of the satellite,
Sputnik, in 1957 drew attention to the
Russian education model. More than
10 nations including the USA have es-
tablished the Russian system of special-
ized boarding schools for highly-able
Sputnik 1 - The first earth-orbiting sattellite
launched by the Soviet Union.
MiG 29 - A Russian-developed fighter plane to counter American fighter jets.
children in mathematics and physics
(Donoghue, Karp, & Vogeli, 2000).
Meanwhile Russian definitions and ap-
proaches to the development of out-
standing abilities can be portrayed as
very distinct from Western approaches.
For various reasons, the Russian psy-
chological and pedagogical sciences de-
veloped their own exceptional theoreti-
cal and methodological models. As far
as Russian psychologists are concerned,
certain Russian concepts need to be
observed.
Giftedness in Russian psychology
This section will outline the classic
Russian concepts of giftedness that
were expounded from the 1940s to
the present time. First, the construct
of intelligence has stimulated some
vivid discussions in Russian psychol-
ogy, with many researchers contradict-
ing each other. In particular, the defi-
nition of intelligence within the range
of general abilities conceptions has
been heavily debated. Initially, the con-
cept of intelligence in Russia was seen
as general abilities or general gifted-
ness. For many Russian psychologists,
excellent performance is regarded as
a key criterion for giftedness. A fa-
mous Russian psychologist B. Teplov
(Moscow) referred to this criterion to
define “ability”, “giftedness” and “tal-
ent” as well. The author included, as
a definition of outstanding abilities,
three distinctive points: “First of all,
abilities are some individual-typological
features that differentiate one human
being from another one… secondly,
Page 14
abilities are unlikely to consist of the
whole set of the individual-typoloical
characteristics but once of those which
are exclusively involved in producing
an excellent performance… thirdly,
abilities solely should not be simply
meant in terms of an individual knowl-
edge base acquired” (1941, pp. 22-23).
Further, it was expressly stated that the
crucial point for analysis is the combi-
nation of general abilities and special
abilities for excellent performance.
Thus special abilities and general ability
are tightly interwoven though they have
their specific nature and measurement
representations.
A renowned Russian psychol-
ogist, S. Rubinstein (1973), proposed
that excellence in work and learning de-
pends on causal-consequential relations
comprehension, discovering the most
decisive traits of objects observed, per-
sistence, and goal striving. This is be-
lieved to characterize the general ability,
which is unlikely to lead to success in
a particular domain without the cluster
of special abilities added. Concomi-
tantly, the special abilities cluster alone
is unable to provide high performance
in any area of endeavor. A Leningrad
(Saint Petersburg) psychologist, B.
Ananiev (1977), suggested that general
ability derives from the general devel-
opment of an individual whereas the
special abilities genesis is consequently
engendered by the special development
of that individual. He documented that
the hierarchy of general and special
abilities changes drastically throughout

Alexander S. Popov - one of the pioneers of radio
receivers.
the lifespan, but developing gradually
to the dominance of special abilities.
A prominent author who con-
ducted longitudinal studies of gifted-
ness, N. Leites (1984, Moscow), also
makes a distinction among these abili-
ties pointing to “rather general” and
“rather special” abilities: “qualities of
mind or memory qualities” are likely
to belong to the “rather general” abili-
ties and may be widely used in many
domains but are not sufficient for be-
coming an expert in a domain. It is only
a combination of both types of abili-
ties that lead to excellent performance.
There needs to be a synergy of general
and special abilities in order to perfectly
fulfill a task. Nevertheless, the author
avoids postulating a clear definition of
giftedness.
Renowned for his research on
differential psychology and psycho-
physiology, W. Merlin (1990, Perm) has
regarded an individual way of solving
problems in productive activity as a
distinctive marker of giftedness. The
phenomenon can then be treated as a
mental structure, which involves the in-
teraction of executive and searching ac-
tivities so that their combination could
be regulated by compensatory mecha-
nisms as needed.
Traditionally, Russian educa-
tional psychology and developmental
psychology postulated that environ-
mental conditions need to be man-
aged carefully in order to promote
intellectual strength and vitality. Many
empirical studies have demonstrated
a leading role for special training and
original educative programs that nur-
tured high abilities (see, for example,
Z. Kalmykova, 1981; A. Zak, 1984; N.
Menchynskaya, 1989). I. Yakimanskaya
(1980) makes the point that an impor-
tant condition for developing intel-
ligence through learning is an acquisi-
tion of major learning skills. Through
attempting to modify the self-learning
system, a child reaches a meaningful
self-developed intellectual upsurge.
Experimental studies conducted by D.
Elkonin (1989) and V. Davydov (1990)
illustrated that content (contemplating
theories, investigative activities) and
conditions (independent work) of the
proposed curriculum significantly in-
fluence a child’s intellectual develop-
ment whereas learning difficulties are
caused by inappropriate programs and
ineffective teaching methods.
In summary, the following
statements have represented the basic
approaches that are commonly accept-
ed.
• Abilities develop over the course
of a lifetime and depend on dis-
tinctive marks of anatomy and
physiology of brain and nervous
system (prerequisite);
• Excellent performance and
achievement require a combination
of certain abilities;
• High achievement within a domain
can result from a wide range of
ability combinations; and,
• A relative weakness of one ability
can be compensated by another
ability.
A number of unusual concepts
of intellectual giftedness are currently
Page 15
fluctuating in the Russian psychologi-
cal landscape (see, for example, Uy.
Gil’buch et al., 1990; M. Kholodnaya,
1993; V. Shadrikov, 2000). In particu-
lar I. Jeltova and E. Grigorenko (2005)
have proposed an integrated model of
giftedness that embraces the diverse
works of a number of Russian psy-
chologists. Their model comprises ex-
isting Russian psychological research,
widens extant conceptualizations and
proposes directions for future research.
The proposed model considers gifted-
ness in dialectical terms, i.e. accepting
the coexistence and tension between
genetic and environmental factors con-
tributing to the formation of a talent,
thus treating giftedness as a result of
dynamic person-environment interac-
tions. In general, the model is based
on two meaningful constituents, par-
ticularly the notion of qualitative dif-
ferences between processes (e.g. cogni-
tive, genetic, motivational factors) and
products (performance or behaviors
in any given domain) entail giftedness
and the notion of congruence (inter-
nal – a compatibility between superior
performance and other variables and
external – environmental demands) as
well. The personal, internal level in-
cludes with it cognitive processes (e.g.
memory, imagination), personality fac-
tors (motivation, self-regulation) and
developmental characteristics. The
An evening view of Cathedral of Vasylyi
Blazhennyi at the Red Square, Moscow.
environmental, external level encom-
passes culture, societal expectations
and standards, educational opportuni-
ties. Finally, it is proposed that internal
and external congruence could be nec-
essary conditions which enhance the
resilience of gifted individuals. The au-
thors state that “…only resilient gifted
children grow to become gifted adults”
(2005, p.173).
Specific research in the field
of giftedness is increasingly being
published at Russian universities, col-
leges and research institutes, and dis-
seminated at international conferences.
Russian scientific culture is prominent
due to its passion for excellence and na-
tional pride in its high-achievers. Rus-
sian tradition in searching for talents
is nowadays considerably influenced
by Western psychology (L. Dorfman,
2000). This can be seen, for instance, in
a range of collaborations with foreign
scientists, institutions and organisations
including the IRATDE.
References
Ananiev, B. G. (1977). O problemakh sovremen-
nogo chelovekoznaniya. (Towards current
knowledge of a human.). Moscow: Nauka.
Davydov, V.V. (1990). Teoriya razvivayutschego
obucheniya. (Theory of developing educa-
tion.). Moscow: Pedagogika.
Donoghue, E.F., Karp, A., & Vogeli, B.R. (2000).
Russian schools for mathematically and sci-
entifically talented: Can the vision survive
unchanged? Roeper Review, 22, 121-128.
Dorfman, L. Ya. (2000). Research on gifted chil-
dren in Russia: A Chronicle of theoretical
and empirical development. Roeper Review,
22,123-152.
Kholodnaya, M.A. (1993). Psykhologitcheskie
mechanismy intellektual’noi odarennosti.
(Psychological mechanisms of intellectual
giftedness.). Voprosy Psikhologii, 1, 32-39.
Leites, N.S. (1984). Sposobnosti i odarionnost’
v detskie gody. (Abilities and giftedness in
childhood.). Moscow: Znanie.
Menchinskaya, N. A. (1989). Problemy uchenia
i umstvennogo razvitiaya shkol’nika. (Prob-
lems of learning and a schoolar’s thinking
development.). Izbrannye psykhologicheskie
trudy. Moscow: Pedagogika.
Merlin, V.S. (1990). Struktura lich’nocti: charak-
ter, sposobnosti, samosoznanie.(Structure of
personality: character, abilities, self-consios-
ness.). Perm: PGPU.
Jeltova, I. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2005). Contribu-
tions of Russian psychology conceptions on
giftedness. In Robert J. Sternberg, & Janet E.
Davidson (Eds.). Systematic approaches to
giftedness (second edition), ( pp.171- 186).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubinstein, S.L. (1973). Chelovek i mir. (A hu-
man and the world.). Problemy obtschei
psykhologii. Moscow: Pedagogika.
Shadrikov, V.D. (2000). Ot sposobnostey prirod-
nych k duchovnym sposobnostayam. (From
inhereted abilities to mental abilities.). Ap-
plied Psychology, 1, 1-15.
Teplov, B.M. (1941). Sposobnosti i odarennost’.
(Abilities and giftedness.). Uchenye zapiski
GNII psykhologii: Volum 2. Leningrad:GNII
psykhologii.
Yakimanskaya, I. S. (1980). Razvitie prostranst-
vennogo myshleniya shkol’nikov. (Develop-
ment of spatial thinking in scholars). Mos-
cow: Prosvetschenie.
Zak, A.Z. (1984). Razvitie teoreticheskogo my-
shleniaya u mladshich shkol’nikov. (Develop-
ment of theoretical thinking in elementary
school children.). Moscow: Nauka.
Psychological Service of the Perm mu-
nicipal school with profound learning
of foreign languages. The Department
was responsible for research on gifted-
ness within normal school settings.
In 1993, she was awarded
(in collaboration with Prof. Victoria
S. Yurkevich) the Grant of Russian
Foundation for Human Research for
a project entitled “Identification and
Prognosis of Giftedness”.
Her scientific interests include
creativity fostering, motivation, person-
ality and identification of the gifted as
well.
Dr. Fidelman has published a
number of articles, handbooks for stu-
dents and papers for international con-
ferences. She has taken part in diverse
international events dedicated to the
giftedness exploration.
In 2009, she received the Sti-
pend of Otto Benecke Foundation
(Germany) “for foreign academics with
outstanding scientific profile”.
Starting from this year, she is
continuing on with her scientific work
in collaboration with Professor Albert
Ziegler at the University of Ulm (Ger-
many). She has recently finished articles
that view retrospectively both Russian
creativity studies and Russian top pri-
ority research on high abilities. She is
also involved in a cross-cultural study
undertaken in the university.

El’konin, D.B. (1989). Psykhologiya obutch-

eniya mladshikh shkol’nikov. (Educational
psychology of elementary school children.).
Izbrannye psykhologicheskie trudy. Moscow:
Pedagogika.
Gil’buch, Yu. Z., Garnez, O. N., & Korobko, S.
L. (1990). Phenomen umstvennoi odarion-
nosri. (Phonomenon of intellectual gifted-
ness.). Voprosy psykhologii, 4, pp.147-155.
Kalmykova, Z.I. (1981). Produktivnoe myshle-
nie kak osnova obuchaemosti. (Productive
thinking as a base for ability to learn.). Mos-
cow: Pedagogika.
Who is Marina Fidelman?
Marina I. Fidelman received her Ph.D.
in developmental psychology and psy-
chology of education from Psycho-
logical Institute of Russian Academy
of Education, in 1994 (laboratory of
Psychology of Giftedness led by Prof.
Aleksey M. Matiushkin). From 1997-
2008, she was an Associate Professor at
Perm State Pedagogical University, De-
partment of Psychology, and concur-
rently ran the Research Department of

Page 16

The Impact of Sociotopes on School Achievement
University of Ulm, Institute of Psychology and Education
Introduction
I t is commonly understood that
giftedness and talent cannot be de-
scribed by one concept: Hence, it is
important to develop multi-factorial
models of giftedness. A number of
multi-factorial models have been de-
veloped to explain giftedness by add-
ing different factors (cf. Ziegler, 2008).
The models are based on several ideas:
Firstly, there are several factors that re-
late to giftedness. Secondly, it was un-
derstood that it is possible to reach the
level of excellence in different domains
(i.e. music, sport, mathematics). For
each domain, special skills are required.
Thirdly, boundary conditions of gifted-
ness have been integrated in the models
where, in particular, the learning envi-
ronment seems to play an important
role. Some well known models include
The Multifactorial Model of Gifted-
ness (Mönks, 1992), interaction models
such as the Munich Model of Gifted-
ness (Heller, Perletz & Lim, 2005), and
system theoretic models such as the
Actiotope Model of Giftedness (Zie-
gler, 2005).
Describing the learning en-
vironment with a system theoretical
model offers the advantage of relat-
ing it to several models of giftedness.
A possible system would include Soci-
otopes. The origins of Sociotopes are
rooted within the area of social stud-
ies. Sozio is Latin for pertaining to the
community and topos is Greek for
place. It is reasonable to use Sociotopes
to understand the characteristics of the
learning environment.
Egli (1999), for example, de-
fines Sociotopes in terms of a living
space for a group. Within the Soci-
otope exists a close coherence between
the living place (flat, house, neighbor-
hood) and the stimulatory community
STUDENT NEWS
Marold Reutlinger
where it could be “…denoted as a we/
here/now-constellation” (Egli, J., 1999;
translated into English by the author).
With the notion of constella-
tion, it is possible to describe the en-
vironment of an individual within the
borders of a group. For further con-
templation, there should be a subdivi-
sion focused on the ecological model
of Bronfenbrenner (1979). Rothe
(2006) describes a possible subdivision
in four levels. The subdivision contains:
• Regional factors (residential area,
social sphere, relationship to the
distant sphere (teachers, peers, etc.)
and to the extended sphere (neigh-
bors, friends, etc.), access to com-
munity factors, communication in-
frastructure);
• Socio-economic milieu (e.g. living
situation, school situation);
• Relationships within the family (e.g.
parents-child-relationship, siblings-
relationship, etc.);
• And the individual-system (moti-
vation, potential of capabilities, de-
velopment of norms, potential of
behavior, etc.);
A first transfer of Sociotopes
from the social studies to psychology
could be found in a study in Bargel,
Gloy, Heinke, Presch und Walter
(1973). The authors related several mo-
dal environment types to Sociotopes
and applied them to describe the envi-
ronment of pre-school children. With
the description of the specific environ-
ment, they wanted to examine the rel-
evance of it to the infant development.
Furthermore it was used to clarify the
location in question for educational es-
tablishments.
Page 17
The environmental description
was expanded in Trundewinde (1982)
for an empirical longitudinal section
study with 9 – 11 year-old children.
Trundewinde thoroughly examined the
dimension of intellectual and thematic
achievement stimulation, the achieve-
ment forced by the parents as well as
the success and disappointment expe-
rience influence on the motivation of
children. A further development in Zie-
gler (2008) used Sociotopes to describe
the chance to reach the level of excel-
lence in a domain. For this purpose the
environment of an individual should
be diversified through the partitioning
of Sociotopes. It should distinguish
between Sociotopes which afford, sup-
port or avert the learning progress. Sev-
en types of Sociotopes were suggested
in Ziegler (2008), including:
• Thematic Sociotope: The commu-
nication of a domain is sanctioned
as positive. The positive reputation
of a domain increases its esteem.
Consequently it is possible to de-
velop norms and goals.
• Infrastructural Sociotope: If this
Sociotope is available, it’s possible
to do or develop an action. If this
Sociotope is not available (e.g. no
mountain for skiing), it is difficult
or even impossible to reach the
level of excellence.
• Learning Sociotope: This Soci-
otope is constructed to enable a
learning progress.
• Profession Sociotope: The achieve-
ment in a domain receives a posi-
tive feedback but it is not possible
to increase the knowledge in the
domain (e.g. concert of a musi-
cian).
 Grades of the age groups of girls and boys

6
5.5
5
4.5
Average school grade

4
girls
3.5
boys
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
1992 1993 1994 1995
Year of birth

Figure 1. Average school grades of girls and boys in different age-groups on a scale where 1=excellent, 6= poor)

• Antagonistic Sociotope: A learning ance at school. school.

progress in a domain is sanctioned
negative.
• Competing Sociotope: In this So-
ciotope, it is impossible to learn
in the domain (e.g. discotheque or
cinema by learning for school).
Ziegler’s (2008) hypothesis is that gifted
persons tend to favor aiding Sociotopes
more often and Sociotopes which are
prejudicial to the learning progress less
often. It should be possible to directly
test Ziegler’s hypothesis by examining
the Sociotopes of students together
with their performance at school.
Aim of study
The relationship between type of Soci-
otope and school performance can be
tested by evaluating the different situ-
ations in which primary-aged students
find themselves during the day. The
hypothesis is that the number of situ-
ations students perceive as learning So-
ciotopes correlates with good perform-
The participants in this re-
search were asked to fill out an evalua-
tion of Sociotopes form. In this form,
students reviewed the different situ-
ations in regards to their learning. As
an example the following situations are
mentioned:
- On the weekend with my parents
… otopes. Furthermore, the students were
- At common meals …
- On the way home from school …
- Conversations with friends and ac-
quaintance …
- In television broadcasts I like to
watch …
For each of these situations
the pupils should choose one of the
following estimations:
- In this situation, school matters are
often a topic
- In this situation, it is important
to have a good performance at
- In this situation, I have a good pos-
sibility to study for school.
- In this situation, there exists a pos-
sibility to study for school.
- In this situation, I prefer doing oth-
er things than studying for school.
Student responses enable the
researcher to distinguish between the-
matic, competing and learning Soci-
asked to report their grades in German,
Mathematics and their first foreign lan-
guage. The mean score of these marks
was used as the indicator of perform-
ance at school. Note that school grades
are reported using a range of 1-6, with
a score of 1 better than a score of 6.
The means were used as the basis to
divide the pupils into five different per-
formance groups at school level. The
chi-square test differences between the
different performance groups were
analyzed according to the Sociotopes.
Moreover, the differences between
boys and girls were also analyzed with

Page 18
chi-square tests.
Results
It was found that the overall mean per-
formance of girls was 3.08 compared
to a score of 2.64 for boys, meaning
that the mean performance for girls
was worse than for boys. However,
across the school life span the perform-
ance fluctuated (F(3)=2,709 p<0,05)
(Figure 1). Especially the younger boys
performed much better than the girls
of the same age.
The apperceptions for the dif-
ferent Sociotopes differed between the
boys and girls. For boys, school matters
are more often a topic in the following
situations: significantly more often dur-
ing conversations with friends and ac-
quaintance ( χ² (1) = 16,682, p<0,001);
at activities with their parents ( χ² (1)
= 4,204, p<0,05); at common meals
( χ² (1) = 7,293, p<0,01); and on the
way home from school ( χ² (1)=3,990,
p<0,05). In contrast, girls stay away
from school topics when conversing
with friends and acquaintance ( χ² (1) =
3,990, p<0,05). For girls, being good at
school is significantly more important
on the weekends when interacting with
their parents ( χ² (1) = 9,594, p<0,01)
and marginally significantly more im-
portant during meetings with acquaint-
ance ( χ² (1) = 3,241, p<0,1), than for
boys. Specifically there are clear dif-
ferences in detecting possible learning
situations. Girls assess unsuitable situa-
tions as possible learning opportunities.
For instance, they estimate significantly
more often common meals as possible
learning opportunity ( χ² (1) = 5,995,
p<0,05).
Conclusion
In summary, there seem to be clear
differences in school performance be-
tween boys and girls. These differences
could be due to differences in apper-
ceptions in relation to representative
Sociotope situations in everyday life.
More boys than girls favored learning
environments and perhaps this con-
tributed to their achievement. In ad-
dition, the social environment seemed
to have an influence on the students. within the family: Articles of the socio-eco-
The academic performance of the girls logical socialization research] Stuttgart: Fer-
dinand Enke Verlag.
was more important for their parents
and together with poor performance it Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of
could produce pressure to perform. In Giftedness. In R.J. Sternberg & J. Davidson,
contrast, school appeared to be a likely (Eds.) Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 411 -
436). New York: Cambridge University Press
topic in various situations for boys in
general, which signified that it was pos- Ziegler, A. (2008). Hochbegabung. [Giftedness]
itively sanctioned as an extension of München: Ernst Reinhardt, GmbH & Co
students’ personal knowledge. Further KG, Verlag.
studies need to be conducted to expand
on these findings.
Who is Marold Reutlinger?
References Marold Reutlinger received a degree
Bargel, T., Gloy, K., Heinke, U., Presch, G. & in Math and Physics in 2009 from the
Walter, H. (1973) Bildungschancen und University of Ulm. During his study, he
Umwelt I: Eine Studie zur sozialen Evalu- worked as a student assistant in the De-
ation im Elementarbereich. [Educational
opportunity and environment I: A study of
partment of Educational Psychology
social evaluation in the elementary realm] and completed his thesis in Psychology.
Germany: Georg Westermann Verlag. Under the guidance of Prof. Albert
Ziegler, Marold takes part in various
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The ecology of hu-
researches in Educational Psychology.
man development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
In his current position as a re-
Eglie, J. (1999), Sociotope, Lexikon. Wis- search assistant in the Department of
senswertes zur Erwachsenenbildung. [So- Educational Psychology in the Insti-
ciotope, encyclopedia. Worth knowing in
adult education] http://www.socioweb.de/
tute of Psychology and Education of
lexikon/lex_geb/begriffe/sociotope.htm Ulm University, Marold organizes and
conducts research on an e-mentoring
Heller, K. A., Perleth, C. & Lim, T. K. (2005), project entitled “CyberMentor”. His
The Munich Model of Giftedness Designed
research interests are mentoring, pro-
to Identify and Promote Gifted Students. In
R. J. Sternberg, J. Davidson, (Eds.) Consep- fessional development, excellence and
tions of giftedness (2nd ed.) (pp. 147 – 170), expertise. His goal is to obtain a Ph.D.
New York: Cambridge University Press. in Psychology and he is currently writ-
ing a number of publications in this
Mönks, F. J. (1992), Ein interaktionales Modell
der Hochbegabung. In Hanny, E. & Nickel,
area.
H. (Eds.) Begabung und Hochbegabung.
Theoretische Konzepte, empirische Be-
funde, praktische Konsequenzen. [Gifted
and highly gifted. Theoretical concept, em-
pirical results, practical implications] (pp. 17
– 22). Bern: Huber.
Rothe, M. (2006) Sozialpädagogische Familien-
und Erziehungshilfe: Eine Handlungsanlei-
tung. [Social educational family and educa-
tion help: A Handbook] Stuttgart: Verlag W.
Kohlhammer.
Terman, L.M. (1925) Genetic studies of genius:
Mental and physical traits of thousand gifted
children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Trudewind, C. (1982) Der ökologische Ansatz
in der Erforschung der Leistungsmotivgen-
ese. In Vaskovics, L.A. (Ed.) Umweltbedin-
gungen familialer Sozialisation: Beiträge zur
sozialökologischer Sozialisationsforschung.
[Environmental conditions of socialization
Page 19