presentation

Education of thE GiftEd and talEntEd

Sylvia B. Rimm Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and the Family

Achievement Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Del Siegle University of Connecticut

Gary A. Davis University of Wisconsin

S e v e n t h E d i t i o n

330 Hudson Street, NY, NY 10013

Director and Portfolio Manager: Kevin M. Davis Content Producer: Janelle Rogers Portfolio Management Assistant: Anne McAlpine Executive Field Marketing Manager: Krista Clark Executive Product Marketing Manager: Christopher Barry Procurement Specialist: Carol Melville Cover Designer: Carie Keller, Cenveo Publisher Services Cover Art: Getty Images Printer/Binder: RR Donnelley/Owensville Cover Printer: Phoenix Color/Hagerstown Full-Service Project Management/Composition: Rakhshinda Chishty/iEnergizer Aptara®, Ltd. Cover Printer: Lehigh-Phoenix Color Corp. Text Font: Minion

Every effort has been made to provide accurate and current Internet information in this book. However, the Internet and information posted on it are constantly changing, so it is inevitable that some of the Internet addresses listed in this textbook will change.

Copyright © 2018, 2011, 2004, by Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, 501 Boylston Street, Suite 900, Boston, MA, 02116, fax: (617) 671-2290, email: permissionsus@ pearson.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Rimm, Sylvia B., 1935- author. | Siegle, Del, author. | Davis, Gary A., 1938- author. Title: Education of the gifted and talented / Sylvia B. Rimm, Del Siegle, Gary A. Davis. Description: Seventh edition. | Boston : Pearson, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016057606 | ISBN 9780133827101 | ISBN 0133827100 Subjects: LCSH: Gifted children—Education—United States. Classification: LCC LC3993.9 .D38 2018 | DDC 371.95—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016057606

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN-13: 978-0-13-382710-1 ISBN-10: 0-13-382710-0

To Buck, Ilonna, Joe, Miriam, Benjamin and Avi

David, Janet, Dan, and Rachel

Eric, Allison, Hannah, and Isaac, and

Sara, Alan, Sam, and Davida

To Betsy, Jessica, and Del

To Chelsea, Nathan, Tegan, and Neil

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

These are the goals of educational programs for gifted and talented students, and these are the purposes of this book. Gifted and talented students have special needs and special issues. They also have special, sometimes immense, talent to lend to society. We owe it to them to help cultivate their abilities. We owe it to society to help prepare tomorrow’s leaders and professional talent. Such students are a tremen- dous natural resource, one that must not be squandered.

New to this editioN

The seventh edition of Education of the Gifted and Tal- ented continues the tradition of engaging readers in the mission of educating and inspiring gifted children. How- ever, this seventh edition has many major updates, and approximately 30% of the content is new:

●● Learning outcomes have been added to set advance organizers for every chapter. These will assist stu- dents in targeting main issues for study.

●● Although directions and definitions for gifted educa- tion have always been in flux, three new important directions by leaders in the field have been added to Chapter 1.

●● New issues and research for identification of under- served groups are addressed in both Chapters 3 and 13.

●● Many districts are leveraging Response to Interven- tion (RtI) to provide services for gifted students (see Chapter 6). Push-in programs are also gaining popularity. Technology is also playing a more important role in meeting the educational needs of gifted students.

●● New models are surfacing to provide services to gifted students. The Advanced Academic Program Development Model focuses on a system for align- ing the identification process to the academic ser- vices that gifted students need (see Chapter 7). The CLEAR Model combines elements from Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, and Reis’s work to create units that allow students to explore authentic, unanswered questions in meaningful ways.

●● Our understanding of creativity as big-c and little-c is expanded to include mini-c and pro-c as we exam- ine how creativity manifests itself differently across time and within individuals’ lives (see Chapter 9). Synectics methods can be used in the classroom to enhance students’ creative thinking as well as to help students understand content at a deeper level.

●● Gifted educators accustomed to Bloom’s taxonomy will enjoy aligning their questioning and learning activ- ities to Marzano and Kendall’s new thinking taxonomy based on a hierarchy of complexity (see Chapter 10).

●● Chapter 14, formerly called the “Cultural Undera- chievement of Gifted Females,” has been the most revised chapter in every edition, and this seventh edi- tion is no exception. Even the title has changed—to “Gifted Girls. Gifted Boys”—and the chapter now includes specific issues related to gifted boys as well as fully updated data and recommendations for gifted girls.

●● The latest results of research about underserved gifted children, provided by the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (funded by the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Student Education Act [P.L. 100-297]) is included in Chapter 13.

To provide programs to help meet the psychological, social, educational, and career needs of gifted and talented students.

To help students become capable of intelligent choices, independent learning, problem solv- ing, and self-initiated action.

To strengthen skills and abilities in problem solving, creative thinking, communication, independent study, and research.

To reinforce individual interests.

To bring capable and motivated students together for support and intellectual stimulation.

To maximize learning and individual development—while minimizing boredom, confusion, and frustration.

In sum, to help gifted students realize their potential and their contributions to self and society.

v

vi Preface

●● Important new specific communications from the National Office for Special Education provided reas- suring reminders that the discrepancy concept can continue to be used for qualifying gifted students for special education programs based on learning disa- bilities (see Chapter 15).

●● Counseling gifted children to find their passions has become an omnipresent fashion. Even the media has joined in. Chapter 17 reminds counselors to encour- age interests and engagement instead of passions, which can sometimes become unrealistically high expectations for adolescents.

●● Speirs, Neumeister, and Burney propose a new four- step model for conducting an internal evaluation. Their evaluation process is governed by an evalua- tion committee (see Chapter 18).

CyCliC Nature of Gifted eduCatioN

The aftermath of the launching of the Russian satellite Sputnik initiated huge excitement about cultivating gifted children’s minds. Although there was an amazing new interest in talent development, it was brief. That interest was rekindled in the mid-1970s, at which time enthusiasm for accommodating the education needs of gifted and tal- ented children truly began its climb to higher levels, with greater public awareness than ever before. Federal state- ments, definitions, and funds appeared. States passed leg- islation that formalized the existence and needs of gifted students and often provided funds for state directors, teachers, and programs. Cities and districts hired gifted- program directors and teacher-coordinators who designed and implemented identification, acceleration, and enrich- ment plans. In many schools and classrooms where help from the outside did not appear, enthusiastic teachers planned challenging and beneficial projects and activities for gifted students in their classes.

Although progress continued in the mid-1980s, the gifted movement was pressured by society to also step backward. As we describe in Chapter 1, the problem was a reborn commitment to equity—helping troubled students become more average. Some school districts trashed their gifted programs along with tracking and grouping plans. Although efforts to promote equity and efforts to support high-ability students in order to encourage excellence are not necessarily incompatible, many educators perceived gifted programs as unfair to average students and conse- quently pitched the baby with the bathwater.

A second and smaller backward step was the coop- erative learning style of teaching. Cooperative learning groups certainly supply academic and social benefits for most children, but often not for gifted ones. Whereas gifted

students benefit from opportunities for collaboration, they need advanced academic work; challenging independent projects that develop creativity, thinking skills, and habits of independent work; and grouping with gifted peers to accommodate their education and social needs. They should not be required to work at a too-slow pace or to serve only as teachers to others in the group.

A third factor that always takes its toll for gifted pro- grams is simply the economy. When the going gets tough, gifted programs—viewed by critics as elitist luxuries for “students who don’t need help” or even “welfare for the rich”—are among the first to be cut.

Although damage continues, gifted education is resilient. In many schools and districts, it is healthier than ever. At least four events have aided the survival and even growth of gifted education. First, some schools and dis- tricts, for the most part, ignored the reform movement and steamed ahead with differentiated instruction for gifted students. Research shows that such resilience is most likely to exist if two disarmingly simple features are present: enthusiastic teachers and administrators and/or state legis- lation that requires gifted services.

Second, grouping based on ability or achievement remains alive and well at all education levels (Kulik, 2003). Special classes in high school (e.g., AP and honors classes) and grouping in the elementary school (especially for math and reading) continue in nearly every individual school. Attendance at community colleges and local uni- versities for high school students has expanded.

Third is the move toward improving education for all students—including high-ability ones. This move is partly a response to the reform movement and can come under the talent development banner. For example, differ- entiated curriculum and high-level activities such as think- ing skills and creativity are brought into the regular classroom, and strategies for identifying gifted students are becoming more flexible. Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model (described in Chapter 7) exemplifies this trend.

A fourth, twofold dramatic change emerged after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Although funneling money toward national defense caused funding for gifted education to be in short supply, there has been greater recognition of the need for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) inno- vation to support national security since 2001. Expansion of foreign-language learning has also been prioritized in order to promote understanding of the cultures and goals of both allied nations and groups that might do us harm. The cycling continues as we experience a déjà vu of the post-Sputnik times mentioned earlier, but it has also moved forward. Today’s education of the gifted and talented

Preface vii

places much greater emphasis on creativity, innovation, and the applications of significant research findings related to successful gifted education.

our appreCiatioN

The authors wish to thank Marie Cookson, Melissa Lampe, and Barb Gregory, editorial assistants to Sylvia Rimm, for their ever-helpful organizational and editorial contribu- tions. We would like to thank Ashley Carpenter, Susan Dulong Langley, and Maggie Haberlein for their assistance with the references; Susan Dulong Langley for her assis- tance compiling the learning objectives for each chapter; the Pearson Education staff, including Janelle Rogers, Program Manager, Teacher Education and Workforce

Readiness, and Kevin Davis, Director of Editorial and Portfolio Manager; and the Aptara team, including Pat Walsh, Supervisory Project Manager, Erica Gordon, Project Manager, Rights and Permissions, and Rakhshinda Chishty, Full-Service Project Manager. A special thank you goes to Julie Scardiglia for her kind and patient assis- tance with permissions and changes. Also, we appreciate Marianne L’Abbate’s careful editing during the production stage. The authors also wish to extend their appreciation to the many families with gifted children who supplied real- life examples, as well as to teachers of the gifted who con- tributed their continuing experiences. Finally, we are indebted and appreciative to our own families for their encouragement, support, and experiences that helped enrich our text.

This page intentionally left blank

Brief contents

Preface v

chapter 1 Gifted Education: Matching Instruction with Needs 1 chapter 2 Characteristics of Gifted Students 23 chapter 3 Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 40 chapter 4 Program Planning 70 chapter 5 Acceleration 93 chapter 6 Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 114 chapter 7 Curriculum Models 140 chapter 8 Creativity I: The Creative Person, Creative Process, and Creative

Dramatics 161 chapter 9 Creativity II: Teaching for Creative Growth 175 chapter 10 Teaching Thinking Skills 195 chapter 11 Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education 218 chapter 12 Underachievement: Identification and Reversal 232 chapter 13 Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage: The Invisible Gifted 260 chapter 14 Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 287 chapter 15 Gifted Children with Disabilities 306 chapter 16 Parenting the Gifted Child 326 chapter 17 Understanding and Counseling Gifted Students 347 chapter 18 Program Evaluation 372

References 391 Name Index 441 Subject Index 450

ix

This page intentionally left blank

contents

preface v

Chapter 1 Gifted education: Matching instruction with needs 1 History of Giftedness and Gifted Education 3 Contemporary History of Gifted Education 4 National Center for Research on Gifted Education 9 Definitions of Giftedness 11 Explanations and Interpretations of Giftedness and Intelligence 13

Summary 21

Chapter 2 characteristics of Gifted students 23 The Terman Studies 23 Traits of Intellectually Gifted Children 26 Affective Characteristics 27 Characteristics of the Creatively Gifted 30 Characteristics of Historically Eminent Persons 31 Characteristics of Teachers of the Gifted 36

Summary 38

Chapter 3 identifying Gifted and talented students 40 Thoughts and Issues in Identification 41 National Report on Identification 44 Identification Methods 44 Assessment of Gardner’s Eight Intelligences 54 Triarchic Abilities Test 54 A Multidimensional Culture-Fair Assessment Strategy 55 Talent Pool Identification Plan: Renzulli 55 Identifying Gifted Preschoolers 56 Identifying Gifted Secondary Students 56 Recommendations from the National Report on Identification and NRC/GT 58 Considering the Goals of Identification 61

Summary 61    •    Appendix 3.1: NAGC Position Statement 63    •    Appendix 3.2: Spanish Edition of Rimm’s (1976) GIFT Creativity Inventory 64    •    Appendix 3.3: Teacher Nomination Form 65    •    Appendix 3.4: Teacher Nomination Form 66    •    Appendix 3.5: Student Product Assessment Form 67    •    Appendix 3.6: Rubrics for Verbal and Problem- Solving Tasks 68    •    Appendix 3.7: Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students 69

Chapter 4 Program Planning 70 Main Components of Program Planning 71 Program Planning: Sixteen Areas 73 The View from the School Board 85

xi

xii Contents

Perspectives of Other Teachers 86 Curriculum Considerations 88 Legal Issues in Gifted Education 88

Summary 90    •    Appendix 4.1: Ideas for Statements of Philosophy, Rationale, and Objectives 91    •    Appendix 4.2: National Standards for Preparation of Teachers of the Gifted 92

Chapter 5 acceleration 93 Acceleration versus Enrichment 95 A Nation Deceived and a Nation Empowered—Definitive Research on Acceleration 96 Types of Acceleration 98 Grade Skipping 102 Subject Skipping and Acceleration 104 Early Admission to Middle or Senior High School 105 Credit by Examination 105 College Courses in High School 105 Advanced Placement 106 Distance Learning 106 Telescoped Programs 106 Early Admission to College 107 Residential High Schools 107 International Baccalaureate Programs 108 Talent Search Programs 109

Summary 111    •    Appendix 5.1: College Board Offices 112    •    Appendix 5.2: Talent Search and Elementary Talent Search Programs 112

Chapter 6 Grouping, Differentiation, and enrichment 114 Grouping Options: Bringing Gifted Students Together 115 Differentiation 121 Enrichment 125 Independent Study, Research, and Art Projects 126 Learning Centers 128 Field Trips 128 Saturday Programs 128 Summer Programs 129 Mentors and Mentorships 130 Junior Great Books 131 Competitions 132 Technology and the Gifted 134 Comments on Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 136

Summary 136    •    Appendix 6.1: Places That Publish Student Work 138

Chapter 7 curriculum Models 140 Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Renzulli and Reis 141 Autonomous Learner Model: Betts 146

Contents xiii

Advanced Academic Program Development Model: Peters, Matthews, McBee, and McCoach 147 Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model: Feldhusen et al. 148 Parallel Curriculum Model: Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, Purcell, Leppien, and Burns 150 Multiple Menu Model: Renzulli 152 Integrated Curriculum Model: VanTassel-Baska 154 Mentoring Mathematical Minds Model: Gavin et al. 155 The Grid: Constructing Differentiated Curriculum for the Gifted: Kaplan 156 CLEAR Model: Callahan et al. 157 Comment 159

Summary 159

Chapter 8 creativity i: the creative Person, creative Process, and creative Dramatics 161 Theories of Creativity 161 Levels of Creativity 163 Creative Persons 164 Creative Abilities 166 The Creative Process 167 The Creative Process as a Change in Perception 170 Creative Dramatics 170

Summary 173

Chapter 9 creativity ii: teaching for creative Growth 175 Can Creativity Be Taught? 175 Goals of Creativity Training 176 Creativity Consciousness, Creative Attitudes, and Creative Personality Traits 176 Understanding the Topic of Creativity 178 Strengthening Creative Abilities 180 Personal Creative Thinking Techniques 182 Standard Creative Thinking Techniques 184 Involving Students in Creative Activities 191 Creative Teaching and Learning 192

Summary 193

Chapter 10 teaching thinking skills 195 Issues 196 Indirect Teaching, Direct Teaching, and Metacognition 197 Types of Thinking Skills 199 Critical Thinking 201 Models, Programs, and Exercises for Teaching Thinking Skills 202 Philosophy for Children: Lipman 208 Talents Unlimited 209 Instrumental Enrichment: Feuerstein 209 Critical Thinking Books and Technology 211

Involving Parents as Partners in Teaching Thinking Skills 214 Obstacles to Effective Thinking 215 Selecting Thinking-Skills Exercises and Materials 215

Summary 216

Chapter 11 Leadership, affective Learning, and character education 218 Leadership 219 Leadership Definitions: Traits, Characteristics, and Skills 219 Leadership Training 220 Affective Learning 223 Self-Concept 223 Moral Development: The Kohlberg Model 225 Materials and Strategies for Encouraging Affective Growth 228 The Humanistic Teacher 229

Summary 230

Chapter 12 Underachievement: identification and reversal 232 Definition and Identification of Underachievement 233 Characteristics of Underachieving Gifted Children 237 Etiologies of Underachievement 243 Family Etiology 243 School Etiology 248 Reversal of Underachievement 252

Summary 258

Chapter 13 cultural Diversity and economic Disadvantage: the invisible Gifted 260 Legislation 261 Special Needs 262 Factors Related to Success for Disadvantaged Youth 264 Identification 266 Programming for Gifted Students Who are Culturally Different 273 Gifted Programming in Rural Areas 282

Summary 284

Chapter 14 Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 287 Gifted Girls 287 Historical Background 288 Present Status of Women 289 Gifted Boys 293 Sex Differences or Gender Differences 293 Mathematics Abilities 296 Differences in Expectations, Achievement Orientation, and Aspirations 299 Reversing Gender-Based Underachievement 303

Summary 304

xiv Contents

Chapter 15 Gifted children with Disabilities 306 Needs of Gifted Students with Disabilities 306 Identification 310 Critical Ingredients of Programs for Gifted Children with Disabilities 317 Reducing Communication Limitations 318 Self-Concept Development 319 High-Level Abstract Thinking Skills 322 Parenting Children with Disabilities 323

Summary 324

Chapter 16 Parenting the Gifted child 326 Parenting by Positive Expectations 326 Some Special Parenting Concerns 327 Preschool Children 336 Nontraditional Parenting 339 Parent Support Groups and Advocacy 342 Teaching Teens Self-Advocacy 344 Parents as Teachers—Home Schooling Gifted Children 344

Summary 345    •    Appendix 16.1: National Gifted and Talented Educational Organizations 346

Chapter 17 Understanding and counseling Gifted students 347 Historical Background 349 Personal and Social Issues 349 Perfectionism 353 Emotional Sensitivity and Overexcitability 355 Gifted and Gay 357 Gifted and Overweight 358 Depression and Suicide 360 Career Guidance and Counseling 361 Strategies for Counseling Gifted Students 363 Stress Management 365 Developing a Counseling Program for Gifted Students 367 Comment 369

Summary 369    •    Appendix 17.1: Recommended Reading for Counselors, Administrators, and Teachers 371

Chapter 18 Program evaluation 372 Why Must Programs Be Evaluated? 372 Evaluation Design: Begin at the Beginning 373 Evaluation Models 373 Complexity of Evaluation and Audience: A Hierarchy 377 Instrument Selection 379 Test Construction 380

Contents xv

Daily Logs 383 Indicators 383 Student Self-Evaluations 383 Performance Contracting 383 Commitment to Evaluation 384

Summary 384    •    Appendix 18.1: Example of a Structured Observation Form 385    •    Appendix 18.2: Example of a Classroom Observation Form 386    •    Appendix 18.3: Administrator Survey 389

References 391

Name Index 441

Subject Index 450

xvi Contents

1

1 Gifted Education Matching Instruction with Needs

Learning OutcOmes

1. Summarize the evolution of giftedness and gifted education from ancient through modern times.

2. Analyze how key individuals, ideas, and events shaped the contemporary history of gifted education.

3. Assess the importance of the National Center for Research on Gifted Education.

4. Recommend a defensible definition of giftedness.

5. Compare and contrast the range of explanations and interpretations of giftedness and intelligence.

C H A P T E R

T ens of thousands of gifted and talented children and adolescents continue to sit in their classrooms—their abilities unrecognized, their needs unmet. Some are bored, patiently waiting for peers to learn skills and concepts that they had mastered one or two years earlier. Some find school intolerable, feigning illness or

creating other excuses to avoid the trivia. Many develop poor study habits from the slow pace and lack of chal- lenge. Some feel pressured to hide their keen talents and skills from uninterested and unsympathetic peers. Some give up on school entirely, dropping out as soon as they are legally able. Some educators have called it a “quiet crisis” (Renzulli & Park, 2002).

Other gifted students tolerate school but satisfy their intellectual, creative, and artistic needs outside the for- mal system. The lucky ones have parents who sponsor their dance or music lessons, microscopes, telescopes, computers, art supplies, and frequent trips to libraries and museums. The less fortunate ones make do as best they can, silently paying a price for a predicament they may not understand and that others choose to ignore. That price is lost academic growth; lost creative potential; and, sometimes, lost enthusiasm for educational success, eventual professional achievement, and substantial contributions to society.

Some educators—and many parents of nongifted students—are not swayed by the proposition that unrecog- nized and unsupported talent is wasted talent. A common reaction is, “Those kids will make it on their own,” or “Give the extra help to kids who really need it!” The argument is that providing special services for highly able or talented students is “elitist”—giving to the haves and ignoring the have-nots—and therefore unfair and undemo- cratic. Other criticisms refer to the costs of additional teachers and other resources and to the idea that pullout programs or special classes remove good role models from the regular classroom. Many teachers feel that students should adjust to the curriculum rather than the other way around (Coleman & Cross, 2000).

Naming the problem “sounds of silence,” Sternberg (1996) itemized dismal ways in which society reacts to the needs of the gifted. Specifically, federal funding is almost absent. Few laws protect the rights of the gifted, in contrast with many laws protecting children with special needs. Gifted programs tend to be the last

2 Chapter 1

installed and the first axed. Disgruntled parents register their gifted children in private schools, but most can’t afford them.

Some see gifted programs as “welfare for the rich.” Average children are the majority, and their parents prefer not to support other parents’ “pointy-headed” bright chil- dren. Besides, don’t gifted children possess great potential without special support? Some critics of gifted programs believe that gifted students are inherently selfish and that parents of the gifted at PTA meetings are “the loudest and least deserving.”

Gifted children are indeed our most valuable natural resource. We must recognize multiple forms of giftedness. We must recognize alternative learning styles, thinking styles, and patterns of abilities and coordinate instruction with these characteristics in mind. Programs need to be expanded and evaluated. Everyone—parents, teachers, administrators, and others—must be educated about the needs of our gifted children.

Currently, some criticisms of gifted education include a strong spark of conscience-rending truth. In fact, White, middle-income, and Asian students tend to be over- represented in gifted and talented (G/T) programs, whereas African American, Hispanic, and low-income students are underrepresented. The problem is drawing strong attention to identification strategies, with a move toward multiple and culturally fair identification criteria (Chapter 3); to broadened conceptions of intelligence and giftedness (later in this chapter); and even to G/T program evaluation (Chapter 18) in the sense of assessing effects on students not in the program, other teachers, administrators, and the larger community (Borland, 2003).

Our love-hate relationship with gifted education has been noted by Gallagher (1997, 2003), Colangelo and Davis (2003), and others. We admire and applaud the indi- vidual who rises from a humble background to high educa- tional and career success. At the same time, as a nation, we are committed to equality.

The educational pendulum swings back and forth between strong concern for excellence and a zeal for equity, that is, between helping bright and creative students develop their capabilities and realize their potential contri- butions to society, and helping below-average and troubled students reach minimum academic standards. Although interest in the gifted has mushroomed worldwide since the mid-1970s, the pendulum swung forcefully back to equity during the final years of the 20th century and the first years of the 21st century. Programs for the gifted were being terminated because they were not “politically correct,” because of budget cutting, because of the lack of support- ive teachers and administrators, and because gifted education was not mandated by the particular state.

The  Philanthropy Roundtable has made efforts toward attracting “Wise Givers” to contribute toward educating gifted children (Smarick, 2013), yet few funders target our most talented students.

In particular, the antitracking/antiability grouping movement, the No Child Left Behind legislation, the incon- sistent funding of the Javits Act, and the recent economic struggles in education have inflicted damage on G/T pro- grams and on gifted children themselves. On the other hand, the science-technology-engineering-mathematics (STEM) legislation, including the America Competes Act, holds hope for a small upswing of the pendulum, as do grant awards for critical foreign-language instruction and the refunding of the Javits Act. America’s need to compete around the globe has sometimes in the past fueled educa- tional initiatives favorable to gifted education.

Of course, America and the world need both equity and excellence. Many students need special help. The rights of slower learners, students with physical or psycho- logical disabilities, and students with language and cultural differences are vehemently defended, and they should be. However, a good argument can be made that gifted stu- dents also have rights and that these rights are often ignored. Just as with other exceptional students, students with gifts and talents also deserve an education commen- surate with their capabilities. It is unfair to them to ignore, or worse, to prevent the development of their special skills and abilities and to depress their educational aspirations and eventual career achievements. Our democratic system promises each person—regardless of racial, cultural, or economic background and regardless of sex or condition that is disabling—the opportunity to develop as an indi- vidual as far as that person’s talents and motivation permit. This guarantee seems to promise that opportunities and training will be provided to help gifted and talented stu- dents realize their innate potential.

To those who argue that gifted students will “make it on their own,” sensible replies are that (a) every child should have the right to learn something new every day, (b) they should not be held back and required to succeed in spite of a frustrating educational system, and (c) some do not make it on their own. Rimm (2008b), for example, cited research showing that 10% to 20% of high school dropouts are in the tested gifted range. Almost invariably, gifted dropouts are underachievers—talented students who are unguided, uncounseled, and unchallenged (Renzulli & Park, 2002; Rimm, 2008b; Whitmore, 1980). The widely cited A Nation at Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) reported that “over half the population of gifted students do not match their tested abil- ity with comparable achievement in school.” Percentages of underachievers vary; research on underachievement is

Gifted Education 3

complex. Gifted underachievers may no longer appear to be or test as gifted.

Gifted students themselves are not the only ones who benefit from specific programs that recognize and cultivate their talents: Teachers involved with gifted students learn to stimulate creative, artistic, and scientific thinking and to help students understand themselves, develop good self- concepts, and value education and career accomplish- ments. In short, teachers of the gifted become better teachers, and their skills benefit “regular” students as well. Society also reaps a profit. Today’s gifted and talented stu- dents will become tomorrow’s political leaders, medical researchers, artists, writers, innovative engineers, and busi- ness entrepreneurs. Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend a proposal that this essential talent be left to fend for itself— if it can—instead of being valued, identified, and culti- vated. U.S. schools lag far behind other nations in tests of science and math achievement (Mervis, 2007). The only way our country will reach its potential is if every child, including the gifted and talented child, has an opportunity to reach his or her potential. Tomorrow’s promise is in today’s schools, and it must not be ignored.

History of Giftedness and Gifted education

Giftedness over the centuries

Whether a person is judged “gifted” depends on the values of the culture. General academic skills or talents in more specific aesthetic, scientific, economic, or athletic areas have not always been judged as desirable “gifts.”

In ancient Sparta, for example, military skills were so exclusively valued that all boys, beginning at age 7, received schooling and training in the arts of combat and warfare. Babies with physical defects, or who other- wise were of questionable value, were f lung off a cliff (Meyer, 1965).

In Athens, social position and gender determined opportunities. Upper-class free Greeks sent their boys to private schools that taught reading, writing, arithmetic, history, literature, the arts, and physical fitness. Sophists were hired to teach young men mathematics, logic, rheto- ric, politics, grammar, general culture, and disputation. Apparently, only Plato’s Academy charged no fees and selected both young men and women on the basis of intel- ligence and physical stamina, not social class.

Roman education emphasized architecture, engi- neering, law, and administration. Both boys and girls attended first-level (elementary) schools, and some girls attended second-level (grammar) schools, but higher edu- cation was restricted to boys. Rome valued mother and

family, however, and some gifted women emerged who greatly affected Roman society, most notably Cornelia, Roman matron and mother of statesmen Gaius and Tibe- rius Gracchus.

Early China, beginning with the Tang Dynasty in a.d. 618, valued gifted children and youth, sending child prodigies to the imperial court, where their gifts were both recognized and cultivated. Chinese leaders anticipated several principles of modern G/T education. They accepted a multiple-talent concept of giftedness, valuing literary ability, leadership, imagination, and originality, and intellectual and perceptual abilities such as reading speed,  memory, reasoning, and perceptual sensitivity (Tsuin-chen, 1961). They also recognized (a) apparently precocious youth who grow up to be average adults; (b) seemingly average youth whose gifts emerge later; and (c) true child prodigies, whose gifts and talents are apparent throughout their lives. An important point, attributed to Confucius about 500 b.c., is that the Chinese recognized that education should be available to all children, but all children should be educated differently according to their abilities.

In Japan, birth again determined opportunities. Dur- ing the Tokugawa Society period, 1604–1868 (Anderson, 1975), Samurai children received training in Confucian classics, martial arts, history, composition, calligraphy, moral values, and etiquette. Commoners, conveniently, were taught loyalty, obedience, humility, and diligence. A  few scholars established private academies for intellectually gifted children, both Samurai and common.

Aesthetics inf luenced Renaissance Europe, which valued and produced remarkable art, architecture, and lit- erature. Strong governments sought out and rewarded the creatively gifted, for example, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Boccaccio, Bernini, and Dante.

Giftedness in the united states

At first in the United States, concern for the education of gifted and talented children was not great. Some gifted youth were accommodated in the sense that attendance at  secondary school and college was based both on academic achievement and the ability to pay the fees (Newland, 1976).

With compulsory attendance laws, schooling became available to all, but special services for gifted children were sparse (Abraham, 1976; Greenlaw & McIntosh, 1988; Heck, 1953; Witty, 1967, 1971). A few bright spots were as follows:

●● In 1870, St. Louis, Missouri, initiated tracking, which allowed some students to accelerate through the first eight grades in fewer than eight years.

4 Chapter 1

contemporary History of Gifted education

Recent history underlying today’s strong interest in gifted education begins with capsule stories of the contributions of Francis Galton, Alfred Binet, Lewis Terman, and Leta Hollingworth, followed by the impact of Russia’s Sputnik, a look at the gifted movement in America and worldwide, and at gifted education in the 21st century.

Hereditary Genius: sir francis Galton

The English scientist Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911), a younger cousin of Charles Darwin, is credited with the ear- liest significant research and writing devoted to intelli- gence testing. Galton believed that intelligence was related to the keenness of one’s senses—for example, vision, audi- tion, smell, touch, and reaction time. Therefore, his efforts to measure intelligence involved tests such as those of vis- ual and auditory acuity, tactile sensitivity, and reaction time. Impressed by cousin Charles’s Origin of the Species, Galton reasoned that evolution would favor persons with keen senses—persons who could more easily detect food sources or sense approaching danger. Therefore, he con- cluded that one’s sensory ability—that is, intelligence—is due to natural selection and heredity. The hereditary basis of intelligence seemed to be confirmed by his observa- tions—reported in his most famous book, Hereditary Genius (Galton, 1869)—that distinguished persons seemed to come from succeeding generations of distinguished families. Galton initially overlooked the fact that members of distinguished, aristocratic families also traditionally inherit a superior environment, wealth, privilege, and opportunity—incidentals that make it easier to become distinguished.

Galton’s emphasis on the high heritability of intelli- gence is shared by many intelligence researchers (e.g., Gottfredson, 1997a, 2003; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1969; Jensen & Miele, 2002; Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001).

roots of modern intelligence tests: alfred Binet

Modern intelligence tests have their roots in France in the 1890s. Alfred Binet, aided by T. Simon, was hired by gov- ernment officials in Paris to devise a test to identify which (dull) children would not benefit from regular classes and therefore should be placed in special classes to receive spe- cial training. Even then, someone had perceptively noticed that teachers’ judgments of student ability sometimes were biased by traits such as docility, neatness, and social skills. Some children were placed in schools for the mentally

●● In 1884, Woburn, Massachusetts, created the “ Double Tillage Plan,” a form of grade-skipping in which bright children attended the first semester of first grade, then switched directly into the second semes- ter of second grade.

●● In 1886, schools in Elizabeth, New Jersey, began a multiple-tracking system that permitted gifted learn- ers to progress at a faster pace.

●● In 1891, Cambridge, Massachusetts, schools devel- oped a double-track plan; also, special tutors taught students capable of even more highly accelerated work.

●● Around 1900 some “rapid progress” classes appeared that telescoped three years of schoolwork into two.

●● In 1901, Worcester, Massachusetts, opened the first special school for gifted children.

●● In 1916, opportunity classes (special classes) were created for gifted children in Los Angeles, Califor- nia, and Cincinnati, Ohio.

●● By about 1920, approximately two-thirds of all larger cities had created some type of program for gifted students; for example, special classes were begun in 1919 in Urbana, Illinois, and in 1922, in Manhattan, New York, and Cleveland, Ohio.

In the 1920s and into the 1930s, interest in gifted education dwindled, apparently for two good reasons. Dean Worcester referred to the 1920s as “the age of the common man” and “the age of mediocrity,” a time when “the idea was to have everybody just as near alike as they could be” (Getzels, 1977, pp. 263–264). Administrators had no interest in helping any student achieve beyond the standard; the focus was on equity. The second reason was the Great Depression, which reduced most people’s con- cern to mere survival. Providing special opportunities for gifted children was low on the totem pole.

Giftedness in europe

In contrast with the United States, tracking and ability grouping (streaming) have not been as contentious in Europe (Passow, 1997). On the surface, not much was said about “the gifted.” However, the structure of the European national school systems was openly geared to identifying and educating the most intellectually able. Ability group- ing, particularly, has been a traditional way to identify able learners and channel their education.

In England, as distinct from the rest of Europe, the strong class consciousness that has pervaded British soci- ety, which includes resentment of inherited (unearned) wealth and titles, led to an egalitarian reluctance to spend scarce educational funds to help gifted students, who seemed already advantaged. Not until the late 1990s did gifted education gain momentum in England (Gross, 2003).

Gifted Education 5

By 1928, he added another 528. Of the 1,528, there were 856 boys and 672 girls. The average age was 12 years. All gifted and most comparison children were from major California cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda. They had been initially identified by teachers as highly intelligent. Tests, questionnaires, and interviews in at least nine major contacts (field studies or mailings) in 1922, 1927–1928, 1936, 1939–1940, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, and 1972 traced their physical, psycho- logical, social, and professional development for half a century (e.g., Oden, 1968). The earliest research involved parents, teachers, medical records, and even anthropomet- ric (head) measurements. Terman died in 1956, but his work was continued by others, including Anne H. Barbee, Melita Oden, Pauline S. Sears, and Robert R. Sears.

Regarding his subject sample, in comparison with the general populations of the California urban centers at the time, there were twice as many children of Jewish descent than would be expected, but fewer children of African American or Hispanic American parents. Chinese American children were not sampled at all because they attended special Asian schools at the time. Note also that the effects of heredity versus environment were hopelessly tangled in Terman’s subjects. Most parents of these bright children generally were better educated and had higher- status occupations, and so their children grew up in advan- taged circumstances.

Terman’s high-IQ children—called “Termites” in gifted-education circles—were superior in virtually every quality examined. As we will see in Chapter 2, they not only were better students, but they also were psychologi- cally, socially, and even physically healthier than the aver- age. Terman observed that the myth of brilliant students being weak, unattractive, or emotionally unstable was simply not true as a predominant trend.

Some other noteworthy conclusions related to the Terman studies are the following:

●● While in elementary and secondary school, those who were allowed to accelerate according to their intellectual potential were more successful. Those not permitted to accelerate developed poor work habits that sometimes wrecked their college careers.

●● Differences between the most and least successful gifted men indicated that family values and parents’ education were major factors. For example, 50% of the parents of Terman’s “most productive” group were college graduates, but only 15% of the parents of the “least productive” group had college degrees.

●● On the downside, and with the benefit of hindsight, restricting the identification of “genius” or “gifted- ness” to high IQ scores is severely limiting; artistic

challenged because they were too quiet; were too aggres- sive; or had problems with speech, hearing, or vision. A direct test of intelligence was badly needed.

Binet tried a number of tests that failed. It seemed that normal students and dull students were not particu- larly different in (a) hand-squeezing strength, (b) hand speed in moving 50 cm (almost 20 inches), (c) the amount of pressure on the forehead that causes pain, (d) detecting differences in hand-held weights, or (e) reaction time to sounds or in naming colors. When he measured the ability to pay attention, memory, judgment, reasoning, and com- prehension, he began to obtain results. The tests would separate children judged by teachers to differ in intelli- gence (Binet & Simon, 1905a, 1905b). Binet’s goal was initially to identify those with sufficient intelligence to benefit from schooling.

One of Binet’s significant contributions was the notion of mental age—the concept that children grow in intelligence, that any given child may be at the proper stage intellectually for his or her years, or else measurably ahead or behind. A related notion is that, at any given age level, children who learn the most do so partly because of greater intelligence.

In 1890 noted American psychologist James McKeen Cattell called for the development of tests that would meas- ure mental ability (Stanley, 1978a); his request was at least partly responsible for the immediate favorable reception to Binet’s tests in America. In 1910, Goddard described the use of Binet’s methods to measure the intelligence of 400 “feebleminded” New Jersey children, and in 1911 he sum- marized Binet’s evaluation of 2,000 normal children. The transition from using the Binet tests with below-average children to employing them with normal and above-aver- age children thus was complete and successful.

Lewis terman: the stanford–Binet test, His Gifted children studies

Stanford psychologist Lewis Madison Terman made two historically significant contributions to gifted education that have earned him the title of father of the gifted educa- tion movement. First, Terman supervised the modification and Americanization of the Binet–Simon tests, producing in 1916 the forerunner of all American intelligence tests, the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale.

Terman’s second contribution was his identification and longitudinal study of 1,528 gifted children, published in the Genetic Studies of Genius series (Burks, Jensen, & Terman, 1930; Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959; see Shurkin, 1992). In 1922, Terman and his col- leagues identified 1,000 children with Stanford–Binet IQ scores above 135 (most were above 140), the upper 1%.

6 Chapter 1

were 50 gifted students (two “Terman Classes”) and 175 students with IQs in the 75–90 range (seven “Binet Classes”). The Terman students interacted daily with the Binet students in activities such as student council, physi- cal education, a Girl Scout troop, a boy’s basketball team, the school newspaper, field trips to factories and muse- ums, and recess—which fostered tolerance for individual differences.

The curriculum for the high-IQ Terman students, which earned worldwide attention, included “a rich back- ground of ideas … education for initiative and originality … [based] upon sound and exhaustive knowledge … [and] evolution of culture” (Hollingworth, 1938, pp. 297–298). Remarkably, homework was not required, and reading was not taught because most students could read before they entered school.

Addressing more general issues, Hollingworth believed that the top 1% (IQs 130 to 180) are gifted, gifted children become gifted adults, early identification is essen- tial in order to provide optimal educational experiences, and schools should use multiple identification criteria. Hollingworth’s identification procedure included individ- ual IQ tests, interviews with parents and the child, teacher and principal nominations, and a review of each child’s social and emotional maturity.

Hollingworth made the important observation that children of 140 IQ waste about half their time in school, and children of 170 IQ waste practically all of their time (Hollingworth, 1939). Few of today’s gifted educators would disagree.

Hollingworth made early contributions to counseling the gifted or, as she put it, to their “emotional education.” Unlike Terman’s overemphasis on the mental health of bright children, Hollingworth (1942) underscored that highly intelligent children also are highly vulnerable. Social and emotional problems emerge because intellec- tual development outstrips the child’s age and physical development. The gifted child’s advanced vocabulary, interests, and preferences for games with complicated rules alienate average children. Hollingworth sought to help gifted children understand that less talented students could be friends and, in many circumstances, even mentors.

Many adults do not understand precocity, observed Hollingworth. They may tease a child about his or her knowledge, or a teacher may prevent a child from explor- ing advanced resources. The combination of adult igno- rance with childhood knowledge causes problems for the precocious child. Many gifted children become apathetic in schools that ignore their intellectual needs and may develop negative attitudes toward authority figures.

Hollingworth’s experiences with gifted children are summarized in two books: Gifted Children: Their Nature and

and creative genius and genius in a single area were ignored.

●● As another negative, Terman’s conclusions regarding the mental and social health of his bright children swayed educators for many decades to ignore the sometimes desperate counseling needs of gifted children (Chapter 17).

Leta Hollingworth: “nurturant mother” of Gifted education

According to Stanley (1978a), Galton was the grandfather of the gifted-child movement, Binet the midwife, Terman the father, and Columbia University’s profoundly gifted Leta Hollingworth the nurturant mother. Her pioneering efforts began in 1916, when she encountered an eight-year- old boy who tested 187 IQ on the new Stanford–Binet scale. Said Hollingworth (1942, p. xii), “I perceived the clear and flawless working of his mind against a contrast- ing background of thousands of dull and foolish minds. It was an unforgettable observation.” Indeed, the observation changed the direction of her career and life (Delisle, 1992).

Hollingworth’s efforts supporting gifted children and gifted education in the New York area included literally inventing strategies to identify, teach, and counsel gifted children. Space will not permit an adequate summary of this remarkable woman’s accomplishments and contribu- tions. See Klein (2000) for a brief, but more adequate, overview.

In 1922 at New York City Public School (P.S.) 165, with help from schoolteachers and the Columbia Univer- sity Teachers College faculty and administrators, Holling- worth studied and personally taught 50 students divided into two classes, one with an average IQ of 165 and the other with an average IQ of 145. Note (see Chapter 3) that such categories of IQ scores would not be possible with the use of today’s IQ tests because deviation IQ scores are not calculated beyond the 150s for most tests (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008). Children spent about half of their school hours working on the regular curriculum and the other half on enrichment activities, which included conver- sational French, history of civilization, social science, algebra, nutrition, music, dramatics, chess, writing biogra- phies, physical education, and field trips to the Museum of Natural History and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Classroom resources included a typewriter, a mimeograph machine, a microscope, hand lenses, a carpenter’s bench, and work tables (Gray & Hollingworth, 1931; Klein, 2000). Hollingworth spent 18 years at P.S. 165.

A 1936 study at Speyer Elementary School (P.S. 500) included 225 students, 25 per class, representing 23 nationalities from all five New York City boroughs. There

Gifted Education 7

However, Sternberg et al. (1995; see also Richert, 2003; Rogers, 1996) made these points regarding the “meanspir- ited and prejudiced” authors: First, Herrnstein and Murray’s definition of giftedness (high IQ scores) ignores modern conceptions such as those of Gardner, Sternberg, Renzulli, and even the federal multiple-talent definition. Second, correlations (e.g., between IQ and life success) do not necessarily imply causation—that is, that a high IQ causes life success. Third, Herrnstein and Murray stress group and racial differences in IQ; for example, Cauca- sians, Asians, and especially Jewish people, on average, produce higher IQ scores. They pay little attention to the necessity of a favorable social and physical environment. Fourth, The Bell Curve largely ignores the modifiability of tested IQ scores—for example, with Feuerstein’s Instru- mental Enrichment program (see Chapter 10). The central danger, conclude Sternberg et al. (1995), is that, in the IQ meritocracy described in The Bell Curve, low performance on an IQ test shades into low valuation as a human being, a position with which thoughtful people disagree.

It feels good to criticize a politically incorrect book for apparent racism, for “classism,” for faulty logic, and for maligning traditional American values of initiative and hard work. However, intelligence researchers and scholars have presented polite in-your-face arguments—based on decades of twin and sibling studies—that essentially con- clude “life is a long train of activities that constantly requires … learning, thinking, problem-solving, and deci- sion making … in short, the exercise of g” (general intelli- gence; Gottfredson, 2003, p. 35). Further, whether we like it or not, and whether it appears elitist, racist, unfair, and/or undemocratic, basic intelligence, which is best measured by IQ tests, “is the best single predictor—and a better one than social class background” (Gottfredson, p. 35) of school achievement, years of education, occupational level, performance in job training, performance on the job, social competence, child abuse, delinquency, crime, poverty, accident proneness, death from auto accidents, dropping out of school, having a child out of wedlock, smoking during pregnancy, health problems and Medicare claims, and getting a divorce within five years of marriage (Gottfredson, 1997b, 2002; Tannenbaum, 2003). The pre- dictions are valid for all American subpopulations (Gottfredson, 2002, 2003).

While such research conclusions have indeed placed many fair-minded scholars in an uncomfortable dilemma, others remain stolid and smug in their initial pro-IQ or anti-IQ positions.

Arthur Jensen continued his research to measure more exactly the general factor of intelligence (g) by studying reaction time, in a new field known as mental chronometry (MC) (Jensen, 1998; Jensen & Miele, 2002).

Nurture (Hollingworth, 1926) and Children Above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and Development (Hollingworth, 1942). One noteworthy 1931 quote is, “It is the business of education to consider all forms of giftedness in pupils in reference to how unusual individuals may be trained for their own welfare and that of society at large” (Passow, 1981, p. 6).

Hollingworth also was an early advocate for women’s rights. She died in 1939.

Sputnik: the russians are Gaining! the russians are Gaining!

A significant historical event that predated the 1970s resur- gence of interest in gifted education is the launching in 1957 of the Russian satellite Sputnik. To many in the United States, the launch of Sputnik was a glaring and shocking technological defeat—Russia’s scientific minds had outperformed ours (Tannenbaum, 1979). Suddenly, reports criticizing American education, and particularly its ignoring of gifted children, became popular. For example, a 1950 Educational Policies Commission noted that men- tally superior children were being neglected, which would produce losses in the arts, sciences, and professions. In a book entitled Educational Wastelands, Bestor (1953) charged that “know-nothing educationists” had created schools that provided “meager intellectual nourishment or inspiration,” particularly for bored gifted students.

Tannenbaum (1979) referred to the aftermath of Sputnik as a “total talent mobilization.” Gifted students were identified. Acceleration and ability grouping were installed. Academic course work was telescoped (con- densed). College courses were offered in high school. For- eign languages were taught to elementary school children. New math and science curricula were developed. Funds, public and private, were earmarked for training in science and technology. In high school there was a new awareness of and concern for high scholastic standards and career mindedness. Bright and talented students were expected to take tough courses to “fulfill their potential, and submit their developed abilities for service to the nation” (Tannenbaum, 1979, p. 12).

While Sputnik itself was a great success, the keen interest in educating gifted and talented students fizzled in about five years. The awareness and concern were rekin- dled in the mid-1970s.

the Bell curve and other iQ controversies

Herrnstein and Murray’s (1994) The Bell Curve appeared, at first, to present a strong gift to gifted education. The  authors support programs for the gifted because these high-IQ persons supply our professional leadership.

8 Chapter 1

dance, art, business, history, health, and other human pursuits.

●● Most gifted and talented students spend their school days without attention to their special learning needs; teachers make few if any provisions for gifted students.

●● In elementary school, gifted students already have mastered 35% to 50% of the curriculum to be offered before they begin the school year.

Some report recommendations are as follows:

●● Content standards, curriculum, and assessment prac- tices must challenge all students, including those who are gifted and talented.

●● Communities and schools must provide more and better opportunities for top students to learn advanced material and move at their own pace. Flex- ible learning opportunities must be available inside and outside the school building.

●● Opportunities, support, and high-level learning expe- riences must be made available for disadvantaged and minority children with outstanding talents.

●● Teachers must receive better training in how to teach high-level curricula. They need to provide instruc- tion that sufficiently challenges all students. This will benefit children at every academic level.

There is indeed a quiet crisis in American schools. By 1990, the U.S. government and all 50 states had

enacted legislation, and many states had allocated funds. Many teachers and administrators nationwide and across Canada had become more and more committed to gifted education. Most large school systems and many small ones had initiated programs and services for gifted chil- dren. Researchers, teachers, materials writers, and others continue to write articles, books, tests, and new materials for teaching computer skills, math, art, science, communi- cation skills, learning-how-to-learn skills, values, leader- ship, and creativity and other thinking skills. Counseling has become increasingly recognized as an essential pro- gram component. Enthusiasm among many educators— and certainly among parents of children who are gifted—was high.

Gifted education continues to be variable within the United States. Gifted children have very different opportu- nities, depending on the state in which they live. According to both the Davidson Institute of Talent Development (2016), and the National Association of Gifted Children’s 2014–2015 State of the Nation (2015) at this time, only four states mandate and fully fund gifted education. Nine states and the District of Columbia neither provide a mandate nor fund gifted programs. Twenty-three states

MC measures the response time (RT) taken to process information, and Jensen believes it will have great advan- tages over ordinary psychometric tests because of its exact- ness and the ability to use a ratio scale. His group is collecting elementary cognitive task (ECT) data on groups between the ages of 3 and 88 years (Beaujean, 2002). The RT measure is a déjà vu of the IQ tests used to measure the intelligence of immigrants arriving on Ellis Island, from which psychologist Henry Goddard concluded in 1912 that “the test results established that 83% of Jews, 80% of Hun- garians, and 87% of Russians were ‘feeble-minded’” in the book The Science and Politics of IQ (Kamin, 1974, p. 16).

In contrast, Sternberg’s group (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002) continues to espouse a much broader con- cept that Sternberg labels “the theory of successful intelli- gence.” Sternberg claims that his theory provides a proven model for gifted education (Sternberg & Grigorenko, p. 265):

Successful intelligence is the ability to succeed in life according to one’s own definition of success, within one’s sociocultural context, by capitalizing on one’s strengths and correcting or compensating for one’s weaknesses; in order to adapt to, shape, and select environ- ments; through a combination of analytical, creative, and practical abilities.

Furthermore, from the practical perspective, Tannenbaum (2003) reminds us once again that other factors do sub- stantially affect life outcomes—for example, favorable family circumstances, practice and experience, persis- tence, special talents, physical capabilities, and a winning personality.

Gifted education in the 21st century

The 1993 U.S. Department of Education report National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (Ross, 1993) was a breath of fresh air for educators of gifted students. The report, whose first chapter is entitled “A Quiet Crisis in Educating Talented Students,” f lies smack in the face of the powerful and seemingly anti– gifted education reform movement aimed at abolishing tracking and grouping of students according to ability (dis- cussed later in this chapter). Some highlights of the report are as follows:

●● The United States is squandering one of its most pre- cious resources—the gifts and talents of many of its students. These youngsters are not challenged to do their best work. They perform poorly in comparison with top students in other countries.

●● America relies on its top-performing students to pro- vide leadership in science, math, writing, politics,

Gifted Education 9

are just now beginning to offer special classes for high- ability learners; some are adopting Gardner’s multiple- intelligences model (explained later in this chapter) to accommodate bright and talented students in the regular classroom; some leave gifted education programs to the discretion of individual schools; and worst of all, some simply count on gifted children always to be resilient— and somehow to manage, whatever their circumstances (Persson, Joswig, & Balogh, 2000).

Gifted programs of various types—and with various degrees of teacher training and commitment and support by administrators—are offered presently in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, mainland China, Columbia, Croatia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, England, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Guam, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Latvia, Mexico, Micronesia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the Ukraine, and Wales (Gross, 2003; Passow, 1997; Persson, Joswig, & Balogh, 2000). The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children continues to foster gifted education throughout the world.

nationaL center for researcH on Gifted education

The Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (Javits) was first passed by Congress in 1988 as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and was most recently reauthorized through the Every Student Succeeds Act to support the development of talent in U.S. schools. The Javits Act, which is the only federal program dedicated specifically to gifted and talented students,

mandate gifted programming and partially fund them. Eight states mandate programming but provide absolutely no funding, whereas six have no mandate but nevertheless provide partial funding. It’s absolutely clear that gifted children do not receive equal opportunities for education in this country. Check Figure 1.1 to see where your state stands as of 2016. You may contact your state’s Depart- ment of Education for updated information because man- dates and funding allowances may have changed. Although 12 states provided no funding of the 41 states that the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) sur- veyed in 2015, 14 states increased funding, 5 maintained funding, and only 2 states reduced funding in the last two years. Funding for gifted programs has improved slightly. Parents and educators working together can continue to influence legislation to maintain and increase funding for educating gifted students.

The gifted movement is also worldwide, although some countries are just beginning to make some special provisions for their high-ability students (Persson, Joswig, & Balogh, 2000). For example, a few European countries do not allow enrichment or special classes, but they permit grade skipping—which, incidentally, requires not one whit of special facilities, funds, or teacher training; however, some countries absolutely do not allow grade skipping. Colangelo, Assouline, and Gross (2004a; 2004b) remind us that grade skipping is not only the least expensive but also the most effective curriculum intervention for gifted students (see Chapter 5). Some European countries offer no gifted education options whatsoever but do sponsor competitions in math, computing, physics, and the arts (e.g., painting, writing, video); some countries provide special schools only for music, art, or sports; some rou- tinely assume that classroom differentiation of instruction by teachers is all that is needed for faster learners; some

fiGure 1.1 State Mandates and Funding for Gifted Education. Source: Davidson Database State Policy Map, © 2013. Used with permission of Davidson Institute for Talent Development.

Mandate, full funding Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma

Mandate, partial funding Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Mandate, no funding Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island

No mandate, funding available California, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah

No mandate, no funding Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Vermont

10 Chapter 1

Its goal was to promote academic achievement to produce equity. Student achievement in reading and math increased significantly with the enactment of NCLB. (Kober, Chudowsky, & Chudowsky, 2008). Gains were not as large at the high school level as they were at elementary and mid- dle school levels. Gaps narrowed for African American and low-income students, and outcomes changed in a largely positive direction for Hispanic students. However, the New York Times reported costs to high achievers (Dillon, 2008).

An analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data and results from a national teacher survey shed light on gifted student progress in this era of NCLB (Farkas & Duffett, 2008; Loveless, 2008). Accord- ing to Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution, the low- est-achieving 10% of students made dramatic gains in reading and math: 16 points in reading tests for fourth- graders and 13 points for eighth-graders in math. While the gains for this lowest group should be celebrated, according to Loveless, the top pupils languished academically with insignificant gains. The gap has indeed narrowed, but, unfortunately for gifted students, their educational oppor- tunities diminished and they may legitimately have felt cheated. Farkas and Duffett (2008) surveyed teachers and found that they felt pressured to focus on their lowest- achieving students to the disadvantage and neglect of achieving students. The pressure by NCLB on educators to avoid having their schools branded as failing was real. Most teachers believed they had no other choice and felt torn, although they claimed it offended their sense of fair- ness. Fordham President Charles E. Finn, Jr., questions whether our nation can “afford to let our strongest lan- guish” in a time of fierce international competition and growth (Kuhner, 2008, n.p.). Joseph Renzulli’s (2008) comments were perhaps even more crucial. Although he noted that proponents of prescriptive programs and high- skills testing may have boasted of test-score increases, he questioned whether this gain in test scores adds up to a love of learning or whether these repetitive “drill-and-kill” activities only prevented engagement and enthusiasm for life-long learning. Fortunately, U.S. Secretary of Educa- tion Arne Duncan announced that it was time to shift the emphasis away from testing students to improving the quality of learning (Mervis, 2009).

World competition again encourages science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and critical foreign-Language instruction

An important goal of the America Competes Act signed into law in August 2007 was to strengthen educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and

supports a national research center, individual research grants, and statewide grants. It does not fund local gifted education programs (NAGC, 2016).

Joseph Renzulli’s manifold contributions to gifted education appear in many chapters of this book. A major brainchild was his National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) at the University of Connecticut, which operated from 1990 to 2013. The purpose of NRC/ GT was to conduct consumer-oriented research on key problems in gifted education and thereby to influence edu- cational practices and policies. Collaborating universities included Yale University, the University of Virginia, the University of Georgia, Stanford University, and City Uni- versity of New York, City College. Some NRC/GT prod- ucts included the NRC/GT Newsletter, which summarized, for example, planning gifted programs (Gubbins, 1999). The NRC/GT also distributed one-sheet Practitioner’s Guides that encapsulate, for example, “What Parents [and Teachers] Need To Know About …” gifted young children, gifted adolescents, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), creativity, acceleration, early readers, television viewing, and more. Later projects included the Malleable Minds Project involving cognitive psychologists and neu- roscientists and a STEM Schools of Excellence to obtain first-hand knowledge of effective practices in a sample of STEM schools (The National Research Center, 2014). The Center’s website (http://nrcgt.uconn.edu) contains all of the research reports and products, which are available for download and free use.

After a three-year hiatus in federal funding, Javits was refunded in 2014. Congress restored $5 million to the Javits program and $10 million the following year. A new Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE) funded by the federal government was established at the Univer- sity of Connecticut under the directorship of Del Siegle. Through a collaborative network with the University of Virginia, Florida State University, and the University of California at Berkeley, the NCRGE is conducting research to increase our understanding of identification policies and procedures, instructional approaches, program curricula and content, and stakeholder involvement that contribute to gifted and talented students fulfilling their academic potential. NCRGE research emphasizes understanding effective practices with underserved populations. Informa- tion about the NCRGE research is available on its website (http://ncrge.uconn.edu).

the Gifted Left Behind in the era of no child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 targeted boosting the achievement of the lowest-achieving students.

Gifted Education 11

There is no one definition of gifted, talented, or giftedness that is universally accepted. Common usage of the terms even by experts is ambiguous and inconsistent. For example, it is acceptable to use the terms interchange- ably, as when we describe the same person as either a “gifted artist” or a “talented artist.” For convenience, the authors and others use the single word gifted to abbreviate gifted and talented.

Some writers and the general public see talent and giftedness on a continuum, with giftedness at the upper end. Related to this continuum definition, many pro- grams include students who barely meet the established criteria, along with one or two others who are extraordi- narily brilliant or astonishingly talented in a particular area. No accepted label distinguishes between these two  visible groups, although highly gifted, extremely gifted, or exceptionally gifted are used, along with the tongue-in-cheek severely gifted, profoundly gifted, or exotically gifted.

Renzulli (1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1997) prefers the phrase “gifted behaviors,” which can be developed in certain students at certain times and in certain circum- stances. They argue that the title “gifted” should not be bestowed on children as a result of the identification process. For the same reason, many prefer the phrase “potentially gifted.”

formal federal definitions of Gifted and talented

Any discussion of definitions of gifted and talented must begin with the original U.S. Office of Education (now the Department of Education) definition of gifted and talented (Marland, 1972):

Gifted and talented children are those identi- fied by professionally qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to real- ize their contribution to self and society.

Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential in any of the following areas:

1. General intellectual ability 2. Specific academic aptitude 3. Creative or productive thinking 4. Leadership ability 5. Visual and performing arts 6. Psychomotor ability

mathematics throughout the school years (Inouye, 2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education legislation does not specifically target gifted students. Unlike NCLB, which mainly aims at build- ing basic skills, STEM education has goals that include improving higher-order thinking skills, problem solving, analysis, and synthesis, and these are at least familiar terms in the curriculum of gifted youth. Fueled by concerns about competitiveness within the global economy; shrink- ing numbers of engineering degrees awarded by U.S. col- leges; decreasing numbers of computer science majors; and underrepresentation of African Americans, Hispanics, and women, STEM opportunities may be on the rise (Brett, 2006; Mervis, 2009). Whereas the recipients of STEM funding include universities as well as K–12 schools and should positively affect children of varying abilities, the 40 middle school students who arrive at MIT on the first Sat- urday of every month to participate in unique STEM men- toring experiences (the funding pays for the middle school mentoring experience at MIT) are undoubtedly identified as gifted (Salius, 2007).

Teaching foreign languages has not always been a strength for U.S. schools, but a national security language initiative funds grant awards for teaching Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Korean, and Hindi (Bradshaw, 2008). Like STEM, foreign-language instruction is not reserved for the gifted, but the authors of this book are convinced, after seeing their books translated into these languages, that students must indeed be gifted to learn them. Our hope is that, as in the post-Sputnik era, the recognition of our national need to be competitive will have some positive fallout for gifted students interested in STEM and foreign- language career directions.

definitions of Giftedness

Defining the terms gifted and talented is both an important and a complicated matter. First, the particular definition adopted by a school district guides the identification pro- cess and thus determines who is selected for the special services of a gifted program. Second, there is danger that one’s definition and consequent identification methods will discriminate against special populations such as poor, minority, disabled, and underachieving students. Third, one’s definition of gifts and talents is also tied to program- ming practices; opportunities should be available for dif- ferent types of gifts and talents. Fourth, the labeling effect of defining a student as “gifted” can have both positive and adverse effects—for example, raising self-esteem and self- expectations on one hand, but sometimes alienating peers, peers’ parents, and siblings or otherwise causing stress on self and others.

12 Chapter 1

possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor.

The main difference between the 1972 version and the three later statements is that psychomotor ability was excluded. The reason for this change is that artistic psych- omotor ability talents (for example, dancing, mime) could be included under performing arts, and athletically gifted students typically are well provided for outside G/T pro- grams. In fact, athletic programs may be seen as almost ideal gifted programs: Special teachers (coaches) are hired, expensive equipment and space are provided, training is partly individualized, students meet with others like them- selves, they encourage and reward each other for doing their best, and students even travel to other schools to meet and compete with other talented individuals and teams. Not much was lost by dropping “psychomotor ability” from Congress’s definition. The second very important dif- ference was the 1993 inclusion of the statements respect- ing diverse cultures.

British Columbia funds 2% of its school population who are identified as gifted according to the official defini- tion (British Columbia Ministry of Education Special Edu- cation Services, 1995). Note that this definition resembles the U.S. definitions but acknowledges “multipotentiality” (high ability in several areas; Chapter 17), unusually intense motivation and persistence in a particular area (Chapter 2), and the possibility of also having a physical or learning disability (Chapter 15):

A student is considered gifted when she/he possesses demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of exceptionally high capa- bility with respect to intellect, creativity, or the skills associated with specific disciplines. Students who are gifted often demonstrate outstanding abilities in more than one area. They may demonstrate extraordinary intensity of focus in their particular areas of talent or interest. However, they may also have accom- panying disabilities and should not be expected to have strengths in all areas of intel- lectual functioning.

A 2016 NAGC survey showed that most states had adopted an exact or modified version of a federal defini- tion, usually the well-known 1972 one (Cassidy & Hossler, 1992), and only four states had no definitions.

The federal definition is thoughtful and appealing. It recognizes not only high general intelligence but also gifts in specific academic areas and in the arts. It further calls attention to creative, leadership, and psychomotor gifts and talents. It recognizes that gifted and talented students require “differentiated educational programs and services beyond those normally provided,” thus justifying the development of gifted programs. It recognizes the two fun- damental aims of gifted programs: to help individual gifted and talented students develop their high potential and to provide society with educated professionals who are crea- tive leaders and problem solvers. By including “demon- strated achievement and/or potential ability,” this definition takes underachieving students into consideration. As we will see in Chapter 3, many specific identification strate- gies are based on the categories in the federal definition.

In 1978, the U.S. Congress revised Maryland’s defi- nition to read as follows: The gifted and talented are

children and, whenever applicable, youth who are identified at the preschool, elementary, or secondary level as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capability in areas such as intel- lectual, creative, specific academic or leader- ship ability or in the performing and visual arts, and who by reason thereof require ser- vices or activities not ordinarily provided by the school (U.S. Congress, Educational Amendment of 1978 [P.L. 95–561, IX (A)]).

In 1988, an even shorter version reads,

The term “gifted and talented students” means children and youth who give evidence of high performance capability in areas such as intel- lectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capac- ity, or in specific academic fields, and who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop such capabilities (P.L. 100–297, Sec. 4103. Definitions).

The 1993 “quiet crisis” report presented this defini- tion, which in the new millennium still “reflect[s] today’s knowledge and thinking” (p. 3):

Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas,

Gifted Education 13

actually decreased since the 2009 report (more about this later in the chapter in the discussion of standards).

On the bright side, new opportunities spring up. Many states now have statewide schools (STEM education K–12 [2009] Carnegie Report). In addition, 23 states have summer programs or full-time programs often called Governor’s Schools. These vary in emphasis, including the arts, humanities, and STEM programs. On the even brighter side, gifted education is copiously described in Wikipedia with many references taken from this specific text. Good job, Wikipedia!

expLanations and interpretations of Giftedness and inteLLiGence

Apart from the formal federal definitions, there are many other conceptions, explanations, interpretations, and defi- nitions of giftedness and intelligence.

five categories of definitions

Stankowski (1978) outlined five categories of definitions of gifts and talents. All but the first category continue to guide the identification process:

First, after-the-fact definitions emphasize promi- nence in one of the professions—consistent and outstand- ing achievements in a valuable area.

Second, IQ definitions set a point on the IQ scale, and persons scoring above that point are classed as gifted. Terman’s Stanford–Binet cutoff of 135 is a classic example.

Figure 1.2 shows the areas of giftedness included in state statute definitions. Three states include culturally diverse groups in their definition. Most states include either intel- lectually or academically gifted individuals, but only 23 include those gifted in the performing or visual arts. Twenty-three include creatively gifted youths; 13 include those with leadership abilities; 3, psycho-motor abilities; and 3 specifically include underrepresented, culturally different, and economically disadvantaged gifted students. One state made a unique addition by including career/ technical aptitude.

The NAGC State of the States Report (NAGC, 2013) reported that only 22 states have at least one full-time staff member, 20 states have less than 1 part-time staff member, and two states have none. Only nine states have policies permitting acceleration of students, and a full 16 states prohibit gifted students from entering kindergarten early, both well-researched concepts (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004a). At the pre-K through Grade 8 level, states (NAGC, 2009) reported that the regular classroom and resource rooms were the most frequent delivery methods for gifted education. At the high school level, Advanced Placement courses and dual enrollment in college were most typically used for gifted students. Perhaps the saddest data reported in the State of the States report shows the dismal preparation in gifted education of most classroom teachers. Only three states require some training at the pre- service level and require course work. Only 17 states required professionals working with gifted students to have certification or credentialing. These numbers have

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Intellectually Gifted

Academically Gifted

Performing/Visual Arts

Creatively Gifted

Leadership

Psychomotor Abilities

Underrepresented Populations

Career/Techinical Aptitude

No Definition

Number of Responses

fiGure 1.2 Areas of Giftedness Addressed in State Statute Definition (N = 50, multiple response accepted).

14 Chapter 1

a student on the basis of observed creativity or strong moti- vation, but without IQ information.

General Gifts and Specific Talents: Gagné’s DMTG Model

Gagné’s (2000, 2003) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) makes a definite distinction between gifts and talents. Here, gifts (general aptitudes) are untrained natural abilities. Talents (specific skills) are learned capabilities. Four types of innate gifts are intellectual (e.g., reasoning, judgment), creative (e.g., inventiveness, imagination), socioaffective (e.g., perceptiveness, empathy, tact), and sensorimotor (e.g., auditory, coordination). He also identifies seven categories (fields) of talents: academics, arts, business, leisure (e.g., games), social action (e.g., public office), sports, and technology. Personal factors that influence talent development are physical characteristics, motivation (e.g., needs, values), volition (e.g., willpower, effort), self- management (e.g., work habits), and personality (e.g., temperament, adaptability). Environment influences include one’s milieu (e.g., physical, cultural), persons (teachers, parents, peers), provisions (e.g., services, activities), and events (encounters, awards). Talent development is also affected by chance factors, such as one’s family environment, a school gifted program, or a bad athletic accident.

Tannenbaum’s Who, What, and How of Giftedness

Tannenbaum (2003) addressed the problem of defining giftedness with a taxonomy that answers who, what, and  how questions. One can be a producer of thoughts creatively or proficiently, a producer of tangibles creatively or proficiently, a performer of staged artistry creatively or

The practice remains popular despite its glaring shortcom- ings of (1) ignoring creative and artistic gifts, (2) ignoring gifts in particular areas, (3) discriminating against disad- vantaged students, and (4) branding motivated and creative students who score 1 point below the cutoff as “not gifted.”

Third, percentage definitions set a fixed proportion of the school (or district) as “gifted,” based on ability scores or grades. The percentage may be a restrictive 1% to 5% or a generous 15% to 20%. A misguided assumption is that “5% of our children are gifted!” Nature is not so help- ful. Like most human characteristics, abilities are distrib- uted according to a bell-shaped curve, and any cutoff point is arbitrary.

Fourth, talent definitions focus on students who are outstanding in art, music, math, science, or other specific aesthetic or academic areas.

Fifth, creativity definitions stress the significance of superior creative abilities. It is curious that, although every G/T program seeks to increase creative growth, some states do not consider creativity to be an acceptable selection cri- terion (Torrance, 1984). Look again at Figure 1.2.

Renzulli’s Three-Ring Model

On the basis of descriptions of creatively productive per- sons, primarily adults who have made valuable contribu- tions to society, Renzulli (1986; Renzulli & Reis, 2003) argues that

Gifted behavior . . . ref lects an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits— these clusters being above average (but not necessarily high) general and/or specific abil- ity, high levels of task commitment (motiva- tion), and high levels of creativity. Gifted and talented children are those possessing or capa- ble of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance. (Renzulli & Reis, 2003, p. 75)

The combination of the three is brought to bear on general and specific performance areas, resulting in gifted behaviors (see Figure 1.3).

Some gifted program coordinators or teachers mis- takenly use Renzulli’s three-ring model as a guide for selecting only children who are high in all three character- istics. As we will see in Chapter 3 on identification, Renzulli outlines a reasonable identification plan that is not tied strictly to possessing a strong combination of all three traits. For example, a teacher may nominate a student on the basis of a high IQ score, despite the student’s record of unmotivated underachievement, or a teacher may nominate

Above Average Ability

Creativity

Task Commitment

FIGURE 1.3 Renzulli’s Three-Ring Model. Source: Reprinted with permission of Joseph Renzulli, 2003.

Gifted Education 15

overview, the original seven, plus his eighth, intelligences are as follows:

1. Linguistic (verbal) intelligence, which includes verbal comprehension, syntax, semantics, and written and oral expression. A novelist or lawyer requires linguistic intelligence.

2. Logical–mathematical intelligence, which includes inductive and deductive reasoning and comput- ing, as required by a mathematician or physicist.

Note that linguistic and logical–mathematical intelli- gence are the two fundamental competencies measured by traditional intelligence tests and are most valued in school settings (von Károlyi, Ramos-Ford, & Gardner, 2003).

3. Spatial intelligence, the capacity to represent and manipulate three-dimensional configurations, as needed by an architect, engineer, interior decorator, sculptor, or chess player.

4. Musical intelligence, which includes abilities such as pitch discrimination; sensitivity to rhythm, texture, and timbre; the ability to hear and perform themes in music; and, in its most integrated form, music composition.

5. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, the ability to use all or part of one’s body to perform a task or fashion a product. It would be present to a high degree in a dancer, athlete, or mime.

6. Interpersonal intelligence, including the ability to understand the actions and motivations of others and to act  sensibly and productively based on that knowledge. Counselors, teachers, politicians, and evangelists need this ability.

7. Intrapersonal intelligence, which is a person’s understanding of one’s own cognitive strengths and

proficiently, or a performer of human services creatively or proficiently. Table 1.1 summarizes his model with exam- ples of each category. Tannenbaum noted that gifted and talented students show advanced learning and creativity— that is, promise—but high-level creativity and productivity are almost always adult phenomena. He lists five inter- weaving factors that contribute to eventual demonstrated giftedness: (1) a superior general intellect; (2) strong spe- cial aptitudes; (3) supportive nonintellective (e.g., person- ality) traits; (4) a challenging and supportive environment; and, like Gagné, (5) chance, “the smile of good fortune at critical periods of life.”

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences

“Intelligence is too important to be left to the intelligence testers,” said Gardner (1999, p. 3), criticizing the severe limitation of single IQ scores. In his original theory of multiple intelligences (MI theory; Gardner, 1983, 1993, 1999), Gardner described seven types of intelligence, and he more recently added an eighth. (See Box 1.1 for Gardner’s criteria for independent intelligences.) A cen- tral point is that academics traditionally recognize only linguistic and logical-mathematical types of intelli- gence—as represented in IQ scores—and educators undervalue or ignore students with strengths in Gardner’s other forms of intelligence. His intelligences may be viewed as intellectual gifts “with only loose and nonpre- dictable relations with one another” (1999, p. 32). A per- son thus may be gifted in one or several of the intelligence areas but not in others.

Like Gardner, we can ignore his students’ tongue- in-cheek recommendations for cooking intelligence, humor intelligence, and sexual intelligence. As a brief

taBLe 1.1 Examples of Tannenbaum’s Eight Categories of Gifted Persons

Category Examples

Producers of thoughts creatively Novelists, artists, composers

Producers of thoughts proficiently Mathematicians, computer programmers, editors

Producers of tangibles creatively Inventors, architects, design engineers

Producers of tangibles proficiently Diamond cutters, machinists, art forgers

Performers of staged artistry creatively Musicians, conductors, dancers, poetry readers, and actors, who interpret and “breathe life” into others’ works

Performers of staged artistry proficiently Musicians, conductors, dancers, and the like, who faithfully translate and reproduce the works of others

Performers of human services creatively Innovative teachers, political leaders, and researchers in medicine, education, and the social sciences

Performers of human services proficiently Successful teachers, physicians, and administrators who follow guidelines and procedures faithfully and successfully

16 Chapter 1

ultimate fate of physical and psychological worlds, love of another person, total immersion in a work of art—“may well be admissible” (p. 64) and is “attractive” (p. 66), he decided not to add existential intelligence to his list. It is curious that, on later reflection, he resolved the matter by pronouncing existential intelligence to be one-half of an intelligence (Gardner, 2000). The Dalai Lama and Gandhi would score high on measures of existential intelligence.

MI theory is attractive to teachers, especially teach- ers of the gifted. It has strong intuitive appeal, it is uncom- plicated, and it definitely alters how students are perceived and taught. One straightforward approach is to look for strengths in each area, then plan activities to help develop those abilities. Lazear (1991), for example, outlined activi- ties to strengthen each of the original seven intelligences (see Table 1.2).

weaknesses, thinking styles, feelings, emotions—and intelligences. As one of Ramos-Ford and Gardner’s (1997) examples, a child exemplifying high intrapersonal intelli- gence might remark, “Drawing is my favorite activity, even though I don’t draw as well as I want to” (p. 57).

8. Gardner (1999) considered the possibility of a spiritual, moral, existential, and naturalist intelligence.

Of these, only naturalist intelligence met most of his eight criteria (Box 1.1). A person strong in naturalist intel- ligence possesses extensive knowledge of the living world and its taxonomies and is highly capable in recognizing and classifying plants and animals.

While Gardner (1999) felt that existential intelligence—the capacity to deal with cosmic concerns such as the significance of life, the meaning of death, the

BOX 1.1

What Qualifies as an Intelligence in MI Theory?

Gardner’s rationale for the existence of his eight intelli- gences includes eight sources of scientific or rational evi- dence. “I consider the establishment of these criteria to be one of the enduring contributions of multiple intelligences theory” (Gardner, 1999, p. 41).

• Brain injury often disrupts functioning in one area of intelligence but not in others.

• Evolutionary history suggests that, to survive, Homo sapiens had to move about effectively (spatial intelli- gence), discern the motives of others (interpersonal intelligence), and classify animals and vegetation (naturalist intelligence).

• Each intelligence possesses a unique set of core  operations—for example, those in language,

mathematics, music, biological taxonomies, and body movement.

• Each intelligence can be encoded in a separate symbol system—for example, linguistic, mathemati- cal, musical, pictorial.

• Each intelligence has a unique developmental history—unique experience that leads to expertise.

• Idiot savants and prodigies have demonstrated phenomenal strengths in one area of intelligence— usually, math, music, or art—while being severely deficient in the others.

• The intelligences tend not to interfere with one another if performed simultaneously.

• Research shows low intercorrelations among many of the intelligences.

taBLe 1.2 Ways to Strengthen Multiple Intelligences

Type of Intelligence Teaching Suggestion

Linguistic General learning and vocabulary

Logical-mathematical Inductive, deductive, scientific reasoning

Spatial Forming and manipulating mental images, conducting spatial relationships exercises

Musical Raising awareness of sounds, tone qualities, musical structures

Bodily-kinesthetic Movement control exercises

Interpersonal Working in groups, raising awareness of nonverbal communication

Intrapersonal Raising awareness of feelings, metacognition (thinking about thinking)

Source: Adapted from “Seven Ways of Teaching: The Artistry of Teaching with Multiple Intelligences” by David G Lazear, 1991.

Gifted Education 17

sternberg’s triarchic theory

Sternberg (1997a, 2003) agrees that intellectual giftedness cannot be represented by a single IQ number, and he iden- tified three main kinds of intelligence. Analytic giftedness is the academic talent measured by typical intelligence tests, particularly analytical reasoning and reading com- prehension. Sternberg’s example is Alice, who scored high on intelligence tests, earned high grades, and was known by her teachers as smart. However, she was not good at producing innovative ideas of her own. Synthetic gifted- ness refers to creativity, insightfulness, intuition, or the ability to cope with novelty. Such persons may not earn the highest IQ scores, but ultimately they may make the great- est contributions to society. Sternberg’s Barbara was not as strong as Alice in analytic thinking, but she was enor- mously creative in finding innovative ideas. Practical gift- edness involves applying analytic and/or synthetic abilities successfully to everyday, pragmatic situations. Celia, for example, could enter a new environment, figure out what one must do to succeed, and then do it.

Most people possess some blend of the three skills. Further, the blend can change over time as intel- ligence is developed in various directions. Said Sternberg (2003), a central part of giftedness is coordinating the three abilities and knowing when to use each one. Giftedness is viewed as a well-managed balance of the three abilities, and a gifted person is thus a good “mental self-manager.”

In 2000, Sternberg modified his triarchic theory to include wisdom as a subtype of practical intelligence. Wisdom centers on concern for the needs and welfare of others. High wisdom usually takes the form of good advice to others and to oneself. Sternberg used Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela as examples of persons high in practical wisdom. While all four would score high in practical “getting the job done” intelligence, so would Osama bin Laden and other success- ful terrorists and tyrants, who are devoid of Sternberg’s empathic and humanistic wisdom.

Regarding developing student wisdom, Sternberg made these recommendations:

1. Give students problems requiring wise thinking, such as ethical and moral dilemmas.

2. Help students think in terms of a “common good” when solving these problems.

3. Help students balance their own interests with the interests of others when solving these problems.

4. Provide examples of wise thinking from the past. 5. Model wisdom by using good and bad examples of

your own past decisions and behavior, and show stu- dents that you value wise thinking.

The catchphrase “MI classrooms” includes even more involved efforts to incorporate MI theory (Callahan et al., 1995b; Fasko, 2001; Krechevsky & Seidel, 1998; Maker, Nielson, & Rogers, 1994; Reid & Romanoff, 1997; Willard-Holt & Holt, 1997). Following are some examples:

●● Creating a classroom environment that values all MI intelligences

●● Teaching skills and information aimed at different intelligences and using multiple-symbol systems

●● Flexibly teaching subject matter in several different ways, including working with students’ individual MI strengths

●● Using process activities that integrate multiple intel- ligences with thinking skills

●● Using interest centers to illustrate multiple intelli- gences and help students explore their own strengths

●● Helping students develop projects based on interests and different intelligences

●● Using a variety of content that is abstract and broad to stimulate students’ intelligences

●● Infusing arts into the curriculum ●● Allowing students to express their learning with cre-

ative and personal products

What are the effects of MI classrooms on teaching G/T students? Of course, Gardner’s eye-opening model draws attention to individual differences in the creative domains of musical, spatial, and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, as well as social/interpersonal and intraper- sonal (self-understanding) intelligence. Callahan and col- leagues (1995) found that teachers were enthusiastic in their MI-based Project START. Also, students’ self-concepts improved—they liked school, they felt they  were good at school, and attendance increased. Language skills and standardized test scores also improved.

With any major innovation, criticisms are quick and sometimes accurate. Several authors have noted the “ fadlike” nature of MI theory (e.g., Callahan et al., 1995b). Some see an appealing egalitarian flavor—all kids may be gifted (e.g., Delisle, 1996)—although Gardner (1997) does not agree. Callahan et al. (1995b) found no benefit to gifted students in an MI classroom. White and Breen (1998)— labeling MI theory “edutainment”—wondered if the “intel- ligences” are intelligences or abilities, and if the intelligences remain constant throughout one’s life span. Gottfredson (2003) noted that Gardner’s interpersonal and intrapersonal “intelligence” may be personality factors, not abilities. Finally, some have criticized Gardner for his mostly intuitive—not psychometric and experimental— identification of his intelligences.

18 Chapter 1

summarizing the research that supports the need for and Benefits of Gifted education

If gifted education is to continue in public schools, research must be accountable and prove its benefits to children and to society. As Legislative Chair for the National Associa- tion for Gifted Children, Sally Reis (2009) reviewed sepa- rate studies conducted from the 1990s through 2007 and reported the following crucial summary:

1. The needs of gifted students are generally not met in American classrooms where the focus is most often on struggling learners and where most classroom teachers have not had the training necessary to meet the needs of gifted students (Archambault, Westberg, Brown, Hallmark, Emmons, & Zhang, 1993; Moon, Tomlinson, & Callahan, 1995; Reis, Gubbins, Briggs, Schreiber, Richards, & Jacobs, 2004; Reis & Purcell, 1993; Westberg, Archam- bault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993).

2. Grouping gifted students together for instruction increases achievement for gifted students and, in some cases, also for students who are achieving at average and below-average levels (Gentry & Owen, 1999; Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1991; Tieso, 2002).

3. The use of acceleration results in higher achieve- ment for gifted and talented learners (Colangelo, Assou- line, & Gross, 2004b; Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1991).

4. The use of enrichment and curriculum enhance- ment results in higher achievement for gifted and talented learners as well as other students (Field, n.d.; Gavin, Casa, Adelson, Carroll, Sheffield, & Spinelli, 2007; Gentry & Owen, 1999; Gubbins, Housand, Oliver, Schader, & De Wet, 2007; Kulik, 1992; Reis, McCoach, Coyne, Schreiber, Eckert, & Gubbins, 2007; Rogers, 1991; Tieso, 2002).

5. Classroom teachers can learn to differentiate cur- riculum and instruction in their regular classroom situa- tions and to extend gifted education strategies and pedagogy to all contact areas (Baum, 1998; Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004b; Field, n.d.; Gavin et al., 2007;

6. Encourage students to think wisely—for the com- mon good—outside the classroom.

Beyond the previously mentioned formal or explicit theories of giftedness, Sternberg (1995) described an implicit theory that summarizes “what we mean by giftedness … people’s conception of giftedness” (pp. 88–89). The theory specifies five necessary and sufficient condi- tions that gifted persons have in common:

1. Excellence. A gifted person must be extremely good at something.

2. Rarity. He or she must possess a high level of an attribute that is uncommon relative to peers.

3. Productivity. The superior trait must (potentially) lead to productivity.

4. Demonstrability. The trait also must be demonstra- ble through one or more valid tests.

5. Value. The superior performance must be in an area that is valued by society.

Such implicit theories, noted Sternberg, are rela- tive to the culture because they are based on the values of that culture. It is important for such values, and implicit theories, to guide the identification of gifted persons as  well as to suggest content for gifted educational programs.

a Hierarchy of intelligence abilities

Carroll (1993; Gottfredson, 2003) described a three-level pyramid-shaped model of intelligence (see Table 1.3). At the top (I) is basic intelligence, or g, by itself. The mid- dle level (II) consists of broad, general abilities, all of which are related to and statistically correlated with g. The bottom tier includes myriads of specific abilities, many unidentified, that are related to one or more inter- mediate, more general types of intelligence. Gottfredson reasoned that Gardner’s eight intelligences and Stern- berg’s triarchic categorization would fall in the middle level of this pyramid, indicating that all are related to basic intelligence.

taBLe 1.3 The Three-Level Hierarchy of Intelligence

I. Top level (general ability): g

II. Middle level (broad factors): Verbal, spatial, memory, other

III. Bottom level (specific abilities): Reading decoding, listening ability, language comprehension, visualization, visual memory, memory span, associative memory, maintaining rhythm, quantitative reasoning, expressional fluency, and others

Source: Based on “Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies” by John B. Carroll. Published by “Cambridge University Press” © 1993.

Gifted Education 19

capabilities of all students—including “high-end learners”—for example, in academic, artistic, voca- tional, and personal–social areas (Feldhusen, 1992). Second, talent identification must be broader than using IQ and achievement scores; Treffinger (1996) suggested profiling students’ talents. Third, programming must become more varied to accommodate individual charac- teristics and needs. Fourth, the talent development orien- tation eliminates the awkwardness of the words gifted and, by exclusion, not gifted.

Looking toward the future at either giftedness or tal- ent development, depending on one’s preference for termi- nology, NAGC 2006 president, Joyce VanTassel-Baska, outlined 10 steps for administrators at the school level and teachers at the classroom level (Van Tassel-Baska, 2007). These steps present an important education agenda for the future of gifted education:

1. Know how students learn. 2. Know best practice research for gifted programming

and services. 3. Differentiate the curriculum content for gifted

learners. 4. Develop service options specific to promising stu-

dents of poverty. 5. Teach students to ask the right questions. 6. Incorporate the arts. 7. Prepare students for a global and multicultural

world. 8. Prepare educators to provide quality instruction. 9. Create and institutionalize systems for identifying

and serving gifted K–12 students. 10. Collaborate with other stakeholders within and out-

side the field of gifted education to promote student learning communities.

Also looking forward to the future, in this first chapter we would like to conclude with a comparison of two important theoretical positions for the goals of gifted education; the first was shared in Gifted Child Quarterly by Joseph Renzulli (2012). The second was reported in The Register Report by Worrell, Subotnik, and Olszewski- Kubilius (2013). Salient points follow each theoretical position.

Renzulli’s (2012) conceptualization of the goal of gifted education for the 21st century is both similar and very different than that of Worrell et al. (2013). His focus on gifted education is broader and geared to fulfilling per- sonal potential while also fostering social capital. Worrell et al. also described the importance of fulfilling potential and, of course, eminent people do make great contribu- tions. This author finds the goal of eminence for gifted stu- dents or gifted programming differs only in setting

Gentry & Owen, 1999; Little, Feng, VanTassel-Baska, Rogers, & Avery, 2007; Reis, Gentry, & Maxfield, 1998; Reis et al., 2007; Tieso, 2002; Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich, & Purcell, 1998).

6. Gifted education programs and strategies are effective at serving gifted and high-ability students in a variety of educational settings and from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic populations. Gifted education pedagogy can also reverse underachievement in these students (Baum, 1998; Baum, Hébert, & Renzulli, 1999; Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004b; Gavin et al., 2007; Hébert & Reis, 1999; Little et al., 2007; Reis & Diaz, 1999; Reis et al., 2007).

7. The curriculum and pedagogy of gifted programs can be extended to a variety of content areas, resulting in higher achievement for both gifted and average students, and some enrichment pedagogy can benefit struggling and special-needs students when implemented in a wide vari- ety of settings (Baum, 1988; Field, n.d.; Gentry, 1999; Gavin et al., 2007; Kulik, 1992; Little et al., 2007; Reis et al., 2003; Reis et al., 2007; VanTassel-Baska, Zuo, Avery, & Little, 2002).

8. Some gifted students with learning disabilities who are not identified experience emotional difficulties and seek counseling. High percentages of gifted students do underachieve, but this underachievement can be reversed. Some gifted students do drop out of high school (Baum, 1988; Baum, Hébert, & Renzulli, 1999; Hébert & Reis, 1999; Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1997; Renzulli & Park, 2000).

9. Gifted education programs and strategies benefit gifted and talented students longitudinally, helping stu- dents increase aspirations for college and careers, deter- mine postsecondary and career plans, develop creativity and motivation that is applied to later work, and achieve more advanced degrees (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Delcourt, 1993; Hébert, 1993; Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001; Taylor, 1992).

Gifted education? talent development? Looking to the future

Some leaders in gifted education have recommended that the term gifted education be replaced by talent development (e.g., Renzulli & Reis, 1997; Treffinger, 1996; Treffinger & Feldhusen, 1996; Worrell, Subotnik, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2013). In a sense, the talent development focus is a response to the detracking move- ment, with its stress on heterogeneous classes and qual- ity education for all. Talent development emphasizes, first, that the focus be on developing the talents and

20 Chapter 1

means that percentages will be too small to use them to measure the success of gifted programming. Great discov- eries and accomplishments most frequently arise from the small, stepwise contributions and expertise of many tal- ented individuals working individually and together over time. The gifted field and you, the readers and educators, will need to conclude for yourselves what the reasonable goals for gifted education can and should be.The chapters that follow are written to introduce you to the practical strategies for educating gifted students as well as the psy- chological challenges that are crucial to motivating them.

expectations too high. It is much like perfectionism, which experienced educators and psychologists have learned provides high risk for disappointment, underachievement, depression, and failure.

Renzulli (2012) and Worrell et al. (2013) offer both complementary and different views of what the goal of gifted education should be. They both pay attention to crea- tivity, productivity, and the development of talent, but there is great risk in setting the goal for gifted education too nar- rowly. Eminent people will likely emerge among those who are expert producers, but the exclusiveness of eminence

THEORETICAL POSITION #1

Gifted programming will dramatically increase the numbers of people who will “use their talents to create a better world.”

a. There is both overlap and “interaction among cog- nitive, affective, and emotional characteristics” and these must be considered together in the develop- ment of potential.

b. Gifted contributors have always gained recognition by what they did or produced, for example, inventions, discoveries, designs, and the solving of problems.

c. “The investment in the production of intellectual and creative capital should include equal investment in developing social capital” and effective leadership.

d. The learning experiences to develop these skills should begin early and focus on direct involvement and investigative learning rather than “teaching and preaching” experiences.

e. Excellent programming will result in a dramatic increase in the numbers of people who will “use their talents to create a better world.”

THEORETICAL POSITION #2

Eminence should be the goal of gifted education.

a. General ability and specific abilities are prerequisites for high achievement in life and both should always be included in identification of giftedness.

b. Domain-specific ability and achievement become more crucial later as individuals develop.

c. Different domains have different entry points—some require very early identification, while others can be identified later. Entry points for different fields require repeated need for identification and programming.

d. Opportunity for talent development depends on availability of educational programs both in and outside school.

e. Psychological variables such as willingness to take risks, resilience in challenge, competitiveness, motivation, and task commitment are crucial to success in all fields and need to be specifically taught.

f. “Finally, eminence should be the goal of gifted edu- cation … keeping the focus on eminence supports a continued focus on excellence and optimal perfor- mance.” The authors diagrammed the route from ability to competence, to expertise, to eminence, the final goal.

Gifted Education 21

Summary

Despite increased public awareness of gifted education, many gifted students remain ignored in school. Critics claim that gifted programs are elitist—welfare for the rich. Sternberg’s “sounds of silence” include little federal fund- ing and no laws to protect the rights of the gifted.

We admire gifted people, but we also are committed to equality—a love–hate relationship. The pendulum swings back and forth—the public alternates between an interest in excellence and the desire for equity.

Gifted students, like students with disabilities, deserve an education consistent with their needs and abili- ties. Society benefits from helping gifted students become tomorrow’s leaders.

Ancient Sparta defined giftedness in military terms. Athenian boys attended private schools and were taught by sophists. In Rome, boys and girls attended first-level schools, but higher education was for boys only.

China’s seventh-century Tang dynasty brought child prodigies to the imperial court. They accepted a multiple- talent conception of giftedness, recognized that talents must be nurtured, and believed children should be edu- cated according to their abilities.

Into the late 1800s, Japan provided high-level educa- tion only for Samurai children. A few private academies accepted gifted children regardless of birth.

Renaissance Europe rewarded its gifted artists, archi- tects, and writers with wealth and honor.

In early America, children needed ability and wealth to attend secondary school and college. From about 1870 to the Depression years, some schools, especially in large cities, initiated tracking, grade skipping, telescoping, and special classes. “Age of mediocrity” thinking emphasized equity in the 1920s and 1930s.

The educational systems of England and Europe have long used tracking, which is less contentious there than in North America. In England, education for gifted students has been slowed by resentment of traditional unearned privilege.

Sir Francis Galton produced the first significant research and writing on intelligence. He believed that intelligence was related to keen senses, and so his “intelligence tests” evaluated sensory acuity and reaction time. His book Hereditary Genius argued for a hereditary basis of intelligence.

Alfred Binet in Paris developed the first successful intelligence test. He created the concept of mental age.

Lewis M. Terman Americanized the Binet tests, creating in 1916 the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale. In  the 1920s he identified over 1,500 high-intelligence

children, who were tracked and studied into the 1980s. Contradicting then-popular conceptions, the “ Termites” were psychologically, socially, and physically healthier  than average persons. Terman noted that accel- eration is  valuable and that family values are crucial to adult success.

Leta Hollingworth emphasized that bright students waste much time in regular classes. In the 1920s and 1930s, she developed gifted counseling programs and an imagina- tive gifted curriculum. She taught gifted and below-average students, the former identified with multiple criteria, and authored two significant books on gifted children.

The launching of Sputnik in 1957 triggered an American effort to improve education, particularly in sci- ence and for gifted students. Enthusiasm faded after about five years.

In the mid-1970s, a new and continuing national and worldwide gifted education movement began, one that in the United States includes federal and state legislation, special funds, and high commitment by many educators.

Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve is criticized for ignoring modern conceptions of intellectual giftedness, for assuming causation from IQ-success correlations, for seemingly equating IQ with personal value, and for racist conclusions. However, some intelligence researchers recently concede that, like it or not, tested IQ relates to many important life outcomes, such as education, career level, and crime. Other factors, such as favorable family circumstances and persistence, also influence success.

The 1993 National Excellence report drew much more attention to the plight of America’s ignored gifted students—future leaders—especially with its catchy and accurate “quiet crisis” phrase, and it contributed to prepar- ing gifted education for the 21st century.

The National Center for Research on Gifted Educa- tion is exploring policies and practices that increase the number of underserved students in gifted and talented pro- grams and serve them successfully. The NCRGE and NRC/ GT websites provide a huge compendium of continuous research findings.

Gifted students have been left behind in the era of NCLB. While gains have been made in reading and math for poor students, those gains were at a cost to high achievers.

World competition has encouraged STEM legisla- tion in a déjà vu of the post-Sputnik interest in science. It has also spurred some interest in promoting, in the interest of national security, difficult foreign languages such as Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.

22 Chapter 1

thoughts, producing tangibles, performing staged artistry, or performing human services.

Gardner’s eight intelligences—an alternative to using a single IQ number to describe student ability—are linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily- kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligence. Many “MI classrooms” have appeared; they value all intelligences, teach skills and information aimed at different intelligences, and more. MI theory is criticized for being a fad.

Sternberg’s triarchic theory emphasizes three catego- ries of intellectual gifts: analytic, synthetic, and practical giftedness. He also includes wisdom—concern for the wel- fare of others—as a subtype of practical giftedness because highly visible and successful but evil persons are devoid of humanistic wisdom in accomplishing their goals.

Sternberg’s work with implicit theories of giftedness indicates that we define as gifted people whose behavior shows excellence, rarity, productivity, demonstrability, and value.

Gottfredson developed a three-level pyramid describ- ing intelligence, with g at the top, broad abilities in the middle, and many specific abilities at the base.

Many leaders recommend that the label talent devel- opment replace gifted education. It implies broader identi- fication and programming for all students, including gifted and talented ones, and the elimination of the unpleasant “gifted” versus “nongifted.” NAGC President Joyce VanTassel-Baska outlined a 10-step agenda for educators looking toward the future.

Two important and contrasting positions are stated by important leaders about the future in gifted education. Renzulli stated that gifted programming will dramatically increase the numbers of people who “will use their talents to create a better world.” The second position is somewhat more controversial and was proposed by Worrell, Subot- nik, and Olszewski-Kubilius: Eminence should be the goal of gifted education.

Defining gifted and talented is important because the definition adopted by each education institution influences the selection of students for G/T programs and may pre- vent low-income, minority, disabled, underachieving, and female gifted students from participating.

There are no universally accepted definitions of gifted and talented. The terms may be used interchangea- bly. Some see talented and gifted on a continuum, with gifted at the upper end. Extraordinary students have been labeled “exceptionally,” “severely,” or “profoundly” gifted.

Cox avoids the term gifted, preferring able learners. Renzulli prefers the phrase gifted behaviors.

In 1972, the U.S.O.E. definition was cited in many state and district G/T plans. A multitalent definition, it includes the six categories of (1) general intellectual ability, (2) specific academic aptitude, (3) creativity, (4) leadership, (5) visual and performing art ability, and (6) psychomotor skills. The statement recognizes the need for differentiated educational programs and cites the two basic goals of gifted education: helping capable students realize their potential and providing society with high-level talent. The 1978 and 1988 revisions and the 1993 “quiet crisis” report dropped psychomotor skills as a category. A similar British Columbia definition acknowledges multipotentiality, intense motivation, and the possibility of being gifted while having a disability.

Renzulli ’s three-ring model emphasizes above- average ability, high task commitment (motivation), and high creativity, which are characteristics of creatively pro- ductive adults.

Gagné’s DMGT model proposes that gifts should refer to natural abilities and talents to learned perfor- mances. The model assumes that environmental and intrap- ersonal catalysts (e.g., one’s milieu and motivation) helps or hinders talent development.

Tannenbaum’s eight-category model of giftedness assumes that one can be creative or proficient in producing

23

2 Characteristics of Gifted Students

Learning OutcOmes

1. Interpret the results of the Terman studies.

2. Describe the characteristics of intellectually gifted children.

3. Explain the affective characteristics of gifted children.

4. Identify the characteristics of the creatively gifted.

5. Analyze the characteristics of historically eminent persons.

6. Recommend characteristics of teachers of the gifted.

C H A P T E R

T he topic of characteristics of the gifted overlaps directly with every other topic and chapter in this book, all of which focus on gifted children, their unique characteristics, and how to identify and provide personal and education services for them. Gifted children differ from one another not only in size, shape, and color but

also in cognitive and language abilities; interests; learning styles; motivation and energy levels; personalities; men- tal health and self-concepts; habits and behavior; background and experience; and any other mental, physical, or experiential characteristic that one cares to look for. They differ also in their patterns of educational needs.

Most of the descriptions that follow are “usual” characteristics, traits that have appeared and reappeared in studies of gifted children and adults. All traits will not and cannot apply to each and every gifted and talented student. As a summary overview, Table 2.1 presents a collection of descriptors from a number of sources (Campbell & Verna, n.d.; Colangelo & Assouline, 2000; Coleman & Cross, 2000; Davies, 2003; Frasier, 1993; Han & Marvin, 2000; Harrison, 2004; Manning, 2006; Martin, Burns, & Schonlau, 2010; Missett, 2013; Perleth, Lehwald, & Browder, 1993; Rinn, Mendaglio, Moritz Rudasill, & McQueen, 2010; Silverman, 1997, 2009; Zinser, 2003; and others).

This chapter about characteristics of gifted children is followed by a chapter on how to identify these children for special programming.

The Terman STudieS

One of the most frequently cited findings of Terman’s (1925) landmark project is the fact that his 1,528 students not only were more intelligent, but also were better adjusted psychologically and socially and were even physically healthier than the average person. Just a few decades before, Cesare Lombroso (1895), naming specific famous persons, claimed that “signs of degeneration in men of genius” included stuttering, short stature, general emaciation,

24 Chapter 2

TaBLe 2.1 Recurrent Characteristics of Students Who Are Gifted

Positive Characteristics Negative Characteristics

Unusual alertness in infancy and later Uneven mental development

Early and rapid learning Interpersonal difficulties, due often to intellectual differences

Rapid language development as a child Underachievement, especially in uninteresting areas

Superior language ability–verbally fluent, large vocabulary, complex grammar

Nonconformity, sometimes in disturbing directions

Perfectionism, which can be extreme

Excessive self-criticism

Self-doubt, poor self-image

Variable frustration and anger

Depression

Opinionated (sometimes too much so)

Extreme feelings of being different

Anxiety

Overexcitability

Enjoyment of learning

Academic superiority, large knowledge base, sought out as a resource

Superior analytic ability

Keen observation

Efficient, high-capacity memory

Superior reasoning, problem solving

Thinking that is abstract, complex, logical, and insightful

Insightful, sees “big picture,” recognizes patterns, connects topics

Manipulates symbol systems

Uses high-level thinking skills, efficient strategies

Extrapolates knowledge to new situations, goes beyond what is taught

Expanded awareness, greater self-awareness

Greater metacognition (understanding one’s own thinking)

Advanced interests

Needs for logic and accuracy

Wide interests, interested in new topics

High curiosity, explores how and why

Multiple capabilities (multipotentiality)

High career ambitions

Emotional intensity and sensitivity

High alertness and attention

High intellectual and physical activity level

High motivation–concentrates, perseveres, persists, is task-oriented

Active–shares information, directs, leads, offers help, is eager to be involved

Strong empathy, moral thinking, sense of justice, honesty, intellectual honesty

Aware of social issues

High concentration, long attention span

Strong internal control

Independent, self-directed, works alone

Inquisitive, asks questions

Excellent sense of humor

Imaginative, creative, solves problems

Characteristics of Gifted Students 25

sickly color, rickets (leading to club-footedness, lameness, or a hunched back), baldness, amnesia/forgetfulness, ste- rility, and that awful symptom of brain degeneration–left- handedness. Lombroso’s proclamation was well known and widely accepted; it made a lot of average people feel better about being average. Terman’s scientific data trashed the myth that brilliant students are predominantly weak, unattractive, and emotionally unstable. They not only were well adjusted in childhood but also reported greater personal adjustment, emotional stability, self-esteem, pro- fessional success, and personal contentment in adulthood (Sears, 1979; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959). They showed a below-average incidence of suicide and mental illness.

Terman and Oden (1947) summarized the main char- acteristics of these gifted children, facetiously referred to as “Termites,” as follows:

The average member of our group is a slightly better physical specimen than the average child. . . .

For the fields of subject matter covered in our tests, the superiority of gifted over unse- lected children was greater in reading, language usage, arithmetical reasoning, science, literature and the arts. In arithmetical computation, spelling and factual information about history and civics, the superiority of the gifted was somewhat less marked. . . .

The interests of gifted children are many- sided and spontaneous; they learn to read eas- ily and read more and better books than the average child. At the same time, they make numerous collections, cultivate many kinds of hobbies, and acquire far more knowledge of plays and games than the average child. . . .

As compared with unselected children, they are less inclined to boast or to overstate their knowledge; they are more trustworthy when under temptation to cheat; their character

preferences and social attitudes are more wholesome, and they score higher in a test of emotional stability. . . .

The deviation of the gifted subjects from the generality is in the upward direction for nearly all traits. There is no law of compensa- tion whereby the intellectual superiority of the gifted tends to be offset by inferiorities along nonintellectual lines.

Terman provided a few health-related details. Com- pared with other children, Terman’s students weighed more at birth, learned to walk a month earlier, and learned to talk 3½ months earlier. They were taller, heavier, and healthier–with better breathing capacity, superior nutri- tional status, fewer headaches, and less general weakness. However, the relationship between giftedness and health is muddied by a third related factor of socioeconomic level.

The superior mental and physical characteristics continued into adulthood. Oden (1968) wrote, “All the evi- dence indicates that with few exceptions the superior child becomes the superior adult” (p. 50). Terman earlier had noted, “So far, no one has developed post-adolescent stu- pidity” (1954, p. 227).

Although high IQ was common to all, Terman’s gifted persons differed among themselves in many ways; they were a heterogeneous group. One important differ- ence was adult productivity. The most productive adults had been rated by parents and teachers when they were children as higher in self-confidence, leadership, sensitiv- ity to approval, perseverance, desire to excel, and “force of character.” As children, they also rated themselves higher in persistence, goal-directedness, and self-confidence.

As a caution, the descriptions of Terman’s gifted sub- jects present them as near-perfect children. However, there was a serious bias in their selection. The 1,528 children were identified from a larger group of children who first were nominated by their teachers as “gifted.” We know that teachers will identify as “gifted” those children who are

Positive Characteristics Negative Characteristics

Preference for novelty

Reflectiveness

Good self-concept–usually

Searches for complexity and connection

Originality

Specific talent areas (music, art, math, etc.)

High expectations of self

Interest in adult topics

26 Chapter 2

abruptly read the poster on the wall near him and announced, “That sign says ‘Interest rates haven’t been so low since shag carpets were in style.’ ” To his entire family’s shock, Christo- pher could read almost everything thereafter.

Not all gifted children learn to read early or quickly. Many learn in kindergarten or first grade when reading is normally taught in most schools. Some are slower still. Albert Einstein did not learn until he was 8, and one after another of Picasso’s reading tutors quit in despair.

The advanced language ability of the intellectually gifted child includes superior comprehension skill. Therefore, the intellectually gifted child usually acquires a large working vocabulary and a large store of information about many topics. The child may grasp complex and abstract concepts and relationships that are normally learned at an older age.

The intellectually gifted child also may begin writing at a precocious age. This talent results from some combina- tion of teaching by parents, older siblings, or preschool teachers, added to the child’s strong drive and mental readiness to imitate and learn.

Logical Thinking

Compared with the average child, the thinking processes of the gifted child are quick and logical, two traits that can dis- turb impatient parents and teachers. Combined with a natural curiosity and an urge to learn, the precocious child can be forever asking questions, wanting to know, and wanting to know “Why?” Their bear-trap logic may not accept an abrupt “Because!” or any other incomplete or illogical response. In light of their swift and logical thinking, it is no surprise that questioning ability, a good understanding of cause-and-effect relationships, convergent problem solving, persistence, and insight are frequently cited as traits of gifted children.

early math, art, and music

For many gifted children, advanced mathematical, musical, and artistic abilities also appear early–sometimes, but not always, paralleling the verbal and conceptual skills. The math- ematically precocious child may be counting by 5s and 10s and adding and subtracting two-digit numbers by kindergar- ten. The child may explain with surprisingly good reasoning his or her own special way of deducing or calculating a math- ematical solution. For example, a 5-year-old blind child visit- ing Rimm’s clinic did long division and word problems with fractions in his head, had perfect pitch, and played Beethoven on the piano. Whereas his verbal skills were above average, they weren’t yet precocious–perhaps related to his blindness or only a reflection of uneven abilities. Time would tell.

At a young age, artistically precocious children dif- fer dramatically from other children in their seemingly instinctive art skill. Winner and Martino (2000, 2003)

pleasant, well behaved, prompt, conforming, high-achiev- ing, attractive, neat, and popular, and who wear expensive clothes and speak standard English (e.g., Good & Wein- stein, 1986; Keneal, 1991; LeTendre, 1991). Perhaps it is not surprising that Terman could describe his students’ physical and mental health in such glowing language. His conclusions would not necessarily apply, for example, to students who are artistically or creatively gifted; who are bright underachievers; or who are intelligent but rebellious, irritating, or otherwise daunting for classroom teachers.

It is significant that two Nobel Prize winners, Luis Alvarez and William B. Shockley, were excluded from the Terman study because their IQ scores were not sufficiently high (Hermann & Stanley, 1983).

TraiTS of inTeLLecTuaLLy GifTed chiLdren

Let’s examine more closely what it means to be “intellec- tually gifted.”

Precocious Language and Thought

The overriding trait–indeed, the definition–of intellectually gifted students is that they are developmentally advanced in language and thought. VanTassel-Baska (2003) named pre- cocity as the first of just three characteristics relevant to gifted and talented (G/T) curriculum planning (the other two characteristics were intensity and complexity). Binet simi- larly described intelligent students as having a higher mental age compared with their chronological age. Silverman (1993a, 1993b, 2002, 2003) and others refer to intellectual giftedness as asynchronous development characterized by advanced cognitive abilities. Simply put, gifted students’ mental development outstrips their chronological (physical) development. Their intelligence-test performance and typi- cally their school achievement match that of older children.

Some young gifted children begin talking at 7 months. Other bright children do not begin talking early but progress rapidly once they do begin. Some gifted chil- dren draw recognizable pictures or use elaborate language at age 2½; some begin reading by age 3 and read fluently at 4 (Jackson, 1988, 2003). You may recall that Holling- worth did not teach reading to her gifted students because they could read before entering school.

Here’s the story of an unusual child who talked late but was highly gifted:

Christopher didn’t begin talking until age 3, at which time he used a large vocabulary and full sentences. Although he knew the letters of the alphabet, he had shown no interest in reading. One day while his mother waited in line at the bank, with Christopher sitting in his stroller, he

Characteristics of Gifted Students 27

affecTive characTeriSTicS

Social Skills, Personal adjustment, Self-concepts

A common comparison–indeed, a classic conflict–is the reported high mental health of Terman’s subjects, as both stu- dents and adults, versus Leta Hollingworth’s forceful descrip- tions of troubled gifted children who are too different and too smart to fit in, and therefore are in desperate need of “emo- tional education” (counseling). We already noted one expla- nation: Perhaps biased teachers had preselected only well-adjusted children for Terman’s research. Another key to the controversy is level of giftedness. Hollingworth (1942) noted that students with IQs in the 140–160 range tend to be well adjusted and successful, and to have friends. But above IQ 180, they are too different and social adjustment is diffi- cult. A young woman counseled by Rimm had a ratio IQ score of 193. She finally found appropriate mental peers at a summer program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy (MIT) before her senior year in high school and antici- pated a new social life as an MIT student, with great relief. She would no longer be alone. Although she might still carry the “geek” label, that label took on a very positive and differ- ent status when she attended MIT.

Unfortunately, current research on the personal adjust- ment of gifted students rarely includes students with IQs above 180 (Norman, Ramsay, Roberts, & Martray, 2000). Presently used IQ tests do not differentiate well beyond 145– 150, and ceiling scores usually go to 155–160 (more on that issue in the next chapter) (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008). Rather, the “highly gifted” experimental samples typically are equivalent in IQ to Hollingworth’s well-adjusted middle group, roughly IQ 130–150. Consequently, many studies that compare “highly gifted,” “moderately gifted,” and average students report good psychological and social adjustment that is unrelated to level of giftedness (see, e.g., Gallucci, Middle- ton, & Kline, 1999a, 1999b; Garland & Zigler, 1999; Richard- son & Benbow, 1990; Sayler & Brookshire, 1996).

For example, Norman, Ramsay, Roberts, and Martray (2000) looked closely at the social status (popular, average, rejected) of “highly gifted” students (IQs over 130) and “moderately gifted” students (everybody else) in a summer program for gifted students ages 12 to 16. There were no differences in average social status between the two groups, either in dormitory or classroom settings. But if gifted peers rejected a gifted student in the classroom, that student probably also was rejected in the dorm, and vice versa. In short, factors other than giftedness–namely, disruptiveness or shyness–influenced social rejection.

In agreement with Hollingworth, Gross (1993a, Gross, 2000) showed clearly damaging effects of a too- high IQ. She studied 15 Australian children with extraordi- narily high IQ scores: All scored over IQ 160, three scored

noted that artistically gifted children learn to draw at an earlier age than average; learn rapidly; have superior visual memories; are obsessively motivated to develop their artis- tic ability; and learn virtually on their own, solving prob- lems (e.g., perspective, necessary distortions) in idiosyncratic and creative ways. They even see the world differently–less in terms of concepts than of shapes and visual surface features.

Musical giftedness may appear at age 1 or 2– earlier than in any other skill domain (Winner & Martino, 2000). One clue is that the very young child is enthralled by musi- cal sounds. Seventy percent of great violinists were prodi- gies as young children. At age 4, Mozart composed a harpsichord concerto, and at age 7, Yehudi Menuhin per- formed with symphonies. Solo violinist Pamela Frank remembers, “I loved music. I’d get chills and tears in my eyes–even when I was 3 and 4 years old. These images have never left me” (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001).

A core music ability is sensitivity to, and an innate understanding of, music structure–tonality, key, harmony, and rhythm–and the ability to hear expressive properties (timbre, loudness, articulation, phrasing). Such sensitivity, combined with a strong “musical memory,” allows the prod- igy to remember music, play it back vocally or with an instru- ment, and even transpose and improvise with the music.

Incidentally, a young child’s slower-developing motor ability may stand in the way of some accomplish- ments. For example, some children may not be able to write numbers or letters, illustrate their ideas, or play a musical instrument because of immature eye–hand coordi- nation or even small fingers.

motivation, Persistence, advanced interests

One of the single most recurrent traits of productive gifted students and eminent adults is high motivation with per- sistence. A main reason that some of Terman’s students became successful and some did not was differences in their motivation, due in large part to family values ( Terman & Oden, 1959). Even with gifted nursery-school to second-grade children, Burk (1980) found that persis- tence was related to both achievement and personal adjustment.

The high motivation and urge to learn found in many gifted children, combined with their curiosity and their advanced comprehension and logical abilities, can lead to surprisingly advanced accomplishments. One group of gifted elementary students in Manitowish Waters, Wiscon- sin, conducted an environmental impact study that led the State Highway Department to move a section of a pro- posed freeway. These children were certainly motivated, but make no mistake about this–some very gifted children are not motivated or persistent. There will be more about those in a later chapter.

28 Chapter 2

imaginations and sensual experiences that are “more alive.” Their emotional reactions are more intensely joyful but also more fearful and depressed. They develop steadfast values, with strong concerns for right and wrong (Piechowski, 1991).

As a general rule, gifted students have been found to be better adjusted than regular students and to have better self-concepts and greater overall self-actualization (Pufal- Struzik, 1999); however, some studies continue to find links to mental health problems. Missett (2013) reviewed research and documented studies that linked high IQ to bipolar disor- der, although none did to depression. She also noted links between creatively gifted artists and mood disorders.

The tendency for most to have healthy adjustment must not blind educators to frequent turbulent problems and strong needs for counseling. Common problems, some noted in Table 2.1, include social rejection, leading to feelings of aloneness, differentness, even “weirdness”; depression (with suicide in rare cases); boredom, apathy, and frustration toward an indifferent school; compulsive and neurotic perfectionism; feelings of stress; neurotic concern that one must be superior in all activities; sibling difficulties; and even eating disorders in adolescence (Neihart, 1999b; Neumeister, Williams & Cross, 2009; Rimm 2014). The findings of a study of 27 aca- demically gifted students found that social emotional support was as important as academic support (Eddles-Hirsch, Vialle, McCormick, & Rogers, 2012). Hollingworth (1942) recom- mended that counseling be part of all gifted programs, a widely accepted idea (e.g., Colangelo, 2003; Colangelo & Assouline, 2000; Silverman, 1993a, 1993b; see Chapter 17).

independence, Self-confidence, internal control

An important set of personality characteristics of the gifted child relates to his or her typically high level of self- confidence and independence. Such an attitude is a natural outgrowth of years of favorable comparisons with less- able peers; of glowing feedback and evaluations from parents, teachers, peers, and siblings; and from the child’s clear history of success in school.

The concept of high internal control describes the confident children or adolescents who feel responsible for their successes and failures and who feel in control of their destinies. The child with high internal control is likely to use errors and failures constructively; he or she learns from mistakes. It is important that the internally controlled child usually attributes failure to lack of effort, not lack of abil- ity, and so a failure is a momentary setback that motivates the student to “try harder next time.”

In contrast, the externally controlled child is more likely to attribute success or failure to luck, chance, the ease or difficulty of tasks, whether a teacher is generous or

over 200. Their social self-esteem scores on the Cooper- smith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1981) were significantly below the average for age mates. They were fully aware that peers disliked and rejected them.

Rimm (2005) found that middle-grade students who described their intelligence as far above average were more likely to indicate that they worried a lot about popularity and appearance than those who checked the above-average descriptor of intelligence. On the other hand, fewer of the far-above-average category worried about popularity and appearance than those students who described themselves as having only average, below-average, or far-below-aver- age intelligence. So again we find better adjustment for those who don’t feel so extremely different in intelligence, but adjustment is not as problematic as it is for those who differ more extremely in the lower direction. So perhaps all parents yearn for Garrison Keillor’s world where all the children are above average (Keillor, 2007).

Colangelo and Kelly (1983) discovered that gifted students’ self-concepts depend on which “self” the researcher is looking at (“academic self” or “social self”). The authors compared scores on the Tennessee Self-Con- cept Scale of gifted students, regular students, and students with learning problems in Grades 7, 8, and 9. For the over- all scale, gifted students scored significantly higher than regular students, who in turn scored higher than students with learning problems. However, on closer examination, the gifted students scored significantly higher only on the academic-self subscale; on the social-self subscale, the gifted students scored about the same as the other students.

A study of 85 seventh- and ninth-grade students in a summer program in math, computers, business, and engi- neering asked students, “What’s it like to be gifted?” (Kun- kel, Chapa, Patterson, & Walling, 1995). Responses were classified as positive or negative, individual or social. In the category of positive individual aspects of giftedness, the authors found intellectual superiority (e.g., good grades, competing well), skillfulness (e.g., being talented and creative), and self-satisfaction (e.g., feeling happy and proud). Negative individual qualities included estrange- ment (e.g., feeling different or embarrassed) and conform- ity (e.g., feeling bored). Some positive social benefits were social superiority (e.g., special classes, being the best in school) and respect from others (e.g., students praise me, ask for my help). Negative social aspects of giftedness included one problem: social stress (e.g., people think I’m a snob, make fun of me, make me wish I weren’t smart).

One affective problem peculiar to extremely bright stu- dents is their emotional excitability and high sensitivity, which we will describe more fully in Chapter 17. For example, due to high energy, such students tend to talk rapidly and compul- sively, and may become workaholics. They have sprightly

Characteristics of Gifted Students 29

visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic. They generally are more responsible, prefer a quieter learning environment, and prefer to learn alone or with other gifted students.

Renzulli and Reis (1997) took a broad view of style preferences that included four subcategories: instructional style preferences, learning environment preferences, thinking styles preferences, and expression style preferences. In increasing order, they reported gifted students’ instructional style preferences as lecture (tied with drill and recitation, or “drill-and-kill,” according to Renzulli [1995]), discussion, demonstration, small-group discussion, peer tutoring, cooper- ative learning, field trips, learning centers, learning games, electronic learning, simulations/role playing, projects, men- torships (internships, apprenticeships), and independent study.

Renzulli and Reis (1997) noted that gifted students differ in learning environment preferences, and the teacher should ask, “Which does the young person prefer?” (p. 81). They acknowledged variations among gifted stu- dents in preferred interpersonal combinations (self-, peer-, adult-oriented, or combined) and physical combinations (e.g., sound, heat, light, room design, mobility, time of day, food intake, seating) of learning environments. Expression style preferences include written, oral, manipulative, dis- cussion, display, dramatization, artistic, graphic, commer- cial, or service types of demonstrations of learning.

Thinking styles preferences include Sternberg’s (e.g., 2003) triarchic categories of analytic, synthetic, and practical giftedness (Chapter 1), along with Sternberg’s (1997b; Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1993) legislative (e.g., creates own rules, does things in own way), executive (e.g., carries out plans, follows rules), and judicial (e.g., compares and evaluates ideas, rules, procedures).

In regard to thinking styles, or “how individuals apply [intellectual abilities] in adapting to the demands of the envi- ronment” (Dai & Feldhusen, 1999, p. 302), probably all thinking styles are tied closely to personality traits. Also, as with their learning styles, gifted students can be most suc- cessful if their thinking styles are coordinated with their learning tasks (Sternberg, 1997b; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1993). Dai and Feldhusen noted that gifted adolescent stu- dents are diverse in thinking styles, despite similar profiles of abilities and academic achievement. Teachers tend to evaluate favorably students whose thinking styles match their own (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997).

Dai and Feldhusen (1999) and Sternberg and Grigore- nko (1993) mentioned several familiar two-part thinking styles–for example, liberal and conservative, and preferring to work alone versus preferring to work with others. Perhaps the best-known two-part thinking style is creative thinking versus convergent thinking. Sternberg’s (1997b) legislative function (creating ideas and rules) versus executive/judicial functions (following rules, evaluating ideas) reflects this distinction.

unfair, lack of sleep, a sick cat, and so on. The “external” child also is less likely to try harder after failure–because he or she does not accept responsibility for the outcome in  the first place. More is written on these problems in Chapter 12 about underachieving gifted students.

Their generally higher levels of internal control and personal responsibility often lead gifted students to set high goals for themselves. When these goals are not met, the natural outcome is disappointment; frustration; and feelings of incompetence, ineptness, or stupidity. Parents and teachers are frequently mystified by displays of frus- tration and self-criticism by students who are obviously extraordinarily capable and talented. The frustration occurs not because the students are comparing their own perfor- mances with those of others, but with their own high expectations and perfectionism.

Preferred Styles of Learning, instruction, Thinking, and expression

Learning styles refers to students’ preferred physical and socio-psychological conditions and preferred teaching/ learning methods (Dunn & Griggs, 1988; Griggs & Dunn, 1984). The overlapping concept of instructional styles also refers to teaching/learning methods (Renzulli & Reis, 1997). The term thinking styles refers to how one responds intellectually to situations and problems (Dai & Feldhusen, 1999; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1993). Expression style is one’s preferred mode of response.

A classic instrument for assessing learning styles is the Dunn, Dunn, and Price (1981) Learning Styles Inven- tory (LSI). The LSI assesses learning preferences in these areas: environmental (light, sound, temperature, design), emotional (motivation, persistence, responsibility, need for structure or options), sociological (self, peer, team, adult, varied), physical (time of day, need for intake, mobility), and psychological (global/analytical, left/right, impulsive/ ref lective). Rayneri and Gerber (2004) urged use of the LSI and the Student Perception Inventory (SPI) to provide information on students’ learning style in order to improve student achievement and prevent underachievement.

It is not surprising that gifted students’ preferred learning styles match their frequent characteristics of high motivation, persistence, self-confidence, independence, and high internal control. Griggs and Dunn (1984; Griggs, 1984) concluded that gifted students tend to be independent, self-motivated learners more than teacher-motivated learn- ers. They need and enjoy learning tasks that are unstruc- tured and flexible rather than the highly structured tasks needed by less-able students. They prefer active-participant approaches to learning rather than spectator approaches. They can learn through varied sensory channels, including

30 Chapter 2

school building. Hollingworth (1942, p. 281) described a six-year-old boy of 187 IQ who “wept bitterly after reading how the North taxed the South after the Civil War.”

Hollingworth also described one not-so-moral ten- dency. She noted that most of her very bright students engaged in “benign chicanery.” That is, the children used their intelli- gence to get their own way with less-intelligent peers or to avoid disagreeable academic or other tasks. Because the talent of benign chicanery could be helpful in the adult world, Hol- lingworth helped them to be aware of when they were taking advantage of their ability (Delisle, 1992).

In the Gross (1993a) study of very-high-IQ Austral- ian children mentioned earlier in this chapter, eight chil- dren ages 10 to 13 took a test of moral judgment. Their moral and ethical sense resembled that of high school or college students.

Rimm (2003a) uses the typical high moral thinking as a motivation factor in reversing student underachieve- ment, particularly among teens. Encouraging youth toward altruism adds relevance to their lives and often encourages them to achieve more in school. For example, a college student who was about to drop out was motivated to con- tinue to graduation when Rimm convinced her she could contribute more toward helping disadvantaged people if she completed her degree.

characTeriSTicS of The creaTiveLy GifTed

creativity and intelligence: The Threshold concept

The student who is highly intelligent may or may not be creatively gifted as well. Getzels and Jackson (1962) and Wallach and Kogan (1965) contrasted highly intelligent versus highly creative students, confirming that the two traits are indeed not the same. Of interest to teachers, Getzels and Jackson reported that highly creative and highly intelligent students did equally well in course work– but teachers preferred the highly intelligent students!

On the other hand, there is good evidence that crea- tivity and intelligence are related. The resolution of this apparent inconsistency–whether creativity is or is not related to intelligence–lies in the threshold concept: A base level of intelligence usually is essential for creative produc- tivity; above that threshold (about IQ 120) there is virtually no relationship between measured intelligence and creativ- ity (MacKinnon, 1978). For example, Walberg, Williams, and Zeiser (2003) noted that high intelligence is less important to adult creative eminence than other psychologi- cal traits and conditions (e.g., perseverance, stimulating social environments, and luck). Particularly, as we will see,

Kirton (1976) used the phrases innovative thinking versus adaptive thinking. As to personality correlations, according to Kirton, innovators may seem undisciplined, impractical, and able to do routine work for only short bursts. In contrast, adaptors tend to be precise, efficient, conforming, and highly accurate in long spells of work; may show self-doubt; and rarely challenge authority. Simonton (1996) used the terms creative expertise versus received expertise.

Superior humor

The superior sense of humor of many gifted children would seem to follow quite naturally from their abilities to think quickly and to see relationships, and from their general confi- dence and social adeptness. The humor appears in art, creative writing, and other areas, as well as in social interaction.

Gross (2000) recounted a preschool teacher who asked a young student named Steven to assist in picking up empty fruit-juice cups: “Can you pass that cup, please?” Steven placed the cup on the f loor and solemnly paced back and forth in front of it. His IQ tested at 158, and he adored puns and wordplay–in this case, alternative defini- tions of “pass.” Another true story describes a young gifted child who locked his mother out of the house. When she yelled at him, “Open the door!” he walked into the kitchen with a grin and opened the refrigerator. It takes a very patient mother to appreciate such humor.

high moral Thinking and empathy

As a general trend, gifted students are more sensitive to values and moral issues, and they intuitively understand why certain behavior is “good” and other behavior is “bad.” Piaget and Inhelder (1969) explain that develop- mentally advanced children are less egocentric; that is, they are able to view a situation from another person’s point of view. Therefore, gifted students are more likely to acknowledge the rights and feelings of others.

Gifted children and youth are likely to develop, refine, and internalize a system of values and a keen sense of fair play and justice at a relatively early age. Not only is the child likely to be more fair, empathic, and honest, he or she also will evaluate others according to the same stand- ards. It follows that gifted students are less likely to show antisocial or other behavior problems in school.

Gifted students, especially the brightest ones, may develop an interest in social issues, particularly those for which their sense of reason and justice seems to be violated. Teachers or parents may find themselves embroiled in seri- ous discussions with gifted children about why adults litter streets and highways with beer cans and burger wrappers, politicians cut benefits and programs for the elderly and poor, and parents voted against enlarging the crowded

Characteristics of Gifted Students 31

Many gifted children are self-motivated, but those who are less self-directed and who underachieve are more likely to thrive in gifted programs and should not be excluded. As to those gifted children who display disrespectful or antisocial behaviors, learning appropriate behaviors will not interfere with their giftedness and is likely to permit them to function better in school and in life.

characTeriSTicS of hiSToricaLLy eminenT PerSonS

herbert Walberg’s Studies of eminent men, eminent Women, and high School artists and Scientists

Walberg (1982; Walberg et al., 1981; Walberg et al., 2003) reviewed childhood traits of over 200 eminent people from artistic, scientific, religious, and political domains born between the 14th and 20th centuries. The following traits were common to almost all of these gifted and visibly productive men and women:

●● Versatility ●● Concentration ●● Perseverance ●● Superior communication skills ●● At least moderately high intelligence

In addition, the majority were rated as:

●● Ethical ●● Sensitive ●● Optimistic ●● Magnetic and popular

In childhood they were exposed to stimulating fam- ily, educational, and cultural conditions. About 80% were successful in school and liked it. About 90%  were given considerable autonomy in their school  years, although 70% also were guided by clear parental expectations. Many showed outstanding early accomplishments.

Turning to Walberg’s (2003) study of 771 high school students, Walberg identified three groups: (1) students who won competitive awards in science, (2) students who won awards in the arts, and (3) average classmates. The scientist and artist groups showed a number of traits in common. According to self-reports, students in both groups:

●● Visited libraries for nonschool reading, had greater numbers of books at home, and found books more interesting than people

●● Had early strong interests in mechanical and scien- tific objects, as well as the arts

●● Were interested in work with fine detail;

creative persons must be independent and confident; must be motivated and energetic; and must dare to make changes, challenge traditions, make waves, bend rules, and get out of the box–and they sometimes fail in the process.

An important implication of distinguishing between intellectual and creative giftedness is that, if students are selected for a gifted program on the basis of scores in the top 1% to 5% in intelligence, the majority of creative stu- dents will be missed. Another implication is that when asked to identify “gifted” students, as we noted earlier in this chapter, many teachers will quickly nominate the well- behaved, conforming, neat, and dutiful “teacher pleasers” rather than less conforming students who are highly creative and more unconventional. Also, in many classes (for exam- ple, math or science in the middle school), the special talents of the creatively gifted may not be required. Creative students, therefore, will be less visible and less likely to be nominated as “gifted” than highly intelligent students.

Ultimately, the achievements and contributions to society of many highly creative students will surpass those of brighter, conforming grade-getters.

Personality and cognitive characteristics

A recurrent group of personality and cognitive traits appears again and again in descriptions of the creative person (e.g., Barron, 1969, 1988; Costa, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi & Wolfe, 2000; MacKinnon, 1962, 1978; Simonton, 1988, 2003; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988; Torrance, 1981a, 1984, 1988; Walberg, Williams, & Zeiser, 2003). Again, not all characteristics apply to all creative people. However, most traits square well with our intuitive understanding of a creative person. Chapter 8 emphasizes the creative person and details both the positive and negative characteristics of creative individuals.

how Stereotypical characteristics can ensnare Teachers and Parents

The very broad list of typical characteristics of gifted children can confuse teachers and parents, and can cause some special pitfalls for children. Although we’ve cautioned readers not to assume that all gifted or creative students have all the charac- teristics described, sometimes teachers make the mistake of assuming that gifted children who are not self-directed, perse- vering, and motivated should not be considered gifted. Thus, underachieving or troublesome gifted students are eliminated too easily from gifted programming.

Parents more typically err in an opposite direction. If their gifted children talk too much or are strong willed, impatient, oversensitive, fearful, argumentative, arrogant, intense, or rebellious, they assume that they must accept these characteristics because the undesirable characteris- tics come with the territory of giftedness.

32 Chapter 2

scientists, but few became artists, composers, or world l eaders, roles requiring forms of intelligence not measured by Terman’s Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale. Further, “drive and determination could more than compensate for a less than stratospheric IQ” (Simonton, 2003, p. 359). Creative ability– Sternberg’s synthetic giftedness–and its many companion personality traits are other important characteristics.

As we will see in Chapter 8, a touch of psychopathology– virtually absent in Terman’s subjects–is extremely common in biographies of creatively eminent achievers, especially artists and writers.

Genius apparently is both born and made. First-born children were overrepresented in Terman’s (1925) high-IQ sample and in other researchers’ samples of child prodi- gies, successful politicians, successful women (Rimm et al., 2014), and eminent scientists (Feldman, 1991). But later-borns are more likely to become great artists, writers (Simonton, 2003), or psychologists (Rimm et al., 2014).

Traumatic childhood events, such as economic hard- ship or the early loss of a parent, characterize many per- sons who became eminent in science or especially the arts. Said Simonton, to achieve eminence, one cannot have a childhood that is too happy. We should caution, as did Simonton, that the development of child prodigies nearly always requires supportive parents and a favorable envi- ronment (e.g., Morelock & Feldman, 2003).

Finally, the role of formal education and academic performance in attaining eminence may be surprising–too much and too high are bad. There is almost no correlation between earning high college grades or honors and achiev- ing eminence in one’s field. Said Simonton (2003), the ideal amount of education peaks “somewhere in the last half of undergraduate training” (p. 365).

Whereas lawyers, doctors, and scientists must possess higher degrees, artistic creators and other uncon- ventional achievers can succeed at high levels with just a little college education.

For an example of one of Terman’s kids who did suc- ceed at a high level (there were others; see Shurkin, 1992), see Box 2.1.

Parental Support, communities of Support, and intense individualized instruction: Lauren Sosniak and Benjamin Bloom

Bloom and Sosniak (1981; Bloom, 1985; Sosniak, 1997, 2003) examined the home environment and the early training of exceptional, accomplished pianists, sculptors, swimmers, tennis players, mathematicians, and research neurologists whose talents roughly represented artistic, motoric, and cognitive skill areas. They discovered that the home environments and the gifted persons’ parents were

●● Were persistent in carrying things through ●● Liked school, studied hard, and completed their

work faster than classmates ●● Felt more creative, curious, and expressive than oth-

ers and believed it is important to be creative ●● Selected creativity, rather than wealth and power, as

the “best characteristic to develop in life” ●● Indicated that they were brighter and quicker to

understand than their friends ●● Attached great importance to money, expected to

earn higher salaries than the average, and expected to earn graduate degrees

The gifted scientists and artists also differed in many respects. The scientists were more concerned with things and ideas rather than with people and feelings. For exam- ple, the science award winners reported more difficulty making friends after changing schools and they did not date much. The scientists also were more persistent; they tended to complete work regardless of problems or distrac- tions. They were more “bookish” and less involved in school activities. Whereas the scientists valued their intel- ligence more highly than their creativity, the artists valued their creativity more highly. The scientists made more detailed plans regarding their future education and were more concerned about future job security. The artists leaned toward “letting fate take its course.”

Walberg and his colleagues itemized important traits of intelligent and creatively productive eminent adults and contemporary youth. But Walberg was not the first to study personal, family, and environment traits of eminent persons.

When does Giftedness Become Genius?: dean Simonton

Consider this dilemma. Simonton (2003) noted that, ide- ally, Terman’s (1925) gifted children should have become eminent adults, and Cox’s (1926) eminent adults should have been gifted children. But some of Terman’s high IQ children were “misfits and failures,” and “many of the 301 geniuses in her [Cox’s] sample would not have qualified for inclusion in Terman’s study” (Simonton, p. 358). Simonton puzzled out some of the often subtle circum- stances that help explain this apparent peculiarity.

First, one’s IQ can be too high. A brilliant person may “talk over the heads” of important persons and be dis- missed as too “high brow” or “eccentric.” If high achieve- ment requires appealing to the masses, said Simonton (1985), an IQ of around 119 is optimal.

Also, as we saw in Gardner’s multiple intelligences (MI) theory, there are intelligences other than IQ. In fact, many of Terman’s Termites became doctors, professors, and

Characteristics of Gifted Students 33

Initially, parents themselves provided the necessary training and supervision of practice. At some point, how- ever, each child switched to a professional instructor. In many cases, parental support was so strong that the family moved to another location to be closer to an outstanding teacher or better facilities. The single student often would be the central concern of the devoted instructor. During this time, the student’s dedication to the talent area would grow strong–which explains his or her willingness to spend approximately 15 hours per week in lessons and practice.

These students learned to handle failures constructively. That is, failures were learning experiences used to pinpoint problems to be solved and new skills to be mastered. In  contrast, according to Bloom (1985), among “talent drop- outs,” failures led to feelings of inadequacy and to quitting.

almost entirely responsible for nurturing the children’s early interests and developing their children’s skills to extraordi- nary levels. The remarkably talented individuals in the Bloom and Sosniak sample “typically did not show unusual promise at the start” (Sosniak, 2003, p. 247). Sosniak quoted Bloom as confessing, “We were looking for exceptional kids and what we found were exceptional conditions” (p. 247).

Almost always, one or both parents had a strong interest in the particular talent and were themselves above average in the skill. In every case, the parents strongly supported the children, encouraging and rewarding their interests, talents, and efforts. Sosniak and Bloom consid- ered it important that the talented parent or parents served as role models, exemplifying the personality and lifestyle of the highly talented person.

BOX 2.1

A Termite Who Made It: Ancel Keys

Ancel Keys made the cover of both Time and Life magazines (Shurkin, 1992). When identified by Terman, he was 18 years old and in high school, which he didn’t much like–he even dropped out for a semester to shovel bat guano in an Arizona cave. At the University of California, Berkeley, he majored in chemistry and “earned loose change by beating his classmates at bridge” (p. 133). Before graduating, he signed on as an oiler for a ship bound for China.

Returning to Berkeley, he graduated in economics in two years and went to work at Woolworth’s as a manage- ment trainee. He was “bored silly.” Back at Berkeley, he completed a second major in biology, then a Ph.D. in 1928 with lots of training in physiology, biology, and zoology.

He went to Cambridge University as a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation, studied physiology, and somehow received a second Ph.D. “with no examination, no thesis, and no cost” (Shurkin, 1992, p. 135).

Back in America, Keys took a job at the Harvard Fatigue Laboratory. He decided to explore the effects of high altitude on the human body, so he went to Chile to climb the Andes–accompanied, fortunately, by 10 others who knew how to climb. With two Peruvians, the group set up camp at 20,000 feet and conducted blood, lung, body- temperature, and pulse-rate tests, despite the 50-below- zero temperature. One scientist turned blue and passed out but recovered at 17,000 feet.

From Harvard, Keys joined the Mayo Clinic (which doubled his salary), then joined the Department of Physiol- ogy in the University of Minnesota Medical School.

World War II made him famous. The War Department wanted him to develop high-nutrition, pocket-size emer- gency rations, resulting in the famous K-rations (yes, “K” stands for “Keys”).

With 36 conscientious objectors as guinea pigs, he also studied the effects of starvation and the best way to rehabilitate the undernourished, resulting in the two- volume Biology of Human Starvation. He discovered that all aspects of the lives of his subjects were affected–dreams and behavior, weakness, weariness, apathy, and “no more sexual feeling than a sick oyster” (p. 249). Recovery was neither rapid nor complete, and food increased depression.

After the war, Keys examined causes of heart attack. Of 27 executives who had heart attacks in his study, all had cholesterol counts over 240. He also knew that, under Ger- man occupation and deprived of a fatty diet, the Dutch and Scandinavians saw a decrease in heart attacks. And in Naples, Italy, only rich persons had heart attacks–everybody else ate a lot of pasta, olive oil, and wine, but no butter or milk. People in Finland slathered butter on big slabs of cheese and died of heart attacks even faster than Americans. Ancel Keys was the first to clarify matters and get the message to the public. The “Keys equation” predicts cholesterol level from the quantity of fatty acids in our diet.

Keys’s crowning achievement was his Seven Countries Study–still in progress after over 40 years. He monitored the diets and heart attacks of nearly 13,000 men aged 40 to 59. In 1960, he and his wife, Margaret, published the best seller Eat Well and Stay Well, which put him on the cover of TIME magazine. He upped his warning: Americans eat too much, especially eggs, dairy products, and marbled meat, leading to cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.

“His work is now considered part of medical wisdom” (Shurkin, p. 251).

Quiz: How many abilities and personality traits of creative people and creative scientists can you detect in this brief sketch?

34 Chapter 2

had friends with whom they studied their area and/or con- ducted experiments, typically with youth science sets. Other strongly supportive communities of practice include music performances and competitions, art shows, math or science clubs, and summer camps associated with a talent area. People in these groups introduce the young person to recordings, books, magazines, and other resources in the talent area. They help shape interests and education and training needs. And, it is critical to note, they introduce youth to expert models in specific areas and to resources for support and inspiration.

Finally, in Sosniak’s (2003) words, “We appear to be looking for the wrong things, in the wrong ways. . . . We are quite confident that extraordinary levels of accomplishment are possible for individuals who do not necessarily show early promise” (p. 247). A thought-provoking view, indeed.

child Prodigies, extraordinary iQ, available Knowledge, and coincidence: david feldman and martha morelock

Morelock (2000) and Morelock and Feldman (2003) stud- ied and described child prodigies and children of extraor- dinarily high IQ. A prodigy is defined as a young person who performs at the level of a highly trained adult. Similar to Cox’s (1926) eminent adults (Box 2.2), child prodigies usually show high, but not extraordinary, IQ scores. Nearly always, their prodigious ability is limited to a specific domain, as reflected in Morelock and Feldman’s descrip- tions of a remarkable violinist and a pianist, both of whom had poor hand coordination in folding and cutting paper. Morelock and Feldman (1997) named as other examples of prodigies chess player Bobby Fischer, who became a grand master by age 15, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who composed mature musical works by age 10.

Bloom (1985) contrasted the development of talent with traditional educational philosophy and methods. First, in the early years of home instruction, talent development is informal, exploratory, and similar to play; the school set- ting is serious, formal, and on a set schedule. Second, with talent development, instruction is totally individualized, with praise and rewards based completely on individual- ized objectives and standards. School learning, of course, is group-oriented. Third, the purpose of school is to pro- vide all students with a broad basic education, and strong specialization is not encouraged. In talent development, the student and teacher focus on moving the learner to higher and higher levels of accomplishment in just one specialized area. Fourth, many students see school learning as devoid of meaning, something to be tolerated. In con- trast, the purposes of and meaning in talent development are clear, and this inspires dedication and hard work.

As reflected in the title of the article, “Developing Talent: Time, Task, and Context,” Sosniak (2003) stressed that developing exceptional abilities takes a lot of time. Concert pianists worked about 17 years for international recognition; swimmers trained about 15 years before earn- ing a spot on the Olympic team.

Regarding Sosniak’s context, her key concept is the development of communities of practice–groups of people who share a focus on the particular talent, who work in that area, and who are anxious to support the aspiring youth. Families are the first communities of practice. For example, music was expressly valued, every day, in the homes of later accomplished pianists; sports were valued in the homes of future Olympic swimmers. The reverse combinations never happened.

Regarding communities of practice outside the home, pianists took lessons from local music teachers, and swimmers took lessons at the Y and joined swim clubs. Young scientists

BOX 2.2

Studies of Eminent Persons: Catharine Cox

The Stanford University Press Genetic Studies of Genius consisted of five volumes. Only volume 2, by Catharine Cox (1926), was not devoted to Lewis Terman’s high IQ subjects as students and adults. Cox, a colleague of Ter- man, took an approach to understanding traits of gifted persons that was quite the reverse of her famous cohort. Instead of beginning with bright children and tracking their accomplishments, she began by identifying 282 eminent persons and then examined their biographical and personal records. The findings related to intelligence are most enlightening. Cox estimated that their IQ scores ranged from 100 to 200, with an average of 159.

However, many estimated IQs were rather modest: Thirteen IQ scores fell between 100 and 110, 30 between 110 and 120, and 30 between 120 and 130. Extraordi- nary innate brilliance helped, but it was not essential. Cox concluded that individuals who achieve eminence are likely to (1) be born of intelligent parents and raised in advantaged circumstances; (2) show precocious child- hood traits and behavior that indicate unusually superior intelligence; and, significantly, (3) be “characterized not only by high intellectual traits, but also by persistence of motive and effort, confidence in their abilities, and great strength and force of character.”

Characteristics of Gifted Students 35

As an example, Mozart was clearly precocious and musically gifted. He also grew up in an environment where music was composed and played, and he was exposed to the values and lifestyles of musicians. He received consid- erable personal instruction based on an existing body of knowledge.

On the basis of the biographies, observations, and stud- ies of prodigies, Morelock and Feldman (1997, 2003) itemized conclusions regarding the prodigies and their teachers:

●● The children possessed extraordinary native ability. ●● The children were born into families that recognized,

valued, and fostered that ability. ●● The children received instruction from master teachers

who possessed superior knowledge of a domain and its history, and who imparted that knowledge in ways that engaged interest, and sustained commitment.

●● The children showed strong inner-directedness and a passionate commitment to their field; they derived a strong sense of joy from their achievements.

Feldman (1991, 1994) had also studied six prodigies since 1975–two chess players, a young mathematician, a musician–composer, a writer, and an “omnibus prodigy who showed prodigious achievement in a number of areas, but who eventually focused on music composition and performance” (Morelock & Feldman, 1997, p. 448). All six were performing before age 10 in their chosen field at the level of an adult professional.

Feldman attributed such amazing youthful accom- plishment to a coincidence of individual, environmental, and historical forces, which he dubbed the coincidence theory (Feldman, 1991, 1994). The individual component of this coincidence is the rare prodigy, described as highly intelligent, developmentally advanced, and biologically “preorganized” with giftedness in a certain domain. Envi- ronmental factors include the existence of a highly evolved field of knowledge that can be taught to the precocious child. Historical factors include, for example, the value society attaches to a domain. (See Box 2.3.)

BOX 2.3

Studies of Eminent Adults: The Goertzels

In two studies, the Goertzels (Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962; Goertzel, Goertzel, & Goertzel, 1978) reviewed the family backgrounds and personal lives of some 700 adults who had achieved eminence via highly creative achievements that made a strong impact on society. A composite picture, based on recurrent traits and behavior, is described as follows:

The eminent man or woman is likely to be the firstborn or only child in a middle-class family. . . . In these families there are rows of books on shelves, and parental expectations are high for all children. . . .

Children who become eminent love learn- ing but dislike school and school teachers who try to confine them to a curriculum not designed for individual needs. They respond well to being tutored or to being left alone, and they like to go to special schools such as those that train actors, dancers, musicians, and artists. . . .

They are more self-directed, less moti- vated in wanting to please than are their peers or siblings. They need and manage to find peri- ods of isolation when they have freedom to think, to read, to write, to experiment, to paint, to play an instrument, or to explore the country- side. Sometimes this freedom can be obtained only by real or feigned illnesses; a sympathetic parent may respond to the child’s need to have long free periods of concentrated effort. . . .

They treasure their uniqueness and find it hard to be conforming, in dress, behavior, and other ways. (Goertzel, Goertzel, & Goert- zel, 1978, pp. 336–338)

The Goertzel and Goertzel (1962) study of 400 eminent adults revealed two consistent family characteristics across all talent areas. First, all the parents were highly energetic and goal-directed. Second, almost all the families displayed an intense and intrinsic love for learning and achievement that was simply not attached to materialistic goals.

The Goertzel and Goertzel study was updated in 2003 by none other than Dr. Ted Goertzel, who was the Goertzel’s underachieving, gifted, oldest son (Goertzel, 2004). He summarized his parents’ work by indicating that psychologists weren’t always right when they assumed that children had to solve their emotional prob- lems in childhood in order to be productive adults. He cites Woody Allen as an example of a creative person who never would have made his great movies if he had become the conforming happy person his principal wanted him to be. He advises patience, flexibility, and the need to know when to push and when to step back, and gives the example of Oprah Winfrey’s successful life, crediting her father’s insistence that she achieve in order “to make something of herself.” The great difficulty for parents and educators is determining when to set firm boundaries and when to facilitate gifted children’s “behaving out of the box.”

36 Chapter 2

intense existential questioning and strong emotional tur- moil (e.g., regarding her own mortality). Said Morelock (2000, p. 68), “Her advanced cognitive capacities . . . left her emotionally defenseless in the face of her own reason.”

Finally, in addition to prodigies and high-IQ chil- dren, Morelock and Feldman (1997, 2003) described a third type of precocity that teachers of the gifted are unlikely to encounter–persons with savant syndrome, orig- inally called idiot savants. Such persons are severely retarded, perhaps autistic; nonetheless, they demonstrate astounding gifts in limited areas (see Box 2.4).

characTeriSTicS of TeacherS of The GifTed

Should teachers of the gifted be gifted themselves? Many experts have proposed other desirable characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted. Most characteristics would apply to all good teachers. The summary in Table 2.2 draws heavily from Feldhusen (1997), Croft (2003), and Rakow (2006), as well as other sources.

Regarding competencies and teacher preparation, Feldhusen (1997a) argued that it is more productive to focus on competencies, skills, and knowledge than on per- sonal traits. He also cautioned that competencies needed to teach gifted math and science students will be different than those needed to teach gifted art, music, or literature students. Nonetheless, Feldhusen presented the core results of two particularly commendable surveys of

Concerning high-IQ children, Morelock (1995, 1996, 1997; Morelock & Feldman, 1993, 2003) studied the personality and family backgrounds of eight children, all of whom scored above IQ 180, six well above IQ 200. One boy who scored 200+ graduated from college at age 10; another at age 8 scored 760 out of 800 on the mathematics section of the SAT, the highest score ever recorded at that early age.1 A third boy at age 5 read A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking, concerning the origins of the universe. Addressing a suitable problem for a bright 5-year-old, he promptly figured out how Santa Claus could use black holes to (1) become thin enough to descend chimneys, and (2) have adequate time to visit every child on earth on Christmas Eve (Morelock, 1997, 2000).

Almost all of the extremely high-IQ children were firstborn. Siblings tended to describe themselves in terms of what they could do–for example, in terms of dancing, art, or creative (toy) constructions. The high-IQ sibling was the “thinker” and “talker.”

Morelock (2000; Morelock & Feldman, 2003) endorsed Silverman’s (e.g., 1997) concept of asynchro- nous development. An IQ score estimates the degree to which children’s cognitive development is “in synch” with their physical, social, and emotional development. In one case described by Morelock (2000; Morelock & Feldman, 2003), 4-year-old “Jennie” (tested IQ = 176) experienced

1The SAT–Scholastic Aptitude Test–is taken by college-bound high school seniors, just 1% of whom score 750 or higher.

BOX 2.4

The Strange Case of Savant Syndrome

Persons with savant syndrome reveal a fascinating and seemingly impossible phenomenon. These are persons with severe mental disabilities (retardation, autism, or schizo- phrenia) who display spectacular islands of ability in narrow areas. Savant brilliance occurs in art and mechanical ability, but the highest levels are almost always found in mathe- matics (“lightning calculating”), music (consistently, piano), and memory (Morelock & Feldman, 1993, 1997, 2003; Treffert, 1989).

The original term idiot savant was coined in 1887 by J. Langdon Down of London. However, they are neither idi- ots nor savants. Whereas idiocy used to be defined as hav- ing IQ scores between 0 and 20, idiot savants typically score between 40 and 70 (Treffert, 1989). Further, savant is the French word for “person of learning”–hardly the correct description of these unique people. The phenomenon is six times more common in males than females. It can be either congenital or acquired by a normal person after an acci-

dent, and the skills can appear and disappear in sudden and unexplained ways (Treffert, 1989).

Although persons with savant syndrome have an immediate and intuitive access to the underlying structural rules of a domain, they are restricted by those rules–they are not flexible and creative. For example, musical perfor- mances are said to be imitative, shallow, and lacking in sub- tlety and emotional expressiveness.

George and Charles were identical-twin “calendar calculators.” At the age of 9, they could answer questions like “On what day of the week was your third birthday?” or “In the year 31,275, on what day of the week will June 6 fall?” Given a date, these twins could name the day of the week over a span of 80,000 years, 40,000 forward or 40,000 backward. They swapped 20-digit prime numbers for amusement, and they could remember up to 30 digits. Incredibly, they could neither add, nor count to 30; their tested IQ scores were between 40 and 50.*

Characteristics of Gifted Students 37

Leslie Lemke was blind almost from birth, palsied, and mentally handicapped. At age 5½ he could repeat verbatim a whole day’s conversation while impersonating each speak- er’s voice. He is most famous for his musical precocity; in fact, he gave concerts. He was introduced to the piano at the age of 7 and began playing by ear. By age 8, he also played the ukulele, the concertina, the xylophone, the accor- dion, and the bongo drums, and at age 9, the chord organ. He required help in dressing and feeding himself, however.

The “miracle” of Leslie began at age 14, when at 3:00 in the morning his parents heard him playing Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1, the theme song in a movie they had seen earlier and a piece Leslie had heard only once (Treffert, 1989). After hearing a 45-minute opera once, Leslie could transpose the music to the piano and sing the entire score in its original foreign language. He seemed never to forget his music; his repertoire included thousands of pieces.

Perhaps the most credible explanation of savant syn- drome is that of Treffert (1989), who suggested simply that injury to the left hemisphere of the brain (language and analytic thought) produces compensatory growth in the right hemisphere (music and spatial/mathematical abilities). Further, injury to the cerebral cortex causes memory func- tions to shift to more primitive brain areas, causing memory to become habitual, emotionless, and involuntary–essen- tially a conditioned reflex. Treffert conceded, however, that such extreme alterations in brain function cannot explain the savants’ seemingly intuitive access to the structural rules of domains such as mathematics and music.

* For additional information on George and Charles and other fas- cinating cases, see D. J. Hamblin’s article in Life, March 18, 1966, pp. 106–108.

TABLE 2.2 Exemplary Teachers of the Gifted: Characteristics

Are highly intelligent

Are enthusiastic about giftedness, talent, and learning

Are aware of gifted students’ needs

Are energetic, ready to do extra work, and ready to experiment

Are patient, sensitive, respectful, and empathic; they understand and see matters from students’ points of view

Recognize individual differences, including personal self-images and personal integrity

Accept responsibility for individual children

Create a vibrant, warm, safe, and democratic learning environment

Are less judgmental and critical; have confidence in gifted students

Are sensitive to their actions as role models for students

Are imaginative, innovative, flexible, and open to change

Have cultural and intellectual interests and broad general knowledge

Are honest, fair, and objective

Are mature, experienced, self-confident, level-headed, and emotionally stable

Are willing to learn with and from students; are “perennial students” themselves

Seek new solutions through continued learning

Have control over their personal lives

Can work closely with other members of gifted staff, students, parents, and other professionals

Can communicate the needs of gifted children and muster support for the gifted program

Sources: Information from “Secondary services, opportunities, and activities for talented youth, Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed)” by J. F. Feldhusen, N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Published by Allyn & Bacon, 1997.

G/T teacher competencies by Hultgren and Seeley (1982) and Nelson and Prindle (1992), which appear in Table 2.3.

While teachers surely require competencies, it is equally important to prepare them for the diverse character- istics of their gifted students. A metaphor study of

124 undergraduate education majors showed they described giftedness as “rapid memorization of content knowledge and showy demonstrations of achievement” (Olthouse, 2014). Because participating education students had not yet taught in classrooms, perhaps we can forgive their stereotypes.

38 Chapter 2

Quigley, 2002). This tests the question about whether good teachers of gifted students need to be intellectually gifted or whether their gifts need to be more in the social and emotional arena and in their enthusiasm and love for teaching. In Carol Ann Tomlinson’s words, “teachers probably still teach best when they believe all kids are inherently good, all want to learn, and all want to like and be liked by teachers” (Tomlinson, 2009, p. 38).

Nevertheless, it is a reminder that teachers of gifted students should learn something about these students’ social emo- tional needs before undertaking teaching them.

Finally, when gifted students themselves were asked what they believed were prerequisite characteris- tics in teachers of the gifted, they tended to report that personal and social qualities of the teacher were more important than their intellectual qualities (Vialle &

TABLE 2.3 Exemplary Teaching Methods of the Gifted: Characteristics

Have knowledge of the nature and needs of the gifted

Can identify and assess gifted and talented students

Can select or develop methods and materials for use with gifted students

Are well prepared, well-organized, “on their toes,” well-grounded in the subject matter, and ready for creative questions

Are skilled in teaching higher-level thinking skills, including creativity and problem solving

Are skilled in questioning for higher-level thinking

Focus on process as well as product

Can facilitate independent research and other projects

Can direct individualized learning

Can teach students to evaluate for themselves

Guide and facilitate learning but do not coerce

Can work with culturally different gifted and talented students

Are skilled in counseling gifted and talented students

Help develop students’ self-concepts

Can present educational and career options

Are skilled in group processes and in teaching groups

Motivate students to strive for high achievement, successful accomplishments, and general excellence

Can conduct in-services for other teachers regarding G/T philosophy and methods

Are familiar with a wide variety of teaching strategies

Are skilled in persuasiveness, troubleshooting, and problem solving

Source: Information from “Secondary services, opportunities, and activities for talented youth, Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed)” by J. F. Feldhusen, N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Published by Allyn & Bacon, 1997.

Identifying characteristics of gifted students is important because it helps teachers and parents recognize and under- stand gifted children. Even though all children differ in physical, intellectual, affective, and behavioral traits, some characteristics of gifted and talented students recur fre- quently in the research literature.

Terman’s gifted children were better adjusted as chil- dren and adults. Compared with other children, they were better achievers and learned more easily, had more hobbies, read more books, were more trustworthy, and were healthier and better “physical specimens.” The traits continued into

Summary

adulthood. The most productive of the group were high in confidence, leadership, goal-directedness, and desire to excel. The selection of Terman’s group members was biased due to their initial nomination by teachers prior to testing.

Gifted children are, typically, developmentally advanced in language and thought. Early, rapidly improv- ing speech ref lects a growing conceptual ability and knowledge base. Gifted children may learn to read early, sometimes teaching themselves. Comprehension, reten- tion, vocabulary, stored information, and logical abilities also are usually superior.

Characteristics of Gifted Students 39

tasks; and are imaginative, flexible, highly verbal, persis- tent, and irritated by the routine and obvious.

Walberg’s study of eminent persons indicated that almost all subjects, including both men and women, pos- sessed versatility, perseverance, superior communication skills, high ethics, personal magnetism, a stimulating early environment, and at least moderately high intelligence. His high school art and science award winners showed confi- dence, early interests in art and science, much nonschool reading, persistence, and a liking for school. Unlike his artists, Walberg’s scientists valued intelligence more than creativity.

Simonton examined why many “Termites” did not become eminent and why Cox’s eminent persons were not all extraordinarily brilliant. Important traits included not being too brilliant or educated, and being firstborn, highly motivated, and often experiencing childhood trauma.

Studying gifted pianists, swimmers, mathematicians, and others, Bloom and Sosniak concluded that home and parental influences were critical to high levels of talent devel- opment. Parents supported the child and modeled the appro- priate personality, values, and lifestyle. All instruction was individualized. Student (and teacher) motivation and dedica- tion ran high. Compared with traditional schooling, talent development is informal, individualized, specialized, and more meaningful. High-level talent development takes many years. A key concept is Sosniak’s communities of support.

Morelock and Feldman examined child prodigies, children of extraordinarily high IQ, and persons with savant syndrome. Prodigies seemed mentally “preorganized” in an area. They had high, but not always outstanding, intelli- gence. Feldman’s coincidence theory stressed the combina- tion of individual, environmental, and historical factors. Morelock studied eight children above IQ 180 who showed remarkable accomplishments. Feldman and Morelock endorsed the concept of asynchronous development.

Stereotyping the characteristics of gifted children can ensnare teachers and parents. Because motivation and perseverance are considered characteristics of gifted chil- dren, teachers may not recommend underachieving or troublesome children for programs. Parents may err in the opposite direction and be too accepting of undesirable characteristics in the name of giftedness.

The question that is often tested is whether teachers of the gifted should also be gifted. Teachers of such stu- dents should have traits such as high enthusiasm, empathy, broad knowledge, maturity, and willingness to work with other staff. Competencies include knowledge of the gifted, and the abilities to teach higher-level thinking skills, direct research and individualized learning, counsel gifted stu- dents, and more. When gifted students are asked about their favorite teachers, their choices are more likely to reflect the personal and social attributes of their teachers rather than their teachers’ intellectual giftedness.

Writing, math, music, and artistic abilities appear early. Motivation and persistence are common and are

important for later adult success. Gifted students’ high motivation and curiosity lead to advanced interests.

Gifted students frequently show superior affective characteristics and better self-concepts. However, some G/T children suffer from social inadequacies, anxieties, and depression. Students with IQ scores above 145 may have special difficulty relating to peers, said Hollingworth.

Research on self-concepts is complicated by age, gender, level of giftedness, and which “self” is studied. For example, gifted students have higher academic than social self-concepts. Also, compared with nongifted females, gifted females may have better self-concepts in elementary school than when they become adolescents; the opposite is true for males.

The gifted student’s history of success usually leads to high independence, self-confidence, and feelings of internal control. However, too high self-expectations can lead to frustration.

Gifted students tend to have an independent, self- motivated learning style. They usually prefer unstructured and participant learning activities. Two popular inventories for assessing learning styles are the Dunn, Dunn, and Price LSI and the Renzulli and Smith LSI.

Thinking styles–for example, divergent and conver- gent thinking–describe how one responds to situations.

Intellectually gifted students intuitively comprehend values and moral issues. They are less egocentric and thus are able to empathize with the rights, feelings, and prob- lems of others. They usually are more honest and trustwor- thy, although some may be delinquent. Values and a sense of fairness and justice develop early, leading to consistency in attitudes and behavior and an interest in social issues. Superior humor was also found to be a characteristic of gifted children.

Creativity and intelligence are different traits. They are moderately correlated, but above a threshold IQ (about 120) the correlation disappears. If students are selected for G/T programs solely on the basis of IQ scores, most crea- tive students are missed. Teachers often select “teacher pleasers” for gifted programs. Highly creative students, who may be less visible than highly intelligent students, may ultimately make greater contributions to society.

The creative personality includes high self-confidence, independence, risk taking, high energy, adventurousness, creativity consciousness, playfulness and humor, idealism, attraction to the complex and mysterious, tolerance for ambiguity, need for alone time, and artistic and aesthetic interests–and perhaps stubbornness, absentmindedness, or other “negative” traits.

Torrance suggested that creative students prefer working alone; see relationships; go beyond assigned

40

3 Identifying Gifted and Talented Students

Learning OutcOmes

1. List key thoughts and issues in identifying gifted and talented students in general and as they relate to special populations.

2. Summarize the findings from the National Report on Identification.

3. Categorize the range of identification methods in relation to different aspects of giftedness.

4. Compare and contrast the use of Project Spectrum classrooms to Maker’s DISCOVER Process in assessing Gardner’s eight intelligences.

5. Describe the relationship between the Triarchic Abilities Test and Sternberg’s Triarchic theory of intelligence.

6. Explain the significance of a Multidimensional Culture-Fair Assessment Strategy.

7. Analyze the features that distinguish Renzulli’s Talent Pool Identification Plan from other approaches.

8. Assess the pros and cons of identifying gifted preschoolers.

9. Recommend an identification approach for gifted secondary students.

10. Propose alternative means of categorizing identification measures for different stakeholder audiences (e.g., professionals, parents, advocates).

11. Evaluate the goals of gifted identification.

C H A P T E R

T here are probably as many different strategies and policies for identifying gifted and talented students as there are programs. In the words of Feldhusen, Hoover, and Sayler (1990), “The ideal identification system has not been developed.”

For example, some programs base identification entirely on intelligence test scores, either admitting all stu- dents who score above a certain cutoff or else selecting the top 3% to 5%, regardless of the particular scores. According to Cassidy and Johnson (1986), one state defines giftedness as the “top 3%” in intellectual ability, another state identifies the gifted as scoring two standard deviations above the mean (top 2.28%) in intellectual development, and a third state allows for artistic and other forms of giftedness but requires absolutely that “persons shall be assigned to a program for the gifted when they have an IQ score of 130 or higher.”

The various Talent Search programs (see Lupkowski-Shoplik, Benbow, Assouline, & Brody, 2003, discussed in Chapter 5), established originally for seventh-grade students primarily, began by using scores exclusively from what was then known as the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). That test has been renamed several times and, as of

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 41

2005, has been known as the SAT Reasoning Test. Talent Search programs also include the American College Testing Program (ACT) for admission. At earlier grade levels, tests such as PLUS and Explore are now used for acceptance to Talent Search programs (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2004).

Many identification programs take a multidimen- sional approach. As a common, but minor, modification of the strict IQ/academic ability criterion, teachers may review IQ scores, achievement test scores, and grades to nominate students for a gifted and talented (G/T) program. Other multidimensional approaches identify students who seem high in any one of a number of criteria, particularly the five components of the U.S. Department of Education definition: general intellectual ability, specific academic talent, creativity, leadership, or talent in the visual or per- forming arts. Many states have adopted definitions of gift- edness that are supposed to guide identification on the basis of the five-part federal definition. The term supposed to reminds us that some components of the definition— particularly creativity, leadership, and the arts—are defi- nitely omitted from identification by many school districts. See Chapter 1 for the 2016 report of state definitions.

As still another multidimensional variation, Pfeiffer and Jarosewich (2003), and others (Davis & Rimm, 1980; Kolo, 1999; Renzulli et al., 2001; Rimm, 1980) have devel- oped checklists, inventories, and rating scales that evaluate various personality, motivational, creative, and intellectual characteristics of giftedness. Final decisions normally are based on a combination of checklists or rating scale scores with other information and are applied mainly to school- wide screening for giftedness.

Also, as we will see later, Maker (2005) and her col- league Sarouphim (1999, 2000, 2001) concluded that stu- dent problem-solving ability underlies most definitions of intelligence and creativity. Their DISCOVER identifica- tion procedure evaluates the ability to solve problems and think creatively, and seems remarkably fair culturally (Maker).

According to Cramer (1991), a panel of 29 G/T experts agreed that, among a list of 12 issues, identification is priority number one.

ThoughTs and Issues In IdenTIfIcaTIon

Some thinking on the centrality and challenge of identifi- cation is reflected in the following recommendations (Cal- lahan, 1993a; Callahan et al., 1995a; Han & Marvin, 2000):

●● Adopt a clearly defined, but broadened, conception of giftedness.

●● Avoid using a single cutoff score.

●● Recognize intelligence as multifaceted (Gardner, 1983, 1999; Sternberg, 1988a, 1988b, 1997a).

●● Accept multiple manifestations of giftedness. ●● Use multiple alternative criteria—not multiple

required hurdles—from several different sources. ●● Use separate instruments or procedures for different

areas of giftedness; be sure that tests (including rat- ings and nominations) are reliable and valid.

●● Discover high-ability students by using above-level testing (Assouline, Colangelo, Heo, & Dockery, 2013).

●● Promote inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. ●● Include authentic assessments (e.g., portfolios,

examples of work) and performance-based proce- dures (evaluation tasks that elicit problem solving and creativity).

●● Be aware that giftedness may appear in different forms in different cultural or socioeconomic groups.

●● Base identification on students’ educational needs— not on program quotas, numbers, or slots.

●● Repeat assessments over time to identify additional gifted students.

●● Use identification data to enhance understanding of students.

●● Assume strong links between identification and instruction.

●● Promote collaborative efforts among teachers, with administrators, and with the community.

●● Develop early and continuous procedures to evaluate the identification process.

●● Be prepared to work within the general education community.

Multiple criteria

As Frasier (1997) summarized the issue, “Multiple criteria provide educators with a defensible and logical way to be inclusive in their search for various types and expressions of potential for gifted performance, [yet] restrictive enough so that decisions made about students with extraordinary ability are exclusive enough to be meaningful” (p. A-4). Frasier also noted that multiple-criteria information can guide program and curriculum development, counseling activities, and the evaluation of the program’s effects on individual students.

A core reason for applying multiple criteria is to identify more minority and economically disadvantaged students, who are overlooked when one or two elements of restrictive criteria (IQ and/or achievement scores) are used. The underrepresentation problem has plagued gifted edu- cation for decades (Smutny, 2002; Grissom & Redding, 2016; Kamenetz, 2016).

As an example of a multiple-criteria approach, in 1991, the state of Georgia defined giftedness according to

42 Chapter 3

a single IQ score (Krisel and Cowan, 1997). But with help from Renzulli’s identification tools, eight Georgia school districts explored the use of multiple criteria to obtain “a rich profile of students’ strengths and interests,” and espe- cially to identify gifted minority students (Krisel and Cowan, 1997, p. A-1). On the basis of observational and performance information, teachers showed that they could readily identify children—from every cultural and economic background—who showed traits, aptitudes, and behaviors associated with giftedness.

Convinced of the fairness of using multiple criteria, in 1994, Georgia legislators passed a bill requiring multi- ple-criteria identification, which the governor signed into law (HB1768). The law stated that eligibility included meeting criteria in any three of four areas—mental ability, achievement, creativity, and motivation. More specifically, the areas were defined as (1) intellectual ability above the 96th percentile; (2) standardized achievement test scores above the 90th percentile on the total battery, just reading, or just math—or a superior performance on a student-generated product or performance; (3) creativity scores above the 90th percentile on a creativity test or a creative characteris- tics rating scale, or superior evaluations of a creative prod- uct or performance; and (4) motivation, as ref lected in a GPA above 3.5, a score above the 90th percentile on a motivational characteristics scale, or ratings above the 90th percentile on a student-generated product or performance.

Multiple-criteria—or “multiple-hurdle”—approaches can be, but are not always, restrictive. Students who qual- ify in some areas, but not others, could miss out on receiv- ing needed services. Matthews (1995) described a rural Southwest elementary school with these state guidelines: A gifted child must have a measured IQ score (verbal or nonverbal) at least two standard deviations above the mean (top 2.28%) on an intelligence test approved by the state board. In addition, a child must score above the 95th per- centile on a standardized achievement test (approved by the state board), show outstanding creativity (as defined in state regulations), or show outstanding critical thinking or problem-solving ability (as defined in state regulations). On the upside, in this particular rural school—known for its excellent and enthusiastic principal and teachers, and for its excellent regular and gifted programs—bright and ener- getic children who did not meet the rigid state definition were admitted anyway.

Pros and cons of formal Identification Methods

In her article “The Case Against Formal Identification,” Davidson (1986) expressed strong frustration with formal testing, rating, and nomination procedures, including the

use of point systems and cutoffs. Davidson noted that a student with a tested IQ of 110 may show greater gifted- ness in the sense of originality and thought-provoking ideas and answers than a student with a tested IQ of 140— who will be selected for the program. Even creativity tests do not measure every aspect of a child’s creativeness, noted Davidson, and peer, parent, and teacher nominations can be biased in favor of popular, English-speaking, mid- dle-class students.

Davidson’s three-step solution—designed not to exclude truly gifted children—included, first, setting a lib- eral selection quota of about 15% to 20% of the school, in accord with Renzulli’s (Renzulli & Reis, 1997, 2003) Tal- ent Pool philosophy. Second, students who score in the 90th percentile or above on intelligence, achievement, or creativity tests (according to local norms) have clear needs and should be placed in the program automatically. Third, and most important, Davidson recommended the increased use of informal parent and teacher nominations based on observations of creativity, critical thinking, problem solv- ing, or motivation.

Top 3% to 5%, or a Liberal Talent Pool approach

The traditional method for selecting students for participa- tion in a G/T program is this: Each fall, a school screening committee reviews data from many sources for each poten- tial candidate—for example, ability and achievement scores and nominations. The top 3% to 5% are selected and labeled gifted, and the identification process is ended for the year.

More and more, districts and individual schools are adopting Renzulli’s Talent Pool strategy, part of the School- wide Enrichment Model (Renzulli, 2005; Renzulli & Reis, 1997, 2003; see Chapter 7). It is the most popular program- ming model in the world (Renzulli, 1987, 2005), and for good reason. With the Talent Pool approach, a generous and flexible 15% to 20% of the school population is identified according to ability, achievement, or rating or nomination information—including self-selection and suitability for a particular gifted program. In professional communities with large numbers of high-ability students, the Talent Pool may consist of 25% or, in extraordinary neighborhoods, even 100%, of the student body. From the Talent Pool, some stu- dents—high in motivation and creativity—self-select an intensive research, literary, artistic, or other creative project.

Following are the five main identification-related attractions of the Talent Pool approach, in order of impor- tance: (1) Students are identified by both test and nontest cri- teria (Renzulli, 2005). (2) More students receive the opportunities, resources, and encouragement provided in special programs; that is, the door remains open to many

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 43

program also would contain 30% African American chil- dren. One problem with the quota system is that minority students who meet the same high criteria as others in the program might wrongly be assumed to have met only the lowered cutoff (Frasier, 1997; Frasier & Passow, 1994).

Richert (1997, 2003) described a relatively simple method that resembles a quota system and ensures equita- ble minority and gender participation. Local norms are cre- ated for each subgroup of students for each data source—for example, ability scores, achievement scores, and various nominations (e.g., for creativity). “Data from different sources should be used independently, and any one source should be sufficient to include a student in a program.… Students should qualify for a program by scoring high on any of several measures” (Richert, 1997, p. 82). Richert uses self-nominations by asking students to express their level of interest in various program options, thus avoiding the difficulty of underachievers who would never nominate themselves as “gifted.” For her Project APOGEE, Richert (1997) selected a full 20% to 25% of students for the pro- gram—with whopping increases in G/T participation of 500% by culturally diverse students, 600% by economi- cally disadvantaged students, and 800% by males who were economically disadvantaged and culturally diverse.

To increase participation by minority and economi- cally disadvantaged students, Gallagher (1997), Maker (2005), and Maker and Schiever (1989) recommend using not only multiple criteria but also case study information for each child.

Often, we overlook gifted students among the ranks of those who are learning disabled. Do not be shocked when 10-year-old Darius, whose dyslexia prevents him from reading or writing normally, is nominated as an intel- lectually or artistically gifted child. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Nelson Rockefeller, Pablo Picasso, and other “slow learners” had the same problems.

By definition, an underachieving student will not have high grades, whether or not he or she is capable of scoring high on standardized ability and achievement tests. Sometimes, an unchallenged, perhaps bored, gifted student will underachieve. He or she usually will not be selected for a gifted program—which is exactly what the student needs. For now, we should simply be aware that many bright and creative students are among the ranks of undera- chievers, and we should look for them. (Chapter 12 elabo- rates on underachievement.)

Biases in Ratings and nominations

As noted earlier, there is an understandable tendency for teachers to favor students who are cooperative, smiling, and anxious to please; who do their work well, neatly, and on

children whose gifts and talents simply are not measured by tests or are not easily recognized by teachers. As Renzulli has stressed repeatedly, society’s most creative contributors are not always found in the top 3% to 5%. Further, with a restric- tive criterion, some talented students who are potential drop- outs will be overlooked and will not receive critical education assistance—particularly counseling (Renzulli & Park, 2000). (3) Teachers remain concerned with identifying students for independent projects throughout the school year, not just in September. (4) Charges of elitism are reduced. (5) The diffi- cult problem of deciding “who is and is not admissible” becomes a nonproblem. When in doubt, admit.

Renzulli’s thoughtful recommendations for identify- ing Talent Pool candidates by using many criteria will be presented later in this chapter.

disadvantaged, Minority, Learning disabled, female, and underachieving students

The identification of gifted and talented minority, economi- cally disadvantaged, and culturally different students is an especially sensitive problem (Ford, 2003, 2004; Richert, 2003; Rimm et al., 2014; Grissom & Redding, 2016). Too often, administrators claim, “We have none of those children in our school.” Teachers, too, are guilty of this oversight.

Culturally different learners do tend to score, on average, about one standard deviation (15 points) lower than middle-class students on standardized intelligence tests (Gottfredson, 2003). We emphasize “on average.” Many minority children score extremely high in both ver- bal and nonverbal measures of intelligence. Nonetheless, if IQ testing is part of the selection battery, there frequently is a built-in bias against minority and economically disad- vantaged children. And if the school population includes minority and culturally different students (for example, African American, Hispanic American, Native American, Native Hawaiian, Vietnamese, immigrants), it will not be acceptable to produce a list for inclusion in the G/T pro- gram of only Caucasian children of middle-class, profes- sional families.

Issues related to minority and culturally different stu- dents will be explored in more detail in Chapter 13, along with suggestions for identification and programming (see also Ford, 1994a, 1996, 2003, 2004). For now, we empha- size that a multidimensional approach to identification is essential for identifying gifted and talented minority students—a procedure that looks beyond IQ scores. Also, a quota system is one frequently used solution to the problem of ensuring racial, gender, geographical, and economic bal- ance in G/T programs (Gallagher, 1991a, 1991b; LeRose, 1978; Smith, LeRose, & Clasen, 1991). For example, if a school contains 30% African American children, the G/T

44 Chapter 3

reliability and the validity of the test or procedure. Some- times, “face validity”—the degree to which a test simply looks as if it measures what it is supposed to measure—is the only information one has to go on.

Political Problems in Identification

In the real world of schools, identification of giftedness is surrounded by political and personal problems that go beyond reliability and validity. Teachers and administrators must be prepared for controversies that surround identifi- cation. The criticisms one can expect include everything from “Why isn’t my child in the program?” to “Don’t you dare identify my child as gifted.” School board members may complain that teachers’ children appear to be favored; teachers may note that offspring of administrators and board members are being selected. Some will call the selection process discriminatory and elitist; others will say it favors disadvantaged children.

naTIonaL RePoRT on IdenTIfIcaTIon

In 1982, Susanne Richert, James Alvino, and Rebecca McDonnel completed the National Report on Identifica- tion: Assessment and Recommendations for Comprehen- sive Identification of Gifted and Talented Youth, a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education ( Richert, 1985, 1991b, 1997). The study focused on issues such as definitions adopted, principles of identification, identification instruments and procedures, and practices that screen for gifted students.

The multidimensional U.S. Department of Education definition (see Chapter 1) was endorsed because of its com- prehensiveness as well as its fit for many different types of school districts (Richert, 1985). The report included some important criteria of valid identification. It emphasized equity, pluralism, and comprehensiveness. Defensibility based on quality research was also encouraged.

The report reminds educators that some frequently encountered but uncertain practices continue to exist. The most important concern is that many schools focus entirely on academic achievement instead of the broad U.S. Depart- ment of Education definition.

IdenTIfIcaTIon MeThods

Of course, high intelligence remains a central concept in giftedness. At the same time, the growing use of multiple criteria demonstrates the recognition that giftedness extends beyond an IQ number. Most educators realize that the language and content of ability and achievement tests are biased against culturally and economically deprived

time; and who absolutely never talk back. While “teacher pleasers” are a pleasure to work with, they may or may not be the most gifted and talented students in the class. How- ever, they have a high likelihood of being perceived as gifted and of being nominated for participation in special programs. Even if teachers rate students on specific quali- ties such as academic talent, leadership, motivation, or cre- ativity, teacher pleasers still are likely to be selected. The extremely bright or the creative, curious, and questioning students—who may be stubborn, rule-breaking, less social, egotistical, or otherwise high in nuisance value—may not be teachers’ favorites, but they sometimes are the most gifted.

Test Reliability and Validity

Reliability refers to the accuracy or consistency of a test, inventory, rating scale, or other selection procedure. There are three main types of test reliability, all on a scale of 0 to 1.0 (or 1.0, for inversely related characteristics such as stu- pidity and college grades). Internal reliability reflects the degree to which all items on a test (or subscale) measure the same characteristics—for example, motivation. Test- retest reliability is the correlation between scores on the same test retaken by the same persons. Alternate forms reliability is the correlation between scores on two forms of the same test, again taken by the same persons. All three types of reliability, as reported in test manuals, directly indicate the accuracy of a test. As a rule, a test with more items will be more reliable than one with fewer items. A fourth type, interrater reliability, applies when two or more teachers or other evaluators rate the same student on the same scale or characteristic. We can also speak infor- mally of Ms. Garcia being a reliable (accurate) identifier of giftedness, while Mr. Jones is horribly unreliable in his rat- ings. Test reliability higher than about 0.80 is good; reliability around 0.60 is not terrific but common. If test reliability is low, as reported in the test manual, the test cannot be accurate and decisions based on those test results will not be accurate.

Validity is the degree to which a test or inventory actually measures what it is supposed to measure. Does the motivation, creativity, or leadership test truly measure these traits or abilities? Does the “total giftedness” score truly identify gifted students? Evidence for reliability and validity normally appears in manuals accompanying pub- lished tests and inventories. Ideally, validity coefficients should be above 0.60, and the higher the better. Using sev- eral identification criteria helps to compensate for a single test or rating scale measure that has borderline validity.

When considering tests, questionnaires, rating scales, and nomination procedures for identifying gifted and talented students, one always must consider both the

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 45

thus does not penalize reflective gifted children. It is also normed for children and adults from ages 2 to over 85. Another advantage for the identification of highly gifted children is a special scoring modification known as the Rasch Ratio IQ Score (see Carson & Roid, 2004; Roid & Barram, 2004; Roid & Carson, 2004; Ruf, 2003).

There is, unfortunately, an important drawback to the SB5 when its Full Scale IQ score is used for identifica- tion for gifted programs. Conventional IQ score cutoffs of 130 would be likely to miss many gifted children. Researchers Lovecky, Kearney, Falk, and Gilman in 2005 found that more than one-third of the gifted children iden- tified by other IQ tests (17 out of 47) would not have been identified by the SB5. Their recommendation is to use a cutoff score of 120 when the SB5 is used for identification. In another study by Minton and Pratt (2006), mean scores for both gifted and highly gifted groups were significantly lower for the SB5 compared with the WISC-III. The mean for the gifted group using the SB5 decreased from 133 to 121, and for the highly gifted group from 144 to 126. The authors take this opportunity to remind educators never to use IQ scores as sole indicators of giftedness and to be par- ticularly cautious in the use of the SB5.

WechsLeR InTeLLIgence scaLes foR chILdRen The Wechsler intelligence scales are the most popular individ- ual tests used for identification of giftedness and include the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) for ages 2 years 6 months to 7 years 3 months, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) for ages 6 years through 16 years 11 months, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) for children and adults age 16 years and older. More about the WPPSI will be found later in the chapter when preschool identification is discussed. This section emphasizes the WISC-IV (Pearson, 2003) and WISC-V (Pearson, 2014) because not only are they frequently used but they are also excellent tests when used and interpreted appropriately for identifying gifted students and for recognizing dual exceptionalities (gifted- ness and learning disabilities).

The WIsc-IV The WISC-IV provides four index scores in addition to a Full Scale IQ score. Those index scores include Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. The six sub- tests that make up the Verbal Comprehension and Percep- tual Reasoning indices of the tests provide excellent measures of intelligence and include only one timed test (Block Design). Children who score high on these tests usually thrive in gifted programs that provide discussion, debate, and advanced abstract reasoning in verbal or perceptual form.

students (Ford, 2004; Maker, 2005; Naglieri & Ford, 2005; Smith & Puttcamp, 2005). Gross (1999) noted that, in Australia, educators are keenly aware that achievement and ability testing can be racist or elitist; many teachers prefer to use their own judgment of student giftedness. Also, it is logical to conclude that characteristics such as high motivation (persistence, zeal, “blazing drive”; Simonton, 2003; Torrance, 1995; Gladwell, 2011) and innate talents (e.g., art or music; Winner & Martino, 2000, 2003) are part of giftedness.

Nonetheless, restrictive procedures persist. For example, according to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) website, in Ohio many IQ tests are acceptable. However, identification requires an IQ of 130, although 127 is acceptable in light of the standard error of measure- ment. Some states are even more rigid in their IQ cutoff. As noted by Han and Marvin (2000), rapid growth in the literature on identification is not paralleled by quick changes in education practices.

Intelligence Tests

The bottom-line instruments for confirming the suspicion of high general-intellectual abilities are individual intelli- gence tests, particularly the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. These are often considered “gold standard” tests because group aptitude tests historically measured their validity against these individually administered tests. Every school psychologist is trained to administer and interpret either of these, and they are the most frequently administered indi- vidual tests.

sTanfoRd-BIneT InTeLLIgence scaLe The Stanford- Binet, Fifth Edition (SB5), published in 2003 (Riverside Publishers), has been redesigned to fit with the Cattell- Horn-Carroll theory of intelligence (Roid, 2004). It claims as its heritage the original Binet-Simon intelligence test described in Chapter 1 of this text (Becker, 2003). That ear- lier test provided one global IQ score, which was calculated on the basis of the ratio of mental age to chronological age, multiplied by 100, a formula that was devised by Stern in 1911. Contemporary IQ tests, such as the SB5, use norms and are standardized with a mean of 100 and, usually, a standard deviation of 15. The SB5 includes 10 subtests divided equally between verbal and visual tests. The five areas of ability assessed include Fluid Reasoning, Knowl- edge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory. So, for example, Quantitative Rea- soning is assessed by the use of math problems presented both in numbers (visual assessment) and as word problems. Key advantages of the SB5 are that it is not a timed test and

46 Chapter 3

(GAI) in cases of large discrepancies between index scores. The GAI combines scores from the Verbal Com- prehension and Perceptual Reasoning indices, but omits those from Working Memory and Processing Speed. A handy lookup table makes it user friendly. Refer back to Figure 3.1 to see how the use of the GAI made the two children eligible for gifted programming, and read excerpts from the NAGC position statement in Appendix 3.1 to understand the importance of the GAI for identification for gifted programs. For further discussion of the value of the GAI for the identification of highly gifted children, refer to Chapter 10 in Alternative Assessments with Gifted and Talented Students (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008).

The WISC-IV has another important advantage. A special interest group (SIG) for the National Association for Gifted Children (NACG) convinced Pearson to collect data on highly gifted children who exceeded the test ceil- ing scores. This SIG also contributed test data to the pub- lishing company. In return, Pearson created an extended norm available online in Technical Report #7 (Zhu, Cayton, Weiss, & Gabel, 2008) to quantify more accurately the IQ scores of those students who exceeded the typical norms of the WISC-IV. Those extended norms have been particu- larly helpful for identifying students for programs specifi- cally for highly gifted students.

On the downside, compared with earlier Wechsler scales, the WISC-IV added tests for assessing working memory and processing speed, thus doubling their weight (from 20% to 40%) in the Full Scale IQ score. These areas are often weak for gifted children and are much less related to general intelligence (g). Table 3.1 shows the disparities of mean index scores for gifted populations at the Gifted Development Center (GDC) in Denver, Colo- rado (Gilman & Kearney, 2004; Silverman, Gilman, & Falk, 2004), and Rimm’s Family Achievement Clinic (FAC) in Cleveland, Ohio (Rimm, 2006b). The great dis- advantage for gifted children is that, in the states that mandate particular IQ cutoffs for participation in gifted programs, using only the Full Scale IQ score may deprive thousands of gifted children from being provided with appropriate services. See Figure 3.1 for examples of the WISC-IV scores of two children who could have been denied services.

Flanagan and Kaufman (2004) argue that the Full Scale IQ is not a unitary concept and should not be used if there is a disparity between index scores that is equal to or greater than 1.5 standard deviations (23 points). That was the case for 79% of the GDC cases and 74% of the FAC cases. When this problem was identified, it resulted in a technical report (Raiford, Weiss, Rolfhus, & Coalson, 2005) advising use of the General Ability Index

TaBLe 3.1 Comparative WISC-IV Index Scores

Gifted Development Center (n = 103) Family Achievement Clinic (n = 42)

Verbal Comprehension 131.7 130.0

Perceptual Reasoning 126.4 126.7

Working Memory 117.7 119.9

Processing Speed 104.3 111.9

Source: Reproduced with permission from Prufrock Press Inc., Alternative Assessments with Gifted and Talented Students p. 181 by J. L. VanTassel-Baska, © 2008.

Boy, Age 9 Girl, Age 12

Verbal Comprehension 136 Verbal Comprehension 148

Perceptual Reasoning 121 Perceptual Reasoning 125

Working Memory 120 Working Memory 110

Processing Speed 97 Processing Speed 88

Full Scale IQ 126 Full Scale IQ 127

General Ability Index 133 General Ability Index 144

fIguRe 3.1 Examples of how use of the full-scale IQ score from the WISC-IV can deprive gifted children of programming.

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 47

students take the SAT each year. From research performed with adolescents who scored above 700 on the SAT-M or above 630 on the SAT-V—the 1 in 10,000 range—Benbow and Minor (1990) concluded that mathematically talented and verbally talented students represent two distinctly dif- ferent forms of intellectual giftedness. Further, Lupkowski- Shoplik and Swiatek (1999) found that “the SAT is an excellent predictor of students’ [academic] achievements through high school and beyond” (p. 266).

In Chapter 5 we will review the extension of Talent Search programs to the elementary school (Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 1997; Lupkowski-Shoplik, Benbow, Assouline, & Brody, 2003). As with the seventh-grade Tal- ent Search, elementary students in grades 2 through 6 are also evaluated with above-level tests. Assouline et al. (2013) continue to find above-level testing crucial for iden- tification of high-level giftedness.

A big plus for intelligence tests, group or individual, is that they may identify underachieving students, students whose grades and classroom performance give no hint of the students’ true—and unused—potential. In the negative column, a continuing problem is that, if undue weight is given to intelligence test scores, students with other legiti- mate gifts and talents will be missed—particularly, creative students, but also students with gifts in one special aca- demic or aesthetic area such as art, music, computers, mathematics, or social studies. And further in the negative column, reflective gifted students who are slow processors may not be identified.

nonVeRBaL InTeLLIgence TesTs Tests that assess nonverbal reasoning are being used increasingly to attempt to identify gifted students from diverse backgrounds who may not be achieving as well in school because of lan- guage, or cultural or economic disadvantage (Ford, 2004; Naglieri, 2005; Naglieri & Ford, 2003, 2005). A typical test item from the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) is shown in Figure 3.2. You probably realized in studying the patterns that number 2 is the correct option. Good job!

Naglieri claims that the verbal-nonverbal distinction in tests doesn’t represent two different types of thinking but refers only to the content of the tests. Thus, he states that the same general intellectual ability can be measured in two different ways, either verbally or nonverbally. He and Ford (2003) strongly recommend the use of nonverbal ability tests as a culturally fair approach to identifying gift- edness in all populations. In their research, they used the NNAT to identify gifted students who scored at the 95th percentile (standard score 125), and they found similar percentages of Caucasian (5.6%), African American (5.1%), and Hispanic (4.4%) students. The sample size for the study was 20,270 students in grades K-12.

The WIsc-V The 2014 adaptation of the Wechsler Intel- ligence Scale for Children is available in both paper-and- pencil and digital formats. Its framework includes 5 Index Scores including Verbal Comprehension, Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. It does include an optional General Ability Index, but to date it does not have extended norms. The NAGC special interest group is in the process of collecting data and com- parisons of the fourth edition to the fifth edition and is also gathering data to create an extended norm to measure highly gifted students’ abilities.

gRouP InTeLLIgence TesTs IQ scores from group intelligence tests are useful for identifying gifted students because they continue to be administered routinely in many school systems; therefore, scores may be in the office file. Some of the better-known group intelligence tests are the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), the Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability, the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, and the School and College Ability Test (SCAT). However, despite their comparatively low cost and convenient group administration, consider these shortcomings: Group tests tend to be less reliable and less valid than individual tests. Children who are not motivated produce lower IQ scores than their informally observed ability would indicate. Group tests are mainly verbal and are highly correlated with actual school achievement; therefore, they may be biased against children who are nonverbally gifted (or who speak a subcultural dialect). Because most group tests have been designed to discrimi- nate in the midsection of the bell curve, they tend to be unreliable at high IQ levels; a few chance errors may sub- stantially lower a bright student’s IQ score. Speed is an important factor in group tests because all are timed, which is not true of individual intelligence tests. The timing fac- tor may have a lowering effect on scores for gifted children who may be more ref lective or perfectionistic or twice- exceptional.

In view of these problems, one may question the value of group intelligence tests. However, children who score high on these tests are almost always capable and certainly should be included in a G/T program.

As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, in 2005, the Scholastic Assessment Test I was renamed the SAT Reason- ing Test. It produces mathematics, reading, and writing scores. The SAT Reasoning Test normally is taken by college- bound high school seniors; scores are used by colleges mainly for admissions decisions. In gifted education, the SAT (or the ACT Assessments) are taken by seventh-grade students interested in participating in a Talent Search program (see Chapter 5). Talent Search programs cover the entire United States, and, currently, more than 200,000 seventh-grade

48 Chapter 3

represent two very different kinds of thinking and func- tioning in gifted programs. Both kinds are of value and should be used for identification separately or together for gifted programming.

The debate will undoubtedly continue, but relying on multiple identifiers and matching programs to gifted chil- dren’s strength and weaknesses (as discussed in the NAGC Position Statement—see Appendix 3.1) might resolve at least some of these authors’ differences. Using nonverbal ability tests seems valuable, but using verbal ability tests alone may indeed be shortsighted (pun intended).

Finding the Highly Gifted

Most current standardized group and individual IQ tests report no higher scores than 150. Furthermore, to achieve scores above the 140s, students must demonstrate gifted- ness evenly distributed among varied subtests. The low test ceilings, as well as the paucity of difficult-enough items, make it almost impossible to identify children who are highly gifted, yet we know that these children exist. Past IQ tests not only have identified highly gifted children but have also found them to be quite unlike gifted children whose scores were in the 130 to 145 range. Leta Holling- worth divided her gifted classes into two groups: one with an average IQ score of 145 and the other with an average of 165 (Gray & Hollingworth, 1931). Neither their intellectual

Naglieri and Ford view widespread use of nonverbal ability tests as an answer to solving the persistent problem of underrepresentation of diverse populations in gifted pro- grams. They make a good case, but not all agree. Lohman (2005a, 2005b) argues that “the most important aptitudes for future accomplishment in a domain are current achieve- ment in that domain and the ability to reason in the symbol systems” of that domain (2005b, p. 111). He further argues that the use of nonverbal ability tests alone would hurt both minority and nonminority high achievers, who often per- form less well in nonverbal reasoning than they do in ver- bal and mathematical reasoning.

Additional evidence that the Naglieri (NNAT2) does not identify more minorities comes from a comparison by Giessman, Gambrell, and Stebbins (2013). They compared NNAT2 scores to scores from the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT6) for over 10,000 students. They found no signifi- cant differences between the two tests for Blacks or Hispan- ics in subgroup indentification rates, assuming cuts for gifted identification as top 20%, 10%, or 5%. Based on their findings, they assert that using a figural test, such as the NNAT2, does not address minority underrepresentation.

Clinical experience at the Family Achievement Clinic shows that scores on the NNAT2 match closely the scores on the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV (WISC IV) and further that the verbal-nonverbal distinction scores

1 2 3 4 5

?

FIGURE 3.2 A sample test item from the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Source: Simulated item similar to those in the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test-Second Edition (NNAT-2). Copyright © 2009 NCS Pearson, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 49

Sequential Tests of Educational Progress (STEP). Other good indicators of specific academic talent are individual achievement tests such as the Wechsler Individual Achieve- ment Test (WIAT), the Woodcock-Johnson Individual Achievement Test (WJ), teacher-made achievement tests, and school grades.

Standardized tests produce scores based on national norms (for example, grade-equivalent, percentile, or stan- ine scores). Consider this advantage: A teacher in an upper- middle-class neighborhood may be accustomed to very bright students who learn quickly. He or she may not real- ize that, according to national norms, there are many tal- ented and high-potential students in the class who should be participating in the district’s G/T program. On the other hand, a teacher accustomed to working with slow learners may believe that a particular student is unusually able when, according to a national comparison, the student is just slightly above average. This last student may also ben- efit from gifted programming, depending on what is taught in the regular classroom, but expectations for the two gifted programs should be somewhat different.

Two important problems should be considered rela- tive to standardized achievement test scores. The first con- cerns the grade-equivalent score. “Grade equivalent” refers to the average score earned by children at a particular grade level on a particular test—not to the grade level at which a specific gifted child can function well in the class- room. Even experienced teachers, administrators, and psy- chologists, as well as parents, sometimes make the faulty assumption that if a gifted fourth-grade child performs at the eighth-grade level on, say, a math achievement test, he or she could be moved into an eighth-grade classroom and perform successfully. This is not so. Whereas he or she is certainly a good math student, this child probably lacks many skills of the average eighth-grader. The score is mis- leading and should be used only as an indication that the child needs special challenge. Further diagnostic testing would determine the child’s specific mathematics skills and other skill levels.

The second problem relates to the low ceiling score of typical achievement tests. For very able children, most group achievement tests are not sufficiently difficult to measure their high ability, knowledge, and skill levels. A considerable number of capable students will score above the 95th percentile; they “top out.” It sometimes is incorrectly assumed that all of these children are equally talented and need a similar skill-development program. In fact, after diagnostic testing with more difficult tests, stu- dents will demonstrate a wide range of skill levels. (Of course, a crucial and obvious solution is to give high- potential children higher-level achievement tests in the first place [Assouline et al., 2013]). Most individually

nor their social needs were the same (Hollingworth, 1936, 1939, 1942).

Gross (2001) reminds us that the exceptionally gifted are at greater risk because their differences from same-age peers are more extreme. Other research studies have cor- roborated the greater social and emotional difficulties experienced by highly gifted children (Gallagher, 1958; Gallagher & Crowder, 1957; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Schneider, Clegg, Byrne, Ledingham, & Crombie, 1986; Sheldon, 1959). Notice by the dates of the studies cited at the end of the last sentence that there are no recent com- parative studies between gifted and highly gifted children. Leta Hollingworth’s two groupings could not exist today. Have these highly gifted children disappeared? Not likely. Few educators and fewer test developers are interested in this very small but unique population whose extraordinary abilities easily go unnoticed for years because they are not identified by currently used tests.

RaTIo-Based MeTRIcs Earlier studies that differenti- ated among gifted students were derived from ratio-based, rather than standardized, metrics. A child earned months of credit for correct test items, and these were summed up to provide the student’s mental age. The mental age was com- pared with the chronological age to provide the quotient that was multiplied by 100 to become an IQ score. Exam- ples of estimated ratio IQ scores of famous persons (Cox, 1926) included 200 for John Stuart Mill, 187 for Bobby Fischer, 170 for Linus Carl Pauling, and 160 for Albert Ein- stein. (See also p. 185 in Rimm, Gilman & Silverman, 2008, for other estimated ratio IQ scores of famous people.)

RaTIo-Based MeTRIcs WITh cuRRenT TesTs The Stanford-Binet 5 (SB5) offers Rasch Ratio scores (Roid, 2003) that can be used with extremely gifted students. Roid cautions that these scores must be interpreted care- fully. He suggests that comparing normative and ratio- based scores is similar to comparing Fahrenheit to Centigrade scales. While both measure temperature, the intervals are different. The use of Rasch Ratio IQ scores is recommended for students who score at least 150 by the regular scoring, but these students are rarely found.

achievement Tests

Specific academic talent is an important category of gifted- ness. Standardized achievement tests provide excellent indicators of academic talent and include tests such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), the Stanford Achieve- ment Tests Series (SATS), the Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT), the Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI), the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), and the

50 Chapter 3

1976). Using two criteria of creativeness is recommended (Davis, 1999, 2003b). For example, a student who scores high on a creativity test and is rated as “highly creative” by a teacher is almost certain to be a bona fide creative person.

Teachers who have the opportunity to observe creative ideas and products can be asked to rate students’ creativeness. For example, art teachers or teachers who supervise original science projects, creative writing, or drama activities are in good positions to identify creative talent. Evaluating students’ creative products is an excel- lent indicator of creative potential (Davis, 1999, 2003b).

As for creativity tests themselves, there are two main categories: divergent thinking tests, and inventories that assess interest and biographical characteristics (Davis, 1998, 2003b). Divergent thinking tests require students to think of all the ideas they can for open-ended problems, such as listing unusual uses for a newspaper or a brick, imagining consequences of an unlikely event (“What would happen if people had an eye in the back of their head?”), or asking as many questions as possible about an object or event. Such tests are scored at least for ideational f luency (how many ideas are produced) and originality (how unique the ideas are).

The Torrance® Tests of Creative Thinking ( Torrance, 2006) are the most widely used divergent thinking tests (see Box 3.1). They include verbal and nonverbal (figural)

administered achievement tests, and some group tests, pro- vide for above-level testing, but even these may not have sufficient ceilings for middle and high school students.

Creativity Tests

In some classes and with some creativity-conscious teach- ers, it may be easily apparent which students are highly creative and which are not. Creativity tests can be used to confirm a teacher’s suspicions about the creativeness of one or more students. The tests also may be used to iden- tify creative students whose unique talents are not visible in classrooms.

It is important to emphasize that creativity tests are far from perfect. Scores from a single creativity test might be quite misleading in the sense that a student who in fact does extraordinarily creative work in an art or science area could produce a strictly average creativity score. Validity coefficients of published creativity tests typically range from about 0.25 to 0.40, which is not high. Creativity is a complex ability that can take innumerable forms. It is extremely difficult to measure creativity accurately (e.g., Davis, 1999, 2003b). The authors have repeatedly empha- sized that data from creativity tests—including their own— must be combined with other information to make valid decisions regarding creativeness (e.g., Rimm & Davis,

BOX 3.1

Torrance® Tests of Creative Thinking

The Torrance® Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 2006) measure creative abilities of fluency (number of ideas), flex- ibility (number of different types or categories of ideas), originality (uniqueness), and elaboration (number of embellishments). Exercises similar to Torrance’s subtests are presented below. Spend a few minutes on each one. Are

you fluent? Flexible? Original? Are you high in elaboration? The “streamlined” scoring procedure produces 18 meas- ures of creative characteristics (Torrance & Ball, 1984).

Directions: Make a meaningful picture out of each of the nonsense forms below. Try to be original. Give each one a name.

Directions: List as many unusual uses as you can for discarded rubber tires.

________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________

Source: Reprinted with permission from Scholastic Testing Services Inc., Bensenville IL 60106.

Torrance, E. P. (2006). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Streamlined manual, figural A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 51

elementary child constantly make or build things? Does he or she have wide interests, unusual hobbies, unique collec- tions? Does the child have unusual experience or talent in art, poetry, creative writing, handicrafts, music, dance, computer programming, or a science area? Perhaps you have a “photography kid” or a child who knows more about Picasso, Wynton Marsalis, DNA, or Russian cosmo- nauts than do the teachers.

Teacher nominations

Teacher nominations may be very informal (such as, “Say, we’re starting a new gifted program. Be thinking about one or two kids you want in it!”) or quite formal, involving rat- ing forms or checklists that will be objectively scored. Teacher nomination definitely is one of the most common identification methods, yet it can be troublesome. We already noted a tendency for some teachers to favor those well-dressed, cooperative, nondisabled, and English- speaking teacher pleasers who do work neatly, are on time, and don’t engage in horseplay. Bright underachievers will be overlooked, along with bright, disruptive students and unconventional, creative ones. Race and cultural differ- ences could also bias results (Grissom & Redding, 2016).

In Australia, Gross (1999) discovered that, in the early childhood years, teacher nomination is the least effective method for identifying giftedness. As in the United States, teacher nomination is susceptible to class and culture bias: Nominees are too likely to be from the middle class and from the dominant culture.

Some reliability and validity difficulties can be over- come by better acquainting teachers with characteristics of gifted students and by training them to rate and identify G/T candidates. We also recommend that teachers get to know students well before nominating them. The end of the year for the following year may be better for the nomi- nation process than the beginning of a new school year.

Teachers, schools, or school districts may develop their own nomination forms to help teachers synthesize grades; ability scores; achievement scores (especially in reading and math); parent or peer nominations; or observa- tions of creativity, motivation, leadership, or other abilities and skills pertinent to the particular G/T program. A sam- ple teacher nomination form, designed by Renzulli to help structure the nomination of students for Schoolwide Enrichment Model programs, appears in Appendix 3.3 at the end of this chapter. The form includes spaces for report- ing scores on the Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteris- tics of Superior Students (SRBCSS). (The SRBCSS and other examples of rating scales—essentially, structured teacher nomination forms—are presented later in this chapter.) An additional sample teacher nomination form is included in Appendix 3.4, which includes various ratings

subtests and are scored for f luency (the total number of responses); f lexibility (number of different categories of ideas or approaches to the problem); originality (the statis- tical rarity of response among test subjects); and, with the figural tests, elaboration (number of additional details and embellishments). Perhaps it is surprising that there is little correlation between the verbal and figural tests (r = 0.06, as cited in Cramond & Kim, 2008). They simply don’t measure the same kind of creative potential.

Some divergent thinking batteries are the Guilford (1967), Wallach and Kogan (1965), and Getzels and Jack- son (1962) tests, and for preschool children, Torrance’s (1982) Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement. But remember, divergent thinking tests may measure only some kinds of creativity and do not predict creativity in all domains (Han & Marvin, 2002).

In view of their extensive development and evalua- tion, and the standard administration and scoring proce- dures, the Torrance tests are the recommended divergent thinking battery. If money is a problem, the Wallach and Kogan tests and the Getzels and Jackson tests may be available for use without charge. The disadvantage of any divergent thinking test is that their administration and scor- ing are very time consuming. Further, only one aspect of overall problem solving is evaluated, the divergent think- ing stage.

As for inventories that assess personality, behavioral, and biographical information, the authors—without bias or prejudice—recommend their own PRIDE, GIFT, GIFFI I, and GIFFI II instruments (Rimm & Davis, 1983). There are behavioral and biographical characteristics that appear again and again in studies of creative people of all ages (for example, curiosity, humor, risk taking, and a history of creative activities; see Chapter 2).

Preschool and Primary Interest Descriptor (PRIDE; Rimm, 1982), is a preschool/kindergarten inventory that parents complete. Group Inventory for Finding [Creative] Talent (GIFT) consists of yes-and-no items in lower-, middle-, and upper-elementary school forms. Group Inven- tory for Finding Interests I and II (GIFFI I and II, respec- tively) are rating scales designed for middle and high school students, respectively. These tests have been vali- dated in many different countries and with diverse student populations, including minority, learning disabled, and gifted. The tests produce subscale scores (for example, confidence, imagination, many interests) that can be used to help understand and guide gifted children. They are also available in Spanish (see Appendix 3.2).

Inventories that assess a student’s background of creative activities seem to be face-valid indicators of crea- tive potential—the relationship between past, present, and future creativity is quite logical (Davis, 1998; Holland, 1961; Plucker, 1999; Rimm & Davis, 1983). Does the

52 Chapter 3

Who always finishes his or her work first?

Who has the most unusual ideas?

Who tells great stories?

Who could invent the most games with a box of stuff?

As a similar direct approach, Callahan and col- leagues (1995a) described a 10-item modification of Udall’s (1987) Peer Referral Form that evaluates general intelligence; learning speed; motivation/task commitment; and creativity in art, music, language, and play. Students in Grades 4 to 6 are asked to write down just one name (or no name) for each question, list either a girl or a boy, and reuse the same name for multiple questions if they wish. For example, the nomination form might simply ask these questions: Who is smart in school? Who learns quickly? If you needed help at school (or at home with a project), who would you ask? Who gets interested in a project, spends extra time working, and takes pride in his or her work? Who is good at making up dances (or stories, games, or pictures)?

Students tend to nominate friends. If you construct your own peer nomination form, be sure to include instructions such as “Pick someone who you think is the best choice, and not just a friend.” Also, inform stu- dents, “You may write a name more than once.” To solicit self-nominations as well as peer nominations, add, “You may write your own name if you feel you are the best choice.”

self-nominations

Some self-motivated students have strong artistic, crea- tive, scientific, or other interests and talents, and they want to participate in a special program—but nobody asks them. Teachers may be unaware of their talent, crea- tivity, and high motivation. A self-nomination form used in Charlottesville, Virginia, instructs students, “Check the area(s) in which you think you have special abilities or talents, and tell why you think you have special abilities or talents in these areas.” The 12 areas were general intel- lectual ability, math, science, social studies, language arts, reading, art, music, drama, dance, creativity, and leadership.

Self-nomination is especially recommended at the middle and high school levels, where peer pressure may cause students to mask their special talents. Renzulli (1987) stated that in high school, self-nomination is the only identification strategy he uses or recommends. Because peer pressure or lack of confidence could cause hesitation for self-nominations for some students, a nudge from knowing parents or teachers is appropriate and very

and discernible blocks. The authors suggest you try these teacher nomination forms on some students you consider highly creative as well as on some you view as average or below average in creativity to see how scores fit with your personal perception.

Parent nominations

No one knows children and adolescents better than their own parents. For example, only parents will know that a child spoke in sentences at age 2; taught him- or herself to read at age 4; and drew the solar system, composed melo- dies, produced creative art, and asked about reasons for the Middle East strife at age 5. Unfortunately, parent nomina- tions are not used as much as they should be, probably because educators fear parent bias. However, parents have actually been found to be effective identifiers of their chil- dren’s giftedness. (See Chapter 16, “Parenting and the Gifted Child.”) See other parent nomination approaches in Appendix 3.5.

Peer nominations

Peers are very good at naming gifted and talented class- mates. They are especially helpful in identifying minority or rural gifted students and those who are culturally differ- ent, are disadvantaged, or have a disability. Children know who’s who: They have watched Miguel and Kirsten finish their math first, read the best, and answer the most confus- ing questions correctly. They know about Miguel’s and Kirsten’s wealth of information, their spelling prowess, their original ideas, and their scientific and artistic projects in and outside school.

As a caution, it should be remembered that young children in kindergarten through third grade may have difficulty evaluating peers’ capabilities (Banbury & Wellington, 1989). For example, to many lower elemen- tary children, smart means fast, and peers who skip parts of the assignment or otherwise do fast, but poor, work may earn peer recognition as “smart.” Boys who particularly struggle with handwriting may be missed by both peers and teachers (Rimm, 2008b).

One consideration in developing a peer nomination form or strategy is style-questions can be direct or dis- guised, or they can take a game format. All three types ask class members to name peers with special characteristics. As an example of a direct approach, a nomination form can simply ask the following questions:

Who is the smartest kid in class?

Who is best at math?

Who is the best reader?

Who has the best memory?

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 53

African A merican, Asian American, Hispanic, and Cau- casian children from 6 to 13.11 years of age (Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2007). It is easy to use and score, and it could have excellent applications for screening for stu- dents from diverse backgrounds. A technical manual supplies various types of reliability, validity, and other statistical information. Each student receives a profile of the six scores, reported as standard and percentile scores, based on the national standardization sample.

Baldwin Identification Matrix

The Baldwin Identification Matrix (Baldwin, 1985, Baldwin, 2004; Baldwin & Reis, 2004) is intended to make identification of minority students more equitable. Stand- ardized intelligence and achievement test data are used for rating intelligence, reading, and math. The Renzulli et al. (2001) Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (Appendix 3.7) are used for evaluating learning, motivation, creativity, and leadership (Items 1.5, 2.1, 5.1, and 6.1). The matrix entries are added to produce a single total score, allowing students to be ranked easily. In addition to the handy total score, the Baldwin Matrix provides a profile of strengths and weaknesses for each student.

The main disadvantage of the Baldwin Identification Matrix, and other identification systems based on total points, is that students who might be extremely talented in just one or two areas are likely to produce mediocre total scores and thus to be quickly excluded. We, as well as the author of the test, recommend flexibility in using the Bald- win Identification Matrix.

frasier Talent assessment Profile (f-TaP)

Like the Baldwin Identification Matrix, the Frasier Tal- ent Assessment Profile (F-TAP; Frasier, 1994, 1997; Ford, 2007) seeks to make assessment fair for disadvan- taged and minority groups. The F-TAP is based on 10 characteristics of gifted persons: high motivation, special interests, communication talent, problem solving, memory, inquiry, insight, reasoning, imagination/creativity, and humor. The first component is the Panning for Gold observation form, on which teachers record student information pertaining to the 10 traits of giftedness, along with any recommendations—for example, for fur- ther assessment. The F-TAP includes a column for recording objective and subjective data that can be repre- sented in numbers (e.g., standardized ability and achieve- ment scores) and a column for recording performance data that cannot be represented in numbers (e.g., obser- vational and referral information, self-perceptions, lan- guage proficiency, additional aptitude/achievement

effective at times. Rimm et al. (2014) interviewed many successful women who acknowledged their teachers for encouraging them to join extracurricular activities and gifted programming.

Product and Performance assessments

Two good indices of academic, artistic, creative, or sci- entific talent are evaluating the quality of work product that the student has completed and evaluating the child’s process of developing a product. Art teachers are in a unique position to evaluate artistic talent and creativity. Other teachers may also have opportunities to evaluate the quality of students’ poetry, science, or computer pro- jects; dramatic talent; photography; unusual hobbies; and so on.

Often, product and process evaluations are quite informal; they may obviously reflect high creativity, sci- ence ability, writing skill, analysis or synthesis talent, and so on. However, more structured and objective product rating rubrics are appropriate for identification of gifted- ness. Appendix 3.5 presents a form (product) recom- mended by Renzulli and Callahan (2008), and Appendix 3.6 shows task (process) evaluation forms recommended by VanTassel-Baska (2008). Product and performance assessments can be used for both identification of gifted students and evaluations of gifted programming. See more about their evaluation use in Chapter 18, “Program Evaluation.”

Rating scales

We have already seen several rating scales in conjunction with teacher-, parent-, peer-, and self-nomination proce- dures and product evaluations. Renzulli et al. (2001) devel- oped a set of 10 rating-scale instruments, used by teachers, entitled Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS). The four most widely used scales evaluate Intellectual ability (learning), Creativity, Motivation, and Leadership. Renzulli, Reis, Gavin, Siegle, and Sytsma (2003) have added Mathematics, Science, Reading, and Technology. Others assess Artistic, Musical, Dramatic, and Planning characteristics, as well as Commu- nication-Precision and Communication-Expressiveness. Samples of the four main scales and one new scale, Tech- nology, are reproduced in Appendix 3.7. As of 2014, teach- ers may complete them online.

The Gifted Rating Scales-School Form (GRS-S; Psychological Corporation, Inc., 2003b) is a 72-item rat- ing scale used by teachers familiar with students to eval- uate capabilities in six areas, including Intellectual, Academic, Creative, Artistic, Leadership, and Motiva- tion scales. It has been found to work equally well with

54 Chapter 3

information, and awards). Finally, a committee synthe- sizes and evaluates this information to produce an educa- tion plan that includes suitable program and curriculum options, counseling options, and projected goals and out- comes. (For additional details, see Frasier, 1994; see also Chapter 13, Figure 13.1, in this text.)

assessMenT of gaRdneR’s eIghT InTeLLIgences

Chapter 1 reviewed Gardner’s multiple-intelligence theory, which suggested not one or two but eight types of intelli- gence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic.

Gardner (1999) noted that multiple-choice and short- answer tests cannot identify several of his intelligences— for example, intrapersonal (self-understanding) and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. Rather, a profile of intel- ligences can be assessed by observing student interac- tions with materials and ideas in intelligence areas. Gardner described his Project Spectrum classrooms, for students ages 4 to 7, which are stocked with materials that elicit different intelligences, such as artistic and musical materials; specimens of nature; board games; and areas for building, dance, and exercise. He concluded, “For most children, unfettered exploration in a Spectrum classroom or in a children’s museum is enough to give a rough-and-ready picture of their intelligences at a given moment in their lives. Nothing more is needed” (Gardner, 1999, p. 137).

Maker’s dIscoVeR Process

Aiming at “leveling the playing field” for minority stu- dents, Maker’s (1996; see also Maker, 2005; Sarouphim, 1999, 2000, 2001; VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007) performance-based identification process entitled DIS- COVER evaluates “the ability to solve complex prob- lems in effective, efficient, elegant, and economical ways” (p. 44).

Drawing on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelli- gences, five activities evaluate spatial, linguistic, and logical-mathematical intelligences. Spatial intelligence is evaluated with Pablo cardboard pieces and Tangrams, both of which require students to create geometric shapes. Linguistic intelligence is evaluated with story- telling (using toys as props) and story writing (or draw- ing for kindergartners). With spatial and linguistic activities, observers look for originality, complexity, and cause-and-effect relationships. Logical–mathematical intelligence is assessed with 12 math problems and

Tangrams. With the math problems, observers note the use of strategies as well as f lexible and original thinking.

With each activity for each student, observers record specific behaviors and add relevant comments. They also rate the student’s overall problem-solving ability as unknown, maybe, probably, or definitely. A student given a rating of definitely in two or more of the five activities is placed in a program for gifted students or may be tested further. Throughout, the emphasis is on effective, efficient, and creative problem solving.

DISCOVER does indeed identify gifted minority children. In validity studies, Sarouphim (1999) found close relationships between activities on the DISCOVER and corresponding activities on the WISC-R and Raven’s Progressive Matrices (a measure of intelligence that uses geometric patterns). Perhaps best of all, DISCOVER identified a full 23% of the 257 minority (Navajo and Mexican American) children as gifted (Sarouphim, 2001). On the downside, according to Sarouphim (2000), admin- istering DISCOVER to groups of five students requires about 2½ hours.

TRIaRchIc aBILITIes TesT

In Chapter 1, we brief ly described Sternberg’s (1998c, Sternberg, 2003; VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007) Triar- chic theory of intelligence, consisting of analytic, creative, and practical intelligence. This expanded view of intelli- gence includes the Triarchic Abilities Test (TAT), a set of tests in three domains (verbal, quantitative, and figural) and two response modes (multiple choice and essay). The test thus includes a set of nine multiple-choice subtests, each consisting of four items (total = 36 items); plus three essay items, one each for analytic, creative, and practical intelligence.

Following is a sample of three items from the nine multiple-choice subtests:

Analytic-Verbal: Students see a novel word embed- ded in a paragraph and must infer its meaning.

Practical-Quantitative: Students solve everyday math problems (e.g., buying tickets for a ball game).

Creative-Figural: Subjects are presented with a fig- ural series that involves one or more transformations. They then apply the rule to a new figural series.

In the essay items, the analytic problem requires stu- dents to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of hav- ing security guards in a school building. In the creative problem, students describe how they would produce an ideal school system. The practical problem requires

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 55

talents. Renzulli and Reis (1997; Renzulli, 2005) outlined a five-step procedure.

sTeP 1

Test Score Nominations. About half of the Talent Pool can be selected via standardized intelligence and/or achieve- ment tests. Students who score above the 92nd percentile are admitted without further evaluation.

sTeP 2

Teacher Nominations. After being advised of students who are admitted via Step 1 (test scores), in Step 2, teachers nominate additional students who display other worthy characteristics—particularly high creativity, high motiva- tion, unusual interests or talents, or special areas of supe- rior performance or potential.

sTeP 3

Alternate Pathways. Alternate pathways to the Talent Pool include many of the identification options described in this chapter: self–nominations, parent nominations, peer nomi- nations, creativity test results, product evaluations, “and virtually any other procedure that might lead to initial con- sideration by a screening committee” (p. 60). Admission is not automatic in Step 3 but depends on the decision of the screening committee, which interviews students, teachers, and parents and examines all previous school records. Sometimes, admission is on a trial basis.

sTeP 4

Special Nominations (Safety Valve No. 1). To avoid biases of current teachers, the list of all students nominated is cir- culated to all teachers. The purpose is to allow previous- year teachers to nominate students who are not on the list. The procedure also allows resource teachers to make rec- ommendations on the basis of their enrichment experi- ences in the regular classroom—for example, to recommend students who seem unusually creative or seem to have unu- sual strengths in a special area.

sTeP 5

Action Information Nominations (Safety Valve No. 2). Part of the School-wide Enrichment Model includes Action Information Messages, which usually are used to describe Talent Pool students who are extremely inter- ested in or excited about a topic, area of study, or idea and who wish to pursue it as an independent project. Action Information also may be used to nominate non- Talent Pool students for projects and thus for inclusion

students to name a problem in their lives, then state three feasible solutions for it.

The Triarchic Abilities Test provides seven sub- scores: analytic, synthetic, and practical abilities; automa- tization; and verbal, quantitative, and figural processing.

a MuLTIdIMensIonaL cuLTuRe-faIR assessMenT sTRaTegy

Clasen, Middleton, and Connel (1994) described a nontra- ditional, largely performance-based, multidimensional assessment to identify gifted sixth-grade minority and majority students in three urban Midwest schools. With 433 students (70% minority) as subjects, Clasen and col- leagues focused on the domains of problem solving and art, plus peer and teacher nominations.

Brainstorming problems asked for solutions to a home problem (the child you are babysitting disappears) or a school problem (excessive truancy). “What are all the things you could do to solve this problem? Include clever and unusual ideas” (p. 29). The top-scoring 5% qualified as gifted.

The art task asked students to draw a picture that included a person, house, tree, and animal. Scoring fol- lowed a curriculum guideline that describes seven levels of art ability, with substages in the top four levels for finer discrimination. Again, the top 5% were included in the gifted pool.

With the peer nomination strategy, students named the “best” student in their class in 25 areas—for example, problem solving, art, and “helpfulness” (which shows problem solving and leadership). The top 5% in number of nominations—and not identified by the problem- solving or art tasks—were added to the Talent Pool. Finally, teachers were asked to nominate three “top” minority students with strong talent in a variety of aca- demic and nonacademic areas, including art and problem solving. Students named by two or more teachers were deemed gifted.

The Clasen and colleagues procedure identified 24% of the students, 51 males and 53 females, as having gifts in art or problem solving. Perhaps most important, the problem-solving, art, and peer nomination procedures identified minority and majority gifted students in propor- tion to their numbers in the schools.

TaLenT PooL IdenTIfIcaTIon PLan: RenzuLLI

With the Talent Pool approach, the intent is to be inclusive, to “cast a wide net” that includes many kinds of gifts and

56 Chapter 3

category scores, including Intellectual, Academic, Crea- tive, Artistic, and Motivation scales. Both instruments are highly reliable and valid for the purpose of school screen- ing (Pfeiffer & Petscher, 2008). The third phase was an individualized screening, first with the Hess School Readiness Scale (Hess, 1975), a test similar to the Stan- ford-Binet. If the child survived this hurdle (IQ 5 120 or higher), he or she was given the Stanford-Binet itself, plus tests of math and reading. (Louisiana’s stringent cri- terion for placement in a public preschool gifted program is an IQ score that is three standard deviations above the mean, or 2½ standard deviations plus scores in the 98th– 99th percentile in reading and math.)

Preschool Individually administered IQ Tests

Both the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (SB5), described earlier in this chapter, and the Wechsler Pre- school and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) can be used to identify intellectually gifted preschoolers, but par- ents and teachers should be reminded that IQ testing of preschoolers can be extremely unreliable and can easily underestimate their abilities, particularly if they are shy, perfectionistic, or extremely active. The first author of this book recalls a young man whose IQ score, when he was tested at age 20, was 128. His parents had given credibility to preschool testing in which his IQ score had been meas- ured to be 80. For 16 years, the parents had assumed that he had far-below-average ability and that he was struggling in school.

IdenTIfyIng gIfTed secondaRy sTudenTs

As gifted children move into middle and high school, their talents become increasingly differentiated. The problem is not knowing whether they are gifted but knowing how they are gifted and what their areas of talent are.

Colangelo and colleagues (1996) described the PLAN inventory developed by the American College Test- ing Program. PLAN is taken by 10th-grade students to help them prepare a suitable high school program. The test measures high-level thinking skills—specifically, problem solving, grasping implied meanings, drawing inferences, evaluating ideas, and making judgments in the areas of English, reading, mathematics, and science reasoning. Colangelo and colleagues primarily explored gender, eth- nicity, and career choices. However, their criterion of per- fect scores on at least one subtest of PLAN indicates that PLAN can indeed be used to identify “exceptional aca- demic performance.”

in the Talent Pool. Such nominations are reviewed by the screening committee.

Following are some advantages of Renzulli’s Talent Pool approach: More students have an opportunity to par- ticipate; identification is f lexible and multidimensional; identification continues all year; motivated students self- select; uninterested, unsuccessful students do not waste resource-room time and facilities; charges of elitism are reduced or eliminated; the need for painful hard-and-fast decisions (for example, based on cutoff scores or a 3%–5% criterion) is eliminated; and silly situations in which, due to altered identification criteria, last year’s gifted student is “not gifted this year” are eliminated. There is much to be said for such a plan.

IdenTIfyIng gIfTed PReschooLeRs

Burns, Mathews, and Mason (1990) described a three- step solution to the challenge of identifying intellectu- ally gifted preschoolers in Louisiana, a state that offers publicly funded preschool programs for gifted children. Similar plans could be used by any individual or district seeking to develop and promote programs for gifted preschoolers.

The first phase aimed at informing parents and pre- school teachers about characteristics of preschool gifted- ness and the availability of the public programs. This was accomplished by a blitz of feature articles in newspapers and local magazines, TV interviews on morning talk shows and evening news programs, and presentations at parent organizations.

Phase two was a general screening, accomplished by a Gifted Preschool Screening Packet that included a parent questionnaire and a teacher questionnaire (if the child was in a preschool), along with a brochure and application form. The questionnaires asked parents or teachers to rate the child on 45 different behaviors—some of which were and some of which were not characteristic of gifted p reschoolers—and to “describe additional exceptional behaviors displayed by the child.”

Although Louisiana developed its own screening packet, there are several nationally normed screening instruments developed specifically for identifying gifted preschoolers. Preschool and Kindergarten Interest Descriptor (PRIDE; Rimm, 1983) permits parents to describe characteristics of preschoolers that are associ- ated with creativity. It has 50 items and results in four scale scores, including Many Interests, Independence- Perseverance, Imagination- Playfulness, and Originality. Gifted Rating Scales-Preschool Kindergarten Form (GRS-P; Psychological Corporation, 2003a) includes 60 items to be completed by teachers and results in five

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 57

TaBLe 3.2 Sample Items from the Purdue Academic Rating Scales and the Purdue Vocational Rating Scales

From Purdue Academic Rating Scales

Mathematics 1. Generalizes mathematical relationships, relates concepts in various applications. 2. Learns math concepts and processes faster than other students. Science 1. Has science hobbies, is a collector, likes gadgets. 2. Understands scientific method, able to formulate hypotheses and conduct experiments carefully. English 1. Motivated to write even when writing is not assigned; writes stories, poems, or plays; keeps a journal or diary. 2. Has a good sense of humor; uses and understands satire, puns, and second meanings. Social Studies 1. Reads widely on social issues from a variety of books, magazines, or newspapers. 2. Skilled in analyzing topics, finding the underlying problem, questioning, investigating. Foreign Language 1. Learns new vocabulary words and grammatical concepts rapidly. 2. Shows curiosity and inquisitiveness when introduced to new grammatical or cultural concepts.

From Purdue Vocational Rating Scales

Agriculture 1. Exhibits leadership in shop activities/organizations. 2. Comes up with good, high-level ideas for projects or for agricultural problems. Business and Office 1. Shows creativity in solving problems or designing reports. 2. Is viewed by other students as showing talent in business and office classes. Home Economics 1. Learns and applies new skills, techniques, or methods rapidly and easily. 2. Is enthusiastic in all or most class activities. Trade and Industrial 1. Shows good manual skills in use of tools and equipment. 2. Seems to have a lot of ideas.

Feldhusen, Hoover, and Sayler (1990; Feldhusen, 1997) developed identification procedures and rating scales designed specifically to identify gifted and tal- ented youth in middle and high school. The Purdue Academic Rating Scales (PARS) and Purdue Vocational Rating Scales (PVRS) allow teachers to assess specific information suitable for secondary program selection and placement.

There are five academic scales (PARS; math, sci- ence, English, social studies, and foreign languages) and four vocational scales (PVRS; agriculture, business and office, home economics, and trade and industrial). All scales contain fifteen 5-point rating-scale items. Space does not permit total reproduction of the scales, but sample items appear in Table 3.2.

As general identification recommendations, Feldhusen, Hoover, and Sayler advised, for example, (1) using their scales in conjunction with other information (e.g., ability scores, direct observation, student self- assessment, information from parents), (2) training teach- ers in the interpretation of the scales in relation to student behavior, (3) obtaining ratings of students by several teachers, and (4) watching out for the halo effect—the ten- dency to bias ratings in line with overall attitudes toward the student.

As a final consideration, and as suggested by Renzulli (1987), keep in mind that, in high school, many students already have developed specific interests and motivations. Therefore, self-selection for a special class or program is more important than in earlier grades.

58 Chapter 3

TaBLe 3.3 Alphabetical Listing of Instruments and Recommendations for Use

RecoMMendaTIons fRoM The naTIonaL RePoRT on IdenTIfIcaTIon and nRc/gT

The National Report on Identification (Richert, 1985, 1997, 2003; Richert, Alvino, & McDonnel, 1982), men- tioned earlier in this chapter, included an alphabetized list

of over 60 tests, rating scales, checklists, and inventories. See Table 3.3, which includes (1) categories of giftedness assessed by each instrument, (2) appropriateness for advantaged and disadvantaged children, (3) suitable age range, and (4) appropriate stage for their use (i.e., for nominating/identifying gifted students, assessing their abilities, or evaluating their skill development).

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 59

As another source of mainly paper-and-pencil tests, rating scales, and checklists, Callahan and colleagues (1995a) reviewed and evaluated the usefulness, appropriate- ness, reliability, and validity of 73 possible identification instruments, along with the suitable age group. (Reliability, validity, and other information for each test are available

from the National Research Center on the Gifted and Tal- ented at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.) Table 3.4 itemizes the categories (“gifted constructs”) of the tests, along with some specific tests suggested by Callahan and colleagues. Descriptions and sources of most of the tests can be obtained from the Internet.

60 Chapter 3

TaBLe 3.4 Gifted Constructs and Sample Tests

Gifted Construct Sample Tests

General academic ability California Achievement Test (CAT), Kaufman Assessment Battery

Specific academic ability Gifted Evaluation Scale, Woodcock Reading Mastery Test

General intellectual ability CAT, WISC-R, Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised

Nonverbal intelligence/ability Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, Matrix Analogies Test

Information processing Cognitive Abilities Test

Perception/judgment and perceptive reasoning

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Ravens Colored Progressive Matrices

Science ability/scientific aptitude CAT, Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills

Creativity:

Ideation Torrance® Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), Group Inventory for Finding Talent (GIFT), Group Inventory for Finding Interests (GIFFI), Scales for Rating the Behavior Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS)— Creativity.

Problem solving Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, TTCT, GIFT, GIFFI

Products TTCT, WISC-R, GIFT, GIFFI

Traits and behaviors GIFT, GIFFI, SRBCSS

General SRBCSS—Creativity, Raven’s Standard Matrices

Other problem solving Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices

Math/logical ability CAT, WISC, Peabody Individual Achievement Test

Verbal/linguistic ability CAT, Diagnostic Reading Scales, Gates-MacGinite

Reading comprehension Gilmore Oral Reading Test

Social science ability CAT, Slossen Intelligence Test

Psychomotor/bodily-kinesthetic Cognitive Abilities Test

Task commitment/motivation SRBCSS-Motivation, Raven’s Standard Matrices, Self-Concept and Motivation

Inter-/intrapersonal ability/leadership, psychosocial ability

Gifted Evaluation Scale, Leadership Skills Inventory, Personality Research Form

Artistic ability Slossen Intelligence Test

Acting ability Scales for Rating the Behavior Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS)—Dramatics

Dance ability SRBCSS—Artistic, TTCT

Other performing arts ability Gifted Evaluation Scale, SRBCSS—Dramatics

Painting/drawing SRBCSS—Artistic, Gifted Evaluation Scale, GIFT, GIFFI, TTCT

Sculpting ability SRBCSS—Artistic, TTCT

Photographic ability SRBCSS—Artistic, TTCT

Other visual arts ability SRBCSS—Dramatics, TTCT, Gifted Evaluation Scale

Music ability—general Primary Measures of Music Audiation, GIFT, GIFFI

Music ability (composition, instrumental, or vocal)

Cognitive Abilities Test, TTCT, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

Clinical maladjustment (!) Self-Perception Inventory

Source: From “Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students” by C. M. Callahan, S. L. Hunsaker, C. M. Adams, S. D. Moore, L. C. Bland. Published by The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented ©1995.

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 61

level of performance on appropriate tests or work samples. Neglecting either approach is unfair to gifted children. Screening instruments for characteristics include self- report inventories and self, parent, and teacher multidimen- sional checklists. Performance measures include grades, IQ tests, achievement tests, and assessments of work samples.

A major sin of identification of gifted is enforcing a rigid IQ cutoff score—a student with an IQ of 130 is included, but a more creative and energetic student with an IQ of only 129 is not. A low test score, a behavior problem, or a teacher-student personality conflict should not elimi- nate a gifted student from needed programs. Also, selec- tion methods should be teacher friendly; that is, they should be understandable and require little time. In short, they must be almost miraculous.

consIdeRIng The goaLs of IdenTIfIcaTIon

The identification procedure clearly is a crucial part of any G/T program. The procedures themselves define who is gifted. There are two important goals in the identification of students for gifted programming. The first goal is to be inclusive: to cast a wide net and to discover all children with gifted potential for opportunities to develop that potential. The second goal is to provide appropriate pro- gramming for all students who already have obviously developed gifted skills. To match these two separate goals, there needs to be two simultaneous identification approaches—one that screens for the many characteristics that suggest potential (you learned about these characteris- tics in Chapter 2), and another that measures quality and

Summary

There are many strategies for identifying gifted and tal- ented students for programs. Whereas some programs stress only intelligence (aptitude) scores, a multidimen- sional assessment is recommended.

Some highlights of current thinking on identification include adopting a broad definition of giftedness, recog- nizing multiple forms of intelligence, using multiple crite- ria, promoting inclusiveness (not exclusiveness), including authentic assessments, being aware of cultural differences in giftedness, developing early and continuous procedures, basing identification on student needs (not quotas), assum- ing links between identification and instruction, and pro- moting collaboration with administrators and the public.

Using multiple identification criteria promotes inclu- siveness by identifying multiple types of gifts and talents. The strategy will identify more minority, economically disadvantaged, and underachieving students. “Multiple hurdle” approaches, however, can be restrictive.

Davidson argued against formal identification sys- tems involving tests, ratings, and nominations, including point systems and cutoff scores. She recommended, espe- cially, the increased use of informal parent and teacher nominations based on observations.

Another issue concerns the annual selection of 3% to 5% versus a more flexible and generous 15% to 20% Tal- ent Pool approach.

Multidimensional criteria and a quota system ensures representation of disadvantaged and minority students. To ensure equitable representation, Richert recommended creating local norms for each subgroup of students for each data source, then selecting the same top percentage

from each subgroup. Gifted students who underachieve or have a disability must not be overlooked. Girls may be dis- criminated against if math, science, and computer skills are weighted heavily.

Teachers may favor teacher pleasers, thus ignoring more gifted students with less agreeable habits. Research finds cultural and racial bias.

Reliability refers to the accuracy of a test (or proce- dure) or the test-retest consistency. Validity is the degree to which the instrument measures what it is supposed to measure.

”Political” problems occur when parents complain of their child’s nonselection (or selection) for a gifted pro- gram, or when the children of teachers, administrators, or board members are favored.

The 1982 National Report on Identification endorsed the U.S. Department of Education’s multidimensional def- inition of giftedness. It recommended that identification procedures be equitable, designed in the best interests of all students, and designed to identify as many gifted learn- ers as possible. The report identified questionable practices such as limiting selection to high-achieving students. The report recommended using both formal and informal procedures.

The bottom line for confirming suspected high general-intelligence abilities is individual intelligence test- ing. The SB5 claims as its heritage the original Binet-Simon intelligence tests. It includes 10 subtests divided equally between verbal and visual tests. One of its advantages is that it is not a timed instrument. A disadvantage is that gifted children’s scores appear lower in this new edition of the test.

62 Chapter 3

Peer nominations are valuable and may be especially helpful in identifying minority, disabled, and rural gifted students. Three considerations are the characteristic you wish evaluated, grade level, and the style of the nomination questions (direct, disguised, or game). Warning: Students may pick friends.

Self-nominations are highly recommended, espe- cially at the high school level. A nudge from teachers or parents may encourage students.

Product and process evaluations are helpful for iden- tification and may be informal or may use structured evalu- ation rubrics.

Renzulli’s most widely used rating scales allow a teacher to rate Intellectual Ability, Creativity, Motivation, and Leadership. Six new scales (including Mathematics; Science; Reading; Technology; Artistic, Musical, and Dra- matic; and Planning characteristics) have been added.

The Gifted Rating Scales-School Form (GRS-S) per- mits teachers to evaluate capabilities in six areas, including Intellectual, Academic, Creative, Artistic, Leadership, and Motivation.

The Baldwin Identification Matrix summarizes scores and ratings on a variety of criteria, combining them into a single total score. Such a procedure risks overlook- ing students with strength in one or a few categories.

Frasier’s F-TAP is based on 10 traits of gifted students, summarized in her Panning for Gold component and the F-TAP profile, which includes objective and subjective data.

Gardner recommends informally evaluating his eight intelligences—for example, while observing students in a children’s museum.

Maker’s DISCOVER is a performance-based evalua- tion that defines giftedness as problem solving. Five tests evaluate Gardner’s spatial, logical-mathematical, and lin- guistic intelligences with the use of Pablo cardboard pieces, Tangrams, storytelling, story writing, and math problems. Research with Navajo and Mexican American children identified 23% as gifted.

Sternberg created a battery that includes multiple- choice and essay questions to evaluate his breakdown of analytic, creative, and practical types of intelligence.

Clasen, Middleton, and Connel created a culture-fair assessment strategy that used brainstorming, an art task, peer nominations, and teacher nominations. They identi- fied minority and majority gifted students in proportion to their overall numbers in the school.

Renzulli’s Talent Pool identification plan features five steps: (1) test score nominations (to identify 50% of the Talent Pool), (2) teacher nominations, (3) alternate pathways (self-, parent, or peer nominations; creativity tests; etc.), and two “safety valves” of (4) special nomina- tions by previous and other teachers, and (5) action

The WISC-IV is the most frequently used individual IQ test. The General Ability Index, instead of the Full Scale IQ, is recommended for identification for gifted pro- grams. The WISC-V is available in both paper-and-pencil and digital formats.

Group intelligence tests are useful, but they suffer from lower reliability and validity, lower ceilings, high ver- bal content, and possible timing issues.

The SAT and ACT assessments are used to identify bright seventh-graders for Talent Search programs. The elementary Talent Search programs use the SSAT or the PLUS tests of academic ability.

Any intelligence (aptitude) test helps to identify underachieving students. Undue weight on intelligence test scores excludes students with other gifts.

Tests of nonverbal reasoning like the Naglieri Non- verbal Ability Test (NNAT) are used increasingly to identify gifted students from diverse backgrounds. Naglieri and Ford view their use as an answer to solving the persist- ing problem of underrepresentation of diverse populations in gifted programming. Lohman argues that the use of non- verbal ability tests alone would hurt high achievers, who often perform less well in nonverbal reasoning than they do in verbal or mathematical reasoning.

Low test ceilings make it almost impossible to find the highly gifted by using current IQ tests. The Stanford- Binet L-M and ratio-based metrics are recommended for identification of these students, who often have unusual intellectual and psychological needs. Extended norms could also be helpful for the identification of these highly gifted students.

Achievement test scores provide good indicators of specific academic talent. However, they tend to have rela- tively low ceilings and therefore do not discriminate among gifted students who “top out.” Most individually adminis- tered achievement tests and some group tests provide for above-level testing. Grade equivalent scores do not mean that the student belongs in the grade indicated by the score.

Creativity tests may identify creative talent that is not otherwise visible. Among divergent thinking tests, the Torrance® Tests of Creativity seem most useful. With char- acteristics inventories, the GIFT, GIFFI, and PRIDE tests work quite well. Assessments of actual creative activities or products may be a face-valid reflection of creative capa- bility. Using two criteria of creativeness is recommended.

Teacher nomination is the most common identifica- tion method, but it may be subject to teacher-pleaser bias. Teachers may be trained to perceive characteristics of gift- edness. Nomination forms are helpful.

No one knows children better than their parents. Par- ents can provide valuable and valid information for identification.

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 63

Purdue Vocational Rating Scales, which are more specific than lower-level general scales. The scales should be used with other information, and teachers should be trained in their use.

The National Report on Identification includes a list of 60 instruments, with specifications for each test of the categories of giftedness assessed, appropriateness for advantaged and disadvantaged children, suitable age range, and appropriate stage in the G/T program.

Callahan et al. evaluated 73 possible identification instruments.

Identification procedures are critical. In every pro- gram, they define who is and is not gifted. The two important goals in the identification of students for gifted programming are inclusiveness, or casting a wide net, for discovering potential, and discovering those students who have obvi- ously developed skills and need accelerated programs. Iden- tification should be f lexible, fair, teacher friendly, and understandable, and it should require little time.

information nominations. Some advantages are that more students participate, identification is multidimensional, students can self-select, and charges of elitism are reduced.

A three-step model for identifying gifted preschool- ers included raising parents’ and preschool teachers’ awareness of characteristics of preschool giftedness, a gen- eral screening, and intelligence testing.

The SB5 and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale (WPPSI) can be used for the individual assessment of young children. A caution is that testing young children can easily result in underestimates of their abilities, par- ticularly if they are shy, perfectionistic, or extremely active.

PLAN, which evaluates high-level thinking skills, was introduced by American College Testing to permit 10th-graders to plan their high school programs. While Colangelo et al. explored other goals, they concluded that PLAN can be used to identify exceptional academic performers.

Feldhusen’s strategy for evaluation at the secondary level included his Purdue Academic Rating Scales and his

AppendiX 3.1 nAgc pOSitiOn StAtement*

ExcErpts from thE Nagc positioN statEmENt*: UsE of thE Wisc-iV for giftEd idENtificatioN

School districts use multi-faceted approaches to identify gifted students. Some states and districts employ comprehensive indi- vidual IQ tests as one of several identifiers. The most popular of these is the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV).

In prior versions of the Wechsler scales, the child’s Full Scale IQ score has been the primary determining factor in place- ment. However, the Full Scale IQ score of the WISC-IV often does not represent a child’s intellectual abilities as well as the General Ability Index. Therefore, some guidelines for test inter- pretation are necessary.

The WISC-IV introduces important structural changes that compromise the relevance of the Full Scale IQ score (FSIQ) for gifted children. The weight of processing skills in the Full Scale IQ calculation has doubled, with a consequent reduction in the weight assigned to reasoning tasks (verbal, visual-spatial and mathematical). Testers of the gifted know that abstract rea- soning tasks best identify cognitive giftedness, while processing skills measures do not. Gifted children with or without disabilities may be painstakingly, reflective and perfectionistic on paper-and- pencil tasks, lowering their Processing Speed Index scores; to a lesser degree, they may struggle when asked to recall non-meaningful material (Digit Span, Letter-Number Sequencing), lowering their Working Memory Index, even though they excel on meaningful auditory memory tasks that pique their interest.

As a result, a majority of gifted children show considera- ble variability in their Composite/Index scores on the WISC-IV, a problem less often encountered in average children. When this occurs, WISC-IV Full Scale IQ scores for the gifted may be dif- ficult to interpret and, in some cases, may be lowered sufficiently by processing skills to prevent gifted children from qualifying for needed programs.

It is recommended practice to derive the General Ability Index (GAI) when there are large disparities among the Composite/Index scores (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004). The GAI utilizes only scores from the Verbal Comprehension and Percep- tual Reasoning Composites, not Working Memory and Process- ing Speed. Use of the GAI takes on special significance with the gifted. Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning tasks are heavily loaded on abstract reasoning ability and are better indicators of giftedness than Working Memory (auditory memory that is manipulated) and Processing Speed (speed on paper-and- pencil tasks). Pearson, publisher of the WISC-IV, provides GAI tables on its website in support of similar use of the GAI when the variance between Composite scores is both significant and unu- sual (see Technical Report #4 [which can be found at the Pearson Assessments website (Technical Report 4): pearsonassessments. com/hai/Images/pdf/wisciv/ WISCIVTechReport4.pdf]).

In light of these circumstances, where comprehensive test- ing is available, NAGC recommends that the WISC-IV Full Scale IQ not be required for admission to gifted programs. Instead, the following guidelines are suggested:

When the WISC-IV is used for the identification of gifted students, either the General Ability Index (GAI), which

64 Chapter 3

emphasizes reasoning ability, or the Full Scale IQ Score (FSIQ), should be acceptable for selection to gifted programs. The GAI should be derived using the table provided in the Pearson Assess- ments website (Technical Report 4): pearsonassessments.com/ hai/Images/pdf/wisciv/WISCIV TechReport4.pdf.

The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) and the Percep- tual Reasoning Index (PRI) are also independently appropriate for selection to programs for the gifted, especially for culturally diverse, bilingual, twice exceptional students or visual-spatial learners. It is important that a good match be made between the strengths of the child and the attributes of the program. Students who have special learning needs should be admitted to gifted

programs, provided that there are other indications of giftedness and instructional modifications are made to fit the needs of the students.

The entire WISC-IV is a wise choice for the comprehen- sive assessment of gifted children, when Working Memory and Processing Speed subtests are used diagnostically. Administering just the Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning sec- tions (a total of six subtests), and calculating a GAI, is also a justifiable, shorter, and cost-effective alternative for selecting gifted students.

Used with permission of National Association for Gifted Children.

PRENDA PRUEBA POR ENCONTRAR

DADIVOSA HABILIDAD

Lee cada frase en las páginas siguientes. Pon un c’rculo alrededor de SÍ al lado de cada frase, si estás de acuerdo; o alrededor de NO, si no estás de acuerdo. Si no estás seguro o si crees que algunas veces estás de acuerdo, haz un c’rculo alrededor de la contestación que esté más cerca de la manera en que tú piensas. Esta prueba no tiene contestaciones correctas o incorrectas. Queremos saber sólo como tú piensas, qué crees tú de ciertas cosas, y qué te gusta hacer.

1. A m’ me gusta componer mis propias canciones. SÍ NO

(I like to make up my own songs.) O O

2. A m’ me gusta pasear solo. SÍ NO

(I like to take walks alone.) O O

3. A mi madre o a mi padre le gusta jugar conmigo. SÍ NO

(My mom or dad likes to play with me.) OÍ O

4. Me gusta hacer muchas preguntas. SÍ NO

(I ask a lot of questions.) O O

5. Es una pérdida de tiempo hacer cuentos. SÍ NO

(Making up stories is a waste of time.) O O

6. A m’ me gusta tener solamente uno o dos amigos. SÍ NO

(I like to have only one or two friends.) O O

7. A m’ me gusta o”r historias de la vida de otros pa’ses. S NO

(I like to hear stories about life in other countries.) O O

8. Algunas veces está bien cambiar las reglas de un juego. SÍ NO

(It’s all right to sometimes change the rules of a game.) O O

9. Tengo algunas ideas muy buenas. SÍ NO

(I have some really good ideas.) O O

10. A m’ me gusta pintar retratos. SÍ NO

(I like to paint pictures.) O O

P. 1 of Elementary Level Grades 3-4. Complete test is 34 items.

AppendiX 3.2 SpAniSh editiOn Of Rimm’S (1976) gift cReAtivity inventORy

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 65

AppendiX 3.3 teAcheR nOminAtiOn fORm

1. Student _____________________________________ Teacher _________________________________________________

2. Date of Referral ______________________________ School __________________________________________________

3. Grade _______________________________________ Date of Birth _____________________________________________

4. Average Grades for Current School Year

Language Arts __________________ Social Studies __________________

Arithmetic ______________________ Science ________________________

5. Parent Nomination (Check if Appropriate) _____________

6. SRBCSS Scale Total _____________ 1. _____________ 2. _____________ 3. _____________ 4. _____________

7. Why do you think this student should be included in the Talent Pool? (You may wish to list examples of ideas, projects, creative endeavors, etc.)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

INTERESTS Please indicate the areas of interest that the student has displayed in your class this year. If you’ve noticed other specific topics (interest in dinosaurs, computers, etc.), please note this in the column entitled “Other”.

HIGH AVERAGE LOW HIGH AVERAGE LOW

Fine Arts/Crafts Music

Science Drama

Creative Writing Mathematics

Social Studies Language Arts

Psychomotor Other

CURRICULAR STRENGTH AREAS Please indicate the curricular areas in which the student has demonstrated proficiency and could possibly be considered for curriculum compacting.

Language Arts _______________ Social Studies ________________

Arithmetic ___________________ Science ______________________

Used with permission of Joseph Renzulli.

66 Chapter 3

AppendiX 3.4 teAcheR nOminAtiOn fORm

Student Name ________________________ Grade ________________________ Gender ________________________

School ______________________________ Prepared by ______________________________________________________

U = Usually, S = Sometimes, R = Rarely

CATEGORIES U S R

I. PERSONAL

1. Curious; asks many questions

2. Self-motivated; requires little external direction or encouragement

3. Likes to organize people and structure activities

4. Generates many ideas, questions, and suggestions

5. Flexible; adapts readily to new situations

II. EXPRESSION

6. Vocabulary beyond chronological age or grade level

7. Advanced skill in written expression

8. Proficiency in oral expression

9. Expressive of thoughts and opinions

III. THOUGHT PROCESSES

10. Quick and accurate recall of factual information

11. A storehouse of information on a variety of topics

12. Readily recalls visual information

13. Readily recalls auditory information

14. Generalizes learning from one experience to another

15. Finds differences and similarities in events

16. Understands concepts without concrete examples

17. Can establish relationships between seemingly unrelated concepts and ideas

18. Is insightful about cause-and-effect relationships

IV. PRODUCTION AND OUTPUT

19. Displays a great deal of imagination

20. Manipulates ideas (i.e., makes changes and elaborates upon them)

21. Concerned with improving or adapting objects and systems

22. Capable of intense concentration on tasks of interest to her/him

23. Does not give up easily when confronted with a challenge; shows determination in achieving goals

24. Offers unique, clever responses to questions

25. Resourceful; knows where to find answers

V. ACHIEVEMENT

26. High performance (grades) in a particular subject (e.g. math, language arts, science, other _____________)

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 67

U = Usually, S = Sometimes, R = Rarely

CATEGORIES U S R

27. Achieves at a high educational level

VI. LEADERSHIP

28. Has strong communication skills; gets ideas across effectively

29. Assumes leadership role easily

30. Facilitates and directs efforts

VII. OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

31. Dominates situations

32. Compulsive about work and work habits; strives for perfection

33. Becomes involved in task, loses awareness of time

34. Persistent in pursuing discussion beyond cut-off point

35. Appears inattentive, withdrawn (daydreams)

36. Impatient with routine tasks

VIII. DISCERNIBLE BLOCKS (RISK FACTORS) TO ACHIEVEMENT (Check all items that apply)

37. Unstable home environment h 38. Cultural differences h 39. Emotional interference h 40. Language (Nonfluent English Speaker) h 41. Residential mobility (e.g., has attended 3 or more schools) h 42. Physical disabilities h

Used with permission of Joseph S. Renzulli.

AppendiX 3.5 Student pROduct ASSeSSment fORm

Name: _______________________________________________ Date: ___________________________________________________

District: _______________________________________________ School: _________________________________________________

Teacher: _______________________________________________ Grade: __________________________________________________

Product Title and/or Brief Description: __________________________________________________________________________________

Number of Months Student(s) Worked on Product: _______________________________________________________________________

Factors: Rating* Not Acceptable

1. Early statement of purpose

2. Problem focusing

3. Level of resources

4. Diversity of resources

5. Appropriateness of resources

6. Logic, sequence, and transition

7. Action orientation

68 Chapter 3

AppendiX 3.6 RuBRicS fOR veRBAl And pROBlem-SOlving tASkS

Rubric for Verbal Task (Pictorial/Verbal Humor) 4 3 2 1 0

Both title and paragraph reflect strong understanding of pictorial humor.

Both title and paragraph reflect good understanding of pictorial humor.

Title is humorous, but paragraph is limited in being able to explain humor.

Both title and paragraph lack understanding of pictorial humor.

No response.

Note to scorers: There are many possible responses to this prompt. You may wish to sort the set of student papers into two piles (strong vs. weak) and then sort into four piles in order to apply the rubric effectively. Students may write an analytical explanation of their title or a humorous story. Either approach should receive full credit.

Rubric for Problem-Solving Task (Krypto) 4 3 2 1 0

Must have at least one 5-card solution and at least 18 points.

Must have at least one 5-card solution and 11–17 points.

7–10 points or above 10 without a 5-card solution.

3–6 Points or solutions attempted, but none correct.

No response.

Note to scorers: Give 3 points for each 3-number solution, 4 points for each 4-number solution, and 5 points for each 5-number solution. Some possible solutions include: 5 cards 4 cards cards (6 + 12) – (1 + 5 + 4) = 8 (5 + 6) – (12/4) = 8 (12/6) × 4 = 8 (12 + 5 + 1) – (6 + 4) = 8 (12/6) × 4 × 1= 8 5 + 4 – 1 = 8

Reproduced with permission from Prufrock Press Inc., Alternative Assessments with Gifted and Talented Students. p. 181, J. L. VanTassel-Baska, © 2008

8. Audience

9. Overall assessment

A. Originality of the idea

B. Achieved objectives stated in plan

C. Advanced familiarity with subject

D. Quality beyond age/grade level

E. Care, attention to detail, etc.

F. Time, effort, energy

G. Original contribution

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Person Completing This Form: ______________________________________________________________________________________

*Rating Scales: Factors 1–8: Factors 9A–9G: 5 — To a great extent 5 — Outstanding 3 — Somewhat 4 — Above Average 1 — To a limited extent 3 — Average 2 — Below Average 1 — Poor

AppendiX 3.5 Student pROduct ASSeSSment fORm (continued)

Reproduced with permission from Prufrock Press Inc., Alternative Assessments with Gifted and Talented Students. p. 181, J. L. VanTassel- Baska, © 2008

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students 69

AppendiX 3.7 ScAleS fOR RAting BehAviORAl chARActeRiSticS Of SupeRiOR StudentS

Name ___________________________________________________ Date ___________________________________________________

School ____________________________________ Grade ________________________________ Age _________________________________

Teacher or person completing this form ____________________________________________________________________________________

DIRE CTIONS: Please complete the following rating scale on each of your above-average students. The rating form below contains items that are designed to obtain teachers’ estimates of student characteristics in the areas of learning, motivation, creativity, and leadership. The ratings for each item should reflect the frequency with which you have observed each characteristic.

INST RUCTIONS: Please read each item below and circle the number that corresponds with the frequency with which you have observed each behavior. Note: Each item should be read with the beginning phrase, The student demonstrates. . . . The words that correspond to the six scale values are:

Never Very Rarely Rarely Occasionally Frequently Always

1 2 3 4 5 6

Total the scores below:

Learning Characteristics ________________________

Motivational Characteristics _____________________

Creativity Characteristics ________________________

Leadership Characteristics ______________________

Technology Characteristics ______________________

LEARNING CHARACTERISTICS

The student demonstrates . . .

1. Advanced vocabulary for his/her age or grade level. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. The ability to make generalizations about events, people, and things. 1 2 3 4 5 6

CREATIVITY CHARACTERISTICS

The student demonstrates . . .

12. Imaginative thinking ability. 1 2 3 4 5 6

13. A sense of humor. 1 2 3 4 5 6

MOTIVATION CHARACTERISTICS

The student demonstrates . . .

21. The ability to concentrate intently on a topic for a long period of time. 1 2 3 4 5 6

LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS

The student demonstrates . . .

32. Responsible behavior; can be counted on to follow through on activities/ projects.

1 2 3 4 5 6

33. A tendency to be respected by classmates. 1 2 3 4 5 6

34. The ability to articulate ideas and communicate well with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6

TECHNOLOGY CHARACTERISTICS

The student . . .

36. demonstrates a wide range of technology skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6

37. learns new software without formal training. 1 2 3 4 5 6

41. eagerly pursues opportunities to use technology. 1 2 3 4 5 6

42. demonstrates more advanced technology skills than other students his or her age.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Used with permission of Joseph Renzulli.

70

Program Planning4 C H A P T E R

Learning OutcOmes

1. Recommend the main components for planning gifted programs.

2. Arrange, in order of importance, the sixteen areas of program planning needed when developing a program.

3. Develop a plan to persuade a school board to meet the needs of the gifted.

4. Propose ways to foster positive support for a gifted and talented (G/T) program among teachers.

5. Describe the guides and assumptions that underlie curriculum theory in gifted education.

6. Explain the legal issues in gifted education as they pertain to the rights of gifted children.

T he plans to help meet the educational needs of gifted and talented children can involve those as simple or as complex as (1) a single teacher who provides extra study materials to students who finish assignments quickly, (2) individual teachers who compact the curriculum in order to supply extra time for bright students

to work at learning centers or with interest-based projects, (3) part-time acceleration to a higher grade for one or two subjects, (4) grade skipping, (5) cluster grouping all gifted students at each grade level in a single classroom for special services, (6) schoolwide plans to accommodate gifted students in every regular classroom, (7) dis- trictwide pullout programs in which a traveling coordinator teaches gifted students in each school for one afternoon per week, (8) part-time special gifted classes, (9) full-time special gifted classes at every grade level, (10) special schools for the gifted, and (11) special schools for specific types of giftedness. (These and other acceleration, enrichment, and grouping plans and curriculum models will be discussed in greater detail in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.) Gallagher noted that differentiating the curriculum for gifted students “can refer to changes . . . in content, in skills, in learning environments, and even in technology” (2000, p. 7). Indeed, there are many issues and considerations to ponder when planning a program.

As a preliminary thought, five interrelated concepts should underlie any thoughtful adjustments or programs for gifted and talented students: challenge, choice, interest, enjoyment, and personal meaning (Gentry & Ferriss, 1999). These concepts combine to motivate students, promote excellence, and help students develop habits of lifelong learning. Challenge is increased by including high-level content and high-level thinking skills in class- room curriculum and student projects. Giving students choices of academic curricula and research problems in which they are interested leads to feelings of ownership and increased motivation and achievement. Enjoyment stems from students’ doing what they like to do and performing challenging tasks that lead to feelings of accom- plishment. Personal meaning is increased when students engage in self-selected, self-directed learning and research experiences—the students “want to be there and work together for a commonly agreed upon purpose” (Gentry & Ferriss, 1999, p. 317).

Program Planning 71

Ultimately, the outcome of these five interrelated concepts is an intellectually stimulating learning environ- ment in which gifted and talented students prosper and grow. The fact that content is academically challenging does not ensure that students will find it intellectually stim- ulating. Indeed, the following outcomes have been found:

●● Too little academic challenge and too little intellec- tual stimulation produce bored students.

●● Too much academic challenge and too little intellec- tual stimulation produce “turned off ” students.

●● Too much academic challenge, even with adequate intellectual stimulation, produces frustrated students.

●● Optimal challenge combined with intellectual stimu- lation produces students in a state of “flow” (Siegle & McCoach, 1999).

When challenge is coupled with student choice and interest, the outcome is an intellectually stimulating learn- ing environment that is enjoyable and meaningful.

A common criticism of gifted programs is, simply, “Wouldn’t that be good for all students?” The answer is yes and no. In fact, some traditionally gifted activities such as creativity and other thinking skills are being brought into the regular classroom for all students. At the same time, some activities and experiences are uniquely suited to unusually bright students with keen interests and high motivation. Other students would not be interested, nor would they be able to function at the level necessary to accomplish these activities. Whereas a field trip could indeed benefit all students, as described in Chapter 6, follow-up reports and projects for gifted students would be at a higher level than most students could handle. Gifted students are expected to understand and create in greater depth than other children. Several years ago, Renzulli (1982) published a Qualitative Differential Education for

the Gifted (Q-DEG) Quiz as an “acid test” for work stu- dents do in special programs (see also Figure 4.1).

Renzulli (1982) proposed that the answers to the first four questions would be no, and the answer to the last three would be yes if the learning experience were qualitatively different. Of course, the last two questions relate directly to Type III enrichment experiences featured in Renzulli’s School-wide Enrichment Model (see Chapter 7).

This chapter looks first at 16 specific areas of program planning that fall under four global categories. A brief sec- tion on curriculum considerations includes some curriculum principles that align with characteristics of gifted students. We then turn to not-uncommon attitudes and views of school board members and “other teachers,” with suggestions for promoting positive attitudes. Finally, active parents of gifted students sometimes differ strongly with their school district about what their gifted children need and deserve, and so we briefly address a new area in gifted education—recurrent legal issues and how to proceed with them.

Main CoMponents of prograM planning

There are four traditional components to planning any gifted program that may be elaborated as why, who, what, where, when, and how questions (e.g., Treffinger, 1986).

1. Why? Program philosophy and goals. A school gifted committee (consisting perhaps of several teachers; an administrator; a school counselor; one or more parents; and, in secondary programs, one or more students) consid- ers basic questions such as, What is our attitude toward gifted children? Why are we doing this? What are our goals and objectives? What do we wish to accomplish? Can we prepare a defensible statement of philosophy and goals?

figUre 4.1 Qualitative Differential Education for the Gifted (Q-DEG) Quiz. Source: From “What Makes a Problem Real: Stalking the Illusive Meaning of Qualitative Differences in Gifted Education” from Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 147–156 by Joseph S. Renzulli. Published by “National Association for Gifted Children” © 1982.

Yes No

1. Did every student do it? ____ ____

2. Should every student do it? ____ ____

3. Would every student want to do it? ____ ____

4. Could every student do it? ____ ____

5. Did the student do it willingly and with zest? ____ ____

6. Did the student use appropriate resources and methodology? ____ ____

7. Was the work directed toward having an impact upon an audience? ____ ____

72 Chapter 4

2. Who? Definition and identification. What exactly do we mean by “gifted and talented”? Who will the program be for? Which grades? Which students? What about minority representation? Gifted students with disabilities? How will we identify gifted students—that is, how will “gifted and tal- ented” be operationally defined in our school’s program?

3. What, where, and when? Instruction. Students: What are gifted students’ needs? How can we best meet these needs? Programs: What forms of grouping, accelera- tion, and enrichment should we use? What options do we have for our gifted program? Which options produce the best results? Which options are cost effective? Which pro- grams can be used within strict heterogeneous classes? Personnel: Who should be on the G/T committee? Who will design, coordinate, and oversee the program? Who will teach the students? What in-service training and site visits do we need for teachers of the gifted? For all teach- ers? Location: Where will we do this? In the regular class?

In special classes? At a district resource center? In a special school? Time considerations: When will the G/T services take place? When students finish regular assignments? When regular assignments are “compacted” to free up time for special projects? (See Chapter 7.) On Wednesday after- noon? All day, every day? After school? Saturdays? Sum- mers? When can we implement our plan? Can we formulate time lines? For identification? For initiating the instruc- tional program(s)?

4. How? Program evaluation. How will we evalu- ate gains in students’ knowledge and high-level cognitive skills? In student and parent satisfaction? How can we evaluate progress and make adjustments and improve- ments during the school year? At the end of the school year, how will we evaluate program success? How will we evaluate the effectiveness of each instructional activity and each of the component materials, lessons, and teaching/ learning activities and strategies? (See Box 4.1.)

BOX 4.1

Dear School People: What Are You Doing to Find and Develop My Child’s Talents?

Gifted education leader Donald Treffinger itemized the following “tough questions” that a thoughtful program planner should ponder:

1. How does my child learn best? How does your school program take into account students’ per- sonal characteristics and learning styles?

2. In what academic content area(s) or extracurricular area(s) does our child display strengths, talents, and special interests?

3. What provisions does your school make for our child’s strengths, talents, and special interests to be recognized, valued, and developed?

4. What provisions do you make to ensure that stu- dents receive instruction that is well suited to their real instructional needs?

5. What specific provisions are made for students to learn at their own rate or pace, rather than being limited to a rigidly prescribed, “lockstep” curriculum?

6. What resources and materials are available to expose students to the newest ideas and develop- ments in many fields, and to in-depth pursuit of their areas of special interest?

7. How do you provide students with access to and experiences with other students and adults who share their strengths, talents, and interests?

8. How do you use community resources and mentors to extend students’ learning in areas of special tal- ents and interests?

9. How do you help students to become aware of their own best talents and interests and to appreci- ate those of others?

10. How do you help students to consider future career possibilities and to cope with rapid change in our world?

11. What provisions are made for advanced content or courses for students whose achievement warrants them?

12. How are the students’ needs determined and reviewed?

13. What enrichment opportunities are offered that are not merely “busywork” or “more of the same” assignments?

14. How do teachers provide opportunities for students to learn and apply critical and creative thinking, problem solving, decision-making, and teamwork skills? How are these skills taught and used in classes, and through the curriculum?

15. What other activities or programs are offered that focus on these skills? (Future Problem Solving Pro- gram? Destination Imagination? Invention Conven- tions? Others?)

16. How do you help students learn to plan and investi- gate everyday (or real-world) problems, and to plan and conduct research, rather than relying on con- trived textbook exercises?

Program Planning 73

taBle 4.1 Sixteen Areas in Program Planning

1. Needs assessment

2. Preliminary staff education

3. Philosophy, rationale, goals, objectives, and a written program plan

4. Types of gifts and talents to be provided for, and estimated enrollment

5. Identification methods and specific criteria

6. Specific provisions for identifying underachieving, disabled, culturally different, and economically disadvantaged gifted students

7. Staff responsibilities and assignments

8. School psychologists, counselors, and other support services

9. Concerns about tracking and acceleration and enrichment plans

10. Organizational and administrative design

11. Transportation needs

12. Community resources: professionals and organizations

13. In-service workshops, training, and visits

14. Budgetary needs and allocations

15. Developing social capital: students who care

16. Program evaluation

prograM planning: sixteen areas

Sixteen problem areas in program planning relate to the four main components—program philosophy and goals, defini- tion and identification, instruction, and program evaluation— and to the why, who, what, where, when, and how questions. The 16 areas are not sequential in the one-at-a-time sense. Many will be dealt with simultaneously in planning a G/T program. Some areas are major ones, dealing, for example,

with whether there will be a program at all and, if so, the directions the program will take and the students who will be served. Other problem areas have fewer managerial and administrative matters necessary for smooth program opera- tion. As an overview, the problem areas are listed in Table 4.1. Another great resource for planning programs is Jeanne Purcell and Rebecca Eckert’s (2006) edited book, Designing Services and Programs for High-Ability Learners.

17. How do you help students create and share the prod- ucts or results of their projects and investigations?

18. What provisions do you make, or what support do you offer, to create opportunities for students to explore a variety of motivating and challenging top- ics outside the regular curriculum?

19. How do you help students learn to set goals, plan projects, locate and use resources, create products, and evaluate their work?

20. What provisions do you make to help students feel comfortable and confident in expressing and dealing with their personal and academic goals and concerns?

21. What specific steps do you take to ensure that learning is exciting and original, rather than boring and repetitious?

22. How do you ensure that students are challenged to work toward their full potential (“at the edge of

their ability”), rather than permitted to drift along comfortably (“on cruise control”)?

23. In what ways do faculty members inspire stu- dents to ask probing questions, examine many viewpoints, and use criteria to make and justify decisions?

24. How does the school program help students to learn social or interpersonal skills without sacrificing their individuality?

25. Have you asked me about my child and discussed the insights I have about his or her interests, activi- ties, experiences, relationships, and feelings about school and in areas outside the school day?

Source: From “Dear School People”. Published by “Center for Creative Learning” © 2004.

74 Chapter 4

1. needs assessment

A needs assessment aims at determining the discrepancy between the current status of gifted education in the school or district and the desired status. There are three excellent sources of information regarding school and district needs for a G/T program and specific student needs: parents of gifted and talented students, gifted students themselves, and teachers and administrators who have become gifted conscious.

First, many parents of gifted students have been frus- trated by and vocal about the lack of specific services for their children. Exasperated parents register these types of complaints: “My third-grade daughter has a Stanford– Binet IQ of 145, but the teacher says she can’t help because the superintendent is opposed to special programs for the ‘haves,’ and current rules do not permit skipping a grade.” “My son obviously is gifted and does wonderful and crea- tive things at home, but in school he has become bored and lazy, and I am afraid his talent and enthusiasm are going to waste.” “My daughter already knows everything that is being taught in her grade.” Parents of gifted students who recently graduated can also offer selfless insight into their children’s education experiences and how they might have been improved.

Second, many upper-elementary and older gifted students can explain their strong special interests. Their curiosity and high energy levels also may be visible. Would they like to learn advanced computer program- ming? Would they like a special Saturday science or drama class? Would they be able to handle math, reading, or social studies at a higher grade level? Would they like to spend time with a professional artist, executive, or medi- cal researcher? Would they be interested in a three-week summer education program at State University? You bet they would. Recent graduates from the school system also can provide insight into the educational experience they received and how it might have been improved to meet their needs.

Third, another confirmation of the need for G/T pro- gramming may come from teachers and administrators who attend conferences or take courses that address the characteristics, needs, and problems of gifted children. With their newly found awareness, they may take an enthu- siastic leadership role in helping document district needs and initiating programs for gifted students.

The need for a G/T program and specific student needs may be documented formally or informally, brief ly or extensively, depending on the size and formal- ity of the school district and the type and source of the available information or evidence. If a school board or district administration prefers a formal and objective

documentation of needs, a needs-assessment question- naire may be distributed to parents, teachers, and per- haps students. Such a questionnaire should include two main components: (1) perceptions of what needs should be met in the community and (2) opinions regarding the extent to which current school programs are meeting these needs. The questionnaire should quantify the desire for differentiated educational services, the preferred directions for the services, and the extent of support. One example of a needs-assessment questionnaire appears in Table 4.2.

Gifted children and parents of gifted children are minorities in the community, so one cannot expect landslide-majority support for such programs. Therefore, the criteria for deciding that programs are needed should be only “sufficient” support, not necessarily strong major- ity support.

After a need for special services is confirmed (for- mally or informally), a committee that comprises teachers, a school counselor or psychologist, administrators, par- ents, and business leaders can meet to discuss possible directions for gifted programs. The 15 areas listed in Table 4.2 may provide topics for discussion. Eventually, a formal steering committee will be organized—usually appointed by a district administrator or school principal and often by request of the board of education, parents, or a school superintendent—to make concrete plans with a definite timetable. In the elementary school, the steering committee might be composed of a district coordinator; teachers from the lower, middle, and upper grades; admin- istrators at the school and district levels; one or two school board members; the school librarian; a school psycholo- gist or counselor; parents; and business leaders. At the secondary level, it may be helpful to have some gifted sec- ondary students on the committee; they may be able to provide important insights into the kinds of challenges that, in their experience, have been effective, ineffective, or absent.

The steering committee role becomes advisory as the gifted program develops. “By establishing a gifted educa- tion advisory committee, school districts create program ownership, increase the likelihood that a program will be of high quality, and ensure program longevity” (Leppien & Westberg, 2004, p. 292).

If a program already exists and improvement is the goal, a needs assessment will consider whether there are any gaps in the program on the basis of what the current situation is, what is desired, and where the program should be some specific number of years from the present (VanTassel-Baska, 1988). Do the classroom teaching units, activities, and resources align with the districtwide planned objectives? If not, what can be adjusted?

Program Planning 75

taBle 4.2 Needs-Assessment Questionnaire

Rate the statements that follow in two ways. The first rating relates to the strength of a particular program as you see it in the school. The second rating refers to the way you think the program should be. Program need will be determined by subtracting Rating 1 (NOW) from Rating 2 (FUTURE). For programs that are presently weak but are determined to be strengthened, important preferences will be set as first priorities.

Rate 1 if you STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement.

Rate 2 if you DISAGREE SOMEWHAT with the statement.

Rate 3 if you are UNDECIDED as to whether you agree with the statement or not.

Rate 4 if you AGREE SOMEWHAT with the statement.

Rate 5 if you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement.

NOW FUTURE

1. In general, the needs of gifted children in the school district are being met.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

2. The attitude of most teachers toward the gifted child is positive and helpful.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

3. The program provides individualization of curriculum for gifted children.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

4. Special enrichment opportunities are provided for gifted children.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

5. Classes that teach creative and critical thinking are available.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

6. The school has appropriate guidelines for determining early entrance to kindergarten.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

7. The school has appropriate guidelines for determining subject or grade skipping.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

8. The school provides for the needs of the underachieving gifted child.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

9. The special social and emotional needs of gifted children are being addressed.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

10. The special needs of the highly creative child are being met.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

11. The school provides for the needs of gifted and talented girls.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

12. The school provides for the needs of gifted and talented underserved children (e.g., minority, poverty).

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

13. The school includes parents in the planning and guiding of gifted and talented children.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

14. Teacher-education opportunities in the area of gifted and talented are provided for the teaching staff.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

15. The administration supports education of the gifted and talented.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

76 Chapter 4

talented and endorses providing G/T services and programs. The state plan may further itemize specific objectives related to program development and usually itemizes training ser- vices and resources that may be applied to meet those objec- tives. State mandates vary from not requiring schools to identify gifted students to requiring schools to identify gifted students, but not requiring that those students receive ser- vices; to requiring schools to identify gifted and talented stu- dents and provide services for them. State plans should also include directives for early entrance to kindergarten and acceptable guidelines for grade skipping.

Many state and local education organizations spon- sor conferences and workshops usually led by experienced leaders in gifted education or related areas. For continuing education workshops at the school, chances are good that a nearby college or a state education office can suggest speakers to address specific topics in gifted education.

National and state conferences are immensely informative—for example, those sponsored by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), the Association for the Gifted within the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC-TAG), Supporting the Emotional Needs of the Gifted (SENG), the Davidson Institute for Talent Development (DITD), and state parent groups and state educational asso- ciations. Speakers at national and state conferences describe the workings of their programs; the pros and cons of their own identification, acceleration, and enrichment strategies; and how they coped with some of the same problems the reader will face. Several journals and magazines also are devoted to the education of gifted, talented, and creative students—the authors recommend, especially, Gifted Child Quarterly, Gifted Child Today, Roeper Review, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Journal of Advanced Academ- ics, and Gifted and Talented International Journal.

One highly enlightening staff activity is visiting schools with successful programs. By speaking directly with involved teachers, parents, and students, staff can get an inside look at how plans are implemented and how problems are resolved. Educators can also gain valuable insights into what works and what does not, and tips that will help avoid common pitfalls.

3. Philosophy, Rationale, Goals, Objectives, and a Written Program Plan

A brief statement of philosophy and goals is essential because everyone—parents, teachers, administrators, and members of the local school board—will want to know exactly what the program entails and why. The written phi- losophy and rationale, which should include the reasons for the program, is a position statement explaining why the program is necessary, plus general and, if desired,

2. Preliminary Staff Education

The goal of building a gifted education program cannot wait for several teachers and administrators to take one or two college courses in gifted education. Teachers must educate themselves and each other in the essential basics— preferably before they all make some uninformed assump- tions and mistakes.

Part of a preliminary education includes becoming acquainted with the present status of gifted education in the school, district, city, and even state. One might ask questions such as these:

1. What is being done at the present time? 2. What kinds of G/T services are needed? 3. Do other schools in the area have programs? What

exactly are they doing? 4. What do school board members and the district

superintendent think about special programs for gifted students?

5. Do existing district policies allow students to enter kindergarten early? Skip a grade? Accelerate in a subject? What screening procedures are in effect? What are the criteria?

6. Is there a written district policy on the gifted and talented? A district G/T coordinator? A state G/T director?

7. What exactly does the state legislation on educating gifted children say?

8. Are other teachers interested and supportive? Are they willing to assume responsibility for the work? Is the principal enthusiastic? What about the district superintendent?

9. Can high school students take college courses in per- son or by using technology? Are Advanced Placement courses available? Are International Baccalaureate programs (described briefly in Chapter 5) an option?

10. Are parents or parent groups becoming restless about their ignored children?

Some of these questions can be answered with a few e-mails. Others will require lengthier exploration and deeper thought.

People seriously interested in gifted education must acquaint themselves with any written district policies or position statements. They should read any state legislation and state plan on behalf of gifted students. Most state legis- lation, at the very least, (1) defines gifted and talented; (2) endorses the concept of differentiated educational experi- ences; and (3) sometimes (but not always) allocates funds for developing and maintaining programs. A state plan, which is formally accepted by the superintendent and/or the state board of education, also defines gifted and

Program Planning 77

specific program objectives. The process of writing this statement is not one that should be taken lightly. The phi- losophy, rationale, goals, and objectives determine the type of program that will be implemented, which will govern how students will be identified and served, the type of ser- vices they will receive, and what outcomes will indicate success. Internal consistency mandates that students receive the types of services for which they were identified.

A sample of the possible contents of a philosophy and goals statement appears in Appendix 4.1 at the end of this chapter. Read it now. Also, a state plan, if one exists, undoubtedly includes a statement of philosophy and objec- tives that can be modified to fit a specific program.

If a statement of philosophy and goals is expanded, it can serve as a written plan for a program. A written pro- gram plan should present sufficient detail to answer any question that anyone could ask about a proposed program. The written plan usually is built around the following items:

1. A definition of gifts and talents. For example, a fed- eral or state definition often is used.

2. Philosophy and goals. This section explains why a program is necessary. Itemizing the cognitive and affective goals can be brief and general, or more lengthy and specific.

3. Screening and identification methods. This section describes the information used—test scores, grades, teacher nominations, teacher ratings, self-nominations, and so on—and how the various sources of informa- tion will be combined in making selection decisions. This includes what talent areas will be served. The identification section should also comment on provi- sions for identifying culturally different, economically disadvantaged, underachieving, and gifted students with disabilities. Selection information will be scruti- nized by everyone reading the plan, especially any state or federal funding agency. Being general, rather than specific, allows for f lexibility and change in the future.

4. Instructional programming strategies. This section outlines the curriculum model (if any) on which the program is built. Also included are the specific grouping, acceleration, and enrichment plans, along with the necessary organizational changes, subject areas of concentration and planned activities, and the use of community resources (e.g., universities, museums, and businesses for visitations, and profes- sionals who can serve as mentors).

5. Program evaluation and modification. This section outlines specific evaluation plans, both of the forma- tive type, which provide continuous feedback regard- ing the ongoing methods and activities, and the final

summative, did-we-succeed type at the end of the unit, the semester, or most likely the year.

A written program plan may deal with any of the 16 points discussed in this section and itemized in Table 4.1. As stated earlier, the program plan must have internal consist- ency among the goals and the identification system, student services, and assessment and evaluation components.

4. Types of Gifts and Talents to Provide for, and Estimated Enrollment

The problem of specifying types of gifts and talents to be accommodated is intimately related to the identification problem—defining who will be in the program—and it ties directly to proposed program plans. Some relevant ques- tions and considerations are, Will the program serve only bright, intellectually gifted students? Or will a multidimen- sional definition of gifts and talents be used, providing spe- cial opportunities to students with specific academic talents, scientific talents, creative talents, communication (speak- ing, writing) talents, artistic and musical talents, and others?

As for the size of the gifted population, Stanley’s original Studies of Mathematically Precocious Youth pro- gram catered to students in the top 1% in math ability (see, e.g., Benbow & Lubinski, 1997). In contrast, Renzulli and Reis’s (1997, 2003) popular Schoolwide Enrichment Model identifies 15% to 20% of the school population for a talent pool. These students individually revolve in and out of a resource room to work on special projects. A com- mon size for a single pullout or other special class is about 5% of the school population, although James Gallagher (personal communication, May 11, 2009) has suggested that 10% might be a more viable percentage (see Box 4.2).

If grade skipping, taking advanced classes, or some other acceleration strategy is to be part of the plan, then fixing a number or percentage of “in” students is not as sensible as setting criteria that can qualify any number of students for the acceleration. For example, standardized achievement test scores, probably already on file, are one good basis for decision making. But be warned: Due to random score variability, a single cutoff score should never be used rigidly to exclude students who are close to the magical cutoff number. Selection should be f lexible and include subjective judgments as well as test scores. Multi- ple criteria are the key here.

5. Identification Methods and Specific Criteria

Issues and methods related to identifying gifted and tal- ented students are sufficiently complex to merit a chapter of their own: Chapter 3—a highly condensed one at that. Here, we will simply repeat a few basic considerations:

78 Chapter 4

BOX 4.2

Gifted Students Who Require a Differentiated Education

extremely gifted Motivated (approximately 0.1%–0.2%) These students are outstanding and need an individual pro- gram to meet their needs. Finding this level of talent is rare.

gifted Motivated (approximately 2%–3%) These students need advanced curriculum work and special initiatives in problem solving, problem finding, and creativity.

High potential, low environment (approximately 2%–3%) These students have missed early experiences desig- nated to stimulate their abilities. Their program should

feature self-awareness of talents, focus on ways to access knowledge, and offer practice in problem solving. These individuals need encouragement and opportunities to use and develop their special talents.

High potential, low Motivation (approximately 2%) These students should receive a program with a heavy emphasis on counseling and self-awareness, as well as training in learning skills. Past work with underachievers has underestimated the time and effort needed to help these students.

1. Identification methods must be consistent with one’s definition of gifted and talented students. Unfortu- nately, it is common for a stated plan to endorse the federal multiple-talent definition but then use only IQ scores for the actual selection procedure. Note that the identification methods define exactly who is deemed gifted and talented for any given program.

2. Identification methods must be coordinated with the type of program(s) one plans to implement. For example, intelligence-test scores, reading and math abilities, and teacher nominations might be appropriate for selecting stu- dents for grade skipping. Math and science ability would be critical for participation in an accelerated math or science program, or a science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) specialty school. If a program accommodates many types of gifts and talents, a variety of ability, achievement, creativity, and interest information would be appropriate— again, including both test scores and subjective evidence.

3. Identification methods must be defensible to the community. Parents will ask why one child was selected for a program whereas another (theirs) was not. Selection decisions must be clearly justifiable. Some identification methods are intelligence tests; standardized achievement tests (particularly reading and math); creativity tests and inventories; inventories assessing interests, hobbies, special needs, and past special opportunities; teacher ratings of various characteristics (for example, academic talent, abstract thinking, creativity, motivation, leadership, organizing ability, and visual or performing arts talents); parent ratings and inventories; peer ratings of various char- acteristics; self-ratings; and work samples and products (for example, in art, music, or science). Advantages of the talent pool approach, mentioned earlier in this chapter, are

that larger numbers of students can be included, selection and admission to the program are flexible, and complaints about exclusiveness and elitism are reduced.

6. specific provisions for identifying Underachieving, Disabled, Culturally Different, and economically Disadvantaged gifted students

As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, males and females must be fairly represented, as should economi- cally disadvantaged and minority students, and students with physical handicaps and learning disabilities. The problem is not that these students have no gifts and talents; rather, educators too often do not look to these populations for G/T students.

Identification measures themselves tend not to iden- tify culturally different and minority students. As Richert observed, “The more measures that are used and combined inappropriately, the more likely it becomes that disadvan- taged students (poor, minority, creative, and others) . . . will be excluded” (2003, p. 149). Efforts to represent all student groups in the G/T program are essential.

Gifted underachievers may be even less visible than gifted minority students, lower-income students, or students with disabilities. The undeveloped talent of underachieving students is a personal crisis for them and a lost natural resource for humankind. More than one underachieving gifted student has become motivated toward higher educa- tion and career achievement by the specific attention of teachers in gifted programs, by individual and family ther- apy, and ironically by acceleration or by special opportuni- ties such as Future Problem Solving, described in Chapter 6 (Rimm, 2008b; Rimm & Lovance, 1992a, 1992b).

Program Planning 79

recommendations—for example, by stressing social adjust- ment and conformity instead of achievement and uniqueness.

A counselor or psychologist acquainted with the field of gifted education probably understands recurrent emotional as well as intellectual characteristics of gifted students; is sen- sitive to value conflicts of poor and minority students (e.g., high education and professional aspirations that alienate friends and parents); assists the gifted student with academic progress; has an understanding of twice-exceptionalities; and, when appropriate, communicates a gifted student’s problems and needs to other school staff (Colangelo, 2003; Landrum, 1987; Peterson, 2009; Pfeifer, 2008; Rimm, 2008b; VanTas- sel-Baska, 1983b; VanTassel-Baska, Cross, & Olenchak, 2000; Rimm, Rimm-Kaufman, & Rimm, 2014).

In private sessions, counselors can help gifted stu- dents, for example, (1) understand differences and similar- ities between themselves and others, (2) learn to get along with others, (3) understand their abilities, (4) understand that they may not be superior in everything, (5) develop good self-concepts, (6) help them to cope with highly com- petitive feelings, (7) set realistic goals, and (8) become self-directed and responsible for their behavior. At the sec- ondary level, counselors can address career interests and prerequisite education needs and deal with multipotential- ity, the tendency for some gifted students to have many career interests and matching strong abilities.

Counseling with groups of gifted students can aid self-awareness and self-concepts, for example, with dis- cussion questions such as, “How is being gifted an advan- tage for you? How is it a disadvantage?” (Colangelo, 2003, p. 378). There are proactive, reactive, and integrated ways to address the social and emotional concerns of gifted children (Peterson, 2009). Proactive measures include activities to promote social and emotional health and enhance personal development of G/T students. Reac- tive measures address specific concerns that are interfer- ing with learning, social functioning, and emotional health. Finally, the integrated approach focuses on the affective dimension as part of regular gifted education program activities and experiences. (Chapter 17 is devoted entirely to understanding and counseling gifted students.)

Planning a gifted program frequently involves a series of consultants such as state or district coordinators, university instructors with relevant experience or knowl- edge, professional G/T consultants or workshop leaders, or experienced teacher-coordinators from other locations. These consultants can present workshops for the entire school staff, perhaps dealing with methods of identifica- tion, alternative instructional models and strategies, pro- gram evaluation methods, problems specific to gifted girls or boys, or other topics. Particularly, some G/T teachers might describe in colorful detail the workings and prob- lems of their own successful programs.

7. staff responsibilities and assignments

There is a large difference between the passive acceptance or even hearty endorsement of a new gifted program and the willingness to roll up one’s sleeves and do the work. It is an essential, preliminary problem to decide just who will assume responsibility for what and when.

It is not unusual to include some accountability checks, such as setting deadlines for obtaining informa- tion, preparing reports, purchasing tests or materials, con- ferring with administrators, and so forth. Scheduled weekly or biweekly meetings also have the effect of establishing accountability—getting things done.

8. school psychologists, Counselors, and other support services

A successful program for gifted and talented students involves experts and professionals beyond the immediate teaching staff. The school psychologist, counselors, the district or state coordinator, and outside consultants all play important roles.

Few school psychologists have taken coursework in gifted education. If the school psychologist is not an expert in G/T education (some are; some are not), his or her main contribution probably will be the administration and inter- pretation of tests. Individual intelligence tests—mainly, the Stanford–Binet (5th ed.) and the WISC-IV or WISC-V— require a trained administrator. The psychologist also might administer individual achievement tests and interpret inter- est or personality inventories, to help secondary students better understand themselves, their possible career direc- tions, and the preparation necessary for education toward various career alternatives. The school psychologist also might supervise the administration of group achievement or group intelligence tests. In addition, many school psycholo- gists can work with underachieving gifted students and their parents or with gifted students with other problems.

School counselors and psychologists also may or may not have expertise in gifted education. If they do not, the elementary school counselor will be involved in helping stu- dents cope with academic difficulties and with personal problems. The counselor also can help educate parents of gifted children regarding the child’s particular talents, aca- demic strengths and weaknesses, and personal difficulties. They can help specify the parents’ important role; for exam- ple, the counselor can recommend that the child participate in the school’s gifted program (many parents are reluctant) and that the child attend valuable summer programs in sub- jects such as science, art, music, language, or computer camps and workshops. It is important that counselors learn about the characteristics and special social-emotional needs  of gifted children. Without such additional back- ground, they may make shortsighted and inappropriate

80 Chapter 4

goals change. Conversely, once students are on a certain track, there often is little movement to different tracks dur- ing the year or from year to year.

In a survey of education policy makers, Subotnik (1998) discovered that several antigrouping leaders were strongly in favor of providing a suitable education for gifted students; they just didn’t like visible grouping arrangements—such as special classes and pullout pro- grams—that announce to everyone, “I’m gifted, but you’re not” and “They’re gifted, but, gosh darn, I guess I’m not!” Because the detracking, antigrouping education reform movement has dwindled, it may or may not complicate planning for gifted students. However, one program con- sideration is whether a gifted program can take the form of a grouping plan, or whether enrichment and acceleration must take place in the individual, mixed-ability classroom. See Box 4.3 for a description of a successful school plan for accelerating and enriching gifted students in a regular, mixed-ability classroom.

Issues, details, and recommendations regarding acceleration (for example, grade skipping, advanced classes) and enrichment (for example, resource room or Saturday programs) are elaborated in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. For now, we will emphasize that specific instruc- tional plans must be designed to produce sensible, defensible, and valuable educational benefits. Whereas this recommendation may sound obvious and trivial, as Renzulli and his colleagues (e.g., Renzulli, 1994; Renzulli & Reis, 2014) have repeated, far too many pro- grams entertain the children with fun-and-games time fillers and interest getters, with little attention to worth- while theory-based goals. For inspiration regarding val- uable goals and activities, review the philosophy and goals ideas in Appendix 4.1 and in Table 5.1, Curricu- lum for the Gifted, in Chapter 5. Aligning specific class- room activities with higher-level program goals—scope and sequence concerns—will be reemphasized later in this chapter. Some examples of high-level goals that guide specific acceleration and enrichment plans are

The school also may work with consultants on a one- to-one basis, outlining strategies for

●● Obtaining funds ●● Preparing written statements ●● Selecting goals and objectives ●● Designing relevant acceleration and enrichment

activities ●● Installing a particular program model ●● Selecting or creating nomination forms, rating

forms, or questionnaires for identification ●● Ensuring proper representation of different student

groups ●● Designing program evaluation procedures ●● Selecting or creating instruments for program

evaluation ●● Promoting good public relations

9. Concerns about tracking and acceleration and enrichment plans

In 1985, Jeannie Oakes raised concerns about tracking with her inf luential book, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. Karen Rogers noted

. . . [T]racking as described by Oakes in 1985 had little to do with educating gifted and tal- ented children. Gifted children, in fact, were found at all levels. If they were achieving at high levels, they might be placed in the top track (and a lot of them were), but if they were under- achieving, they could easily have been found in the middle or lower tracks, depending on how severe their underachievement (2002, p. 210).

Do not confuse the terms grouping and tracking; they are not the same (Fiedler & Lange, 1993). Grouping often involves f lexible groups where students are placed together for common instructions. The groups can be re- formed as student needs change and as the instructional

BOX 4.3

Program Planning in Heterogeneous Classes: The Mustard Seed Project

Responding to reform trends toward heterogeneous grouping, the Mustard Seed Project (Johnsen, Haens- ley, Ryser, & Ford, 2002) was a two-year effort to train teachers to differentiate curricula for gifted students (many of whom were poor) in the regular classroom in mostly rural schools. The project included eight ele- mentary schools and 17 “mentor teachers,” who were

trained by project staff to teach and guide 74 “cohort teachers.” Twenty-two training units included topics such as learner differences, differentiated curriculum, assessment, managing the learning environment, learning strategies, teacher facilitation, acceleration, mentoring, peer coaching, collaboration, support, and change.

Program Planning 81

●● High achievement ●● Advanced academic skills and content ●● Complex, abstract, theoretical thinking ●● Creative, critical, evaluative thinking ●● Other thinking skills ●● Scientific research skills ●● Library and Internet research skills ●● Computer research skills ●● Communication (speaking, writing) skills, including

creative writing ●● Career-related content ●● College-preparatory content ●● Self-awareness, affective, and humanistic principles

Chapter 5 will elaborate on acceleration options and curriculum models outlined in Chapter 7 and can serve as the basis for planning specific acceleration and enrichment activities.

10. organizational and administrative Design

Most G/T plans require some administrative reshuffling of the school organization and budget to provide the time, space, facilities, and in-service training necessary to coordi- nate the G/T activities with the rest of the school schedule. If the program is districtwide or citywide, the planning takes place partly, though not entirely, at these higher levels. In addition, any program for gifted and talented students requires considerable record keeping by those directly involved—particularly, the teacher or teacher-coordinator, although secretaries can carry some of the burden.

For example, acceleration plans as straightforward as grade skipping or taking college or correspondence courses require that new types of records be created and that student progress be monitored. A more complicated acceleration plan such as telescoping (for example, con- densing three years of math or science into two) requires

Program planning considerations were as follows: (1) The project involved important stakeholders; thus, the team at each school included the principal; the mentor teacher; between 5 and 14 cohort teachers; two com- munity representatives (always parent volunteers who had a child in the school); and, of course, project staff. (2) Mentor and cohort teachers were enthusiastic volun- teers who wanted to accommodate different student interests, learning styles, and rates of learning. (3) The teachers possessed a “people orientation,” good com- munication skills, confidence and flexibility, a love of learning, a sense of humor, and a commitment to project ideas and goals. (4) The professional development pro- gram itself included exposure to various G/T learning strategies (e.g., teacher-directed instruction, games, self- paced instruction, reading, audiovisual instruction, role playing, and problem solving) so that teachers could learn by doing. (5) To accommodate the teachers’ own styles and preferences, they had a choice of the types (and degrees) of changes they would use in their own classrooms. (6) The principal supplied essential financial support—for example, for staff development activities requiring substitute teachers, for preparation time, and for teaching materials.

The training and desired teaching changes fell into four categories. First, changes in content might include, for example, teaching for creativity and think- ing skills, integrating multiple disciplines, focusing on broad themes and authentic methods, or even allowing students to select content on the basis of interests and ability levels. Second, changes in rate might include allowing early finishers to work on a related learning task, testing for content mastery at various times, and/ or providing in-depth study (acceleration, enrichment).

Third, environment changes could include allowing stu- dent interaction (so that they could learn from each other), providing learning centers, and even letting stu- dents use the community as a “learning center.” The fourth type of desired change was in preference, in which teachers provided various learning tasks and allowed students to choose how to respond, or even allowed students to choose both the learning task and the mode of response.

Almost all teachers made changes favoring the edu- cation of able students. Although teachers made changes in all four areas just described, most changes were in pref- erence and environment. The teachers moved from tightly teacher-controlled classes (some with desks in rows and columns) with no provisions for the gifted, to provide acceleration, enrichment, and self-selected in-depth stud- ies for capable students. Most teachers created learning centers.

Some important factors that contributed to posi- tive change included the staff development activities (summer and school year), clear vision and leadership by Mustard Seed staff, positive attitudes—even excitement—by teachers and principals, teachers’ free- dom to choose goals (degrees and types of changes), and mutual support among teachers (who served as models for each other).

Some negative factors included nonproject teachers who resented changes made by others, and rigid and unsupportive central office administrators. Teachers reported that change was inhibited by current school organization (departmentalization), lack of resources, lack of time, unsupportive coworkers, and weak administrative support (e.g., by incoming principals and superintendents who were not originally involved in the project).

82 Chapter 4

the values, attitudes, skills, job requirements, and knowl- edge of daily routines and lifestyles acquired by gifted stu- dents in such a personal educational experience.

Whereas mentoring plans are used almost entirely at the secondary level, community resources for field trips and career education are useful with any age group. Some possibilities for field trips are art galleries and museums; university art, science, and engineering laboratories; police and government facilities; manufacturing plants; and so forth. Engineering and computer departments enjoy show- ing off their latest robots.

Do not forget that all students—not just the gifted— profit from field trips, in increased knowledge, better school attitudes, and perhaps raised aspirations.

Capitalizing on community resources for career edu- cation also can involve inviting professionals to make pres- entations to the class as a whole—that is, to all students. If a field trip or class presentation is not relevant to the needs of all students, small groups or even individuals can visit with a professional and receive a guided tour of his or her organization. To ensure an educational benefit, the plans for such a trip must include specific questions to be answered. Follow-up activities can include discussions and/or the preparation of written or oral reports on the experience.

13. in-service Workshops, training, and Visits

Initially, workshops should be conducted at an awareness level. Introductory exposures should (1) attempt to improve attitudes of teachers who believe that gifted children do not require special services, and (2) heighten the interest and commitment of all teachers and staff. Some good aware- ness topics are characteristics and needs of gifted students, general approaches—programs and strategies—designed to meet these needs, and how G/T activities are related to other aspects of the curriculum.

Next in order should be school training dealing with the identification of gifted children and the teacher’s role in this process. A good understanding of the selection tests, criteria, and weighting procedures—and the role of subjec- tive judgment—may prevent problems later. For example, teachers should understand why Johnny, a highly creative B student, might be included in the program even if his tested IQ is not over 125.

The choice of other topics varies according to the direction of the G/T program. If acceleration strategies are planned, teachers must understand both the reasons behind these strategies and the specific procedures for conducting the acceleration. If a pullout enrichment program is used, all teachers should understand the curriculum of that program and how they can help their own students’ partici- pation. They also must help resolve a traditional dilemma:

not only a teacher, a classroom, and a time slot but also complete coordination with the rest of the school course offerings and organization, along with keeping records of student participation and success.

Enrichment plans also require attention to organiza- tional and administrative matters. A Wednesday pullout pro- gram requires, at the very least, a teacher-coordinator and a resource room, plus miscellaneous supplies and equipment, such as resource books, workbooks, chemistry and biology supplies, calculators, computers, art supplies, perhaps a digi- tal camera and recorder, and so forth. Other enrichment plans, such as Saturday classes, extra classes, field trips, and mentoring programs, also require attention to organizational, administrative, and managerial matters of staff, space, sched- uling, budget, transportation, materials, and record keeping.

If a plan is districtwide, citywide, or statewide, particu- larly when special schools for the gifted and talented are cre- ated on Saturday or summer programs are planned, the organizational and administrative planning clearly is more involved. It is not unusual for large metropolitan areas to have several full-time G/T personnel in the central office to help plan and manage citywide programs. Regardless of the size and type of program, however, a local school staff member must be designated as having administrative responsibility for the G/T program in that school. A designated responsible person—at whose desk the buck stops—is essential.

11. transportation needs

Transportation plans may be simple and relatively minor, but they cannot be ignored. Transportation problems and costs must be considered for students who attend special schools, take college courses, or travel to schools with special resource-room programs. Transportation must also be con- sidered for field trips, mentoring programs, after-school pro- jects and clubs, summer programs, and Saturday programs.

12. Community resources: professionals and organizations

Community resources—namely, professional people and organizations—are invaluable in at least three types of instructional plans and programs for the gifted: mentoring plans, enrichment-oriented field trips, and career education. At either the elementary or secondary level, potentially valu- able community resources should be reviewed and itemized.

The nature and diversity of gifted and talented stu- dents’ abilities and interests often require resources beyond the confines of their school (Siegle, McCoach, & Wilson, 2009). Mentoring plans involve the placing of gifted stu- dents with a community professional, usually for a few hours each week. The professional could be from any area of the arts, science, or business. There is no substitute for

Program Planning 83

the extent to which their students are expected to make up work missed while they are in the resource room.

The standards adopted for teacher preparation that were jointly developed by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) and the Council for Exceptional Children–The Association for the Gifted (CEC-TAG) pro- vide a research-based framework for professional develop- ment (Kitano, Montgomery, VanTassel-Baska, & Johnsen, 2008). An overview of these standards is presented in Appen- dix 4.2. NAGC is currently aligning its pre-K through grade 12 gifted program standards (Landrum, Callahan, & Shak- lee, 2001) to the standards summarized in Appendix 4.2.

Some additional important in-service topics are

●● Identifying and teaching poor, minority, economi- cally disadvantaged, and underachieving gifted students

●● Program goals and objectives, and coordinating classroom activities to meet these goals

●● Program models and prototypes ●● Role expectations of school staff ●● Instructional strategies and teaching skills in specific

content areas and with particular age groups ●● Understanding and teaching creative students ●● Helping students understand and cope successfully

with competition ●● Strategies and materials for teaching creativity and

thinking skills to gifted students and all students ●● Counseling needs of gifted children and adolescents ●● Understanding and coping with perfectionism

in students ●● Evaluating the gifted program and making changes

and modifications ●● The detracking, antiability grouping movement

and the critical need to group gifted students (Kulik, 2003)

●● Cooperative learning and gifted students (Robinson, 2003)

●● Parent–school relationships

From a survey, Tomlinson (1986) found that teachers were most interested in obtaining information concerning methods and techniques for use with gifted students at their particular grade level and/or in their subject area. In addition, teachers strongly preferred group participation and hands-on experience—working through types of activ- ities that could be used immediately with their gifted students—to lecture-only approaches. Educators, like their students, benefit from being actively involved in their learning (Gubbins, 2008).

As noted in Item 2, an excellent source of inspiration for planning or improving a G/T program is visiting other successful programs. It is best to visit several types of

programs, which may include special schools for gifted and talented students, and schools that have resource-room or pullout programs, special classes, Saturday programs, men- toring plans, telescoping plans, or whatever else you might be considering for your own school. Do not be surprised if the visits help you decide what not to do. You can speak with teachers regarding matters such as the following:

●● What they are doing and how they are doing it? ●● Who are the target students and how were they

identified? ●● What, specifically, are the students supposed to get

out of the program (goals and objectives)? ●● What are the teachers’ perceptions (and evidence) of

the success of their program? ●● What difficulties have teachers experienced and how

were the issues resolved? ●● What sorts of resistance have they encountered

from other teachers, administrators, parents, or the community?

You might also speak with the gifted and talented students in various types of programs. How do they like school? Do they like the program? What are their prob- lems? How could the program be improved? The parents of these students can also provide valuable perspectives.

The ultimate community resource is exemplified by Menlo Park Academy, a community charter school for gifted children in Ohio. In 2007, a small group of parents were concerned about their gifted children and formed their own K–6 school with 36 students. By 2015, the school had expanded to include K–8, with approximately 400 students from 40 school districts. It is the only tuition- free public school for gifted learners in Ohio. For more details, visit menloparkacademy.com.

14. Budgetary needs and allocations

Many programs operate on a shoestring, using part of the regular school budget to purchase special workbooks, art supplies, or other inexpensive items. It can be done; how- ever, to plan a proper program, one should consider expenses related to some or all of the following:

●● A full-time or part-time teacher/coordinator—or several, in a larger district

●● Physical facilities ●● Texts and workbooks ●● Special equipment and supplies ●● Computers ●● Transportation costs ●● Costs associated with student participation in special

programs such as Odyssey of the Mind ●● Tests and inventories

84 Chapter 4

●● Secretarial services ●● Office supplies ●● Copying expenses ●● Consultant and in-service training expenses ●● Travel to visit other programs ●● Travel to state and national conferences ●● Services of psychologists and counselors ●● Evaluation expenses (a consultant; purchasing or

constructing tests, rating scales, or questionnaires)

Budgetary matters must be considered at the time you are planning the various identification strategies, weighing instructional program alternatives, and collecting needed evaluation data. From the outset, you should be concerned with cost-benefit matters. Some programs clearly cost more than others, and priorities may have to be modified in light of the available dollars. However, with creative cost cutting, many goals can be achieved relatively economically, with- out a large loss in interest value or educational benefit.

One happy acceleration idea is that grade accelera- tion costs nothing, beyond paperwork. Grade skipping can provide a more suitable academic challenge for the stu- dent, with the benefit of associating with peers who are closer in intellectual ability. (Criteria for selecting students for grade skipping are discussed in Chapter 5). Full-time gifted classrooms can also be an economic option because teachers can be reassigned to them, provided that they are qualified and have adequate interest and training in gifted education.

Finally, a search for federal, state, or private funding is worthwhile. Even though funding may be scarce for a program designated simply for gifted and talented stu- dents, requesting funds for a specific category of persons or subject matter—such as disabled or minority gifted, computer literacy, math and science, or arts and humani- ties—can improve one’s chances for an award or grant. Local service organizations, medical and health organiza- tions, or local businesses or industries may be willing to provide small amounts of designated funding. Usually, a newspaper story or other publicity can be arranged to reward such contributions. Note too that chances for a financial commitment by the school district can be improved if administrators recognize that funds from other, outside sources are also forthcoming.

Funding is a key factor for program success. Purcell (1995) found that two key factors support gifted program survival: (1) good state “economic health,” plus state man- dates for gifted education; and (2) enthusiastic support for gifted education by teachers, the principal, and, it would be hoped, the district superintendent. Without strong support at the state, school administration, and teacher levels, a sound gifted program is unlikely to materialize and sur- vive, despite protests by the parents of bright students.

15. Developing social Capital: students Who Care

Renzulli argued strongly that gifted education should do more than help bright students become educated, profes- sionally successful, and financially comfortable. Rather, gifted education should include the development of social capital: “intangible assets that address the collective needs and problems of others” (2003, p. 77). Both the economic and the social capital of a nation “can result in greater prosperity and physical and mental health as well as a soci- ety that honors freedom, happiness, justice, civic participa- tion, and the dignity of a diverse population” (Renzulli, 2003, p. 77). Program planning for gifted students, then, should include (1) raising students’ awareness that they can and should develop positive attitudes toward human concerns, preferably by involving the students with socially relevant activities; and (2) training in leadership, which underlies a willingness to take action. Renzulli’s Operation Houndstooth (Renzulli & Sytsma Reed, 2008) focuses on developing the six characteristics of optimism, moral cour- age and integrity, a passion for a topic or discipline, sensi- tivity to human concerns (empathy, insight), physical/ mental energy (charisma, curiosity), and vision/sense of destiny. He recommends that we promote these capabili- ties and virtues, which aim at replacing self-interest and consumerism with a social conscience—and the sooner the better. (Social capital and character education are dis- cussed further in Chapter 11.)

16. program evaluation

The evaluation of gifted programs is an important and com- plex topic that will be discussed in Chapter 18. For now, the reader should keep in mind that good evaluation informa- tion about gifted programs has a direct bearing on (1) the survival and continuation of the program, (2) the continua- tion or improvement of budgetary allocations, and (3) the modification and improvement of the program. Evaluation is indeed important and should be part of the program plan- ning from the beginning. Every aspect of the program—the staff; the materials; the identification procedures; the accel- eration, enrichment, and grouping activities; and each and every goal and objective—can be evaluated regarding its effectiveness in contributing to program success.

As mentioned in Item 3, evaluation is of two types— first, a formative, ongoing process aimed at continuous modification and improvement of the program; second, a summative, final assessment of the overall success of the program. Both are necessary. Evaluation can be aimed at determining how well students’ needs and goals are met; sometimes, evaluation is also directed at assessing how well the program plan is carried out.

Program Planning 85

In a thought-provoking article, Borland (2003) rec- ommended a broader view of program evaluation. He rec- ommended that we evaluate not only the program’s success but also its effects on factors and stakeholders external to the program, namely, other students, other teachers, the school district, and the larger community. We should also evaluate budgetary effects on other programs caused by the G/T program.

tHe VieW froM tHe sCHool BoarD

The main function of the district school board is to help set policy governing both school administration and school pro- grams. Because board members are either elected directly by the community or appointed by elected officials, they are accountable to the public. Whether or not school board members support gifted education, therefore, may be a polit- ical question (“What will my constituency think?”) as well as an education issue. The scope of a gifted program—the grades served, categories of gifted children, diversity of pro- gram activities, and the types of support services—is affected by the support and funding of school board members.

Programs for gifted and talented students, by defini- tion, are directed at a minority of children and adolescents. Therefore, teachers and parents must convince board members that, even though gifted children are a minority, their education needs are genuine. How can educators and parents encourage board members to maintain a quality gifted program in a school district? The following subsec- tions provide some suggestions for fostering support.

K e e p B o a r D M e M B e r s e D U C a t e D a n D aWare Before board members voted for that gifted pro- gram, parents probably attended meetings and, in a posi- tive way, showed interest in gifted education. When the G/T program is in place, that communication process must

continue. Teachers or coordinators may make yearly pres- entations on program progress. If an oral presentation is not feasible, a short written report is helpful.

Keep BoarD MeMBers inVolVeD One or two board members should be included on each district or school G/T steering committee. Board members can be invited to in-service meetings, parent meetings, or student perfor- mances and shows. They may also be invited to speak at local or state parent meetings or other educational meetings. They may serve as mentors or instructors for a Saturday class program.

Help BoarD MeMBers to Be aCCoUntaBle For board members to justify continued support and funding for gifted programs, they absolutely must be assured that the program is achieving its objectives. Therefore, educa- tors must keep board members informed of the effective- ness and accomplishments of the G/T program.

There also may be pressure on board members to jump on the detracking bandwagon and, in the process, eliminate not only grouping opportunities for gifted stu- dents but also the gifted program itself. They must be reminded that the issues are separate—that tracking plans can be changed (if necessary) without trashing G/T pro- grams and that the very real academic, social, and personal needs of the gifted require grouping.

enCoUrage sCHool BoarDs to HaVe a Written poliCy Board policy is a formalization of philosophy and should be incorporated into a formal policy manual. The written policy becomes the basis by which the school administration and teaching staff can justify decisions favorable to gifted education. An example of a written school board policy is shown in Box 4.4.

BOX 4.4

A Sample School Board Policy

The board of education and professional staff members are dedicated to developing a comprehensive program for the identification and education of the gifted and talented child. Empathy and understanding are of paramount importance for all personnel having contact with such a child and are basic to achievement of the district goals.

The gifted and talented child is an individual who, by virtue of outstanding abilities, is capable of high perfor- mance. This child possesses demonstrated or potential intellectual or specific academic abilities, leadership

capabilities, creativity, or talent in the performing or visual arts. This child may need educational services beyond those being provided by the regular school program in order to realize his or her potential.

To provide a comprehensive program for the gifted and talented child, the board recognizes the following:

1. Early identification of the gifted and talented child is necessary to maximize the opportunities for the child’s own self-realization. This shall be accom- plished through the application of several criteria.

(continued)

86 Chapter 4

Be patient, BUt not too patient Board members need time to gather support and plan resources for a com- prehensive gifted program. In addition, it is logical that they must view the gifted program in relation to the total needs of the district. At the same time, however, parents and educators must not permit board members to forget or indefinitely to postpone the needs of gifted children, regard- less of the stresses of education problems and too-small budgets.

reMeMBer tHat all BoarD MeMBers sHoUlD Be enCoUrageD to sUpport gifteD eDUCation On any school board there will always be a variety of viewpoints on gifted education. Some members will be active support- ers, and it may be tempting to believe that they alone can keep programs going. It is also necessary, however, to focus one’s attention on those less-willing potential sup- porters, those who require further convincing. Note their doubts and questions and make a special effort to give them personally the information they need to convince them that gifted education truly is legitimate, important, and a widespread national—even international—move- ment. Even if they cannot be converted into strong support- ers, the strength of their opposition might at least be reduced.

Help BoarD MeMBers Be ansWeraBle to tHeir pUB- liC Board members will be asked by constituents why they support gifted education. They also will be given rea- sons why they should not help gifted students (e.g., “They don’t need help!”). In raising their awareness of the needs of the gifted, give board members the information they

require to justify to their constituents the existence and funding of special programs for the gifted. The issues they need to debate may not always seem reasonable, but they nonetheless must be prepared with answers. Some issues to which board members often must respond appear in Box 4.5.

sUpport sCHool BoarD MeMBers WHo sUpport gifteD eDUCation When school board members endorse a program, they need to know that the public supports them. Be vocal in expressing your appreciation to board members who assist with the education you believe in. You also can help them in their campaigns, both formally and informally (e.g., by telling your friends what a fine job you believe a board member is doing). Keeping supporters of gifted education in office helps them to provide appropriate educational opportunities in your community. You can also encourage qualified indi- viduals who are interested in gifted education to run for a board position.

perspeCtiVes of otHer teaCHers

Not all teachers agree that gifted students truly need spe- cial services. In fact, some are downright antagonistic. However, with time and exposure, some indifferent teach- ers come to understand the issues and concerns and become more receptive to gifted programming. Others never change, and pro-gifted teachers simply have to work around them.

What are the concerns of teachers opposed to gifted  programs? Some have the same reservations that

2. The educational program should provide for conti- nuity and overlap among the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The program should specify long-range goals for the district, with major  emphasis on differentiated curriculum and programming.

3. The objectives of the educational program shall be to meet the gifted and talented child’s needs, whether those needs are intellectual, social, physi- cal, or emotional.

4. Active parental involvement is viewed as an inte- gral and crucial ingredient of a quality gifted and talented program. Every effort should be made to foster parental involvement in all aspects of the child’s educational program.

5. Qualified instructional and administrative person- nel with appropriate knowledge, training, and

experience are required to implement an effective program of education for the gifted and talented.

6. The achievement of a quality gifted and talented educational program demands the presence of a competent ancillary support staff, particularly for  the early identification of gifted or talented children.

7. The administration of the gifted and talented pro- gram shall provide leadership and coordination in developing and maintaining a comprehensive dis- trict K–12 program.

8. The placement and progress of the gifted or tal- ented child will be continually evaluated and docu- mented, with periodic progress reports issued to the parents of the child.

Program Planning 87

BOX 4.5

Some Questions School Board Members Must Answer

1. Isn’t gifted education elitist?

RESPONSE: Gifted education provides appropriate educa- tion only for children who need a special challenge. These children come from all neighborhoods and economic back- grounds. Children from poor families often need G/T educa- tion the most because their families are unable to provide enrichment opportunities for them. If we are to keep our country a place where people can achieve, regardless of their economic background, we need gifted education to help us.

2. We have special programs for the low-ability child and the high-ability child—but what about the average child?

RESPONSE: Most educational programs are geared to the needs of the average child. In a real sense, most money is now spent on the average child. We agree that the aver- age child should never be shortchanged in the educational process, but neither should the gifted child.

3. Aren’t all children really gifted? So don’t we need to provide for all their gifts?

RESPONSE: In a sense, yes, all children do have special gifts and talents. Some may play basketball or soccer well; oth- ers have marvelous personal charm. The purpose of a gifted and talented program is to help develop students’ strong academic and creative needs that are not met in the regular educational program. For example, a math whiz in the reg- ular classroom is rarely provided with advanced math instruction. Young creative writers or poets do not have special opportunities to help develop their unique talents. These students may be bored, and their talents are not chal- lenged or strengthened. When we find special gifts and tal- ents, we must provide opportunities to develop them.

4. Why should we spend more money for kids who will make it anyway?

RESPONSE: Although some gifted kids will make it any- way, it is nonetheless unfair to hold them back and make them succeed in spite of the system. More important is that many gifted children do not make it anyway. Their lost tal- ent is both a personal tragedy for them and a loss to society. Studies of high school dropouts have found that between

9% and 20% are in the gifted IQ range—certainly many more than one would expect, and certainly a waste. In addi- tion, some researchers estimate that from 10% to 50% of gifted students underachieve at some time in school (Hoff- man, Wasson, & Christianson, 1985; Richert, 1991). This underachievement is often associated with not receiving appropriate educational opportunities in school. Schools often “turn off” gifted children because the programs do not provide appropriate challenges. When children become bored, they sometimes use their creative energy and their giftedness in inappropriate, antisocial, and even destructive ways. They need special help and guidance.

5. Can we afford to pay for more special education?

RESPONSE: Gifted programs can be very inexpensive compared with all other kinds of special education. Also, we save money in the long run by investing small amounts to help make school more meaningful. This small investment helps ensure against larger problems that can be more costly—for example, bored, apathetic, or even antisocial students, to say nothing of lost talent development.

6. What do the rest of the kids get out of it?

RESPONSE: Teachers who become involved in gifted education learn to stimulate creative development, use questions effectively, foster good self-concepts and humanistic attitudes, individualize instruction, and apply other valuable concepts and skills. Much of this can be—and is—applied in the regular classroom. They become better teachers, and this benefits other children as well.

Also, when there are gifted programs in a school, it becomes apparent to all that excellence is rewarded and valued. When excellence is valued, more children become motivated to achieve, and we sometimes discover gifted- ness where we might not have expected to find it. For example, if there is peer pressure not to achieve, some stu- dents hide their abilities and talents. Gifted programs encourage these children to achieve, too. While providing for the special needs of gifted children, we thus also encour- age hard work and excellence in our schools for all children.

constituents express to school board members (see Box 4.5); others are concerned about different problems, such as the following:

●● Some teachers object to their brightest students leaving their classes. They miss the contributions these students make and their visibility as good role models.

●● Some argue that they already are challenging the gifted children in their classrooms. Sometimes, they are; more often, they are not (Archambault et al., 1993).

●● Some complain that the gifted program requires additional work, and they are already overworked.

●● Some believe that the gifted child is somehow get- ting out of required work, and these teachers often

88 Chapter 4

penalize those children by requiring makeup work or even busy work.

●● If they teach a section of gifted students, some teach- ers penalize them by grading on a normal curve, ignoring the fact that the students were preselected. A few might delight in awarding gifted children Cs and Ds to somehow prove that the students are not gifted.

●● Some negative teachers may subtly attempt to sabo- tage the gifted program.

There is no secret, psychological strategy to elicit the cooperation and support of every teacher. You should be ready, however, for antigifted attacks and not take them personally. If you remain positive, you have a better chance of gaining converts and allies. For example, you can listen to their arguments and try to explain the unmet education needs of gifted children. Negative teachers can be encour- aged to take a course in gifted education or to attend a con- ference with you. Lend them this text. Make the assumption that they do care about all children and that, with a better understanding of the issue, they may develop a sincere concern for gifted children as an underserved minority.

Fortunately, in most school districts, there are more allies than naysayers. Many teachers and administrators will enthusiastically support the program and contribute time and ideas. Many will enjoy the new challenge of gifted education and the excitement of seeing new enthusi- asm in energetic and talented children.

CUrriCUlUM ConsiDerations

Following are several guides and assumptions that underlie curriculum theory in gifted education (Maker & Nielson, 1996; Renzulli, Gubbins, McMillen, Eckert, & Little, 2009; Tomlinson, 2009; VanTassel-Baska, 2000, 2003; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2008):

●● All students should experience high-quality, engag- ing, intellectually challenging curriculum that meets their present and future academic needs.

●● Such curriculum not only develops the abilities of gifted students, it also helps identify advanced poten- tial in other students.

●● The needs of gifted students are different than those of others. Curriculum must be adapted or designed to accommodate these needs.

●● As the gifted student moves toward expertise in a discipline, the level of intellectual demand provided for the student should escalate in accordance with his or her individual growth.

●● All high-quality curricula should contain key com- ponents, or “organizers,” that make the material meaningful for learners.

●● Appropriate curriculum activities for gifted students cut across these areas: cognitive (e.g., their precoc- ity), affective (e.g., their motivational intensity), and social (e.g., their need for intellectual peers). The 10 items listed in the Gifted Children’s Bill of Rights (see Box 4.6) fall within these three areas.

●● Gifted students require curriculum that is both enriched and accelerated.

●● For maximum effect, curriculum experiences for gifted students should be carefully planned, imple- mented, and evaluated.

In Chapter 7, we describe several curriculum models that adhere to these principles and help answer key questions such as the following: How important are certain concepts and skills? How broadly (or briefly) should various skills and con- cepts be covered? How much time will be needed with a topic to reach an appropriate level of depth? What critical new con- tent should be covered? How can we organize learning experi- ences at suitable abstract levels to accommodate the capacities of gifted learners? What content and processes should appear at different points in a comprehensive curriculum plan?

legal issUes in gifteD eDUCation

The growth of gifted education is reflected in the develop- ment of a relatively new topic: legal issues in gifted educa- tion. Of course, disgruntled parents have taken legal action on behalf of their gifted children for many years. Legal problems and recommended actions have coalesced into a coherent topic, thanks to the efforts of Frances Karnes and Ronald Marquardt at the University of Southern Mississippi, where in 1994 they created the Legal Issues Network (Karnes & Marquardt, 2003; Karnes, Troxclair, & Marquardt, 1997).

Legal difficulties, some more common than others, revolve around these categories of problems: early admission to school, the provision of programs or appropriate instruc- tion, racial balance in gifted programs, the awarding of high school credits toward graduation to students who take advanced courses prior to high school, transferring of stu- dents to districts that offer more suitable programs, legal sta- tus of certification for teachers in gifted education (e.g., when teachers apply for a G/T teaching job or when staff positions are cut), transportation of students to sites that provide appro- priate instruction, tort liability (e.g., for injury on a field trip), fraud and misrepresentation (e.g., by a private school falsely claiming to accommodate the gifted), and home schooling (e.g., whether home-schooled children are entitled to partici- pate in public school gifted or other programs).

Karnes and Marquardt offer the following advice to anyone considering legal action: Conflicts can be settled at any level, from informal discussions to U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The best solution, however, is to resolve

Program Planning 89

BOX 4.6

Gifted Children’s Bill of Rights

In 2007, Siegle introduced his NAGC presidency with a Gifted Children’s Bill of Rights that outlines 10 rights that can pertain to all children but are particularly relevant for students with special gifts and talents. If you are planning services for the gifted, you should consider these rights as you build a comprehensive program to meet gifted stu- dents’ cognitive, affective, and social needs.

1. Gifted children have a right to know about their giftedness. Educators and parents are often reluctant to talk with children about their gifted- ness. Gifted children have a right to know why they were identified and what being gifted means.

2. Gifted children have a right to learn something new every day. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Research has shown that gifted children spend up to 80% of their time in classrooms doing exactly what everyone else is doing. For students who are academically advanced, this results in a tre- mendous loss of learning opportunities.

3. Gifted children have a right to be passionate about their talent area without apologies. Developing a talent requires endless hours to reach expertise. Although a minimal level of knowledge about a variety of topics in life is useful, children who show a strong interest in an area should be encouraged to pursue that interest.

4. Gifted children have a right to have an identity beyond their talent area. In the early years and dur- ing adolescence, gifted children are not only develop- ing their talents, they are also developing their sense of self. They need to understand that their value as a human being and the esteem with which others hold them go beyond the exceptional talents they possess.

5. Gifted children have a right to feel good about their accomplishments. Children should be able to feel good about performing well and about the effort and dedication they put forth that are nec- essary to excel. Having a sense of pride in one’s accomplishments is healthy as long as it does not belittle the efforts and accomplishments of others.

6. Gifted children have a right to make mistakes. Perfectionism can be a problem for gifted children,

and taking healthy risks is an important part of developing talents. Mistakes are part of the learning process, and gifted individuals experience a variety of successes and failures as they strive for excel- lence.

7. Gifted children have a right to seek guidance in the development of their talent. Talent does not flourish in isolation. It needs to be assisted and nurtured by those with advanced skills and experi- ence. This often requires the assistance of expertise outside traditional education venues. Gifted chil- dren need assistance in finding the resources neces- sary to guide their talent development.

8. Gifted children have a right to have multiple peer groups and a variety of friends. Gifted children may have trouble finding same-age peers who share their interests and passions. Therefore, they often have a variety of peer groups, some based on a similar age, others based on interest or intellectual development. They may also choose not to have very many friends. A few close relationships may be sufficient.

9. Gifted children have a right to choose which of their talent areas they wish to pursue. Just as gifted children have the right to pursue those talent areas that interest them, they also have a right not to pursue every area in which they excel. Gifted chil- dren may exhibit interests in a variety of areas and derive great pleasure from participating in them, but the time and effort necessary to develop high levels of expertise usually necessitates focusing on one area.

10. Gifted children have a right not to be gifted at everything. Many gifted children may excel in one area, but be average, or even below average, in another area. Albert Einstein’s passion for mathe- matics and physics certainly overshadowed his skills in other areas, but those areas in which he did not excel were insignificant compared with what he accomplished in his chosen field.

Source: From “Gifted children’s bill of rights” from Parenting for High Potential, pp. 3, 30 by Del Siegle. Published by “National Association for Gifted Children” © 2007.

the problem at the lowest level possible because, as the complainant proceeds up the ladder, costs and delays expand exponentially. Said Karnes and Marquardt, the typ- ical ladder starts with informal negotiation and proceeds to mediation, due process, state court, and even federal court (2003, p. 601).

Unfortunately for gifted students, most court cases to date have favored school districts. The few successes have involved a state where an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is required for a gifted student or where other legal considerations (such as a disability) are in play in addition to giftedness.

90 Chapter 4

The lack of legal precedence, the absence of a federal mandate, and permissive, if any, state legislation regarding the educational rights of gifted students have all hampered parents through the litigation process and have resulted

in decisions that have mainly favored school districts. (Stephens, 2008, p. 401)

As Russo, Harris, and Ford noted, “Supporters see gifted education as a right, the unaffected see it as a privi- lege, and opponents see it as superfluous” (1996, p. 182).

Plans for differentiating the curriculum for gifted learners vary greatly in type and complexity. Planning should con- sider challenge, choice, interest, enjoyment, and personal meaning for students.

Four traditional components of a gifted program are (1) philosophy and goals, (2) definition and identification, (3) instruction (with attention to students’ needs, type of program, personnel, location, and time lines), and (4) program evaluation.

Sixteen problem areas in program planning are the following:

1. A needs assessment aims at determining the discrep- ancy between the current and the desired state of gifted education in the district. Three sources of information are gifted students, their parents, and teachers and administrators. Because gifted students are a minority, only sufficient (not majority) support is needed. To make concrete plans, a steering committee is necessary.

2. Preliminary staff education should include determin- ing the present status of gifted education in the area; becoming acquainted with state legislation and state plans; attending local, state, and national G/T confer- ences; and visiting schools with successful programs.

3. A written statement of philosophy, rationale, and goals should explain the reasons for and the goals and objec- tives of a program. The statement can be expanded into a written program plan, which should include a defini- tion of gifts and talents, identification methods, instruc- tional program strategies and activities, program evaluation, and any other of the 16 points in this list.

4. Types of gifts and talents to be accommodated must be specified, which is a matter related to one’s defi- nition of giftedness. Regarding numbers, whereas some programs are highly restrictive (e.g., SMPY), the talent pool approach accepts many students.

5. Identification methods and criteria must be consist- ent with one’s definition of giftedness and must be coordinated with the type of program being planned. The methods must be defensible yet both objective and subjective.

6. Identification methods must include plans for locat- ing gifted female, culturally different, economically

Summary

disadvantaged, and underachieving students, and gifted students with a disability.

7. Staff responsibilities and accountability checks (such as monthly meetings or reports) must be planned.

8. Support staff and services should include school psychologists and counselors, district and perhaps state coordinators, and consultants. Counseling ser- vices are essential.

9. Program plans should include both acceleration and enrichment alternatives. There are many specifics to select from. They should aim at defensible goals and objectives, namely, the development of high-level skills and knowledge. Program plans might have to address concerns about grouping.

10. The organizational and administrative design, including space allocations, record keeping, modifi- cations to the budget, and more, must be considered. Much planning is usually at the district level.

11. Transportation needs cannot be ignored. 12. Community professionals and organizations can

supply enriching field trips for all students or for small groups of G/T students, as well as offering mentorships, career education, and sometimes even initiating entire gifted schools.

13. In-service workshops begin with general awareness information and proceed to the identification of the gifted or talented child and then to other matters. Work- shop content should be directly applicable (e.g., meth- ods, techniques), perhaps including hands-on activities. Visits to several types of programs are valuable.

14. Budgetary needs and cost-effectiveness must be con- sidered from the outset. Some programs operate on almost nothing; others pay for teacher-coordinators, plus plenty of materials and equipment. Grade accel- eration is basically free. Federal, state, or private funds sometimes can be obtained.

15. Beyond helping gifted students to become more profes- sionally successful, program planners might wish to develop social capital; that is, a program can raise gifted students’ awareness of the needs of others, increase empathy, and convince them they can and should take action to help. Leadership training is central.

Program Planning 91

affective, and social needs should be considered. Program planning should include both enrichment and acceleration. These involve advanced content, higher-level thinking skills, and a focus on central content ideas. They also feature teach- ing central concepts and principles, helping students connect core concepts across disciplines, and helping students under- stand and use concepts and skills as a practitioner would.

Gifted children, like all children, have cognitive, affective, and social rights, including the right to pursue their interests and develop their talents.

Reasons that programs survive include good state economic health, state mandates for gifted education, and enthusiastic support by teachers and administrators.

Legal issues, perhaps related to providing appropri- ate G/T services, racial balance, or the legal status of certi- fication, are best resolved at the lowest level (e.g., informal negotiation) before it becomes necessary to proceed to higher levels (e.g., state or federal court).

16. Program evaluation is important for survival and expansion. Every component of the program can be evaluated. Formative evaluations are continuous ones aimed at modification and improvement. Sum- mative evaluations evaluate overall success. A broader view of program evaluation includes look- ing at effects on other students and school staff, as well as the school budget.

School board members must be convinced that G/T students have important, unmet needs. Suggestions for fostering support include keeping board members educated and involved, helping them to be accountable, and changing the attitudes of nonsupportive members.

For various reasons, many teachers may not support a G/T program in a given school. One should attempt to alter their attitudes toward a more positive and helpful direction.

Recent curriculum theory confirms that education needs of gifted students are indeed different. Cognitive,

AppendiX 4.1 ideAS fOr StAtementS Of philOSOphy, rAtiOnAle, And OBjectiveS

To provide gifted and talented students with an educational environ- ment that provides the greatest possible development of their abilities, thus enabling them to realize their contributions to self and society.

“The gifted and talented represent a group of students whose learning style and thinking dimensions demand experiences which are outside the educational mainstream . . . (we need) an education commensurate with each child’s ability to learn” (Kaplan, 1974).

To provide programs designed to help meet the psycho- logical, social, educational, and career needs of gifted and tal- ented students.

To assist students in becoming individuals who are able to take self-initiated action and accept responsibility for that action, and who are capable of intelligent choice, independent learning, and problem solving.

To meet the special needs of minority gifted children. To develop a functional procedure for identifying gifted

and talented students in the school in order that they may express and develop their gifts or talents.

To provide a program that stimulates individual interests and develops individual abilities in academic and/or talent areas.

To provide the superior learner with new and highly chal- lenging learning experiences that are not ordinarily included in the regular classroom curriculum.

To provide opportunities that develop self-awareness, per- sonal strengths, and social responsibilities beyond those in the regular school program.

To provide gifted children with the opportunity to explore personal interests through independent study and community involvement.

To foster high-level thinking and self-development pro- cesses, resulting in a more complete, productive individual who is challenged by the school environment.

To provide a learning atmosphere that enables the gifted child to develop his or her potential and exceptional abilities, par- ticularly in the areas of decision making, planning, performing, reasoning, creating, and communicating.

To provide experiences that develop the higher operations of analyzing, synthesizing, divergent production, and evaluation.

To provide activities and experiences that stimulate criti- cal thinking, comprehension, competency, and creativity.

To enable those students desiring to do so to prepare for Advanced Placement.

To encourage cross-discipline exploration. To include strong components of basic skills, career

awareness, sex-equity, and multiethnic experiences. To develop an ability to transfer information to humanistic

goals. To develop intrinsic motivation. To provide experiences that guide a student toward

independence. To provide gifted and talented students with a positive

self-concept. To foster awareness of self and others. To develop problem-solving abilities and creative thinking

skills, develop research skills, strengthen individual interests, develop independent study skills, exercise communication skills in the humanities (visual, oral, and written), receive intellectual stimulation from contact with other highly motivated students, and expand their learning activities to include resources available in the entire community area.

“The good of any program for the gifted should be to pro- vide meaningful experiences in the most efficient and effective way in order to maximize learning and individual development and to minimize boredom, confusion, and frustration” (Fox, 1979).

92 Chapter 4

AppendiX 4.2 nAtiOnAl StAndArdS fOr prepArAtiOn Of teAcherS Of the Gifted

Standard 1: FoundationS

teachers . . .

• understand that the field is evolving and changing (e.g., including diverse and historical perspectives).

• understand that perspectives influence the field as well as the treatment of G/T individuals in school and society.

• understand that foundations influence professional practice. • understand that human diversity affects services.

Standard 2: development and CharaCteriStiCS oF learnerS

teachers . . .

• understand the variations in characteristics and develop- ment among G/T individuals.

• understand that the interaction of characteristics with domains of human development defines abilities and behaviors.

• understand the contributions of families and communities to development.

Standard 3: individual learning diFFerenCeS

teachers . . .

• understand the effects of gifts and talents on learning. • understand the interaction of language, culture, and family

background with individuals’ predispositions. • understand that differences and interactions provide the

foundation for instruction.

Standard 4: inStruCtional StrategieS

teachers . . .

• possess a repertoire of curricula and strategies to differen- tiate instruction.

• select strategies to modify learning environments and enhance learning in specific domains.

• emphasize the development, practice, and transfer of advanced knowledge.

Standard 5: learning environmentS and SoCial interaCtionS

teachers create learning environments that . . .

• foster understanding and valuing of diverse cultures. • foster self-efficacy behaviors. • promote positive social interactions. • provide emotional well-being and safety.

Standard 6: language and CommuniCation

teachers . . .

• use relevant strategies to teach oral and written communi- cation skills.

• use assistive technologies and other strategies to assist individuals with exceptional needs as well as English lan- guage learners.

• use strategies that consider cultural and linguistic differences.

Standard 7: inStruCtional planning

teachers . . .

• select, adapt, and create differentiated materials for gifted learners, including technology supports.

• use differentiated strategies. • develop short- and long-term individual learning plans.

Standard 8: aSSeSSment

teachers . . .

• understand and apply the processes and procedures of identification of gifted learners.

• understand and apply the processes of learning assess- ments for gifted learners, including alternative approaches.

• understand measurement theory and practices for nonbi- ased and equitable assessment and interpretation.

Standard 9: proFeSSional and ethiCal praCtiCe

teachers . . .

• understand the profession’s ethical standards (e.g., confi- dentiality, due process).

• engage in activities that promote professional growth and provide continuous updates on evidence-based best practices.

• practice self-reflection to improve practice. • are sensitive to the diversity of G/T individuals.

Standard 10: CollaBoration

teachers . . .

• collaborate with other educators, service providers, and families (e.g., planning or coplanning).

• embrace their advocacy role on behalf of G/T individuals.

93

5 Acceleration

Learning OutcOmes

1. Compare and contrast acceleration with enrichment.

2. Synthesize the findings of A Nation Deceived and A Nation Empowered.

3. List and describe the different types of acceleration.

4. Recommend that school leaders adopt a grade-skipping policy for precocious elementary students.

5. Assess the merits versus challenges of subject skipping.

6. Report on the benefits of early admission to middle or senior high school from academic and social perspectives.

7. Propose a set of guidelines for offering credit by examination opportunities.

8. Describe the issues a district should consider before offering college courses in high school.

9. Develop criteria for students to determine participation in the Advanced Placement program.

10. Explain ways that distance learning may enhance gifted students’ learning.

11. Define telescoped programs as an option for acceleration.

12. Discuss the caveats to weigh before selecting early admission to college.

13. Measure the benefits versus the challenges of residential high schools.

14. Distinguish among the three different International Baccalaureate programs.

15. Summarize the evolution of Talent Search programs.

C H A P T E R

T his chapter and many of the chapters that follow describe strategies and models that guide programming decisions, teaching strategies, and curriculum content for gifted and talented (G/T) education. To provide a framework for what to do with gifted and talented kids, Table 5.1 summarizes suggestions for program

content that are based on student needs. These suggestions were integrated from the materials prepared by Betts (2004); Davis (1998); Davis and Rimm (2011); Feldhusen, Hansen, and Kennedy (1989); Kaplan (2009); Pyryt (2003); Reis and Renzulli (2014); Roberts (2012); Smith (1990); Tomlinson (2009); Treffinger and Selby (2009); VanTassel-Baska (2009); and Winebrenner (2001). The table includes suggestions for acceleration, enrich- ment, and counseling. Read through Table 5.1 before proceeding. You likely will refer again to this table as you read upcoming chapters.

94 Chapter 5

TABLE 5.1 Curriculum for the Gifted

1. Maximum achievement in basic skills A. Learning activities at an appropriate level and pace B. Advanced content or skills; extension of depth or breadth of the content C. Based on student needs and readiness, not grade-level appropriateness D. Oral communication skills; sharing ideas verbally and in depth E. Study skills, report writing, outlining

2. Content beyond the prescribed curriculum A. Extends or replaces traditional curriculum and is not just “more work” B. Content related to broad-based issues, themes, and problems C. Resources—materials, equipment, information (not just books)—beyond the designated grade level D. Learning that is interrelated with other areas, not “separate entity learning”

3. Exposure to a variety of fields of study A. Opportunity for in-depth study of major ideas, problems, and themes from multiple disciplines B. New disciplines, interrelatedness of disciplines, connections of major ideas and concepts within and between disciplines C. Various occupations—the arts, professions D. Access to and stimulation of reading

4. Student-selected content A. Based on student interests and needs B. In-depth learning of a self-selected topic within an area of study C. Freedom to select from a wide range of materials and resources D. Opportunity to pursue areas of inquiry as far as personal interest dictates

5. High content complexity A. Working with abstract ideas and theories that require reflective, evaluative, critical, and creative thinking B. Working with concepts and generalizations, not just names, dates, facts, and figures C. Applying learning, not just parroting it D. Developing products that challenge existing ideas and produce new ideas E. Developing products that use new techniques, materials, and forms F. Exposure to varied ideas, topics, issues, and skills at rates appropriate to individual capabilities

6. Experience in creative thinking and problem solving (see Chapters 9 and 10) A. Opportunities for creative expression and creative products B. Creative writing that stresses the free flow of ideas and developing values C. Involvement in art and drama; literature enrichment D. Learning creative attitudes and awareness E. Responding to open-ended problems and tasks F. Understanding creative people, processes, and techniques G. Strengthening fluency, flexibility, originality, visualization, analogical thinking, problem finding, and other

creative abilities H. Discovery and inquiry skills I. Freedom to solve problems in diverse ways J. Reconceptualizing existing knowledge; generating new knowledge K. Futuristic thinking L. Learning things as they should be or could be, not only as they are

7. Development of thinking skills (see Chapter 10) A. Independent, self-directed study skills B. Library skills C. Research/scientific skills and methods

Acceleration 95

D. Bloom’s higher-level skills: application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation E. Critical thinking, in the sense of evaluating biases, credibility, logic, and consistency; critical reading

and listening skills F. Decision making, planning, organizing G. Developing expert processing strategies—skills and techniques of a professional in a given field

8. Development of computer skills A. Keyboard and word processing skills B. Finding enrichment and acceleration information on the Internet C. Using e-mail and the Internet for correspondence with mentors and models

9. Affective development A. Developing self-awareness and self-understanding; accepting one’s capabilities, interests, and needs B. Recognizing and using one’s abilities C. Appreciating likenesses and differences between oneself and others D. Relating intellectually, artistically, and effectively with other gifted, talented, and creative students E. Moral and ethical thinking, humanitarian attitudes, building social capital—creating values and norms geared

toward the greater public good

10. Development of motivation A. Independent thinking and work B. Becoming self-directed, disciplined in learning C. Achievement motivation, internal locus of control, high-level education and career aspirations

Many types of programs and services are designed to fit the needs summarized in Table 5.1, while at the same time accommodating the level of interest, commitment, and resources of the particular school or district. Programs may differ in (1) the categories of students served, (2) pro- gram goals, (3) the general program models(s) followed, (4) acceleration plans, (5) enrichment plans, (6) grouping and organizational arrangements, (7) instructional or deliv- ery strategy used, (8) community professionals and resources involved, and (9) program level (classroom, school, district, state, or national) (Fox, 1979).

Overview

We divide programming here into four topics. This chap- ter summarizes characteristics, advantages, disadvan- tages, and recommendations related to a number of acceleration strategies. Chapter 6 focuses on enrichment as well as grouping options. Chapter 7 summarizes sev- eral main curriculum models. The topics are interrelated in the sense that grouping is for the purpose of enrich- ment or acceleration, enrichment and acceleration each invariably include elements of the other, and program models prescribe the kinds of learning activities and grouping needed for enrichment and/or acceleration opportunities. Together, these four topics help clarify what can be done in successful programs and provide ideas for how to do it.

AccELErATiOn vErsus EnrichmEnT

One issue pertains to the definitions of, and relationships between, acceleration and enrichment, a matter that some see as a passionate controversy. For example, Stanley and Benbow (1986) referred to most kinds of enrichment as irrelevant busywork. Many gifted specialists would agree. Teachers who aren’t sensitive to the needs of gifted students may sim- ply provide an online program or workbook to keeps students busy. On the other hand, educators with training in gifted education typically develop a curriculum that challenges and excites students and goes into far greater depth and creativity than the regular curriculum. When my children were in gifted pullout classes, they typically viewed their gifted program- ming as the most exciting and interesting part of their day or week. As a psychologist who specializes in working with gifted students, I hear a similar refrain echoed by young cli- ents and their parents who visit me for counseling.

On the surface, the distinction between acceleration and enrichment seems simple enough. Acceleration implies moving faster through academic content, which typically includes offering standard curriculum to stu- dents at a younger-than-usual age. Enrichment refers to richer and more varied educational experiences, a curric- ulum that is modified to provide greater depth and breadth than is generally provided. Both acceleration and enrich- ment accommodate the high abilities and individual needs of gifted students, both lead to greater knowledge

96 Chapter 5

Any well-rounded, coherent, and long-range gifted and talented program provides both enrichment and accel- eration opportunities. Gifted students should be permitted to work at their own rapid pace, accelerating through and out of primary and secondary schools. They should also have opportunities for greater variety in content; greater depth; and the development of affective, creative, scientific, and other high-level skills—in other words, enrichment.

A NAtioN DeceiveD And A NAtioN empowereD—dEfiniTivE rEsEArch On AccELErATiOn

The Templeton National Report on Acceleration, published in two volumes and endorsed by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), launched an unapologetic and provocative campaign to reach educators and families. It accused America of ignoring excellence and holding back its brightest students by refusing opportunities for accelera- tion at almost every level. A ten-year follow-up study pub- lished by the Belin-Blank Center at the University of Iowa documents some progress but shows that irrational bias against acceleration continues to exist. Many states do not yet have acceleration policies, and 16 states absolutely do not allow early entrance to kindergarten despite a child’s giftedness and readiness (Assouline et al., 2015).

Types of acceleration from the studies are included in Figure 5.1. These fit with the definition acceleration earlier in this chapter and will be discussed further in this chapter. Figure 5.2 provides the 20 most important points gathered from the research discussed in Volume II of the Templeton report (Colangelo et al., 2004a). These are action-oriented points that will help you convince legisla- tors, other educators, and parents of the value of accelera- tion. Because acceleration is a very effective, research-based intervention for gifted students, the Institute for Research

and skills, and both help develop creativity and other thinking skills.

Looking closely, the terms acceleration and enrich- ment are in fact used in overlapping and ambiguous ways. Note that any enrichment experience involves greater depth or new topics, which in a sense are advanced or accelerated compared to the regular curriculum. It is com- mon and acceptable for teachers and others to refer to any variety of advanced subject matter as “acceleration.”

defining Acceleration and Enrichment

We will use a rule-of-thumb definition (suggested by Fox, 1979) that permits a reasonably clear distinction between acceleration and enrichment plans: Any strategy that results in advanced placement or potential credit will be titled acceleration; strategies that supplement or go beyond standard grade-level work, but do not result in advanced placement or potential credit (that is, anything else), will be called enrichment. We have inserted the word potential before credit because students who take AP classes are always taking accelerated courses whether or not they score high enough on exams to earn credit for the course. Also, students who take summer courses for credit but whose middle or high schools may not grant them credit have also taken accelerated courses because the course itself has the potential for providing credit toward accelera- tion. Thus, the special foreign language, math, or science material taught in elementary school, as well as the special high school drama or photography class, that does not result in advanced credit or standing would be enrichment. However, a 4-year-old admitted early to kindergarten; another elementary student skipping third grade; a middle school algebra class that condenses 3 years work into 2; or a high school student “testing out of a course,” earning col- lege credit through an Advanced Placement course, or entering college early are all examples of acceleration.

fiGurE 5.1 Types of acceleration.

1. Early admission to kindergarten or first grade 2. Grade skipping 3. Subject skipping and acceleration 4. Early admission to middle or high school 5. Credit by examination 6. College courses or high school 7. Advanced placement courses

8. Distance learning or independent study 9. Telescoped programs

10. Early admission to college 11. Residential high schools 12. International Baccalaureate programs 13. Talent Search programs

Source: Based on Types of Acceleration: Dimensions and Issues, A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students: Volume II (pp. 5–12). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. by W. T. Southern, & E. D Jones, N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, M. O. M. Gross. Published by International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, 2004.

Acceleration 97

1. Acceleration is the most effective curriculum intervention for gifted children.

2. For bright students, acceleration has long-term beneficial effects, both academically and socially.

3. Acceleration is a nearly cost-free intervention.

4. Gifted children tend to be socially and emotionally more mature than their age-mates. For many bright students, acceleration provides a better personal maturity match with classmates.

5. When bright students are presented with curriculum developed for age-peers, they can become bored and unhappy and get turned off from learning.

6. Testing, especially above-level testing (using tests developed for older students), is highly effective in identifying students who would benefit from acceleration.

7. The evidence and mechanisms available can help schools make good decisions about acceleration so that it is a low-risk/high-success intervention for qualified students. The Iowa Acceleration Scale is a proven, effective instrument for helping schools make decisions about whole-grade acceleration.

8. The 18 types of acceleration available to bright students fall into two broad categories: grade-based acceleration, which shortens the number of years that a student spends in the K–12 system, and subject-based acceleration, which allows for advanced content earlier than customary.

9. Entering school early is an excellent option for some gifted students both academically and socially. High-ability young children who enroll early generally settle in smoothly with their older classmates.

10. Gifted students entering college early experience both short-term and long-term academic success, leading to long-term occupational success and personal satisfaction.

11. Many alternatives to full-time early college entrance are available for bright high school students who prefer to stay with age-peers. These alternatives include dual enrollment in high school and college, distance education, and summer programs. Advanced Placement (AP) is the best large-scale option for bright students who want to take college-level courses in high school.

12. Very few early college entrants experience social or emotional difficulties. When these do occur, they are usually short-term and part of the adjustment process.

13. Radical acceleration (acceleration by 2 or more years) is effective academically and socially for highly gifted students.

14. Many educators have been largely negative about the practice of acceleration, despite abundant research evidence for its success and viability.

15. To encourage a major change in America’s perceptions of educational acceleration, we need to use all the engines of change: legislation, the courts, administrative rules, and professional initiatives.

16. Effective implementation of acceleration options for gifted students with disabilities is time- and resource-intensive.

17. It is important for parents to be fully involved in the decision-making process about their child’s acceleration.

18. The few problems that have been experienced with acceleration have stemmed primarily from incomplete or poor planning.

19. Educational equity does not mean educational sameness. Equity respects individual differences in readiness to learn and recognizes the value of each student.

20. The key question for educators is not whether to accelerate a gifted learner but rather how.

and Policy on Acceleration (IRPA), the NAGC, and the Council for State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG) worked together to provide guidelines for devel- oping academic acceleration policies. These guidelines are

available at the NAGC website and are recommended for use by both states and local school districts (NAGC, 2009). A checklist for development of such a policy is included in Figure 5.3.

fiGurE 5.2 Important points from A Nation Deceived, Volume 2. Source: Information from “A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students Volume I, P. 2’’ by Nicholas Colangelo, Susan G. Assouline, Miraca U. M. Gross. Published by International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, 2004.

98 Chapter 5

Is your acceleration policy characterized by accessibility, equity, and openness?

Is access to referral for consideration of acceleration open to all students regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, disability status, socioeconomic status, English language proficiency, and school building attended?

Yes No Not Sure

Are all student populations served, including English language learners (ELLs) and at-risk, low socioeconomic status, profoundly gifted, and twice-exceptional students?

Yes No Not Sure

Is the process of student evaluation fair, objective, and systematic? Yes No Not Sure

Do parents or legal guardians have open communication with school officials about the policy document?

Yes No Not Sure

Does the community have access to the policy document? Is the policy accessible in the languages served by the school?

Yes No Not Sure

Does your acceleration policy provide guidelines for the practice of acceleration?

Are both categories of acceleration (grade-based and content-based) specified? Yes No Not Sure

Are the forms of acceleration (e.g., early admission to school, telescoping, Advanced Placement) specified?

Yes No Not Sure

Is the process of acceleration detailed (including referral and screening, assessment and decision making, and planning)?

Yes No Not Sure

Does the policy specify that child study teams, not individuals, consider acceleration cases?

Yes No Not Sure

Does your acceleration policy provide guidelines on administrative matter?

Does the policy address short-term needs, such as . . .

• who will monitor the acceleration? Yes No Not Sure

• which grade-level achievement test should the student take? Yes No Not Sure

Does the policy address long-term needs, such as . . .

• maintaining accelerated standing? Yes No Not Sure

• clarifying transportation issues for students who need to travel between buildings? Yes No Not Sure

• assigning appropriate credit for accelerated coursework? Yes No Not Sure

• indicating acceleration coursework on a transcript? Yes No Not Sure

• specifying the process of awarding course credit to students? Yes No Not Sure

Does your acceleration policy provide guidelines for preventing nonacademic barriers?

Are procedures in place to ensure participation in extracurricular activities, including sports?

Yes No Not Sure

Have funding formulae been reviewed to prevent unintended disincentives? Yes No Not Sure

Does your acceleration policy prevent unintended consequences?

Does the policy specify an appeal process? Yes No Not Sure

Are procedures for evaluating the policy effectiveness detailed? Yes No Not Sure

fiGurE 5.3 Checklist for developing an academic acceleration policy.

TypEs Of AccELErATiOn

The remainder of this chapter is devoted to providing addi- tional information on the various types of acceleration. Educators and parents are advised to consider both

academic and social-emotional needs at every step of a stu- dent’s potential advancement. They are further warned, however, that decisions not to advance children who are ready for advancement communicate to these children that

Acceleration 99

their thirst for learning is not valued by adult decision makers. Focusing gifted children into lock-step learning to fit in with chronological peers can seriously harm their motivation and lead to lifelong underachievement (Rimm, 2007, 2008c).

Early Admission to Kindergarten or first Grade

Early admission to kindergarten or first grade is an accelera- tion strategy that accommodates gifted children’s high energy, enthusiasm, curiosity, and imagination, and their intellectual needs to investigate, observe, and examine (Feldhusen, 1992). Without such early admission, many gifted children will underachieve. Also, early admission is the least administratively disruptive option for gifted chil- dren; it avoids discontinuities in the curriculum, and it pre- sents a relatively easy way to “match the child to the system” (Robinson & Weimer, 1991, p. 29). Nonetheless, teachers, principals, and school psychologists express the following kinds of concerns about any form of elementary school accel- eration (McClusky, Baker, & Massey, 1996; Robinson & Weimer, 1991; Southern, Jones, & Fiscus, 1989):

●● Accelerated children will be socially immature— they will not socialize well with older children, will have fewer friends, and will not be happy.

●● They will be deprived of necessary childhood experiences.

●● They will be involved in fewer extracurricular activities.

●● Acceleration will make excessive academic demands, cause stress, and lead to problems of early  burnout, rebelliousness, and/or emotional maladjustment.

●● Achievement will be low; accelerated children will not do well because of increased academic competition.

●● They will miss leadership experiences and will not develop leadership skills.

●● They will become conceited and arrogant. ●● Parents of excluded children will be angry. ●● Some parents push their children into early kinder-

garten admission, whether or not they are ready.

Regarding the latter point, in a remarkable attempt to smuggle her child into kindergarten, one parent used white-out and a photocopier to change her child’s birth certificate. Another forged a letter—on stolen doctor’s stationery—recommending that the child be admitted (McClusky et al., 1996). Some readers will assume that these were extremely pushy parents. Others will recog- nize them only as desperate parents determined that their children have opportunities to learn in school rather than

simply repeating what they have, a long time ago, learned at home.

With the critical stipulation that children must be carefully evaluated regarding cognitive, social-emotional, and physical readiness, research supports early admission to kindergarten or first grade. In an early study, Reynolds (1962) compared 550 early entrants with 4,000 regular classmates. On average, in elementary school, the early entrants performed better academically than their older grade-mates. Hobson (1979) confirmed that their superior- ity continued through high school, they participated in more extracurricular activities, they earned significantly more graduation awards, and they were more likely to be admitted to college. McClusky, Baker, and Massey (1996) described a Manitoba, Canada, policy of admitting kinder- garten children who miss the December 31 cutoff date by 1 or 2 months. After parents apply, clinicians evaluate the child’s cognitive skills, learning readiness, receptive/ expressive language, and interactions and behavior. The authors evaluated the academic success of 54 early-admis- sion students of various ages (some were still in school; others had completed college). The academic performance of 80% was rated “excellent” or “acceptable”; 20% was rated “poor.” They also found that children entering kin- dergarten early received significantly higher evaluation rat- ings by their fifth-grade teachers than they had by their kindergarten teachers, concluding that many cases that were originally negatively evaluated actually turned out to be very successful when the children were given more time and maturity. The authors cautioned educators and parents not to conclude too soon whether the acceleration was suc- cessful. They pointed out that most kindergarten teachers are supportive of early entrants, but some are truly hostile toward them; one actually proclaimed in red ink on a cumulative file, “Look out! Early entrance student. Imma- ture!” (McCluskey, Massey, & Baker, 1997, p. 29). Teach- ers’ negative attitudes toward early-entered children could stem from their experiences with accelerated children who were too immature to function well in their classes, or because these students were evaluated for success too soon, or because some highly nurturant teachers may sim- ply be too protective of young children to recognize that they can thrive in challenging situations.

Many other studies of acceleration (or grouping with older students) show that the vast majority of early-entering precocious children—who are carefully selected for readiness—adjust at least as well as nonaccelerated, gifted, control group children. Their achievement not only is equal to that of others in their grade but also typically is superior (Feldhusen, 1992; Colangelo et al., 2004; Gross, 1999; Kulik, 2003; Proctor, Black, & Feldhusen, 1986; Robinson & Weimer, 1991).

100 Chapter 5

One difficulty relates to a finding that highly gifted children often have more social difficulties than other gifted children (e.g., Hollingworth, 1942). However, these children have the greatest need for early admission to kin- dergarten. Kindergarten and first-grade teachers should allow time for adjustment. Also, highly verbal gifted chil- dren may be unaccustomed to sharing adult attention and thus may appear troublesome and immature, whether or not they enter early (Rimm, 1990b). Following are two examples: The first child entered several months early, and the second was actually held back, or “red-shirted,” because of concerns about immaturity. In the first case, the student was somewhat younger; in the second, the student was older than many children in his grade.

Latrisha

Latrisha, an African American early entrant to kindergarten, was small in size and looked more like a 3-year-old than a kindergarten stu- dent. Her IQ score was 150, and her math and reading achievement tests were at third- and fourth-grade levels, respectively. Latrisha struggled with her handwriting, which matched that expected of young kindergarten-age chil- dren. Intellectually, she was easily ready for second-grade work. Socially, she fit in well with her kindergarten friends. Physically, she looked like a preschooler. Her development was truly asynchronous.

On the basis of Rimm’s recommenda- tions, Latrisha went to reading classes regularly with advanced first-graders and read to class- mates in kindergarten. She enjoyed her kinder- garten social life and loved her first-grade reading classes as well. She received occupa- tional therapy to assist with her handwriting problems. She could be subject-accelerated in math in first grade when her handwriting improves, and she undoubtedly will benefit from a full grade skip in the next year or two.

Latrisha’s kindergarten teacher was not at all comfortable with the child’s adjustment and would not have rated it as being successful because of her immaturity. The teacher was correct in seeing Latrisha as immature, but incorrect in assuming that her acceleration was inappropriate. As a psychologist with years of experience advising families of gifted chil- dren, Rimm can assure the family, with rea- sonable confidence, that Latrisha’s maturity will catch up, and her need for learning must be met or she could indeed underachieve and

resort to difficult behavior to attract the atten- tion she has long been accustomed to.

robert

Robert, an only child, was highly gifted and very verbal. His parents took the advice of the school to hold him back for a year because of his young age. He waited a year and entered as one of the oldest in his class.

Robert brought two backpacks to school for sharing. He had learned so much and wanted to communicate it all. When he was not called on as frequently as he would have liked, he clowned around and disrupted the class. Lack of challenge continued to be a problem, although with therapeutic help for Robert, his parents, and teachers, Robert’s behavior prob- lems disappeared. He was subject-accelerated in reading in first grade but was also ahead in math. The school was not eager to move him ahead because of his earlier behavior prob- lems. Finally, Robert was allowed to skip fourth grade and be placed with age mates. There will be more need for academic chal- lenge, but it is obvious to his parents and teach- ers that this is a better fit for Robert.

If Robert had entered school as the youngest in his class, his behavior problems would have been blamed on his young age. It took time for the problems to be associated correctly with his lack of challenge.

How can a school district resolve the differences between conflicting conclusions drawn on the basis of the results of multiple research projects and typical teacher impressions? An early admissions policy that gives careful consideration to the variables discussed in the following subsections is likely to select gifted children who will suc- ceed, despite their younger age.

inTELLEcTuAL prEcOciTy An individual intelligence test score of 130 or more is recommended for early admis- sion (Feldhusen, 1992). However, 130 should not be a rigid cutoff point, particularly because young children who are not accustomed to taking tests may easily underperform (Rimm, 2007a).

rEAdinG And AriThmETic rEAdinEss Reading is the skill most critical to early school success. Test scores should show clear readiness to read. Many gifted children are able to read prior to school entrance. Feldhusen (1992)

Acceleration 101

Juan

Juan was tested for early entrance to kindergar- ten. Academic and intelligence testing showed him to be beyond readiness for first grade. The teacher observed him as shy and somewhat of a loner and thus recommended that he not be entered early. Despite the teacher’s recommen- dations, Juan entered kindergarten.

All teachers indicated excellent adjust- ment for Juan. They also commented on his quiet personality. By fifth grade, Juan searched for challenge and loved learning. He expressed himself well and had a few good friends. An extra year of preschool likely would not have changed his quiet personality.

Both Timmy and Juan are now highly successful medical-school students. Both were helped, and neither were harmed, by their early acceleration.

hEALTh A child who has a history of good health is more likely to attend school regularly and concentrate on class- work. Frequent health problems combined with a young age may put too much stress on even a very gifted child.

GEndEr Although each child must be considered indi- vidually, on average, males do mature later than females. Because physical maturity is a consideration, it is neither unusual nor necessarily unfair for girls to be favored for early admission; however, there is no research to suggest that gender affects the success of early admissions or grade skipping.

schOOL Of EnTrAncE The average IQ in some schools may be 120 or 125, whereas in others the average may be 100 or less. Thus, an early-entering child’s intellectual ability should be considered relative to the school popula- tion. If the school has many gifted children and a challeng- ing curriculum, its regular fare is more likely to provide adequate challenge. Therefore, the gifted child may do just as well by waiting to enter with same-age children.

The openness and flexibility of the attitudes of those in the school system are also important. If administrators and teachers are opposed, an early entrance may set up the child for failure. That child will require more support. A coopera- tive spirit of partnership among teachers, counselors, and parents increases success (Robinson & Weimer, 1991).

ThE rEcEivinG TEAchEr Ideally, the child’s teacher should favor early admission and be willing to help the child adjust; the child does not need a pessimistic or hos- tile teacher (Feldhusen, 1992). However, the child should

recommended that, for early admission to first grade, the child should demonstrate both reading comprehension and arithmetic reasoning at or above the level of second semes- ter of first grade.

sOciAL And EmOTiOnAL mATuriTy The child should not have serious adjustment problems. Ideally, the child adapted readily to preschool experiences, adapted to other group activities, and/or had friends in the grade he or she wishes to enter (Feldhusen, 1992). Development should be evenly advanced in all domains, although uneven develop- ment actually is more common, and that unevenness makes the decision making more difficult (Robinson & Weimer, 1991). For children with less-even development, a thera- pist or parent can often help the child develop appropriate social skills. Observations by a psychologist can help determine school social adjustment.

Perceptions of immaturity may be misleading, and biased by the often-held assumption that small children and young children automatically are immature. Here are two examples:

timmy

On the basis of her observations of his imma- turity, Timmy’s preschool teacher recom- mended that Timmy wait an extra year rather than enter kindergarten as a young kindergar- tener. Timmy was already reading beyond first-grade level and doing math beyond second-grade level. The school psychologist tested Timmy and found him to be in the very superior range of ability.

Timmy’s parents asked what the symp- toms of his immaturity were. His small size was given as one indicator, and his inability to sit still during story time was another.

At the recommendation of the psycholo- gist, Timmy’s dad asked his son to work hard at sitting still during story hour each day and to report his progress to him each day. After 2 weeks, Timmy’s parents called the teacher, who commented on Timmy’s jump in maturity.

Both of Timmy’s parents are small, and both have high energy. One specific change in Timmy’s behavior made a difference in the teacher’s perception of his maturity. Timmy did enter kindergarten, successfully, as a young kindergartner. He made an excellent adjust- ment, although he continued to require further academic challenge. He also continued to be short for his age and never became a profes- sional basketball player.

102 Chapter 5

Be sure to check with the department of education in your own state to be aware of its early entrance policies. If their policy is unfair to gifted children, you, together with colleagues and parents, can help to change state policies.

GrAdE sKippinG

Grade skipping is the traditional method of accelerating precocious elementary school students. It requires no spe- cial materials or facilities, no G/T coordinator, and not even a G/T program. In fact, it is extraordinarily cost effective in moving the gifted or talented child through and out of the school system ahead of schedule. Grade skip- ping may be initiated by parents who are aware that their child is one or two years ahead of the rest of the class, bored with school, and impatient with his or her peers, or by a teacher, psychologist, or counselor who make the same observation. Grade skipping, or double promotion, usually takes place in the lowest elementary grades but sometimes in advanced grades. The term double promo- tion is often applied when the child makes the skip at the end of a school year and is thus promoted two grades rather than one grade ahead. Some gifted children skip two or three grades (occasionally, more) and enter college at age 15 or 16. Parents become quite frustrated if their dis- trict does not permit grade skipping, and many districts do not permit it.

There are at least two major concerns regarding grade skipping. The first is the problem of missing critical basic skills. Many teachers feel that if a child is not taught an important math or reading skill, he or she will be at a great disadvantage in later grades. They frequently predict that the child will (1) not be able to maintain good grades, (2) see him- or herself as less capable, and therefore (3) lose school motivation. It is true that some skills are absolutely critical to the learning of later skills, and their absence could place stress on the student. However, many gifted students acquire knowledge and skills far ahead of their grade levels and learn either independently or from an interested parent or older sibling. That is, the “missing skills” may not be missing at all. As a precaution, a series of diagnostic tests for the grade to be skipped can identify missing skills, and the motivated gifted child typically can learn these quickly, either working independently or with the help of interested adults.

The second concern—social adjustment to peers—is even more common. Parents and teachers may be familiar with a gifted child who skipped a grade and experienced social problems or maladjustment. Once again we find a conf lict between research conclusions and what many teachers, administrators, and parents claim. The current

not be forced to wait because of the teacher’s attitudes at the beginning. Many initially pessimistic teachers change their attitude when the child truly shows readiness.

fAmiLy vALuEs The child who is permitted early entrance needs the support of a family that values educa- tion and academic achievement. For example, if success in team sports is an important family goal, there is high risk of stress for an undersized, accelerated boy.

AsynchrOnOus dEvELOpmEnT Young gifted chil- dren are particularly vulnerable to the effect of differences within their development. The 4½-year-old who reads at a fifth-grade level and is comfortable with multiplication and division may struggle with handwriting or the stamina to attend a full day of school (Colangelo, Assouline, & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2004). Whereas these differences may make it more difficult for the early entrant to kinder- garten to adjust, they should not rule out acceleration. A supportive teacher and understanding parents can tem- porarily assist an immature child while that child catches up on minor skills and maturity.

In summary, early entrance to kindergarten or first grade definitely is recommended for gifted children who are carefully screened according to the preceding criteria. If parents are considering early kindergarten admission for their precocious child, teachers and principals might rec- ommend that the child be enrolled in a quality preschool. The preschool will provide parents and educators with an opportunity to observe the child’s social and cognitive adjustment in a school setting. The experience will also foster further skill development and will acquaint the child with social and academic classroom routines. Admitting a child early to either kindergarten or first grade is not a rigid, unchangeable decision. In fact, noted Feldhusen, “All cases of early admission should be on a trial basis” (1992, p. 47). Whereas Feldhusen recommended a trial period of six weeks, Rimm (1992b) found that some chil- dren required as much as a semester to make a smooth adjustment. Let’s remember also the earlier-quoted study that encouraged postponing conclusions about success until fifth grade (McCluskey et al., 1997). All students whom Rimm recommended for early entrance, according to careful screening, adjusted smoothly, despite the fact that receiving administrators and teachers were frequently reluctant to approve the decision.

States vary in their laws related to early entrance to kindergarten. Some states actually forbid students who are even a day younger than the entrance deadline to matricu- late in kindergarten. Many states allow comprehensive evaluations of students to determine whether a gifted stu- dent should be encouraged to enter kindergarten early.

Acceleration 103

research-based consensus is that, in most cases, gifted stu- dents are quite comfortable with their intellectual peers— older students—and suffer no noticeable maladjustment or neuroses (Benbow & Lubinski, 1997; Feldhusen, 1992; Kulik, 2004; Kulik & Kulik, 1984; Rimm, 1991b, 1992b; Robinson, 2004; Rogers, 2004; Southern & Jones, 1991, 1992; VanTassel-Baska, 1986).

A study of students in secondary school in the Netherlands (U.S. Grades 7 and 8) found that they had slightly less social status than non-grade-skipped children (Hoogeveen, van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2009). For the girls, that situation improved by the end of eighth grade, and follow-up studies might find the problem had dissipated.

For example, among Terman’s gifted children, those who had been accelerated one or two years made better adjustments than those who were not (Terman & Oden, 1947). Brody and Benbow (1987) found that accelerated high school students did as well as, or better than, the oth- ers in all areas of achievement, had higher career aspira- tions, and attended more select colleges. There were no differences in social or emotional adjustment. Said Brody and Benbow, “This study did not reveal any harmful effects as a result of acceleration” (p. 109).

Meta-analytic studies that combine data from many studies on grade skipping (Kulik, 2004; Lubinski, 2004; Rogers, 2004) have shown not only that grade skipping helps gifted students but that, in most cases, no other pro- grams for gifted students work as well as acceleration does (Kulik, 2004).

Reservations about grade skipping may be based on some faulty assumptions and interpretations, for example:

1. Persons who have been accelerated may incor- rectly blame adolescent adjustment problems on their acceleration. Persons who were not accelerated might blame their problems on other factors (Rimm, 2007a).

2. Gifted children, on average, are better adjusted socially and emotionally than typical students. However, children with very high intelligence have special problems relating to others because of their differentness (e.g., Delisle, 1992; Gross, 1993a; Hollingworth, 1942; Rimm, 2007a; see Chapter 17). Because these children are the ones most likely to be skipping grades, their social prob- lems, actually related to their extremely high intelligence, may be blamed mistakenly on acceleration.

3. When outsiders observe a school child who is noticeably smaller or younger than average, they may infer that the child certainly must be having social problems, even though testimony from the child does not indicate any special problems.

To reduce the risk of problems related to grade skipping, we recommend one of two alternatives. The stu- dent should be evaluated by a psychologist who is experi- enced in evaluating gifted students for acceleration, and/ or educators or parents should coordinate the use of the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS; Assouline, Colangelo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2003). The IAS is an assessment that was developed from 20 years of clinical work with students who were being considered for grade skipping. It includes 20 items, classified into five subtotals including (1) Academic Ability, Aptitude, and Achievement; (2) School and Academic Factors; (3) Developmental Factors; (4) Interpersonal Skills; and (5) Attitude and Support. The IAS provides a systematic framework for decision making and communicates infor- mation about the appropriateness and risks of grade skip- ping, at the same time offering decision makers reassurance about the information (Assouline, Colangelo, Ihrig, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2004).

Teachers and parents too often conclude that it is simply easier to avoid grade skipping. Administratively, they are correct, of course. However, teachers and parents should recognize that keeping a highly precocious child in an unstimulating environment is also making a decision— one that communicates to the gifted child that he or she is not expected to perform at the level of his or her capability and that social success is more important than academic challenge. That decision can be more intellectually, and even socially, harmful to the gifted child than the decision to skip grades. Boredom, restlessness, frustration, undera- chievement, and disruptiveness can be replaced by enhanced motivation, improved self-concepts, and improved study habits and productivity.

As examples of the effectiveness of elementary school acceleration, Gross described five extremely preco- cious students (IQs 5 160 to 200) who, because of care- fully planned and monitored grade skipping and radical subject-matter skipping, “are more stimulated intellectu- ally, enjoy closer and more productive social relationships, and display healthier levels of social self-esteem than do equally gifted children who have been retained with age peers of average ability” (Gross, 1992b, p. 91; 1993, 1999). She also warned that there is great risk of severe undera- chievement and frustration when profoundly or exception- ally gifted children are not radically accelerated (Gross, 2004a).

Rimm used grade skipping and subject skipping to prevent or reverse underachievement in 14 high-IQ chil- dren, all of whom had been brought by parents to Rimm’s Family Achievement Clinic (Rimm & Lovance 1992a, 1992b). Note the irony: The children were unhappy, often doing poor work or behaving badly—and therefore would

104 Chapter 5

hardly be teachers’ choices for acceleration—yet the grade and subject skipping provided the academic challenge needed to stimulate interest and achievement consistent with their high ability. Later, all parents and (initially reluctant) administrators agreed that acceleration was the right move.

Culross, Jolly, and Winkler (2013) reviewed 45 acceleration (quantitative and qualitative) research studies conducted between 1926 and 2010 and concluded that their analyses strongly support grade acceleration, includ- ing early entrance to school, grade skipping, and early entrance to college. They revisited “The Wisdom of John Feldhusen” study (Feldhusen, Proctor, & Black, 1986), which provided 12 guidelines for acceleration. After their summary of 25 years of research on acceleration, they con- cluded that resistance on the part of both parents and edu- cators to acceleration continues despite the solid research that supports its effectiveness.

Anthony Sikorski provides a convincing argument for both grade skipping and subject acceleration for a profoundly gifted child. At age 10, Anthony stood on a stool to be seen behind the podium. He inspired laughter and tears, and expressed appreciation to his public school that allowed him challenge, love of learning, and friend- ship of his multi-age classmates. Anthony is attending Arrowhead High School in Wisconsin and will continue with the math he loves by taking trigonometry and pre- calculus. He has joined the marching band and moved forward with his cystic fibrosis treatments. Anthony’s strong optimistic voice announced to his audience and his peers his excellent social-emotional adjustment despite his many differences (Permission of Sikorski parents, 2015).

suBjEcT sKippinG And AccELErATiOn

Grade skipping is sometimes called full acceleration; sub- ject skipping, therefore, is partial acceleration. One kind of subject skipping involves taking classes or studying par- ticular subjects with students in higher grades. It is espe- cially appropriate in sequential types of subject matter—particularly, reading, math, and languages—but possible in other subjects as well. Thus, subject skipping is suitable for the student with special skills and talents pri- marily in a single area. The acceleration may begin in ele- mentary school and continue through high school. Subject skipping within a school usually requires no extra cost but is heavily dependent on the f lexibility of teachers and administrators.

Other kinds of subject acceleration can be accom- plished by the student’s taking summer school, going to after-school or Saturday classes, or being mentored or

tutored (Southern & Jones, 2004). Students whose elemen- tary schools have not provided advanced math classes may take these alternative accelerated classes to join the honor sections of their high school. Students at every level can also take supplementary, accelerated, out-of-school classes simply because they enjoy learning at a rapid pace. It is important to check the policy of the school before assum- ing that credit can be earned for accelerated subjects and that the student will not be required to repeat the material in his or her regular school. Slow repetition of an already accomplished, accelerated course could feel “deadly” to a gifted student. According to a study conducted by Lee and Olszewski-Kubilius (2005), only about 60% of students taking out-of-school summer courses at the accredited Center for Talent Development were awarded credit by their regular school. Whereas these findings show improve- ment over earlier studies (when even fewer received credit), many students (40%) undoubtedly were disap- pointed to either miss receiving credit or have to repeat classes.

Subject acceleration may also be appropriate for twice-exceptional students who are both gifted and learn- ing disabled. They may need support or accommodation in their area of weakness to accomplish accelerated work in their area of strength. For example, the math whiz who cal- culates everything in his head but who struggles with hand- writing may benefit from a computer he can talk to as he calculates his math problems. Paying attention only to this child’s disabilities will likely cause him to lose confidence even in his area of strength (Moon & Reis, 2004).

Subject skipping has many important advantages and only one major disadvantage. On the positive side, it per- mits the child to be intellectually challenged in a specific area of strength while he or she continues to develop appro- priate grade-level skills in other areas. It also permits the child to remain with social peers. Subject skipping may be used experimentally to determine whether grade skipping later would be appropriate; the teacher can observe the aca- demic and social adjustment of the child in the new setting and make a more confident decision about full acceleration.

The main disadvantage of subject skipping is the problem of continuity. Too often, a particular school or teacher may be willing to accelerate a student in a single subject, such as math, but makes no overall organizational plan for continuous progress. Therefore, the child who masters three years of math in just one may suddenly dis- cover that he or she must repeat two of the courses. How- ever, if continuously accelerated course work can be planned for the child, subject acceleration is an ideal approach for a child with high abilities in specific areas. Rimm and Lovance (1992a, 1992b) found that students who were first subject-skipped and later grade-skipped felt

Acceleration 105

relief at no longer having to explain their participation in two different grade levels; so, a secondary, slight disadvan- tage of subject skipping may be the child’s need to cope with some ambiguity in explanations to peers.

EArLy AdmissiOn TO middLE Or sEniOr hiGh schOOL

This particular acceleration alternative seems not to be popular. For some students, however, the best grade to be skipped is the one just before middle or high school—that is, grade 5, 6, 8, or 9 (Brody & Stanley, 1991). From an academic perspective, the student may be ready and anx- ious for advanced work in the more specialized, higher school. Socially, it may be an opportune time to accelerate because new friendships develop when students from sev- eral elementary or middle schools meet for the first time in the new school setting.

crEdiT By ExAminATiOn

In middle or high school, one cost-free mechanism for jus- tifiable subject skipping is credit by examination. For example, if a talented mathematics or language student feels he or she already has acquired the content of a semes- ter course, perhaps through home study or foreign travel, the student should be allowed to test out of the course and, if mastery is demonstrated, receive academic credit. In addition to preventing repetition and boredom, allowing credit by examination encourages gifted students to accept challenges, set goals, and work toward them.

As a precaution, the student should be provided with an outline of the material to be included in the test. This outline gives the student a fair opportunity to appraise his or her own skills and to concentrate study on those not yet mastered. Another precaution is an understanding of how success for the exam will be measured. A student should not be required to receive a perfect score in order to earn credit by examination. Eighty percent correct is often selected as a competency score for receiving credit. Students who fall below that score should have opportunities, after further study, to be retested within a specific time frame. Failure experienced on tests due to lack of adequate preparation or miscommunication about test content is an unpleasant expe- rience for both the student and the school staff.

College credit, which permits advanced placement when the student enters college, also may be earned through examination, as in the Advanced Placement (AP) program described in the next section or the College Level Examination Program (CLEP) (e.g., Karnes & Chauvin, 1982; Zimmerman & Brody, 1986). Unlike the

AP program, CLEP does not offer courses, just examina- tions. CLEP examinations for college credit are accepted by 2,900 colleges and are available in 36 subject areas, including math, English (composition and literature), busi- ness, computer science, psychology, science, history, and foreign languages (College Board, 2008a). The exams are 90-minute, multiple-choice tests, although optional essay exams are available if colleges require them. The exams may be taken by anyone (e.g., juniors or seniors in high school), but they are not counted for credit until the stu- dent is enrolled in college. Before registering for an exam, the student should check to determine whether the college of one’s choice accepts CLEP credits because not all do.1 Websites and college catalogs usually include the neces- sary information under the category of credit by examina- tion. Some colleges award credits; others grant exemptions from taking a course but don’t actually award credit. Either way, these exams can provide valuable acceleration opportunities.

cOLLEGE cOursEs in hiGh schOOL

Robinson and Noble observed that “for the young person whose intellectual development is markedly above aver- age, the pace of ordinary secondary school classes is . . . like going through every day in a slow motion movie” (1992, pp. 20–21). A solution available to many bright and motivated secondary students is taking college-level courses while in high school.

For example, in a dual enrollment program, a stu- dent may be excused from high school for part of the day to take one or more courses on the college campus. The earned college credits may be used at the particular col- lege when the student is admitted or the credits normally can be transferred to another college. It is important that the courses also be credited toward high school gradua- tion requirements so that the student is not burdened— punished—with double the amount of course work.

One problem is that a dual enrollment program could easily discriminate against gifted and talented, economi- cally poor students. To overcome that problem, many states permit high school students with excellent grades to have their school districts pay for tuition, fees, and books for courses at college as long as their high schools do not offer comparable classes. Some public and private universities have participated in this dual enrollment option, and some high schools arrange options at community and technical colleges.

1For additional information on CLEP, write to College Board, 45 Columbus Avenue, New York, NY 10023, phone (212) 713–8000, or go online to the College Board website.

106 Chapter 5

AdvAncEd pLAcEmEnT

The Advanced Placement (AP) program, like CLEP, is sponsored by College Board. The AP program consists of college-level courses and examinations for high school students. The courses often take the form of honors classes and are taught by instructors who follow an AP course description. Almost 17,000 high schools offer AP classes, and participation has more than doubled in the last 10 years (College Board, 2008b). Two million students took AP exams in 2008, but the mean score has decreased from 2.9 in 2004 to 2.83 (Cech, 2008). The recommended cutoff for college credit is 3. Students in middle or high school, college students, or anyone else may prepare indi- vidually or with a tutor and then take the tests. The tests are given only at high schools.

The AP program offers over 30 courses and exams in 20 subject areas, such as English literature and compo- sition, foreign languages (including Latin), chemistry, economics, statistics, music theory, calculus, physics, psy- chology, history (U.S., European, art, world), computer science, art, government and politics, and biology. The exams are given over a two-week period in May of each year and include a two- to three-hour exam with multiple- choice, free-response, and essay questions. Courses nor- mally require a full year to complete. Over 3,000 colleges accept AP credit, but the colleges differ in the maximum number of credits that can count toward graduation. High schools also differ in the number and variety of AP courses they make available to students. For additional informa- tion, contact the College Board at their website or at any of the regional offices whose addresses are listed in Appendix 5.1 at the end of this chapter.

disTAncE LEArninG

Every major university has long offered distance learn- ing, online, or independent study courses. Most courses are computer-based and have expanded far beyond only college courses. They present valuable opportunities for talented students who live in rural areas, small cities, or small towns, as well as for those who wish to take more advanced courses than some schools can provide. Leaders in providing distance learning to gifted students are Duke University’s Talent Identification Program, the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University, the Edu- cation Program for Gifted Youth at Stanford University, and the Renzulli Learning System online program. These distance learning programs span Grade 2 through college and include subjects such as JAVA for Video Games, Anatomy and Physiology, The Wonder of Ancient Egypt, and Literary Analysis (Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2008).

College courses carry full credit; are written by profes- sors; and are supervised by college professors, instruc- tors, or qualified graduate students. Courses are available in a variety of areas such as college math, algebra, statistics, introductory psychology, educational psychol- ogy, sociology, economics, anthropology, astronomy, his- tory, foreign languages, and others. The University of Wisconsin–Madison offers a distance learning course in gifted education that uses this text. Distance learning courses may be taken in summer as a form of independent study, or as enrichment in conjunction with a regular school program. It may surprise you to learn that even courses usually requiring face-to-face student–teacher interaction or laboratories are now taught by computer— for example, biology, physics, chemistry, and music (Board of Regents, 2007). Not only is there online teacher–student interaction, but technology now allows plenty of student interaction in real-time class discussions online (Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2008).

Considerable self-motivation is needed to complete an independent study course successfully. Although many students thrive on independent opportunities, other stu- dents are more likely to be successful if several of them take the same course, thus permitting mutual support, stimulation, and assistance. It is also helpful if a teacher can serve as advisor should students need support or encouragement.

TELEscOpEd prOGrAms

Telescoping means, for example, collapsing 3 academic years’ work into 2 or collapsing 4 years of high school into 3. In middle school, if enough talented, young mathematicians are available to form a class, a normal 3-year math-and- algebra sequence might be taught at an accelerated pace in 2 years. Although less common, the same telescoping can be used with other subjects—for example, condensing 3 years of middle school science into 2 years.

In high school, telescoping 4 years’ work into 3 is almost entirely a counseling problem, assuming that district policies permit such acceleration. The energetic and capable student, with the assistance of his or her counselor, simply cuts down on the study hall classes and schedules 4 years of high school requirements into a more compact and busier 3. If 3 years is unrealistic, a 3½-year program would still per- mit a capable student to begin college a semester early.

Planning individual telescoped programs can be complicated. Schools generally prefer that students design their plan before beginning even their freshman year. How- ever, not many 13-year-olds can predict whether telescop- ing their high school education—trading more work for early graduation—is a good idea for them. A counselor

Acceleration 107

and 13 left the program due to stress. Cornell, Callahan, and Lloyd emphasized the importance of socioemotional matu- rity, good self-concepts, and the ability to relate well to adults, all of which can lead to excellent adjustment and healthy personality growth in early college admissions pro- grams. They suggested also that programs in which students commute to college may be less stressful than residential programs.

Rogers (2004) analyzed 27 studies of college early entrants and listed the following prior indicators of likely student success: scores greater than 150 on IQ test and completed advanced-level college course work while in high school; scores greater than 650 on SAT math or verbal exams prior to 11th grade (or equivalent on ACT); frustra- tion with pace of regular high school instruction; inde- pendence, motivation, social maturity, self-confidence, and competitiveness; preference for fast-paced challenge; pref- erence for working with self-instructional materials, lec- ture, individual projects, and discussion; no regret about losing social life of high school; strongly interested in at least one academic area; and a history of involvement in some out-of-school activities.

Twenty-five years ago, before gifted education had so greatly affected high schools, highly gifted students who preferred staying in their high school environment had few choices. Now they have many choices, including the already mentioned AP classes, distance education, summer programs, and dual enrollment at high school and college (Brody et al., 2004); thus, leaving high school early may not seem as tempting.

rEsidEnTiAL hiGh schOOLs

Our national need for mathematicians, engineers, and sci- entists, paired with disturbing findings by the National Assessment of Educational Programs, provides the impe- tus to states to initiate residential high schools in math, sci- ence, and technology. Twelfth-graders in the United States continue to rank near the bottom in math in international comparisons (Mervis, 2007). In the past 25 years, the numbers of residential high schools in math, science, and technology have surged. High school students can now attend special live-in schools, such as the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics; the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts; the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and the Humanities; the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy; the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science; the Mississippi School for Math and Science; the Missouri Academy of Science, Mathematics, and Computing; the Massachusetts Acad- emy of Mathematics and Science; the South Carolina Gov- ernor’s School for Science and Mathematics; Carol Martin

who specializes in giftedness should be able to help a stu- dent make a decision and plan future course work after the student acquires some experience in high school. Some schools for the gifted telescope their program for the entire student body, thus permitting students to complete Grades 6–12 in 4 rather than 6 years.

EArLy AdmissiOn TO cOLLEGE

Many gifted and talented high school students and even a small number of middle school students are permitted to enter college early on a full-time basis (Brody & Stanley, 1991; Brody, Muratori, & Stanley 2004; Colangelo et al., 2004a; Gregory & March, 1985; Hertzog & Chung, 2015; Jung, Young, & Gross, 2015; Karnes & Chauvin, 1982; Olszewski-Kubilius, 1995; Jung, Young, & Gross, 2015; Hertzog & Chung, 2015; Sayler, 2015). In some cases, high school requirements are met early, as in telescoping plans. In other cases where students have not completed all high school courses, the high school diploma is awarded only after the student has completed substitute college courses. In a few cases, high school requirements are f lexible, some course requirements are waived, and a qualified student simply enters college full-time without meeting all of the usual graduation requirements. The last plan’s success depends more on the policies of a particular college admissions office than on those of the high school. It is the college that admits the student who is without a diploma because the high school refuses to award it.

Early admission to college, with or without graduation from high school, is an excellent way for a mature, gifted student to accelerate his or her education. Unfortunately, many high school teachers and administrators discourage early graduation and early college admission. Also, high school students who consider this approach will probably miss opportunities for scholarships and honors and, of course, social and extracurricular activities. The early col- lege entrant should be prepared to trade these opportunities for the challenge of college work. If the student or his or her parents have doubts about early full-time college work, the strategy of first enrolling part-time while still in secondary school can make the decision easier.

Caution is indeed required in selecting students for early college admission. Cornell, Callahan, and Lloyd (1991) emphasized that large individual differences exist in the abilities of young people to adjust to college life and that early admission is inappropriate for some. In their study of 44 female students ages 13 to 17 who participated in a resi- dential (live-in) college program, over half suffered from periods of depression, a few showed suicidal tendencies,

108 Chapter 5

Others worry about the young scholars leaving home two or three years before they normally would leave for col- lege and that contact with older college students might be problematic, or that such schools foster attitudes of supe- riority and arrogance.

To counter some of these social and emotional issues, most residential schools set up calendars that include long weekends at home as well as opportunities for plenty of extracurricular sports and activities. To lessen the competitive pressures for these students, who were all ranked near the top of their classes, the schools emphasize collaboration in classwork and do not rank the students. Faculty and staff are alert to signs of stress, depression, or homesickness; they watch for symptoms of adjustment problems such as missing classes, not completing assign- ments, excessive socializing, or social withdrawal. Resi- dential high schools limit interaction between high school and college students by housing them separately and segre- gating the two groups for social and some academic activi- ties (Kolloff, 2003). Problems of arrogance are countered by requiring community service and some responsibilities for maintaining their school—a broom and mop can be humbling. Although within the school, competition is min- imized, the students are encouraged to compete outside school. Many of the graduates have become Goldwater, Presidential, and National Merit Scholars and have become winners of the prestigious Intel Science Talent Search Competitions (Jones, 2009).

inTErnATiOnAL BAccALAurEATE prOGrAms

The International Baccalaureate (IB) programs provide excellent advanced course work, including foreign lan- guages, and expose students to international concerns. At this writing, 4,460 authorized IB programs have been installed in schools in 151 countries. Of these, 1,703 are the highly selective 2-year high school Diploma Pro- grammes (DP) for students ages 16 to 19. There is also a Middle Years Program (MYP) and a Primary Years Pro- gram (PYP). The MYP and PYP are not prerequisites for the Diploma Programme (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2008).

In the Diploma Programme, students typically are selected by a committee of teachers, counselors, and administrators who evaluate “academic performance, attendance, conduct, extracurricular activities, motivation, and a written statement from the applicant” (Cox & Daniel, 1991, p. 158). Academically, the program draws students from above the 90th percentile. Students select one course from each of six subject groups. Students study six subjects selected from six subject groups, concurrently

Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Bowling Green, Kentucky; Alabama School for Science and Math- ematics; Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics; Advanced Academy of Georgia; Clarkson School Early Admission Program in New York; Mary Baldwin College Program in Virginia; National Academy of Arts, Sciences and Engineering at the University of Iowa; and Resident Honor Program at the University of Southern California (Kolloff, 2003; Rimm, 2007a; Stanley, 1987). The philoso- phy of these schools is based on the assumption that regu- lar high schools simply cannot offer either the number of advanced courses or a sufficiently diverse curriculum to provide for gifted students who, for example, master all the math courses their regular school has to offer within one or two years. Special residential programs thus are appropriate for students who are capable of mastering content much more rapidly than others and are able to engage in complex processes at high levels of abstraction (Kolloff, 2003, 2005).

Four of the residential high schools admit students beginning with Grade 10. However, most begin with Grade 11. Admission is highly selective. School size ranges from under 30 students to over 600. Residential high schools were created through legislative action and are supported by state funds. Therefore, they are committed to ensuring a racial and ethnic composition that represents the demographics of the state (Kolloff, 2003).

Many but not all residential high schools are located on college campuses, which provide the needed dormito- ries, cafeterias, and recreational facilities, to say nothing of cultural opportunities and academic resources. Residential high schools on college campuses permit high school stu- dents to take courses with college students.

Residential high schools highlight math and science. College courses in calculus, physics, chemistry, computer science, and biology form the foundation of the curricu- lum, enabling students to enter college with one or more years of credit in several areas. Even more advanced sci- ence, including organic chemistry, astrophysics, endocri- nology, microbiology, and histology, are offered to exceptional students (Jones, 2009). Other course work is also available, including English, history, art, music, litera- ture, and many other electives as unique as songwriting, tap dancing, and scuba diving.

The academic and social benefits of residential high schools seem self-evident. As with any acceleration plan, however, criticisms have been quick and unceasing. Some high schools complain of a brain drain—the best students leave regular high schools. The Gatton Academy in Kentucky responded to this concern by committing to attribute national merit awards, standardized test scores, and honors to the students’ original high schools.

Acceleration 109

which are challenging. Writing for the Washington Post, Mathews noted that most American colleges do not give college credit for the 1-year IB courses, although “they award credit for 1-year AP courses that are no harder, and sometimes easier, than their IB equivalents” (2001, 2008a). When Mathews questioned colleges on why they gave no credit, most colleges responsed that they didn’t know, they had no reason, they didn’t know the reason, or they might review their policies in the future (Mathews, 2008b). As a result of this inconsistency in policy, to earn college credit, many IB students not only take the SL IB tests but also spend time and money on AP tests. One IB school adminis- trator described each May as a “testing zoo”—in 2001 his school gave 532 IB exams and 961 AP exams. “The prob- lem is unfair and needs correcting,” wrote Mathews in 2008. Little progress was made during Mathews’s efforts from 2001 to 2008. How frustrating this must feel to IB students and their parents. For further information on the Switzerland-based International Baccalaureate Programs, see their website.

TALEnT sEArch prOGrAms

The best-known examples of accelerating bright secondary students into college-level work are the highly successful Talent Search programs, which began at Johns Hopkins University in 1971 as Julian Stanley’s Study of Mathemati- cally Precocious Youth (SMPY; Stanley, 1979, 1991a; Benbow & Lubinski, 1997).

The primary purpose of SMPY was to locate seventh-grade students with extraordinarily high mathe- matics talent “and help them find the special, supplemen- tal, accelerative opportunities they sorely need in order to move ahead faster and better in mathematics and related subjects such as physics and computer science” (Stanley, 1991a, p. 36). In an annual mathematics talent search, seventh- and some eighth-grade students are selected on the basis of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) mathematics scores. Students who score at or above the 51st percentile for college-bound high school seniors are considered mathematically precocious—they reason better mathe- matically than nearly all of their age mates (IQ 5 135 to 200) (Benbow & Lubinski, 1997). Students take summer mathematics classes, usually taught by college profes- sors. According to Stanley (1982), by working 5 to 6 hours per day, these students in 3 weeks can master 1 to 2 years of high school algebra and geometry—they are working, not sleeping, and by eighth grade are ready for calculus.

High school SMPY participants are encouraged to pursue any of a smorgasbord of acceleration options: They may (1) attend college part-time; (2) earn college credit by

over 2 years, as well as the core elements of the program. Either three or four courses must be Higher Level (HL; 240 teaching hours) courses; the rest must be Standard Level (SL; 150 hours) courses. Some schools may offer one or two SL courses to their students over their first Diploma Programme year, but it is not expected or intended that all SL courses should be taught over 1 year. Group 1—Language A1 is a student’s first language (e.g., English for most American students), with emphasis on written and oral skills, plus a study of world literature; Group 2—Second Language focuses on written and oral communication in a foreign language; Group 3—Individuals and Societies includes choices from business and manage- ment, economics, geography, history, Islamic history, infor- mation technology in a global society, philosophy, psychology, and social anthropology; Group 4—Experimental Sciences includes biology, chemistry, physics, environmen - tal systems, and design technology, all of which cover worldwide moral and ethical matters; Group 5—Mathematics and Computer Science includes selection from four math courses or a computer course; and a selection from Group 6—Arts and Electives covers visual arts, music, or theater, or a second selection from Groups 1–5. At the end of the 2-year program, students are assessed both internally and externally, measured against stated objectives for each subject. The grading system is criterion-based; that is, results are determined by performance against set standards, not by each student’s position in the overall rank order. Course grades reflect attainment of knowledge and skills relative to achievement criteria set by IB schools worldwide.

Just 39% of International Baccalaureate schools offer middle and elementary school programs (MYP and PYP). Their curriculums are instructive. The 5-year MYP program, which requires community service, environmen- tal awareness, and health and social education, includes “a thorough study of various disciplines . . . [and] their inter- relatedness” (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2008). The MYP emphasizes the importance of learning how to learn and to evaluate information but places less importance on learning only facts.

The PYP (for ages 3–12) emphasizes the interrelated- ness of concepts, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and actions— including sensitivity to the experiences of others and social responsibility. Six areas of study are languages (sharing the planet); social studies (who we are); mathematics (where we are in place and time); science and technology (how the world works); the arts (how we express ourselves); and per- sonal, social, and physical education (how we organize our- selves) (International Baccalaureate, 2008).

College credit for high school IB students continues to hit a snag. As stated earlier, IB schools offer 1-year Stand- ard Level courses and 2-year Higher Level courses, both of

110 Chapter 5

competitions, services for underserved populations, career and education counseling, recognition ceremonies, parent events, educator programs, and parent resources. Talent Search centers are determined to reach out and pro- vide acceleration options for gifted children from all socio- economic backgrounds (Lee, Matthews, & Olszewski- Kubilius, 2008).

In addition to middle school Talent Search programs, in recent years an Elementary Talent Search program has emerged for Grades 2 through 6, although the grades vary with the universities offering the program. For younger children, tests such as PLUS and Explore are used for identification (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2004). The students become involved in enriching learning opportunities (e.g., independent projects, weekend enrichment classes), con- tests and competitions (e.g., mathematical olympiads for elementary students), mentorships, grade skipping, and other activities.

There are other SMPY-related developments. Since 1980, a continuing activity at SMPY at Johns Hopkins has been a national search for very young math whizzes who score above 700 on the SAT-M, which is about 1 in 10,000 (Stanley, 1988). These students, labeled the “700–800 on SAT-M Before Age 13 Group,” are both studied and helped educationally. For example, “SMPY sends members of the group materials, espe- cially including a long quarterly newsletter, suggesting how they can proceed faster and better in mathematics and related subjects. Also, from time-to-time SMPY obtains scholarships for pre-college summer experi- ences” (Stanley, 1988, p. 208). In 1991, CTY assumed responsibility for locating seventh-graders with SAT-M scores over 700 and began looking also for youngsters in a “630–800 on SAT-V Before Age 13 Group,” also a 1 in 10,000 occurrence.

Benbow and Lubinski (1997) initiated a long-range Terman-like study of over 3,000 intellectually talented stu- dents, largely to evaluate the impact of education facilita- tion on their development. For example, a 10-year study by Swiatek and Benbow (1992) found that SMPY participants attended more prestigious colleges and female participants were more likely to attend graduate school. Females were also more likely to major in math or science in college (Olszewski-Kubilius & Grant, as cited in Lee et al., 2008; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2004). Benbow and Arjmand (1990) reported that acceleration of SMPY students, male and female, produced no detrimental social or emotional effects and may have improved social and emotional adjustment.

In 1983, Stanley and Benbow itemized the first six of the following benefits of SMPY participation, which

examination (e.g., in the CLEP or AP program); (3) skip a grade, particularly the one at the end of middle school; (4) complete 2 or more years of math in 1 year; (5) receive individual tutoring in advanced areas; (6) participate in an International Baccalaureate program; or (7) enter college early, either by early high school graduation or “simply by leaving high school before completing the last grade(s)” (Stanley, 1979). In every case, these students receive counseling regarding the educational alternatives that might be appropriate for them.

A few unbiased testimonials by Stanley (1979) may be of interest: “The boredom and frustration of even the average-scoring [SMPY] contestants when incarcerated in a year-long algebra class is difficult to appreciate. Often, highly able youths themselves are not aware of the extent of their slowdown, because it has been their lot from kin- dergarten onward. . . . Often, they take off like rockets intellectually when allowed to do so. . . . It is clear that a large reservoir of virtually untapped mathematical reason- ing ability exists all around the region.”

SMPY has expanded in many ways. In 1979, Stanley created the Johns Hopkins Center for Academically Tal- ented Youth (CTY), which conducted talent searches by using not only the SAT-Math score but also SAT-Verbal, SAT-Total, and ACT scores.

As with the Johns Hopkins SMPY and CTY, the pri- mary activity of university Talent Search programs is accelerated summer coursework, supplemented with coun- seling regarding educational opportunities (Lupkowski- Shoplik, Benbow, Assouline, & Brody, 2003). Many Talent Search summer programs offer AP courses that carry col- lege credit. One Talent Search program, for example, offered 14 academically oriented classes, including com- puter science courses (AP), calculus (AP), geology (AP), advanced language and composition (AP), speech and debate, Latin, Greek, survey of social sciences, laboratory science, economics, and mythology. Admission to each class was based on SAT scores (e.g., one computer science course required an SAT math score of at least 450), plus registration fees and books.

Talent Search centers have expanded in number and participation. Appendix 5.2 includes the names and web- sites of the talent search centers. Over 3 million students have participated in Talent Search programs since their inception. A high percentage of these students have been Caucasian (76.5%) and have come from higher-than- average income levels, although four of the centers do provide financial aid. To the extensive testing and summer programs, Talent Search Centers have added distance edu- cation; Saturday and weekend programs; leadership programs; and education services for gifted students, fami- lies, and educators. Among these services are contests and

Acceleration 111

6. Better graduate school and fellowship opportunities, due to better preparation, acquaintance with profes- sors, and research skills.

Benbow and Lubinski added the following two items:

7. “Intellectually gifted students . . . do not achieve as highly if deprived of an education that corresponds to their level of competence.”

8. “When differences are found, they favor the acceler- ates over the non-accelerates irrespective of the mode of acceleration. In addition, students are satis- fied with their acceleration” (1997, p. 164).

presumably would apply to Talent Search as well as other forms of academic acceleration:

1. Increased zest for learning and life, reduced bore- dom in school, and better school attitudes.

2. Enhanced feelings of self-worth and accomplishment. 3. Reduced egotism and arrogance, due to the

humbling effects of working for the first time with intellectual peers.

4. Far better educational preparation and thus improved qualifications for the most selective colleges.

5. Early college and graduate school admission.

Summary

Table 5.1 is a guide for planning G/T program content, summarized in the categories of basic skills, content beyond the prescribed curriculum, exposure to a variety of fields, student-selected content, high-content complexity, creative thinking and problem solving, thinking skills, computer skills, affective development, and motivation.

G/T programs vary in students served, program model and goals, acceleration, enrichment, grouping plans, instructional strategy, resources, and other dimensions.

Acceleration is defined as programming that results in advanced placement or credit; enrichment, essentially, is anything else. Both accommodate the high abilities and needs of gifted students. Both are required in any well- rounded program.

The Templeton National Report on Acceleration launched an unapologetic and provocative campaign and accused America of holding back its brightest students by not accelerating them.

With early admission to kindergarten or first grade, students are most likely to succeed if they are carefully screened. They should be intellectually precocious (recom- mended IQ 5 1301), possess adequate reading and math readiness, and have social-emotional maturity and good health. If a particular school already caters to very bright students, early admission may be unnecessary. The receiv- ing teacher should have positive attitudes regarding early admission. Family values should emphasize academic achievement. Early admission can be on a trial basis. Stud- ies have shown that early-entered students received signifi- cantly higher ratings by their fifth-grade teachers than they had been given by their kindergarten teachers. States vary in their policies for allowing early entrance to school.

Grade skipping can improve motivation and scholar- ship, social relations, and self-esteem. The problem of missing some essential basic skills can be solved via diagnostic tests and brief remedial work. Acceleration is

sometimes blamed for adolescent personal or social problems. Maladjustment due to extremely high IQ also is sometimes blamed on grade skipping. Grade skipping may be most successful if the student shows an IQ score of 130 or higher; one grade is skipped at a time; support from a teacher, counselor, or gifted peer is available; and intellec- tual and social adjustments are considered in the decision. Meta-analytic research shows that grade skipping helps gifted students and that no other programs work as well as acceleration. There are no deleterious social-emotional effects of acceleration.

Subject skipping permits the child to remain with age-mates while being challenged in a particular area of strength. Not repeating in later grades material that the stu- dent skipped earlier presents an issue of continuity that probably is the only potential shortcoming. Early admis- sion to middle or high school is a socially opportune time to skip a grade.

Credit by examination encourages G/T students to accept challenges and avoids repetition and boredom. Col- lege credit by examination may be earned in the CLEP and AP programs, which are highly cost effective. Two million students took AP tests in 2008, but mean scores were down to 2.83 from 2.9. Three is the score recommended for receiving college credit.

In a dual enrollment program, students take college courses while still in high school. Credits from college courses taken in high school should count toward high school graduation. In the AP programs, students take college courses in honors classes or as independent study.

Distance learning and independent study provides high school students accessibility to college courses. The courses require self-direction, and it is therefore desirable for a group of students to take the same course and for a high school teacher or counselor to monitor the students’ progress.

112 Chapter 5

Appendix 5.2 TAlenT SeArch And elemenTAry TAlenT SeArch progrAmS

Talent Search programs, started originally at Johns Hopkins University, use the SAT and ACT to identify high-level talent among primarily seventh-grade stu- dents. Students take summer classes and are encouraged to pursue other acceleration options. Talent Search pro- grams have expanded in number and participation. They offer challenging courses, some of which carry AP credit and usually educational and career counseling. Elemen- tary Talent Search is now also available for Grades 2 through 6.

SMPY and now CTY search for students who score above 700 on the SAT-M or above 630 on the SAT-V before age 13, both for study and to assist them. Benbow at Vanderbilt University is conducting a longitudinal study of 3,000 SMPY participants.

Benefits of Talent Search participation for students include improved zest for learning, better feelings of self-worth, better education preparation, early entrance into college and a profession, and better graduate- and professional-school opportunities. In long-term studies, SMPY participants were more likely to attend prestigious colleges, and female participants were more likely to major in math and science and attend graduate school.

Telescoping involves condensing a 2- or 3-year middle or high school program into fewer years.

Early college admission is recommended, despite the problem of forfeiting high school honors or scholarships. Many good students are socially and aca- demically ready, although some have experienced depres- sion and stress. Maturity, good self-concepts, and ability to relate with adults are critical. Stanley noted that early col- lege admission often improves social and emotional well- being, promotes interaction with professionals, impresses graduate schools, and permits one to enter a profession earlier.

Residential high schools continue to increase in number and cater mostly to students with high math and science talent; AP courses with college credit frequently are offered. Critics express concern about a brain drain as well as the adverse effects of leaving home early and being exposed to the negative influences of older college students.

The International Baccalaureate program focuses mainly on languages and international concerns. Many colleges do not give credit for IB courses unless AP exami- nations are taken.

Appendix 5.1 college BoArd officeS

the college Board national Office: 45 Columbus Avenue New York, NY 10023–6992 (212) 713–8000

reston, Virginia, Office: 11955 Democracy Drive Reston, VA 20190-5662 (571) 485–3000

middle states regional Office: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 501 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004–1501 (866) 392-3019

midwestern regional Office: 8700 W. Bryn Mawr Avenue, Suite 900N Chicago, IL 60631 (866) 392–4086

new england regional Office: 1601 Trapelo Road, Suite 12 Waltham, MA 02154–1982 (866) 392-4089

southern regional Office: 3700 Crestwood Parkway NW, Suite 700 Duluth, GA 30096 (866) 392-4088

southwestern regional Office: 4330 Gaines Ranch Loop, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78735–6735 (512) 721–1841

Western regional Office: 2001 Gateway Place, Suite 220W San Jose, CA 95110–1017 (866) 392-4078

University and Website Address Grade Level(s)

California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819 www.edweb.csus.edu/projects/ATS/

Elementary and middle, Grades 6 through 9, in California only

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 www.cmu.edu/cmites/

Elementary, Grades K through 9, in Pennsylvania only

Acceleration 113

Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland www.dcu.ie/ctyi/

Elementary and middle, ages 6 through 16

Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 www.tip.duke.edu

Upper elementary and middle (students accepted from many states)

Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 www.opptag.iastate.edu

Elementary and middle, Grades 2 through 11 (students accepted from many states)

Johns Hopkins University (CTY), Baltimore, MD 21218 www.cty.jhu.edu

Elementary and middle, Grades 2 through 9 (students accepted from many states)

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 www.ctd.northwestern.edu

Elementary and middle, Grades 3 through 9 (students accepted from many states)

University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 www.gifted.ucalgary.ca

Elementary

University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208 www.du.edu/city

Elementary and middle, Grades 4 through 10 (students accepted from many states)

University of Iowa, Belin-Blank Center, Iowa City, IA 52242 www.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank

Elementary and middle, Grades 2 through 9 (students accepted from many states)

University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia gerric.arts.unsw.edu.au

Elementary

University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 www.depts.washington.edu/cscy/

Elementary and middle, Grades 5 through 10, in Washington only

114

6 Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment

Learning OutcOmes

1. Compare and contrast the varying ways grouping options bring gifted students together.

2. Analyze tiered instruction, Developing and Assessing Products (DAP) Tool, Response to Intervention (RtI), and Schoolwide Enrichment Reading Framework (SEM-R) according to the six premises and four elements of differentiation.

3. Summarize the range of enrichment strategies.

4. Determine when and how to implement the three types of independent study, research, and art projects.

5. Describe the use of learning centers for mainstreamed gifted students.

6. Recommend ways to optimize student learning through field trips.

7. Assess the role of Saturday programs in gifted education.

8. Assess the benefits and problems of summer programs.

9. Recommend considerations for establishing mentorships.

10. Describe the features of Junior Great Books that align with the goals of gifted education.

11. List individual and team competitions that benefit gifted learners.

12. Select technological approaches to enhance gifted curriculum, acceleration, and enrichment opportunities.

C H A P T E R

W e noted at the outset of Chapter 5 that both acceleration and enrichment activities usually require group- ing gifted children. This chapter will review grouping plans at elementary and secondary levels, instruc- tional differentiation, and enrichment activities.

Three preliminary thoughts are these: First, students most often attribute their interest and motivation in school to their interactions with their teachers. Gifted students also report that teachers with extensive depth and breadth of content knowledge—teachers who “know their stuff ”—are better able to foster student learning and motivation (Siegle, Rubenstein, & Mitchell, 2013).

Second, not all students learn at the same pace, nor are all of them interested in pursuing the same topics in greater depth and at high levels of complexity. When teachers take students’ interests into account (Siegle, R ubenstein, Pollard, & Romey, 2010) and differentiate (Roberts & Inman, 2007; 2015b), all students learn more because each student has the opportunity to learn what he or she is ready and motivated to learn.

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 115

Third, a common criticism of enrichment activities in gifted and talented programs appears in the question, “Wouldn’t that be good for all children?” Of course, the answer is often yes. Some enrichment activities are good for all students (e.g., creativity and thinking skills train- ing, values training, college and career information, and field trips to art galleries or scientific laboratories); others seem appropriate strictly for gifted and talented students (e.g., independent work on complex projects, Talent Search, summer College for Kids, or other accelerated and in-depth learning opportunities).

Prior to delving into practices that make learning possible and more appropriate for gifted students, we need to address the issue of standards. For too long, stu- dents in the United States demonstrated mediocre perfor- mance on international tests and were poorly prepared for higher education and future careers. Policy makers reacted to this situation by creating the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for language arts and mathemat- ics. Professional organizations stepped in with additional standards in science and social studies. The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) developed standards for gifted programs. Overlap exists among these standards in that all focus on higher-level thinking and problem solving (Johnsen, 2016)—themes that run through this text. Even with the increased rigor of the standards, gifted students often require experiences beyond what the standards demand if they are to have ongoing learning growth (NAGC, 2014). This chapter provides some options to ensure that gifted student have that growth opportunity. In addition to this text, readers may wish to consult some of the many books addressing how to approach differentiation for gifted students under CCSS (e.g., Johnsen, Ryser,  & Assouline, 2014; VanTassel- Baska, 2013).

GroupinG options: BrinGinG Gifted students toGether

Many times in this text, we have noted the benefits of grouping gifted students, part-time if not full-time. Learn- ing activities can be differentiated, enriched, and accelerated — to fit student capabilities and learning needs, develop creativity and thinking skills, reduce boredom and frustration, and combat underachievement habits. Students are stimulated to work and to think, which they have not always been asked to do. Equally important is the opportu- nity to interact with others like themselves for social and academic support.

In this section we will briefly summarize grouping options into three categories:

1. Full-time homogeneous grouping Magnet schools Special schools for the gifted Private schools School-within-a-school plans Special classes in the elementary school

2. Full-time heterogeneous grouping Cluster groups of gifted students placed with regular

students Individualization in heterogeneous classes

3. Part-time or temporary groups Pullout programs Resource programs Push-in programs Part-time special classes Enrichment clusters Temporary grouping for reading and math Special interest groups and clubs

full-time homogeneous Grouping

The main benefit of full-time grouping of gifted students is illustrated in this anecdote recounted by Elizabeth Connor (1991) in her description of EAGLE School, Connor’s pri- vate school for the gifted:

Six-year-old Maurit announced to her family at the dinner table that she had just been selected to participate in “Wonderful Wednesdays,” her public school’s pullout enrichment pro- gram. Once a week she could participate in special activities in the gifted/talented resource room instead of doing her regular classwork. Maurit’s older sister, Orelia, a student at EAGLE School  .  .  . greeted the news with delight: “Oh, Maurit, that means you’re gifted. Now you can come to EAGLE School!”

Maurit pondered this idea for a moment, then replied, “No, I don’t think so. If you go to EAGLE, you have to be gifted all the time. I’m just gifted on Wednesdays.”

MaGnet schools Many large cities have adopted magnet high schools to accommodate the needs not only of gifted and talented students but also of other students seek- ing special training for a trade or career. A clear purpose is to make high school relevant to realistic student goals, par- ticularly for dissatisfied students who view school as restrictive rather than as a path to economic and social suc- cess. Many of these students would drop out of school without the magnet school option. Note that gifted

116 Chapter 6

in twice-exceptional (2e) students (see Chapter  15). The Bridges Academy program implements a student-centered Multiple Perspectives Model to address simultaneously six educational variables: gifts and talents, interests, family context, developmental asynchrony, social and emotional profiles, and learning differences. The curriculum and learning experiences are designed around the strengths of students, which the developers suggest offers the best chance of ensuring student success.

school Within a school Similar to special classes for gifted students (discussed in the next section), an entire school may be organized around a school-within-a-school concept. Here, gifted and talented students from around the district attend a particular school that also accommodates regular students. For part of the day, gifted students attend special advanced and enriched classes. They mix with other students for nonacademic subjects such as physical education, study hall, manual arts, and home economics, as well as sports and social events.

Gifted students in Grades 4–8 in the Hartford, Connecticut, area can attend the Dr. Joseph S. Renzulli Gifted and Talented Academy, which is a school within a school. The academy draws fourth- through eighth-grade students from around the city. Curriculum and instruction are based on the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (see Chapter 7), which provides students with opportunities to explore topics as practicing professionals. Student test scores at Renzulli Academy are among the highest in the city—a testament to its success.

special classes There is continuing interest in full- time classes for gifted and talented children because part- time programs provide only a part-time solution. Special classes for gifted and talented students may take several forms. At the elementary level, all gifted students within a particular grade level, age, or age range may be assigned to a special class. In addition to covering prescribed grade- level objectives—and usually extending beyond them—a variety of enrichment, personal development, and skill development experiences are planned. A survey of teach- ers, administrators, and gifted and talented program coor- dinators showed that 98% felt that special classes were “academically advantageous” to gifted students, 84% agreed that motivation ran higher within special classes, and 85% rated the special classes as good for the social- emotional development of gifted students (Feldhusen  & Sayler, 1990).

In the negative column, some students may resist being separated physically and psychologically from regu- lar students for fear of being ostracized. Another danger, especially at the secondary level, is that teachers of

students, as well as low-ability students, too often become frustrated and drop out. Magnet schools offer specialized training in the arts, math, science, business, or trade skills. Many gifted and talented students enjoy the autonomy and relevant content in an applied setting associated with career and technical education experiences (Gentry, Peters,  & Mann, 2007). A school may also be designated as a high abilities school. Students are bused from all corners of the city or district to attend the high school that suits their educational and career interests. In some cases, they are placed in career-related part-time jobs so that they may earn money and gain valuable experience while attending school. Such programs are indeed relevant, meet students’ needs, and are known to reduce the dropout rate.

special schools for the Gifted Special schools for the gifted, either elementary or secondary, are often a medium- to big-city alternative for gifted students. The curriculum includes both traditional academic content— based on district guidelines and requirements—plus spe- cial enriched and accelerated training in whatever academic, artistic, scientific, or personal development areas the school chooses to emphasize.

Founded in the fall of 2006 by Bob and Jan Davidson, The Davidson Academy of Nevada is a free public school for profoundly gifted (top one-tenth of 1%) middle and high school students. There is no tuition associated with attending the academy. The cost of courses and textbooks is covered through a combination of public and private fund- ing. Students attend a combination of middle and high school classes at the University of Nevada, Reno, and at the academy, which is located on the university campus. Stu- dents develop and implement Personalized Learning Plans that serve as road maps for their academic and personal goals. Although grade levels are not designated, Davidson Academy students must meet and/or exceed high school graduation requirements defined by the state of Nevada and participate in state testing to document their progress.

private schools Achievement tends to run higher in private schools than in public schools. Therefore, private schools can be a possible alternative for an accelerated education.

Some private schools cater specifically to gifted and talented students. In Hillsborough, California, for example, the Nueva Learning Center offers training in six “Rs” (reading, writing, arithmetic, rights, respect, and responsi- bility); piano; ballet; math; science; and more unusual top- ics such as organic gardening, aviation, karate, and cross-country skiing.

Bridges Academy is another example of a California private school that serves gifted students. Bridges specializes

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 117

students is placed in each classroom. Using this system, each classroom has no more than three achievement-level groups, every classroom has higher-achieving students, and the high- achieving students are grouped with a teacher trained in meeting their special learning needs.

The cluster group of gifted students engages in a variety of enrichment activities, either individually or in small groups. To “buy time,” the teacher can compact the curriculum by not requiring students to study material they already know and by accelerating them through material they do not know but could learn quickly. The enrichment activities should focus on advanced in-depth content and on building creativity, problem solving, research skills, or other high-level thinking skills. (Cate- gories and specific thinking skills are described in C hapter 10.) For example, individual students might “contract” for independent learning activities such as a library/Internet research report; an independent research project; or the mastery of an advanced math, science, computer, or language-learning assignment. As an alter- native, groups of students with similar interests and abili- ties might work on a particular problem or project for a mutually agreed upon period.

Kaplan (1974) itemized five “necessities” and “checkpoints” in planning a cluster group program: (1) Develop criteria for selecting students; (2) define the quali- fications and selection process for teachers; (3) clarify the teachers’ responsibilities and activities; (4) plan the differ- entiated experiences for the cluster of gifted students; and (5) plan the support services and special resources, such as counselors and computers.

Winebrenner (2009) itemized these overlapping advantages of cluster grouping:

●● The cluster group teacher is trained in teaching gifted students.

●● Teaching 5 or 10 gifted students, instead of 1 or 2, is a better use of teachers’ time.

●● Students associate with intellectual peers, which is both rewarding (having someone to share with) and humbling (learning that others are also smart).

●● When gifted students are clustered in one classroom, new academic leaders emerge in the other classroom(s).

●● With gifted students elsewhere, nonclustered class- rooms have a more homogeneous student mix. Teaching is easier, and achievement can improve for all students.

●● Teachers compact the curriculum and provide chal- lenging learning experiences every day in a cluster program, in contrast with a once-a-week pullout program.

special —and more difficult—classes may grade on a nor- mal curve, thus giving Bs and Cs to students who could easily earn As in regular courses. Grade-conscious students may avoid such “special classes.”

Most high schools already have a variety of college preparatory classes—for example, in chemistry, physics, calculus, art, journalism, and drama—to challenge the abilities of gifted and talented students. Special classes beyond these may also be created—for example, courses in college algebra, organic chemistry, advanced physics, advanced botany, creative writing, photography, or what- ever else students’ needs and the school budget allows. If some of these can be taught in accord with Advanced Placement program guidelines, they may lead to college credit, as described in Chapter 5. Many high schools also offer honors versions of various classes. For example, an honors section of American history might involve more in-depth discussions and extensive writing and research on some of the class topics.

full-time heterogeneous Grouping

cluster Groups The phrase cluster grouping some- times refers to “clustering” gifted students in special or accelerated classes. However, the proper meaning of cluster grouping is to place 5 to 10 high-ability students in one regular class per grade, along with 15 or 20 regular students. The class is taught by a teacher who has received in-service training or course work in gifted education and wishes to differentiate the curriculum for gifted students. Because cluster grouping places the highest achieving students all in one class, it affects the entire school. Therefore, Gentry and Mann (2008) suggest that cluster grouping should be viewed as a total school program. A review of the research suggests gifted students who are cluster-grouped perform better in mathematics and read- ing than gifted students who are not cluster-grouped (Gentry, 2014).

Gentry and Mann (2008) proposed a cluster group- ing model with five levels: high-achieving, average- achieving, average, low-average, and low. The purpose of total school cluster grouping is to narrow the range of achievement levels within classrooms so teachers can bet- ter meet the needs of the students in their classrooms (Peters, Matthews, McBee,  & McCoach, 2014). At the same time, no classroom should be without above-average students. Therefore, while all of the high-achieving stu- dents are placed in one classroom, the above-average- achieving students are distributed evenly across the remaining classrooms and the average-achieving students are distributed across each of the classrooms. Finally, either a group of low-average or a group of low-achieving

118 Chapter 6

account of a related event; summarize war’s implica- tions for the present; and give meanings of designated vocabulary words. “Learning Conditions” included I  will keep a Daily Log and I will share what I have learned with the class in an interesting way including a visual aid. “Working Conditions” were similar to those for learning contracts. Both student and teacher sign. If students fail to meet the learning and working condi- tions, they return to the teacher-directed group for the remainder of the unit.

Winebrenner’s Resident Expert Planner, which, again, both teacher and student sign, is another form used for independent study. It lists six topics, with three ques- tions for each, plus needed materials/supplies, the format of the report, the portion to be completed at home, poten- tial problems, and possible solutions.

Kaplan (2001) recognized the problem of teaching a prescribed curriculum in the heterogeneous classroom while differentiating the curriculum for gifted students. One solution is paralleling, which simply means cover- ing both the prescribed and a differentiated curriculum in tandem. A second solution, which she called cluster- ing, is to use the core concepts and skills of the pre- s c r i b e d c u r r i c u l u m a s t h e c e n t e r p i e c e , w h i l e differentiated concepts and skills reinforce the core. Both curricula can be taught, said Kaplan, without sacri- ficing either.

Some teachers—in concert with counselors, parents, and students themselves—use Individualized Education Programs (IEPs; sometimes referred to as Individual Edu- cation Plans) to structure the independent work of gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms, just as IEPs are used to plan education for students with learning or physi- cal disabilities (see Box 6.1).

Clasen (1982) itemized the following alternatives available to the individual teacher in schools “where there is minimum involvement in programs for the gifted”:

●● A student may be individually accelerated, perhaps by reading or working ahead or through the use of advanced or supplementary texts and workbooks.

●● The curriculum may otherwise be modified to permit greater depth, more complexity, or higher levels of abstraction.

●● Enrichment activities may be planned that build on or challenge the student’s special abilities—for example, in creative writing, photography, or with computers.

●● Academic and perhaps career advising may be offered that can help students understand their spe- cial capabilities and the training necessary for them to realize their potential.

heteroGeneous classes Some schools simply do not have special classes or programs for gifted students. Many gifted-conscious teachers in regular classrooms must use their ingenuity to provide differentiated and enriched learning experiences to their eager, fast-learning, and crea- tive students.

One option described later in this chapter is pro- viding learning centers, which permit worthwhile explo- rations into math, art, any science area, music apprecia tion, handicrafts, foreign languages (H. F eldhusen, 1981, 1986), thinking skills (Winebrenner, 2009), or other areas. Cluster grouping can be used with all stu- dents, especially those who finish early or already know the material presented for the day. We also recommend using cluster groups for gifted students in the regular classroom.

Winebrenner (2009) recommended curriculum com- pacting (Reis, Renzulli, & Burns, 2016)—specifically, pre- testing for mastery of the material to be presented—which provides time for individualized learning contracts and her similar Study Guide Method and Resident Expert Planner. All three strategies promote greater learning depth and complexity, higher levels of abstraction, and the avoidance of the poor study habits that develop when bright students must wait for the rest of the class.

With Winebrenner’s (2009) detailed learning con- tracts, a written agreement is prepared that lists page num- bers to be read and concepts to be mastered, possible “Extension Options” (e.g., making up math story prob- lems), as well as “Working Conditions,” which include the following:

●● Stay on task. ●● Don’t interrupt the teacher. ●● Use soft voices. ●● Never brag about working on different activities. ●● Don’t bother anyone else. ●● Don’t call attention to yourself.

Both teacher and student sign the contract. Children work on their contract assignment in an “Extensions Center,” away from the teacher-led class. Contracts are used for individual work in math, reading (including gram- mar), and writing. Some contracts concern problems to be solved, such as school or personal problems.

Winebrenner’s (2009) Study Guide Method out- lines in detail, also in writing, what the student should look for in the self-directed study as a variation on what the whole class is learning. For example, an American Wars Study Guide asked students to be prepared to dis- cuss the social, political, and economic causes of war; describe typical battle conditions; write a newspaper

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 119

BOX 6.1

Using Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) with Gifted and Talented Students

Public Law 94–142, the “mainstreaming law” that served as an early foundation for special education, mandated the use of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each student classified as handicapped. Individualized Education Programs also serve members of that other variety of excep- tional student, the gifted and talented, particularly when they too are mainstreamed in the regular classroom.

For gifted students, the IEP includes the following items:

1. Present levels of performance, as determined by intel- ligence tests, achievement tests, rating scales, and informal observations and reports by teachers, par- ents, school psychologists, and others.

2. Annual goals, which include short-term instructional goals—these goals dictate most of the instructional

methods, learning activities, and individual projects for each student required under item 3.

3. Specific education services to be provided, based on the needs of the individual student, to include special teaching strategies, special equipment, individual projects and assignments, field trips, and others.

4. The extent to which the student will participate in the regular program versus special gifted and talented classes and activities.

5. A projected date for initiation and the anticipated duration of the services.

6. Evaluation procedures and appropriate objective cri- teria, which may result in a review and revision of the IEP.

7. A schedule for determining whether the objectives are being achieved.

Treffinger (1982) itemized 60 suggestions for teach- ing gifted students in the regular classroom. Some exam- ples follow:

●● Use pretests or mastery tests to permit students to test out of material they already know (compacting).

●● Use individualized learning packets, learning cent- ers, and minicourses, particularly in the basics.

●● Allow time every day for individual or small-group projects.

●● Incorporate creative thinking into subject areas. ●● Help students to learn the meaning of higher-level

thinking processes, such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, and to plan independent projects around these processes.

●● Bring in guest speakers to describe their careers or unusual hobbies.

●● Use cross-age and peer tutoring. ●● Help students to understand their own strengths,

interests, learning strategies, and preferences and to become sensitive to those of others.

●● Explore many points of view about contemporary top- ics and allow students the opportunity to analyze and evaluate evidence and conflicting ideas and opinions.

●● Help gifted students set personal and academic goals.

Note that if gifted and talented children in heteroge- neous classrooms are not truly involved in differentiated curriculum and learning activities, it cannot be said that the school is providing for their needs.

part-time and temporary Grouping

pullout proGraMs The old standby in programming for gifted and talented students is the pullout program. With minor variations, elementary students are pulled out of their regular classes once or twice per week for 2 to 3  hours per session to participate in special enrichment activities, guided usually by a district teacher/coordinator of gifted and talented education. Often, one coordinator serves an entire district by conducting a pullout class in a different school each afternoon. The meeting place usually is called a resource room because it provides special read- ing material and equipment. As with other special classes and cluster grouping, pullout activities focus on helping students acquire knowledge and skills as well as strengthen their creativity and thinking skills, communication skills, and self-concept development.

It is ironic that this most popular programming design is also criticized so severely. A common statement is that pullout programs are a poor solution to the full-time problem of being gifted. Also, the programs involve addi- tional expenses, largely because of the gifted and talented coordinator’s salary. In addition, friction develops when teachers are saddled with the dilemma of whether to per- mit students to miss regular class work without penalty, or require them to make it up—thus punishing them for their gifted and talented participation. Most pullout programs assume that gifted kids can afford to miss some regular content, and students are not held responsible for missed work.

120 Chapter 6

push-in proGraMs Alternatives to pullout programs are push-in programs. With push-in programs, gifted spe- cialists work in regular classrooms to serve their gifted stu- dents. Push-in can be organized in various ways. The gifted specialist serves identified students directly, either one-on- one or in a small group within the classroom. The gifted specialist works alongside the classroom teacher and coteaches learning tasks for select students or the entire class. The gifted specialist assists the classroom teacher in differentiating learning experiences for gifted students within the regular classroom.

The push-in model works well where schools emphasize instruction in core academics, such as language arts and math. The specialist works closely with the class- room teacher to design learning opportunities that align closely with the curriculum. This includes flexible group- ing and regrouping based on instructional needs.

Advocates of push-in programs suggest that push-in programs help improve instruction for all students because they create a climate where more students are exposed to gifted education services. A benefit of this collaboration is that it allows the gifted specialist to identify gifted students who may not have been formally identified and placed in the gifted program. This has the potential to increase the number of identified gifted students from under- represented groups.

A few words of caution are warranted here. First, any effort to expose more students to gifted education services should not come at the expense of services for identified gifted students. Second, without special efforts, interactions with gifted peers may be limited. Extra effort should be made to provide time for gifted students to interact with each other. Many schools with push-in programs also cluster-group students, which increases the opportunity for gifted students to interact with each other.

part-tiMe special classes Special classes (dis- cussed under the section of this chapter called Full-Time Homogeneous Grouping) may also be offered as a part- time or temporary option. For example, elementary school gifted and talented students may be placed in self- contained classes for 50% to 70% of the school day. Their differenti- ated experiences could include independent projects, accelerated subjects, and small-group enrichment activi- ties, all of which aim at developing creative and other high-level thinking skills.

enrichMent clusters As we saw earlier, a cluster group was 5 to 10 gifted students “clustered” full-time in one classroom per grade level, where they received the attention of a teacher trained in gifted education. Enrich- ment clusters are different. An enrichment cluster is a group

Another problem is that students may not be com- fortable being visibly separated from classmates and clas- sified as “gifted.” Still another classic criticism is that pullout curricula frequently include too much “fun and games” and too little theory-based training (Renzulli  & Reis, 1985, 1991).

On the more positive side, the pullout program is a popular and often successful means of bringing gifted stu- dents together for social and intellectual support and for the special, differentiated, and enriched training they require. When it has a well-planned, challenging, and inte- grated curriculum, this program can offer gifted children excellent opportunities for developing high-level skills. Recent research by the NCRGE (Siegle, 2016) suggests pullout programs still lead service options for gifted stu- dents. Almost three-quarters (72%) of the schools surveyed in the three states where the Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE) worked used the pullout option. About half (52%) used cluster grouping, followed by homogenous grouping (44%) and push-in (32%).

An effective pullout program addresses individual student learning needs. The pullout teacher informs the classroom teacher of activities held within the pullout pro- gram and may extend some of the regular classroom cur- riculum to the pullout program. When the pullout teacher and classroom teacher collaborate to meet the learning needs of students in the gifted pullout program and the classroom, everyone wins.

resource proGraMs and resource rooMs The phrases resource program and resource room are used rather freely. Because pullout students are sent to a resource room, pullout programs are sometimes called resource programs or resource-room programs.

The present meaning of resource program is a dis- trictwide pullout plan in which gifted students are trans- ported to specially equipped and staffed resource rooms or enrichment centers for one or two sessions per week. For example, a district might transport students to one school equipped with computers, resource materials, sci- ence equipment, a language corner, games, a greenhouse, musical instruments, and miscellaneous materials for independent projects. The enrichment curriculum could include activities such as astronomy, including building a telescope; rocketry, with student-made—and launched—rockets; video animation; journalism, result- ing in a newspaper; foreign languages; American Sign Language; art; literature; theater; photography; oceanog- raphy; and more. Students alternate mornings and after- noons and days of the week to avoid missing the same subject in their home classes each time they attend the enrichment program.

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 121

achievement groups in the same class (within-class group- ing) or (2) went to a different class for suitable instruction (Joplin plan, cross-grade grouping) achieved at higher lev- els than control students who received traditional whole- class instruction (Tieso, 2002). In addition, teachers preferred and enjoyed having students change classrooms for math, which reduced heterogeneity among students. The students enjoyed both grouping plans, especially cross-grade (Joplin plan) grouping. There was no damage to students’ self-esteem. On the downside, although teach- ers appreciated the need for ability/achievement grouping, they had concerns about the logistics and the classroom management aspects of such arrangements.

special interest Groups and cluBs Most second- ary schools have special interest groups and clubs, although they are rare in the elementary school. Gifted-and-talented- conscious teachers at any level can assume the leadership necessary for organizing these enriching activities for interested students. There are drama clubs, German clubs, French clubs, computer clubs, chess clubs, math clubs, and others.

The teacher-leader can organize meetings, competi- tions, research projects, field trips, and meetings with com- munity experts and can provide career information and guidance. One can also organize minicourses, taught either by teachers or community experts, dealing with special interest areas such as music writing; computer program- ming; jewelry making; aviation; or other academic, career, or hobby topics. Clubs and courses may meet before or after school or on Saturdays.

As is evident, gifted students can be grouped in a variety of ways. The research on grouping gifted students is very positive (e.g., Hattie, 2009; Kulik, 1992b; Rogers, 1991, 2002). Simply placing gifted students together and not modifying their learning experience does have a small, positive effect on their learning. However, the effective- ness of grouping gifted students lies in what happens within the groups. Putting gifted students together and adjusting the curriculum to match their current understand- ing and learning pace produces achievement gains of a full year greater than what would normally have occurred (Rogers, 1991, 2002).

differentiation

Probably no topic has received more recent attention in teacher education than differentiation. Schools have learned that they can no longer ignore differences among students, which is certainly a positive trend for gifted students. As Carol Ann Tomlinson (2001a) suggested, recognizing that students learn at different rates and vary in their ability to

of students—not necessarily identified as gifted (Renzulli, Gentry,  & Reis, 2014)—from several grades who share a common interest such as engineering, writing, drawing, archeology, snakes, paleontology, sign language, dairy farming, or creating a school newspaper (Reis, Westberg, Kulikovich, & Purcell, 1998). The group of students meets with an adult who is an expert or who has a strong interest in the area (e.g., a teacher, parent, other community mem- ber), at designated times during the week, for about 6–12 weeks. Many schools find Friday afternoons an excel- lent time to schedule enrichment clusters. Enrichment clus- ters go into subject matter in considerable depth. For example, students interested in snakes or paleontology also learn scientific methods of inquiry and assume the role of biologist or paleontologist. Students interested in learning to speak French also learn about France and other cultures.

No lesson plans are prepared in advance. Rather, three questions provide direction: (1) What do people with an interest in this area do? (2) What knowledge, materials, and other resources do they need? (3) How can the product or service have an impact on an intended audience? As we will see in Chapter 7, many of the curriculum models for gifted students include creating products that influence an audience. The principle is that real-world innovators pro- duce for an audience, not just for themselves.

Students are exposed to advanced content, resources, and methodologies; and they acquire new concepts, new vocabulary, and new tools. They learn about an area and then develop authentic products, services, performances, or presentations.

Renzulli et al. (2014) emphasized these four princi- ples of enrichment teaching and learning:

●● Each student is different. ●● Learning is more effective when students enjoy what

they do. ●● Learning is more meaningful when students learn

content and process while solving a real problem. ●● Whereas some formal instruction is necessary, a

major goal is promoting knowledge and thinking skills via the application of what students have learned; they construct their own meaning.

teMporary GroupinG for readinG and Math In Chapter 1 we reviewed the advantages of within-class grouping and cross-grade grouping, both of which adjust teaching to match student achievement or ability (Kulik, 2003). Such grouping normally is restricted to student dif- ferences in reading and math ability or achievement. A study with 645 fourth- and fifth-grade students from all socioeconomic levels in four school districts confirmed that students who (1) received math instruction in different

122 Chapter 6

demonstrate what they have learned. Differentiation can be designed to appeal to students’ different interests, to their different learning preferences and profiles, and to their var- ied readiness levels (Little, Hauser, & Corbishley, 2009).

Tomlinson and Jarvis (2009) outlined the differentia- tion process shown in Figure 6.1.

Content, process, product, and the learning environ- ment are the elements that teachers can modify when responding to learner differences in readiness, interest, and learning profile. Content is what the teacher expects stu- dents to know. It also includes ways students gain access to this knowledge. Process is how students make sense of the content and includes the various activities teachers use (e.g., homework assignments, class discussions). Products are how students demonstrate what they have learned (Tomlinson  & Jarvis, 2009). Products can also serve as vehicles for learning (Kaplan, 2009). The learning envi- ronment includes the classroom arrangement and class rules and structures (e.g., levels of student independence). Strategies for differentiation can be applied to each of these elements. We discuss these four elements in the context of different curriculum models in Chapter 7.

tiered instruction

Tiering is one of the more popular instructional strategies for differentiation listed in Figure 6.1. (Several of the other instructional strategies are described in the chapter section called Enrichment.) Any differentiation begins by preas- sessing students on the topic to be taught. Never assume what students know. It can be surprising to discover which students show the highest level of mastery of the content. The tiering strategy involves creating the best possible les- son and then making it more or less challenging to fit differ- ent levels of student readiness. To accomplish this, a teacher must consider what characteristics of the task make it more or less challenging for given learners. Most teachers create three levels based on student readiness. As we stated earlier, differentiation is not creating a separate level for each stu- dent. Each of the levels includes respectful tasks (work that is interesting and challenging; T omlinson & Jarvis, 2009), and each level addresses the instructional goals set for the lesson. In this way, all students are meeting a common out- come, but they are reaching it via different paths.

So how can a lesson be made more or less challenging to meet the readiness of different students? Tomlinson (2001a, 2003) suggests teachers consider modifying their lessons according to one or more of eight dimensions. Depending on the nature of a lesson, different dimensions might be adjusted. Educators can adjust the level of abstract- ness, how much background knowledge is required, the com- plexity of the topic, the number of aspects of the topic that

grapple with complexity is like recognizing that students of the same age are not all the same height. “It is not a state- ment of worth, but of reality” (Tomlinson, 2001a, p. viii).

To meet this challenge, teachers must draw on the best available knowledge about teaching and learning as they hone their differentiation skills. Differentiation is based on six premises: (1) Learning takes place when stu- dents experience a moderate level of challenge; (2) because students differ in their skills and knowledge, moderately challenging activities also need to differ; (3) students are more motivated and engaged when tasks and content are interesting to them; (4) students have the right to develop and explore their areas of interest; (5) students have multi- faceted learning profiles that inf luence how they learn best; and (6) students learn best when they feel safe, sup- ported, and valued (Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009).

Tomlinson (2001a) noted that differentiation is not several things. First, it is not the individualized instruction of the 1970s. Although differentiation features several paths for learning, it does not assume a separate level for each stu- dent. Second, it is not chaotic. Many teachers are reluctant to differentiate because they fear losing control of their classroom. A differentiated classroom does require more leadership by the teacher as he or she manages and monitors many activities. However, when students are given choices and have opportunities to learn in ways that meet their needs, managing their behavior is less of an issue. Third, dif- ferentiation is not another way to group students homogene- ously. In differentiation, teachers use a variety of different grouping options for different purposes. Finally, differentia- tion is not just “tailoring the same suit of clothes” to fit vari- ous students. It is more than asking a few higher-order questions or letting students select questions to answer.

So what is differentiation? It involves giving students choices, and much more. Differentiating teachers are very intentional about the options that they provide students. Differentiation takes into account students’ needs, inter- ests, and abilities (Roberts  & Inman, 2007; 2015b). This involves understanding how students learn best. In other words, differentiation is being proactive in planning cur- riculum and instruction that fit students’ learning profiles, interests, and readiness levels (Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009). It involves creating multiple, differentiated learning oppor- tunities within a high-quality curriculum.

Differentiation relies on f lexible grouping, clear expectations, and a shared understanding that different stu- dents might be doing different things at the same time. Teachers begin with worthwhile objectives and strong cur- ricular materials, hold high expectations for students by using ongoing assessment to steer instructional decision making, and provide a variety of learning experiences through which students may develop understanding and

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 123

case, the objectives and tasks for all students should reflect best practices in the content area; however, differentiated tasks allow students to engage with learning in ways that best meet their own needs (Little et al., 2009).

Tiered assignments are good not just for gifted stu- dents. Richards and Omdal (2007) reported that tiered instruction was particularly beneficial for students with limited exposure to a topic. They also found that the fol- lowing conditions must be met for tiered instruction to be successful: Professional development is essential for teach- ers who are beginning tiered instruction; teachers need a strong background in the subject matter that they wish to tier; teachers must be aware of a range of potential learning

are studied, the level of inferences students need to make, how much structure they provide for assignments and tasks, the level of assistance they provide students, and how quickly they cover the material. Any learning activity, lesson, or assessment task can be placed along a continuum for these and adjusted to address the student’s readiness level. As pre- viously noted, the nature of the lesson determines which of these dimensions to address, and only a set number of these are adjusted for a given lesson, activity, or assessment task.

For example, a teacher might distribute three ver- sions of a task, each one at a different level of complexity, but then allow students within each task group to choose whether to work independently or with a partner. In each

DIFFERENTIATION

LEARNER DIFFERENCES

PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE DIFFERENTIATION

CLASSROOM ELEMENTS

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

Readiness

Quality Curriculum

Content

Tiering

Independent Studies Learning/Interest

Centers Anchor Activities

And numerous others

RAFTs Learning Contracts Graphic Organizers

Process Products Environment

Flexible Grouping

Ongoing Assessment

Respectful Tasks

Supportive Community

Interest Learning Profile

is a teacher’s proactive response

to

through the use of

guided by

applied to

FIGURE 6.1 Overview of the components of differentiation. Source: From “Differentiation: Making Curriculum Work for all student Through Responsive Planning and Instruction” by C. A. Tomlinson and J. M. Jarvis in System and Model for Developing Programs for the Gifted (2nd ed., p. 603,) by J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, and C. A. Little (Eds.). 2009, Waco, Tx: Prufrock Press. Copyright © 2009 by Prufrock Press.

124 Chapter 6

differentiation allows everyone to be engaged in meaning- ful learning.

developing and assessing products (dap) tool

How do educators know their differentiation efforts are successful? Teacher-created and state achievement tests may document the effectiveness of some academic differ- entiation efforts in core subject areas. However, not all dif- ferentiation is tied to core academic areas or easily measured with a test. Student products are often differenti- ated. Roberts and Inman (2007, 2015a, 2015b) created the Developing and Assessing Products Tool (DAP Tool) as a framework for designing and assessing products at various levels. The DAP Tool covers four components: content (e.g., What has been learned?), presentation (e.g., How is the student presenting what he or she has learned?), crea- tivity (e.g., How much originality has the student devoted to the learning?), and reflection (e.g., What does the stu- dent perceive he or she learned?).

A student’s work is scored based on an evaluation of each of the four components. The DAP Tool offers six per- formance levels: (1) nonperforming, (2) novice, (3) pro- gressing, (4) proficient, (5) advanced, and (6) professional. The professional level of performance suggests an extra measure of challenge. Professionals produce products, and recognizing the quality of professional work provides stu- dents with a benchmark to which their own work can be compared.

Roberts and Inman (2007) recommend three guide- lines to ensure that students make continuous progress in their learning:

●● Assessment needs to be authentic and linked to the real world.

●● Instruction should be a response to assessment. ●● Assessment should be ongoing throughout a unit,

not just an ending to the unit.

response to intervention (rti)

RtI is part of special education legislation that was offered as an alternative approach for identifying students with learning disabilities (Bender  & Shores, 2007). However, RtI has shown promise for supporting gifted students’ aca- demic and behavioral success as well (Rollins, Mursky, & Johnsen, 2011). Obviously, RtI is relevant for students who are twice exceptional (2e; Pereles, Baldwin,  & Omdah, 2013). We address the topic of 2e in Chapter 15.

Each state designs its own RtI model. Most models use a problem-solving approach that incorporates (a) cur- riculum and instruction practices, (b) monitoring of

activities that can be used during tiered instruction; and often the instructional and classroom organization, peda- gogy, and expectations needs to be changed systematically over time.

Tiering is just one instructional strategy that can be used to differentiate by student readiness. For more information on differentiating instruction strategies, see Heacox (2002), Roberts and Inman (2007, 2015a, 2015b), and Tomlinson (2001a, 2003). For example, Roberts and Inman’s book Strategies for Differentiating Instruction describes differentiation learning experience tips using Bloom’s taxonomy (discussed extensively in Chapter 10), Venn diagrams to differentiate process and content, and Think-Tac-Toe grids to differentiate products.

Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) developed a nine- step process that honors the practices of differentiation and Understanding by Design. These steps reflect the plan- ning and implementation necessary for effective differentiation:

1. Identify the desired learning results for the topic being taught.

2. Determine what is acceptable evidence of student learning.

3. Plan learning experiences and instruction on the basis of the first two principles.

4. View learner differences as inevitable, important, and valuable in the teaching process.

5. Address the affective needs of learners as a way to support student success.

6. Review and articulate periodically clear learning goals that address what students should know, under- stand, and be able to do as a result of learning.

7. Make instruction decisions on the basis of preassess- ments and ongoing assessments that are aligned to the instruction goals.

8. Employ flexibility in instruction planning and class- room routines to support success for each learner.

9. Gather evidence of student learning in a variety of formats.

Although differentiation is a simple concept, imple- mentation requires classroom adjustments. Differentiating curriculum and instruction initially requires extra work on the part of teachers. It requires training for teachers in how to differentiate effectively (Roberts  & Inman, 2007). It requires changes in the way the classroom is organized and how content is presented. These changes are necessary to ensure that all students are learning, a situation that has not always existed for some groups of students (including gifted and talented students). The extra work to differenti- ate makes teaching more efficient and effective because

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 125

In phase 1 of the SEM-R, teachers select literature to read aloud to students. This includes providing higher-order questioning and thinking skills instruction. Because the pur- pose of these “book hooks” is to increase student exposure to literature and to build student interest, teachers introduce a new book (or books) each day rather than the more tradi- tional approach of reading a novel from cover to cover. Stu- dents and teachers use bookmarks featuring higher-order questions that focus on skills such as synthesis and evalua- tion. Teachers expose students to a variety of literary genres, including mystery, poetry, historical and science fiction, biography, autobiography, and other nonfiction.

The second phase of the SEM-R emphasizes the development of students’ self-regulation skills, within supported, independent reading of self-selected books, coupled with individualized, differentiated reading conferences. Teachers track individual student progress by monitoring students’ reading logs, reading and responding to students’ writing, and holding and keeping records of individual student conferences.

In the third component of SEM-R, students are encouraged to move from teacher-directed opportunities to self-choice enrichment activities. Activities include (but are not limited to) exploring new technology and engaging in discussion groups, creative writing, buddy reading, crea- tivity training in language arts, learning centers, interest- based projects, continuation of self-selected reading, and book discussion groups. The intent of these experiences is to provide time for developing and exploring student inter- est in reading.

Each component of the SEM-R is developed to help students increase their enjoyment of reading, in combina- tion with the coaching of differentiated reading strategies and efforts to increase self-regulation in reading.

enrichMent

All enrichment activities for gifted youth should be planned with higher-order objectives in mind. One list of objec- tives, collated from many thoughtful sources, was pre- sented in Table 5.1. As a reminder, the objectives were listed in the following categories:

●● Maximum achievement in basic skills, based on needs, not age.

●● Content and resources beyond the prescribed curriculum.

●● Exposure to a variety of fields of study. ●● Student-selected content, including in-depth studies. ●● High content complexity—theories, generalizations,

and applications. ●● Creative thinking and problem solving.

student progress, and (c) collaboration and tiered levels of service. Ohio is among several states that designed systems of support that included students with gifts and talents in its RtI plans. Ohio developed a three-tier system. Tier 1— Schoolwide Interventions includes instructional and sup- port systems for all students. This level includes advanced educational options, curriculum compacting, and postsec- ondary enrollment—which would benefit gifted students. Tier 2—Early Targeted Instructional and Support Interven- tions includes opportunities for early graduation, Advanced Placement, and acceleration for gifted students. Tier 3— Intensive Interventions covers opportunities for gifted stu- dents with extreme needs. This might include after-school programs, counseling, and radical acceleration (Rollins et al., 2013).

As illustrated in the Ohio example, gifted education can fit the RtI approach provided that RtI models are also developed with gifted students’ needs in mind. Some stu- dents with gifts and talents require minimal learning adjustments, while others need Tier 2 or 3 modifications. RtI is an opportunity for general, special, and gifted educa- tors to work together to address the needs of gifted stu- dents (Hughes, Rollins, & Coleman, 2013).

schoolwide enrichment reading framework (seM-r)

Reading and mathematics are two academic areas where gifted students usually require differentiation. We described two possible mathematics options elsewhere in this text (see the discussion on SMPY in Chapter 5, and Mentoring Math- ematical Minds in Chapter 7). We will share a reading dif- ferentiation program here. The Schoolwide Enrichment Reading Framework (SEM-R; Reis et  al., 2009) is an enrichment-based reading program that encourages students to select high-interest books, slightly to moderately above their current reading levels, to stimulate their interest in and enjoyment of reading. It is a good example of differentiation in that it uses assessment data to support the modification of curriculum and instruction in response to differences in stu- dents’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles.

SEM-R includes three general categories of reading instruction that are dynamic in nature and designed to ena- ble f lexible implementation and content in response to both teachers’ and students’ needs. This approach is based on Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model, with three levels of enrichment: (1) broad exposure to areas in which students might have interests, (2) training and methods instruction, and (3) opportunities to pursue self-selected topics of inter- est to students. The emphasis in the SEM-R is on enjoying the process of learning, with a focus on planned, system- atic enrichment experiences.

126 Chapter 6

American migration from Asia?,” or “Who the heck is Bonny Prince Charlie?” This type of research might also involve trips to a natural history museum, art gallery, or research laboratory; or visiting, e-mailing, or calling rele- vant university faculty or other community (or national) experts.

With any independent project, it is important that a product or performance be produced and that it be pre- sented to an appropriate audience, either students in the class or outside groups (Renzulli  & Reis, 2014). The quality of student work increases exponentially when it is presented to an authentic audience. A library or Inter- net research project can be more than a neatly typed report. It might include a student-made video or nar- rated PowerPoint show, a demonstration of some activ- ity or skill (for example, sand painting, musket loading), a tabletop demonstration (rolling large stone blocks, building dinosaur models), a TV or YouTube news report on the progress of the battle at Bunker Hill, a newspaper column describing recent activities in the Spanish Inquisition, an ESP test for the class, a website, and so on.

One of the more problematic issues facing educators and parents is students’ blind acceptance of information collected on the Internet. Although we might expect gifted students to be more sophisticated consumers of informa- tion, several years ago May Seagoe noted that one unex- pected concomitant gifted characteristic of a keen power of observation, naïve receptivity, a sense of the significant, and a willingness to examine the unusual was, possibly, gullibility (Martinson, 1974). Therefore, gifted students, like other students, need to be taught to analyze informa- tion and sources critically. Not only do they need to be taught to triangulate data by consulting multiple sources but they also need to be taught to evaluate the validity of sources. We discussed the importance of these critical thinking skills in Chapter 10.

scientific research projects

Although most students think of research as looking up information in the library or on the Internet, scientific research (referred to by some as “true” or “authentic” research) is very different. Scientific research involves investigating a problem that does not have a predetermined conclusion. It entails finding or developing a solution by gathering, recording, and interpreting raw data and then presenting the solution in an authentic manner to a real audience (Renzulli, Heilbronner, & Siegle, 2010; Starko & Schack, 2001). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model ’s Type III experience described in Chapter 7 represents this type of research.

●● Higher-level thinking skills, critical thinking, library and research skills.

●● Affective development, including self-understanding and ethical development.

●● Development of academic motivation, self-direction, and high career aspirations.

●● Development of computer skills.

Enrichment strategies essentially are delivery meth- ods for achieving process and content goals. Process goals include developing skills—or processes—such as creative thinking and problem solving, critical thinking, scientific thinking, and others (see Chapter 10). The content is the subject matter, projects, and activities within which the processes are developed.

The enrichment strategies we will review brief ly include (1) independent study and independent projects, (2) learning centers, (3) field trips, (4) Saturday and after- school programs, (5) summer programs, (6) mentors and mentorships, (7) Future Problem Solving, (8) National History Day, (9) Odyssey of the Mind and Destination ImagiNation, (10) MATHCOUNTS, (11) Junior Great Books, (12) academic competitions, and (13) technology. A recent meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment pro- grams on gifted students (Kim, 2016) indicated enrichment programs have a positive impact on gifted students’ aca- demic achievement and socioemotional development. The largest effects are for a combination of summer and aca- demic year programs.

independent study, research, and art Projects

Independent study and research projects take place within many of the enrichment and grouping strategies described in this chapter and within many of the acceleration options and program models described in Chapters 5 and 7. For bright and energetic students, the possibilities for inde- pendent study and research projects are limitless.

library and internet research projects

A library or Internet research project must be based on strong student interest and should be student selected. If students have difficulty selecting a topic, a brainstorming approach is one way to identify interesting possibilities. Another approach is to create a web of what the student already knows about the topic. Ultimately, the student needs to pose a specific problem, although the nature of the initial problem may change as the project develops. For example, some questions might be “Why and how were pyramids built?,” “What are the relationships between Greek and Roman gods?,” “What is the evidence for Native

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 127

For information on the Talent Search, visit the Student Sci- ence portion of the Society for Science and the Public website.

art, drama, creative Writing, and other independent projects

Art projects may include drawing, painting, sculpture, silk screen, lettering, printing, batik, pottery, ceramics, photog- raphy, animation, and weaving, to name a few. Students interested in theater and drama can research how plays are written and then write, direct, produce, and perform their own. Students talented in creative writing can be coached in writing for publication. A list of places that publish student writing appears in Appendix 6.1 at the end of this chapter.

A student blog or website is an especially good inde- pendent project for a small group of students. Creating sto- ries involves interviewing people, writing the stories, taking photographs, and planning and designing the site on a school computer. Students in one elementary school interviewed and photographed elderly people in a retire- ment home. They learned firsthand about local and state history and about hobbies and skills such as quilting, can- dle making, tatting, and blacksmithing. Their appreciation and respect for the elderly increased dramatically.

Many schools are turning to electronic school news- papers and yearbooks, which are more economical to pro- duce than the paper-and-ink versions. Using an electronic format enables students to hone their current technology skills and develop new ones. Digital newspaper and year- books can feature videos as well as still images. Many stu- dents in the upper grades of elementary schools, as well as in middle and high schools, are comfortable and proficient at digital video production.

See Box 6.2 for recommendations about organizing independent information search, research, and art projects.

The answer to an authentic research problem is not something that can be found in a book or on a website (although the process for finding the answer might be there). It can be discovered only by collecting and analyz- ing information. Perhaps a student is interested in reducing the amount of food wasted during lunchtime in the school cafeteria. To solve this problem, the student might conduct interviews with fellow students to determine why food is being discarded. The student might measure the waste over several weeks to determine whether more waste occurs under certain circumstances (on days when a certain meal is served or on days when a special lunchtime activity is scheduled). Research of this nature is based on student interest and involves students’ developing a variety of investigation, problem-solving, and creative thinking skills.

Many elementary and middle schools organize sci- ence fairs in which each student in the science classes cre- ates a small scientific demonstration. Ribbons are awarded to the most elaborate, well-done, or technically competent projects—usually a “first,” “second,” or “third” type of rating —so that all participants earn a ribbon for their efforts.

With any type of research project, the teacher’s main role is “the guide on the side.” With elementary or second- ary students, the teacher-coordinator directs the budding scientist to appropriate library, Internet, or human resources for background information; helps the student clarify the problem and plan the research; aids in locating equipment and other resources and tools; and gives advice and assis- tance when needed.

Many children’s museums exhibit a suitable and high-quality science-related project. Outstanding high school senior science projects should be entered in the Regeneron Science Talent Search (STS; formerly, Westinghouse Talent Search and then Intel Science Talent Search) competition, which awards over $1 million annu- ally to Regeneron STS participants and their schools.

BOX 6.2

Recommendations for Supervising Independent Projects

Students’ independent research projects should result in the personal construction of new knowledge, along with new skills in, for example, information retrieval, research and technical areas, and problem solving and creativity. K uhlthau (1994) described six steps in independent research projects, along with the feelings and emotions likely to accompany each stage:

1. Receive the assignment (uncertainty). 2. Select a problem to solve (optimism).

3. Examine for focus (confusion, frustration, doubt). 4. Form focus (clarity). 5. Collect information (confidence, having a sense of

direction). 6. Prepare to present (relief, sense of satisfaction or dis-

satisfaction).

Kuhlthau suggested that teachers discuss the stages with students and the usual thoughts, feelings, and frustra- tions that accompany each stage.

128 Chapter 6

Friedman and Master (1980) emphasized that an out- line of the program or tour should be planned in advance by the teacher and the guide. During the tour, students should be allowed to touch, respond, and question. The teacher and guide should work together to stimulate learn- ing, with both partners commenting, contributing, and remaining open to spontaneous twists in the children’s interests. Students should be encouraged to discuss and evaluate during the program.

The reader might correctly conclude that field trips are no different for gifted students than for typical students. However, if the gifted child’s field trip is part of a differen- tiated curriculum, the preparation for the trip, the tasks of the visit, and the resulting reports or projects should be tied to advanced-knowledge goals and thinking-skill development.

Similar to most educational opportunities, field trips can now be taken virtually as well. Microsoft offers oppor- tunities for field trips using Skype. Students can visit many of the world’s top museums with Google Art Projects. New virtual field trips appear on the Internet every day, and a quick Web search for “virtual field trip” generates a myriad of options.

saturday proGraMs

Saturday programs present a delightful benefit: They per- mit gifted students to meet and work with each other away from the stresses and problems of daily school require- ments. Saturday programs almost always take the form of noncredit miniclasses taught by volunteer teachers, college faculty members, graduate students, or community experts—often, parents of the gifted children. Having community members teach in the Saturday program is also a great way to build support for the gifted program.

Feldhusen (1991; Feldhusen, Enersen,  & Sayler, 1992) noted that Saturday (and summer) programs for the gifted present opportunities for students to

●● Interact with supportive, yet challenging, peers. ●● Learn new material at a faster pace. ●● Receive instruction at more complex skill and con-

ceptual levels. ●● Work with instructors who model high-level profes-

sional behavior and aspirations. ●● Be exposed to topics and disciplines not ordinarily

taught in regular school programs. ●● Become involved in in-depth creative investigations,

with opportunities to explore, inquire, investigate, and identify problems.

●● Clarify and confirm their special talents and abilities.

learninG centers

Commercial learning centers are tabletop workstations usually designed for individual work. Although these can be purchased, teachers can also construct their own learning centers. Hazel Feldhusen (1981, 1986) described several ways of using learning centers with mainstreamed gifted students: A library center was stocked with commercial reading-skill materials and educational games; it also could contain a computer for creative writing. A math center included math kits, math games, and a calculator (and calculator activities). A computer in the math center presented logic games, math challenges, spelling lessons, and “fun” computer games. An art center presented a new art project each week. A science center was supplied with two to five science activities and included recordings and videos for viewing.

Learning centers can also teach foreign languages; geography, history, and other social sciences; handicrafts; and music appreciation. Students—gifted and others— may self-select centers and activities, or teachers and stu- dents together may plan engaging and valuable learning center goals. Learning centers may be located in the regu- lar classroom or in the school district’s instructional mate- rials center. Learning centers can also be digital. WebQuests are inquiry-oriented lessons in which the content that stu- dents encounter comes primarily from the Web (see the WebQuest website).

The teacher should be certain that learning center time is well spent. Learning center activities should meet some of the goals and purposes of enrichment itemized in Table 5.1.

field trips

Field trips can be used as an exploratory activity aimed at acquainting students with cultural or scientific areas or with career possibilities. Field trips can also be a source of information for students’ independent pro- jects. Either an entire class or a small group of inter- ested students might visit a natural history museum, a manufacturing plant, an art gallery, a planetarium, or a local Greek restaurant. Some carefully written requests might earn a tour of a major newspaper company, a visit to a research laboratory, or seats at a symphony rehearsal.

Field trips are most beneficial if students have spe- cific problems to solve, questions to answer, or post-tour projects or presentations to prepare. Racing to the gift shop and cafeteria to buy postcards and potato chips should not be the main intent.

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 129

college programs

Many colleges and universities offer summer programs (minicourses) for gifted, talented, and creative elementary and secondary students. We described the Talent Search and Elementary Talent Search programs in Chapter 5.

The University of Northern Colorado at Greeley fea- tures three different summer programs for gifted and tal- ented students: Summer Enrichment Program (SEP), Young Child Program (YCP), and Leadership Enrichment Program (LEP). The SEP serves 5th- through 10th-grade students in a residential setting that offers high-interest, hands-on, brains-on courses. The program has been oper- ating for over three decades. Courses meet daily during four 75-minute periods. After classes, participants choose a variety of activities varying from active sports and recre- ation to arts and crafts.

The YCP serves children from preschool (age 4) through those entering fourth grade. The program addresses the early education and social needs of children who are gifted, talented, and/or creative. Parents select high- interest courses that meet during four 40-minute periods each day.

The LEP accepts two dozen high school students who are entering their junior and senior years. The focus is on helping them understand their unique gifts and talents, learn about leadership styles, and develop traits and char- acteristics of leadership. They spend three periods a day on leadership topics and one period assisting a Summer Enrichment Program teacher for a class of their choice. They assist SEP counselors with afternoon and evening options, and teach minicourses on the Saturday between the weeks of their session. These tasks provide the students with opportunities to interact with younger gifted peers.

The Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University offer a comprehensive set of day and residential summer opportunities for students from early childhood through high school.

Music, art, language, and computer camps

Many colleges and universities offer summer clinics, insti- tutes, retreats, or camps in music, art, drama, and comput- ers. Some sponsor foreign-language camps where students eat, sleep, swim, canoe, and communicate in Spanish, French, German, or Russian. An especially good example is the International Language Village sponsored by Co ncordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota.

Although almost none of these camps and institutes identifies itself as “a program for the gifted,” students are attracted to one of the camps because of their talent and high interest in an area. The camps are a refreshing way to meet like-minded and like-talented friends.

John Feldhusen (1991) developed one of the earliest Saturday programs at Purdue University. The Gifted Edu- cation Resource Center continues to run his Super S aturday program, which serves children from preschool (age 4) through eighth grade. Classes run from 9 a.m. to noon, from mid-fall to early spring. About 30 classes are offered in science, engineering, math, computers, literature, and composition.

Parents provide transportation and pay minimal reg- istration fees and materials charges. Teachers are univer- sity faculty members and students, public school teachers, and others in the community. They must be good teachers and must show energy, enthusiasm, and an interest in teaching gifted kids.

suMMer proGraMs

Most cities and many universities offer summer day and residential programs that are open to all students. Obvi- ously, these may be capitalized upon by the teacher, parent, or counselor seeking enrichment opportunities for ener- getic, capable children. Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page maintains a list of summer and Saturday enrichment pro- grams by state and country.

Governor’s school programs

The Governor’s School concept is a state-supported summer residential school for gifted teenagers. The content usually focuses on (1) math, science, and technology; (2) arts and entertainment; and (3) humanities and social studies. Currently, at least 19 states support advanced summer programs, almost exclusively serving high school students. An important feature of many of the schools is that they do not charge students for tuition, room, and board.

The enthusiasm of educators and students runs high. For example, after a Governor’s School experience, stu- dents’ likelihood of attending college increased (Cross, Hernandez, & Coleman, 1991). Said one student, “For the first time in my life, I can really be me. I can talk about opera or heavy metal music, and no one will think I’m weird.”

study abroad programs

A presumably expensive summer (or school year) option for gifted high school students is study abroad. Summer programs include travel, plus study of at least one country’s language and culture. With school-year programs, a student lives with foreign family, attends a local school, and takes special foreign-language classes (Limburg-Weber, 1999/2000; Olszewski-Kubilius & Limburg-Weber, 1999).

130 Chapter 6

Mentors and Mentorships

The concept of mentoring is hardly new. In ancient Greece, Mentor tutored Telemachus. (The basis of the term mentor comes from Homer’s Odyssey, when Odysseus left his trusted friend Mentor in charge of his son Telemachus dur- ing Odysseus’ absence.) Socrates was mentor to Plato, Plato to Aristotle, and Aristotle to Alexander the Great (Cox & Daniel, 1983).

Traditionally, mentorships involve a community pro- fessional working with a single high school student, usually once per week, on the job, usually for a year. In gifted edu- cation, the concept extends to high-ability students in both elementary and secondary school for various durations. Always, the adult mentor serves as a role model, guide, teacher, and friend. Mentoring has proven valuable for underachieving, economically disadvantaged, minority, and female students and students with disabilities (e.g., Casey & Shore, 2000; Clasen & Clasen, 2003; Duff, 2000; Goff & Torrance, 1999; Hébert & Olenchak, 2000). Indeed, Arnold and Subotnik (1995) noted that the success between a men- tor and protégé—and the very success of the mentorship— are maximal if the mentor and mentee are closely matched in ethnicity, gender, social class, background, and values.

Research shows that, because mentors provide social and emotional support and advocacy beyond what is nor- mally found in typical instructor–student relations, men- tors make a difference in the creative achievement and education attainment of their mentees (see Box 6.3). The benefits of mentoring transcend academic and career advantages and usually include increased self-confidence, responsibility, and purpose (Siegle, McCoach,  & Wilson, 2009). Mentorships help young people live with greater purpose (Tomlinson, 2001b).

summer program Benefits and problems

Olszewski-Kubilius (1997, 2003) noted that reported ben- efits of summer programs, which complement those for Saturday programs, include the following:

●● Social support for learning and achievement due to grouping with intellectual peers and support from teachers and counselors.

●● More suitable levels of difficulty and pace, thus combating poor study habits and underachievement from too-easy and boring classes.

●● Increased understanding of university programs and college life.

●● Raised education aspirations. ●● In residential programs, development of independ-

ence and living skills. ●● Increased individual risk-taking, both academically

and socially. ●● Improved self-concept and self-esteem. ●● Increased acceptance of others, knowledge of differ-

ent cultures, and a better worldview.

Olszewski-Kubilius (2003) noted two problems that would apply to both Saturday and summer programs. First is the continuity issue: Will the Saturday or summer program accelerate students through material they would soon learn anyway? Must a good student repeat a course despite being well prepared for a more advanced course? Often the answer is yes, and it’s demoralizing. Second is the access problem: Because most Saturday and summer problems charge fees— often, hundreds of dollars—do the programs exclude eco- nomically disadvantaged gifted students—students who most need the experiences? Without aid, some programs may be too expensive for even moderate-income families.

BOX 6.3

Mentoring a Minority, At-Risk, Underachieving 12-Year-Old

Jackson was a 12-year-old, at-risk, and economically impoverished African American fifth-grade boy with behavior problems. He was the oldest of five children, was retained in first grade, and lived with his 80-year-old grandmother because his mother was in prison for burglary. Jackson also scored far into the superior range on a nonverbal intelligence test and was keenly interested in science and math. In addition to sending him to weekly 45-minute support-group sessions, his school paired him with a mentor. Together, Jackson and his mentor visited a university science laboratory and a NASA museum, and Jackson had a hands-on session at a commercial design business. The mentor also arranged a meeting with a high school teacher who was a former space-camp instructor. Meanwhile, Jackson’s teacher used de Bono’s CoRT (1986;

see Chapter 10) problem- solving and decision-making techniques, learning contracts, and curriculum compacting to individualize Jackson’s school program and to free up time for Jackson to study space—partly with a telescope constructed, from a kit, by Jackson and his former space- camp instructor, and partly with the school space club that Jackson founded. Despite his nearly handicapping situation, Jackson experienced an improved self-concept, feelings of self-efficacy, academic success, and raised aspirations.

His teacher entered in her journal, “I am stunned!”

Source: Adapted from Mentors for gifted underachieving males: Developing potential and realizing promise., 44, 196–207 by T. P. Hebert, & F. R. Olenchak. Published by National Association for Gifted Children, 2000.

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 131

consisted of Ursuline alumnae themselves, who in turn cir- culated (via e-mail) the recruiting message to other profes- sional females. Professionals who otherwise might be too busy were willing to share their knowledge and experience via e-mail.

The weekly e-mails informed students about careers and requisite course work and, it is important to note, increased career motivation—building in the students a strong incentive to take advanced classes. The telementor- ing included counseling. Said one student, the program gave her “a person to talk to who went through the same experiences I am going through now” (Duff, 2000, p. 51).

Telementoring has several advantages over tradi- tional mentoring because it:

●● Connects thousands of students with mentors on a scale that is not possible face to face.

●● Matches students to mentors, regardless of their physical location;

●● Allows easy communication between students and mentors, with the option of having an archive of all communications.

●● Eliminates scheduling problems between students and mentors because both parties can communi- cate at their convenience (Siegle, McCoach,  & Gilson, 2015).

Good Mentors

Effective mentors are typically persons who model the val- ues, attitudes, and behaviors that the protégé will strive to emulate (Clasen & Clasen, 1997, 2003). We already noted that a good match in regard to ethnicity, gender, social class, background, and values can be crucial to the mentor- ship. Three assumed effective characteristics are high com- petence in an area, a strong interest in teaching young people, and a willingness to devote time to the mentorship. Especially important is the ability to provide learning experiences that are enjoyable and challenging; enable stu- dents to use their gifts, abilities, and imagination; bring the protégé to higher levels of thinking and problem solving; and enable students to see their own possibilities. One caution— educators should beware of potential undera- chieving mentors who easily attract underachieving gifted students and lure them to hopes of easy solutions instead of steadfast effort (Rimm, 2008b).

junior Great Books

Junior Great Books (JGB), a program of the Great Books Foundation, is another popular enrichment program cur- rently used in gifted programs across all 50 states and in many foreign countries. Two goals of JGB are

Some general goals of mentoring elementary stu- dents are to recognize individual students’ characteristics, needs, and problems; serve as a positive role model; tutor or advise as necessary; and perhaps guide the child through home or school difficulties (C. A. Kass, personal commu- nication, 1990). As director of teacher education and coor- dinator of teacher experiences in gifted education, Kass used future teachers—college students—as mentors. She noted that mentors can guide elementary students with these specific activities:

●● Developing study skills. ●● Tutoring in difficult areas. ●● Writing compositions and essays. ●● Developing special projects and research skills. ●● Learning to use the library. ●● Improving social relationships. ●● Understanding personal problems. ●● Exploring new interest areas.

Using professionals instead of university students, Ellingson, Haeger, and Feldhusen (1986) summarized a successful mentor program for students as young as fourth grade. Instead of a one-on-one strategy, groups of six stu- dents met with, for example, an engineer, doctor, judge, history professor, or radio broadcaster.

In a high school program, Prillaman and Richardson (1989) used college students to mentor gifted students in grades 8 through 11 after school and on weekends for 12  weeks. The students selected an area of interest to explore, such as marine science, geology, photography, French culture, or archaeology. The college student mentors were recruited on the basis of their expertise in an area.

In the typical high school mentorship program, the student is called a protégé, intern, apprentice, mentee, or assistant. The student visits the mentor at the job site on a scheduled basis to learn firsthand the activities, responsibilities, problems, and lifestyle associated with the particular business, art, or profession. Students nor- mally receive high school credit for the mentorship experience. In some cases a formal work-study plan is developed in which the student is paid for working while learning.

online Mentoring

Videoconferencing, texting, social media, and e-mail offer superb mentoring opportunities such as online tutoring, ask-an-expert coaching, and linking of students with suc- cessful professionals anywhere (Duff, 2000). As an exam- ple, the telementoring program at Ursuline Academy connected females in Grades 9 to 12 directly with profes- sional women around the world. The mentor pool

132 Chapter 6

The objectives of FPS are to help children (1) become more aware of the future in order to deal with it actively and optimistically; (2) become more creative and learn to go beyond the obvious; (3) improve communica- tion skills, especially speaking and writing clearly, accu- rately, and persuasively; (4) develop teamwork skills such as listening, respecting, understanding, and compromising; (5) learn to use a problem-solving model and integrate it into their daily lives; and (6) develop research skills, including how and where to gather information (Crabbe, 1982).

The yearlong Team Problem Solving program begins with the registration of each four-student team in one of three grade divisions: Juniors (Grades 4–6), Middle (7–9), and Seniors (10–12). The teams complete two practice problems and one qualifying problem, which they solve by using the seven-step model that is based on the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model (see Chapter 8). Using the seven-step model, the teams

1. Research the general topic. 2. Brainstorm problems related to a specific (“fuzzy”)

situation. 3. Select an important underlying problem from the

brainstormed problems. 4. Brainstorm solutions to the underlying problem. 5. Develop five criteria by which to judge the ideas. 6. Use the criteria to evaluate the 10 most promising

solutions and then select the “best” solution. 7. Describe the best solution.

Past problems have dealt with poverty, terrorism, garbage disposal, school dropouts, drug abuse, child abuse, ozone depletion, water shortages, acid rain, medical advances, space exploration, ethics in sports, energy of the future, educational disparities, identify theft, and many others.

As each problem is completed, it is sent for scoring to the state FPS organization. The first two problems are prac- tice problems. On the basis of the quality of the third prob- lem, top teams are invited to participate in the state FPS competition. For the state competition, the teams are given a topic to research in advance. At the competition site, each team is given the problem scenario—then sequestered in a room for 2 hours to prepare problem statements and solu- tions according to the previously listed steps. The three winning teams in the state competition, one per division, are sent to the International FPS Conference.

In addition to Team Problem Solving, FPS offers Individual Problem Solving for students who wish to work individually rather than as a member of a team; Action-Based Problem Solving, which is a yearlong, non- competitive program for use in the regular classroom;

implementing JGB programs in Grades K–12 and training teachers to become JGB leaders. In one- or two-day work- shops at several levels, the JGB Foundation trains teachers to ask probing questions that require students to think and to interpret literature.

The carefully selected books consist of modern and traditional literature for each grade level, from kindergar- ten through high school. Children in kindergarten through Grade 4 read (or hear) fairy tales and folk tales. Grades 4 through 9 cover children’s classics and modern short sto- ries. High school students read short selections from great works of philosophy, political science, economics, and fic- tion. All readings have proved to be comprehensible, rich in ideas for sustained discussion of the interpretive ques- tions, and enjoyable to read and discuss. Teachers engage students in in-depth discussions of their reading in three to five class periods per week, with homework only for high school students.

Strengthened reading skills (e.g., vocabulary), listen- ing skills, and interpretation and inquiry are some of the benefits of JGB (Nichols, 1992), along with greater self- awareness and insights into psychological and social prob- lems. For additional information, visit the Great Books Foundation website.

coMpetitions

Games and competitions capture young people’s attention and time. Students can learn new skills, develop confi- dence, and enjoy the learning process when competition stakes are not too high and when the competition provides opportunities for frequent feedback and recognition of progress.

In this section, we describe four competitions that are attractive to gifted students. These competitions help develop students’ creativity, research skills, ability to col- laborate, and individual and group problem-solving skills. They also provide opportunities for both inductive and deductive thinking.

future problem solving and related programs

The popular Future Problem Solving (FPS) program is an enrichment activity that can take place in a pullout pro- gram, resource center, special class, or Saturday program, or with gifted students who are mainstreamed or clustered in the regular classroom. If an FPS team is good, it might have the opportunity to travel to a state Future Problem Solving bowl or even to the International FPS Conference. FPS was begun in 1975 by E. Paul Torrance at the U niversity of Georgia. It grew into a statewide program, then into a national and now an international program.

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 133

odyssey of the Mind and destination imagination

Like Future Problem Solving, Odyssey of the Mind (OM; formerly Olympics of the Mind) and Destination ImagiNa- tion are national and international programs, and they are considered excellent vehicles for teaching creative think- ing and problem solving, along with self-confidence, inter- personal skills, and more. Research findings show that students who participate in these programs are more engaged, creative, imaginative, self-confident, tenacious, inquisitive, and collaborative (Destination Imagination, 2016). The key assumption of OM’s founders, Ted Gourley and Sam Micklus, is that the mind can be trained and strengthened through exercise with mental games, just as the body is trained with physical exercise (Gourley, 1981).

There are four age divisions within OM. In D ivision  I, team members must be younger than 12 or in the fifth grade; in Division II, younger than 15 or in the eighth grade; in Division III, 15 or older and attending high school; and in Division IV, in college. Teams include seven members, but only five can be “on the playing field.” Each team chooses one of five competitive problems to solve. Children apply their creativity to solve problems that range from building mechanical devices to presenting their own interpretation of literary classics. They then bring their solutions to competitions at the local, state, and world levels. Thousands of teams from throughout the United States and from about 25 other countries participate in the program. In addition to the four competitive divi- sions, there is a primary (K–2) division in which children participate in a noncompetitive creative skit.

OM provides each team with detailed directions for preparing long-term problems that require months to plan and implement prior to the regional competitions in April or May. Performance time is 8 minutes. Costs are limited, which supports scavenging or buying at Goodwill.

In addition to the long-term problems, OM students also solve spontaneous (short-term) problems, both in practice and on the day of competition. For example, stu- dents might be asked to improvise with a Ping-Pong ball (“It’s a clown’s nose!” “It’s an egg from a plastic bird!”). Teams are awarded one point for each common idea and three points for each creative idea, thereby learning to give creative ideas. For further information, visit the Odyssey of the Mind website.

Destination ImagiNation is similar to Odyssey of the Mind. It was formed from the original OM nonprofit organization. It also features five challenge problems and a preschool problem. The age divisions are similar to those of OM. The elementary level includes students from kinder- garten to fifth grade, middle level is sixth to eighth grade,

Community Problem Solving (CmPS), which has teams apply their FPS skills to real community problems; Global Issue Problem Solving (GIPS), which addresses interna- tional topics; Scenario Writing, where students compose futuristic short stories related to the current year’s prob- lems; and Scenario Performance (ScP), which is for stu- dents who enjoy the oral tradition of storytelling.

Torrance and Torrance (1978) reported student testi- monials on the benefits of FPS. For example, a fifth-grade girl reported, “I learned to cooperate, to share ideas, to pro- duce creative and clever ideas, to be excited, to learn, and to work.” Rimm and Olenchak (1991) successfully used FPS to motivate underachievers.

national history day

Our experience has shown that gifted students are particu- larly drawn to the National History Day (NHD) competi- tion. Each year, over half a million students from around the nation and in international schools participate at the local, state, and national levels in National History Day competitions. Founded in 1974 at Case Western Reserve University, National History Day was developed to inspire students to conduct original historical research. Students choose historical topics related to a theme, and conduct primary and secondary research through libraries, muse- ums, archives, oral history interviews, and historic sites. After analyzing and interpreting their data and drawing conclusions about the historical significance of their topic, students present their findings in original papers, websites, exhibits, performances, and documentaries. The National History Day process helps students develop critical think- ing and problem-solving skills, research and reading skills, oral and written communication and presentation skills, and self-esteem and confidence.

National History Day winners have presented their projects at the White House Visitor Center, the National Archives, the National Museum of Health and Medicine, and different Smithsonian Institution museums. A Hallmark Hall of Fame production about a Polish woman who saved thousands of Jewish children from the Nazis was based on a project by a group of Kansas students for National His- tory Day. Students from Uniontown High School were inspired by their teacher’s short clipping on Irena Sendler. Their National History Day Project became a short play, Life in a Jar, that Hallmark Hall of Fame picked up and made into the full-length movie, The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler (Henning, 2009).

National History Day provides material for teachers and students that relates to learning standards. More infor- mation about NHD is available online at the National His- tory Day website.

134 Chapter 6

each State Competition advance to the National Competi- tion. Students enrolled in sixth, seven, and eighth grade can participate in the MATHCOUNTS Competition Series. Schools can register up to 10 students to represent the school at the chapter competition. An unlimited number of students can participate in the school-level competitions. Of course, students receive recognition and awards at each competition level. More information about MATH- COUNTS can be found at their website.

source of competitions

One of the best sources of information on national competitions, many of which are open to students of all ages, is the book The Best Competitions for Talented Kids (Karnes & Riley, 2013). It lists hundreds of competitions in the categories of academics, fine and performing arts, leadership, and service learning. Each competition is summarized in about one page, listing the competition name, sponsor, purpose, description, eligibility requirements, dates (for applications and awards), entry requirements and instructions, judging criteria, and awards. The awards include medals; ribbons; certificates; prizes; scholarships; and, in a few cases, cash. For example, the category of academics includes subcategories of general academics (including an AP competition), business, foreign languages, language arts (10 subcategories), math, science (7 subcategories), social studies (6 subcategories), and technology.

technoloGy and the Gifted

Angela Housand (2016) suggests the use of technology is fundamental to the learning process and therefore must be a consideration of curriculum for the gifted. Computer and Internet technologies present endless curriculum, accelera- tion, and enrichment opportunities. Computers increase stu- dents’ control over learning and improve their productivity (Berger & McIntyre, 1998; Pyryt, 2003; Siegle, 2005b). They also increase the sophistication of the products that gifted and talented students can produce. If gifted students are to develop their talents fully, they need access to a meaningful curricu- lum and technology that enables them to feel, think, and act like a practicing professional (B. Housand, 2016).

internet options

The explosion of the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s marked the beginning of a new era in data retrieval and personal communication. The Web created an environment in which the traditional barriers to the collection, analysis, and sharing of information were removed. Today, students construct knowledge by gathering information, organizing it in meaningful ways, and sharing it with others. In this

secondary level is ninth to twelfth grade, university level is students bound for higher education or full-time postsec- ondary students, and the rising stars level is preschool to second grade.

The long-term problems of OM are known as Team Challenges in DI. DI teams consist of two to seven mem- bers. The DI team challenge has two components: a Cen- tral Challenge and Side Trips. The short-term (spontaneous) problems of OM are known as Instant Challenges in DI. Additional information about Destination ImagiNation is available at their website.

Some states include both OM and DI organizations, whereas other states may feature only one of the programs. Both programs provide outstanding opportunities for stu- dents to develop and hone their creative talents.

Mathcounts

MATHCOUNTS is a national program that promotes better math skills in all students while creating opportunities for those who excel to compete at local, state, and national levels. Through coached sessions at their schools, students in sixth through eighth grade learn to see mathematics as exciting, challenging, rewarding, and fun. The program was founded by the National Society of Professional Engineers, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and the CNA Foundation. A School Kit is free and includes the MATH- COUNTS School Handbook, a poster, and a registration form. The modest registration fees are based on the number of teams and individuals participating in the program.

The 3-hour MATHCOUNTS competition involves three rounds. The Sprint Round (40 minutes) consists of 30 problems that are designed to test computational accu- racy. Calculators are not allowed. The Target Round (30  minutes) tests multistep problem-solving, with eight problems that are presented to competitors in four parts. The Team Round (20 minutes) measures how well team members work together to solve 10 problems. Calculators are allowed for the Target and Team Rounds.

The Math Video Challenge is a recent addition to MATHCOUNTS. Teams of four students create a video that explains the solution to a MATHCOUNTS handbook problem and demonstrates real-world application of the mathematics concept feaured in the problem.

Any student who is interested in the program is encouraged to compete in the School Competition. The School Competition is used to select students for the Chap- ter (Local) Competition. The winning team from the Chap- ter Competition (as well as the two highest-scoring students who were not on the winning team) move to the State Competition. The four highest-ranked students (referred to as Mathletes) and the top team coach from

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 135

time, the teacher posts the lesson, often in the form of vid- eos, for students to watch independently at home. Class time is instead used to work on what traditionally is con- sidered homework, providing opportunities for teachers to give personalized feedback, guidance, and differentiation as students apply what they have learned. Flipped class- rooms support differentiation by allowing gifted students to access more advanced content, apply critical and crea- tive thinking skills, and develop more sophisticated prod- ucts (Siegle, 2014).

videoconferencing

Videoconferencing is a viable teaching and learning option, especially because it uses existing equipment: a computer or mobile device with either a built-in or external webcam, a microphone, and an Internet connection. Skype is a leading video chat tool that offers voice and video calls. Google Hangouts is a popular alternative to Skype. Each of these options is free and available across a wide range of devices and platforms.

With videoconferencing, students can talk with experts, collaborate on projects with other students, hold debates, conduct book talks, share their expertise, and visu- ally experience cultures anywhere on the planet. With mini- mal equipment and setup time, videoconferencing opens new worlds for students. For gifted students in particular, such connections with other students or with experts in dif- ferent fields may provide the kind of mentorship they need to advance their learning in a content area of strength and interest (Siegle, Amspaugh, & Mitchell, 2017).

Mobile devices and apps

The release of the iPhone in 2007 marked a major shift in technology with the rise of smart mobile and tablet devices. These smart devices combined multiple technology func- tions into single devices, often integrating phone, Internet, e-mail, text, audio/video recording, music player, and GPS capabilities into a single instrument. These advances led to a number of advantages for educators integrating technol- ogy in their classrooms, including portability, social inter- activity, context sensitivity, connectivity, and individuality (Klopfer & Squire, 2008).

Allowing students to use mobile media devices throughout the day can amplify learning by increasing access to information; empowering students to produce authentic products; and providing unprecedented access to resources that allow personalized, interest-driven learning (Squire  & Dikkers, 2012). Gifted students have access at their fingertips to most of the world’s knowledge. A  tal- ented musician can record and produce an impressive set of songs with a smartphone or table. Students can record,

way, students are actively involved with the technology and use it as a tool to answer questions and solve prob- lems. They also use technology to learn from others as well as share what they have learned. Some suggest that the Internet is the single most significant technology available to gifted and talented students (Siegle, 2005a).

Six common uses of the Internet are as an informa- tion resource, a platform for interactive projects, a source for online classes, a publishing platform, a mentoring resource, and a social network. First, the Internet offers the most extensive and accessible collection of information available to gifted students. It can provide the depth and breadth of content that many gifted students crave. It also contains a myriad of electronic books (many of them free and in the public domain) and online newspapers from around the world. Second, the Internet creates a global community of learners who can collaborate on projects. A list of interactive online programs for K–12 is available at the Community Learning Network website. Third, gifted students who have outgrown the available courses in their school system can extend their learning through online courses. Many states and universities offer online courses for talented elementary and secondary students. An alterna- tive approach to distance learning through traditional online university courses is available through massive open online courses (MOOCs). MOOCs provide a wide range of online courses with open access via the Internet, and they are often available for free or at drastically reduced prices. Many courses offered through MOOCs are the same high- quality courses developed and taught at accredited univer- sities. Fourth, students can share their creative thoughts and creative products on the Internet. A talented photogra- pher could create an online photo gallery, and a creative writer might share original short stories. Students can post their videos on YouTube for a select audience or the world to view. Fifth, online mentors can provide expertise not normally available to students. We discussed mentoring earlier in this chapter. Videoconferencing, discussed later in this section, is also a viable option. Finally, texting and the popularity of social networks through programs such as Facebook provide opportunities for gifted students to inter- act with each other.

flipped classroom

An innovative approach that combines the best features of both online and face-to-face learning is the flipped class- room. In traditional classrooms, the teacher delivers instruction during class, and students complete homework to reinforce knowledge and practice skills. In a f lipped classroom, technology helps to reverse that process. Rather  than teaching the lesson during the typical class

136 Chapter 6

●● Strengthen higher-level thinking skills, such as through questioning (see Chapter 10) and through projects that demand analysis, planning, creativity, interpretation, and evaluation.

●● Allow independent, advanced-level projects. ●● Use outside mentors, at elementary as well as sec-

ondary levels. ●● Compact already learned or quickly learned curriculum

to provide time for independent learning or projects. ●● Use learning or interest centers.

Westberg and Archambault (1995) and their col- leagues visited 10 elementary schools that had been identi- fied as successfully teaching gifted students. Despite program differences, six repetitive themes emerged.

First, effective teachers had advanced training in gifted education, stemming from graduate degrees and in-service training that presented new teaching techniques.

Second, teachers were motivated. They were willing to make changes, spend extra time, and sometimes fail in trying to differentiate learning for gifted students.

Third, teachers collaborated with each other, with curriculum specialists, and with gifted education special- ists to plan instruction for high-ability students.

Fourth, teachers used a variety of approaches to dif- ferentiate curriculum and instruction—all aimed at deter- mining what students will learn, how they learn, and how they will demonstrate their learning. They modified the curriculum, set high standards, located mentors, encour- aged independent projects, and created f lexible instruc- tional groups.

Fifth, teachers received clear support from their prin- cipals and superintendents.

Sixth, a “supportive atmosphere,” or “collaborative culture,” encouraged teachers to experiment with and adopt new practices, such as flexible staffing patterns and new curricula.

edit, and distribute videos with their mobile devices. Built- in sensors on mobile devices enable students to measure sound and light levels for research projects. Students are no longer tied to their school desks; their classrooms; or their city, state, or nation for opportunities to learn and to share their talents. Thanks to ubiquitous, low-cost technol- ogy, students can now create sophisticated products that once were only possible with resources available to profes- sionals. For example, today’s fifth-grade student living on the prairies of rural Montana has the publishing power of the New York Times.

important Websites about Gifted children

Information for anyone interested in gifted education is available at Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page website. The websites of the National Association for Gifted Children, the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT), the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE), and the Davidson Institute for Talent Development also feature a plethora of information related to gifted children.

coMMents on GroupinG, differentiation, and enrichMent

When we modify, or “differentiate,” the curriculum for gifted students, per all of the enrichment and grouping strategies in this chapter, and as noted by Westberg and Archambault (1995), it means that we:

●● Use advanced content. ●● Provide depth—for example, by teaching interrela-

tionships among bodies of knowledge. ●● Accelerate the pace of instruction. ●● Group students according to skill level or interest area. ●● Allow independent, self-directed learning.

Summary

Gifted students usually require additional learning oppor- tunities beyond what is expected in the Common Core State Standards.

In the category of full-time homogeneous grouping, magnet high schools draw students to the particular school that accommodates their needs and educational or career interests. Special schools, elementary or secondary, enrich and accelerate the education of gifted students.

Private schools usually produce, on average, higher achievement than public schools; some private schools are designed for gifted and talented students.

With the school-within-a-school plan, gifted students attend special classes for part of the day and mix with regu- lar students for other, usually less academic classes.

Special classes for gifted students may be created in the elementary or secondary school. Some problems are that the concept is contrary to the reform movement toward heterogeneous classes, some students may resist being sep- arated, other students may resent the special status, and teachers may grade the more difficult class on a curve. Some high schools already provide differentiated opportu- nities for bright and motivated students.

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 137

Under full-time heterogeneous grouping, cluster grouping involves placing a group of 5 to 10 gifted stu- dents in the same regular class for special assignments. The curriculum may be compacted to allow time for enrichment activities. The cluster grouping program described by Gentry, in which all teachers received train- ing in gifted and talented strategies, raised achievement for gifted and all other students.

In heterogeneous classes, gifted-conscious teachers can use learning centers or compact the curriculum, per- haps with pretesting. Winebrenner used compacting to pro- vide time for three similar independent learning activities, all requiring a written agreement: learning contracts, Study Guide Method, and Resident Expert. Kaplan described two methods for covering the prescribed curriculum while dif- ferentiating for the gifted: “paralleling” (covering both the prescribed and a differentiated curriculum) and “cluster- ing” (elaborating on core concepts of the prescribed curriculum).

IEPs may be used to individualize instruction for mainstreamed gifted students.

Other suggestions for teaching the gifted in the regu- lar classroom include individual acceleration, enrichment activities in a student’s interest area, academic and career advising, compacting learning centers, individualized learning packets, incorporating creativity into regular sub- ject areas, helping students plan projects that develop thinking skills, guest speakers, cross-age and peer tutoring, and helping gifted students to set goals.

In the category of part-time and temporary grouping, pullout programs (the most common elementary-level gifted and talented plan) involve sending gifted students to a resource room for one or two afternoons per week. These programs are criticized for being a part-time solution. Other problems include, for example, dealing with missed work.

A resource program is a districtwide pullout plan in which students travel to a resource room once or twice per week.

Gifted resource teachers serve gifted students in their regular classroom with push-in programs. Extra effort must be made to ensure that gifted students receive suffi- cient services with this model.

Special classes may be used on a part-time as well as full-time basis. For example, elementary students may attend special classes for part of the day; secondary stu- dents may be bused to a districtwide special class in, say, accelerated math or humanities. Honors programs use part- time special classes.

An enrichment cluster is a temporary group of stu- dents from several grades who have a common interest. They are taught by an adult expert in the area.

Special interest groups and clubs are a good outlet for students whose enthusiasm and ability exceed the regu- larly offered course work.

Many enrichment activities are good for all students, not just the gifted. Qualified and enthusiastic teachers are critical. Worthwhile enrichment should be guided by the types of objectives shown in Table 5.1, Chapter 5.

Differentiation is a topic that has received much attention in recent years because schools have been forced to recognize the different readiness levels, learning styles, and interests of students. Current differentiation efforts are not a repeat of the individualized instruction movement of the 1970s.

Differentiation relies on f lexible grouping, clear expectations, and a shared understanding that different stu- dents might be doing different things at the same time.

Tomlinson and Jarvis (2009) outlined a differentia- tion process where teachers respond proactively to learner differences in readiness, interest, and learning profile and are guided by principles of effective differentiation as they differentiate the classroom elements of content, process, products, and environment by using a variety of instruc- tional strategies.

Tiered instruction is a popular differentiation strat- egy that involves creating the best possible lesson that is interesting and challenging and then making it more or less challenging to fit different levels of student readiness.

Roberts and Inman’s Developing and Assessing Product (DAP) Tool can be used to evaluate the variety of differentiated products that students produce.

Although they were originally envisioned for special education, Response to Intervention (RtI) models are being implemented successfully with gifted students.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Reading Framework (SEM-R) is a differentiation strategy based on Renzulli’s Triad Model. The program is designed to stimulate student interest in and love of reading.

Tomlinson and MacTighe (2006) developed nine steps that reflect the planning implementation necessary to com- bine differentiation principles with Understanding by Design.

Enrichment strategies are delivery methods for achieving process and content goals.

Independent projects can involve library or Internet research, scientific research, art, drama, creative writing, or others.

Commercial or teacher-made learning centers can teach languages, science, math, computers, social studies, creative writing, music appreciation, and other subjects.

Field trips are good experiences for regular and gifted students. The teacher and the guide/educator should preplan any tour. Students should have problems to solve or questions to answer.

138 Chapter 6

MATHCOUNTS is a schoolwide program that increases all students’ mathematics skills while fostering a love of mathematics. Competitions occur at the school, local, state, and national levels.

Odyssey of the Mind and Destination ImagiNation offer long-term problems, to be worked on over the school year, and short-term problems.

The book The Best Competitions for Talented Kids lists hundreds of national competitions for students of all ages in the areas of academics, fine and performing arts, leadership, and service.

Computer technology—the Internet—presents end- less opportunities for “library” research of any topic or career. Six common uses of the Internet include as an information resource, a platform for interactive projects, a source for online classes, a publishing platform, a mentor- ing resource, and a social network.

Flipping a classroom can increase differentiation options for gifted learners.

Mobile devices untether students and enable them to expand knowledge acquisition and productivity options.

NAGC, Hoagies, the Davidson Foundation, NRC/ GT, and NCRGE are important Internet sites that may be of interest to teachers and parents of gifted students.

Appropriate enrichment employs advanced content, provides depth, accelerates instruction, groups according to skill or interest, allows independent learning, focuses on developing thinking skills, uses outside mentors, compacts the curriculum, and uses learning centers. Westberg and Archambault reported six main themes of schools that teach the gifted successfully: Teachers had advanced train- ing, they were motivated, they collaborated with each other, they used a variety of ways to differentiate the cur- riculum and teach, administrators were supportive, and the atmosphere supported new practices.

Feldhusen’s Super Saturday is a model Saturday enrichment program.

Many cities offer summer programs. Governor’s Schools are summer residential programs for gifted sec- ondary students. Study abroad programs can take place during the summer or academic year. Some free high school summer programs offer valuable learning experi- ences for minorities and females.

Many universities offer “college for kids” types of summer programs that consist largely of minicourses.

Music, art, language, and computer camps are valua- ble summer programs that are self-selected by bright and motivated students. Summer programs can aid independ- ence, understanding of college life, education aspirations, goal setting, self-esteem, risk taking, acceptance of others, and more.

Mentor programs traditionally involve on-the-job, one-to-one interaction of a high school student with a com- munity professional. In some programs, university stu- dents or professionals mentor elementary students, sometimes mentoring small groups of students. At Ursuline Academy, female high school students were mentored via e-mail by professional women around the world. One trait of good mentors is providing enjoyable and challenging learning experiences that stimulate thinking and help stu- dents see their possibilities.

Junior Great Books acquaints students with classic literature and strengthens reading, interpretation, and dis- cussion skills.

Future Problem Solving helps children become future-oriented and strengthens creativity, problem solv- ing, communication, and teamwork skills.

National History Day is a popular competition that encourages students to use primary and secondary research sources as they explore a theme in history.

AppendiX 6.1 plAceS ThAT puBliSh STudenT WOrk

All Ages

artsonia Artsonia 1350 Tri-State Parkway, Ste 106 Gurnee, IL 6003 The Artsonia website

creative Kids Prufrock Press P.O. Box 8813 Waco, TX 76714–8813 The Prufrock Press website

the Louisville review: the children’s corner The Children’s Corner The Louisville Review

Spalding University 851 S. Fourth St. Louisville, KY 40203 The Louisville Review website

skipping stones: a multicultural magazine Managing Editor Skipping Stones P.O. BOX 3939 Eugene, OR 97403–0939 The Skipping Stones website

the Writing slate The Writing Conference, Inc. P.O. Box 664 Ottawa, Kansas 66067–0664 The Writing Conference, Inc., website

Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment 139

elementAry

Highlights for children Highlights for Children 803 Church Street Honesdale, PA 18431 The Highlights Kids website

Launch Pad Launch Pad P.O. Box 80578 Baton Rouge, LA 70898 The contact editor listed at the Launch Pad Magazine website

magic Dragon Magic Dragon P.O. Box 687 Webster, NY 14580 The Magic Dragon website

reading rainbow: Young author and illustrator contest Local PBS stations across the country The Reading Rainbow Contest information at local PBS websites

stone soup Stone Soup Submissions Dept. P.O. Box 83 Santa Cruz, CA 95063 The Stone Soup website

secondAry

the claremont review The Claremont Review

4980 Wesley Road Victoria, BC V8Y 1Y9 Canada The Claremont Review website

girlspeak Young Chicago Authors c/o GirlSpeak 1180 N. Milwaukee, 2nd Floor Chicago, IL 60622 The Young Chicago Authors website

merlyn’s Pen The Merlyn’s Pen website

Polyphony H.s. Polyphony H.S. c/o Educational Endeavors 1535 N. Dayton Street Chicago, IL 60642 The Polyphony H.S. website

speak up Press Speak Up Press P.O. Box 100506 Denver, CO 80250 The Speak Up Press website

teen ink Teen Ink Box 30 Newton MA 02461 The Teen Ink website

140

7 Curriculum Models

Learning OutcOmes

1. Analyze the ways that the Schoolwide Enrichment Model applies across all facets of gifted programming.

2. Describe how the Autonomous Learner Model’s five main dimensions orient students and others to giftedness.

3. Discuss the implications of the Advanced Academic Services Model’s focus on services over identification.

4. Assess the role of creative thinking in the Three-Stage Enrichment Model.

5. Compare and contrast the Parallel Curriculum Model’s four approaches to writing curriculum.

6. Diagram the interaction of elements in the Multiple Menu Model’s five menus for writing curriculum.

7. Interpret the way the Integrated Curriculum Model’s three dimensions support teachers in developing curricular units.

8. Examine the Mentoring Mathematical Minds and Mentoring Young Mathematicians’ approach of enrichment and acceleration to develop mathematics units.

9. Illustrate the interrelation of content, process, and product in The Grid: Constructing Differentiated Curriculum for the Gifted.

10. Interpret the role of assessment in the CLEAR curriculum model.

C H A P T E R

C urriculum models provide a theoretical framework within which specific learning activities may be planned. This chapter will briefly summarize 10 curriculum models. In most—but not all—cases, the models and their prescriptions are consistent and complementary, permitting a teacher-coordinator to draw ideas from

two or more curriculum models simultaneously. Also, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Reis & Renzulli, 2009; Renzulli, 1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1997) and the Autonomous Learner Model (Betts, 1985, 1991; Betts & Kercher, 1999, 2009) supply extensive details regarding program philosophy, recommended selection procedures, curriculum content, and the specifics of carrying out the entire plan. For example, details of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model fill a 400-page book (Renzulli & Reis, 2014) plus additional books in specific academic content areas (Heilbronner & Renzulli, 2016; Housand, Housand, & Renzulli, 2017; Reis, Fogarty, & Eckert, 2008). Other models make general and specific recommendations and then leave it to the teacher-coordinator to fill in the particulars. The Integrated Curriculum Model, the Mentoring Mathematical Minds Model, and the CLEAR Model include prepared curricular units. Many of the models were developed for elementary students; however, a few were developed specifically for secondary students. All of the models are sufficiently flexible to work in elementary or secondary settings.

Curriculum Models 141

These are the 10 models:

1. Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Reis & Renzulli, 2009; Renzulli, 1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1997, 2003, 2014).

2. Autonomous Learner Model (Betts, 1985, 1991, Betts & Kercher, 1999, 2009).

3. Advanced Academic Program Development Model (Peters, Matthews, McBee, & McCoach, 2014).

4. Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model (Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1986; Moon, 1995, 1996; Moon, Kolloff, Robinson, Dixon, & Feldhusen, 2009).

5. Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, 2009; Tomlinson et al., 2002).

6. Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli, 1988, 2009; Renzulli, Leppien, & Hayes, 2000).

7. Integrated Curriculum Model (Little, 2009; VanTassel-Baska, 2009).

8. Mentoring Mathematical Minds Model (Gavin, Casa, Adelson, Carroll, & Sheffield, 2009).

9. The Grid: A Model to Construct Differentiated Curriculum for the Gifted (Kaplan, 1986, 2009).

10. CLEAR Model (Callahan, Moon, Oh, Azano, & Hailey, 2015).

Schoolwide enrichment model: renzulli and reiS

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM; Reis & Renzulli, 2009; Renzulli & Reis, 1997, 2014) is an exten- sion of the earlier Revolving Door Identification Model (RDIM; Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981), with the SEM model emphasizing the literally schoolwide focus of the program. Like the RDIM, the curricular basis of SEM is the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977; see also Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997, 2003), which is one of the best known models and the most widely used model for guiding what to do for gifted students. Renzulli and Reis (2014) describe the goals of SEM through three Es: enjoy- ment, which leads to higher engagement, which leads to enthusiasm for learning and higher achievement. Educa- tors achieve these goals by utilizing students’ strengths and interests. The Enrichment Triad Model has been implemented primarily with elementary students, but it can also be used effectively with secondary students. It has been applied to reading instruction through a Javits- funded research project called Schoolwide Enrichment Model–Reading (SEM-R; Reis et al., 2009; see also Chapter 6). On the basis of the success of SEM-R, Renzulli and Reis worked with content area experts to develop SEM-Science (Heilbronner & Renzulli, 2016) and SEM-Technology (Housand, Housand, & Renzulli, 2017). Each of the curriculum areas follows the guiding

principles of the Enrichment Triad Model, which involves three types of enrichment (Types I, II, and III) and was originally implemented in programs designed for academ- ically talented students. The three types of enrichment are more or less sequential but qualitatively different, and they are the curricular basis for the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (see Figure 7.1).

type i enrichment The main purpose of Type I enrich- ment, general exploratory activities, is to expose students to a variety of topics, disciplines, events, hobbies, persons, places, interest areas, and occupations that are not a normal part of the curriculum (Renzulli & Reis, 2003). Type I experiences may include, for example, demonstrations, guest speakers, performances, videos, and Internet sites. The Type I experiences are designed to motivate students and to stimulate new interests that lead to Type II or Type III follow-up. Students with gifted potential might develop ideas for a later Type III research project as a result of a Type I enrichment experience.

type ii enrichment The purpose of Type II enrichment—group training activities—is to promote the development of a broad range of thinking and feeling pro- cesses (Renzulli & Reis, 1997, 2014). Although these skills, abilities, attitudes, and strategies should be developed in all students, an escalation of process development should be a primary goal of programs that serve gifted and talented (G/T) students. Gifted students often need these skills earlier due to their advanced learning needs. Some Type II enrichment is general and is often provided to groups of students in enrich- ment programs or in their classrooms. Renzulli and Reis (2014) especially recommended developing general Type II skills in the five categories itemized in Table 7.1. Some Type II enrichment activities are specific and will relate spe- cifically to advanced students’ independent projects (Type III enrichment)—for example, techniques for writing a play script, programming an app, or using scientific equipment. These Type II skills cannot be planned in advance and often involve advanced methods training that students need to com- plete their Type III enrichment projects.

Incidentally, many programs for the gifted focus exclusively on Type II process activities—creativity, think- ing skills, affective development, and others. In their arti- cle entitled “Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented,” Renzulli and Smith (1978a) warned that too strong an emphasis on process activities definitely is not defensible, which brings us to Type III enrichment.

type iii enrichment With Type III enrichment, the student pursues a self-selected problem—in original research, art, writing, theater, Web or app design, and so

142 Chapter 7

Enrichment Learning and Teaching

Curriculum Modification Techniques

Individual Strength Assessment

Service Delivery Components

School Structures

Implementation Resources

TYPE III INDIVIDUAL & SMALL-

GROUP INVESTIGATIONS OF REAL PROBLEMS

The Continuum of

Special Services

The Regular Curriculum

The Enrichment Clusters

A D

e m

o cr

a tic

S ch

o o

l M a

n a

g e

m e

n t P

la n

P a

re n

t O

ri e

n ta

tio n

, T ra

in in

g , a

n d

I n vo

lv e

m e

n t

O n

li n

e R

e n

zu lli

L e

a rn

in g

S ys

te m

T h e S

ch o o lw

id e E

n ri ch

m e n t T

e a ch

in g S

p e ci

a lis

t

C u

rr ic

u la

r M

a te

ri a

ls a

n d

R e

so u

rc e

s

P ro

fe ss

io n

a l S

ta ff D

e ve

lo p

m e

n t M

o d

e l

T h

e S

ch o

o l- w

id e

E n

ri ch

m e

n t T

e a

m

TYPE I GENERAL

EXPLORATORY ACTIVITIES

TYPE II GROUP

TRAINING ACTIVITIES

FIGURE 7.1 The Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Source: Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). the Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

TABLE 7.1 Type II Skill Categories

Cognitive Training 1. Creativity skills 2. Creative problem-solving and decision-making skills 3. Critical and logical thinking skills

Affective Training 4. Intrapersonal skills 5. Interpersonal skills 6. Dealing with critical life incidents

Learning-How-to-Learn Training 7. Listening, observing, and perceiving skills 8. Note-taking and outlining skills 9. Interviewing and surveying skills

10. Data analyzing and organizing skills

Using Advanced Research Skills and Reference Materials 11. Preparing for Type III investigations 12. Media and reference skills 13. Basic technology skills 14. Using community resources Developing Written, Oral, and Visual Communication Skills 15. Written communication skills 16. Oral communication skills 17. Visual communication skills

Source: Reproduced with permission from Prufrock Press Inc., Alternative Assessments with Gifted and Talented Students. p. 181, J. L. VanTassel-Baska, © 2008.

on—that leads to an original product or service for an authentic audience. Students should act as producers of knowledge and art, not just consumers.

The purposes of Type III enrichment are to help stu- dents (1) apply knowledge, motivation, and creativity to a self-selected problem or area of study; (2) acquire advanced understanding of the content and methodology in a par- ticular area; (3) develop authentic products or services that are directed toward bringing about change with a target

audience; (4) develop skills of self-directed learning (planning, organizing, using resources, managing time, making decisions, and evaluating one’s performance); and (5) develop self-confidence, task commitment, and feel- ings of accomplishment (Renzulli & Reis, 2014).

The teacher, as “guide on the side,” helps with clarify- ing the problem, designing the project, locating materials and equipment, recommending information sources or com- munity experts, and helping find an authentic audience.

Curriculum Models 143

Twelve steps for helping teachers guide students through Type III projects are summarized in Table 7.2 (Reis, Burns, & Renzulli, n.d.).

It is important for students to have audiences for their Type III products, as it is for adult artists, scientists, and other professionals. Gifted students, too, are product- oriented, and they also wish to hold up their accomplish- ments and perhaps inform or inf luence a particular audience. Students are more motivated and produce higher- quality products when they have appropriate outlets to share their accomplishments.

Local organizations such as historical societies or science or dramatic groups can be suitable audiences. Dis- plays of work can also be set up in children’s museums, shopping malls, hospital foyers, the district school office building, or the state capitol—or at least the school hall- way. Children’s magazines and sometimes local newspa- pers publish children’s writing and research reports. If children’s art shows and science fairs are not available, an energetic G/T teacher-coordinator can think about creating some. Children’s hospitals and retirement homes are appreciative audiences for dramatic productions and pup- pet plays, and perhaps other kinds of products. The local newspaper is often interested in covering these types of activities. Of course, the student’s own class is a ready audience, for example, for a video production, a weaving or pyramid-building demonstration, or a report on school and community attitudes about year-round schooling.

Enrichment clusters are another component of SEM that offer groups of students authentic learning through Type III experiences (Gentry, Renzulli, & Reis, 2014).

taBle 7.2 Steps for Guiding Students Through Type III Projects

1. Assess, find, or create student interests 2. Conduct interviews to determine interest strength 3. Help students arrive at a question or questions

to research 4. Formulate a written plan 5. Work with students to locate resources 6. Provide methodological assistance 7. Help students choose a question 8. Offer managerial expertise 9. Identify final products and audiences

10. Offer encouragement, praise, and constructive criticism

11. Escalate the process 12. Evaluate

Source: Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). the Schoolwide Enrich- ment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

They involve groups of students with a common interest who meet during a designated time block to pursue their interest. All teachers and most staff members facilitate clusters, which are schoolwide for all students and not graded. Enrichment clusters are not minicourses. In clus- ters, students’ interests guide the learning process, which culminates in a product or service that has an impact on an intended audience.

Whereas many of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model components are available to all students, part of the high appeal of SEM in gifted education is Renzulli’s revolving- door talent pool approach to identification and selection. One reviewer, displaying uncanny perceptiveness and fore- sight, said of the Revolving Door Identification Model, “The RDIM [now SEM] probably will be recognized as one of the most significant and revolutionary contributions to gifted education to date” (Davis, 1981b).

appeal of Sem

As we noted in Chapter 3, the usual strategy is to identify about 5% of the school’s population in the fall, after which teachers stop worrying about who is “gifted” until the fall of the next year. The students who are “in” begin partici- pating in wonderful learning activities, most often in a pullout format; parents of excluded students, and some- times the excluded students themselves, complain of unfairness and elitism.

With the SEM, about 15% to 20% of the students are selected for the talent pool. Although schools may select stu- dents however they wish, Renzulli (1994) and Renzulli and Reis (1997) recommend the procedure described in Chapter 3. The selection process is intended to include students, not exclude them; when in doubt, admit. In addition, students not initially selected who strongly wish to conduct an independ- ent project (Type III) probably will be allowed to do so and become part of the talent pool. Identification thus continues year-round, the program serves more students, and the SEM generally avoids charges of unfairness and elitism.

The second high-appeal feature is the schoolwide one. We noted that Types I and II enrichment are good for all students. In the SEM, concrete plans are made to incor- porate Types I and II enrichment in every class.

Talent pool and other students request permission to pursue a Type III investigation by filling out a Light Bulb— an Action Information Message—that the regular teacher forwards to the resource teacher. If the project is approved, the student works with the resource teacher to plan and carry out the project, which may require a few days, weeks, or months.

Talent Pool students receive several types of enrich- ment and related services. They receive the same general enrichment experienced by other students, but they also

144 Chapter 7

receive Type II enrichment related to skills needed for their particular project. In addition, Talent Pool students are helped to identify interests and strengths that might lead to a Type III project. For example, Renzulli’s Interest-a-Lyzer helps students identify interests in arts and crafts, science, creative writing, the legal/political area, mathematics, computers, management, history, athletic and outdoor activities, performing arts, business, consumer action, ecology, and so on. Interests from the Interest-a-Lyzer are combined with information about abilities, strength areas, and learning and expression-style preferences to form a Total Talent Portfolio for students in the Talent Pool.

Another important component is curriculum com- pacting, noted several times in earlier chapters. Curricu- lum typically is compacted in basic skill areas—particularly math but also language arts, science, and social studies. We mentioned earlier that pretests (e.g., end-of-unit tests) can assess mastery. An accelerated instruction pace also pro- duces extra time. Students’ grades and classwork; stand- ardized achievement test results; portfolios; counselor recommendations; or interviews with the student, the par- ents, or the teacher can also indicate content mastery before instruction (Renzulli, 1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1997).

In today’s atmosphere in which competency testing evaluates student achievement—and, supposedly, evaluates also teacher, administrator, and even school competence— one concern is whether compacting lowers student achieve- ment. Reis, Westberg, Kulikovich, and Purcell (1998) examined the preinstruction and postinstruction Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) achievement scores of 335 elemen- tary students (Grades 2 to 6) throughout the United States who “demonstrated superior ability and advanced content knowledge before instruction.” Despite eliminating 36% to 54% of the mathematics or language arts content, the results showed no ITBS differences between gifted stu- dents whose curriculum had been compacted versus gifted students who received the regular instruction—which included material they already knew. In addition, median scores were over the 90th percentile on all subscales for the compacted students. Renzulli and Reis (1994) also reported no lowering whatsoever of elementary students’ achieve- ment with compacting, science achievement actually increased, school attitudes improved, and both students and teachers liked compacting. See the compactor (Renzulli, 1994) in Figure 7.2.

The books Schools for Talent Development (Renzulli, 1994) and Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1997, 2014) present plenty of step-by- step explanations, examples, plans for organizing Type II activities in the regular classroom, Type I and Type II activity forms, materials specification forms, checklists for preparing Type III fairs, lists of outlets for Type III

projects, descriptions and responsibilities of the School- wide Enrichment Team, teacher training activities (for example, a simulation of dealing with questions that news- paper reporters typically ask about programs for the gifted and talented), and more. There are forms for nearly everything—nomination forms; management plans; Light Bulbs; class-survey sheets; parent, student, and teacher questionnaires; letters to inform parents of their child’s participation; student (and parent) product evaluation forms; and so on. Some of the forms serve as staff account- ability checks, motivating everyone to do his or her job.

Here is a brief overview: The top plane of the SEM in Figure 7.1 is school structures, which includes the reg- ular curriculum, enrichment clusters (as described in Chapter 6), and the continuum of special services (such as counseling, acceleration, mentorships, and other connec- tions with outside-school persons and resources). The front plane is service delivery components. The individual strength assessment (also known as the Total Talent Port- folio) is a management form that summarizes three types of information about each student: abilities (test scores, product evaluations), interest areas, and style preferences (e.g., lecture, learning centers; analytic or synthetic think- ing; written, oral, or artistic expression). Curriculum modification techniques refer to curriculum compacting and ways to increase enrichment and in-depth experi- e n c e s “ s o t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s a r e c h a l l e n g e d ” (Renzulli & Reis, 2003, p. 190). The third component is enrichment learning and teaching via the Enrichment Triad Model, as described earlier. The left-side plane of Figure 7.1 includes seven implementation resources, which are partly self-explanatory (see Renzulli & Reis, 1997, for details).

There are four pivotal points: (1) Each learner is unique in ability, interests, and learning styles; (2) learning is most effective when students enjoy the learning task; (3) learning is both enjoyable and meaningful when knowl- edge and thinking skills are acquired while a student is working on a real problem; and (4) a major goal is to impart knowledge and thinking skills via students’ own construction of meaning. To achieve these goals more eas- ily, Reis and Renzulli created an interactive online program aid recently renamed GoQuestTM that assists teachers in implementing inquiry learning.

To reduce worries about not getting the SEM exactly right, Renzulli and Reis concede that there is no such thing as a “pure” Triad/SEM program. Each school district should examine its own philosophy and resources, and adopt those parts of SEM that fit well in the existing school district structure. The flexibility of the model is evident in its application for high school settings and for elementary reading instruction (see SEM-R in Chapter 6).

Curriculum Models 145

FIGURE 7.2 Individual Educational Programming Guide: The Compactor. Source: Reprinted with permission of Joseph Renzulli, 2003.

Name Age Teacher(s) Individual Conference Dates and Persons

School Grade Parent(s) Participating in Planning of IEP

_________ ________ ________ ________

Curriculum Areas to Be Considered for Compacting

Procedures for Compacting Basic Material

Acceleration and/or Enrichment Activities

Language Arts: Holt 14: Units 2–6, Pretest Units 2–6 Decoding/encoding skills Language skills

Unit and level tests in Holt Language Arts. [Student’s name here] will participate in all language activities except those involving decoding and encoding skills, language skills already mastered, and any kind of repetitious seatwork.

Advanced Exposure in Language Arts: To read biographies for the purpose of enriching her background in literature and to see how the follow- ing human value applies to her selections: “Determination and cour- age are often necessary to achieve one’s goals.”

CTBS scores: Vocabulary 6.5 Comprehension 9.5 Total Reading 7.9 Language Mechanics 9.9 Language Expression 9.9 Total Language 9.8

Time gained from this will go toward [student’s name here] advanced exposure in Language Arts.

Amelia Earhart Anne Bradstreet Phillis Wheatley Mahalia Jackson Abigail Adams Dolly Madison Harriet Beecher Stowe Also, [student’s name here] will choose novels from the Newbery Award Series to increase her vocabulary and understanding.

Advanced Exposure in Science: 8 trips to regional science center for

Resource Room: 5 hours per week. Types I, II, and III activities to develop creative thinking and problem solving.

Resource Room: 5 hours per week. Types I, II, and III activities developing creativity thinking, critical thinking, and critical problem solving.

Secondary Triad Model

The Secondary Triad Model (Reis & Renzulli, 1986) includes the same three types of enrichment as the original model. However, it requires a high school reorganization in the form of creating talent pool classes within each disci- pline. The talent pool concept has appeared several times in this text. It is easiest to think of it as the top 15% to 20% of the general population in either general ability or in one or more specific areas of ability in the major categories of school achievement (i.e., math, science, language arts, etc.).

The recommended selection of students for these classes follows the Talent Pool Identification Plan

presented in Chapter 3, which is based on ability, achievement, and creativity test scores, as well as peer, parent, teacher, and self-nominations—or, in the high school model, simply a strong interest in conducting a Type III project in a subject area such as English, math, or art. Talent pool members receive a thorough orienta- tion to the Triad Model and descriptions of talent pool classes, either in an assembly program for talent pool students or individually.

The self-contained special classes in each discipline teach a regular curriculum that is compacted to permit time for Types I and II enrichment activities and Type III

146 Chapter 7

independent projects. Type I enrichment includes exposing students to a broadened range of knowledge in the particu- lar subject area, which helps them select Type III projects. Type II enrichment, as in the elementary school Triad model, includes creativity, problem solving, study skills, research and reference skills, and other thinking and affective skills, as well as skills related to the specific subject area.

Type III projects will be of high quality, often requir- ing mentoring or perhaps the consulting services of outside professionals. Regarding audiences, projects might be, for example, published in professional journals or presented to appropriate local groups. Such audiences motivate high- quality work because they add a dimension of reality and relevance (Reis & Renzulli, 1986).

Autonomous LeArner modeL: Betts

According to Betts (2004), curricular offerings typically fall into three levels. Level I is prescribed curriculum and instruction. This curriculum is based primarily on state standards and does not include the depth and complexity needed for gifted and talented students. Gifted students usually need minimal time at this level. Unfortunately, they often spend most of their time here. At Level II, teach- ers differentiate the curriculum according to content, pro- cess, and product, on the basis of individual differences. (See Kaplan’s model later in this chapter for more informa- tion.) Learners have choices. Although spending their time at this level is best for most students, it is not sufficient for gifted and talented students. Gifted students require a third level of curricular offering. Level III features learner- differentiated options. Students are self-directed, and teach- ers provide opportunities for students to be in charge of their learning. This level is essential to address the cogni- tive, emotional, and social development of gifted students. The Autonomous Learner Model focuses on this level.

As with the Renzulli and Reis (1997) Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), George Betts’s (Betts & Kercher, 1999, 2009) Autonomous Learner Model (ALM) is a comprehensive programming guide (Figure 7.3). As its name suggests, a core goal is to help students become inde- pendent and responsible learners by giving them increased responsibility for their own learning. Other central goals are to help students develop more positive self-concepts; comprehend their own giftedness; develop social skills; increase their knowledge in a variety of subject areas; develop their thinking, decision-making, and problem- solving skills; and ultimately become responsible, creative, independent learners. Therefore, the model serves as a framework to meet students’ cognitive, emotional, and social needs by helping them become independent,

FIGure 7.3 The Autonomous Learner Model. Source: From Autonomous Learner Model Resource Book (p. 2) by George T. Betts, Robin J. Carey, and Blanche M. Kapushion, 2017, Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Copyright © 2017 by Prufrock Press. Reproduced with permission.

self-directed learners (Robinson & Tabler, 2016). Such goals square well with the purposes of G/T programs.

Also resembling the SEM, Betts’s ALM may be incorporated into the regular classroom for all learners. At the same time, an “advanced” ALM may be used with gifted students in a pullout/resource room program that meets, preferably, for about 2½ hours twice per week. In middle or high school, the ALM would be installed as an elective course. Thus, the model works well for elementary as well as high school students.

Space in this text does not permit an adequate expla- nation of the many details of Betts’s model. The interested reader should see Betts, Carey, and Kapushion (2017).

As an overview, the Autonomous Learner Model divides into the five major dimensions summarized in Figure 7.3: orientation, individual development, enrich- ment activities, seminars, and in-depth study. Each dimen- sion will be discussed in the following subsections.

orIentAtIon The orientation dimension acquaints stu- dents, teachers, administrators, and parents with central concepts in gifted education (e.g., the nature of giftedness, talent, intelligence, and creativity) and the specifics of the ALM (e.g., program goals, opportunities, expectations). Students learn about themselves and their own giftedness and what ALM has to offer.

In the regular classroom for all students, the empha- sis is not on understanding giftedness but on multiple intel- ligences, creativity, and the talents of all children and youth.

In the resource room with gifted students (and perhaps the regular class), group building and self-understanding

Curriculum Models 147

exercises help students learn more about one another and themselves. They learn about group processes such as when to speak and when to listen. A sample exercise is Find Some- one Who. … Students each have a 32-cell matrix with one characteristic (e.g., plays chess, loves math, goes to concerts) in each cell. They move about, asking one another to sign any square that fits the individual of whom the request is made. After names are gathered and the are students seated, they volunteer what they learned and what the experience was like for them. “I Am” poems include 18 sentence stems that students complete. The poem lines begin with, for example, I am _____, I pretend _____, I feel _____, I touch _____, I worry _____, I cry _____, I am [again] _____.

Gifted students begin to develop an Advanced Learn- ing Plan as part of their orientation experience. The plan includes information about their own giftedness; academic, social, and emotional needs they may have; differentiated curriculum experiences they might need; plans for finding mentors and teachers who will help them become life-long learners; ideas on how to advocate for themselves; and their understanding of the importance of “passion” learning.

individual development The individual development dimension of the ALM focuses more clearly on developing skills, concepts, and attitudes that promote life-long inde- pendent and self-directed learning. As shown in Figure 7.3, the five basic components of individual development are inter- and intrapersonal learning skills (e.g., social skills, self-understanding, thinking skills, research skills), technol- ogy, college and career involvement, organizational skills, and productivity (for efficiently managing information).

In the regular classroom, and for all children, the teacher would develop skills that are seen as essential for all students—particularly, skills in self-understanding, thinking and feeling, productivity (e.g., study, goal setting); and even career exposure. For most of the school year, the ALM in the regular classroom includes the two dimensions of orientation and individual development, although Betts considers explorations and investigations—enrichment activities—a must for students to become lifelong learners.

enrichment activitieS As we know, enrichment is content beyond the regular curriculum. In the ALM, one type of enrichment activity is differentiation of curriculum by the teacher. The other is differentiation by the student. For example, students already may have preferred topics, or “passion areas,” that they wish to pursue. They also study related passion areas plus unrelated areas. Students may explore an area and make a presentation about it to the group; conduct a research-type investigation; participate in cultural activities, such as visiting a museum, seeing a play, hearing a concert or speech, or investigating an art display;

perform a service, such as working with the elderly or col- lecting food or money for shut-ins; or plan an adventure trip, such as studying the geology and archaeology of the Grand Canyon or the cultural aspects of San Francisco.

SeminarS The seminar dimension is designed to give each person, in a small group of three to five students, the opportu- nity to research a topic and present it in a seminar format to the rest of the group. Students learn to progress through three steps: presenting general information to promote understand- ing of the topic, facilitating discussion of the topic to involve the audience in thinking, and bringing the discussion and activities to a close. Like enrichment activities, seminars are valuable experiences and can be arranged for all students.

in-depth Study In the dimension of in-depth study, students pursue areas of interest in long-term individual or small-group studies. These activities resemble Renzulli Type III projects, and students decide what will be learned, what help will be necessary, what the final product will be, how it will be presented, and how the entire learning pro- cess will be evaluated. Completion of an in-depth study, whether by gifted students in the resource room or students in the regular classroom, is considered the highest level of autonomous learning.

Overall, the ALM is a thoughtful and excellent pro- gramming guide that has been installed in many schools and districts in the United States and Canada. The Betts and Kercher (1999) book includes self-rating and teacher rating forms for assessing students’ social and emotional attitudes (e.g., “needs to be more accepting of others”), abilities (e.g., “communicates ideas,” “solves problems effectively”), behavior (e.g., “works independently”), and other areas. An action plan, essentially an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), summarizes pretests and compacting plans, acceleration plans, and interest/passion areas. There are also teacher nomination forms, parent referral forms, and student application forms, and many specific exercises and activities aimed at promoting self-understanding, educational goals, service activities, and more.

advanced academic proGram development model: peterS, matthewS, mcBee, and mccoach

The creators of the Advanced Academic Program Develop- ment Model are less concerned with identifying who is or is not gifted and more concerned with what services schools can offer to meet advanced students’ needs. Rather than suggesting a specific identification system or set curricu- lum, Peters, Matthews, McBee, and McCoach (2014) sug- gest a model for developing advanced academic service.

148 Chapter 7

The first step begins with designing the program rather than identifying students. Throughout this text we have emphasized the importance of aligning identification with program services. This is easily achieved by first designing the program and then identifying students who need and will benefit from it. This practice is at the heart of the Advanced Academic Program Development Model. Four factors influ- ence the type of program a school provides. The first involves examining the local school or district’s current curricular offerings. What is currently available? This is followed by an evaluation of the current level of student mastery and student needs. How are students performing with the current offer- ings? What student needs are not being met by the current offerings? Next, the state requirements, if any, for gifted edu- cation services need to be reviewed. Does the state require a specific type of program or identification system? Finally, a determination is made about whether the program plan is, or needs to be, in compliance with the state guidelines. Most states offer flexible options for gifted programming.

Developers create a program plan on the basis of this evaluation. The plan answers the question, “In what areas does the school or district wish to devote additional resources?” The answer to this question addresses needs and values. It covers selection of content areas and student skills that are in need of special programming as well as which of those content areas and skills the district suffi- ciently values to devote resources for special program- ming. Peters et al. (2014) note that the final decision is a practical one that balances needs and values. Program options might include some form of acceleration (see Chapter 5), cluster grouping (see Chapter 6), and/or enrich- ment that is tailored to the students’ academic need. As with other aspects of the model, any enrichment needs to be designed first, and then students must be identified whose academic needs are addressed by the enrichment.

As we just stated, once the program is designed, decisions can be made about how to identify students who need the program and will benefit from it. This may involve a formal or informal identification process. Identification is driven by four maxims: (1) the assessment process’s value is its ability to predict success in a program accurately, (2) past performance is the best predictor of future perfor- mance, (3) actual observance of performance is superior to a prediction of performance, and (4) motivation is a great equalizer. Peters et al. (2014) recommend an identification process that considers both students’ needs and interests.

Frequent reviews of student progress ensure that the program is meeting the needs for which it was designed. The Advanced Academic Program Development Model mandates that programs are designed with specific and measurable goals for the program and the students involved in it. Because frequent reviews of student progress are built

into the program design, personnel may choose to adjust the identification system when participants are not suc- cessful. This accountability ensures that the program oper- ates effectively and provides schools with data to justify continuing the services. The purpose of the model is to provide faster, deeper, and more rigorous instruction to students who are not challenged by the ordinary curricu- lum offered through their typical academic experience.

purdue three-StaGe enrichment model: FeldhuSen et al.

The Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model (Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1986; Moon, 1995, 1996; Moon, Kolloff, Robinson, Dixon, & Feldhusen, 2009) has both program and curriculum development components that provide engaging instruction for gifted and talented students from preschool through college. The model consists of five com- ponents (see Figure 7.4) that interact to create an appropri- ate learning environment for gifted and talented students.

STAGE III

STAGE II

STAGE I

C U

R R

IC U

LU M

IN S

T R

U C

T IO

N

Teacher Selection & Training

Student Identification

Program Goals

FiGure 7.4 Five Components of the Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model. Source: Reproduced with permission from Prufrock Press Inc., Alternative Assessments with Gifted and Talented Students. p. 181, J. L. VanTassel-Baska, © 2008.

Curriculum Models 149

component 1: program Goals

A Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model program is built around clear program goals that drive identification proce- dures, program implementation, and an evaluation compo- nent to ensure the fidelity of the program. These goals are based on the needs of gifted, creative, and talented students and simultaneously attempt to nourish creativity and aca- demic skills. The model is sufficiently f lexible to work with elementary as well as secondary students.

component 2: Student Selection and Grouping

Gifted students are identified and grouped together for instruction in order to provide ample opportunities for interaction with gifted peers. These grouping options can range from a self-contained academic program to after- school, Saturday, or pullout enrichment classes for gifted and talented students. Student identification is based on intellectual, creative, and academic talents; the specific identification procedures vary with the program goals and how the program is implemented.

For elementary students, norm-referenced tests of verbal and quantitative ability usually form the basis of the identification system, with additional information gathered through teacher rating scales such at the Renzulli Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Stu- dents (Renzulli et al., 2004). Creativity can be assessed through the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974) or the Wallach-Kogan Creativity Instrument (Wallach & Kogan, 1984). At the secondary level, identifi- cation becomes more domain-specific. The Purdue Aca- demic Rating Scales (PARS) and the Purdue Vocational Talent Scales (Feldhusen, Hoover, & Saylor, 1990) can serve as a basis for identification.

component 3: trained teachers

Because teachers who work with students in this model spend most of their time facilitating complex problem- solving and independent learning activities, they should be trained in gifted education. They need to be able to design curriculum based on the Three-Stage Enrichment Model as well as teach it. This training focuses on the three stages of skill development that will be described next. Whereas fos- tering creativity clearly is central to this model and is an important part of the training, the training also aims to strengthen many types of thinking skills, convergent prob- lem solving, research skills, and independent learning. At the secondary level, teachers also need a broad content base in the specialty area in which they work with gifted high school students.

components 4 and 5: curriculum and instructions

The three stages of curriculum and instruction enrichment featured in this model have their foundation in course development at the college level (Feldhusen, Ames, & Linden, 1973). The overwhelming success of the model at the university level led to its implementation at the elemen- tary and, later, secondary levels. The three stages, which we now describe, place an emphasis on learning processes and leave the choice of content open.

diverGent and converGent thinkinG Stage 1 focuses on the development of basic thinking skills and academic content, which are the basis of units that are developed and taught. The instructional activities associ- ated with these units are relatively short-term (10 to 60 minutes), teacher-led engaging activities. Instructors seek a balance between divergent and convergent thinking skills related to the domain being studied. Whereas these activities differ from the Type I activities presented in the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, the goal is similar, to motivate students to want to explore the topic under study further.

Some creativity exercises are, for example, listing unusual uses for trash bags, thinking of improvements for a bicycle, predicting outcomes of unlikely events (“What would happen if there were no television or no McDonald’s?”), or designing a vehicle of the future by using anything that can be found in a junkyard (Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1981). These kinds of exercises are assumed to develop creative abilities such as idea- tional f luency, originality, f lexibility, and elaboration. Thinking skills exercises might stretch logic, critical thinking, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, decision- making, classification, comparison, or analogical think- ing abilities. (Creativity workbooks and exercises are described in Chapter 9; thinking skills programs and workbooks appear in Chapter 10.)

complex proBlem SolvinG The role of the teacher shifts in Stage 2 to that of a facilitator of learning. The focus is on more complex and practical strategies and sys- tems. Included at this stage are creative thinking tech- niques such as morphological analysis, synectics (see Chapter 9), or Creative Problem Solving (CPS) to solve different types of problems. These Stage 2 activities require between 1 and 10 hours. During this stage, stu- dents take initiative, work cooperatively with each other, develop and share original ideas, and demonstrate their task commitment.

150 Chapter 7

independent Study SkillS Stage 3 activities are aimed at the development of independent study skills. Students apply the knowledge and skills gained in Stages I and II to real problems, function as professionals in the domain, and develop real products to share with real audiences (Moon et al., 2009). The teacher’s role again changes for this stage. The teacher now is a resource person for the students. Some examples of Stage 3 projects are writing haiku, short stories, or plays (which are produced); investigating alternative waste disposal systems (which one group presented to the Lafayette City Council in Indiana); and researching back- grounds of community leaders (which one group presented on local radio). Stage 3 is similar to SEM’s Type III.

Secondary program options

As stated earlier, the Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model is flexible enough to be implemented in a variety of ways. An elementary pullout program can use units created with the model. The secondary level of the Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model features an array of 11 services (see Fig- ure 7.5) that research has shown are appropriate for gifted adolescents. Each of these services includes all the compo- nents of the Three-Stage Enrichment Model. Secondary gifted students make choices from these services as they develop individual growth plans based on their areas of strength.

The f lexible nature of the model makes it popular with high schools. The three most popular ways to imple- ment the model are (a) differentiated advanced courses such as honors classes and Advanced Placement classes, (b) interdisciplinary seminars, and (c) independent learn- ing opportunities that often incorporate the authentic meth- odology of the discipline being studied (Moon et al., 2009). As with the elementary application, the focus is on think- ing and problem-solving skills.

parallel curriculum model: tomlinSon, kaplan, renzulli, purcell, leppien, and BurnS

The Parallel Curriculum Model (PCM) evolved from a National Association for Gifted Children curriculum initia- tive in 1998. A group of scholars created this curriculum writing model collaboratively, and it became known as the Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, Purcell, Leppien, & Burns, 2002; Tomlinson et al., 2009). The name reflects the four “parallel” ways the creators pro- pose that educators can approach curriculum design. According to the model, those who create curriculum can develop appropriately challenging curriculum by using any one of four parallels or a combination of the four parallels. The developers anticipate that students ultimately

experience all four parallels over time, which supports their understanding of the multidimensional nature of content.

The core parallel reflects the essential nature (con- tent, concepts, principles, and skills) of a discipline as experts in the discipline conceive of and practice it.

The connections parallel expands on the core curricu- lum by having students use the common concepts, generali- zations, principles, and skills to make connections within and across disciplines, time, cultures, and places—including connections with their own experiences and lives.

The practice parallel challenges learners to under- stand and apply the concepts, principles, and methodolo- gies of the discipline as an expert would use them to address important issues, questions, and problems. This parallel is similar to the Type III experience in SEM, and to Stage 3 in Feldhusen’s model.

The identity parallel helps students reflect on key con- cepts, principles, and applications in a discipline as they relate to their own strengths, preferences, values, and commitment.

Each of the parallels is organized around key con- cepts and principles of the discipline being studied; how- ever, the core parallel does not necessarily need to be introduced before one of the other parallels. Teachers who design curriculum around key concepts and principles help students answer questions such as the following:

●● What do these ideas mean? ●● Why are these ideas important? ●● How are the concepts and ideas for this topic organ-

ized so that people can understand other topics better? ●● How do these ideas fit together? ●● Why do these ideas make sense? ●● How can these ideas and skills be used?

(Tomlinson, 2009)

Educators who plan curriculum with this model consider 10 key components as basic building blocks (see Figure 7.6). These 10 building blocks engage students in exploration, thought, and understanding as they focus on essential information, concepts, principles, and skills.

The PCM was never developed to be solely for gifted students. The developers believe that every student requires a curriculum that reflects the nature of the discipline that the curriculum is designed to teach and involves students in complex thinking and activities representative of what an expert in the field would do. Through this process, stu- dents organize and understand the essential foundations of a topic and discipline (Tomlinson, 2009).

To reach this goal, PCM authors advocate a strategy called Ascending Intellectual Demand (AID) to create an escalating match between the learner and the curriculum. Using AID, teachers are able to scaffold students along a continuum, from novice to expert (see Figure 7.7).

Curriculum Models 151

FiGure 7.5 Array of services suggested for gifted adolescents. Source: Reproduced with permission from Prufrock Press Inc., Alternative Assessments with Gifted and Talented Students. p. 181, J. L. VanTassel-Baska, © 2008.

1. Counseling serviCes

1. Talent identification 2. Education Counseling 3. Career Counseling 4. Personal Counseling

2. seminar

1. In-Depth Study 2. Self selected topics 3. Career education 4. Affective Activities 5. Thinking, Research & Library Skills 6. Presentations

3. advanCed PlaCement Classes

Open to students in grades 9-12 All subject matter areas

4. Honors Classes

1. English 2. Social Studies 3. Biology 4. Language 5. Humanities

5. matH-sCienCe aCCeleration

1. Begin algebra in 7th grade. 2. Continue acceleration and fast paced math. 3. Open science courses to earlier admission.

6. Foreign languages

1. Latin or Greek 2. French of Spanish 3. German or Oriental 4. Russian

7. tHe arts

1. Art 2. Drama 3. Music 4. Dance

8. Cultural exPerienCe

1. Concepts, plays, exhibits 2. Field trips 3. Tour abroad 4. Museum program

9. Career eduCation

1. Mentors 2. Seminar experience

a. study of careers b. study of self c. planning

10. voCational Programs

1. Home economics 2. Agriculture 3. Business 4. Industrial arts

11. extra-sCHool instruCtion

1. Saturday school 2. Summer classes 3. Correspondence study 4. College classes

The Parallel Curriculum Model has been a popular model for developing curricula for gifted and talented students. Its popularity stems from the f lexible choices that curriculum writers have with the four parallels. The National Association for Gifted Children published several books in cooperation with Corwin Press:

●● The Parallel Curriculum: A Design to Develop Learner Potential and Challenge Advanced Learners

●● The Parallel Curriculum in the Classroom Book 1: Essays for Application Across the Content Areas

●● The Parallel Curriculum in the Classroom Book 2: Units for Application Across the Content Areas K–12

152 Chapter 7

FiGure 7.6 Possible key curriculum components of PCM. Source: Reproduced with permission from Prufrock Press Inc., Alternative Assessments with Gifted and Talented Students. p. 181, J. L. VanTassel-Baska, © 2008.

Key Curriculum Components of PCM

Explanation of the Components

Content Includes standards and discipline-based concepts and principles, skills, and facts/information.

Assessment Includes: (a) preassessments to determine student starting points, interests, and learning preferences; (b) ongoing or formative assessments to inform teacher planning; and (c) post- or summative assessments to evaluate student outcomes.

Introductory and course activities

Includes activities or discussions that begin a unit and a class period to ensure that students focus on essentials.

Includes end-of-class and end-of-unit activities or discussions to ensure that students reflect on essentials.

Teaching methods Includes instructional approaches teachers use to ensure that the focus is on what matters most in a way that will engage students and promote understanding.

Examples include: use of visual organizers, debate, demonstration and modeling, concept attainment, inductive teaching, direct instruction, Socratic seminars, simulations.

Learning activities Includes whatever the students do when they are actively engaged in learning to ensure that focus is on essential knowledge, understandings, and skills.

Examples include: comparing, classifying, predicting, planning, organizing, goal setting, developing hypotheses, and problem solving.

Grouping arrangements Involves purposeful and proactive arrangement and rearrangement of students into working configurations that allow both individuals and the class to achieve maximum growth.

Products An authentic assessment that yields tangible evidence of student competence with essential knowledge, understanding, and skills. Should be guided by thoughtful rubrics that coach students for persistent growth in quality work.

Resources Sources of knowledge, understandings, and insight for teachers and students. Includes, but is not limited to, text-based materials.

Examples include oral histories, collections, websites, photo essays, biographies, and exhibits.

Extension activities Activities and experiences that enable students to move beyond the basic unit requirements.

Modifications based on learner need

Includes differentiation to address students readiness, interests, and learning preferences. Also includes Ascending Intellectual Demand, or escalating movement toward expertise in a discipline.

These publications offer detailed strategies for creat- ing curriculum with this model.

multiple menu model: renzulli

The Multiple Menu Model (MMM; Renzulli, Leppien, & Hayes, 2000) focuses on teaching content and thinking processes in efficient and interesting ways. Five planning menus provide guidance for designing curriculum.

knowledGe menu The knowledge menu recom- mends a desirable sequence for teaching knowledge in a particular area. It includes four subcategories or steps. First, location, definition, and organization help the learner see the big picture of a field. In other words, these subcategories fit the topic into the larger domain of knowledge. A branching diagram, referred to as a knowledge tree within MMM, is used to illustrate the organization and subdivisions of a field, along with the

Curriculum Models 153

Knowledge Skills

Attitudes Habits of Mind

Knowledge Skills

Attitudes Habits of Mind

Knowledge Skills

Attitudes Habits of Mind

Knowledge Skills

Attitudes Habits of Mind

Novice

• Experiences content at a concrete level

• Manipulates micro- concepts one at a time

• Needs skill instruction and guided practice

• Requires support, encouragement, and guidance

• Seeks affirmation of competency in order to complete a task

• Understands the connections among micro- concepts within a discipline

• Connects information within a microconcept

• Begins to interpret generalizations and themes that connect concepts

• Applies skills with limited supervision

• Seeks confirmation at the end of a task

• Reflects upon content and skills when prompted

Apprentice

• Manipulates two or more microconcepts simultaneously

• Creates generalizations that explain connections among concepts

• Selects and utilizes skills in order to complete a task

• Seeks input from others as needed

• Exhibits task commitment and persistence when challenges are moderate

• Reflects upon both content and skills in order to improve understanding/performance

Practitioner

• Utilizes concepts within and among disciplines in order to derive theories and principles

• Creates innovations within a field

• Practices skill development independently and for the purpose of improvement

• Seeks input from other experts in a field for a specific purpose

• Works to achieve flow and derives pleasure from the experience (high challenge, advanced skill/knowledge)

• Is independent and self-directed as a learner

• Seeks experiences that cause a return to previous levels in varying degrees

Expert

FIGURE 7.7 Ascending Intellectual Demand.

characteristics and mission of each subdivision. The cur- riculum designer (teacher) presents the purposes of a field; subareas of concentration; kinds of questions asked in subareas; sources of data; basic reference books and professional journals; major databases; major events, persons, places, and beliefs; and insiders’ humor, trivia, scandals, and so on.

Second are basic principles and functional concepts. Basic principles are generally agreed-upon truths in an area. The concepts are largely the vocabulary of a field, as found in a glossary.

Third, knowledge about methodology refers to inves- tigative procedures that are common to a particular field of study. These methodologies can be more general, such as how to identify problems, state hypotheses, identify data sources, locate or construct data-gathering instruments, summarize and analyze data, draw conclusions, and report findings, or they can be more specific, such as how to grid a digging site in archaeology. These are similar to the spe- cific Type II skills in SEM.

Fourth, knowledge about specifics refers to impor- tant facts, conventions, trends, classifications, criteria, principles and generalizations, and theories and structures that a field comprises (Renzulli, 2009).

InstRUctIonal objEctIvEs and stUdEnt actIvItIEs MEnU The first of four subsections of the instructional objectives and student activities menu, assimilation and retention, refers to information input processes: listening, observing, touching, reading, manipulating, note taking, and so on. The second section of this menu, information analysis, suggests ways to achieve greater understanding— for example, by classifying, ordering, gathering data, inter- preting, thinking of alternatives, and concluding and explaining. The third section, information synthesis and application, deals with the output, or products, of the think- ing processes—for example, writing, speaking, managing, constructing, or performing. The fourth subsection, evalua- tion, concerns review and judgment of information accord- ing to personal values or conventional standards.

InstRUctIonal stRatEGIEs MEnU The instructional strategies menu itemizes teaching and learning options famil- iar to most teachers—for example, drill and recitation, lecture, discussion, peer tutoring, learning center activities, simulation and role playing, learning games, and independent study.

InstRUctIonal sEqUEncE MEnU The instructional sequence menu describes the sequence of instructional

154 Chapter 7

developed over 40 units in science, language arts, social studies, and mathematics on the basis of this model (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2008). The center is now under Tracy Cross’s direction and continues to create and update units and to train cadres of teachers around the world in how to teach with these units, as well as how to develop units based on the ICM.

The salient features of this curriculum are accelerated and advanced content, depth and complexity through abstract concepts, direct study of higher-order thinking pro- cesses, interdisciplinary themes, and student research with culminating products for real audiences (Little, 2009; VanTassel-Baska, 1986; VanTassel-Baska & Little, 2003; VanTassel-Baska & Woods, 2009). The curriculum units, often known as the William and Mary Units, are designed to meet the gifted learner characteristics of precocity, intensity, and complexity in thinking. This is accomplished by organ- izing curricular goals around three interrelated dimensions. The teaching models that support these goals encourage flexible differentiation and are grounded in the principles of critical and conceptual thinking and in the processes and habits of mind of the specific content areas being studied.

Advanced Content Dimension

The advanced content dimension meets gifted students’ need for acceleration by providing content earlier and faster than same-age peers would normally receive it. Content-area experts and educators collaborate to develop on- or above-grade-level content, and they align key topics, concepts, and habits of mind within a domain to content-area standards. Thus, the curricula represent advanced learning in the discipline.

activities. The steps are as follows: gain attention, inform students of objectives, provide options for advanced-level follow-up, relate the topic to previous learning, present the material (with active or passive student roles), assess perfor- mance and provide feedback, relate the topic to other disci- plines, and provide opportunities for transfer and application.

ArtistiC MoDifiCAtion Menu Renzulli (1988, p. 307) recommends that teachers make their own creative contribution to the lesson to increase interest and excite- ment. The artistic modification menu suggests that teach- ers “put themselves into the material” by sharing personal knowledge and experiences, beliefs, insider information, interpretations, controversies, biases, or other ways that teachers might personalize the material.

Many components of the Multiple Menu Model are standard good teaching practices. For teachers of the gifted, the model provides an organizational framework for developing special curricula in areas not typically covered in ordinary school programming. Table 7.3 outlines the Multiple Menu Model.

integrAteD CurriCuluM MoDel: VAntAssel-BAskA

The Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM) was developed by Joyce VanTassel-Baska and is one of the most exten- sively researched curriculum development models in gifted education. Using 20 years of continuous funding from federal, state, and foundation grants for curriculum development, research, and dissemination, the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary

tABle 7.3 Multiple Menu Model

Knowledge menu Location, definition, and organization (general organization of a field) Basic principles and functional concepts Knowledge about methodology Knowledge about specifics

Instructional objectives and student activities menu

Assimilation and retention (e.g., listening, reading) Information analysis (e.g., classifying, interpreting) Information synthesis and application (output, e.g., writing, performing) Evaluation

Instructional strategies menu Drill and recitation, lecture, discussion, peer tutoring, learning center activities, simulation and role playing, learning games, independent study, others

Instructional sequence menu Gaining attention, presenting objectives, relating to previous material, present- ing material, providing suggestions for advanced-level follow-up, evaluating performance, relating to other disciplines, and transfer and application

Artistic modification menu Teachers’ creative contributions (e.g., personal knowledge and experiences, beliefs, insider information, interpretations, controversies, biases, etc.)

Source: From “The multiple menu model.” by Joseph S. Renzulli, Leppien, and Hayes. Copyright © 2000 by Creative Learning Press.

Curriculum Models 155

and sustained professional development and monitoring (Borko, Mayfield, Marion, Flexer, & Cumbo, 1997), the ICM creators have developed an extensive professional development component for the units they have published.

mentorinG mathematical mindS model: Gavin et al.

Unlike the Integrated Curriculum Model units produced at The College of William and Mary, which span different con- tent areas across the full range of grades, the curriculum first produced with the Project M3: Mentoring Mathemati- cal Minds and later with Project M2: Mentoring Young Mathematicians focuses on mathematics for kindergarten through Grade 6. The units created with this model cover number theory, algebraic thinking, geometry, measurement, and data analysis and probability. These five major content areas reflect the National Council of Teachers of Mathemat- ics Standards. The Mentoring Mathematical Minds Model merges curriculum recommendations from the mathematics and gifted and talented education fields with sociocultural theory (Gavin, Casa, Adelson, Carroll, & Sheffield, 2009).

Because research shows that mathematically talented students think differently, and their thinking resembles that of professional mathematicians, curricular units developed with this model ask students to approach problems as mathematicians would. This philosophy of using the skills and methodologies of a discipline is pre- sent in several of the other curriculum models featured in this chapter. A second feature of the Mentoring Mathemat- ical Minds Model is disciplinary thinking. The units are built around key concepts, principles, and skills that involve important mathematical thinking. Students wrestle with ideas and questions that require both critical and cre- ative thinking. A third feature is built-in differentiation to meet the learning needs of students in a variety of skill levels. This is important because the content is accelerated one to two grade levels, and students study the contents in depth. Fourth, the units emphasize verbal and written communication covering important mathematical con- cepts. Students document their problem solving and math- ematical thinking in journals. Students also actively discuss concepts according to discussion rules known as the Classroom Rights and Obligations (see Figure 7.8), which include the right of students to express their opin- ions freely and agree and disagree with each other. The learning tasks require problem solving, reasoning, making connections, and creating and using representations to extend what students have learned through culminating projects.

The Mentoring Mathematical Minds units blend accel- eration with enrichment. This combination allows both depth and complexity, and provides appropriate mathematical

The application of advanced content occurs through a variety of methods. First, ICM unit goals and objectives are authentic to the discipline and advanced for the grade. Second, instruction of the content follows a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that includes options for different forms of grouping and opportunities to eliminate and com- pact the curricula. Third, instruction and assessment rely on off-level materials. Fourth, content is developed collab- oratively between educators and content-area specialists in order to incorporate student interaction with the material in an authentic manner within the discipline (Little, 2009).

process/product dimension

The process/product dimension incorporates direct instruc- tion and embedded activities that promote higher-order thinking skills and create opportunities for independent pursuit in areas of student interest. This dimension is simi- lar to the Schoolwide Enrichment Model’s Type II and Type III activities (Reis & Renzulli 2009). Teachers scaf- fold student learning and encourage students to reflect on their thinking and learning. Students manipulate informa- tion by using generic thinking models as well as discipline- specific models. These include problem-based learning with real-world or ill-structured problems, whereby stu- dents develop skills for inquiry related to the content.

issues/themes dimension

Learning experiences are organized around the issues/ themes dimension. This dimension is similar to the connec- tions parallel of the Parallel Curriculum Model. By organ- izing curriculum around issues and themes, students can develop deeper ideas and philosophies that ultimately pro- mote their understanding of the structure of knowledge being studied. In other words, students come to understand systems of knowledge rather than the individual elements of those systems (VanTassel-Baska & Woods, 2009). Inter- disciplinary themes are revealed through this process. Learning goals associated with this dimension address gifted learners’ need for abstraction, complexity, and depth of understanding. Students grapple with the complexity of the discipline under study through questioning, Socratic discussions, interdisciplinary connections, and other activ- ities. The questioning strategies are based on Paul’s (1992) model of reasoning and the Junior Great Books inquiry- based approach.

According to research that has been conducted on the published ICM units, teachers who use these units should receive professional development and support to build and strengthen their understanding of the materials and how best to translate them into classroom practices. Because research has shown that student achievement and changes in teaching behavior occur only over time and with guided

156 Chapter 7

FiGure 7.8 Classroom rights and obligations. Source: Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). the Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

programming for talented elementary mathematics stu- dents (Gavin et al., 2007). Research with this model indi- cates that “curriculum units that are concept-based, are accelerated and enriched, and encourage students to behave similar to practicing mathematicians contribute to students’ mathematical achievement” (Gavin et al., 2009).

the Grid: conStructinG diFFerentiated curriculum For the GiFted: kaplan

As we know, differentiated curriculum refers to learning experiences built around the needs, abilities, and interests of gifted students. Kaplan (2009) cautions that differentiated curriculum differs, but is not different, from the core curric- ulum. Her model is a way to differentiate the core curricu- lum through broad themes. Focusing curriculum around themes is also a feature of the Integrated Curriculum Model

(VanTassel-Baska, 2009) and the Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, 2009).

Kaplan’s (1986, 2009) model for constructing differ- entiated curriculum mainly examines the integration of three qualitatively different components—content, pro- cess, and products—within an overarching theme. The name of Kaplan’s model reflects the grid pattern produced when the components are organized in columns when dif- ferentiation activities are planned. The three components are incorporated into four columns that form Kaplan’s (2009) grid for differentiation planning, as shown here:

T/S 1 C 1 R/S 1 P Thinking 1 Content 1 Research 1 Products Skills Skills and

(Process) Resources (Process)

Kaplan helps us take a closer and deeper look at each component.

Curriculum Models 157

Content refers to knowledge and information defined as useful, important, and interesting to gifted students. It includes facts, ideas, concepts, generalizations, principles, theories, and systems, all of which may be related to his- torical, contemporary, and even futuristic considerations. Curriculum for the gifted is expected to involve students knowing content as experts in a field understand it. This is a common component of many of the models presented in this chapter.

In this model, content is organized around a broad theme under which a variety of topics can be studied and around which learning activities are organized. Using themes widens teaching options and allows for multidisci- plinary study by promoting connections within and across disciplines. Where the topic of dinosaurs normally might cover types of dinosaurs or their environments, the theme of change might include a study of dinosaurs but also ani- mals of the past and present that have become extinct, and even the extinction of natural resources, the extinction of various words, and the extinction of fashion (Kaplan, 2009).

Kaplan has developed 11 prompts (see Figure 7.9) that teachers can use to increase the depth and complexity of the content they teach. She has illustrated each of the prompts with attractive icons representing the concepts. She notes that some prompts create depth and complexity with certain core content topics better than other prompts. The core question that content addresses is, “What infor-

mation will students learn?” Process refers primarily to complex thinking skills

such as critical and creative thinking but also includes problem solving, research skills (such as using information retrieval systems), learning-to-learn skills, technological skills, basic academic skills, and even life skills. Such skills are integrated—for example, the skill of verification involves gathering information (a research skill) and sequencing that information (a basic skill). These process skills are the competencies that students are expected to master though participation in the curriculum. Most of the process skills that Kaplan includes in her work overlap with the Type II general skills described in the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. The core question that process addresses is, “How will students think about the informa- tion or content they learn?”

Selecting a student product is important. It requires the integration of content knowledge with the mastery of many skills. The product serves both as a vehicle for learn- ing as well as verification that learning took place. As a curricular opportunity, the product should allow exposure to several types of communication (e.g., written, oral, illustrative, and physical models), including variety within each category (e.g., written stories, editorials, abstracts,

slogans, and proposals). Researching and creating a prod- uct also should exercise several production skills, which Kaplan (1986) named as (1) applying technology, (2) organizing time and resources, (3) establishing a bond with the product and explaining its worth to an audience, (4) appreciating significant contributors, and (5) identify- ing outlets for sharing products. The core question here is, “What products will students produce to share their under- standing?”

In addition to content, process, and product, Kaplan draws attention to the important affective component of curriculum for the gifted, which includes improved self- understanding as an individual and a contributor, valuing learning and productivity, and an awareness of the roles and responsibilities of leaders (see Chapter 8).

clear model: callahan et al.

The CLEAR curriculum model combines elements from three research-based curriculum models: Carol Tomlinson’s differentiated instruction (see Chapter 6), Sandra Kaplan’s depth and complexity (described in this chapter), and Joseph Renzulli and Sally Reis’s schoolwide enrichment (also described in this chapter). The CLEAR model inte- grates elements from each of the three models with five foundational elements. The five elements are shown in Figure 7.10 and include (1) Continual formative assessment to tailor instruction, (2) clear Learning goals that are mean- ingful and important, (3) data-driven, differentiated learn- ing Experiences, (4) Authentic products, and (5) Rich curriculum.

The CLEAR model serves as a framework to develop curriculum with instructional modifications that meet gifted students’ learning needs. Key assumptions drive each of the model’s five elements of curriculum develop- ment. Curriculum and instruction should be based on meaningful, important, and clear learning goals that align with national standards and ref lect essential knowledge, skills, and principles of a given field of study. Even advanced learners differ in their readiness, interest level, and preferred learning style, and they learn best when these are differentiated. Students find learning more meaningful when they function as practicing professionals who apply what they learn to real-world contexts. Students must move beyond simple factual knowledge to understand a field’s big ideas and the skills of the discipline. Content must be differentiated to promote advanced, complex, and abstract concepts (Callahan, Moon, Oh, Azano, & Hailey, 2015).

Continual assessment lies at the heart of the model. The assessment data serve multiple functions. First, data provide benchmarks to evaluate student growth. Data also enable teachers to better understand students’ readiness,

158 Chapter 7

FIGURE 7.9 Prompts to promote depth and complexity. Source: From “The Grid: A Model to Construct Differentiated Curriculum for the Gifted” by S. N. Kaplan, in Systems and Models for Developing Programs for the Gifted and Talented (2nd ed., p. 242) by J.S. Rezulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. Mc Millen, R.D. Eckert, and C. A. Little, 2009, Waco, Tx: Prufrock Press. Copyright © 2009 by Prufrock Press. Reprinted with permission.

Prompt Icons Definitions Key Questions to Explain the Prompt

LANGUAGE OF THE DISCIPLINES

Nomenclature, lexicon, or vocabulary of the study

What terms or words are specific to the work of the ______________ (disciplinarian)? What tools does the _________ (disciplinarian) use?

DETAILS Traits, attributes, characteristics to describe something

What are its attributes? What features characterize this? What specific elements define this? What distinguishes this from other things?

PATTERNS Reoccurring events

What are the reoccurring events? What elements, events, and ideas are repeated over time? What was the order of events? How can we predict what will come next?

TRENDS Influences or forces that shape ideas

What ongoing factors have influenced this study? What factors have contributed to this study?

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Unknown areas of a discipline

What is still not understood about this area, topic, study, or discipline? What is yet unknown about this area, topic, study, or discipline? In what ways is the information incomplete or lacking in explanation?

RULES Stated or unstated reasons or explanations

How is this structured? What are the stated and unstated causes related to the description or explanation of what we are studying?

ETHICS Dilemmas, controversies, issues

What dilemmas or controversies area involved in this area, topic, study, or discipline? What elements can be identified that reflect bias, prejudice, and discrimination?

BIG IDEAS Generalizations, principles, theories

What overarching statement best describes what is being studied? What general statement includes what is being studied?

OVERTIME

P A S T

FUTU R E

PRESENT

Past, present, future happenings

How are ideas related between the past, present, and future? How are these ideas related within or during a particular time period? How has time affected the information? How and why do things change or remain the same?

POINTS OF VIEW

Perspective, opinion

What are the opposing viewpoints? How do different people and characters see this event or situation?

INTER-DISCIPLINARY Connections between and across disciplines

How are these ideas related or connected?

Curriculum Models 159

viable option to enhance student learning (Callahan et al., 2015). The CLEAR curriculum model affords gifted and talented students the opportunity to explore unanswered questions in meaningful ways with greater depth and com- plexity while functioning as practicing professionals (Azano, 2013).

comment

The thoughtful program planner should consider all the models in this chapter and what each has to offer. As men- tioned earlier, most (not all) models are consistent with one another, which allows the planner to draw ideas and strate- gies from many models, even if a single model (e.g., the Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model) is adopted offi- cially. Educators can select what seems to meet the needs of their students best, which might require plucking ele- ments from several models.

A thorough review of the models presented in this chapter reveals several common components in many of them:

●● Tasks are often differentiated to accommodate differ- ent skill levels and learning styles.

●● Content is often presented above grade level. ●● A variety of creative and critical thinking skills are

explicitly taught. ●● The emotional needs of gifted students are addressed

through group and individual options. ●● Curriculum is often built around general themes, or

big ideas, which assists with differentiation. ●● Interdisciplinary curriculum provides for depth and

complexity of thought. ●● Authentic methodologies and products enhance

student learning and motivation.

Continual Formative

Assessment

Rich Curriculum

Authentic Products

Data-Driven Learning

Experiences

Clear Learning

Goals

interests, and preferred ways of learning and demonstrat- ing what students learned. Teachers use the assessment data to tailor instruction because they better understand their students’ learning needs. CLEAR curriculum and instructional activities are adjusted according to the ongo- ing student assessments. Units created with the CLEAR model traditionally include four formative assessments across regular intervals (Azano, 2013).

On the basis of research conducted with two CLEAR units: The Magic of Everyday Things, and Exploration and Communication, researchers reported significant differ- ences on the achievement outcome measures between treatment and control classrooms. The researchers con- cluded that the rich curriculum and responsive instruction associated with units created with the CLEAR model are a

FiGure 7.10 The CLEAR curriculum model. Source: From Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. By Carolyn M. Callahan, Holly L. Hertberg- Davis. Published by Routledge. Copyright © 1981. Reprinted with permission of the Routledge.

Summary

Some of the 10 curriculum models presented in this chap- ter make highly specific procedural recommendations; oth- ers make more general suggestions.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model is a complete programming guide that includes Types I and II enrich- ment in the regular classroom for all students. Talent Pool students—and other students—can volunteer for Type III projects. Type I Enrichment (general explora- tory activities) exposes students to a variety of topics; Type II (group-training activities) focuses on creativity and other thinking skills, learning-to-learn skills, communication skills, and information retrieval skills;

Type III is investigation of real problems. Types I and II are appropriate for all students. Outlets and audiences for Type III projects are important.

Curriculum compacting and identifying student interests are central. A summary cube model presents the three dimensions of school structures (e.g., enrichment clusters), service delivery components (e.g., curriculum modification techniques), and organizational components (e.g., the Schoolwide Enrichment teaching specialist). The Secondary Triad Model requires Talent Pool classes, simi- lar to honors classes, in each discipline. Compacting buys time for Type III projects in the particular area.

160 Chapter 7

Betts’s Autonomous Learner Model, a relatively complete programming guide, includes the five main dimensions of orienting students and others to giftedness and to the content and purposes of the ALM program; indi- vidual development in areas of self-understanding and interpersonal understanding, learning and thinking skills, technology, and career development; student-selected enrichment; small seminars; and individual or small-group in-depth studies.

Rather than suggesting a specific identification sys- tem or set curriculum, Peters, Matthews, McBee, and McCoach suggest a model for developing advanced academic service. Schools design their programs on the basis of what academic services, beyond what already exist, students need and which of those services the school values. The Advanced Academic Services Model is less concerned with identifying who is or is not gifted and more concerned with what services schools can offer to meet advanced students’ needs.

Feldhusen’s Three-Stage Enrichment Model focuses mainly on fostering creative thinking but also on research and independent-learning skills and development of posi- tive self-concepts. Stage 1 develops basic divergent and convergent thinking abilities, as well as basic skills, largely with short-term exercises. Stage 2 involves more complex, creative problem solving, partly by teaching creativity techniques and using Future Problem Solving and Odyssey of the Mind or Destination ImagiNation. Stage 3 develops independent study and research skills via independent projects.

The Parallel Curriculum Model provides a flexible set of four alternative approaches to writing appropriately challenging curriculum. The core parallel, connections parallel, practice parallel, and identity parallel are all organized around key concepts and principles. Any one of the four parallels, or a combination of them, can drive the process.

Renzulli ’s Multiple Menu Model is a series of five planning guides or menus that suggest sequences and

alternatives for teaching content efficiently: a knowledge menu, an instructional objectives and student activities menu, an instructional strategies menu, an instructional sequence menu, and an artistic modification menu.

VanTassel-Baska’s Integrated Curriculum Model meets the needs of gifted students by providing curricular units based on content that is accelerated and advanced. Embedded abstract concepts, direct study of higher-order thinking processes, interdisciplinary themes, and the use of authentic methodology provide curricular depth and com- plexity to units created with this model. As they create ICM units, curriculum writers incorporate the three dimen- sions of advanced content, process/product, and issues/ themes.

Mentoring Mathematical Minds and Mentoring Young Mathematicians units blend enrichment and accel- eration strategies to create elementary mathematics units that cover the National Council of Teachers’ of Mathemat- ics recommended content areas of number theory, alge- braic thinking, geometry, measurement, and data analysis and probability. A key feature of this model is student dis- course about his or her mathematical thinking and problem solving.

Kaplan’s model takes a close look at three pivotal G/T considerations: content (e.g., facts, ideas, principles, and theories); process (e.g., thinking, research, computer, and learning-to-learn skills); and product, which integrates content knowledge with many process skills. Kaplan also notes affective matters such as self-understanding and leadership.

The CLEAR curriculum model combines elements from Tomlinson’s differentiated instruction, Kaplan’s depth and complexity, and Renzulli and Reis’s schoolwide enrichment. The CLEAR model integrates elements from each of the three models with five foundational elements. Units created with the model provide students with an opportunity to explore unanswered questions in meaning- ful ways with greater depth and complexity while func- tioning as practicing professionals.

161

8 Creativity I The Creative Person, Creative Process, and Creative Dramatics

Learning OutcOmes

1. Discuss the evolution of theories of creativity in relation to gifted education.

2. Explain differing levels of creativity.

3. Analyze the positive and negative perceptions of the characteristics of creative persons.

4. Categorize the abilities that contribute to creative potential.

5. Distinguish how different models interpret three approaches to viewing creative processes.

6. Explain how the creative process may be viewed as a change in perception.

7. List and explain the role of dramatics in strengthening creative thinking and skills.

C H A P T E R

T here can be no more important topic in the education of gifted and talented (G/T) children than creativity. Indeed, the two interrelated purposes of gifted education are (1) to help these children and adolescents become more self-actualized (Maslow, 1968) creative individuals and (2) to enable them to make creative

contributions to society. As stated by Cropley and Urban (2000), “Modern research on creativity, intelligence, and achievement showed that although students with high IQs obtained good grades both at school and university, they were consistently outstripped by those with not only a high IQ but also high creativity” (p. 485). Even Albert Einstein admitted, “When I examined myself, and my methods of thought, I came to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.” There is obviously an important place for creative thinking in all domains of life.

This chapter and Chapter 9 are designed to help the reader better understand creativity and creative students, and to suggest ideas for stimulating creative growth. This chapter will review some basic features of creativity: (1) historic theories of creativity, (2) levels of creativity, (3) traits and characteristics of creative people and some important creative abilities, (4) the nature of the creative process, and (5) creative dramatics. The important topic of testing for creative potential was discussed in Chapter 3 in conjunction with identification. Chapter 9 will focus more specifically on teaching for creative development.

Theories of CreaTiviTy

Philosophers, psychiatrists, and psychologists have attempted for many years to describe the construct and the principles of creativity. Figure 8.1 summarizes historic theories of creativity and emphasizes the importance of

162 Chapter 8

fiGUre 8.1 Theories of creativity. Source: Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications. Selby, Shaw, & Houtz, Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4). pp. 300–314, Copyright © 2005 by SAGE Publications.

Theorist Description

Freud (1908/1959) Creative process as conflict resolution, or as “sublimation,” the production of something new or original, resulting from the modification of id-impulses into something more acceptable.

Jung (1923) Individuals access the “collective unconscious” or “archetypes,” representing the sum of all human existence when creating, and perceive some universal quality or truth from human history and translating that perception into some real creative product.

Lee (1940) Creative productivity as an effort to overcome destructive, disabling emotions manifested from the id-instinct.

Kris (1952) “Regression in service to the ego” permits individuals to access the dynamic energy of the unconscious while seeking the unique positive qualities of fantasies.

Rogers (1954) Creativity is the “emergence in action of a novel, relational product, growing out of the uniqueness of the individual . . . and the materials, events, people, or circumstances of his life . . .” (p. 71). Creative expression is enhanced by psychological safety and freedom.

Sinnott (1959) Creativity is a natural, developmental life force. The nature of the conscious mind is inherently creative and directs the unconscious mind to action and ultimately forms and shapes our final products.

Maslow (1968) The drive to create is the drive to actualization. Creativity is a “transcendent” or “peak” experience, representing the highest levels of achievement, leading to novel, original, or new ideas.

Arieti (1970) The “seat” of creativity is the preconscious mind, but the process that occurs “there” is a unique combination of both primary (fantasy, wish-fulfillment) and secondary (logical, structured) processes. Tertiary process thinking, directed by the ego, accesses and unites both realms, producing a unique outcome.

Gowan (1975) and Csikszentmihalyi (1996)

The creative enterprise represents a point where all elements are in harmony, working symbiotically and directed to a natural and inexorable conclusion rising above the normal experience. It is a systems model that involves the interactions of the domain, the field, and the creator.

Eysenck (1983, 1993, 1997) Creativity is not an ability but rather a personality variable.

Abra (1997) The need or impetus for self-expression is what unites creativity in all aspects of life (art or science, sports, religion, etc.). What consistently sets individuals engaged in the creative and problem-solving processes apart is their dedication, commitment, steadfastness, vigor, and intensity—or their motivation for creative work.

Parnes (1981), Treffinger (2005), Tanggaard and Glaveanu (2013)

Creativity can be taught and learned.

understanding creativity in western culture (Selby, Shaw, & Houtz, 2005). It is only since the 1950s, however, after J. P. Guilford addressed the American Psychological Association and used the word creativity in his title, that

it was described as an ability (Piirto, 2004). It is obvious from an examination of the theories of creativity in Figure 8.1 that descriptions refer not only to very differ- ent constructs but also to different levels of creativity.

Creativity I 163

LeveLs of CreaTiviTy Whereas all children and adults are capable of enjoying creative thought and production, they may function at dif- ferent levels of creativity. Wilson (2004) refers to the first three levels as being attainable by all who are motivated, and the last two as within the reach of only those who are highly gifted. Below are the five levels that Wilson adapted from the work of A. Taylor (1959):

1. Intuitive expressive level. This creator expresses primitively, intuitively, and directly for the intrinsic joy of creativity.

2. Academic and technical levels. This creator learns the techniques and skills and adds power to the creative expression because he or she has mastered the academic and technical skills related to the creative work.

3. Inventive level. The inventor who has learned the academic or technical skills goes beyond skills and challenges the boundaries to experiment beyond tradition.

4. Innovative level. Originality and out-of-the-ordinary production or ideas are the hallmarks of this stage.

5. Genius level. The ideas and accomplishments of these creators are unique, defying explanation.

This is the most unexplainable level of creative production.

Creative underachievers often remain at the first level of expression and avoid learning the academic and technical skills for fear that those skills will interfere with their perceived personal, spontaneous, and unique creativ- ity. Persuading them that teachers can provide techniques that enhance their level of creativity is no easy task. They tend to believe that intuitive spontaneity alone will permit them to ascend to, at least, level 4.

Csikszentmihalyi (1996) (recommended pronuncia- tion by one of the authors of this text, Davis, is “Smith”; Davis, 2004) boiled these five levels down to two: the “big C”—creative people considered eminent in their area of expertise, and the “little c”—creative people who are creative in their everyday lives. Your authors are inclined to believe there is also a range of “middle c” for many who make small, but important, creative contributions in their fields of expertise but may not be renowned for their contributions.

Csikszentmihalyi’s “little c” people are more likely to resemble those described by Maslow as self-actualized, creative people whose characteristics are listed in Box 8.1 (Maslow, 1968, as cited in Davis, 2004).

BOX 8.1

Maslow’s 15 Characteristics of Self-Actualized People

According to Maslow, self-actualized people:

• Perceive reality more accurately and objectively. They are not threatened by the unknown, and they toler- ate and even like ambiguity.

• Are spontaneous, natural, and genuine. • Are problem-centered, not self-centered or egotisti-

cal. They have a philosophy of life and, probably, a mission in life.

• Can concentrate intensely. They need more privacy and solitude than do others.

• Are independent, self-sufficient, and autonomous. They have less need for popularity or praise.

• Have the capacity to appreciate again and again sim- ple and commonplace experiences. They have a zest for living and an ability to handle stress.

• Have (and are aware of) their rich, alive, and intensely enjoyable “peak experiences”—moments of intense enjoyment.

• Have a high sense of humor, which tends to be thought- ful, philosophical, and constructive (not destructive).

• Form strong friendship ties with relatively few people, yet are capable of greater love.

• Accept themselves, others, and human nature. • Are strongly ethical and moral in individual (not

necessarily conventional) ways. They are benevolent and altruistic.

• Are democratic and unprejudiced in the deepest possible sense. They have deep feelings of brother- hood with all humankind.

• Enjoy the work of achieving a goal as much as the goal itself. They are patient, for the most part.

• Are capable of detachment from their culture and can objectively compare cultures. They can take or leave conventions.

• Are creative, original, and inventive, with a fresh, naïve, simple, and direct way of looking at life. They tend to do most things creatively but do not necessar- ily possess great talent.

164 Chapter 8

CreaTive Persons

Chapter 2 summarized recurrent personality, motivational, and biographical characteristics of creative children and adults. To review brief ly, creative people frequently are high in self-confidence, independence, risk-taking, energy, enthusiasm, adventurousness, curiosity, playfulness, humor, idealism, and ref lectiveness. They tend to have artistic and aesthetic interests, to be attracted to the com- plex and mysterious, and to need privacy and alone time. They tend to be more perceptive and intuitive than other people. An important characteristic is that they are willing to tolerate the ambiguity that accompanies engaging in cre- ative problem solving. Most of these traits were uncovered originally by Frank Barron (1969, 1988) and Donald MacKinnon (1978) in their classic Berkeley studies of crea- tive architects, writers, and mathematicians. These charac- teristics were found across the three very different domains.

Piirto (2005) summarizes four core attitudes among highly creative people: (1) naïveté, (2) self-discipline, (3) risk taking, and (4) group trust. The naïveté refers to the openness with which creative people observe the obvious with a fresh and new perspective. The attitude of driving self-discipline is directed specifically toward expression within the creator’s chosen area of creativity and, much to the frustration of teachers, doesn’t necessarily include the agendas of others. Risk taking in creativity, Piirto reminds us, does not require mountain climbing or bungee jumping. Instead, it demands the courage to stumble, fail, and return from rejection with resilience. The attitude of group trust required, specifically for collaborative creativity, could apply to performing in theater or dance, launching a satel- lite to Mars, or starting a new advertising business. These four attitudes, states Piirto, apply across creative domains.

In addition, these traits and attitudes are sometimes troublesome to teachers, as we noted earlier in this chapter. The admirable characteristics of independence and high energy, combined with nonconformity and unconvention- ality, may lead to stubbornness, resistance to teacher (or parent) domination, uncooperativeness, indifference to accepted conventions, cynicism, too much assertiveness, sloppiness, low interest in details, a tendency to question rules and authority, forgetfulness, overactivity, uncommu- nicativeness, and the feeling that the rest of the parade is out of step. Because of their high energy, eagerness, inquisitiveness, rapid talking, and overactivity, some crea- tive students have been diagnosed as having attention defi- cit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). They are medicated to calm them down (Cramond, 1994; Rimm, 2008c; Webb, Amend, Webb, Goerss, Beljan, & Olenchak, 2005). The nasty problem is this: Some gifted students do have ADHD

(Kaufman, Kalbfleish, & Castellanos, 2000). (The ADHD problem is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 15.)

While we are on the topic of mental health, let us note that one-fourth to one-third of historically eminent persons (Walberg, 1988) and the majority of eminent artists and writ- ers (Piirto, 2005; Richards, 1990, 1999) have had or have depression, manic-depressive disorder (now known as bipolar disorder), or other mental health problems. Simonton (2003) noted, “Genius-level talents probably reside at the delicate boundary between a healthy and an unhealthy personality” (p. 362). Such unconventional persons may entertain bizarre thoughts and analogies and, in manic periods, produce many outstanding works. But those who “go too far . . . into never–never land may never develop their gifts” (p. 362). Noted Richards, if Vincent van Gogh had been given anti- depressants, he might have delightedly exclaimed, “I feel like painting happy . . . clowns on black velvet!” (p. 300).

Perhaps the theory that best explains the plethora of mental health problems among creatively eminent persons is Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (TPD). He argues that intense negative emotions, moods, and overexcit- abilities set the stage for advanced development, precisely because they are disintegrating. Coping or reintegrating these negative emotions allows creators to achieve more advanced emotional development, and their creative products may be part of that developmental struggle (Mendaglio, 2008).

Csikszentmihalyi ’s (1996) (more correctly pro- nounced CHICK–sent–me–hi) list of characteristics of cre- ative persons also provides insight into why creative persons may at times seem to others to be mentally unhealthy. They have complex paradoxical and extremely opposite charac- teristics within the same person. These characteristics are not a compromise of two extreme differences but are oppo- site traits or activities coexisting within the same individual. Befriending such a person can be an exciting challenge. Csikszentmihalyi’s list of complex characteristics follows.

Paradoxical and complex characteristics of creative Persons

1. Much physical energy, but also often quiet and at rest 2. Smart, yet naïve; uses both divergent and convergent

thinking 3. Playfulness and self-discipline (endurance) 4. Imaginativeness rooted in a sense of reality 5. Both extroversion and introversion 6. Both humble and proud 7. Tendency toward androgyny 8. On the one hand, traditional and conservative, and

on the other, rebellious and iconoclastic 9. Passionate and objective

10. Sensitivity and openness to both suffering and pain, and also capable of great enjoyment

Creativity I 165

The biographical characteristics of creative individu- als include some unsurprising ones—for example, a back- ground filled with creative activities and hobbies. Frequent performances in dramatic productions are a very strong indi- cator of creativeness because such performances necessarily require important creative traits (humor, energy, aesthetic interests, confidence, and risk taking, for example). More subtle biographical characteristics of creativity include pre- ferring friends who are younger and older, and having had an imaginary playmate as a child. Naturally, not all charac- teristics apply to all creative students, and some characteris- tics are domain-specific. For example, Piirto (2005) points to the young poet’s inspiration by language, whereas the inspiration to the aspiring scientist, musician, or artist is less likely to be, respectively, a telescope, piano, or paintbrush.

Many of these (positive) characteristics probably can be enhanced by a creativity-conscious teacher. Indeed, as we will see in the next chapter, there is every reason to believe that attitudes and personality traits can be changed to pro- duce a more flexible, creative, and self-actualized person.

Torrance (1979, 1981b) itemized other nontest indi- cators of creativeness in the kinesthetic and auditory domains, although again these creative characteristics could be unrelated to creativity in math or science:

Shows skillful, manipulative movement in crayon work, typing, piano playing, cooking, dressmaking, and so on.

Shows quick, precise movements in mime, creative dramatics, and role playing.

Works at creative movement activities for extended periods.

Displays total bodily involvement in interpreting a poem, story, or song.

Becomes intensely absorbed in creative movement or dance.

Interprets songs, poems, or stories through creative movement or dance.

Writes, draws, walks, and moves with rhythm and is generally highly responsive to sound stimuli.

Creates music, songs, and so on.

Works perseveringly at music and rhythmic activities.

The characteristics listed here and in Chapter 2 should help the reader recognize creative children and adolescents in the classroom. The lists also might improve one’s patience with the obnoxious student who shows too many of the negative traits. Perhaps the high energy, over- assertiveness, unconventionality, resistance to adults, stub- bornness, inquisitiveness, and so forth, require constructive redirection.

Note also that many academically average and below-average students demonstrate marvelous creative talent—for example, in art, dance, computers, or any other area in which the student possesses special knowledge and skills.

Is it easy to recognize creative talent? See Box 8.2.

BOX 8.2

Is It Easy to Recognize Creative Talent?

Although an awareness of the traits of creative people can help us recognize creative students, we are not likely to reach perfection in our identification of creative talent. Consider these creative persons who were not recognized by their teachers, professors, or supervisors:

• Albert Einstein was 4 years old before he could speak and 7 before he could read; he performed badly in almost all high school courses.

• Thomas Edison was told by his teachers that he was too stupid to learn.

• Werner von Braun failed ninth-grade algebra. • Winston Churchill was at the bottom of his class in

one school and twice failed the entrance exams to another.

• Pablo Picasso could barely read and write by age 10. His father hired a tutor—who gave up and quit.

• Louis Pasteur was rated mediocre in chemistry at the Royal College.

• Charles Darwin did poorly in the early grades and failed a university medical course.

• F. W. Woolworth worked in a dry goods store when he was 21, but his employers would not let him wait on customers because he “didn’t have enough sense.”

• Walt Disney was fired by a newspaper editor because he had no good ideas.

• Caruso’s music teacher told him, “You can’t sing, you have no voice at all!”

• Louisa May Alcott was told by an editor that she could never write anything popular.

• Charles Dickens, Claude Monet, Isadora Duncan, and Mark Twain never finished grade school.

(continued)

166 Chapter 8

• George Gershwin, Will Rogers, both Wright brothers, and newscaster Peter Jennings dropped out of high school ; Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones) and Leo Tolstoy flunked out of college.

• A 1938 letter found in 1991 said that western movie star Gene Autry “needed to improve his act- ing,” that an acting course was “evidently wasted,” and that “he needed darker makeup to give him the appearance of virility.” Replied the 83-year-old Autry, “A lot of that is true.”

• Katie Couric was fired from her first job with CNN and told by the producer that she would never make it on TV.

• Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, dropped out of Harvard University (but we should remind students that he achieved enough to be admitted).

Though amusing, such historical facts raise our awareness of the complexity and subtlety of creative talent.

CreaTive abiLiTies

A great many intellectual abilities contribute in one way or another to creative potential. Indeed, it would be diffi- cult to isolate mental abilities that have nothing to do with creativeness. The list that follows includes seemingly important creative abilities. Most have appeared else- where in the creativity literature, especially in Torrance’s work (Torrance, 1962, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1987, 1995). The first four are the classic Guilford/Torrance f luency, f lexibility, originality, and elaboration abilities, which are measured by the Guilford (1967) tests and the Tor- rance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 2006). Some people have mistakenly assumed that these four are a definitive and exhaustive list of creative abilities, which is not true at all.

Fluency. The ability to produce many ideas in response to an open-ended problem or question. The ideas may be verbal or nonverbal (e.g., mathematical or musical). Other names are “associational fluency” and “ideational fluency.”

Flexibility. The ability to take different approaches to a problem, think of ideas in different categories, or view a situation from several perspectives.

Originality. Uniqueness, nonconformity.

Elaboration. The important ability to add details to, develop, embellish, and implement a given idea.

Problem finding, problem sensitivity, problem defining. An important and complex syndrome that includes abilities to (1) detect difficulties, (2) detect missing information, (3) ask good questions, (4) identify the “real” problem, (5) isolate important aspects of a problem, (6) clarify and simplify a prob- lem, (7) identify subproblems, (8) construct a prob- lem on which to work, (9) propose alternative problem definitions, and (10) define a problem more broadly. The ninth and tenth abilities open the prob- lem to a wider variety of solutions.

Visualization. The ability to fantasize and imagine, to “see” things in the “mind’s eye,” and to manipu- late images and ideas mentally (Daniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994).

Ability to regress. The ability to think like a child, whose mind is less cluttered by habits, traditions, rules, regulations, and a firm knowledge of “how it ought to be done.”

Analogical thinking. The ability to borrow ideas from one context and adapt them to another context, or the ability to borrow a solution to one problem and transfer it to solve another problem.

Evaluation. The important ability to separate rele- vant from irrelevant considerations; to think criti- cally; to evaluate the “goodness” or appropriateness of an idea, product, or problem solution.

Analysis. The ability to analyze details and to sepa- rate a whole into its parts.

Synthesis. The ability to see relationships—to com- bine parts into a workable, perhaps creative, whole.

Transformation. The ability to adapt something to a new use; see new meanings, implications, and appli- cations; or creatively change one object or idea into another. Transformation is an extremely important creative ability.

Extend boundaries. The ability to go beyond what is usual—to use objects in new ways.

Intuition. The ability to make mental (intuitive) leaps, make inferences, or see relationships on the basis of little information; the ability to read between the lines.

Predict outcomes. The ability to foresee the results of different solution actions and alternatives.

Resist premature closure. The ability to defer judg- ment and not jump on the first idea that comes along. Many students are deficient in this ability.

Creativity I 167

Concentration. The ability to focus on a problem for long periods, regardless of distractions.

Logical thinking. The ability to deduce reasonable conclusions and to separate the relevant from the irrelevant.

Aesthetic thinking. Sensitivity to and appreciation of beauty in art, design, and nature.

Some other creative abilities are the ability to see structure in chaos, to avoid mental sets and perceptual sets, to think critically, to anticipate consequences, to make good decisions, to understand complex issues, and to adapt pre- sent knowledge to new problems (Davis, 2003b; Tardif & Sternberg, 1988).

If we take a broad view of creative abilities, many other thinking skills (which will be described in Chapter 10) could also be seen as abilities important to creative thinking and problem solving—for example, planning, reasoning, considering all factors, prioritizing, discovering relation- ships, and making inferences. Some creative personality traits could also be viewed as abilities—for example, independence, risk taking, humor (which is always built of surprising idea combinations), curiosity, ref lectiveness, perceptiveness, tolerance for ambiguity and disorder, spontaneity, artisticness, open-mindedness, adventurous- ness, and probably others (Davis, 2003b). Of course, any scientific, business, artistic, or social field has innumerable learned skills and abilities that are essential for creative thinking within the particular knowledge area.

The CreaTive ProCess

The creative process can be viewed in several ways (Davis, 1998). The traditional approach is to describe a sequence of stages through which one might proceed in solving a problem creatively. But the creative process can also be viewed as a change in perception—seeing new idea com- binations, new relationships, new meanings, or new appli- cations that simply were not perceived a moment before. A third approach to understanding the creative process is to examine creative thinking techniques—strategies used by creative individuals to produce the new idea combinations and relationships that inspire creative ideas and products. Creativity techniques appear in Chapter 9.

steps and stages in the Creative Process

The WaLLas ModeL The best-known set of stages in the creative process is the preparation, incubation, illumi- nation, and verification stages suggested in 1926 by Graham Wallas. The preparation stage includes clarifying and defining the problem; gathering relevant information;

reviewing available materials; examining solution require- ments; and becoming acquainted with other innuendos or implications, including previously unsuccessful solutions. This stage basically involves clarifying “the mess.”

The incubation stage may best be viewed as a period of preconscious, fringe-conscious, off-conscious, or even unconscious activity that takes place, perhaps deliberately, while the thinker is jogging, watching TV, playing golf, eating pizza, or snoozing. Guilford (1979) suggested that incubation takes place during reflection, a pause in action, and that some people simply are more reflective than oth- ers. Many creative people keep a pad and pencil on their bed stand or a small notebook (idea trap) in their pocket in order to jot down ideas for incubated problems.

The third stage, illumination, is the “eureka!” or “aha!” experience. A solution appears—usually suddenly, although it may follow weeks of work and incubation— that seems to match the requirements of the problem.

The final stage, verification, as the name suggests, involves checking the workability, feasibility, and/or acceptability of the illumination.

Wallas’s four stages resemble steps in the classic sci- entific method: State the problem and propose hypotheses (preparation), plan and conduct research (during which incubation seems unavoidable), then evaluate the results (verification, which includes one or more illuminations). Note also that the stages are not an invariant sequence. Stages may be skipped, or the thinker may backtrack to an earlier stage. For example, preparation often leads directly to a good, illuminating idea; or, alternatively, if the verifi- cation confirms that an idea will not work or will not be acceptable, the thinker may skip back to the preparation or the incubation stage.

One often-noted oversight of the Wallas model was ignoring the step of implementation: The solution must be elaborated and carried out. Cropley’s (1997; Cropley & Urban, 2000) extension of the Wallas model solves this oversight and others. His seven steps are preparation, information (learning or remembering special knowledge), incubation, illumination, verification, communication (achieving closure, gaining feedback, showing the product to others), and validation (evaluating relevance and effec- tiveness by judges, for example, a teacher).

The sysTeMs ModeL of CreaTiviTy Csikszentmihalyi (1996) described creativity as the interactions of three parts of a system. The first part is the domain, and each domain includes its own rules and procedures. For example, math, music, art, and physical science are all domains. The sec- ond part is the field. The field includes the professionals— the gatekeepers who determine what creations will be accepted within the domain. In theater, it might be the

168 Chapter 8

eventually one or more creative, workable solutions. One noteworthy feature, represented by the diverging and con- verging lines at each step in Figure 8.2, is that each of the five steps first involves a divergent-thinking phase in which lots of ideas (facts, problem definitions, potential solutions, evaluation criteria, implementation ideas) are generated, and then a second, convergent phase in which only the most promising ideas are selected for further exploration.

faCT findinG The first stage, fact finding, involves “listing all you know about the problem or challenge” (Parnes, 1981). For example, let’s say the problem is think- ing of ways to stimulate creativity in an elementary class- room. An individual or group first would list all of the facts they could think of related to training creative thinking and perhaps to the nature of creativity and creative abilities. Parnes recommends the use of who, what, when, where, why, and how questions:

Who is or should be involved?

What is or is not happening?

When does this or should this happen?

Where does or doesn’t this occur?

Why does or doesn’t it happen?

How does or doesn’t it occur?

The list of ideas is then narrowed (converged) to a smaller number of facts that might be especially productive.

ProbLeM findinG The second stage, problem finding, involves listing alternative problem definitions. One principle of creative problem solving is that the definition of a problem determines the nature of the solutions. It helps to begin each statement with, “In what ways might I (we) . . . ?” (e.g., find lists of strategies, locate someone who knows about training creativity, locate books on the topic, have the children them- selves solve the problem, and so on). One or more of the most fruitful definitions is selected for the next stage.

critics, other directors and writers; in science, it might be other scientists who specialize in a particular area of sci- ence. The last component of the system is the individual person who creates within the domain. Creativity happens when the individual invents, discovers, or creates within the domain and his or her creations are accepted as novel and valuable by others who are established in the field. If any one of the three components is absent, the product does not become valued as creativity at the time. In some cases, the creator has contributed within the domain, but those within the fields did not accept the creation for many years. This can occur in many domains, including the arts and sci- ences. Most of us are familiar with artists and musicians whose work was not appreciated during their lifetimes, although the same work is now valued at many millions of dollars—thus, the all-too-familiar references to “starving artists” and “creators who were ahead of their times.”

CreaTive ProbLeM soLvinG The Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model is an extremely useful set of five stages originated by Alex Osborn (1963) and more recently articulated by Sidney Parnes (1981) and by Donald Treffinger and his colleagues (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005; Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 1994a, 1994b). In addition to the five steps represented in Figure 8.2, Parnes and Treffinger and colleagues described a sixth step, the pre- liminary one—called mess finding—of locating a chal- lenge, opportunity, need, or problem to which to apply the model. To be accurate, Osborn (1963) described his original model in just three stages, which subsume the oth- ers: (1) Fact finding included identifying a problem and gathering facts, (2) idea-finding is unchanged, (3) solution- finding included evaluating and implementing ideas.

We will look briefly at the five core steps of fact find- ing, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding (idea evaluation), and acceptance finding (idea implementation). The five steps are useful because they guide the creative process—they tell you what to do at each step to produce

fiGUre 8.2 The Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model. Source: Pearson Education, Inc.

Creativity I 169

idea findinG Idea finding is the brainstorming stage, in which ideas are freely listed for each problem statement accepted in the second stage.

soLUTion findinG In the fourth stage of solution find- ing, criteria for idea evaluation are listed—for example, Will the strategy strengthen important creative abilities? Will it strengthen good creative attitudes? Will it teach usable crea- tive thinking techniques? Will it cost too much? Will it take too much time? Are the materials available? Will the princi- pal and teachers accept it? Will the children enjoy it?—and so on. The list may be reduced to the most relevant criteria.

Sometimes, an evaluation matrix is prepared, with possible solutions listed on the vertical axis and criteria across the top (see Figure 8.3). Each idea is rated accord- ing to each criterion (perhaps on a scale from 1 to 5), and the ratings are entered in the cells and then totaled to find the “best” idea(s).

aCCePTanCe findinG Finally, acceptance finding (or implementation) amounts to thinking of “ways to get the best ideas into action” (Parnes, 1981). It may involve creat- ing an action plan (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 1994a, 1994b). Treffinger (1995a) and colleagues noted that accept- ance finding involves searching for assisters and resisters. Assisters are people (“key players”); essential resources; and the best times, places, and methods that will support the plan and contribute to successful implementation. One must also identify resisters—obstacles such as contrary people, missing materials, bad timing, ineffective methods, or other matters that can interfere with acceptance. Said Treffinger,

one makes the best possible use of assisters, and avoids or overcomes sources of resistance.

In his inspiring book The Magic of Your Mind, Parnes leads the reader through problem after problem, with the goal of making the five steps habitual and automatic. That is, when encountering a problem, challenge, or opportu- nity, one quickly would review relevant facts, identify vari- ous interpretations of the problem, generate solutions, think of criteria and evaluate the ideas, and speculate on how the solution(s) might be implemented and accepted.

Parnes spent 30 years as president of the Creative Edu- cation Foundation and had much experience teaching crea- tive problem solving. Learning these steps—supplemented with creative attitudes and some idea-finding strategies—is his best recommendation for becoming a more creative prob- lem solver and a more effective, self-actualized human being.

In the classroom, the CPS model would be used to guide a creative thinking session that (1) improves students’ understanding of the creative process, (2) exposes them to a rousing creative thinking experience, and (3) solves a prob- lem. With much practice with the steps, students might become habitual creative thinkers, as Parnes intended.

Parnes (1981) noted that “the five steps are a guide rather than a strict formula. Frequently, a change of sequence may be introduced into the process, and it is always advisa- ble to provide plenty of opportunity for incubation.” While eating 1½ chocolate sundaes, which Parnes ordered, he explained to one author of this text (Davis) that people tend to use the five stages too rigidly. On a napkin he scribbled a star-shaped model enclosed in a circle (see Figure 8.4) and emphasized that—if it helps the creative process—one may flexibly move directly from any one step to any other step.

fiGUre 8.3 Example of an evaluation matrix. Each idea is rated on a 1 (low) to 5 (high) scale according to each criterion. Total scores are then tallied.

fiGUre 8.4 An alternative conception of the Creative Educa- tion Foundation stages, emphasizing the flexibility of moving from one stage to another. Source: Pearson Education, Inc.

170 Chapter 8

This phenomenon occurs whether the transformation is a simple modification of a cookie recipe (e.g., substituting mint candies for chocolate chips) or a complex discovery in engineering, medicine, or astronomy.

One simple way to illustrate the sudden perceptual change is with visual puzzles. You will find yourself exclaiming, “Oh! There it is!” or “Now I see it!”

We do not understand this sudden perceptual change or mental transformation particularly well. In some simple cases, the “eureka!” seems due merely to viewing (or visu- alizing) one or two objects or ideas and then mentally modifying them, combining them, or otherwise creating a new meaning or relationship, or to suddenly seeing a rela- tionship between your problem and a more familiar one. For example, a candy-bar mogul, always alert for new products, may receive a sample package of macadamia nuts on an airline f light and instantly think of creating a chocolate-macadamia treat.

The discussion of creative thinking techniques in the next chapter will address some unconscious creative pro- cesses that have been made conscious, knowable, and teachable. Most of these techniques force the thinker to see new relationships and transformations of ideas.

CreaTive draMaTiCs

Creative dramatics definitely is a unique classroom activ- ity. As with other creativity exercises, creative dramatics stimulates divergent thinking, imagination, and problem solving. It may also strengthen sensory awareness, concen- tration, control of the physical self, discovery and control of emotions, humor, self-confidence in speaking and per- forming, expanded language abilities, empathic and humanistic understanding of others, general personality growth, and even critical thinking (e.g., Carelli, 1981; Cresci, 1989; Davis, Helfert, & Shapiro, 1992; McCaslin, 1974; Tatar, 2002; Way, 1967). It is as fun as it is benefi- cial. Sessions are not difficult to lead: The two main requirements are a good sense of humor and enough energy to crank up a people machine or wade through a peanut- butter swamp.

Samples of creative dramatics activities are described in the categories of warm-ups, movement exer- cises, sensory and body awareness exercises, pantomime, and playmaking.

Warm-Up exercises

Any creative dramatics session must begin with some sim- ple loosening-up exercises. These movements stretch a few muscles but require little or no thinking. The leader nar- rates and illustrates. Following are some suggestions.

Treffinger, Isaksen, and Dorval (1994a; see also 1994b) described how hits and hot spots can be used in the five CPS steps. Hits are ideas that strike the problem solver as important breakthroughs—directions to be pursued further because they could form the basis for a good solution. Groups of related hits are called hot spots. Hot spots thus are “groups of several (two or more) hits that all deal with a common theme, issue, or important dimension of the mess” (p. 45). In the convergent part of each CPS step, hits and hot spots are excellent leads for further exploration.

The CPS model may be taught to secondary students and even elementary children, as in the book CPS for Kids (Eberle & Stanish, 1996). The Future Problem Solving program, summarized in Chapter 6, is based on the CPS model.

An important message in the CPS model is that enrichment programs for teaching creative thinking should not focus totally on the brainstorming and divergent think- ing that stage 3, idea finding, comprises. Realistic creative thinking includes at least the other CPS stages of clarifying the mess, gathering facts and data, generating or selecting a problem definition, evaluating the ideas, and implement- ing the chosen solution(s).

The CPS model is used effectively with typical stu- dents, but it has also had dramatic impact in use with mar- ginalized adolescent populations, including high school dropouts and disenfranchised Aboriginal teens. It has even reduced recidivism among Native Canadian inmates. The authors (McCluskey, Baker, & McCluskey, 2005) explain that CPS was used in combination with career exploration and mentoring with these high-risk populations.

PiirTo’s CreaTive ProCess To put “I”cing on the creativity cake, Piirto (2005) has observed seven interest- ing “Is” of the creative process: Inspiration, Imagery, Imagination, Intuition, Insight, Incubation, and Improvi- sation. Whereas all “I” stages surely appear in the creative process, perhaps Piirto would not be offended if the authors, in their collaborative, creative spirit, added one more important “I” stage, sometimes forgotten by crea- tive students—Implementation—to include the important steps involved in carrying out creative ideas or products to closure.

The CreaTive ProCess as a ChanGe in PerCePTion

Many creative ideas and problem solutions result from a change in perception—the usually abrupt experience of see- ing a new idea combination, new relationship, new mean- ing, new application, or new perspective on a problem.

Creativity I 171

pinball game, which can absorb 50 volunteers, including a pinball player and several, preferably “crazy,” balls.

obsTaCLes With chalk, the leader draws start and finish lines on the floor, about 8 feet apart. One at a time, each student makes up an imaginary obstacle that he or she must climb over (past, through, under, around) to get from start to finish. Because only one person participates at a time, the activity works best with small groups.

roboT WaLk Each person is a robot with a unique sound and walk. Whenever one robot touches another robot, both stop, sit down, and begin again, rising with a new sound and a new walk.

baLLoon bUrsT There are two main versions. First, each person is a balloon who is blown up, and up, and up. The balloon can be released and zip around the room, or else blown up until it pops. In the second version the entire group is one balloon that is blown up to the limit and then bursts.

CreaTive LoCoMoTion Have children walk like a Crooked Man, the Jolly Green Giant, Raggedy Ann, a robot, and so forth. They can run like a squirrel, a mouse, Miss Muffett frightened by a spider, or the slowest person in the world running for a bus. They can jump like a kanga- roo, popcorn, a jack-in-the-box, or walk through a peanut- butter swamp, f lypaper, a jungle, a room whose f loor is covered with tacks, deep sand, or deep Jell-O. The leader and students call out new characters, animals, substances, surfaces, and so on.

MakinG LeTTers Have individuals or two people shape their bodies to become alphabet letters. Others guess the letter. A small group can spell a word.

iMaGinary TUG-of-War Ask for 10 volunteers (or pick them, if reluctance prevails). They are divided into two 5-person teams. The leader narrates: “This side is struggling hard and seems to be winning. Now the other side is recovering. Look out! The rope broke!” Warn them to listen to the narrator and be sure they hear the last instruction.

sensory and body awareness

TrUsT WaLk (or bLind WaLk) This exercise is a must. Each person has a partner. The member with eyes shut, or who is blindfolded, is led around the room, under tables and chairs, and allowed to identify objects by touch, smell, or sound. Students walk down the hall, get a drink of water, try

hoLdinG UP The CeiLinG Students strain to hold up the ceiling, slowly letting it down (to one knee), then pushing it back up into place.

biGGesT ThinG, sMaLLesT ThinG Everyone stretches his or her body into the “biggest thing” he or she possibly can. No one has any trouble guessing what the second part of the exercise is.

sTreTChinG There are many ways to stretch. One strat- egy is to have students begin with their heads and work down, stretching then relaxing every part of the body. Or students can begin with the toes and work up. Either may be done lying down.

WarM UP aT differenT sPeeds Children run in place in slow motion, then speed up until they are moving very fast. Variations include jumping, skipping, or hopping.

Movement exercises

CirCLes The group stands in a large circle. Each partici- pant in turn thinks of a way to make a circle by using his or her body. It may be a fixed or moving circle, using part or all of the body. All others must make the same circle. Names add to the fun—“This is a halo circle,” “This is a shoulder circle,” “This is a chicken circle,” “This is a Groucho Marx circle.” Circles will be more original if originality is clearly encouraged.

Mirrors Everyone needs a partner. One person becomes a mirror who mimics the movements of the partner. Roles are reversed in about 3 minutes.

CirCUs Each child becomes a different circus performer or animal. Variations include the leader directing what eve- ryone should be—for example, tightrope walkers, trained elephants, lion tamers, jugglers, and so forth.

PeoPLe MaChines This is a favorite (at least with col- lege students). There are two main strategies. Students can form groups of 6 to 12 persons and take 10 or 15 minutes to design and practice their “machine,” which they form with their bodies. The machine presentations are per- formed one at a time for the others, who try to guess what the machine is. (Warning: Don’t allow the machine to dismantle prematurely just because someone guesses what it is.)

With the add-on method, an idea for a machine is agreed upon and then one person starts the action. Others add themselves. Sounds—beeps, dings, buzzes, pops, and so on—are recommended. One of the best is an old-fashioned

172 Chapter 8

invisibLe baLLs An invisible ball is passed from person to person several times around a small circle (or up and down each row in a class). As each person receives the ball, it changes size, shape, weight, smell, and so forth.

MaGiC sTiCk Taking turns, students improvise with a wooden dowel or other stick—or any other object, for that matter. They can “pass” if they are temporarily stumped.

inside-oUT Children become fish in a tank or zoo ani- mals in cages. Others look in.

aniMaL PanToMiMes Each child moves to the center of the circle to pantomime his or her animal. Others guess the animal. For variety, two or three animals can act out a simple plot—for example, a cat sneaking up on a mouse, a bear looking for honey but finding bees, a bull spotting some picnickers, a squirrel and a bluejay both trying to get the same piece of bread, a rabbit and a turtle preparing for a short race. Students can think of more.

CreaTinG an environMenT This exercise is much like an add-on people machine. Students think of and cre- ate an environment, such as a bowling alley, people fishing from a boat, a playground, ballet class, fish and seaweed in an aquarium, gym class, football team warming up, farm animals, a car wash, a dentist’s office with waiting room, and so on. The class can think of more.

MisCeLLaneoUs PanToMiMe Many brief sketches can teach students to pay close attention to movements and expressions. Some examples are a jolly McDonald’s cash- ier waiting on two or three impatient customers, a fussy person trying on hats or shoes, scared mountain climbers unable to go up or down, the Three Stooges hanging wall- paper or performing heart surgery, a grouchy cab driver in rush-hour traffic taking a worried person to the airport, and the president of the United States being locked out of Air- force One.

Playmaking

Playmaking involves acting out stories and scenes without a script. To improve the expressiveness of movements and gestures, a sketch may be practiced without lines—that is, in pantomime. With one straightforward strategy, students are given a simple scene (plot), characters are explained, and then students improvise the action.

Way (1967) suggested that miniplays need not be silly. For example, they can involve miners working against time to reinforce a mine about to cave in; slow-moving astronauts assembling something in space; toy-shop toys

to read names or numbers on doors (such as “Boys”), or they can go outside and explore trees, the sun, shade, a flower, and so on. Partners trade roles after about 10 minutes. Ask about experiences and discoveries in a follow-up discussion.

exPLorinG an oranGe Give everyone an orange to examine closely. How does it look, feel, smell, taste? What is unique about your orange? Take the orange apart and examine and discuss the colors, patterns, and textures. Eat the orange.

LisTeninG Have students sit (or lie) silently, listening first for sounds that are close, then for sounds that are far. Ask, “What do the sounds remind you of?” As an option, students can describe the sounds with their hands.

sMeLLinG Small bottles are prepared in advance with familiar scents, such as vanilla extract, Vicks VapoRub®, peanut butter, used coffee grounds, cinnamon, cloves, rub- bing alcohol, lipstick, and so on. The scents are passed around to the students in small groups, and students dis- cuss the memories that are stimulated by each smell. The smells can also be imagined; for example, how does the smell of warm applesauce and cinnamon make you feel?

ToUChinG Have students touch many surfaces, concen- trating fully on the feel. Use strange objects (e.g., a piece of coral) and familiar ones (e.g., a piece of tree bark). The objects should be in paper sacks so that they are kept hid- den from view.

Pantomime

Many of the movement and sensory exercises cited thus far include an element of pantomime (e.g., circus, people machines, tug-of-war, creative locomotion). With more “serious” pantomime, students create situations with phys- ical movements, facial expressions, and even eye move- ments as they perform in an imaginary environment. With encouragement, students can use their faces, hands, and bodies to express sadness, glee, love, fear, surprise, and so on. Pantomime activities can be relatively short, or they can be lengthier miniplays without lines.

Following are some pantomime activities.

invisibLe TrUnk About 6 to 10 students form a circle. In turn, each person lifts the lid on an invisible trunk, removes something, does something with it, then puts it back in the trunk and closes the lid. Others spontaneously guess the object and activity. The action may go around the circle two or three times.

Creativity I 173

Carelli (1981) noted that, when playmaking with gifted students, the students may select the theme; assign responsibilities; plan and implement the activities, includ- ing researching the particular historical or mythological event; and evaluate both the process and the final product.

Creative dramatics almost always elicits excited feel- ings of creativeness—it’s not every day that students expe- rience being blind or pretend to be a robot, a bird in a cuckoo clock, or a squeaking gear in a people machine that does nothing. They are given a perfectly logical reason to stretch their imaginations and humor. The activities may be used with any age group, from an elementary school pullout program to a high school drama class, to a college creativity class.

In Davis’s former college creativity class (and per- haps in your creative classes as well)—with chairs out of the way in a classroom or sometimes in a lecture hall with 80 students—a progressively more creative and rousing session typically included holding up the ceiling and big- gest thing, smallest thing (warm-ups); imaginary tug-of- war; and some combination of circles, mirrors, trust walk, invisible box, and invisible balls; and always people machines (group strategy and add-on strategy—usually a pinball machine). A creative experience was had by all.

or museum displays coming alive at the stroke of midnight; Californians experiencing an earthquake; or witches and goblins cooking up a magic brew with improvised, impor- tant ingredients. Historical episodes, folklore, mythology, fairy tales, nursery rhymes, and animal stories also present possibilities, for example, the Boston Tea Party, Columbus discovering America, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Cinderella, and others.

A more structured playmaking strategy might run as follows: After a few warm-up exercises, the leader tells a story. Then leader and students review the sequence of events—what happened first? Second? Third? The group then discusses characterization, considering physical, emotional, and intellectual qualities (limping, slow, quick-stepping, nerv- ous, angry, happy, excited, calm, conceited, dull-witted, scientific-minded). The play typically is broken down and worked out scene by scene. The group may first act out a scene without dialogue in order to explore movements and expressions. After improvements, it is replayed with impro- vised dialogue. A given scene may be replayed many times, with different students trying different roles. Again, ideas may be found in historical or mythological material, or in chil- dren’s books, nursery rhymes, or other stories. Also, students can brainstorm plots and ideas.

Summary

Creative development is a central G/T topic. In lifetime achievement, high-IQ students are outperformed by bright students who are also creative. Descriptions of the con- struct of creativity vary considerably.

Taylor describes five levels of creativity: (1) intui- tive, (2) technical, (3) inventive, (4) innovative, and (5) genius. Creative underachievers often remain at the first level of expression for fear that technical skills will inter- fere with their uniqueness. Csikszentmihalyi referred to “big C” and “little c” to differentiate levels of creativity. Csikszentmihalyi’s “little c” people are more likely to resemble those described by Maslow as self-actualized.

Creative students tend to be independent, risk-taking, energetic, curious, witty, idealistic, artistic, and attracted to the mysterious and complex; also, they need alone time. Their attitudes include (1) naïveté, (2) self-discipline, (3) risk taking, and (4) group trust.

Negative traits include stubbornness, resistance to domination, uncooperativeness, cynicism, tendencies to question rules, uncommunicativeness, and others. These may be troublesome to teachers.

Some high-energy, bright, and creative students are incorrectly classified as having ADHD. It should be noted that some gifted students do have ADHD.

Many eminent persons—especially in the arts and among writers—have or have had depression, manic- depressive disorder, or other mental health problems. Such problems apparently aid imagination and unconventional- ity. Perhaps the theory that best explains the plethora of mental health problems among creatively eminent persons is Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (TPD), according to which coping with negative emotions stimu- lates people to achieve more advanced emotional develop- ment. The paradoxical and complex intensities of creative persons described by Csikszentmihalyi also give insight into why creative people may not always seem mentally healthy.

Torrance suggested several characteristics of crea- tiveness in the kinesthetic and auditory areas—for exam- ple, skillful movement and talent in dance and music. Some characteristics of creativity are domain-specific. The poet is inspired by language; the scientist, by a telescope.

In addition to the popular abilities of fluency, flexi- bility, originality, and elaboration, important creative abili- ties include, for example, a syndrome that encompasses problem finding, problem sensitivity, and problem defin- ing, along with abilities pertaining to visualization, ana- logical thinking, evaluation, intuition, resisting premature

174 Chapter 8

assisters and resisters—people, methods, or resources that affect progress. He also described hits and hot spots, groups of good ideas. Parnes advised that, if helpful, the five steps may be used in any order. The CPS model has been proven effective with marginalized adolescent populations.

Piirto’s creative process includes seven “I” stages: Inspiration, Imagery, Imagination, Intuition, Insight, Incu- bation, and Improvisation.

The creative process may also be viewed as a change in perception—seeing new idea combinations, new rela- tionships, new meanings, new implications, and new appli- cations. The cause of, or the reason for, this sudden change in perception is not well understood.

Creative dramatics seeks to strengthen divergent thinking, imagination, problem solving, sensory aware- ness, discovery and control of emotions and of the physical self, humor, self-confidence, and empathic understanding. Five categories of activities include warm-ups, movement exercises, sensory and body awareness, pantomime, and playmaking.

closure, logical thinking, seeing structure in chaos, avoid- ing mental sets, and making good decisions.

Many thinking skills (e.g., planning, prioritizing, discovering relationships, making inferences) and creative personality traits (e.g., humor, curiosity, independence, risk taking) may be considered creative abilities.

The creative process may be viewed, first, as stages in creative problem solving. Wallas’s four stages are prepa- ration, incubation, illumination, and verification. Cropley added three more stages of information, communication, and validation.

Csikszentmihalyi described a systems model of crea- tivity, which always requires the interactions of the domain, the field, and the creator.

The Creative Problem Solving model includes fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding (idea evaluation), and acceptance finding (idea implementation), and sometimes a preliminary stage of “mess finding” (identi- fying a problem). Solution finding may involve an evaluation matrix. Describing acceptance finding, Treffinger noted

175

9 Creativity II Teaching for Creative Growth

Learning OutcOmes

1. List and explain the ways that creativity can be taught.

2. Describe the goals of creativity training.

3. Explain the role of the teacher in raising creativity consciousness, creative attitudes, and creative personality traits.

4. Identify approaches to foster student understanding of creativity.

5. Select strategies to strengthen students’ creative abilities.

6. Determine how teachers may help students to develop personal creative thinking techniques.

7. Propose a plan to integrate the range of standard creative thinking techniques across the curriculum.

8. Develop ways to involve students in creative activities within and beyond the curriculum.

9. Recommend ways to infuse creative teaching and learning at home and in school.

C H A P T E R

Can Creativity Be taught?

Can creativity be taught? Or are you born with it? The answers are yes and yes. Some people are born with a special combination of creative genius and intelligence that, activated by high motivation and a sense of destiny, leads them to dream their dreams and implement their creations that make the world a better place. The names Leonardo da Vinci, Wolfgang Mozart, Marie Curie, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, George Washington Carver, and Georgia O’Keeffe come to mind. No amount of creativity training can elevate an average person to such lofty creativeness. Recall from Chapter 8 that Taylor (1959) referred to this high creativeness as the genius level of creativity, and Csikszentmihalyi (1996) classified those with it as the “big C” creative people.

At the same time, it is absolutely true that everyone’s personal creativity can be improved. In the case of gifted and talented (G/T) children, efforts to strengthen their creative abilities—and get them to use the abilities they were born with—can have visibly dramatic effects, as evidenced, for example, in the marvelous products and performances in the Future Problem Solving and Odyssey of the Mind or Destination ImagiNation programs, in addition to providing them with skills and attitudes to lead happier and more productive lives. Creative people react better to stressful situations, are in happier moods, advance higher in their careers, and are more likely to be suc- cessful (Beghetto, Kaufman, & Baer, 2015; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013). Creativity programs have proven effec- tive, based on multiple outcomes, including divergent thinking tests, problem-solving applications, surveys, and

176 Chapter 9

center that explains the person’s thinking style, personality, struggles, and accomplishments. On parents’ night, stu- dents might dress as famous creative characters and explain “what it’s like being me” (Betts  & Kercher, 1999). The goal of the biographical approach is to help students better understand creativity and creative people, and possibly to motivate them to acquire some of the attitudes and techni- cal talents they have learned about.

Specific training in divergent thinking is effective. Pyryt (1999; as cited in Hunsaker, 2005), in a meta-analysis of 25 studies, concluded that students’ improved perfor- mance in divergent-thinking tasks was directly correlated with the number of training sessions in which they partici- pated. He also found that direct teacher instruction was more effective than student self-directed study. Scott et al. (2004) also conducted a quantitative review on the effec- tiveness of creativity training. On the basis of 70 studies, they also found training programs increased divergent thinking, problem solving, performance, and attitudes and behavior for a variety of participants (younger students, older students, and adults).

goals of Creativity training

The strategies just described are logical efforts to teach creativity. However, creativity training might be better structured if we itemize the main goals and objectives of such training and then review ways to achieve each objec- tive (see, e.g., Davis, 1987, 1989a, 2003b, 2004). The list is brief and uncomplicated:

●● Raising creativity consciousness, teaching creative attitudes, and strengthening creative personality traits.

●● Improving students’ understanding of creativity. ●● Strengthening creative abilities through exercise. ●● Teaching creative thinking techniques. ●● Involving students in creative activities. ●● Fostering academic creativity.

Our recommendation is that a sensible creativity training effort should include all of these objectives and their corresponding activities. By a remarkable coinci- dence, a sensible order of objectives and their related learning activities exactly matches the order in which these topics are presented in this chapter.

Creativity ConsCiousness, Creative attitudes, and Creative Personality traits

Increasing creativity consciousness and creative attitudes is the single most important component of teaching for

affective measures (Meador, Fishkin, & Hoover, 1999, as cited in Hunsaker, 2005; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). Furthermore, creativity is a developmental process. Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) suggest that in addition to big-c and little-c, there are two additional types of creativity: mini-c and pro-c, which are based on a developmental per- spective. Mini-c is the creativity that happens in the learning process, and pro-c is expertise-level creativity that has been developed.

Many teachers are already creativity conscious and integrate creativity exercises into classwork; some also teach creatively. Teaching a topic in a creative way is dif- ferent from teaching students to think and function crea- tively. While we laud educators who teach their students in creative ways, our purpose in this chapter is to share ideas that encourage students to become more creative in their own thinking and learning (Treffinger, Schoonover,  & Selby, 2013). For example, some teachers arrange inde- pendent projects in language arts, science, or art. Such pro- jects help students develop such creative problem-solving attitudes and skills as independence, problem defining, information gathering, idea generating, evaluating, deci- sion making, and communication, along with valuable technical skills.

Some teachers give divergent-thinking exercises, either as a classroom brainstorming activity or by asking students individually to write their ideas. Divergent-thinking problems may or may not be tied to the subject matter at hand. For example, teachers might ask students to think of unusual uses for Ping-Pong balls or for the math balance scales, improvements for bicycles or better ways to evacuate the building in case of fire, or clever ways to make the school burglarproof or to keep the hallways clean. Some ask “What would happen if  .  .  .?” questions: What would have hap- pened if gasoline engines were never invented? If nobody went to school? If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had not given his “I Have a Dream” speech? If we didn’t have any fingers? If nobody could spell or write a correct sentence?

As we will see in Chapter 11, teachers interested in character and values education can use “What would hap- pen if . . .?” questions, brainstorming, and other creativity thinking techniques taught in this chapter to help students understand character and values and make commitments to productive, not self-destructive, principles: “What would happen if everyone were always rude to everyone else?” “How many ways can we think of to make a new student feel welcome?” (Davis, 2003a, 2003c).

Some teachers review biographical information about creative people, such as the training, lifestyles, atti- tudes, and thinking habits of Edison, Einstein, Curie, and Picasso. They might ask students to research the life of a creative person and even to design and create a learning

Creativity II 177

Regarding “contradictory” aspects of the self, Barron (1969) and others noted long ago that creative persons assimilate traits traditionally associated with the opposite sex. Later, Cropley and Urban (2000) reported this “inte- gration of opposites”: stereotypically masculine traits of autonomy, self-confidence, and toughness with stereotypi- cally feminine traits of sensitivity, intuition, and responsi- bility. Even with brilliant, natural potential, though, would a Hell’s Angel pursue a career in ballet? Csikszentmihalyi (1996) suggested that creative people possess a complex personality that allows them to move from one extreme to the other on 10 dimensions of complexity as the occasion requires. For example, they can be smart yet also naïve. Creative people know when they need to be alone and when they need to surround themselves with others.

Teachers can also foster creativity by encouraging students to learn independently by not judging student ideas harshly, tolerating “sensible” errors, encouraging flexible thinking, promoting self-evaluation, encouraging fantasy and imagination, helping students cope with frus- tration and failure, accepting students as they are, helping students resist peer pressure to conform, rewarding cour- age as much as rewarding being right, and being aware that a student’s “difficult” behavior could be a manifestation of creativity (Cropley  & Urban, 2000; Fleith, 2000; Paek, Abdulla, & Cramond, 2016; Rejskind, 2000).

Teachers may also take a direct approach: Help stu- dents understand each creative attitude and trait and why it is essential for creativeness.

Creative atmosphere

Creative attitudes and awareness relate closely to the notion of a creative atmosphere, an environment where creativity is encouraged and rewarded. Carl Rogers (1962) called it psychological safety, a prerequisite for creative thinking. In brainstorming, it is called deferred judgment— the noncritical, nonevaluative, and receptive atmosphere where fresh and even wild ideas may be safely proposed.

When a teacher refers to the “different” student as a creative thinker, other students are less likely to refer to that student as weird, and the student is more likely to be appreciated rather than shunned.

It is an ancient and honored principle of psychology that rewarded behavior persists and becomes stronger, while punished or ignored behavior disappears. A creative atmosphere rewards creative thinking and helps it become habitual.

Blocks to Creativity

Creative attitudes and predispositions may be aided when teachers raise students’ awareness of blocks and barriers to

creative growth. Creative attitudes are taught in every crea- tive thinking course and program, and for good reason. To think creatively, a person must be consciously aware of creativity. He or she must value creative thinking; appreci- ate novel and far-fetched ideas; be open-minded and recep- tive to the zany ideas of others; be mentally set to produce creative ideas; and be willing to take creative risks, make mistakes, and even fail. In other words, individuals must give themselves permission to be creative. Sternberg (2000a), in fact, argued that high creativity stems from conscious decisions—for example, to redefine problems, overcome obstacles, do what you love to do, and believe in yourself.

In Torrance’s (1995) list of 20 suggestions for foster- ing creativity in school experiences, about half dealt with raising creativity consciousness and altering attitudes, such as “Teach children to value their creative thinking,” “Develop tolerance of new ideas,” and “Develop construc- tive criticism, not just criticism.” In Piirto’s (2004) list of 13 suggestions, almost all did—for example, “Do your own creative work” and “Set a creative tone.”

Many students are capable of creative achieve- ments. However, they do not think about creativity or appreciate the importance of creativity for their personal growth—for developing their talents and potential, cop- ing successfully with their world, and simply getting more out of life. Students also should become more aware of the importance of creative innovation in the history of civilization and for solving society’s present and future problems. Indeed, without creative innovation and crea- tive people, we still would be living in caves during our short and sick lives, digging roots and clubbing rodents for lunch.

strengthening Creative Personality traits

Creative personality traits are tied closely to creative atti- tudes and to creative awareness. We normally do not speak of “teaching personality traits.” However, teachers can reward and encourage the (positive) kinds of traits and behaviors that relate to creative thinking—confidence, independence, enthusiasm, adventurousness, a willingness to take risks, curiosity, playfulness, humor, time alone for thinking, interest in complexity, perceptiveness, and artis- tic and other aesthetic interests. Cropley and Urban (2000) suggested the following important attitudes and personal- ity traits that may be strengthened in the classroom: auton- omy, ego strength, positive self-concept, preference for complexity, tolerance for ambiguity, and acceptance of all (even contradictory) aspects of one’s own self. The person- ality trait of openness is related most consistently and strongly to creativity (Puryear, Kettler, & Rinn, 2016).

178 Chapter 9

While creativity involves risk taking, it is sensible risk tak- ing (Sternberg, Kaufman, & Grigorenko, 2008).

Emotional blocks are the insecurities and anxieties that interfere with creative thinking. Here we find tem- porary states, such as job anxieties, school pressures, emotional problems, or health concerns. We also have more permanent emotional blocks, such as a chronic fear of making mistakes or failing, fear of being different, fear of not being different enough, fear of rejection, fear of supervisors, timidity, and other persistent anxieties.

Some of us need “a whack on the side of the head” to jostle us out of our uncreative attitudes (see Box 9.1).

Fortunately, a heightened creativity consciousness and creative attitudes are a natural outgrowth of most types of classroom creativity exercises and activities. As we noted in Chapter 2, the main differences between people who have creative abilities and those who use their creative potential lie in attitudes, awareness, and related creative personality traits that predispose people to think and behave in creative ways. Sternberg (1990) itemized tips that encourage stu- dents to develop creative habits and traits—and to use them (see Box 9.2).

understanding the toPiC of Creativity

Any creativity training has more impact and makes a more lasting impression if students are helped to understand the topic of creativity. A large body of information contributes to this understanding (see Cropley & Urban, 2000; Davis, 2004; or Treffinger, Schoonover,  & Selby, 2013, for an overview). Some main topics that could comprise lessons “about creativity” are the following:

The importance of creativity to self and society.

Characteristics of creative people.

The nature of creative ideas as modifications, combi- nations, and analogical relationships.

The nature of the creative process—stages, changed perceptions, modifying, combining, analogical thinking.

Creative abilities.

Theories and definitions of creativity.

Tests of creativity and the rationale underlying them.

Creative thinking techniques.

Barriers to creative thinking, including von Oech’s 10 blocks.

As we noted previously, biographies of well-known creative people provide a useful way to teach students

creative thinking, which may be categorized as perceptual, cultural, and emotional (Davis, 1999, 2004; Simberg, 1964). With perceptual blocks, we become accustomed to perceiving things in familiar ways, and it simply is difficult to view them in new and creative ways. Here is an illustra- tion of a perceptual block: Given the letter stream BTAENNLEATNTEARS, cross out 10 letters to find a meaningful word.*

Cultural blocks, as with perceptual blocks, result from learning and habit. With cultural blocks, we have the creativity-squelching effects of traditions, conformity pres- sures, and social expectations, which—along with “fear of being different”—nip creativeness in its proverbial bud.

Conformity pressures and social expectations can take the form of idea squelchers. The list that follows con- tains some favorites, condensed from a longer list by Warren (1974; Davis, 2004). Think about your efforts in installing an innovative G/T program as you read these:

It won’t work.

It’s not in the budget.

We’ve never done it before.

We’re not ready for it yet.

What will parents think?

We’re too small for that.

We have too many projects now.

Somebody would have suggested it before if it were any good.

We can’t do it under the regulations.

It’s not in the curriculum.

It will mean more work.

Such idea squelchers are the products of unreceptive, inflexible, and uncreative attitudes.

It is true, of course, that the human processes of socialization, education, and even healthy peer relations necessarily require a good measure of conformity. How- ever, children and adults should realize that there is a time for conformity and a time for creativity. Kaufman and Beghetto (2013) suggest that when teachers help students understand the benefits (such as new insights and out- comes) and costs (such as lost time and possible ridicule) associated with creative expression, students are in a better position to determine when to exercise their creativity and when not to exercise it. Creative metacognition is knowing one’s own creativity strengths and when, where, how, and why to be creative (Beghetto  & Kaufman, 2013).

*The solution is BANANA. What did you cross out?

Creativity II 179

BOX 9.1

A Whack on the Side of the Head

One popular book on stimulating creativity, written for cor- porate readers, is entitled A Whack on the Side of the Head (von Oech, 1983). The entire book focuses on removing 10 mental blocks. As von Oech’s book title suggests, it can take a whack on the side of the head to jolt us out of our anticreative attitudes.

The first mental block, “The Right Answer,” is the well-learned assumption that there is one right answer. But this is not so. We should look for the second right answer, the third right answer, and more. A later right answer prob- ably will be more creative than the first.

Von Oech’s second block, “That’s Not Logical,” is based on the common assumption that logical thinking is better than illogical thinking. However, illogical thinking stimulates the imaginative play and new perspectives that can generate creative ideas.

A third block to creative thinking is “Follow the Rules.” Instead of following the rules, said von Oech, we should play the revolutionary and challenge rules. He rec- ommended holding “rule-inspecting and rule-discarding” sessions.

Pressure to “Be Practical” is his fourth block. Instead of being practical, we should ask creativity-stimulating “What if?” questions and encourage “what-iffing” in others.

“Avoid Ambiguity” is the fifth block. In fact, a period of ambiguity is an integral part of creative problem solving. Such ambiguity inspires imaginative solutions.

Von Oech’s sixth block is “To Err Is Wrong.” While a fear of making mistakes inhibits trying new things, creative innovation necessarily requires making errors and even failing. Thomas Watson, founder of IBM, claimed, “The way to suc- ceed is to double your failure rate” (von Oech, 1983, p. 93).

The seventh block is the notion that “Play Is Frivo- lous.” Countless creative innovations and scientific discov- eries have been born by playing with ideas, and childlike thinking, humor, and playing with ideas are common traits of creative people.

Block number eight is “That’s Not My Area.” This block is an excuse for not even trying to solve a problem. Many innovations are born by adapting ideas from outside a field.

“Don’t Be Foolish,” block nine, is another cultural barrier. Said von Oech, you should occasionally play the fool, and you certainly should be aware of when you or oth- ers are putting down a creative “fool.”

The 10th and last block is the self-squelcher: “I’m Not Creative.” If you seriously believe this, you will prove your- self to be correct.

Do you need an occasional whack on the side of the head?

BOX 9.2

Tips for Strengthening Creativity

• Know when to be creative and when to conform. For example, be creative in artistic and research projects; do not be creative on multiple-choice exams or by violating normal school requirements.

• Find out what you are best at. Experiment and explore; take risks and challenge yourself. You might discover new talents.

• Be motivated from inside yourself, not from the outside. Work to please yourself; do things that interest you. Seek satisfaction in a job well done.

• Do not let personal problems stop your thinking and your work. Accept that everyone sometimes has problems, and try to take them in stride. Work can take your mind off problems.

• Do not take on more—or less—than you can handle. Find the balance that allows you to do a thorough job but without accomplishing less than you could.

• Be persistent. Do not let frustration, boredom, or fear of failure stop your creative work. Finish what you start—but also know when to quit if you hit a dead end.

• Make your environment more creative. Do your parents, teachers, and friends support your creative efforts? Does your room inspire creative thinking? Can you change your environment so that it inspires your creativity?

Source: Based on “How to Develop Student Creativity.” Published by ASCD, 1996.

180 Chapter 9

Some useful types of exercises for stimulating flu- ency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration follow:

1. With “What would happen if  .  .  .?” exercises, stu- dents list consequences for unlikely events. The events may be imaginary or potentially real. What would happen:

If each person had an eye in the back of his or her head?

If we did not have computers? If the British had won the Revolutionary War? If the only musical instruments were drums? If there were no gravity in this room? If people with blond hair were not allowed in

hotels or restaurants and could not vote? If the earth shifted and your town became the

north pole? If Edison had become a plumber and we had no

lightbulbs? If no one ever smiled? If everyone were a litterbug? If we had no bricks, metal, or wood to build

homes? If we had no automobiles, Internet, video games,

peanut butter, bicycles, football? 2. Thinking of product improvements is another type of

open-ended question. Students may be asked to think of improvements for any product or process— pencils, desks, classrooms, skateboards, pianos, school lunches, soda pop, kitchen sinks, the school (or city) bus system, popcorn, bathtubs, computers, bicycles, jogging shoes, and so on.

3. Thinking of unusual uses for common objects is probably the single oldest creativity test item; it also makes a good exercise. How might we use discarded rubber tires? A coat hanger? Empty plastic gallon milk containers? Plastic grocery bags? A wooden stick? A sheet of paper? Leftover and wasted cafete- ria food?

4. Posing problems and paradoxes is intrinsically interesting and challenging. A problem may require a solution, or a puzzling situation may require a logical explanation. The problem may be realistic or fanciful. For example, how can bicycle thefts be eliminated? How can the lunch menu be improved? What can we buy for parents for Christmas, Hanukah, or Kwanzaa for $20? How can the school (family) electricity bill be reduced? How can our health be improved? What can be done for Mr. Smith, a former night watchman who is 55 years old, out of work, with no special skills? How could we remove a stubborn elephant from

about desirable creative characteristics, attitudes, habits, and lifestyles.

Students can also learn principles of creative think- ing such as the following:

●● Creativity will help you live a more interesting, suc- cessful, and enjoyable life.

●● Creative people are not rigid; they look at things from different points of view.

●● Creative people are aware of pressures to conform— to be like everybody else.

●● Creative people are not nonconformers all the time. ●● Creative thinking includes taking risks and making

mistakes—and the more creative the idea is, the greater is the risk of mistakes and failure.

●● Creative people play with ideas, consider lots of pos- sibilities, use techniques, think analogically, evaluate their ideas, and get their ideas into action.

●● Creative people use, and don’t waste, their talents.

strengthening Creative aBilities

In Chapter 8 we itemized abilities that logically underlie creativity. It is a common and reasonable strategy to try to strengthen creative abilities through practice and exercise, the same way we strengthen skills of reading, math, solv- ing chemistry problems, and shooting baskets. We will look again at some of those abilities, noting strategies, exercises, or materials that aim at strengthening each abil- ity. Note that most activities not only exercise creative abilities but also implicitly raise creativity consciousness and bend attitudes in a creative direction.

Note also that there is a thin-to-nonexistent line between creative abilities and many thinking skills. Bloom’s (1974) classic higher-order thinking skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation were listed in Chapter 8 as creative abilities. Other “thinking skills” such as critical thinking, reasoning, planning, and organizing are, obvi- ously, essential to creative problem solving.Thinking skills are discussed in Chapter 10.

fluenCy, flexiBility, originality, elaBora- tion Many types of questions and problems exercise these traditional creative abilities. Students can do the exercises as a class, perhaps following brainstorming rules, or else individually. One method that gets students involved is to divide them into problem-solving teams. All teams work on the same problem and then report all or their best ideas to the entire class. Students are often surprised at the different problem interpretations, approaches, and ideas from the other groups. The surprising differences encour- age them to risk putting forth their own creative ideas.

Creativity II 181

Detecting missing information. What’s missing here? What else do we need to know?

Identifying important aspects of a problem. What’s relevant? Essential? What should we focus on? What can we ignore?

Clarifying and simplifying the problem. Checkout service at a discount store is very slow. What needs to be done?

Identifying subproblems. What problems are related to the main problem? What problems will follow from each solution?

Proposing alternative problem definitions. This exercise asks questions such as those posed in the “In what ways might we  .  .  .?” tactic of the CPS model (Chapter 8).

Defining the problem more broadly to open up new solution possibilities. What is it, generally, that we wish to accomplish? What is a broader view of this problem?

visualization and imagination Visualization and imagination are, obviously, central creative abilities (e.g., Daniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994; Piirto, 2004). Most visu- alization and imagination activities ask students to relax, shut their eyes, and visualize some colorful narration—for example, “Now put a lightbulb in each hand. . . . Hold your hands straight out to the side. . . . Pretend that your light- bulbs are jet engines. . . . Run down the street for a take- off. . . .” (Eberle, 1995).

Another exercise guaranteed to elicit visualization is a creative writing activity suggested by Helman and Larson (1980). They suggest that teachers search newspa- pers for interesting story headlines and have students cre- ate their own versions of stories that might be based on the unusual headlines. The familiar grocery store tabloids pro- vide an endless supply of candidate headlines. Among the winners are these mirth-inspiring entries: “Angry Dad Sells Bratty Kids,” “Baby Born Talking Gives Dad Win- ning Lottery Numbers,” “Lightning Bolt Zaps Coffin—and Corpse Comes Back to Life!” “Titanic Survivor Afloat for 80 Years,” “Teacher Picks up Hitchhiking Ghost,” and “Woman Weds Two-Headed Man—and Gets Sued for Bigamy!”

analogiCal thinking As we will see in the next sec- tion, analogical thinking is not just a cognitive ability; it is also the single most common and important creative think- ing technique used—consciously or unconsciously—by creatively productive people (Davis, 2004; Gordon, 1961). Teachers and G/T coordinators can make up activities,

the living room? How can the Three Bears prevent burglaries?

Here are some examples of problems requiring explanations: The principal suddenly cancels recess. Why? The grass behind billboards in pas- tures is often lush. Why? Ten paintings were dis- covered missing from the art gallery, but there was no sign of a break-in. How could they have disappeared?

5. With design problems, students can design an ideal school, an airplane for hauling nervous kangaroos, a better lawnmower, more functional clothes, safer ways to travel, a more efficient way to serve lunch in the cafeteria, new sandwiches or other treats for McDonald’s, a better mousetrap, and so on.

Let’s look at each ability more specifically. Fluency can be exercised by having students list things that are, for example, round, square, sweet, sour, blue, white, made of metal, made of wood, long and slender, short and stubby, smell good, taste bad, or have sharp edges. Some flexibility exercises ask students to look at things from different per- spectives: How does this room look to a tidy housekeeper? A hungry mouse? An alien from outer space? How does a highway look to a tire? A crow? A lost pilot? Originality exercises encourage students to develop unique solutions that differ from others. One effective exercise is to ask stu- dents to discard their first idea and think of others, or to modify their first idea and take it in a different direction. Elaboration exercises require the learner to build on a basic idea—for example, developing the dog-walking or cat-petting machine in detail (measurements, materials, costs) or elaborating and embellishing a short story, draw- ing, invention, class outing or field trip, or creative dramat- ics people machine.

sensitivity to ProBlems Exercises aimed at strength- ening problem sensitivity should have the learners find problems, detect difficulties, or identify missing informa- tion. Therefore, one type of exercise is having students ask questions about an ambiguous situation or even a common object. For example, what questions could you ask about clouds, Mexico, Mickey Mouse, a computer, the moon, or the school lunch program? Another type of problem sensi- tivity exercise would begin with “What don’t we know about . . .?” or “What is wrong with . . .?”

ProBlem defining Problem defining is a complex ability. Relevant exercises revolve around the following activities:

Identifying the “real” problem. What really needs attention (fixing)? What are we really trying to do?

182 Chapter 9

Here is one result:

Merry-go-round

Music, wild horses

Galloping, playing, laughing

Thrilling, wondering, mastering, owning the world

Ticket to ride.

Said Stanish, such a technique for writing a cin- quain may be used to write about oneself, to capture the essence of a reading assignment or an important person one has studied, or as the conclusion to a unit of study. Try it. Some of Stanish’s (1988) other exercises include the following:

In what ways is our circulatory system like a tree?

Investigate the use of spirals in computer art, Van Gogh paintings, the human face, the horns of ani- mals, floral patterns, religious temples.

If I were a hawk, in what ways might I assert an opinion?

Something that few people know about me is . . . .

Create a humorous drawing that merges two mean- ings of a word (for example, horn, school, bark, sock, punch).

What kind of sound would an exclamation point (question mark, dollar sign) make?

Invent a Rube Goldberg machine, with at least five steps, to time your suntan (walk your dog, tickle an armadillo’s stomach).

Personal Creative thinking teChniques

Personal creative thinking techniques are methods that are developed and used, consciously and unconsciously, by every creative person, regardless of the subject or content of his or her creations. This topic lies at the core of central questions such as “Where do ideas come from?” and “What is the nature of the internal creative process?” (Davis, 1981a).

Most personal techniques are analogical in nature. That is, the innovator based the idea for the creation on a news event; an historical event; or an earlier book, movie, melody, art or architecture style, invention, scientific dis- covery, business idea, some other previous innovation, or some phenomenon in nature. Indeed, whenever we hear the phrase “was inspired by . . .” or “was based on . . .,” we can be sure that a deliberate or accidental analogical tech- nique was used by the innovator.

with the format of questions such as “How is a hamburger like a good day at school?,” “What animal is like a bass fiddle and why?,” “What kind of weather (animal, fish, vegetable, car, book, fish, sport, magazine, etc.) is like you?,” and perhaps “What color is sadness?” or “How can noise be seen?” In the next section we will see the direct analogy method, which involves finding ideas by asking how nature has solved similar problems—for example, “How do animals, birds, and plants keep warm in winter?,” “What could have given a cave dweller the idea for a spear?,” and “What do you think was the connection?”

resisting Premature Closure Most children and adults are guilty of grabbing the first idea that presents itself. However, considering many ideas and deferring judgment are two of the most basic principles of creative problem solving, principles that students should thor- oughly understand. Resisting premature closure also results in more original ideas. Brainstorming, with heavy emphasis on the rationale behind deferring judgment, should help with this pivotal ability (or attitude).

other Creativity exercises

Many types of creativity and problem-solving exercises may be used to strengthen creative abilities. Some are rela- tively simple, divergent-thinking exercises; others ask for more complex aesthetic products for, or solutions to, diffi- cult invention or design problems.

In his classic book, Lessons from the Hearthstone Traveler, Bob Stanish (1988) included instruction and exercises in these areas: poetry writing (cinquains, dia- manté), creative writing, humor, analogical thinking, val- ues, recognizing patterns in nature, idea-finding techniques, the CPS model, idea evaluation, and more. Consider the cinquain writing strategy:

Select a title word (for example, merry-go-round).

Brainstorm words (or phrases) associated with the title (for example, wild horses, beasts, children, music, mirrors, ticket to ride).

Brainstorm a second list of “-ing” words descriptive of the title (for example, smiling, laughing, playing, circling, spinning, galloping, running).

Brainstorm a third list of feeling words also ending in “-ing” (for example, exciting, wondering, thrilling, mastering, owning the world, riding high).

Write the title on one line, two associated words on the second line, three “-ing” words on the third line, four feeling “-ing” words on the fourth line, and another word associated with the title on the fifth line.

Creativity II 183

Macbeth, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Richard II, and other plays. He drew from Plutarch’s Lives to write Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus. Troilus and Cressida came from various accounts of the story of Troy.

Contemporary novelists and screenwriters continue to draw ideas analogically from identifiable sources. The Star Wars series was based partly on an effective personal creative thinking technique used by George Lucas. While writing the script for Star Wars, Lucas read books on mythology. Said Lucas in a Time magazine interview, “I wanted Star Wars to have an epic quality, and so I went back to the epics.” Thus, in the movie we find a young man who must prove his manhood to himself and to his father; rescues a princess in distress; has an older and wiser men- tor (actually, two—Ben Kenobi and Yoda); and battles with a villain, Darth Vader. Some western movies have been built deliberately around the same principles.

Consider the marvelous Harry Potter books and movies. J. K. Rowling borrowed widely from young adult culture to create earwax-tasting jellybeans or broomstick- riding sports events. The list of creations and innovations produced via personal creative thinking techniques, usu- ally analogical in nature, is almost endless. At the same time, we should not lose sight of unexplainable creative genius and inspiration. Although Ernest Hemingway drew ideas from his travels and World War II, he also said, “The stuff comes alive and turns crazy on ya’.”

developing Personal Creative thinking techniques

Students may be encouraged to develop personal creative thinking techniques in several ways. First, students should understand how even extraordinarily creative people have “found” ideas. This demystifies creativity and helps con- vince students that they can also build legitimately on existing ideas without feeling “uncreative.” After all, if William Shakespeare, Franz Liszt, George Lucas, and J. K. Rowling can borrow plots, tunes, and ideas, so can students.

Second, some recurrent personal creative thinking techniques may be teachable. For example, some tech- niques include these strategies:

1. Deliberately using analogical and metaphorical thinking. For example, in aesthetic creations stu- dents can find ideas by looking at what others have done and where their ideas came from. Students can learn to ask these questions: What else is like this? What has worked for others? What could I adapt from similar problems or situations? Does history or literature suggest ideas? What would professionals do (Davis, 2004)?

An important point is that every single one of the standard techniques described in the next section origi- nated as a personal creative thinking technique—a method that some creative person used in his or her day-to-day, high-level creative thinking. The standard techniques are unconscious methods made conscious, knowable, and teachable.

To present the f lavor of personal creative thinking techniques, let’s look at a few examples. In science, Einstein used what he called “mental experiments.” In his most noted example, he once imagined himself to be a tiny being riding through space on a ray of light, which helped him develop his general theory of relativity.

In art we find recurrent subjects and styles with every famous painter, and these subjects and styles reflect their personal creative thinking techniques. Picasso, for example, is known for his African, harlequin, blue, and pink (rose) periods, during which his paintings were inspired by particular themes. He also deliberately disas- sembled faces and other elements and put them back together in more original arrangements. Paul Gauguin painted South Pacific natives in his unique style, time and again. Edgar Degas is noted for his graceful ballerinas. Renoir’s trademark is his soft pastel, female subjects and still life subjects. Georges Seurat used a “dot” style (poin- tillism), often with water and sailboats as subjects.

Seurat’s most famous painting, Sunday Afternoon on the Isle of La Grande Jatte, inspired the Broadway musical Sunday Afternoon in the Park with George. Andrew Lloyd Weber’s Cats was based on T. S. Eliot’s Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats.

Even Leonardo da Vinci reportedly wandered Italian streets, sketchbook in hand, looking for interesting faces for his painting The Last Supper. Throughout art history, ideas for paintings have been taken from mythology, the Bible, or historical events.

All of Franz Liszt’s Hungarian Rhapsodies were drawn from the folk tunes of Hungarian gypsies. Tchaikovsky, too, developed folk tunes into symphonies. Aaron Copland’s marvelous Appalachian Spring was based on the folk tune Simple Gifts. Even the ever-popular Star Spangled Banner came from an English drinking song.

Cartoonists continually use deliberate analogical thinking to find ideas. For example, after the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was portrayed as the powerless Wiz- ard of Oz behind the curtain—“I am Saddam the great and powerful!” Professional comedians also use personal crea- tive thinking techniques for their unique type of humor, their original delivery, and the content of their material.

Toward the end of the 16th century, Holinshed’s Chronicles, a history book, was published. William Shakespeare used it extensively as a source of ideas for

184 Chapter 9

in 1954 of the Creative Education Foundation, identified the conditions and listed the rules for brainstorming. The main principle is deferred judgment: Idea evaluation is postponed until later. Deferred judgment implicitly creates a receptive, creative atmosphere—an appreciation for novel ideas and a predisposition to find them. Osborn (1963) noted, simply enough, that any type of criticism or evaluation (including praise for clever ideas during this ideation process) interferes with thinking of imaginative ideas: You cannot do both at once. And the purpose of any brainstorming session is to generate a long list of possible problem solutions.

Brainstorming may be used in the classroom for (1) teaching brainstorming as an effective creative thinking technique; (2) practicing creative thinking (and thus strengthening attitudes and abilities); and perhaps (3) solv- ing some pressing school problem, such as high absentee- ism, messy school grounds, drug problems, traffic problems, bicycle thefts, raising money, selling play tick- ets, and so on.

Osborn’s four ground rules are simple:

1. Criticism is ruled out. This is deferred judgment. Deferring judgment contributes to the creative atmo- sphere, which is essential for uninhibited imagina- tions to work.

2. Freewheeling is welcomed. The wilder an idea is, the better it is. Seemingly preposterous ideas can lead to imaginative yet workable solutions.

3. Quantity is wanted. This principle reflects the pur- pose of the session: to produce a long list of ideas, thus increasing the likelihood of finding good solu- tions to the problem.

4. Combination and improvement are sought. This lengthens the idea list. Actually, during the session, students should be encouraged to spontaneously “hitchhike” or “piggyback” on each other’s ideas, with one idea inspiring the next.

Variations on brainstorming include reverse brain- storming, in which new viewpoints are found by turning the problem around. For example, consider these ques- tions: How can we increase vandalism? How can we increase the electric bill? How can we stifle creativity? How can we decrease morale? Reverse brainstorming quickly points out what currently is being done incorrectly and implicitly suggests solutions. With stop-and-go brain- storming, short (about 10-minute) periods of brainstorm- ing are interspersed with short periods of evaluation. This helps keep the group on target, selecting the apparently most profitable directions. In the Phillips 66 technique (also known as the Phillips 66 Buzz Session), small groups of six brainstorm for 6 minutes, after which a member of

2. Modifying, combining, and improving present ideas. 3. Starting with the goal—perhaps an ideal or perfect

solution, such as having the problem solve itself— and working backward to deduce what is required to reach that goal.

4. Asking yourself how the problem might be solved 50, 100, or 200 years in the future.

Because personal creative thinking techniques develop (1) in the course of doing creative things or (2) from instruction by people who use and understand such techniques, G/T students should become involved in inher- ently creative activities such as art, photography, creative writing, acting, journalism, independent research, com- puter programming, or other activities requiring creative thinking and problem solving.

Mentorships may be especially effective because they involve many hours of direct, personal work with a creative professional. Field trips lead to exposure to experts, creative ideas, and sophisticated elaborations and embellishments of ideas.

Visitors can also teach personal creative thinking techniques. For example, school districts in some states contract with a different visiting artist or writer each school year. In this way children have a close view of the creative processes of different artists during their school years. University and industry researchers and other crea- tive professionals may also be invited to share their expe- riences related to creative discoveries and creative thinking.

standard Creative thinking teChniques

Several well-known methods for producing new ideas and new idea combinations are taught in most university and professional creativity training courses. These strategies may also be taught to middle and high school students and to gifted and talented elementary students.

The techniques of brainstorming, attribute listing, the CPS model, and others are taught, for example, in the classic workbooks by Stanish (1977, 1981, 1988, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001; Eberle & Stanish, 1980, 1996) in a form that is comprehensible to young learners.

It is worth repeating that every standard creative thinking technique began as a personal technique that some creative person explained and thus made conscious and teachable.

Brainstorming

Alex Osborn, cofounder of the New York advertising agency Batten, Barton, Dursten, and Osborn and founder

Creativity II 185

students whether they have ideas they wish to contribute. If a serious problem (for example, messy hallways) is the focus, the leader can give the group 48 hours’ advance notice of the problem. Gifted and talented students can also learn to organize and lead brainstorming sessions.

Whereas teachers and gifted students can learn to lead brainstorming sessions of all varieties, they can do so better with training. When brainstorming groups were led by trained facilitators, groups produced more ideas and were more likely to overcome the typical barriers to suc- cessful brainstorming, such as applying judgment inappro- priately or giving up in the group (Hunsaker, 2005). Isaksen and Gaulin (2005) remind us also that brainstorm- ing is only part of the creative process.

idea evaluation Listing wild ideas does not represent the complete problem-solving process. Generating a pool of ideas is only the first step. Therefore, a brainstorming session can be followed by an idea evaluation session. The creative process generally shifts between divergent and convergent thinking. Participants need to evaluate the ideas and narrow the possibilities to a few workable solutions that they can put into action (Treffinger et al., 2013). Idea evaluation would be most important if the class intended to present the school principal (or the mayor) with some blue-ribbon solutions to a real current problem. The group can brainstorm evaluation criteria such as the following: Will it work? Can the school afford it? Will the community (parents, principal, mayor) accept it? Is adequate time available? Are materials available? As we saw in the previ- ous chapter, the most relevant criteria would be listed across the top of an evaluation matrix, with the specific ideas itemized in rows down the left column. Table 9.1 shows one evaluation matrix that was constructed to

each group reports either the best ideas or all ideas to the larger group. The name comes from the person who devel- oped the activity, J. Donald Phillips, a former president of Hillsdale College in Michigan, who wanted to increase individual participation in large groups.

Nominal brainstorming groups (Katzenbach, 1998, as cited in Isaksen & Gaulin, 2005) may not be groups at all and are probably inappropriately named. They are groups in name only and can be very small groups with common goals or even “groups” of one (hardly a group). They follow the guidelines for brainstorming, with indi- viduals writing their ideas and sharing them afterward. In one study of brainstorming, nominal groups generated more ideas than some real groups that were not facilitated by a leader (Isaksen  & Gaulin, 2005), although not as many ideas as some real groups that were facilitated by trained leaders. In the same study, the brainwriting varia- tion of brainstorming groups generated the most ideas when compared with other kinds of brainstorming groups. In brainwriting, the participants write their ideas down and share them with others during the sessions so that they can build on one another’s ideas. Electronic brainwriting involves participants sharing and building on one another’s ideas through e-mail, posts, and text messages.

It is worthwhile to try to run a classroom brainstorm- ing session. The teacher begins by discussing creativity and creative ideas, which leads to the subject of brainstorming as one method that stimulates creative thinking. The four brainstorming rules are discussed, and a problem is selected, such as “How can we raise money for new playground equipment?” or “How can we turn the classroom into another planet?” A volunteer scribe lists ideas on the black- board. The teacher–leader’s role is to ask, “Anyone else have an idea?” Or the leader might specifically ask quieter

taBle 9.1 Example of Evaluation Matrix*

IDEAS CRITERIA

Cost Effect on Teachers

Educational Effects

School Spirit Effect

Effect on Students

Effect on Community Totals

Buy class sweatshirts 13 12 11 13 13 13 15

Establish school baseball team 22 12 0 12 12 12 6

Start interclass competition 0 0 11 13 12 0 6

Get new school building 23 13 12 13 13 22 6

Get rid of troublemakers 23 0 23 11 23 23 211

*POSITIVE EFFECTS *NEGATIVE EFFECTS 13 5 Excellent 21 5 Slightly Negative 12 5 Good 22 5 Somewhat Negative 11 5 Fair 23 5 Very Negative 0 5 Not Applicable

186 Chapter 9

evaluate ideas brainstormed for the problem “How can we build school spirit?” The total scores are guides to ideas that students may wish to pursue.

The use of objective criteria:

1. Helps evaluate the ideas in a mostly unbiased manner.

2. Helps students learn to evaluate as part of the overall creative problem-solving process.

3. Teaches an effective evaluation technique, one that is used in both the CPS model and Future Problem Solving.

4. Requires students to consider many components and views of the problem.

5. Often helps the group explore its values relative to the problem at hand (what criteria are truly relevant?).

6. Prevents idea evaluation from becoming a personal attack on specific children.

7. Helps children understand that thinking of “silly” and “far-fetched” ideas truly can lead to good, prac- tical solutions to problems.

Evaluation sessions may follow the use of any of the creative thinking techniques in this section.

attribute listing

Robert Crawford (1978), designer of attribute listing, argued, “Each time we take a step we do it by changing an attribute or a quality of something, or else by applying that same quality or attribute to some other thing.” Thus, attrib- ute listing is both a theory of the creative process and a prac- tical creative thinking technique. According to Crawford’s definition, there are two forms of attribute listing: (1) attrib- ute modifying and (2) attribute transferring. Either strategy may be used individually or in a group.

attriBute modifying The problem solver lists main attributes (characteristics, dimensions, parts) of a problem object, then thinks of ways to improve each attribute. For example, a group of students might invent new types of candy bars or breakfast cereals by first writing important attributes (size, shape, f lavor, ingredients, color, texture, packaging, nutritional value, name, intended market, and so on) on the blackboard, and then listing specific ideas under each main attribute. Particularly good combinations are picked out of the lists of ideas. Not-so-good but never- theless entertaining ideas—the 2-pound “Popeye’s Delight” candy bar containing spinach and created for body builders—will keep enthusiasm high. In university design engineering courses, attribute modifying is called the substitution method of design.

Attribute listing is simple, and it works—whether used for inventing breakfast cereals, writing short story plots, or solving any other problem in which attributes can be identified. For example, the problem of messy hallways might be attacked by listing attributes such as student hab- its, student awareness, available trash containers, discipli- nary consequences, and/or other aspects of the problem. Students list specific ideas for improving each attribute.

attriBute transferring This technique is a pure case of analogical thinking—transferring ideas from one context to another. We noted earlier how deliberate ana- logical thinking is used by creative persons in many aes- thetic and scientific areas. As one classroom application, ideas for a creative and memorable parents’ night or open house might be found by borrowing ideas from a carnival or circus, Disneyland, E.T., the “Wild West,” a funeral par- lor, or a Star Wars or Harry Potter movie.

morphological synthesis

Morphological synthesis is a simple extension of attribute list- ing (Allen, 1962; Davis, 2004). Specific ideas for one attribute or dimension of a problem are listed along one axis of a matrix; ideas for a second attribute are listed along the other axis. Plenty of idea combinations are found in the cells of the matrix. One sixth-grade class invented new sandwich ideas with the morphological synthesis technique (see Figure 9.1). With a third dimension (type of bread) you would have a cube with three-way combinations in each cell. Davis (2003a, 2003c) used morphological synthesis to generate hundreds of exer- cises for teaching values and moral thinking.

The method may be used with a half-dozen dimensions by listing ideas in columns. The columns may be cut into strips that can slide up or down to create hundreds or even thousands of combinations made by reading horizontally.

One of your authors successfully used morphologi- cal synthesis to have students create political cartoons. The students put the names of familiar cartoon and comic strip characters in one bowl and current news events in another bowl. Pairs of students drew one item from each bowl and created a political cartoon. Figure 9.2 depicts the combina- tion of Winnie the Pooh and the Afghan War. Figure 9.3 shows the combination of Peanuts and the space shuttle explosion in 2003.

idea Checklists: sCamPer

Sometimes, one can find a checklist that suggests solutions for a problem. For example, the Google search results are often used as a checklist for problems like “Who can fix my laptop?” or “Where can I get a haircut?” Examining a

Creativity II 187

figure 9.1 A morphological sandwich.

gift-store website or catalog—or browsing through a gift store, clothing store, bookstore, cheese-and-sausage store, or gourmet kitchen/food shop, which often can be done on the Internet—is also using an idea checklist.

One checklist technique is called the SCAMPER method: Substitute, Combine, Adopt, Modify-Magnify- Minify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Reverse-Rearrange. SCAMPER is an acronym for idea-spurring verbs to improve objects or generate ideas. The SCAMPER list is a modification by Bob Eberle of the work of Alex Osborn. Each letter in SCAMPER stands for a different strategy (see Table 9.2). Although SCAMPER is often used to teach students the inventing process, it can also be used to help students look at common objects or ways of doing things in new ways.

synectics methods

Synectics comes from the Greek word synecticos, and means the joining together of apparently unrelated ele- ments. Work with creative thinking groups led William J. J. Gordon, originator of the synectics methods, to identify strategies that creative people use unconsciously. He made these strategies conscious and teachable in a form for adults (Gordon, 1961; Gordon & Poze, 1980) and for chil- dren (Gordon, 1974; Gordon & Poze, 1972a, 1972b). The process involves (1) making the strange familiar by com- bining something familiar with a new problem to solve the original problem and (2) making the familiar strange by combining something new or strange with something familiar to gain new insights on an already familiar idea.

188 Chapter 9

figure 9.2 A cartoon created with morphological synthesis by combining Winnie the Pooh and the Afghan War. Source: Used with permission of Del Siegle.

figure 9.3 A cartoon created with morphological synthesis by combining Peanuts characters and the space shuttle explosion. Source: Used with permission of Del Siegle.

taBle 9.2 Sample Questions for Making Modifications Based on the SCAMPER Acronym

Letter Question

Substitute What can you use instead of the object?

Combine Which can be combined or added together?

Adapt What else is like this? What can be copied or imitated?

Modify-Magnify-Minify Can you change an attribute? Can you make something larger or stronger? Can you make something lighter or smaller?

Put to New Uses Can it be used in a way other than how it was intended to be used?

Eliminate What can you take away or remove?

Rearrange-Reverse Can you interchange parts or change the order?

Creativity II 189

Synectics methods can be used in the classroom either as creativity exercises or as material for lessons in techniques of creative thinking. Synectics is a valuable teaching tool because students process content at complex levels of thinking when they use the method, and teachers gain insight into students’ understanding of key ideas.

direCt analogy With this method, the person is asked to think of ways that similar problems are solved in nature by animals, birds, f lowers, weeds, bugs, worms, lizards, and so on. For example, ideas for conserving energy could be found by asking how animals keep warm in winter.

In a creativity workshop for the elderly, many expressed concern for their personal safety. With a synec- tics approach, the problem became, “How do animals, plants, and birds protect themselves, and how can these ideas help the elderly?” The list included spray cans of skunk scent, slip-on fangs and claws (mildly poisonous), a compressed air can that screams, an electronic transmitter that secretly “yells” for police assistance, traveling only in groups, camouf lage, disguises (for example, wearing a police uniform), and others.

Personal analogy Imagine you are a piece of candy sitting quietly with your candy friends on the shelf of the local drugstore. A little boy walks in, places a dollar on the counter and points at you. How do you feel? What are your thoughts? Describe your experiences for the next 15 minutes. The purpose of such exercises is to give ele- mentary students practice with the personal analogy crea- tive thinking technique. With this strategy, new perspectives are found by becoming part of the problem, usually a problem object. What would you be like if you were a highly efficient can opener? A captivating short story? A truly exciting and valuable educational learning experience for children?

fantasy analogy Problem solvers think of fantastic, farfetched, and perhaps ideal solutions that can lead to cre- ative yet practical, ideas. Gordon sees fantasy analogy as a type of Freudian wish fulfillment. For example, we can ask how to make the problem solve itself: How can we make the hallways keep themselves clean? How can we get par- ents to want to attend open house? How can we get the school board to want to give us a new instructional materi- als center? Some years ago, design engineers probably asked, “How can we make refrigerators defrost them- selves? Ovens clean themselves? Automobile brakes adjust themselves?” More recently engineers asked, “How do we make cars drive themselves? Park themselves?” These questions employed fantasy analogy.

symBoliC analogy A fourth synectics technique is called symbolic analogy; other names are compressed con- flict and book titles. Your dictionary will call it an oxymo- ron. The strategy is to think of a two-word phrase or “book title” that seems self-contradictory, such as “careful haste” or “gentle toughness.” The compressed conflict would be related to a particular problem and would stimulate ideas. For example, the phrase “careful haste” might be used by educators or firefighters to stimulate ideas for quickly and safely evacuating a large school building. “Gentle tough- ness” might stimulate ideas for designing automobile tires, durable fabrics, or long-distance bicycles.

In her book Creativity in the Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight, Alane Starko (1995) provided an excel- lent example of a teacher making the familiar strange (see Box 9.3) with a six-step synectics process (Joyce, Weil, & Showers, 1992):

1. Students describe the situation as they see it now. 2. Students suggest direct analogies, select one, and

explore it.

BOX 9.3

Imagine that Mr. Lopez’s class has been studying Martin Luther King’s march in Selma, Alabama.

Mr. Lopez: Today we are going to talk again about Dr. King’s march in Selma, but we are going to think about it in a new way. What do you remember about the March? [Records students’ responses on the board.]

Yes, those are the facts. Next we are going to use synectics to help us understand the facts in new and dif- ferent ways. I’d like you to think for moment about an animal that reminds you of the march on Selma.

Sam: It reminds me of mosquitoes. There are lots of mosquitoes in Alabama—huge ones. I bet the marchers got bit a lot.

(continued)

190 Chapter 9

Mr. Lopez: That could be true, but we are not trying to think about animals that actually were on the march, but animals that are like the march in some way. One way to do that is to think about one of the characteris- tics of the march and see if there is an animal that also has that characteristic.

Gina: Well, it could be like coral. Coral has lots of little parts, and the march had lots of people.

Jared: Yeah, but coral’s dead. The march- ers weren’t!

Mr. Lopez: When we make analogies there often some characteristics that fit and some that don’t. We’ll think of several alternatives until we find one we can agree on.

Deb: It probably marched like a giant snake down the road.

Diane: I think it was more like an army of fire ants. Each ant alone isn’t very strong, but an army of ants can be strong and dangerous. The march was strong because there were so many people.

Ben: Yes, but the people weren’t violent like fire ants. They were more like a bunch of sheep or—

Maria: Wolves! I read that wolves are really gentle animals; they only kill for food when they need it. They work together in packs to kill much larger animals. [The class decides to work with the idea of wolves.]

Mr. Lopez: All right. Wolves. What does it feel like to be a wolf?

Bob: Furry!

Mr. Lopez: Bob, what kind of feeling might a wolf have? How does it feel to be a wolf?

Bob: Confident. I know I have my wolf- brothers around me.

Katie: Nervous. I don’t like killing, but sometimes I have to. I wish I could eat grass and be a peaceful animal.

Bruce: I would rather be a lone wolf if I could.

Wendy: It’s weird. There could be a lot of fear. A wolf would feel strong but it would be scary to try to kill a moose or some big thing. [The class contin- ues to talk about the feelings a wolf might have. Mr. Lopez continues to record their responses.]

Mr. Lopez: Looking at the things you’ve said about wolves, do you see any words that conflict, words that are opposite or don’t seem to go together? [The class makes several suggestions, including confident/ nervous, peaceful/killing, lone/ brothers, strong/scared. They choose strong/fear as the most interesting conflict.]

Mr. Lopez: OK, can you think of another anal- ogy for strong/fear? You may think of another animal or some type of machine.

Diane: A burglar alarm. It is strong but you wouldn’t have it if you didn’t have fear.

Bob: A bird. Birds are really strong for their size but they fly away at the slightest disturbance.

Wendy: A soldier. It’s not exactly an animal but a soldier is strong enough though he might be afraid.

Deb: Salmon swimming upstream. They have to be really strong but they don’t know where they’re going. They must be afraid.

Ben: How about a building being bombed? It’s strong but afraid it won’t be strong enough.

At this point Mr. Lopez may either help the class select one of these analogies or let individual students select their own. They go back to the original topic, the march on Selma, and write about how the march is like the analogy selected. Deb might write about salmon will- ing to battle the stream for the sake of the next genera- tion, or Bob [might write] about how flocks of birds stick together in times of danger. Each analogy has the poten- tial to bring insight into the strength, motivation, and courage of the marchers.

Source: From “Creativity in the Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight” Published by Addison-Wesley Longman, Incorporated © 1995.

Creativity II 191

involving students in Creative aCtivities

The most logically sound answer to the question “How can we teach creativity?” is this: Involve students in activities that require creative thinking and problem solving. It is nearly assured that creative attitudes, abilities, and skills will be strengthened in the course of this creative involve- ment. It is no accident that Renzulli’s Type III Enrichment (Renzulli & Reis, 2014; see Chapter 7) focuses on devel- oping creativity via individual or small-group projects and investigations of real problems. Appendix 7.1 lists topics in art, science, literature, and so on, that stimulate creative thinking and problem solving. We particularly recommend the Future Problem Solving, FIRST Robotics Competition, Odyssey of the Mind, and Destination ImagiNation pro- grams, which were designed to teach creativity through involvement with real problems and projects.

The G/T teacher-coordinator should be continually alert for opportunities to exercise creative thinking and problem solving in content areas. Available opportunities might also be expanded. Are music, science, and art pro- grams adequate? Are students encouraged to become involved in scientific and aesthetic activities? Are commu- nity resources and mentors being used advantageously?

a knowledge Base On the one hand—and contrary to some strong opinions—it is possible to think creatively “in the abstract.” One does not need a great fund of specialized

3. Students “become” the analogy they selected, creat- ing a personal analogy.

4. Students use descriptions from Steps 2 and 3 to cre- ate a symbolic analogy (compressed conflict).

5. Students generate another analogy based on the compressed conflict.

6. Students use the last analogy (or the rest of the syn- ectics experience) to examine the original task or problem.

implementation Charting

Implementation charting helps gifted children see imple- mentation as a realistic next step in creative thinking, fol- lowing the generation of ideas and the selection of one or more workable solutions. With implementation charting, students prepare a chart specifying both the persons responsible for implementing components of the idea(s) and a completion deadline. For example, if the best idea for increasing school spirit were to sell school sweatshirts, then an implementation chart such as the one in Table 9.3 might be suitable.

Note that there is more than one role of evaluation in creative problem solving. In the present example, the ini- tial ideas were evaluated in an evaluation matrix (Table  9.1). After one or more ideas are selected and the project implemented, a later evaluation can determine whether the project was successful and whether it should be continued.

taBle 9.3 Implementation Chart for Selling School Sweatshirts

Activity Person Responsible Time for Implementation

1. Ask permission for project Ron March 10

2. Design sweatshirt Lateisha, Ruth March 15–20

3. Approve design Student Council March 22

4. Review possible sweatshirt sellers Ana, John March 15–20

5. Make recommendation to Student Council

Ron March 22

6. Order sweatshirts Ana, John March 24

7. Organize student sales campaign a. Posters b. Article in school newspaper c. Article in community newspaper

Tomas, Maria, and Allan Bob, Andy Alice Allan

March 22–31 March 25 March 25–31 March 28

8. Actual beginning of sales Tomas, Maria, and Allan April 10

9. Student Sweatshirt Day Ron, Lateisha, and Ruth April 12

10. Evaluation of success of project Original brainstorming group April 20

192 Chapter 9

Do not be blinded by intelligence test scores; they do not tell the whole story.

Do not let pressure for evaluation get the upper hand.

Encourage divergent ideas; too many “right” ideas are stifling.

Teach how to test each idea systematically.

Create necessities for creative thinking.

Create “thorns in the flesh,” which are opportunities to recognize differences, defects, and unanswered questions.

Encourage the habit of working out the full implica- tion of ideas.

Try to be “adventurous of spirit.”

Do not be afraid to wander off the teaching schedule and try something different.

Torrance (1981a, 1981c, 1995; see also Millar, 1995; Hébert et al., 2002) summarized some signs that creative learning is taking place, which partly represent the benefits of creative teaching and learning. These signs include improved motivation, alertness, curiosity, concentration, and achieve- ment; a charged atmosphere “tingling with excitement”; the combining of activities that cut across curriculum areas; improved communication of ideas and feelings; a boldness in ideas, drawings, stories, and so on; improved self-confidence; improved creative growth and creative expression; a reduction in unproductive behavior, behavior problems, hostility, van- dalism, and apathy; an increase in enthusiasm about school and learning; and improved career aspirations.

Piirto (2004) recommends 13 practical guidelines for how parents and teachers can enhance creativity both at home and at school:

1. Provide a private place for creative work to be done. 2. Provide materials (e.g., musical instruments,

sketchbooks). 3. Encourage and display the child’s creative work but

avoid overly evaluating it. 4. Do your own creative work, and let the child see you

doing it. 5. Set a creative tone. 6. Value the creative work of others. 7. Incorporate creativity values into your family

mythology. 8. Avoid emphasizing sex-role stereotypes. 9. Provide private lessons and special classes.

10. If hardship comes into your life, use it positively to teach the child expression through metaphor.

11. Emphasize that talent is only a small part of creative production, and that discipline and practice are important.

knowledge to brainstorm ideas for improving local traffic conditions, making parents’ night more exciting, or mak- ing Wanda the guinea pig a little happier. Many such prob- lems were posed, and solutions suggested, earlier. On the other hand, one does need a good knowledge base for mak- ing creative contributions in a specialized area, which hap- pens with independent research projects and with real-world creative innovations, for which the inspiration grows out of education and experience. Although there is considerable research that supports the effectiveness of teaching creative thinking strategies or increased divergent thinking (Scott et al., 2004), Hunsaker (2005) reminds us that the missing piece is that nothing in the creative think- ing research assures us that students transfer their skills to their world outside the classroom. We believe this transfer is more likely to occur when students are given an opportu- nity to use the techniques we described to solve real prob- lems that are meaningful to them and to present their solutions to authentic audiences, which are characteristics of the Type III projects of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model.

Creative teaChing and learning

Torrance (1977) stated that “people fundamentally prefer to learn in creative ways,” including exploring, manipulat- ing, questioning, experimenting, risking, testing, and mod- ifying ideas. Said Torrance, learning creatively takes place during the processes of sensing problems, deficiencies, or gaps in information; formulating hypotheses or guesses about a problem; testing, revising, and retesting the hypotheses; and then communicating the results. He explained that problems create tension, thus motivating the learner to ask questions, make guesses, and test the ade- quacy of the guesses, correcting errors and modifying con- clusions if necessary.

Some recommendations for creative teaching, partly from Torrance (1995), include the following:

Maintain high teacher enthusiasm.

Accept individual differences—for example, in pre- ferred ways of learning, learning rates, faults, and so forth.

Permit the curriculum to be different for different students.

Communicate that the teacher is “for” rather than “against” the child.

Encourage and permit self-initiated projects.

Support students against peer conformity pressures.

Allow or encourage a child to achieve success in an area and in a way possible for him or her.

Creativity II 193

12. Allow the child to be “odd”; avoid emphasizing socialization at the expense of creative expression.

13. Use humor, and get creativity training.

fostering academic Creativity

Chapters 8 and 9 have provided quantities of information on the creative personality, the creative process, and crea- tive thinking and problem-solving techniques. Teaching students to apply these techniques to their real world is surely the lifetime goal, but within the classroom it is important for children to learn to apply these techniques to their academic subjects such as math, science, history, and English (Carlson, 2002; Meador  & Granada, 2002; Smutney, 2002; Torrance & Goff, 1990).

An example given by Torrance and Goff (1990) makes it clear. Children can be asked to memorize the date Columbus discovered America, or they can be asked how history would have been different if Columbus had landed in California. Which question is more engaging?

Shallcross (1981) created exercises that could be integrated into specific subject matter. As some examples, consider the following:

1. Sculpt something, using leaves, rocks, paste, and a paper bag (art).

2. List ways to get children to enjoy brushing their teeth (health).

3. Invent a one-step meal-in-one (home arts).

4. Plan a mystery or soap opera series, using the mor- phological synthesis approach (language arts; described in next section).

5. Think of new ways to measure time, water, air, or height (math).

6. Have someone strike three notes on a piano. Use them as the basis for a melody (music).

7. Invent stretching exercises for joggers (physical education).

8. Brainstorm ways that endangered species might be preserved (science).

9. Brainstorm ways that different cultures could learn to understand each other better (social studies).

The last place the reader may expect to incorporate creativity is with the Common Core State Standards. How- ever, Beghetto, Kaufman, and Baer (2015) recently pub- lished an excellent book on how educators can use the Common Core to promote creativity. For example, they suggest using brainstorming to “activate” students’ prior knowledge and identify misconceptions. Or give students an opportunity to do the kind of creative writing that stu- dents are learning to read and analyze as part of the Com- mon Core.

Are you thinking that there isn’t enough time? But wasn’t that listed as an idea squelcher earlier in the chapter?

Creativity training and creative teaching can make a difference for gifted, other, and even troubled students. And yes, indeed, creative teaching does take more time.

Summary

Creative thinking can be measurably increased. Many teachers incorporate creativity training activities into their classrooms.

Goals of creativity training include increasing creativ- ity consciousness and creative attitudes and personality traits, helping students understand creativity, strengthening creative abilities, teaching creativity techniques, involving students in creative activities, and fostering academic creativity.

Creativity consciousness and creative attitudes include an awareness of creativity, valuing creativity, a predisposition to think creatively, a willingness to make mistakes, and others. A teacher can reinforce creative per- sonality traits (e.g., confidence, curiosity, risk taking, play- fulness, artistic interests); promote independent learning, self-evaluation, and fantasy and imagination; help students cope with failure and with peer pressure to conform; estab- lish a creative atmosphere; and raise awareness of blocks to creative thinking.

Creative persons accept personality traits stereotypi- cally associated with the opposite sex, such as autonomy, confidence, and toughness (masculine), along with sensi- tivity, intuition, and responsibility (feminine).

Helping students understand creativity can involve lessons on the importance of creativity, characteristics of creative people, creative abilities, theories of creativity, creativity tests, creativity techniques, blocks and barriers to creativity, and important principles of creativity.

Many types of exercises exist for strengthening crea- tive abilities such as fluency, flexibility, originality, sensi- tivity to problems, problem defining, visualization, analogical thinking, and others.

Personal creativity techniques—usually analogical— are used by every creatively productive person. Examples of these techniques were cited from science, art, music, political cartooning, political satire, theater, moviemaking, and comedy.

194 Chapter 9

Implementation charting includes assigning respon- sibilities and deadlines. Project success can be evaluated.

Involving students in creative activities—such as independent research projects, Future Problem Solving, FIRST Robotics Competition, Odyssey of the Mind, and Destination ImagiNation—is a sound way to develop crea- tive skills, abilities, attitudes, and awarenesses.

A deep knowledge base is important for creative contributions in a specialized area but not for classroom creativity exercises.

According to Torrance, creative teaching and learning includes exploring, questioning, experimenting, testing ideas, and other activities. Creative learning includes sensing a prob- lem; formulating hypotheses or guesses; testing, revising and retesting the hypotheses; and communicating the results.

Some recommendations for creative teaching included maintaining high enthusiasm, accepting individ- ual differences, encouraging self-initiated projects, looking beyond IQ scores, encouraging divergent thinking, creat- ing necessities for creative thinking, providing resources for working out ideas, avoiding sex-role stereotypes, allowing children to be odd, and using humor.

Teaching children to apply creative thinking tech- niques is surely a lifetime goal, but within the classroom, it is important for children to apply these techniques to their academic subjects. Creativity can even be part of the Com- mon Core curriculum.

Creative learning can result in improved motivation, achievement, creativity, self-confidence, school attitudes, and more.

Teachers may help students to develop personal cre- ativity techniques by explaining the techniques used by others, teaching problem-solving strategies such as look- ing for analogically related solutions, working backward from an ideal goal, encouraging involvement in creative activities, and arranging for instruction from creative pro- fessionals who use such techniques.

Standard creative thinking techniques are commonly taught in creativity courses and workshops.

Brainstorming is based on deferred judgment. Varia- tions include reverse brainstorming, stop-and-go brain- storming, the Phillips 66 procedure, nominal brainstorming groups, and brainwriting. Brainstorming groups led by trained leaders performed better.

Students may be taught idea evaluation with an eval- uation matrix.

Attribute listing takes two forms: modifying impor- tant problem attributes and transferring attributes from one situation to another, which is analogical thinking.

Morphological synthesis, an extension of attribute listing, is a matrix approach to generating ideas.

SCAMPER is an acronym for idea-spurring verbs to improve objects or generate ideas.

Four synectics methods include direct analogy— looking for ways that similar problems have been solved in nature; personal analogy, in which ideas are found by becoming a problem object or process; fantasy analogy, in which the thinker looks for farfetched, perhaps ideal solu- tions to problems; and symbolic analogy, in which two- word conflicts are used to stimulate new perspectives.

195

10 Teaching Thinking Skills

Learning OutcOmes

1. Identify the issues in teaching thinking skills.

2. Evaluate the use of indirect teaching, direct teaching, and metacognition of thinking skills.

3. Explain the interrelation of various types of thinking skills.

4. Compare and contrast the use of critical thinking for evaluation versus problem solving.

5. Describe the range of models, programs, and exercises for teaching thinking skills.

6. Analyze the relationship between philosophy and critical thinking.

7. Identify how Talents Unlimited training can foster teachers’ abilities to recognize and nurture critical thinking.

8. Explain how Instrumental Enrichment is designed to improve student thinking and achievement.

9. Identify books and technology for teaching critical thinking skills.

10. Propose a plan to involve parents as partners in teaching thinking skills.

11. Recognize obstacles to effective thinking in oneself and in others.

12. Select thinking-skills exercises and materials to complement curriculum and instruction.

C H A P T E R

T he topic of thinking skills is sufficiently important that expert Arthur Costa (2003) uses the phrase inter- changeably with “intelligent behavior.” According to Costa, developing students’ thinking skills is equiva- lent to helping them become more intelligent, or at least behave more intelligently. He has a good argument.

In today’s schools, teachers want to strengthen the ability of all students to analyze, compare, classify, syn- thesize, generalize, discriminate, infer, plan, predict, see cause-and-effect relations, make good decisions, and more. These key principles are behind the learning and innovation skills of the Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21; 2007) and align with the emphasis on analytical thinking, reasoning, and problem solving in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2015). We want children to think and evaluate critically and logically— for example, about the credibility of messages from salespersons, politicians, celebrities, and others with strong biases and personal interests. While these capacities may be natural, their direct instruction may be necessary if we expect students to refine and apply them (Costa, 2003).

What often distinguishes gifted students from their peers is their outstanding capacity to process information (Parks, 2015), in other words, their capacity to think. All students need access to instruction that develops their

196 Chapter 10

thinking skills; however, gifted students may need experi- ences beyond those regularly provided.

Three basic approaches to “teaching thinking” run throughout this chapter:

●● Strengthening thinking abilities and skills through practice and exercise (indirect approach).

●● Helping students learn conscious and deliberate strategies for reasoning, problem solving, and criti- cal thinking (direct approach).

●● Increasing students’ understanding of their own and others’ thinking (metacognition—thinking about thinking).

We will look at several lists and taxonomies of think- ing skills that can help create a thinking-skills curriculum. We will also review Bloom’s higher taxonomic levels of educational objectives (application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation), which has been a standard guide for teach- ing thinking, and Marzano and Kendall’s (2007) revision of Bloom’s model. A key part of the chapter is teaching critical thinking—a skill that is weak in too many children and adults. Also, we review some high-quality thinking- skills programs and exercise books, and suggest ways to encourage parents to be partners in teaching thinking skills. Finally, we look at criteria for selecting materials and activities for thinking-skills training.

Issues

By way of introduction, the following issues pertain to teaching thinking skills:

Should thinking-skills instruction be infused into existing subjects, taught as a separate subject or course, or both? Integrating thinking skills into the existing curricu- lum seems most appealing to teachers and administrators. Finding space for yet another subject is indeed troublesome.

Language arts and science, for example, are logical places to impart thinking skills because of the natural roles of anal- ysis, reasoning, critical thinking, analogical thinking, evalu- ation, and others (de Bono, 1983). If possible, we recommend both integrating (infusing) thinking skills into existing subjects and teaching thinking as a separate topic or even course.

What should be the content—the skills—for students of different ages? We know that young children think con- cretely, older students more abstractly. On the basis of a six-year research project, Reis (1990b) recommended introducing specific thinking skills approximately in the sequence shown in Table 10.1. The skills introduced at each level would continue to be practiced and reinforced at higher grade levels.

How does one best teach thinking? Alvino (1990) noted that, for some, teaching thinking means only a minor modification of their usual teaching patterns—for example, asking more questions that stimulate students to apply, synthesize, analyze, evaluate, or think criti- cally or creatively, along with modeling “good thinking” habits. For other teachers, creating a “thinking class- room” involves radical changes in teaching and expecta- tions of students. Reis (1990a) said not to tackle too much: Students who are taught fewer thinking skills, but in greater depth, learn them better. She recommended that teachers introduce just a few skills, teach them step by step, demonstrate how to use them in a content area or project, and make certain students practice each skill several times during the year. Burns et al. (2006) pro- vided a four-step process for teaching thinking skills: (1) introduce the skill, (2) teach the skill with familiar content, (3) provide guided practice to real-world con- tent, and (4) prompt transfer to current academic curric- ulum. We discuss Burns’s four steps in more detail later in this chapter.

TABLe 10.1 Introducing Thinking Skills at Different Grade Levels

Early elementary grades (K–2) Creative thinking—brainstorming, plus other fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration exercises; guided imagery

Critical and logical thinking—comparing, contrasting, classifying; patterns and figural relationships

Middle elementary grades (3–4) Creative problem solving and decision making—creative problem solving (CPS model), future problem solving

Critical and logical thinking—deductive and syllogistic reasoning; analogical reasoning; also, learning-to-learn skills

Upper elementary and middle school grades (5–8)

Critical and logical thinking—interpreting, inferring, hypothesizing; analyzing propaganda and bias

Metacognitive skills—planning, monitoring, evaluating

Source: Information from S. M Reis from What to Teach: When to Teach It, 1990.

Teaching Thinking Skills 197

Beyer (1988) stretches the teaching procedure to six partly redundant steps: The teacher (1) introduces the skill by presenting the name, synonyms, a definition, and steps in using the skill, and then asks where students may have used the skill in or outside school; (2) guides practice with the skill, allowing students to apply the skill and reflect on what they did; (3) allows self-directed practice in additional situations that require the use of the skill—for example, in response to teacher questions; (4) shows students how to transfer the skill to other subjects and contexts; (5) guides practice in the new contexts; and (6) allows students to use the thinking skill independently—for example, in response to teacher questions, end-of-chapter questions, and essay assignments, and with new subjects and contexts.

Thinking skills may be taught directively, as stated before, by explaining the thinking skill first, then present- ing examples for practice. Or a teacher may prefer an inductive approach, allowing students to practice the think- ing skill first, then letting the students reflect on the steps and explain (induce) the rule (Beyer, 1988).

How does one evaluate the mastery of thinking skills? Usual achievement tests do not evaluate the mastery of such skills. Some published thinking-skills materials include their own tests. Six standardized tests for measur- ing thinking skills are the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests (Ennis & Millman, 2005), the Ross Test of Higher Cogni- tive Processes (Ross, 1976), the New Jersey Test of Rea- soning Skills (Shipman, 1983), the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Giancarlo-Giffens & Facione, 2008), the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (Halpern, 2007), and the ICAT Critical Thinking Essay Examination (Foun- dation for Critical Thinking, 1996). The problem is that such tests may not measure what you have taught—and if the tests show “no improvement” in thinking skills (which you did not teach), your teaching and your gifted program become suspect. A second issue is that multiple-choice, survey-style inventories are not necessarily the best way to measure critical thinking (Ku, 2009).

A teacher can likely design suitable tests to evaluate students’ mastery of classifying, inferring, predicting, planning, recognizing relationships, and detecting causes and effects, and even more complex thinking skills such as evaluating bias and credibility and explaining an author’s intentions.

How much of teaching thinking skills actually is teaching “attitudes” or “traits”? The answer is, “A lot.” Some important thinking skills are inseparable from per- sonality dispositions—for example, the creative pause (Davis, 2004; de Bono, 1999); respect for evidence; a willingness to search for reasons and alternatives; a will- ingness to withhold, or even reverse, judgments on the basis of facts; open-mindedness; tolerance for ambiguity;

sensitivity to others’ views (Alvino, 1990; Lipman, 1991); and, of course, a creativity consciousness (Davis, 2004).

Arthur Costa (2003) suggests students should develop habits of mind—dispositions or inclinations to use the thinking skills in suitable circumstances. Students must come to value the thinking skill, be alert to opportunities to use it, be capable of using it, and make a commitment to improve the particular thinking skill.

There is an infinite number of habits of mind; how- ever, Costa listed these 16 comparatively complex thinking skills as especially important:

●● Persisting when a solution is not readily apparent. ●● Managing impulsivity. ●● Listening to others with understanding and empathy. ●● Thinking flexibly. ●● Thinking about our own thinking (metacognition). ●● Striving for accuracy and precision. ●● Asking questions and posing problems. ●● Applying past knowledge to new situations. ●● Thinking and communicating, with clarity and

precision. ●● Gathering data through all senses. ●● Creating, imagining, innovating. ●● Responding with wonderment and awe. ●● Taking responsible risks. ●● Finding humor. ●● Thinking independently. ●● Remaining open to continuous learning.

IndIrecT TeAchIng, dIrecT TeAchIng, And MeTAcognITIon

Indirect Teaching of Thinking skills: Including Thinking skills in curriculum

Thinking skills may be taught in a comparatively subtle, indirect fashion, through practice and exercise, separately or within subject matter. For example, a teacher can strengthen classification skills through instruction and practice with classification problems, including multiple classifications and subclassifications. Similarly, to teach analogical thinking, a teacher can use simple exercises of the dog: cat:: canine: ? variety.

In addition to workbook exercises, Costa (1986; Costa & Lowery, 1989) and Swartz and Perkins (1990) recommended that teachers pose problems and ask ques- tions. For example, teachers can ask why, what if, and how questions, not just what questions. They can have students explore paradoxes, dilemmas, and discrepancies. Teachers can also ask students to compare, classify, evaluate, find similarities and differences, find analogical relationships,

198 Chapter 10

induce principles, extrapolate, and so forth. For seatwork, teachers can create their own exercises or use published ones for specific subjects. A problem box permits students to suggest problems for the class to work on. A classroom think tank provides a place where students can spend time working on a favorite interest or project.

Teachers can also model pertinent thinking skills by thinking out loud while analyzing, evaluating, reasoning, or creating.

Problem-based learning (PBL) in science is an exam- ple of thinking skills applied to self-directed science learn- ing and is applicable in all grade levels but particularly in middle and high school levels. PBL originated in medical schools (Sonmez & Lee, 2003), and medical students who learned through PBL were found to be more successful than traditionally educated students in regard to problem solving, self-evaluation, data gathering, and learning skills. In K–12 settings, PBL curricula has promoted student engagement and longitudinal student achievement (Kim et al., 2012; VanTassel-Baska, Avery, Little, & Hughes, 2000) and ena- bled teachers to identify giftedness more accurately in underserved populations (Trinter, Moon, & Brighton, 2015).

Greenwald (2000) listed the following 10 steps of PBL:

1. Encounter an ill-defined problem, characterized as unclear, and raise questions about what is known, what needs to be known, and how the answer can be found.

2. Ask questions about what is interesting, puzzling, or important to find out in relation to the problem.

3. Pursue various problem-finding strategies. 4. Map problem-finding activities and prioritize a

problem. 5. Investigate the problem. Inquiry-guided questions

can be used to help students strategize and plan their investigations.

6. Analyze results. With guiding questions, students analyze their results.

7. Reiterate learning. Students present what they have learned to their peers.

8. Generate solutions and recommendations. 9. Communicate the results, to the teacher and others,

that the students have learned on the basis of the roles they have played in the problem-solving process.

10. Conduct self-assessment.

direct Teaching: Knowing Why, When, and how

Many complex thinking skills can be taught directly as conscious techniques for reasoning and dealing with prob- lems (e.g., Beyer, 1988; Burns et al., 2006; Costa, 2003; Costa & Lowery, 1989; Reis, 1990a). For example, as we will see, critical thinking may be taught by helping

students evaluate biases, qualifications, and ability to observe; examine whether a statement is an assumption or an opinion; and evaluate whether particular conclusions necessarily follow. Creative thinking may be taught directly—for example, by helping students learn when and how to use the CPS model, brainstorming, and other crea- tive thinking techniques (Davis, 2004). If thinking skills are to be taught, direct instruction is essential.

One particularly noteworthy program for the direct teaching of complex thinking skills is the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) Thinking Program created by Edward de Bono (1973, 1983, 1985, 1999), whose lessons and exercises teach skills such as evaluating, taking other perspectives, planning, prioritizing, and many others as conscious and deliberate thinking strategies. Students are helped to understand each skill and why, when, and how it should be applied. We will look at de Bono’s strategies in a later section of this chapter.

Whereas analogical thinking can be indirectly taught by the use of simple analogy problems, it may also be taught as a conscious and deliberate skill. For example, stu- dents can be asked to use the language of a rocket launch or a football game to write an essay on “What I did last sum- mer”; borrow ideas from the Cinderella story to create a cartoon about a current news event, as a political cartoonist might; or apply ideas from nature’s animal defense systems to design a burglary prevention system for the school.

Later in this chapter we will review several programs for exercising thinking skills and abilities (indirect approach) and for directly teaching more complex thinking strategies.

Metacognition

Metacognition is thinking about our own thinking. Self- monitoring and self-reflecting lie at the core of metacogni- tive activity. It is a key characteristic not only of experts but of gifted persons as well (e.g., Hong, 1999). Certainly, stu- dents should be aware of their own thinking and the differ- ences between their thinking and that of others (Sheppard & Kanevsky, 1999). Hong noted that some high-level thinking activities relate closely to metacognition—for example, planning, predicting, setting goals, questioning, evaluating, rehearsing, selecting actions and strategies, using existing knowledge to create ideas, and selectively connecting new information to existing knowledge.

Leader (1995) recommended the use of written daily journals, summaries, expectations, and self-evaluations, along with debriefing and closure sessions, to promote self-reflection and therefore metacognition. For example, her students address the following questions: “What did I learn? How did I learn? What do I still want to find out?

Teaching Thinking Skills 199

Which way of learning is easiest for me? Why? What are my strengths?” Leader’s strategy also included direct instruction in the vocabulary of critical and creative think- ing (e.g., “This is creative and here’s why.”).

Sheppard and Kanevsky (1999) used a “mind- machine” analogy to help fifth-grade students think about their own thinking. While solving problems, students were asked to draw and describe a machine that represented how their mind worked. For example, one student said that her mind was like a steam iron—it takes a wrinkled piece of information and straightens it out. Another student used a video-camera analogy—“When I know how to use it, it works. But when I don’t, it’s hard to work out.” Students agreed that, after the training, they better understood how their minds worked.

As we will see later, the de Bono CoRT strategies are good examples of a metacognitive approach to teaching thinking skills. Students come to understand the advantages of using a particular technique, instances when the technique may be used profitably, and the steps involved in using it.

Metacognition includes helping students to under- stand the sources of their own ideas, viewpoints, attitudes, and values, and also where others’ ideas and values come from. For example, Barell (1984, 1991) recommended that, instead of just arguing their own viewpoint, students try defending others’ positions: What do students think of the proposal for a new swimming pool? What do taxpayers think? Custodians? Teachers? Also, a teacher can ask—or students can ask themselves—why they thought of a par- ticular question and what the question means to them.

Costa (1986) described three components of think- ing about thinking that he called metacognition, epistemic cognition, and brain functioning, all three of which suggest worthwhile enrichment content. His metacognition referred to students’ conscious understanding of problem solving. That is, when solving a problem, students should consciously identify what is known and what needs to be known, plan a course of action before they begin, monitor themselves while executing the plan (and consciously back up to adjust the plan as needed), and evaluate their success upon completion. Other aspects of metacognition included classroom discussions of what is going on inside the stu- dents’ heads while they are thinking, and comparing differ- ent students’ approaches to problems and decision making.

Costa’s epistemic cognition is the study of how knowledge is produced. Here, students might learn about the lives, works, and thinking processes of famous com- posers, artists, philosophers, and scientists. Discussion would focus on, for example, differences and similarities between artists and scientists; creative processes used by artists, poets, and scientists; and the possible use of scien- tific inquiry for solving social problems.

Students can learn about brain functions—for exam- ple, those related to learning and memory, emotions, dreaming, and mental disorders. For these, we suggest dis- cussion of thinking styles and personality dimensions such as right-brain versus left-brain thinking processes, reflec- tiveness versus impulsiveness, global versus analytic (for- est versus trees) thinking, being a morning (lark) or a night (owl) person, sensation seeking (thrill seeking; Farley, 1986), and internal versus external locus of control— which is an especially important thinking style related to achievement and career success. An internal locus-of- control person feels responsible for successes, failures, and his or her destiny; an external locus-of-control person blames others for failures and attributes success to luck.

Metacognition can also include teaching about indi- vidual differences in preferred ways of studying and learn- ing. Some students prefer visual modes, others pefer auditory, and others prefer tactile. Some prefer lectures, independent study, group work, learning games, high activity, and so forth. Take a vote on preferences, and dis- cuss differences in selections. Ask students to share impressions on ways of teaching that make them think.

Shore and Kanevsky (1993) noted that capable stu- dents and experts not only know more, they also know what they know, their knowledge is strongly intercon- nected, and new knowledge is connected more easily to prior knowledge. Metacognitive abilities and operations direct, control, and drive the use of thinking skills. Meta- cognition is important indeed.

Types of ThInKIng sKILLs

Teachers need a plan that consists of a well-thought-out tax- onomy of skills, when the skills should be taught, and effec- tive ways to teach the skills (Reis, 1990b). The list of thinking skills in Table 10.2 is one possibility; it was assem- bled from various sources. (Another list appears later in this chapter.) Most of the skills are relatively complex; they are also interrelated. For example, evaluation and deductive rea- soning both involve abilities to compare, interpret, consider relevance, consider implications, predict outcomes, and so on. Complex processes such as creative thinking, critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making involve a great many subskills and abilities. These types of lists, along with previously mentioned strategies (and perhaps published programs, which are described later in this chapter), can help a teacher plan a defensible thinking-skills curriculum.

Nobody ever said that the topic of thinking skills was uncomplicated; however, one of de Bono’s core concepts (1999), the Creative Pause, is simple. Creative-Pause thinkers stop to notice new possibilities and have a creative attitude (Davis, 2004).

200 Chapter 10

TABLe 10.2 Thinking Skills

Creativity and Creative Problem Solving (see Chapters 8 and 9)

Critical thinking: Evaluating bias, credibility, consistency, qualifications, recency of information

Evaluating primary versus secondary sources, inferences, validity of reasons

Identifying assumptions, opinions, claims, ambiguities, missing parts of an argument, adequacy of definitions, appropriateness of conclusions

Problem solving: Problem clarifying and defining

Selecting relevant information

Identifying and evaluating alternatives

Drawing conclusions and making inferences

Reading: Finding main ideas

Justifying interpretations

Explaining authors’ intentions

Drawing logical inferences, implications, and conclusions

Relating feelings to specific content

Writing: Stating and defending an idea

Sequencing appropriate information

Elaborating

Communicating clear relationships

Expressing feelings and values

Arguing persuasively and logically

Developing story plots

Creating mood

Science and research: Identifying needed processes and information

Questioning, formulating hypotheses

Estimating, guessing

Observing, measuring

Applying principles

Extrapolating, interpolating

Discovering trends, patterns, and cause-and-effect relationships

Reading charts, graphs, tables

Generating graphs from data

Recognizing mathematical relationships (weight, distance, time)

Reasoning skills: Deductive reasoning Inductive reasoning

Analogical reasoning Verbal reasoning

Figural/spatial reasoning Justifying

Synthesizing, combining Analyzing assumptions

Recognizing logical relationships Elaborating

Classifying skills: Comparing, contrasting Sequencing, ordering

Part–whole relationships Overlapping classes

Teaching Thinking Skills 201

describe in this chapter become more significant in the digital age. At a time when the go-to resource for informa- tion for most students is the Web, students need, more than ever, to evaluate skillfully and think critically about the content they encounter. Most of Allen’s specific criti- cal thinking abilities are still worth incorporating into any thinking-skills curriculum. For example, consider the fol- lowing abilities:

1. The ability to appraise a speaker’s testimony (a state- ment issued by a source) in terms of the source’s ability to observe accurately.

2. The ability to evaluate the particular biases of a source.

3. The ability to appraise the source’s qualifications necessary for making an informed statement.

4. The ability to appraise whether the source is consis- tent with him- or herself and other sources.

5. The ability to appraise whether the source’s informa- tion is the most recent available.

6. The ability to differentiate between primary— firsthand—and secondary sources.

Other of Allen’s principles emphasizing critical thinking and reasoning involve the following abilities:

Evaluating inferences.

Evaluating reasons given for a claim.

Checking the reliability and adequacy of information.

Following logically valid lines of reasoning.

Detecting missing parts of an argument.

Discerning the relevance of objections.

Recognizing appropriate conclusions.

In his Cornell Project on Critical Thinking, Robert Ennis (1962, 1964) compiled a number of aspects of critical

CritiCal thinking

The phrase critical thinking is used rather loosely. It has been taken to mean carping criticism; wholesale skepti- cism; thoughtful contemplation; analytic thinking (includ- ing the analysis of propaganda); reflective (not compulsive) thinking; problem solving; Bloom’s evaluation level of thinking; all of Bloom’s higher-level thinking skills; all- important (“critical”) thinking skills; careful thinking; log- ical thinking (especially!); independent thinking; and the abilities to evaluate biases, assumptions, inconsistencies, opinions, and other questionable sources of information.

We will examine critical thinking as evaluating and as problem solving, which, as we will see, can be related.

Critical thinking as Evaluating

Swartz and Perkins (1990) defined critical thinking as criti- cal examination and evaluation of beliefs and courses of action. Here is one of their examples: It is said that Columbus discovered America. How do we know? What are the grounds for believing that? If historical documents are involved, what evidence is there that they are sound? According to Swartz and Perkins, in critical thinking we aim at critical judgment about what to accept as reasonable and/or what to do, and we seek reliable information to use as evidence in supporting our judgments.

A half century ago Ronald R. Allen and his colleagues (Allen, Kauffeld, & O’Brien, 1968; Allen & Rott, 1969) created workbooks to teach critical thinking in relation to ideas and assumptions implicit in everyday media such as comic strips (e.g., the far-right Orphan Annie and the sexist Beetle Bailey), advertising and sales pitches, political mes- sages, movies, and television shows.

Many of our current thinking skills have stood the test of time. Many of the critical thinking skills we

Planning skills: Following directions Planning steps

Following rules Prioritizing

Setting goals and objectives Considering implications

Evaluating skills: Identifying errors Making decisions

Asking questions Making inferences

Evaluating generalizations Interpreting

Recognizing assumptions, beliefs, and opinions Setting criteria

Recognizing essential and nonessential information Determining relevance and irrelevance

Making applications to real-life situations Summarizing

Predicting consequences Verifying

202 Chapter 10

well as information that is relevant and irrelevant to the solution of the problem.

3. The ability to recognize stated and unstated assump- tions and unsupported and irrelevant assumptions.

4. The ability to formulate relevant hypotheses and check the hypotheses against the information and assumptions.

5. The abilities to draw valid conclusions and infer- ences, detect logical inconsistencies, and judge the adequacy of a conclusion.

ModeLs, progrAMs, And exercIses for TeAchIng ThInKIng sKILLs

As we indicated earlier, thinking skills may be taught as a separate course or subject—for example, in an elementary pullout program or as part of an honors course in second- ary school—or they can be integrated into existing sub- jects. A separate course could stress creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, logical thinking, analogical think- ing, character and values education (Davis, 2003a, 2003c), as well as other skills listed in Table 10.2; the skills in Bloom’s higher taxonomic levels (Tables 10.3) and Marzano and Kendall’s (2007) new taxonomy (Figure 10.1), and the taxonomies themselves; thinking skills aimed at coping with personal problems, such as making good deci- sions (Davis, 2003a, 2003c; Nelson-Jones, 1990); and the exercising of more specific thinking skills and abilities in Table 10.4 (later in this chapter). Commercially available materials and programs would be useful for such a course or subject.

The sections that follow summarize programs, mod- els, strategies, and exercises for teaching thinking skills. Space will not allow full descriptions; hence, interested readers should see the original sources for more complete information.

higher-order Thinking skills: Bloom et al. TAxonoMIes of educATIonAL oBjecTIves When educators speak of thinking skills, their first association is the top portion of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives—the cognitive domain (Bloom, 1974; Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). Bloom’s tax- onomy made an international impact on education by drawing attention to the difference between lower-level academic knowledge, which is commonly taught, and higher-level thinking skills, which everyone suddenly seemed to realize were rarely taught. The taxonomy was designed as a guide for writing instructional objectives. It therefore helped teachers plan a thinking-skills curricu- lum, teaching strategies, and learning experiences.

thinking that also stress evaluation of sources or statements. Said Ennis, students should learn to judge whether

1. There is ambiguity or contradiction in a line of reasoning.

2. Something is an assumption. 3. A statement is specific enough. 4. A conclusion necessarily follows. 5. An observation statement is reliable. 6. An inductive conclusion is warranted. 7. The real problem has been identified. 8. A definition is adequate. 9. A statement by an alleged authority is acceptable.

We will see in a later section of this chapter that the Philosophy for Children program also includes critical thinking, in the evaluation sense, by teaching students to recognize inconsistent and contradictory statements, underlying assumptions, cause-and-effect relationships, and truth in syllogistic reasoning.

critical Thinking as problem solving

To Budmen (1967), critical thinking is problem solving or an act of inquiry. He emphasized, however, that critical thinking differs from more objective scientific problem solving because critical thinking involves values, emo- tions, and judgments. Budmen’s message to teachers was that students should learn that there are problems for which there is no single solution—only alternatives and judg- ments. For him, the critical thinking process involved determining what to consider when making a decision and how to identify options and make choices.

Budmen stressed that problems best suited for criti- cal thinking should be problems without a single right answer. He outlined four steps that could be taught. The first step—the heart of the issue—is to identify one’s own assumptions, feelings, beliefs, and values relating to an issue. Second, one examines all sides of an issue. Third, one examines possible actions and their probable results. Most important, students must understand that all behavior has consequences. Fourth, the process requires a choice among alternatives—a decision.

Also viewing critical thinking as problem solving, Dressel and Mayhew (1954) reduced a long list of critical thinking abilities to five central ones:

1. The ability to define a problem, which includes the abilities to break complex elements into simpler, familiar, and workable parts; to identify central ele- ments; and to eliminate extraneous elements.

2. The ability to select pertinent information for the solution of a problem, including the ability to recog- nize unreliable and biased sources of information, as

Teaching Thinking Skills 203

TABLe 10.3 Key Words for Questioning at Bloom’s Six Taxonomic Levels

Level Key Words and Terms

Knowledge What Distinguish Recall Write

When Identify Reorganize Which

Who List Show Indicate

Define Name State Tell how

Comprehension Compare Distinguish What

Conclude Estimate Fill in

Contrast Explain Give an example of

Demonstrate Extend Hypothesize

Differentiate Extrapolate Illustrate

Predict Rearrange Infer

Reorder Rephrase Relate

Which Inform Tell in your own words

Application Apply Build Construct Demonstrate

Develop Plan Solve Indicate

Test Choose Show your work Check out

Consider How would Tell us

Analysis Analyze Discriminate Relate

Categorize Distinguish Explain

Describe Recognize What assumption

Classify Support your What do you

Compare Indicate the

Synthesis Write Suggest Plan

Think of a way How Formulate a solution

Create Develop Synthesize

Propose a plan Make up Derive

Put together What conclusion

What would be What major hypothesis

Evaluation What is Select

Choose Which would you consider

Evaluate Defend

Decide Check

Judge What is most appropriate

Check the Indicate

Source: Pearson Education, Inc.

204 Chapter 10

Level of Difficulty Process Useful Verbs, Phrases, Definitions C

o m

p le

x it

y

6 Self System Thinking

Examining Importance

Students can analyze how important specific knowledge is to them.

Examining Efficacy

Students can examine how much they believe they can improve their understanding of specific knowledge.

Examining Emotional Response

Students can identify emotional responses associated with a piece of knowledge and determine why those associations exist.

Examining Motivation

Students can examine their own motivation to improve their understanding or competence in specific knowledge.

5 Metacognition

Specifying Goals Students can set specific goals relative to knowledge and develop a plan for accomplishing the goal.

Process Monitoring

Students can self-monitor the process of achieving a goal.

Monitoring Clarity

Students can determine how well they understand knowledge.

Monitoring Accuracy

Students can determine how accurate their understanding of knowledge is and defend their judgment.

C o

g n

it iv

e S

y st

e m

4 Knowledge Utilization

Investigating investigate; research; find out about; take a position on; what are the differing features of; how and why did this happen; what would have happened if Students generate a hypothesis and use the asser- tions and opinions of others to test the hypothesis.

Experimenting experiment; generate and test; test the idea that; what would happen if; how would you test that; how would you determine if; how can this be explained; based on the experiment, what can be predicted Students generate and test a hypothesis by conducting an experiment and collecting data.

Problem Solving solve; how would you overcome; adapt; develop a strategy to; figure out a way to; how will you reach your goal under these conditions Students can accomplish a goal for which obstacles exist.

Decision Making decide; select the best among the following alternatives; which among the following would be the best; what is the best way; which of these is most suitable Students can select among alternatives that initially appear to be equal and defend their choice.

fIgure 10.1 The new taxonomy. Source: From The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. 2nd ed. by Marzano, R. J. and J. S. Kendall. Published by Corwin Press. Copyright © 2007. Reprinted with permission of the Corwin Press.

Teaching Thinking Skills 205

fIgure 10.1 (Continued )

Level of Difficulty Process Useful Verbs, Phrases, Definitions C

o m

p le

x it

y

C o

g n

it iv

e S

y st

e m

3 Analysis

Specifying make and defend; predict; judge; deduce; what would have to happen; develop an argument for; under what conditions Students can make and defend predictions about what might happen.

Generalizing what conclusions can be drawn; what inferences can be made; create a principle, generalization, or rule; trace the development of; form conclusions Students can infer new generalizations from known knowledge.

Analyzing Errors identify errors or problems; identify issues or misunderstandings; assess; critique; diagnose; evaluate; edit; revise Students can identify and explain logical or factual errors in knowledge.

Classifying classify; organize; sort; identify a broader category; identify different types/categories Students can identify superordinate and subordinate categories to which information belongs.

Matching categorize; compare and contrast; differentiate; discriminate; distinguish; sort; create an analogy or metaphor Students can identify similarities and differences in knowledge.

2 Comprehension

Symbolizing symbolize; depict; represent; illustrate; draw; show; use models; diagram, chart Students can depict critical aspects of knowledge in a pictorial or symbolic form.

Integrating describe how or why; describe the key parts of; describe the effects; describe the relationship between; explain ways in which; paraphrase; summarize Students can identify the critical or essential elements of knowledge.

1 Retrieval

Executing use; demonstrate; show; make; complete; draft Students can perform procedures without significant errors.

Recalling exemplify; name; list; label; state; describe; answer who, what, where, when questions Students can produce information on demand.

Recognizing recognize (from a list); select from (a list); identify (from a list); determine if the following statements are true Students can determine whether provided information is accurate, inaccurate, or unknown.

206 Chapter 10

The six levels of the taxonomy describe progressively higher levels of cognitive activity, although not necessarily progressively more difficult. Whereas most educators agree that all students benefit from thinking in the areas beyond the knowledge and comprehension levels, teachers of gifted students, especially, will want their students to apply rules, principles, or theories; analyze components, relationships, hypotheses, patterns, and causes and effects; synthesize parts into creative solutions, plans, theories, generalizations, designs, and compositions; and evaluate the accuracy, value, efficiency, or utility of alternative ideas or courses of action. Gifted students, who should grasp information and relationships more rapidly, can invest more time at the higher levels. As a general rule, students progress from learning activities at the knowledge and comprehension lev- els to the four higher-level thinking skills. Activities at the four highest levels do not necessarily occur in a specified order, although a final evaluation usually manages to be last.

An important and common use of Bloom’s taxon- omy is to guide classroom questions at the different levels. Hunkins’s (1976) key verbs for posing knowledge, com- prehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation questions appear in Table 10.3. Take a minute or two and make up a few questions at each level, using her key words.

Finally, many teachers teach the taxonomy to stu- dents, acquainting them with different levels of learning, thinking, and skill development. The phrase, “Keep [knowl- edge] Catching [comprehension] Apes [application] And [analysis] Silly [synthesis] Elephants [evaluation],” where the first letter of each word represents a level of the taxon- omy, is sometimes used.

Parks (2015) brought to light four issues associated with the way educators apply Bloom in the classroom for gifted students. First, simply asking questions or planning activities that use the verbs associated with the higher lev- els does not necessarily promote the depth of understand- ing and level of abstract reasoning that the model was designed to produce. Second, when teachers gloss over the lower levels, students often lack the prerequisite knowl- edge for meaningful thinking at the higher levels. Third, comprehensive thinking is often misinterpreted as analytic thinking. Compare/contrast and classification does not meet the analysis level Bloom intended. Parks suggested that processes such as recognizing unstated assumptions and distinguishing fact from hypothesis were more in line with intent of analysis. Finally, students are often not taught a process for skillful thinking or how to evaluate their own thinking.

The fact that Bloom’s taxonomy has stood the test of time for over a half century is a testament to its contribution to education (Marzano, 2001). In staying with the spirit of Bloom’s taxonomy, others have sought to improve upon it.

Robert Marzano proposed three systems of knowledge that included six levels of difficulty broken into 14 subcatego- ries, with components arranged hierarchically in terms of control rather than difficulty. As Marzano (2001) noted, retrieval of knowledge (Level 1) is a prerequisite for com- prehending the knowledge (Level 2). Students must fully comprehend knowledge before they are able to analyze it (Level 3), and analysis skills are needed to move to a level of solving problems and making decisions with knowledge (Level 4). Robert Marzano and John Kendall (2007) pub- lished the model in The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Like Bloom’s taxonomy, Marzano and Kendall’s taxonomy is hierarchical, with higher levels representing more sophisticated cognitive processes than the lower levels. Many of the thinking skills from Table 10.2 have found their way into one category or another of Marzano and Kendall’s new taxonomy, which is shown in Figure 10.1.

CoRT STRaTegieS: De Bono

The place is Maracaibo, second largest city in Venezuela. There is a meeting of about 20 people (doctors, parents, government officials) to dis- cuss setting up a new medical clinic. For three hours the arguments flow back and forth—in the usual fashion.

Suddenly, a 10-year-old boy who has been sitting quietly at the back of the room because his mother could not leave him alone at home approaches the table.

He suggests to the group that they do an AGO (set the objectives), followed by an APC (outline alternatives) and then an FIP (set pri- orities) and, of course, an OPV (analyze other people’s views). In a short while, there is a plan of action.

That 10-year-old had participated in the routine thinking-skills program that was man- dated by law in all Venezuelan schools (de Bono, 1985).

Edward de Bono (1973, 1983, 1999) created a delightful set of materials for the direct teaching of think- ing as a skill. The CoRT (Cognitive Research Trust) pro- gram requires little or no special teacher training and apparently is enjoyable for both students and teachers.

As one example, the PMI technique is a simple and effective way to teach evaluation. Students learn that ideas, suggestions, proposals, activities, or almost anything else may be intelligently evaluated by looking at the good points, or pluses (P); the bad points, or minuses (M); and points that are neither good nor bad, just interesting (I). Students learn the reasons (principles) behind PMI, and

Teaching Thinking Skills 207

consider. If they leave out some factors, their choice may turn out to be wrong. In addition, they can try to see what factors other people have left out of their thinking.

2. Example. A sample problem (or statement) is presented, and the skill is applied. For instance, in London, a law was passed that required all new buildings to provide parking in the basement. They neglected to consider that basement parking would encourage people to drive to work, so traffic congestion was worse than ever.

3. Practice. Four or five practice problems give stu- dents firsthand experience in using the skill. For example, what factors are involved in choosing a hairstyle? What factors would you consider if interviewing someone to be a teacher?

4. Process. In a class or group discussion, students consider, for example, whether it is easy to leave out impor- tant factors, when it is important to consider all factors, what the difference is between a PMI and a CAF, what happens when others leave out important factors, and whether one needs to consider all factors or just the important ones.

5. Principles. Usually, five sensible principles are presented, which amount to reasons for, and advantages of, using the skill, as illustrated in the PMI technique described previously.

6. Project. These are additional practice problems.

CoRT thinking skills are not tied to any particular subject area. Thinking is taught as a subject in its own right and as a conscious and deliberate metacognitive skill. Many of the CoRT thinking skills are described briefly in Box 10.1.

they practice applying the technique. The principles explain the following concepts:

By using the PMI approach, one will not hastily reject an idea that initially looks bad.

And one will not too quickly adopt a good-looking idea that has serious, but overlooked, disadvantages.

Some ideas are neither good nor bad, just interesting and relevant, and may lead to other ideas.

Without using a PMI, one’s emotions may interfere with clear judgments.

With a PMI, you pass judgment on an idea after it is explored, not before.

Small groups of fifth-grade gifted and talented (G/T) students in a College for Kids program, which was directed by one author of this text, did PMIs on “being gifted.” The students discovered that they were not unique in having social problems at school, and they improved their appre- ciation for themselves and their high potential.

There are 6 sets of lessons with 10 lessons in each set, for a total of 60 lessons covering about 50 thinking skills. Many lessons teach complex thinking strategies that require the use of several previously learned skills; for example, planning requires subskills of considering all factors and itemizing goals and objectives. Each lesson is usually organized into these 6 sections:

1. Introduction. An introduction defines and explains the skill. For example, with the Consider All Factors (CAF) skill, students learn that, whenever they make a decision or  choose something, there are always many factors to

BOX 10.1

CoRT Thinking Skills: de Bono

Edward de Bono’s (1973) CoRT thinking skills are taught in a direct, metacognitive fashion. Children consciously under- stand the value of each skill and when, why, and how it should be applied. The following are brief descriptions of some of the 50 CoRT thinking skills:

Thinking of good points (pluses), bad points (minuses), and interesting points of ideas, sugges- tions, and proposals.

Considering all factors when making choices or decisions.

Thinking of consequences (short-, medium-, and long-term) of actions.

Thinking of goals and objectives, including seeing other people’s objectives.

Planning, which includes skills of considering all fac- tors and itemizing goals and objectives.

Prioritizing, for example, relevant factors, objectives, and consequences.

Thinking of many alternatives, possibilities, and choices—for example, in interpreting causes or in considering alternative actions.

Decision making, which requires considering the fac- tors involved, objectives, priorities, consequences, and possible alternatives. Seeing other points of view, which exist because other people may consider different factors, see different consequences, or have different objectives or priorities.

(continued)

208 Chapter 10

Selecting something according to your needs and requirements—that is, according to the “best fit.” Organizing by analyzing what needs to be done, what is being done, and what is to be done next—one may need to consider all factors and think of alternatives. Focusing on different aspects of a situation—that is, knowing when you are analyzing, considering fac- tors, thinking of consequences, and so on. Concluding a thinking project, perhaps with ideas, an answer to a question, a problem solution, an action; or conceding an inability to solve the problem. Recognizing opinions versus facts as two types of evidence.

Recognizing evidence that is weak, strong, or key.

Recognizing points of agreement and disagreement, as well as irrelevant points.

Being right by referring to facts, authority, and so on.

Supporting an argument by using value-laden words, such as right, proper, fair, or sincere versus ridiculous, dishonest, devious, or stupid.

Being wrong in an argument because of exaggerat- ing, because of making a (e.g., factual) mistake, or by having prejudiced (fixed) ideas.

Challenging existing ways of doing things as a means of stimulating new ideas.

Improving things by identifying faults and thinking of ways to remove them.

Solving problems by thinking about problem requirements.

Recognizing information that is given versus informa- tion that has been omitted but is needed.

Recognizing contradictory information, which can lead to false conclusions.

Recognizing guesses based on good information (“small guesses”—e.g., the sun will rise tomorrow) ver- sus guesses based on little information (“big guesses”— e.g., the final score of a future football game).

Distinguishing between ordinary emotions (e.g., anger, love, fear, sorrow) and those concerned with one’s view of oneself (ego emotions—e.g., pride, power, insecurity).

Understanding that values determine thinking, judg- ments, choices, and actions.

Each of us has things we value highly and things to which we give a low value. And more options are always possible.

phILosophy for chILdren: LIpMAn

Matthew Lipman’s (1988, 2003; Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 1980; Sharp & Reed, 1992) Philosophy for Children (P4C) program is unique in taking the form of stories for children and teenagers. The program has produced significant improvements in reading, interpersonal relations, ethical and moral understanding, reasoning, and critical thinking (Lipman, 1981; Weinstein & Laufman, 1981). At this writ- ing, Philosophy for Children is used in 60 countries.

In 1972, Lipman established the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) at Montclair State College, where he began to take philosophy into K–12 classrooms in Montclair, New Jersey. That same year, he published his first book designed specifically to help children practice philosophy, Harry Stottlemeier’s Discov- ery. Eight books, along with four teacher’s guidebooks, aim at Grades 1 (Elfie), 2–3 (Kio and Gus), 3–4 (Pixie), 4–6 (Nous), 5–6 (Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery), 7–8 (Lisa), 9–10 (Suki), and 11–12 (Mark). In the stories, fictional children and teens spend much of their time thinking about thinking, with clear examples of good thinking and bad thinking—including thinking about ethical, moral, aesthetic, logical, and philosophic matters (“What is reality?” “What is the mind?” “What is goodness?” “What is fairness?” [Accorinti, 2002]), as well as more traditional thinking skills. The idea, of course, is for students to identify with the

characters, “think along” with them, and adopt good think- ing habits and skills. Students typically read aloud the philo- sophical story, which depicts fictional characters exploring philosophical issues and applying their reasoning to life situ- ations. Students deliberate on the issues in a community of philosophical inquiry. While the eight stories just listed are often used, facilitators can use any story or video that fea- tures young people wrestling with philosophical issues. Exercises follow the stories, but the main emphasis is on story content and the follow-up discussions. Lipman died in 2010, but the IAPC continues, as do other organizations that support Lipman’s ideas about philosophy for children.

A few of the thinking skills and related attitudes taught in Philosophy for Children are the following:

Cause-and-effect relationships. Decide whether this statement necessarily implies a cause-and-effect rela- tionship: “He threw the stone and broke the window.”

Recognizing consistent and contradictory statements or ideas. For example, can you be a true animal lover and still eat meat?

Identifying underlying assumptions. What is the assumption underlying a comment such as, “I love your hair. What beauty parlor did you go to?”

Learning part–whole and whole–part relationships. Students might be asked to evaluate the truth of

Teaching Thinking Skills 209

different, and unusual ideas, and add details. Decision making involves having students outline and weigh their alternatives, make final judgments, and defend a decision on a chosen alternative solution to a problem. Planning involves designing the means to implement an idea—iden- tifying needed resources, planning the steps, pinpointing possible problems, and making improvements to the plan. Forecasting requires students to make predictions about possible causes and/or effects of various phenomena. Teaching communication focuses on using and interpreting verbal and nonverbal forms of communication to express ideas, feelings, and needs. Academic talent is strengthened via acquiring information and concepts to form a good knowledge base in a given topic. Talents Unlimited is not a curriculum add-on; the content in any subject area can be used to practice the various talents.

InsTruMenTAL enrIchMenT: feuersTeIn

Reuven Feuerstein spent several teenage years in Nazi concentration camps, and he later helped children and adults migrate to Israel. He studied at the University of Geneva and the Sorbonne. In Israel, he studied the educa- tional needs of immigrants, many of whom would be clas- sified by intelligence tests as being mentally challenged. He designed a program to change the cognitive structure of mentally challenged performers and to transform them into autonomous, independent thinkers, capable of initiating and elaborating ideas (Makler, 1980).

Feuerstein’s (1980a, 1980b, 2006) Instrumental Enrichment program was designed to address

Impulsivity.

Egocentric thinking and behavior.

Recognizing, defining, and solving problems.

Considering two or more sources of information at once.

Analyzing, making comparisons, categorizing.

Planning, testing hypotheses.

Recognizing the need for logical evidence.

Accurately using time and space dimensions.

Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment (FIE) is a three-year program that can be accelerated for gifted stu- dents. It is designed for students around age 9 and above, those ready for Piagetian formal operational thinking. The program has been shown to improve student thinking and achievement (Martin, 2011). Teachers may not obtain the materials unless they complete Instrumental Enrichment training. (For information regarding materials and teacher training, visit the International Renewal Institute website.)

a statement such as, “If Mike’s face has handsome features, Mike must have a handsome face.”

Making generalizations. Students draw generaliza- tions from sets of facts, such as “I get sick when I eat raspberries; I get sick when I eat strawberries; I get sick when I eat blackberries.”

Analogical thinking. Students practice analogical thinking with problems like “Germ is to disease as candle is to (a) wax, (b) wick, (c) white, (d) light.”

Syllogistic reasoning. “All dogs are animals; all Lhasa Apsos are dogs.” What valid inference can we draw from this?

Reversibility and nonreversibility. “No” statements are reversible: No submarines are kangaroos; there- fore, no kangaroos are submarines. However, “all” statements usually are nonreversible: All model air- planes are toys, but not all toys are model airplanes.

Independent thinking. Should we always follow the majority?

Taking other perspectives. Can you see this issue from another person’s point of view?

Caring. Show concern for the welfare of others.

Other thinking skills in the Philosophy for Children materials address creativity, understanding descriptions and explanations, universal and particular statements (e.g., “All birds are blue” versus “This bird is blue”), hypothe- ses, impartiality, consistency, reasons for beliefs, alterna- tives, and others.

Intelligence expert Robert Sternberg (1984b) said of Lipman’s materials, “No program I am aware of is more likely to teach durable and transferable thinking skills than Philosophy for Children.” However, Sternberg also warned that students in inner-city schools may have trouble identi- fying with the middle-class story characters and their types of problems. In addition, poor readers or students of below- average ability may have trouble dealing with the program.

TALenTs unLIMITed

In Chapter 1 we reviewed Taylor’s (1978, 1986) Multiple- Talent Totem Poles as an approach to defining giftedness, one which argues that, if you look at enough talents, almost everyone will be at least above average (if not outstanding) in something. Schlichter’s (2009; Schlichter & Palmer, 1993) Talents Unlimited is a staff development model for training teachers to recognize and nurture student potential in the six talents described by Taylor (1978). Although it is billed as a talent development model, it is included here because the components develop students’ thinking in several areas.

Following are examples of talent areas: Productive thinking is strengthened by having students generate many,

210 Chapter 10

There are 13 types of exercises, each of which is said to strengthen a number of underlying abilities. Two exam- ples follow.

orgAnIzATIon of doTs Students are presented with amorphous arrays of dots of varying complexity. Their task is to identify and outline specified geometric figures, such as squares, diamonds, and stars, by connecting dots. This exercise is said to strengthen the projection of visual rela- tionships, discrimination of form and size, constancy of form and size across changes in orientation, use of relevant information, discovery strategies, perspective, restraint of impulsivity, labeling, precision and accuracy, planning, determination of starting point, systematic search and comparison to model, and motivation (Feuerstein, 1980a).

orIenTATIon In spAce Any illustration of a scene that contains objects near the top, bottom, and each side can be used for an orientation in space activity. For example, a pic- ture is presented containing a car at the top, a dog at the bot- tom, a supermarket on the left, and a fountain on the right.

Students imagine a child facing left, right, front, or back in the center of the image. By filling in a table, the student describes the position of each object in the picture relative to each orientation of the child. The exercise is said to teach (1) the use of concepts and stable systems of refer- ence (concrete, abstract, and interpersonal) for orientation in space, (2) how to define the problem, (3) the simultane- ous use of several sources of information, (4) systematic work, (5) hypothetical and inferential thought as a basis for logical conclusions, (6) how to summarize data by using a table, (7) precise and accurate communication of informa- tion, and (8) reduced egocentricity.

In addition, comparison exercises strengthen classifica- tion abilities and the abilities to find similarities and differ- ences between objects, events, and ideas. Verbal and nonverbal syllogisms strengthen formal logic, including the use of sets, subsets, and intersecting sets. Students infer validity, find rela- tionships, discover principles, and choose and process data.

The cognitive functions taught in Instrumental Enrich- ment fall into three categories of input (e.g., organizing infor- mation), elaboration (e.g., evaluating relevance of information), and output (e.g., expressing problem solutions).

Evidence for the effectiveness of the FIE program comes from observations by teachers’ aides and project administrators in Tennessee; Toronto; New York City; and Louisville, Kentucky, who independently agreed that, after Instrumental Enrichment training, children:

Used Instrumental Enrichment strategies in other subjects.

Read and followed directions spontaneously.

Improved their accuracy of observation and their inclusion of more relevant detail.

Improved their precision—they began spontaneously correcting their own mistakes.

Increased their social sensitivity, willingness to listen to others, tolerance of others’ opinions, and willing- ness to help others.

Became more willing to defend their opinions on the basis of evidence.

Improved the relevance and completeness of their answers and their readiness to cope with more diffi- cult problems.

Improved their feelings of success and their self-image.

richard paul’s critical Thinking Model—how Would socrates Teach students?

Teaching and stimulating thinking by asking questions is sometimes called the Socratic method. Paul et al. (1989) organized “Socratic questions” that clarify information; explore evidence; analyze assumptions, outlooks, and repercussions; and reflect metacognition.

Richard Paul’s critical thinking model guides teach- ers and students alike to apply the main concepts of Socratic critical thinking to any subject either being taught or learned. He also provides a miniature guide for both teachers and students (Elder, 2006; Paul & Elder, 2014). His Elements of Thought provides a checklist for reasoning that can improve thinking skills for teachers and learners.

Paul maps developmental stages of critical thinking, beginning with the unref lective thinker and moving for- ward to the challenged thinker; the beginning thinker; the practicing thinker; the advanced thinker; and finally the master thinker, whose good habits have become second nature.

In the children’s handy guidebook, Elder (2006) shares Paul’s theory with children and leads Naïve Nancy, who “doesn’t care about her thinking,” and Selfish Sam, who is “good at thinking but is not to others,” toward becoming Fair-Minded Fran, who is “both good at think- ing and fair to others.”

Teacher’s guide for the explicit Teaching of Thinking skills

A four-phase model for applying thinking skills to curricu- lum and thus enabling students to learn them both directly and indirectly has been designed by Burns, Leppien, Omdal, Gubbins, Muller, and Vahidi (2006) and is presented in

Teaching Thinking Skills 211

the Teacher’s Guide for the Explicit Teaching of Thinking Skills. The four-phase model is as follows:

Phase 1: Introducing the unit to students.

Phase 2: Teaching the guided practice lessons with familiar content.

Phase 3: Guided practice, single skill, new real- world content.

Phase 4: Prompted transfer to current academic curriculum.

CritiCal thinking Books and teChnology

One broad-based approach to teaching thinking skills through exercise is found in the several dozen workbooks and computer software programs produced by Critical Thinking Company (for more information, contact this

taBle 10.4 Some Specific Thinking Skills Taught in Critical Thinking Books and Software Workbooks

Figural Similarities

Matching shapes Dividing shapes into equal parts

Combining shapes Finding patterns

Matching congruent figures Matching similar figures

Drawing lines of symmetry Matching volume

Matching congruent solids Recognizing views of a solid

Combining solids Using grids to enlarge figures

Figural Sequences

Figural sequence problems Rotating figures problems

Producing reflections Paper folding

Matching pattern pieces Producing a pattern

Figural Classifications

Classifying by shape Classifying by pattern

Describing characteristics Describing classes

Matching classes by shape Matching classes by pattern

Finding shape exceptions Finding pattern exceptions

Multiple classifications Overlapping classes

Figural Analogies

Analogies—select and supply problems

Describing figural analogies

Making up analogies

Verbal Similarities and Differences

Selecting antonyms Selecting synonyms

Denotations Connotations

company via their website.) The many workbooks by Howard Black and Sandra Black, Anita Harnadek, and oth- ers include hundreds of exercises designed to strengthen numerous simple and complex thinking skills, some of which focus on math, writing, science, and history. A sam- ple of the thinking skills that these authors try to strengthen appears in Table 10.4.

The examples that follow are of exercises found in the workbooks by Black and Black and by Harnadek. The reader likely can create original ones.

analogiCal thinking Analogical reasoning exer- cises take the classic form, speedometer : velocity :: thermometer : _________ (degree, light, temperature). Nonverbal (figural) analogical reasoning can be exercised with geometric figures, as shown in Figure 10.2. Other figural-analogy problems require students to draw the one missing figure or to create a pair of figures that have the same relationship as the given pair.

(continued)

212 Chapter 10

TABLe 10.4 (Continued )

Verbal Sequences

Following directions Writing directions

Completing phrases Opposites

Similarities Following yes-no rules

True-false tables Finding locations with maps

Describing locations Describing directions

Deductive reasoning Time sequences

Discriminating degree of meaning

Logical Relationships

Negation Conjunction (“and”) rules

Disjunction (“or”) rules Implication (“if-then”) rules

Cause-and-effect words Intervals of a day, year

Schedules Time zones

Flowcharting

In problem solving A sequence

A cycle In planning

In comparison shopping

Verbal Classifications

Parts of a whole Classes and members

General to specific Distinguishing relationships

Explaining exceptions Sorting into word classes

Overlapping classes Branching diagrams

Diagramming classes

Sentences with classes and subclasses

Verbal Analogies

Antonym/synonym analogies Association analogies

“Kind of” analogies “Part of” analogies

“Used to (for)” “Degree of” analogies

Creating analogies

a. b.

c. d.

fIgure 10.2 Example of figural analogy problem. Source: Reprinted by permission of Critical Thinking Press and Software.

Teaching Thinking Skills 213

InducTIve ThInKIng Inductive-thinking abilities are exercised in sequence problems that require students to induce a figural relationship among three (or four) patterns in a sequence and then draw the next pattern in the series.

Verbal sequence exercises ask students to line up a sequence of three words (e.g., believe, deliberate, read) in order of size, degree, or, in this example, order of occurrence.

deducTIve reAsonIng One type of exercise sought to teach deductive reasoning involving problems that require the logical elimination of alternatives. A matrix is provided for the thinker to use, in conjunction with a series of clues, to eliminate untenable possibilities and eventually find the one correct solution. For example, Angelo, Becky, Conrad, and Doreen are an actor, a bellhop, a comedian, and a tra- peze artist; Doreen is not in show business, and Angelo is not the actor. Using these clues and the matrix in Figure 10.3, match each person’s name and occupation. (Note that two occupations, in 1978, implied gender.)

Similar mind-bender exercises require the learner to figure out who is younger or taller than whom, or in Black and Black (2007) to find the correct order of historical events.

cLAssIfyIng Classifying is important. If we could not classify on the basis of shared characteristics, we would be unable to cope with our complex world.

Classification skills are taught by presenting groups of geometric patterns and asking students to induce the commonality among members. Multiple-classification exercises teach students that objects can be members of several classes simultaneously, depending on which char- acteristics one attends to. For example, a black parallelo- gram can belong to “Group A” because it is a parallelogram and to “Group B” because it is black.

Other exercises focus on helping students learn the meanings of classification-related concepts such as over- laps with, is separate from, and is included in.

With verbal classification exercises, students are asked to select which one of five words does not belong: pencil, chalk, rabbit, crayon, pen. (Nothing is more frus- trating than trying to write with a dull rabbit!)

verBAL reLATIonshIps Many exercises help students learn verbal relationships by using antonyms, synonyms, similarities, and opposites, sometimes in verbal analogies (e.g., cease : stop :: proceed : __________).

cAuse And effecT Understanding cause-and-effect rela- tionships may be considered a type of inductive thinking— given an effect, one induces cause (Harnadek, 2005). Some exercises aim at strengthening cause-and-effect thinking by giving students a short illogical scenario and asking them, “Do you think this is right? How come?” or “What do you think?” An example is, “Only countries with military forces have wars; therefore, we should not have military forces in our country.”

pArT–WhoLe reLATIonshIps To strengthen students’ understanding of part–whole relationships, one exercise is the following: Given four words (acrobats, animals, clowns, circus), students identify which word represents the whole and which words are its parts.

foLLoWIng dIrecTIons One easily neglected think- ing skill is the self-management behavior of following directions. In one exercise, students practice attending carefully to directions:

Use a whole sheet of paper. Draw the design exactly as directed.

Angelo

Actor Bellhop Comedian Trapeze

Artist

Becky

Conrad

Doreen

fIgure 10.3 Deductive reasoning exercise from Harnadek (1978). Source: Reprinted by permission of Critical Thinking Press and Software.

214 Chapter 10

games can also help build students’ academic confidence, develop their social and problem-solving skills (Education World, 2015), and promote teamwork and cooperation (Steinberg, 2011).

By their very nature, video games require students to be actively engaged. Navigating in a virtual three- dimensional space with fast-paced demands to make split- second decisions can improve spatial skills (Granic et al., 2014), which have been linked to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010). The currently popular Mindcraft video game is an excellent example of a virtual three-dimensional space game that also promotes creativity and problem solving. Players enter randomly generated worlds, which they embellish by creating objects and structures with building blocks and where they go on adventures. Recent evidence suggests that playing any type of video game enhances children’s creativity (Granic et al., 2014).

The problem-solving tasks of programing apps and writing code are popular with students of all ages. Young children can begin programing interactive sto- ries, animations, and games with new authoring lan- guages such as Scratch, developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The MIT developers suggest that Scratch helps young people learn to think creatively, reason systematically, and work collaboratively—essential skills for life in the 21st century. The program is a free download from MIT. Students can wirelessly control a Star Wars BB-8 Droid, drones, and robots via Bluetooth with the Tickle app, another free, user-friendly authoring system (visit the Tickle app website).

Besnoy (2015) warned that the question gifted edu- cators need to address is not whether to integrate tech- nology in the gifted education classroom but rather how to redesign technology practices to build critical thinking and marketable skills. By considering students’ future needs, he suggests teachers can produce students who use technology to develop innovative products and pro- cesses. One avenue is to implement technology as prac- ticing professionals and create authentic products or services, a feature of Renzulli and Reis’s (2013) Type III projects, which promotes higher-order thinking and problem solving.

InvoLvIng pArenTs As pArTners In TeAchIng ThInKIng sKILLs

Shaunessy (2006) reminds parents, via the Duke Gifted Letter, to visit classrooms to determine whether thinking

a. Draw a line from top to bottom that is one- fourth the page width from the left edge.

b. Divide this vertical line into four equal parts.

c. Divide the right edge into four equal parts. d. Connect the points one-fourth of the way

from the top. e. Connect the points one-fourth of the way

from the bottom. f. Write “I” in the top right rectangle. g. Write “DIRECTIONS” in the lower right

rectangle. h. Write “FOLLOWED” in the square.

Any teacher who wishes to find ideas and exercises for strengthening innumerable types of thinking skills should request a Critical Thinking Books and Software catalog or visit their website.

TechnoLogy Thanks to almost universal Internet access, gifted students now have the world of knowledge at their fingertips. The Internet has removed the “infor- mation ceiling” that previously limited gifted students’ learning opportunities. While there is a myriad of infor- mation for gifted students to process on the Web, much of what students encounter unfortunately has limited value or can be inaccurate or biased. Therefore, mastery of critical reading and thinking skills is even more cru- cial when reviewing content on the Internet. From an early age, students must be encouraged to development a healthy skepticism about information. They should learn to evaluate not only the information content but also the source. What clues exist to infer who created the infor- mation? What stance does the author take, and how does this stance shape the information presented? Does the author have anything to gain by presenting this informa- tion? Are there other possible viewpoints or explana- tions? Do other resources support this information? In this world of knowledge without quality control, a criti- cal examination of the reliability and validity of informa- tion is essential (Siegle, 2004). Another critical thinking component is the necessity of information. Being literate includes knowing when additional information is needed. This also includes knowing what information is not nec- essary. Information overload can be as crippling as infor- mation paucity.

Although much has been written about possible nega- tive effects of video games (Anderson et al., 2010), research- ers have also found cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social benefits of gaming (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014). In addition to specific academic achievement benefits,

Teaching Thinking Skills 215

damage a teacher’s plans for teaching thinking—despite the fact that teaching thinking is more valuable in the long run (Vail, 1990).

On the positive side, noted Vail, feelings of confi- dence, belonging, and dignity, along with courage, resil- ience, curiosity, diligence, and humor, aid the freedom that students experience to think and learn.

seLecTIng ThInKIng-sKILLs exercIses And MATerIALs

Burns et al. (2006); de Bono (1983); Sternberg (1983); and Treffinger, Isaksen, and McEwen (1987) itemized criteria for assessing the value and usefulness of thinking-skills strategies and programs. A composite of their lists includes the following conditions:

1. The program should not require extended training. However, training should be available through work- shops or printed resources.

2. A good program should be usable by teachers of varying abilities, not just gifted or highly qualified teachers.

3. The program should be robust enough to “resist damage” as it is passed from the training source to the teacher and from the teacher to students.

4. The program should use “parallel design.” If some parts are taught badly or skipped, what remains should still be usable and valuable.

5. The program should be enjoyable for teachers and children.

6. Materials should be attractive, appropriate to stu- dents’ interests, and motivating.

7. Important thinking skills should be addressed; objec- tives should be specified.

8. The program should improve metacognitive skills— students should be helped to understand thinking and thinking skills.

9. There should be examples of practical applications of the methods and techniques.

10. Involvement should be active, not passive, with opportunities for transfer and application of the training to real-world applications.

11. It is desirable to have both individual and group activities.

12. It is desirable to relate the thinking-skills training to other curriculum content so that students can experi- ence the thinking skills “in action.”

As with all G/T enrichment, the program must be suited to students’ needs and should be applicable for students of all ages and ability levels.

skills are being taught to their gifted children. She suggests that observing parents ask the following questions:

●● Are in-depth group discussions provided during class time?

●● Are students afforded opportunities to evaluate their progress regularly?

●● Are students encouraged to pose questions regularly in class?

●● Are students provided with guides (such as Bloom’s taxonomy) to help them reflect on their thinking?

●● Do class projects engage students in analysis, syn- thesis, and evaluation?

●● Are students given opportunities to consider various opinions and to justify their own beliefs?

Teachers can also use these questions as an inventory to determine whether thinking skills are present in their own classrooms. They can invite parents, in an open-house discussion, to be partners in engaging their children in questioning, exploring viewpoints, and clarifying and eval- uating ideas.

oBsTAcLes To effecTIve ThInKIng

A variety of personal, home, and school factors block stu- dents’ ability to think. Some comparatively simple problems are being hungry or tired—with similarly simple solutions of switching the time for demanding classroom thinking activities; keeping snacks on hand; and talking to parents about TV watching, or too much Internet time, versus sleep.

Another common problem for gifted children is perfectionism, on which we will elaborate in Chapters 12 and 17. When the curriculum shifts from “How do you spell . . .?” to “Why do you think . . .?” the perfectionist student may attempt to parrot an answer from the book or otherwise deliver a teacher-pleasing reply instead of think- ing. For students who have gotten by on memorizing and reciting, Vail (1990) recommended exercises that reward originality instead of conformity.

Many personal problems can interfere with chil- dren’s ability to think clearly—for example, a death or divorce in the family (for which they may feel responsible and guilty), family pressures for correct answers and high grades, or even feelings of rejection by a girlfriend or boy- friend (Rimm, 2005). In the classroom, some obstacles to thinking are a mismatch between the student’s learning style (e.g., visual) and the teacher’s teaching style (e.g., verbal), or an emotional environment that is stressfully competitive or otherwise potentially humiliating. School and district expectations of high achievement-test scores (does the word accountability ring a bell?) can also

216 Chapter 10

The best-known higher-level thinking skills are the application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. The taxonomy guides teacher ques- tioning. Marzano and Kendall developed a new taxonomy based on a hierarchy of complexity.

de Bono’s CoRT strategies directly teach thinking as conscious skills that are independent of specific subject areas. About 50 CoRT thinking skills teach evaluating, considering all factors, identifying goals and objectives, projecting consequences, planning, prioritizing, and others.

Lipman’s Philosophy for Children program takes the form of children’s stories that teach, for example, cause- and-effect relationships, identifying assumptions, analogi- cal thinking, independent thinking, taking other perspectives, and caring.

An early Taylor Multiple-Talent Totem Pole Model suggests that learning activities focus on developing aca- demic ability, creativity, planning and organizing, commu- nicating, forecasting or predicting, and decision making and evaluating. Schlichter’s Talents Unlimited program trains teachers to teach totem pole talents, which involves direct instruction and practice in advanced areas of thinking.

Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment program was designed to strengthen a variety of thinking skills and abil- ities via exercises such as organization of dots and orienta- tion in space.

Richard Paul’s critical thinking model guides teach- ers and students to apply the main concepts of critical thinking to any subject being taught or learned. Paul maps developmental stages of critical thinking, beginning with the unreflective thinker and continuing to the challenged thinker; the beginning thinker; the practicing thinker; the advanced thinker; and finally the master thinker, whose good habits have become second nature.

Paul et al. organized “Socratic questions” that clarify information; explore evidence; analyze assumptions, out- looks, and repercussions; and reflect metacognition.

A four-phase model for applying thinking skills to curriculum, and thus learning them, is presented in the Teacher’s Guide for the Explicit Teaching of Thinking Skills. The four-phase model comprises the following: phase 1: introducing the unit to students; phase 2: teaching the guided practice lessons with familiar content; phase 3: guided practice, single skill, new real-world content; and phase 4: prompted transfer to current academic curriculum.

Shaunessy encouraged parents to visit classrooms to determine whether thinking skills are being taught to their gifted children and to ask questions, including

Summary

Teaching thinking skills may be equivalent to teaching intelligent behavior.

Issues in teaching thinking skills include whether they should be infused into existing subjects or taught as a separate course or subject, selecting which skills to teach at different ages, selecting the best way to teach thinking skills, and evaluating mastery of thinking skills.

Reis recommended teaching fewer skills in greater depth.

Beyer recommended six steps: introducing the think- ing skill, guiding practice, allowing self-directed practice, showing students how to transfer the skill, allowing prac- tice in new contexts, and letting students use the skill inde- pendently. Costa recommended four steps: the three steps of judiciously selecting content, teaching the thinking skills, and exposing students to conf licts and dilemmas that require application of the skills, all leading to the fourth step—cultivating suitable habits of mind.

Students may be taught directly (rule, then exam- ples) or inductively (examples, then rule).

Some thinking skills include attitudes and dispositions. Thinking skills may be taught indirectly via practice

with, for example, classification, analogy, logical reason- ing, and other kinds of problems. Thinking skills may also be taught directly as conscious techniques for reasoning and solving problems.

Metacognition is thinking about thinking. It includes understanding why, when, and how problem-solving strat- egies should be used and thinking about one’s own think- ing, the thinking of others, and sources of ideas. Metacognition can encompass teaching about brain func- tions, personality and thinking styles, and preferred ways of learning.

Teaching thinking requires a list of skills to be taught. One list included creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving; skills in reading, writing, and science; and reasoning, classifying, and evaluating skills.

The term “critical thinking” is interpreted in many ways. This chapter explains critical thinking as evaluating the biases, qualifications, and consistency of speakers and evaluating assumptions, opinions, beliefs, ambiguities, whether inferences and conclusions follow, and others. Critical thinking as problem solving includes teaching stu- dents to identify assumptions and values, examine differ- ent sides of an issue and possible actions, and make decisions; or else teaching students to define a problem, select pertinent information, recognize assumptions, for- mulate hypotheses, and draw conclusions.

Teaching Thinking Skills 217

Some obstacles to effective thinking include being hun- gry or tired, perfectionism, personal problems, learning-style mismatches, a competitive environment, and a districtwide emphasis on accountability. On the other hand, feelings of confidence, belonging, curiosity, diligence, and others help students learn and think.

Criteria for selecting materials and strategies include, for example, usability by teachers of varying abilities (without extended training), attractiveness and enjoyability, effectiveness in teaching important transferable skills, a focus on students’ metacognitive understanding of thinking and thinking skills, practical applications of the thinking skills, active involvement, individual and group activities, and relationship to school content.

the following: Are in-depth group discussions provided dur- ing class time? Are students afforded opportunities to evalu- ate their progress regularly? Are students encouraged to pose questions regularly in class? Do class projects engage students in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation? Teachers can also use these questions to engage parents in the process.

The Critical Thinking Company workbooks contain exercises designed to strengthen simple and complex skills such as analogical reasoning, classifying, cause-and-effect relationships, deductive reasoning, and following directions.

Technology can be used to extend students’ think- ing through critical analysis of information on the Inter- net and opportunities to use technology in productive and creative ways.

218

11 Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education

Learning OutcOmes

1. Explain the relationship among leadership, affective learning, and character education.

2. Define leadership traits, characteristics, and skills.

3. Recommend strategies and programs that provide leadership training.

4. Express the importance of affective learning for gifted students.

5. Analyze the factors that support developing a good self-concept related to achievement, affiliation, attributions, and defense mechanisms for gifted learners.

6. Examine how the Kohlberg model fosters moral development.

7. Evaluate materials and strategies for encouraging affective growth.

8. Describe the characteristics of the humanistic teacher as they relate to leadership, affective learning, and character education.

C H A P T E R

T his chapter looks at two important goals of programs for gifted students: leadership and affective learning. Leadership is one of the five U.S. Department of Education categories of giftedness. Gifted and talented (G/T) students are often labeled tomorrow’s leaders. As emphasized by Sisk (1993, p. 493), “Society cannot

nor will not survive without intelligent, imaginative leadership. Leadership training for gifted students can provide leaders who have both the intellectual and creative potential to lead.” In recent years, several writers have clarified the characteristics of leaders, the nature of leadership, and how leadership traits and skills can be taught to gifted and other students. We will explore some of these.

The topic of affective learning runs through many chapters in this book. We have repeatedly stressed the importance of building, for example, healthy self-concepts, good social adjustment, high academic and career aspirations, constructive attitudes and values, and self-motivated learning. These topics are important for all gifted students, but they take special significance in relation to the at-risk gifted—students who are culturally different or economically disadvantaged (Chapter 13), underachieving students (Chapter 12), students with disabilities (Chapter 15), and sometimes female gifted students (Chapter 14). Chapter 17, “Understanding and Counseling Gifted Students,” will focus on understanding and aiding the self-understanding and social and emotional devel- opment of gifted students.

Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education 219

Leadership

As mentioned in Chapter 3, Renzulli (2003) tied leadership to affective learning (which includes character education) quite clearly: Instead of just helping bright students to become educated, affluent, and high-consumption profes- sionals, gifted education should promote a strong concern for less fortunate individuals plus a leadership capability— which includes a predisposition to take action and correct problems. Many enrichment programs involve students in community service with these two goals in mind: concern for others and a willingness to help. Renzulli used the term social capital, which refers to valuing freedom, justice, civic participation, and a diverse population.

At the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT), Operation Houndstooth focuses on promoting six core interacting topics for the common good (instead of self-interest and consumerism; Terry et al., 2008): optimism (hope, sense of competence stemming from hard work), courage (moral conviction, psychological and intellectual independence, freedom from fear of group rejection), romance with a topic or discipline (absorption, passion, self-actualization), sen- sitivity to human concerns (empathy, altruism, insight), physical and mental energy (charisma, curiosity, vital- ity, excitability), and vision and a sense of destiny (sense of direction, sense of power to change things, achieve- ment motivation). The term Houndstooth refers to the houndstooth-pattern behind the three-ring conception of giftedness (see Renzulli & Reis, 2003, p. 76). NRC/GT Information on Operation Houndstooth is available at the University of Connecticut website, at the Neag Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development.

The sections that follow review additional defini- tions and conceptions of leadership and then turn to other ideas about what is taught when you “teach leadership.”

Leadership definitions: traits, CharaCteristiCs, and skiLLs

Different leadership traits and skills naturally are required for different leadership situations—consider leading the Boston Pops Orchestra, the Lewis and Clark expedition, or the United Auto Workers (UAW). Or consider Renzulli’s (2003) remarkable example of leadership: a fifth-grade girl who instigated a plan to reduce harassment toward a badly nearsighted boy and supervised the creation of large-print illustrated books that he could see. At the same time, there are traits and skills that seem to characterize all leaders.

One definition of leadership is found in the Renzulli and colleagues’ (2001) leadership rating scale, reproduced

in Appendix 3.8, on which teachers evaluate student lead- ership according to the following criteria:

1. Carries responsibility well and can be counted on to do what has been promised.

2. Is self-confident with both age-mates and adults; seems comfortable when showing personal work to the class.

3. Is well liked. 4. Is cooperative, avoids bickering, and is generally

easy to get along with. 5. Can express him- or herself clearly. 6. Adapts to new situations; is flexible in thought and

action and is not disturbed when the normal routine is changed.

7. Enjoys being around other people. 8. Tends to dominate; usually directs activities. 9. Participates in most school social activities; can be

counted on to be there. 10. Excels in sports.

Plowman (1981) itemized six aspects of leadership, in the form of adjectives. Charismatic refers to an almost mystical ability to instill in others (partly by example) a sense of mission and to energize them to think and act to achieve objectives. Intuitive includes the ability to sense what is about to happen via an extrapolation of current events or a keen sensitivity to subtle cues. It includes the ability to sense the needs of individuals and groups and to respond to those needs even before they are expressed. Generative refers to creativeness: defining problems in new ways and creating unusual ideas, processes, and courses of action. Analytic includes seeing component parts of systems and analyzing their individual contribu- tions. Evaluative involves judging the effectiveness or effi- ciency of activities or programs. Synergistic aspects “are those which make the unbelievable happen”: Goals are reached in half the expected time, or production is 5 or 10 times what was expected.

Sternberg’s characteristics of leadership differ because he doesn’t describe them as innate abilities but largely as decisions. People decide to become creative and to work hard at leadership (Sternberg, 2005). Sternberg also reminds us that Edison attributed his own brilliance to 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. Sternberg’s attitudes are summarized as follows:

1. Problem redefinition. Leaders are willing to view the problem in alternative ways.

2. Problem analysis. Leaders consider alternative deci- sions for problem solving.

3. Selling a solution. Leaders recognize that solutions may not sell themselves.

220 Chapter 11

futures and were also more likely to prioritize happy fam- ily lives, making the world a better place, having creative and challenging jobs, and having happy personal lives. Regular-program students more frequently prioritized making a lot of money, having a good reputation in their communities, and becoming famous. At least from the per- spective of the well-being of society, there appears to be more leadership among gifted-program students.

Leadership training

Recommendations and strategies for leadership training invariably include some combination of (1) teaching stu- dents about leadership styles and traits, along with princi- ples of group dynamics; (2) putting students into leadership roles; and (3) teaching them component skills of leader- ship. Examples of strategies are numerous and follow next.

Magoon (1980) recommended the following initiatives:

1. Classroom monitorships, in which students assume responsibility for regulating the behavior of peers (for example, in lineups) or for taking on other jobs (black- board or A-V duties). Such activities teach leadership and followership, including the notion that there are menial tasks that must be carried out for the system to function.

2. Mentorships, in which gifted and talented stu- dents tutor peers or younger students. The mentors learn to communicate in an acceptable and challenging manner.

3. In-school leadership projects, identified via brainstorming, such as improving student behavior (for example, in the halls or cafeteria); improving the physical plant (e.g., in classrooms or restrooms, or temperature or noise levels); or solving problems related to, for example, curriculum selection, classroom rules, safety, or sanitation.

4. Community projects, in which students tackle neighborhood problems or undesirable conditions. This activity requires the development of communication skills, tact, diplomacy, and patience.

5. Simulations, which can involve, for example, establishing “banks” and “stores,” making rules, and estab- lishing a legal system for maintaining the rules.

Magoon (1981) proposed that students be exposed to the “topic and content” of leadership itself. For example, training can include teaching students about leadership and followership, principles of participatory democracy, group processes, and characteristics of leaders, along with devel- oping communication skills. Magoon’s strategy, derived in part from a leadership program that has been tested in the

4. Recognition of how knowledge can both help and hinder creative thinking. Creative leaders are not entrenched in their decisions.

5. Willingness to take sensible risks. Leaders are will- ing to risk failure in order to meet long-term goals.

6. Willingness to surmount obstacles. Leaders are resilient.

7. Belief in one’s ability to accomplish the task at hand. Creative leaders have confidence in their task completion capability.

8. Willingness to tolerate ambiguity. Leaders deal with uncertainty.

9. Willingness to find extrinsic rewards for the things they are intrinsically motivated to do. Leaders love what they do, so they find the place that will pay them for their work.

10. Continuation of intellectual growth rather than stagnation. Leaders adapt to changing circumstances.

Tannenbaum (2000) viewed social leadership as the ability to help a group reach its goals while bettering human relationships within the group. Specifically in regard to building G/T programs, Moon and Rosselli (2000) distinguished between individual and committee leadership. Champions are individuals committed to mak- ing changes, and, given leeway by institutional structures, they will do so. Broad-based advisory groups, which include stakeholders, guide program development efforts through district policies.

Sisk (1993) observed that “one finds about as many definitions of leadership as there are persons writing about the concept of leadership” (p. 491). Perhaps each author wishes uniqueness. She noted that the Great Man Theory defines a leader as one who possesses vision, power, authority, and dynamic personal attraction. However, she preferred to define a leader as one who “helps others lead themselves” (p. 492). They encourage initiative, autonomy, and inventiveness; they bring out the best in others. Sisk’s Interactive Creative Leadership Model, described later, revolves around the traits of vision to see things as they can be; courage to take risks; absorption in the creative act; and talent recognition, which includes the realization and appreciation of one’s ability to become a creative leader.

The traits, or “aspects,” of leadership in the preced- ing lists can be viewed as objectives or competencies for a leadership curriculum. That is, G/T students can be helped to understand these traits and skills, and to acquire them through practice. Perhaps many gifted programs actually teach, or at least encourage, leadership; in her survey of over 5,000 middle-grade students Rimm (2006c) found that more students in gifted programs, compared with those in regular programs, were optimistic about their

Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education 221

Leadership training programs

Although definitions and characteristics of leadership dif- fer somewhat, they share much in common. Thus, pro- grams that develop leadership skills share much in common. Some summary descriptions of successful lead- ership training programs follow.

Leadership skills development program: karnes and Chauvin

Karnes and Chauvin (2000) developed a two-part Leader- ship Skills Development Program aimed at upper elemen- tary and secondary students. The first part of the program centers on their Leadership Skills Inventory (LSI). The LSI evaluates the following kinds of leadership traits and skills:

Fundamentals of leadership, including understand- ing leadership styles and terms.

Written communication, including outlining, speech writing, and report writing.

Speech communication, including defining one’s view on an issue, delivering speeches, and giving constructive criticism.

Values clarification, including identifying things that one values, understanding the importance of free choice, and affirming one’s choices.

Decision making, including gathering facts, analyz- ing the consequences of decisions, and reaching log- ical conclusions.

Group dynamics, including serving as group facilita- tor, achieving consensus, and achieving compromise.

Problem solving, including identifying problems, revising problem-solving strategies, and accepting unpopular decisions.

Personal development, including self-confidence, sensitivity, and personal grooming.

Planning, including goal setting, developing time lines, and creating evaluation strategies.

The LSI provides a profile of leadership abilities and skills for each student and for the group as a whole. It thus serves as a needs assessment instrument and guides the planning of a leadership development program based on individual and group weaknesses. Because the results are shared with students, the students learn about the nature of leadership and leadership skills, and they receive an objec- tive assessment of their own present leadership skills. This record is used as a basis for later evaluation of progress.

The second part of the training stems from the Lead- ership Skills Activities Handbook. The handbook contains activities designed to strengthen each skill or trait described

classroom with talented and gifted students, has achieved excellent results.

Plowman (1981) recommended strengthening lead- ership with exercises aimed at developing the component skills of critical thinking, decision making, persuading, planning, and evaluating. More complex objectives included helping students understand others’ needs and showing them ways that changes are made in political, social, economic, and other spheres.

Parker (1983) suggested that leadership could be trained by strengthening the four component skills of cogni- tion (especially research and investigative skills), problem solving (including creative thinking), interpersonal commu- nication (including self-awareness, concern for others, cooperation, and conflict resolution), and decision making.

Maker’s (1982) suggestions for leadership training include providing practice in leading, helping students understand leadership, and teaching them component skills. She recommended that, during the school year, the G/T teacher should allow gifted students to assume pro- gressively more leadership responsibilities. For example, they can teach small groups of students, a task that intrinsi- cally requires leadership, and they can take responsibility for various projects. She noted that a teacher can raise understanding and awareness of leadership via discussions of leadership qualities, focusing partly on which traits help make leaders successful and why. Also, the teacher can foster discussion skills, public speaking, and group control and group dynamics skills.

Thomson (1989) described a unique approach to leadership training that was part of a summer sixth-grade College Days for Kids program. One of 25 minicourses, entitled Operation Adventure and taught by ROTC staff, focused on two characteristics of leadership: problem solv- ing and courage. On the first Friday students took a brisk walk through a nature preserve. Student teams solved imaginary challenges such as “How can we create a mov- ing ‘human trolley’ to cross a swamp filled with alliga- tors?” The importance of good communication skills quickly became evident.

The second Friday presented a true hair-raiser. After proper coaching and safety training, they rappelled from a 20-foot tower—each student eagerly making his or her “jumps.” Thomson (1989) noted that the activity “gives the students opportunity to practice initiative and determina- tion in the face of somewhat frightening circumstances” (p. 59). They also learned followership in the sense that they must trust their ROTC leaders. The ROTC staff mem- bers were good models of leadership in showing qualities of professionalism, enthusiasm, and sensitivity to the chil- dren’s needs. One student said of the experience, “It made you believe in yourself.”

222 Chapter 11

rights of individual members; help all members to achieve their personal goals; are good at public relations—keeping the community informed and supportive; and understand parliamentary procedures.

Students learn steps to use in leading discussions, brainstorming, and problem solving. The authors also sug- gest tips for reading body language and nonverbal commu- nication; communicating effectively; making introductions; writing letters; preparing a speech; setting and clarifying individual and group goals; planning meetings; planning work activities for the group; serving as a committee chair- person; and serving as a committee member.

Overall, Richardson and Feldhusen’s book not only provides convincing evidence that leadership can be taught but also carefully explains and provides exercises in the skills and traits needed to improve one’s leadership ability.

interactive Creative Leadership Model: sisk

Sisk (2001) described a leadership training program that emphasizes six “productive thinking and feeling behavioral strategies of leadership” (p. 498). The first is setting goals, which gives students practice in creating objectives, plans, priorities, and hopes. The second strategy is responding to the future, which includes helping students develop a future- focused perspective—for example, with simulations such as planning a City of Tomorrow. Developing a success syntax, the third strategy, means teaching the order of activities that lead to creative production—knowing when to do what and in what order. The fourth leadership strategy is gaining self- knowledge, which involves, for example, journal writing, independent study, or imagining yourself 30 years in the future. Becoming interpersonally competent, the fifth strat- egy, involves becoming more aware of oneself during the leadership functions of planning, initiating, controlling, sup- porting, informing, and evaluating group behavior. The sixth strategy is helping students cope with value differences and conflict—for example, by learning conflict resolution and negotiating strategies. Sisk also noted that value differences can aid motivation (to solve the problem), help reasoning (to rise above emotional responses), present different perspec- tives, and even aid group cohesion.

Sisk (2008) also refers to spiritual intelligence (SQ), or a deep awareness that fosters connectedness, a sense of community, and living a meaningful life. The core characteristics of high SQ people include connectedness, compassion, responsibility, balance, unity, and service. Service-learning projects improve spiritual intelligence, good scholarship, and good citizenship (Terry, 2003). Terry suggests that we rephrase the old African proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child,” and create a new proverb, “It takes a child to raise up a village” (p. 307).

on the LSI. For example, one LSI item reads, “I am ambi- tious and desire success.” The coordinated activity in the handbook is leading a discussion on “how the self- confident person views success.” The student–leader would pose (supplied) questions such as, “Are all leaders success oriented?” “How important is this quality to a leader?”

The culminating activity for the Leadership Develop- ment Program is a student’s written “plan for leadership.” Each student is asked to think about everything he or she learned about leadership and then formulate a plan to put these skills into action. The student formulates objectives, a time line, and a list of resources. Field tests of the Leadership Skills Development Program have shown positive results.

Leadership education: richardson and Feldhusen

Richardson and Feldhusen’s (1986) book Leadership Edu- cation was written primarily for secondary students par- ticipating in leadership education programs. The book presents a balanced mix of theory and principles, charac- teristics of leadership, guides for becoming an effective leader, plus activities and problems designed to exercise and strengthen leadership traits and skills.

To explain leadership, Richardson and Feldhusen (1986) reviewed four types of leaders. The personality approach defines a leader as one who possesses a constella- tion of personality traits that are attractive to others—for example, confidence, humor, and popularity. Students with these traits are often elected to school leadership positions. Leadership as a form of persuasion is based on the ability to “convince or inspire others to follow their directions, orders, or commands . . . to inspire people to action.” Leadership as a power relation goes to the person with the highest rank, as in democratic government or clan leadership. A leader can be a self-directed and motivated person who initiates action and maintains structure when working toward group goals, as when a private citizen organizes a group to combat drug use or automobile deaths among young people.

To help students understand leadership, Richardson and Feldhusen explain that good leaders are confident and have high self-esteem. They take risks and admit mistakes. They tend to be responsible, empathic, and more assertive and extroverted than average. Good leaders are also good speakers and good listeners, and can give directions, lead dis- cussions, and write well. They have good interpersonal skills, delegate authority, and are prepared to help others. They have good organization and planning skills; they can involve group members in a task and clarify the goals and issues. They develop group cohesiveness and an atmosphere of respect, cooperation, and teamwork; avoid harsh criticism; are fair; make decisions based on majority views; protect the

Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education 223

It is true that some gifted students go astray morally and legally, and many drop out of high school and college. They forfeit both their full development and their self- actualization, as well as their potential contributions to soci- ety. But these are results that we want to avoid, of course.

The following five sections will examine, first, the nature of the self-concept—how it is formed and how pro- tecting it can lead to subtle defensive behaviors. We next look briefly at how the classic Kohlberg (1974) stages in moral development can serve as a guide for teaching moral and ethical thinking. We then review the issue of bullying as it affects gifted students, both as victims and perpetra- tors. The remaining sections review curriculum content and strategies for imparting constructive attitudes, aware- ness, values, and humanistic thinking, as well as the quali- ties of a humanistic teacher.

seLf-ConCept

Feelings of personal competence and self-esteem are tied closely to experiences of success. For adults, many types of success experiences can strengthen feelings of adequacy and self-esteem—for example, job or career success or success as a parent, church member, home decorator, bowler, union member, and so on. For a child, however, feedback from schoolwork and the teacher is extremely important in telling each child whether he or she is a capa- ble and worthwhile person. The following are some dynamics of self-concept development:

1. Developing healthy self-concepts in students is an educational goal in itself. Because a student who feels capable and confident will be more motivated and have higher aca- demic and career aspirations, promoting good self-concepts is also a means of stimulating higher school achievement.

2. There are many facets of the self-concept. A per- son may perceive, for example, an academic self-concept, a social self-concept, an emotional self-concept, and a physical self-concept. Gifted students sometimes have bet- ter academic self-concepts than social self-concepts. This can be especially problematic during adolescence, when, as Moon (2008) points out, it can lead to depression or immersion in academics as an escape from social relations.

3. The self-concept is organized, relatively stable, and evaluative. The evaluative component (self-esteem) relates to mental health—a person may or may not like his or her self-concept. Also, according to Carl Rogers (1949), mentally healthy people see their actual selves as similar to their ideal selves.

4. The mirror theory of self-concept development assumes that the self-concept is created via assessments (reflections) from others.

future problem solving—social Learning Component

You’ve already read about Future Problem Solving in Chapter 6. It, too, has a service-learning component: encouraging students to apply their creative problem- solving techniques to actual problems in their communities and to implement actions. Their goal, says Cramond (2008), is to prepare them “to be good citizens for the world of today and tomorrow” (p. 63).

The plan has been used in the secondary-level Texas Governor’s Honors Program, a three-week summer resi- dential program. According to program staff and alumni, students acquire a “more positive attitude toward learning and . . . enhanced leadership skills that impact their school and community” (Cramond, 2008, p. 62–63).

the Wisdom-intelligence-Creativity- synthesized (WiCs) Model of Leadership

Sternberg (2005) argues that when children are identified for gifted programming, schools often neglect leadership, which he believes is the most important kind of giftedness. Leadership, he further explains, is a function of generating ideas (creatively), evaluating and implementing these ideas (intelligence), and ensuring that these ideas are for the common good of those involved (wisdom). Leadership emerges where these three qualities are synthesized—thus the S. The order of the elements of the acronym (WICS) makes it pronounceable, according to Sternberg; the order in which he describes the process would definitely not work as well as an acronym (CIWS). Leadership involves both skills and attitudes, and whereas many may have the right skills, they often lack the attitudes and thus waste those important skills. Sternberg’s creative leadership atti- tudes were described earlier in the chapter.

affeCtive Learning

In our early discussion of characteristics of gifted and tal- ented children, we noted that, compared with the average, G/T students are better able to understand moral issues and are more likely to be honest, truthful, and ethical (e.g., Howard-Hamilton & Franks, 1995). If they are moderate- to-high achievers, they are also likely to have good self- concepts, high self-esteem, and reasonably high levels of achievement motivation. Just as we try to strengthen the cognitive skills of students who are already cognitively superior, however, we can also help affectively superior students to better understand themselves and their values; to be more empathic toward others; and generally to acquire high-level values, ethics, achievement goals, and humanistic attitudes (e.g., Davis, 2003a, 2003c).

224 Chapter 11

not unusual. The middle school years often heighten peer anti-academic pressure, as well as jealousy, directed toward gifted students.

Achievement–affiliation conflicts may become par- ticularly difficult as children strive for balance but feel driven for social acceptance (Clasen  & Clasen, 1995; Rimm, 2005, 2008c). Table 11.1 lists personal and social developmental tasks for gifted youth. Moon (2008) reminds us that, whereas gifted children are capable of

5. The self-accepting student understands him- or herself and therefore is aware of strengths and weaknesses. This student values himself despite weaknesses. The self- rejecting student considers him- or herself of little worth and may have other symptoms of maladjustment.

6. Academic failure implies low worth as a person and prevents students from maintaining feelings of compe- tence. Failure after great effort is especially devastating to feelings of competence (Covington & Omelich, 1979).

7. Self-esteem and pride are greatest when the stu- dent succeeds at a difficult task; the success is attributed to both high ability and high effort (Covington  & Omelich, 1979). This also sounds a bit like what Csikszentmihalyi describes as “flow.” (See the 10th item in this list.)

8. Most critically, feelings of self-esteem and self- worth are highly treasured commodities. All students are strongly motivated to protect their feelings of self-esteem.

9. In 1890, William James published a formula for self-esteem indicating that self-esteem depends on the ratio of expectations to successes (as cited in Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Thus, gifted students could develop low self-esteem by setting goals too high or by achieving too few suc- cesses. Csikszentmihalyi reminds us that those who achieve most do not necessarily have the highest self- esteem if they expect too much of themselves. Nor is it best to encourage high self-esteem by lowering expecta- tions for those who are highly capable. For some children with too-high expectations, lowering expectations to be more reasonable is appropriate; for others—in particular, culturally and economically disadvantaged youth—it may relegate them to life-long underachievement.

10. Striving toward achieving an autotelic personal- ity is recommended by Csikszentmihalyi. The autotelic per- son has many “flow” experiences. Says Csikszentmihalyi, “flow takes place when what we feel, what we wish, and what we think are in harmony. . . . Goals are clear, feedback is relevant, challenge and skills are in balance, and attention is fully invested in the task. Hours pass like minutes. The person is interested in doing the activity for its own sake. The person is fully engaged” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 29).

developing reasonable Balance: achievement versus affiliation

Gifted children have academic, social, and emotional devel- opmental tasks that can differ from more typical children. Whereas academic development is typically advanced, social development may or may not be (Gross 2000, 2004). Emotional intensity is often characteristic of  gifted children (Mendaglio, 2008). Developmental asynchrony is

taBLe 11.1 Personal and Social Developmental Tasks for K–12 Gifted Youth

Elementary School (Ages 5–10) Developing self-regulation abilities Developing a strong work ethic Building friendships and prosocial skills Developing self-confidence Developing resilience when encountering obstacles or failure Managing long-term projects Expressing and labeling feelings Resisting the “just get by” attitude Coping effectively with teasing and/or bullying

Middle School (Ages 11–14) Negotiating affiliation and achievement conflicts Building a positive identity around giftedness Managing more complex and volatile emotions Increasing time management skills Building friendships with a wider variety of people Exploring career fields Beginning long-term educational and career planning Resisting anti-achievement and/or antisocial peer pressures Resisting cultural stereotypes

High School (Ages 14–18) Differentiating from family while remaining close to family members Making autonomous decisions Completing college and career planning Choosing challenging course work Maintaining motivation in more demanding academic classes Balancing extracurricular activities with schoolwork Developing a sexual identity Making good relationship and sexual choices Resisting cultural stereotypes

Source: Karnes, Frances A.; Stephens, Kristen R., Achieving Excellence: Educating the Gifted and Talented, 1st Ed., ©2008. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, NY.

Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education 225

been a consistent C student when he came to Dr. Rimm for underachievement counseling. After one quarter, his achievement had improved sufficiently to earn him a place on the honor roll. When Dr. Rimm asked Dan how he felt about his achievement, he replied, “I like it, but I guess I was just lucky.” He even had thanked his English teacher for “giving” him an A. Dr. Rimm pointed out to Dan that he had both improved his study habits and increased the time he spent learning. He finally acknowledged, hesi- tantly, that there probably was some relationship between his new efforts and the improved grades.

One recommended temporary solution to self-defeating, self-perpetuating defense mechanisms is individualized instruction. By engaging fearful-of-failure students in independent-learning assignments, success is redefined in terms of meeting or exceeding one’s own standards, not publicly competing with others for classroom rewards and recognition. According to Covington and Beery (1976), when students are not forced to compete, they can set reachable, realistic goals, and these provide both the best challenge and the best conditions for a satisfying success. You may recall that Csikszentmihalyi (1997) labeled as “flow” the experience of students setting goals at just the right level of challenge and then becoming engaged in their challenge. However, it is not always easy to motivate underachievers toward academic flow experiences because of their fears of failure.Other solutions to underachieve- ment follow in Chapter 12.

MoraL deveLopMent: the kohLBerg ModeL

From research with the same group of 75 boys over a period of 12 years, Lawrence Kohlberg (1976; Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989) developed a model of moral thinking that is valuable for understanding sequential stages in moral development and for teaching moral thinking.

Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development are divided into three main levels, each containing two stages. In both stages of the preconventional level (ages 0–9), the orientation is toward the physical consequences of an action, regardless of any higher-level notions of right or wrong. Thus, in Stage 1, obedience and good behavior are valued because they are ways to avoid punishments. This “might makes right” stage is characteristic of preschool children. In Stage 2, “right” action is that which produces rewards and satisfies one’s needs or the needs of others who will reciprocate (“You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”).

In the conventional level (ages 9–15), behavior is heavily inf luenced by conformity pressures, strict

accomplishing these developmental tasks, some may need special help because of their asynchronous development or  because of peer and curricular pressures that are part of giftedness.

attributions and defense Mechanisms

Most often, gifted students succeed. Their history of suc- cess inspires confidence in their abilities, a sense of respon- sibility for their actions, and feelings of control over their environment. For achieving gifted students, when failure occurs, it typically is attributed to lack of effort, not lack of ability. Failures therefore may be used constructively to evaluate shortcomings and prepare for the next time. The person has temporarily fallen short of a goal, not fallen short as a person (Covington & Beery, 1976).

Some gifted students are motivated, however, not by strong needs to succeed but by strong needs to avoid fail- ure. And when failure threatens, any of several defense mechanisms may be used to ward off threats to self-esteem. Anxious children are at high risk of developing avoidance patterns (Rimm, 2014).

One defense mechanism is deliberate or perhaps subconscious underachieving (Rimm, 2008c): There will be no humiliation or destroyed self-esteem because of poor performance if the student does not really try. If the fear- ful-of-failure student accidentally scores high on a test or paper, there is a bonus. Doing reasonably well without try- ing is clear evidence of extra-high ability, thus reinforcing the underachievement pattern. In college, an effortless C maintains the illusion of intellectual superiority without testing the scholar’s actual abilities. See Chapter 12, “Underachievement: Identification and Reversal,” for more information on defensive patterns.

If one’s need to avoid failure becomes combined with a strong need to achieve, the result may be compulsive high achievement. Again, with feelings of self-worth tied closely to classroom success, this individual makes more and more self-demands in order to sustain a high level of achievement. Anxiety, depression, and other emotional problems may result.

Also, excuses can protect the fragile ego of a fearful- of-failure student. Failure is simply attributed to external causes, not internal ones. Such students blame anything and everything: “The test was unfair,” “My friends wouldn’t let me study,” “My computer wasn’t working right,” or “I’m too creative for tests.” Ironically, these stu- dents may not accept credit or praise for successes either because success implies the ability and obligation for con- tinued good work.

The case history of Dan, a real-life underachiever unable to take credit for success, is instructive. Dan had

226 Chapter 11

High school English teacher Joan Weber (1981) used moral dilemmas from literature to encourage higher-level moral thinking. For example, Old Man Warner by Dorothy Canfield describes a 93-year-old obstinate man who, despite family pressure, refuses to move in with relatives or even move closer to town. Weber asks her class, “What should the man do? Why? Would it make a difference if he lived in a big city? If he were physically ill? If he were a woman and not a man?” Literature is a rich source of learn- ing about personal problems and conf licts centering on moral issues and values.

Gifted students especially can use Kohlberg’s six stages to help them understand moral thinking. What is “good” and what is “bad” about preconventional, conven- tional, and postconventional thinking? Should we get stuck at the conventional level? Discussions of universal values, based on the impact of our behavior on others (e.g., hon- esty, fairness, pleasantness, helpfulness, empathy, depend- ability, and respect for others’ rights), along with valuing safety, a good education, and staying out of prison, would also be valuable in developing good moral thinking.

dealing with Bullying

Concerns about the need to do something about bullying in schools took on new impetus with the increase of school shootings. A 2000 study by the U.S. Secret Service of 37 shooting incidents found that more than two-thirds of school shooters were long-standing victims of severe bul- lying and harassment (Guilbault, 2008). No one will forget Colorado’s 1999 shooting in Columbine High School, where the shooters, who had been identified as gifted, killed 13 and wounded 24 before committing suicide. The boys had been severely taunted for years. In a study by Peterson and Ray (2006), two-thirds of the identified gifted eighth-graders reported being bullied at school, one-third harbored violent thoughts as a result of being bullied, and 19% of the males and 7% of the females admitted to doing something violent (Boodman, 2006). Fifteen percent of middle grade gifted students in Rimm’s (2005) research worried a lot about being bullied. Whereas Rimm found a similar percentage of regular program students who wor- ried about being bullied, gifted students are often bullied specifically because of their intelligent behaviors, and the bullying frequently forces them to go underground in order to learn in school. Guilbault (2008) reminds us that similar bullying behaviors in adults, including sexual harassment, extortion, and assault, are punished as criminal offenses outside the school. Gifted children of both genders who are overweight and boys who are underweight face a dou- ble threat for both their giftedness and weight and are taunted as lazy, sloppy, and gay (Rimm, 2004b).

stereotypes, social conventions and expectations, and rules and laws. Thus, in Stage 3, good behavior is that which pleases others or avoids disapproval, producing the “good boy–good girl” orientation. There is much conformity here. In Stage 4, right action is based on rules and author- ity, “doing one’s duty,” and respecting the system. Laws are to be obeyed, not revised, leading to the law-and-order syndrome. Many adults do not rise above conventional moral thinking.

The highly desirable postconventional level includes the acceptance of universal and personal moral principles (for example, “Do unto others.  .  .  .”) that are valid apart from authority. In Stage 5, right action is defined by gen- eral rights and standards that have been examined and agreed upon. Personal values and opinions present the possibility of rationally changing these rights and stand- ards. For the chosen few, Stage 6 includes self-chosen principles and ethics based on universal principles and rights such as justice, equality, and respect for individual differences.

Kohlberg found that children and adolescents com- prehend all stages up to their own and understand only one additional stage. It is important to note that they preferred this next stage. Children move to the next stage when they are confronted with the appealing views of peers who are in this higher stage.

In one study of gifted students ages 9 to 15, Karnes and Brown (1981) found that the tendency to make post- conventional responses was positively correlated with age and verbal intelligence scores. The authors concluded that gifted students may reach Level III (postconventional) moral reasoning during their secondary school years, a level attained by only 10% to 15% of adults. In two studies using Rest’s (1988) Kohlberg-based Defining Issues Test, Howard-Hamilton (1994; Howard-Hamilton  & Franks, 1995) also found that gifted adolescents scored at higher levels of moral reasoning than other students. That is, they possessed a stronger justice orientation with greater emphasis on moral principles and individual rights. This fits with the previously mentioned Rimm (2006) findings that showed students in gifted programs more likely to aspire toward making a positive difference for society in their futures.

As for teaching moral development, Kohlberg (1976) suggested that teachers expose children to concepts just one step higher than their current stage and encourage them to think at this more-mature stage. Children may also be given opportunities to think about moral matters by role playing someone who has been treated rudely or cheated. A related strategy is to discuss moral dilemmas and let children practice making moral decisions that require high-level moral thinking.

Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education 227

●● Integrating character education with academic sub- jects in support of academic standards.

●● Using civics and social studies to explore democratic values and ethics.

●● Finding ways that teachers, counselors, and adminis- trators can become better prepared to be educators of character.

●● Developing new in-service character education cur- ricula and programs.

●● Implementing models that build caring environments.

We will look now at some programs and strategies for developing these critical components of affective learn- ing and student self-concepts.

ideas for promoting positive values: fantini

Almost four decades ago, Fantini (1981) itemized a num- ber of suggestions for creating an affective, humanistic curriculum for children that continues to have merit. Today, many schools encourage and even give credit for commu- nity service for their students. In addition, community ser- vice is a “must” for college applications. Altruistic activities help society and even build self-concept (Rimm, 2003a). For example, consider the following suggestions:

1. Students can learn about the desirability of “caring” values and behaviors as they relate to the self, to oth- ers, and to nature and the environment. The students focus on clarifying values and ethics and understand- ing ecology, principles of health and hygiene, and related topics.

2. Students can learn about and discuss the difficulties of persons with disabilities and the elderly.

3. Students can learn about people, both common and famous, whose behavior demonstrates humanistic, caring values.

4. High school students can become involved in community service programs, working in day-care centers, hospitals, or nursing homes or other centers for the elderly. These assignments can be voluntary, or mandated as a graduation requirement. Students receive course credit or recognition on their school records.

Elementary school children can make gifts or perform plays for the elderly or hospitalized patients; take leadership in recycling efforts; participate in drives to collect food, coats, hats, and gloves for poor families; and help in highway cleanup projects. (For example, in Lucerne, Switzerland, one of the authors of this text [Davis] noticed recycling bins on the grounds of an elementary school—a super way to raise recycling awareness.)

Overweight children, because of teasing, rejection, and abuse, face a quality of emotional life comparable to having cancer, according to a survey conducted by Christofferson (2007). Furthermore, when schools take bullying seriously and initiate antibullying programs, bul- lying is reduced by 50% (Rimm, 2004a, 2005).

The majority of gifted students (between 60% and 75%) are bystanders and are neither bullies nor victims (Guilbault, 2008). The author reminds adults that these students play an important part in encouraging or discour- aging bullies; thus, their heightened sense of moral ethics can be used to teach them to intervene safely, to support targets of bullying by including them, and to report acts of bullying to adults. Bullying thrives on peer support, so a trend not to support bullying can be very effective.

an affective, humanistic Curriculum

Character and values are in a crisis. Daily headlines describe huge numbers of robberies, shootings, rapes, drug deals, and gang violence, to say nothing of drop- ping out, racism, rudeness, bullying, an absence of empathy, and indifference to others’ rights. Teenagers go to prison, babies get tossed into Dumpsters, and families are emotionally shattered—all because some young peo- ple do not think about the consequences of their actions—consequences for themselves, for others, for everyone’s families, and for their own futures. At least 23 states currently receive government grants to develop citizenship and character education programs (CETAC, 2008).

It is true that bright students, on average, understand moral issues and productive values better and are less likely to behave according to the situation described in the pre- ceding paragraph. Nonetheless, we must help all children— from gifted and privileged to at-risk and gang-prone— to understand values and to decide consciously that constructive values will help them live happier and more successful lives, and that poor values will hurt them person- ally and may destroy their lives.

The Character Education Partnership is a national nonprofit organization devoted to improving education for moral and ethical growth. One conference description (Character Education Partnership, 2002) mentioned these central topics:

●● Stimulating student intellectual, ethical, moral, and emotional growth.

●● Helping students grapple with domestic and world- wide issues from a moral and ethical foundation.

●● Involving young people in character-based citizen- ship projects.

●● Involving parents.

228 Chapter 11

responsibility

●● Persevere: Keep on trying! ●● Always do your best. ●● Use self-control. ●● Think before you act—consider the consequences.

Fairness

●● Play by the rules. ●● Be open-minded; listen to others. ●● Don’t take advantage of others.

caring

●● Be kind. ●● Be compassionate and show you care. ●● Express gratitude. ●● Forgive others.

teaching values: two Books

Two books for teaching character and values education are Character Education (Davis, 2003a) and Values Are For- ever (Davis, 2003c). Both books, aimed at Grades 4 to 8, help students understand and make commitments to these types of universal values: honesty, responsibility, empathy, compassion, education, health, good school and work hab- its, respect, self-respect, regard for others’ rights, caring for the environment, and positive life goals.

Some information, exercises, and activities relate to teenagers’ problems. Younger children must be prepared in advance for the values questions and difficulties (e.g., theft, drugs, gangs, smoking, dropping out) that they will face in middle and high school. When they become teenag- ers, for many it is too late.

Activities include, for example, “What would hap- pen if . . .?” exercises, brainstorming, reverse brainstorm- ing, visualization (empathy), problem solving, crossword puzzles, word-search puzzles, and discussion-prodding real-world examples of self-destructive values. Two quiz- zes are a Rights Quiz and a Quiz About Your Values, both intended to help students make conscious decisions about how values matter. Similarly, the Final Examination: Val- ues and Your Dreams asks students whether each of 22 statements “Will Help My Life” or “Will Hurt My Life.” For example, among the 22 statements are the following: “Friends and people who love you are valuable. You should treat them with honesty, fairness, and friendliness”; “It’s a good idea to be a nasty, grouchy, sarcastic person—and maybe a bully too”; and “It’s good to have empathy, to try to understand other people’s feelings.”

The exercises try to help young people understand and make commitments to constructive values and behavior;

5. Students can participate in walkathons or similar activities aimed at raising research funds for persons with cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, or heart dis- ease and for other charitable causes.

6. Students can review social issues, for example, relat- ing to refugees seeking asylum in the United States, political prisoners, military actions, migrant work- ers, and so on, from the perspective of humaneness.

7. Gifted children can go even further and initiate, plan, implement, and evaluate social action projects in the context of a Renzulli Type III enrichment program.

MateriaLs and strategies for enCouraging affeCtive groWth Magic Circle

The Magic Circle technique helps children learn “why peo- ple are sometimes happy or unhappy, how to feel good about themselves, and how to get along with others” (Lefkowitz, 1975). Seven to 12 children in a circle—few enough to maintain everyone’s attention—voluntarily respond to “Today’s Topic,” such as, “I felt good when  .  .  .,” “I felt bad when . . .,” “I made someone else feel good when . . .,” or “Something I can do (or wish I could do) is. . . . ” The teacher encourages learning and understanding with follow-up questions such as, “Who can tell me why Dizzy Jones felt good on the roller coaster?” or “Why was he proud of himself?”

Character Counts

Michael Josephson is the founder and current leader of the Character Counts Foundation. Wiener (2007) explains that his program can be applied schoolwide, but it uses vocabu- lary similar to that found in many gifted programs. His six pillars of character are trustworthiness, respect, responsi- bility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. These character les- sons are likely to lead students to a high level of moral thinking as well as promote their positive leadership. Here are some excerpts from the program:

trustworthiness

●● Be honest. ●● Don’t deceive, cheat, or steal. ●● Be reliable—do what you say you’ll do. ●● Have the courage to do the right thing.

respect

●● Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule. ●● Be tolerant of differences. ●● Deal peacefully with anger, insults, and disagreements.

Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education 229

mother think?” “How will she feel?” “Was the thief think- ing of Dayvene’s feelings?” “Why or why not?” “Was the thief thinking only of him- or herself?” “What kind of peo- ple steal from lockers?” “Are they considerate?” “Thought- ful?” “Intelligent?” “Do they think about other people’s rights and feelings?” “Are you the kind of person who would do this?”

Using a questioning and discussion approach, Char- acter Education describes how everyday events can be used to teach character education and values. Among the scenarios that might be posed is the following: “I saw a couple of fifth-graders smoking this morning. Is smoking good for you? Is smoking smelly and expensive? Is our health important? What happens if we do not take care of our health?” “Someone in this room was being rude to another person. Do we like people to be rude to us? Should we be nasty and unpleasant and rude to other people?” (Davis, 2003a).

Davis’s problem-solving approach follows just two steps. The first is clarifying an affective problem. The teacher can ask, “Why is the situation bad?” “Why is it wrong?” “When does this happen?” “Who is hurt?” “How do we hurt ourselves?” “How are others affected?” “What would happen if everyone did this?” The second step is finding solutions for what can or should be done. The teacher might probe for ideas by asking, “What are some examples of correct behavior?” “What would a helpful, thoughtful person do?” “What would earn us respect from others?” “How might we help the victims?”

Both books warn students that “people are playing with your head.” That is, peer inf luence (including gang inf luence), television, films, and computers expose chil- dren to many poor values—particularly violence, overdone sexiness, coarse vocabulary for children, and sometimes destructive rebelliousness. “These shows can be fun to watch, but they can teach values that might hurt you!” (Davis, 2003b).

the huManistiC teaCher

A teacher who has internalized humanistic and character education values will be better able to communicate these values to students, both in direct teaching and by serving as a good role model. Pine and Boy (1977) listed the char- acteristics of such a humanistic teacher. We can view the traits as ideals toward which we all should work. The self- actualized, humanistic teacher:

1. Thinks well of him- or herself—he or she has a good self-concept.

2. Is honest and genuine—there is no conf lict between the real inner person and the role-playing outer person.

understand that our values determine who we are; respect others’ rights; empathize with persons (victims) whose rights are violated; value education, achievement, and career preparation; and become inoculated against media content and peer pressures that promote rudeness, underachieve- ment, crime, drugs, and lack of concern for others’ rights.

Children are helped to think about what their adult lives would be like if they adopt self-destructive values, such as dropping out, ignoring their health, joining a gang, or becoming an undereducated and undertrained person. This is compared with what life can be like if they adopt caring and constructive values, including valuing educa- tion and training. Students basically are issued the follow- ing challenge: Do you want the American Dream? Then go for it!

With brainstorming, students are asked, for exam- ple, “Why should we be honest?” “What rights do students (parents, teachers, siblings, store clerks) have?” “How many reasons can you think of to get as much education as you can?”

With reverse brainstorming, we find questions such as, “How many ways can you destroy your health?” “How can we be VERY rude and discourteous at school?” “How many ways can you prove beyond any doubt that you are an irresponsible, undependable, and untrustwor- thy slob?”

In “What would happen if . . .?” exercises, students imagine and think about the outcomes of hurtful behavior. For example, the following questions might be posed: “What would happen if everyone were a thief?” “If the school were vandalized every night?” “If nobody were friendly to anybody else?” “If we all ignored all safety rules?” “If everyone in the school wasted as many school supplies as they possibly could?”

With analogical thinking, students make imaginative comparisons. Here are some examples: “How is a good person like a good pizza?” “How is trustworthiness like a good movie?” “How are bad friends like Monopoly money?” “How is sharing like Saturday?”

Empathy and visualization exercises are similar. In both, the teacher leads students through an episode that elicits empathy, compassion, and positive values. Here is an example:

Imagine that Dayvene’s mother gave her a new digital watch for her birthday. She loved her new watch and did not want to scratch it. So she put it in her locker—and somebody stole it!

A variety of follow-up questions can be asked, such as the following: “How does Dayvene feel?” “What does she think about after this happens?” “What will Dayvene’s

230 Chapter 11

7. Exercises control over his or her life and environment.

8. Initiates needed changes. 9. Is responsive, vibrant, and spontaneous—tries to live

optimistically and energetically.

If there is one enrichment topic in this text that is “good for all children,” it is teaching positive attitudes and values.

3. Likes and accepts others. 4. Lives by humanistic values—is honestly concerned

with the welfare of fellow humans and the improve- ment of human society.

5. Is sensitive and responsive to the needs and feelings of others.

6. Is open to the viewpoints of others, to new informa- tion and experiences, and to his or her own inner feelings.

Summary

Two goals of gifted education are promoting leadership and aiding students’ affective development. Leadership is one category of giftedness in the federal definition; our gifted and talented students are tomorrow’s leaders. Affec- tive learning and character education concern self-concept, personal and social adjustment, career aspirations, moral thinking, and related topics.

Renzulli’s Operation Houndstooth ties leadership to affective learning by promoting optimism, moral courage, strong absorption with a topic, sensitivity to human con- cerns, physical and mental energy, and vision and a sense of destiny, instead of consumerism.

We reviewed several lists of leadership characteris- tics. Renzulli’s 10-item leadership rating scale empha- sized, for example, responsibility, self-confidence, likability, flexibility, enjoyment of people, and a tendency to dominate.

Plowman noted charisma, intuitiveness, creative- ness, and the ability to analyze and evaluate situations. A California gifted conference listed, for example, good decision making, altruism, persuasiveness, sensitivity to others’ needs, communication skills, integrity, organiza- tional ability, competence, and risk taking.

Sternberg’s characteristics of leadership differ from others’ because he doesn’t describe them as innate abilities but as decisions to become creative and work hard at leadership.

As part of a leadership training program, leadership traits may be used as objectives and competencies.

In developing G/T programs, according to Moon and Rosseli, leadership is by individual “champions” or advi- sory groups.

In contrast with the Great Man Theory, Sisk defined a leader as one who helps others lead themselves.

Leadership training includes some combination of teaching students about leadership styles, traits, and group dynamics; placing students in leadership roles; and teach- ing students component skills of leadership, such as

communication, creative problem solving, planning, deci- sion making, and others.

Magoon described five leadership training activities: classroom monitorships, mentorships, in-school leadership projects, community projects, and simulations.

Plowman emphasized teaching critical thinking, decision making, persuading, planning, evaluating, under- standing others’ needs, and how decisions are made.

Parker recommended teaching problem-solving and research skills, interpersonal communication skills (includ- ing conflict resolution), and decision making.

Maker recommended giving G/T students progres- sively more leadership responsibilities as the school year progresses.

Operation Adventure focused on two characteristics of leadership. Problem solving was exercised in meeting imaginary team challenges; courage was strengthened by rappelling from a tower.

Karnes and Chauvin’s Leadership Skills Develop- ment Program included (1) using their Leadership Skills Inventory to assess leadership traits and skills, and then (2) prescribing leadership activities from their Leadership Skills Activities Handbook to strengthen each weak skill. Each student also prepared a written plan for leadership.

Richardson and Feldhusen’s high school book Lead- ership Education teaches types and characteristics of lead- ers; steps to use in leading discussions, brainstorming, and problem solving; and other specific leadership skills, including goal setting, communication, and planning.

Sisk emphasized six “thinking and feeling” leader- ship strategies of setting goals, developing a future focus, developing a success syntax (learning what to do in what order), gaining self-knowledge, becoming interpersonally competent, and coping with conflict.

Gifted students usually attain higher levels of moral thinking. High-achieving students usually have good self- concepts. The self-concept is tied closely to success expe- riences, which makes feedback from schoolwork and the

Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education 231

universal and self-determined principles. Children under- stand all previous stages and one more, and prefer this next one. Research indicates that gifted adolescents tend to think at the postconventional level.

Children should be exposed to moral thinking at the next-higher level. They should have opportunities to think about moral problems—for example, by using moral dilemmas. Kohlberg’s stages themselves can be taught.

Concerns about bullying in schools took on new impetus with the increase in school shootings. In Colorado’s Columbine shootings, the shooters had been identified as gifted and had been taunted for years. Gifted children of both genders who are overweight and boys who are under- weight face a double threat of taunts for both their gifted- ness and weight. When schools initiate antibullying programs, bullying is reduced by 50%.

The Character Education Partnership organization promotes moral and ethical growth. Some suggestions are to help students grapple with ethical aspects of world prob- lems, to involve students in citizenship projects, to inte- grate character education with academic subjects (especially civics and social studies), to help teachers and administrators become better educators of character, and to develop character education curricula.

Fantini emphasized teaching values of caring, dis- cussing problems of the elderly and disabled, teaching about people who demonstrate humanistic values, involv- ing students in community service programs (e.g., recy- cling, food drives), and reviewing social issues. Gifted students can design and carry out social action projects.

In a Magic Circle, children learn how to get along with others and feel good about themselves.

The Character Counts Foundation emphasizes six pillars of character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship.

Character Education in Values Are Forever is a pro- gram designed to help students in Grades 4 to 8 understand and make commitments to values relating to, for example, honesty, responsibility, empathy, others’ rights, and educa- tion. The books use, for instance, “What would happen if . . .?” questions, brainstorming, visualization (empathy), problem solving, crossword and word-search puzzles, and quizzes as well as real-world examples.

The humanistic teacher has a good self-concept; likes others; initiates change; and is honest and genuine, forward-growing, sensitive, creative and adventurous, con- fident, and open to other viewpoints.

teacher extremely important for children. Academic failure implies low self-worth.

Developing good self-concepts is a goal in itself. We have many “selves” (academic, social, emotional, physi- cal). The self-concept is organized, stable, and evaluative. Underachieving G/T students have poor self-concepts. The self-concept may be formed by mirrored reflections from others. Self-accepting students are aware of strengths and weaknesses. Self-rejecting students feel of little worth. Academic failure implies low worth, especially after great effort. Excuses protect the self-concept. Self-esteem is greatest when it comes from success at a difficult task. All students try to protect their treasured self-esteem. William James published a formula indicating that self-esteem depends on the ratio of expectations to successes.

Flow takes place when there is an ideal match between goals and feedback, and when challenge and skills are in balance. The person is fully engaged.

Future Problem Solving features a service-learning component to prepare students to be good citizens for the world of today and tomorrow.

Sternberg argues that when children are identified for gifted programming, schools often neglect leader- ship, which he believes is the most important kind of giftedness. His WICS Model of leadership comprises wisdom—intelligence—creativity—synthesized.

Gifted children have academic, social, and emotional developmental tasks that can differ from typical children. Developmental asynchrony is not unusual.

Achievement–affiliation conflicts may become par- ticularly difficult as children strive for balance but feel driven for social acceptance. Some gifted children may need special help because of their asynchronous develop- ment or peer or curricular pressures.

Students may be achievement- and success-oriented, or motivated by fear of failure. Deliberate underachieving helps avoid feelings of failure, as does compulsive high achievement or attributing failures to external causes. Indi- vidualized learning is one temporary solution to self- defeating defensive behaviors.

Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development are sep- arated into three levels. In the two stages of the preconven- tional level, right action avoids punishment and satisfies one’s needs or the needs of others (who will reciprocate). In the two stages of the conventional level, correct behav- ior is defined by strict social conventions. In the two stages of postconventional thinking, right action is defined by

232

Learning OutcOmes

1. Define underachievement and explain how it may be identified.

2. Describe the characteristics of underachieving gifted children.

3. Identify the categories of etiologies related to underachievement.

4. Analyze the family etiology of underachievement.

5. Analyze the school etiology of underachievement.

6. Recommend the six steps of the TRIFOCAL model to reverse underachievement.

Underachievement Identification and Reversal

12 C H A P T E R

T he underachieving gifted child represents both society’s greatest loss and its greatest potential resource. The underachieving gifted child has the potential for high achievement and significant contributions but is not using that talent in productive ways. Although it isn’t clear how its statistics were derived, the National

Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) reported that half of gifted children do not perform in school at a level that is up to their abilities. Studies of high school dropouts estimate that between 18% and 25% of the students who do not graduate are in the gifted range of abilities (Solorzano, 1983; Renzulli & Park, 2000). The Carnegie Corporation’s (1996) report, Years of Promise, further certifies the seriousness of the underachievement problem in the United States. The report states,

Make no mistake about it, underachievement is not a crisis of certain groups: it is not limited to the poor; it is not a problem afflicting other people’s children. Many middle- and upper-income children are also falling behind intellectually. Indeed, by the fourth grade, the performance of most children in the United States is below what it should be for the nation and is certainly below the achievement lev- els of children in competing countries (p. 2).

Richert (1991a) is convinced that even these large figures are underestimates of the amount and degree of underachievement because the figures do not include underachievers who were not identified because IQ scores were the criterion. IQ scores, even those of individually tested students, are frequently lowered by underachievement (see Harry’s scores later in this section), and after many years of underachieving, some students’ giftedness may not be identifiable (Rimm, 2009a). It is impossible to measure the exact magnitude of the problem, but it is surely large.

Although some underachievers may reverse their underachievement in college and in life (Peterson, 2001), many continue their pattern of underachievement. On the one hand, comparisons of 73 gifted achievers and gifted underachievers 4 years after high school graduation showed that achievers continued achieving, finished more

Underachievement 233

years of college, attained higher college grade point aver- ages (GPAs), had greater campus involvement, and exhib- ited earlier and greater certainty about their career directions (Peterson, 2000). On the other hand, maturity was helpful to some underachievers, but the remaining per- centage continued their underachievement. Twenty-six percent of them did become achievers in college and had GPAs of at least 3.0.

The nonproductiveness of gifted underachievers often leads to frustration for parents, teachers, and the child. If the underachievement pattern can be reversed, however, students can make unusual progress in skill acquisition and in positive, productive work. In view of the student’s history of underachievement, the extent of posi- tive change after appropriate intervention usually is quite surprising. Extraordinary motivation to achieve, or “super- achievement,” may indeed be the flip side of the undera- chievement coin (Rimm, 1991b).

This chapter will review the characteristics, causes, and psychological dynamics of underachievement, along with strategies for reversing this frustrating syndrome.

Definition anD iDentification of UnDerachievement

Underachievement is typically defined as a discrepancy between the child’s school performance and some index of his or her actual ability, such as intelligence, achievement, or creativity test scores or observational data. Although many studies use highly technical definitions, the discrep- ancy between a measure of potential and actual productivity seems to be part of all definitions (Butler-Por, 1987; Baum, Renzulli, & Hébert, 1995; Colangelo, Kerr, Christensen, & Maxey, 1993; Dowdall & Colangelo, 1982; Emerick, 1992; Kedding, 1990; Lupart & Pyryt, 1996; Reis & McCoach, 2000; Richert, 1991a; Rimm, 1986, 1997b, 2008b; Siegle & McCoach, 2005; Supplee, 1990; Whitmore, 1980; Wolfle, 1991). Sometimes, comparisons are made between test scores of ability and those of achievement; other times, comparisons of test scores with report card grades or with teacher observations are used (Rimm, 2009a). The lack of precision in defining underachievement makes it difficult, if not impossible, to calculate percentages of underachievers, but too much precision in definition would prevent many underachievers from being identified and therefore receiv- ing services.

test Scores

The chief index of actual ability used by schools is test scores. Despite all the faults and problems related to test- ing, despite test unreliability and measurement error, and

despite all the biases that need to be considered related to low test scores, it is apparent that children cannot score extraordinarily high on tests purely by accident. Test- taking skill alone cannot account for test scores that con- sistently fall two or more standard deviations above the mean—that is, above the 97th percentile. Unusually high scores, whether on intelligence, achievement, or creativity tests, indicate special abilities or skills not apparent in the underachieving child’s usual schoolwork.

The unusual story of Harry’s reversal of undera- chievement (Rimm, 2008b) provides evidence of how underachievement may lower test scores and how the reversal of underachievement may cause those test scores to increase again. Harry’s parents were uncertain whether their son was an underachiever or whether he had average ability, so they sought help at Rimm’s Family Achievement Clinic. His parents were concerned specifically about symptoms of depression. Harry had lost interest in school. Harry’s primary-grade teachers had described him as gifted, but by sixth grade his teachers considered him an average student with average grades and test scores. After Rimm met separately with Harry’s parents and with Harry, he gradually reversed his underachievement. Figures 12.1 and 12.2 show the improvement in Harry’s IQ and achieve- ment test scores from sixth through eighth grades. His Wechsler IQ score went from 110 to 125 by eighth grade. Harry showed further improvement in high school. His high SAT scores and his 3.6 GPA, which included honors and AP courses, ref lected the giftedness that his earlier teachers had described. Harry’s premedical undergraduate 3.5 GPA, his admission into medical school, and his success as a medical student further confirmed his early- childhood diagnosis as gifted. If no one had paid attention to Harry’s parents’ description of his early giftedness, teachers and Harry would have assumed that he had only average ability. The moral of the story is that high test scores are important indices of ability, but they are not the only indices. Early observations are very important.

intelligence test Scores

If a child is identified as gifted, even on the basis of intel- ligence test scores alone, it is important to compare the child’s actual school performance with the performance that would be expected according to those IQ scores. Several statistical concepts may be used in this kind of comparison—especially grade-equivalent scores, mental age (MA) equivalents, stanines, and percentiles. For exam- ple, a third-grade child of 8 years, 6 months, may produce intelligence test scores in the ninth stanine (top 4%) or a mental age equivalent score of 10 years, 2 months, but his or her usual classroom performance might range between

234 Chapter 12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Vocabulary: Grade 6 72 Grade 7 85 Grade 8 88

Reading: Grade 6 67 Grade 7 71 Grade 8 78

Spelling: Grade 6 71 Grade 7 84 Grade 8 85

Capitalization: Grade 6 42 Grade 7 72 Grade 8 79

Punctuation: Grade 6 50 Grade 7 87 Grade 8 94

Usage: Grade 6 79 Grade 7 92 Grade 8 94

Math Concepts: Grade 6 81 Grade 7 82 Grade 8 95

Math Problems: Grade 6 43 Grade 7 72 Grade 8 85

Math Computation: Grade 6 65 Grade 7 72 Grade 8 68

COMPOSITE Grade 6 66 Grade 7 84 Grade 8 91

Score National Percentile Rank

Low Average High

IOWA TESTS OF BASIC SKILLS

fiGUre 12.1 Iowa Tests of Basic Skills: Results for Harry. Source: From “Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and What You Can Do about it: A Six-step Program for Parents and Teachers’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

the 40th and 60th percentiles—strictly at grade level. Any of these statistical yardsticks are satisfactory for helping to define underachievement operationally in order to assist in identifying children who need help.

Using current test scores alone would be likely to underidentify underachievement because scores could be artificially lowered by students’ lack of motivation, ten- sion, negative attitudes toward testing, or many years of

Underachievement 235

not learning in school. Earlier test scores should be taken seriously and are important for alerting educators to a child’s real potential.

A frequent error in the identification of underachievers is to use a fixed number of months or years below grade level as a criterion for underachievement. For example, first-grade children who are 6 months below their expected achieve- ment level will have far more serious underachievement problems than eighth graders performing 1 full year below the expected level. For the younger children, a 6-month lag may represent being 50% behind where they should be; for the eighth-grade children, 1 year represents being only 12.5% behind expected performance. The main problem related to using a constant number of months is that younger children with underachievement problems are likely to be overlooked because the discrepancy between actual and expected achievement does not appear to be large enough in terms of actual months, even though the problem is quite serious. Because underachievement can be treated more eas- ily when diagnosed early, it is critical to recognize this com- mon identification error (Rimm, 2008b; Whitmore; 1986).

achievement test Scores

Many schools do not routinely administer group intelli- gence tests, but almost all schools regularly use published (standardized) and/or teacher-made achievement tests. These provide an objective basis for determining the levels of information and skills that a child has mastered. To eval- uate underachievement, the teacher can compare actual school performance (for example, the quality of reports, projects, homework, math or reading proficiency, or class participation) with the achievement test scores. A pattern

80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Verbal: Grade 6 110 Grade 8 119

Nonverbal: Grade 6 102 Grade 8 110

Quantitative: Grade 6 114 Grade 8 135

Score Standard Age Score (IQ)

Low Average High

STANDARDIZED TEST RESULTS COGNITIVE ABILITIES TEST

of continuous decline in achievement test scores also is a sure sign of underachievement (Rimm, 2008b).

creativity test Scores

High scores on divergent-thinking tests such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 2006) or on creative personality inventories such as Group Inventory for Finding Creative Talent (GIFT) and Group Inventory for Finding Interests (GIFFI) (Rimm, 1976; Rimm & Davis, 1980, 1983) strongly suggest that the child has tal- ent in the area of creative and productive thinking. How- ever, high creativity scores do not ensure high achievement. On the contrary, some fairly common characteristics of creative students—such as nonconformity, resistance to teacher domination, impulsivity, and indifference to rules—may cause the creative child serious difficulties in achieving within the classroom structure (Davis, 2003). Some highly creative students are dramatic underachievers because their personalities and thinking styles are quite at odds with those required for classroom success. Rimm (1987b, 2008b, 2013) found that creative underachieving students often defined their identity in terms of noncon- formity. Their concern for thinking and acting differently than others actually prevents them from achieving and making classroom efforts. Typical patterns that Rimm finds among creative underachieving students who come to her clinic are scores at the 95th to the 99th percentile for the GIFT or GIFFI inventories and below the 10th percentile for the Achievement Identification Measure (AIM; Rimm, 1986). AIM is an inventory completed by parents that describes achievement patterns, with low scores represent- ing underachievement (Rimm, 2008b). Other creative

fiGUre 12.2 Cognitive Abilities Test: Results for Harry. Source: From “Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and What You Can Do about it: A Six-step Program for Parents and Teachers’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

236 Chapter 12

students apply their unique talents to classroom assign- ments and requirements, however, and achieve at the level of students with much higher tested intelligence (Getzels & Jackson, 1962).

Children with high creativity scores but only somewhat above average IQ scores (110–130) have very high potential for making creative contributions (Rimm, 1987c; Renzulli, 1986; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 2003). If students in this cate- gory are not being productive in school, they should be iden- tified as gifted underachievers, even though their intelligence and achievement test scores may not be in the gifted range.

observation

Some underachieving gifted children do not perform well on any test because of poor test-taking habits or slow processing speed. For example, they may not be motivated to do well. On a group test, some students may answer questions ran- domly. On an individually administered test, they may fear making mistakes, so they “play dumb” or avoid answering questions unless they are certain of the correct answer. Some creative children try to answer questions in as different a way as possible because, in their creative thinking style, they assume that a test wouldn’t ask for an obvious response. Some children don’t finish the test because of time limits, thus scoring far lower than their capabilities. Teacher and par- ent observations provide the only basis for identifying these gifted children; there will be little or no objective evidence.

Teachers may note class behaviors, comments, or vocabulary that suggests the child has much more intellec- tual, creative, or artistic potential than he or she is exhibit- ing in schoolwork. Teachers can recognize these behaviors, however, only if they are aware of the characteristics of gifted children. Teachers must remain open to the possibil- ity of discovering giftedness in children already labeled as “average” or even “below average.” (Remember Harry!) Many such gifted underachievers are never discovered.

Commonly used checklists and rating scales for gifted programs do not include traits of gifted underachiev- ers. Hall’s (1983) study of teacher identification proce- dures found that four gifted children described by the following statements had been considered below average students, although their IQ scores were above 130:

Student A. Makes excuses for not doing assign- ments, doesn’t take an interest in things, passive, dependent.

Student B. Doesn’t get along with others, doesn’t do his work, likes to tell jokes.

Student C. Talks too much, doesn’t listen, wastes time.

Student D. Immature, quiet, withdrawn, short interest span.

Teachers who are aware of characteristics of both underachieving and achieving gifted students can make important observations that help identify gifted underachievers.

Parents also are in a unique position to observe the talents and capabilities of their own gifted children, even if the children are not high achievers. Note that teachers and principals typically feel uncomfortable and threatened by “pushy” parents who insist that their child is gifted. Educa- tors should assure these parents that their perceptions will be given full consideration if they can provide specific evi- dence of their child’s giftedness. If the anecdotal material appears reasonably convincing, additional testing may indeed support the parents’ observations. If the anecdotal material does not suggest giftedness, the teacher or princi- pal can explain why such behavior does not represent any special talent by comparing it with the behavior of typical children and with that of highly talented children.

Parent observations indicating that the child puts forth little effort on assigned homework or study can certainly verify underachieving behavior even when school grades are reasonably good. If gifted students earn good grades effortlessly, the curriculum is not sufficiently challenging and they are underachieving. In addition, they may not be prepared to cope with a challenging curriculum and compe- tition when those circumstances occur (Rimm, 2008b).

Underachievement test Scores

Three tests have been developed expressly for the identification of underachievement. The Achievement Iden- tification Measure (AIM; Rimm, 1986) is a parent report inventory used with children in Grades 1–12. The Group Achievement Identification Measure (GAIM; Rimm, 1987a) is a self-report inventory for students in Grades 5–12. The Achievement Identification Measure-Teacher Observation (AIM-TO; Rimm, 1988a) is a teacher obser- vation instrument used for students in Grades 1–12. These inventories were normed with general student populations and are highly reliable (r = 0.89, 0.90, and 0.97 for AIM, GAIM, and AIM-TO, respectively). All instruments pro- vide a test score that allows for a comparison of each stu- dent with the norm, based on characteristics related to high achievement. Subscale scores, described in Table 12.1, provide information on the types of problems the children are exhibiting. The manuals that accompany the tests pro- vide a guide to the interpretation and use of the scores.

AIM, GAIM, and AIM-TO are most useful in identi- fying children suspected by teachers and parents of being gifted underachievers. The tests can also be used to identify underachieving gifted children already in programs. That is, they can uncover high-risk children with characteristics

Underachievement 237

of underachievement whose superior abilities mask the problems that are likely to appear later if not prevented. You may wish to complete AIM-TO for an achieving and/ or underachieving child to compare the scores to your per- sonal assessment.

characteriSticS of UnDerachievinG GifteD chilDren

Studies of gifted underachievers have identified character- istics that are typical of these children. Whitmore (1980) summarized some of the most important traits in an identi- fication checklist. She suggests that if 10 or more of these characteristics are checked, the child should be evaluated further to determine whether he or she is indeed a gifted underachiever.

Using the School Attitude Assessment Survey–R (SAAS-R; McCoach, 2000), McCoach and Siegle (2003) compared the characteristics of achievers and undera- chievers and documented the fact that, compared with achievers, underachievers differed in their attitude toward school and teachers, their motivation, and their valuing of school goals. In summary, they found neither intrinsic nor extrinsic value in their school experience. They also reported that the underachievers were not a homogenous group but differed from each other; thus, they recom- mended that processes of reversing underachievement should also differ depending on the unique profile of each underachiever.

The characteristic found most frequently and consist- ently among underachieving children is low self-esteem

taBle 12.1 Subscale Scores for AIM, GAIM, and AIM-TO

Competition High scorers enjoy competition, whether they win or lose. They are good at sports and handle victories graciously. They do not give up easily.

Responsibility High scorers are responsible in their home and schoolwork. They tend to be well organized and to bring activities to closure. They have good study habits and understand that their efforts are related to their grades.

Achievement Communication Children who score high are receiving clear and consistent messages from parents about the importance of learning and good grades. Their parents have communicated positive feelings about their own school experiences, and there is consistency between the mother’s and the father’s messages of achievement.

Independence/Dependence High scorers are independent and understand the relationship between effort and outcomes. They are able to share attention at home and in the classroom.

Respect/Dominance High scorers are respectful toward their parents and teachers. They are reasonably well behaved at home and at school. They value education. They are not deliberately manipulative.

(Fine & Pitts, 1980; Grobman, 2006; Rimm, 2008b; Whitmore, 1980). These students do not believe that they are capable of accomplishing what their family or teachers expect of them or what they should expect of themselves. The low self-esteem they feel may, in fact, be related directly to these pressures to “be gifted” (Adderholdt-Elliott, 1999; Rimm, 1987c). Grobman (2006), a psychiatrist, described the pressures of the extremely gifted adolescent and young adult underachievers with whom he worked as a “powerful inner drive to explore and master [that] felt like an obliga- tory force of nature” (p. 199). Despite these young people’s intensity and drive, their giftedness didn’t contribute to consistent self-esteem but instead to emotional pain. The inordinate pressure felt by these gifted underachievers led them to self-destructive behavior or to drift away gradually from their giftedness. Grobman’s case studies remind edu- cators again of the importance of attempting to prevent and reverse underachievement early.

low Self-esteem

Low self-esteem is not always consistent internally nor observable to the outsider. Plucker and Stocking (2001) dis- covered that, among 131 gifted adolescents studied, aca- demic self-concept was not always generalizable. Thus, a student who has excellent mathematics skills is likely to have a positive self-concept in the area of mathematics, but that self-concept may have a negative effect on self-concept in the verbal area. When one of the authors of this text (Rimm) asks young clients about how smart they are com- pared with their classmates, they often describe themselves in segmented ways, some of which are realistic and some

238 Chapter 12

more negative in their areas of weakness because of their strengths in other areas. Here’s a case study example:

Sixteen-year-old Darnel is gifted and achieving in art. His art teacher describes his work as phe- nomenal, specifically referring to Darnel’s speed and creativity, and the excellence of his products. Darnel explains that he shuts down and feels anxiety in math and English because he could never reach the high standards set by his art teacher. His thoughtful, but rationalized, defense is that it makes no sense to put any effort into areas in which he cannot be as suc- cessful as he can be in his art talent area. For Darnel, “fast,” “brilliant,” “extraordinary,” and “creative” are his only acceptable standards. His self-concept is excellent as it relates to art, but is seriously damaged for math and English because he generalized his high standards for art to all his subjects and therefore fell short of his goals.

Gallagher (2013) reminds us that even among Terman’s high IQ students (Terman, 1954) there were underachievers. When Terman compared his 150 highest achievers to the 150 lowest achievers, the characteristics that separated the underachievers from the achievers were lack of confidence, perseverance, and inferior feelings. Also, they didn’t integrate their goals. These low ratings of self-esteem came from teacher observations in preadolescence and were reported by the “Termites” themselves later in adult life.

Poor Self-efficacy

Related to low self-esteem is the sense of low personal con- trol or self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Dweck, 2006; Laffoon, Jenkins-Friedman, & Tollefson, 1989; Rimm, 2008b). If underachievers fail at a task, they blame their lack of abil- ity; if they succeed, they attribute their success to luck. Thus, they accept responsibility for failure but not for success.

This attribution process in educational achievement has been related to Seligman’s (1975) concept of learned helplessness. If a child does not experience a relationship between efforts and outcomes, he is not likely to expend any effort to achieve. This pattern is characteristic of many gifted underachievers. Weiner (1985) also emphasized that a child’s performance is strongly influenced by whether he or she attributes successes and failures to ability, effort, task difficulty, or luck. In particular, attributing success to effort leads to additional effort, whereas attributing success to task ease or luck does not. In a similar sense, Dweck (2006) described two basic mindsets: A fixed mindset causes stu- dents to believe that their abilities are permanent and that they can’t do anything about them. They expend effort trying

to appear intelligent and correct. If they have a growth mindset, they understand that their efforts will develop their talents over time and they can open themselves to learning.

avoidance Behaviors

A fixed mindset leads underachievers to nonproductive avoidance behaviors both at school and at home (Dweck, 2006; Rimm, 2008b; Whitmore, 1980). For example, underachievers may avoid making a productive effort by asserting that school is irrelevant and that they see no reason to study material for which there is no use or, as Darnel mentioned earlier, at which they aren’t very good compared with their performance in their real talent areas. Students may also assert that when they are really interested in learning, they can do very well and then cite the examples of a favorite course or project. These kinds of avoidance behaviors protect underachievers from admitting their feared lack of ability. If they stud- ied, they would risk confirming the possible shortcom- ings to themselves and to important others. If they do not study, they can use the nonstudying as a rationale for the failure, thus protecting their valuable feelings of self- worth (Covington & Beery, 1976; Fine & Pitts, 1980; Rimm, 2008b).

Former governor of New Jersey and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) director Christie Whitman’s description of her underachievement in some subjects fol- lows (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001):

My father set very high standards, perhaps too high. He insisted, “Anything worth doing is worth doing well,” so when I wasn’t good at things, I would retreat. I did well with the sub- jects that interested me, like English, history, and creative writing, but in Latin, math, and grammar, I did miserably. I think part of it was being spoiled. I developed a defense mecha- nism, which was “If I don’t try, it’s not that I’m dumb, it’s that I didn’t try.” I didn’t give myself a chance to prove myself. It’s not something I’m dearly proud of and I certainly never mentioned it to my children when they were growing up.

rebellion

Extreme rebellion against authority—particularly school authority—provides another mechanism to protect the underachiever. The student seems eager to tell teachers, the principal, the superintendent, and even the board of educa- tion exactly how they ought to run the school. An indignant Darnel, who was described earlier, came to one of the authors of this text (Rimm) with a petition signed by most

Underachievement 239

members of his freshman class. The petition stated that the teachers at his school were not teaching useful informa- tion. Faulting the school—blaming the system—helps the underachiever avoid the responsibility of achieving. Because the school is sometimes at fault, the underachiever is further empowered to battle the school even when it is not at fault. Here’s an example:

Derek came to Rimm’s Family Achievement Clinic after he had been removed from his eighth-grade gifted program because he con- tinually argued with the teacher. He acknowl- edged that the teacher was right in expecting him to leave the program, and he was even determined to earn the opportunity to reenter. With great insight, Derek explained his argu- ing behavior. He believed it had started when he was in elementary school, where his assign- ments were too easy. He had accompanied his mother to argue with the teacher about how unchallenging and boring his work was, and together they successfully convinced the teacher to provide more interesting work. He described his experience as “winning the argu- ment with the teacher.” He felt he was justified at that time, and that had initiated the confi- dence in arguing that he found himself using even now, when his arguing wasn’t justified. Arguing had become a fun habit that also paid off in getting peer attention. He explained that he didn’t have many friends, but when he argued with his teacher, he felt that his whole class cheered him on. He was confident that he could win the arguments with the teacher, and he felt smart, too. Derek also acknowledged that his work in the classroom was challenging now and that he shouldn’t be arguing, but it had become a habit that he found hard to break.

This story could have been different if Derek’s mother had advocated for her son privately and in a man- ner that was more respectful of the teacher. She had over- empowered Derek by bringing him into a situation where he felt as if he was right and the teacher was wrong, causing him to believe that he knew his needs better than the teacher. Advocacy for gifted students is crucial, but it must be handled sensitively or it can lead down a slippery slope.

Expectations of low grades, and perfectionism— though apparent opposites—also serve as defense mecha- nisms for the underachieving child. If the underachiever expects low grades, he or she lowers the risk of “failure.” Note that low goals are consistent with a poor self-image and low self-confidence.

Perfectionism

Perfectionism provides a different protection. (Perfectionism is elaborated on later in this chapter and also in Chapter 17.) Because perfection is unachievable, it provides the child with ready excuses for poor performance. For example, stu- dents can boast that they set their goals higher than most people, so, of course, they cannot always succeed. The stu- dents thus provide a rationale for failure and do not need to label themselves as incompetent (although they may indeed feel inadequate).

By contrast, achieving children set realistic goals that are reachable, and they use their failures construc- tively to indicate weaknesses needing their attention.

Hostettler (1989) described the relationship between perfectionistic habits acquired in elementary school and high school underachievement. He taught a class of 10th-grade gifted underachievers whose standardized achievement test scores were above the 85th percentile, yet their mean GPA was 1.85. Most of them were failing English, French, and/or algebra. However, high school records showed that in sixth grade the usual GPA of these bright students was 4.0—straight A—and typical teacher comments were “perfect student,” “marvelous,” “wonder- ful,” “doing beautiful work,” “impossible to improve,” and “set for big things.” Two conclusions seemed in order: First, the students’ own high grades, coupled with super- lative feedback, led to perfectionistic self-expectations. Second, these students showed a common late onset of underachieving because perfectionistic students do well when the curriculum is easy enough to permit “perfect” achievement, but they become underachievers when work becomes difficult, that is, in middle or high school.

Poor functioning in competition

Closely related to the issue of perfectionism is the gifted underachiever’s inability to function in competition unless they view themselves as winners (Rimm, 2008b). Students in a clinic setting rarely admit this problem when asked; however, when the Achievement Identification Measure (Rimm, 1986) was factor-analyzed to create achievement subscale scores, the main factor included items related to competition—for example, “My child loses his temper if he fails at something,” “My child brags a lot when she wins at something” (negatively scored), “My child enjoys com- petition, win or lose,” and “My child is a good sport whether he wins or loses.”

Parent observations of underachievers confirm that these children avoid competitive activities in and outside the classroom, unless they perceive themselves as highly likely to win. Instead of viewing losing as temporary, they

240 Chapter 12

Bruce attended the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His freshman year went reasonably well, but in his sophomore year, his grades declined. After the first semester of his junior year, his grades were too low for him to be permitted to continue.

Bruce worked at a fast-food restaurant while planning his future. He said he com- pleted a report in his senior year of high school about how he thought the school could improve. It never occurred to him then to ask for more challenge. He had been happy and interested. Bruce said he never realized then how many highly intelligent students there were in the world, nor had he ever had an assignment in high school that he could not easily do. He “hit his first wall” in college and backed away in defeat.

When the counselor asked Bruce about returning to school, he said that, of course, he planned to graduate eventually. When he was further asked if he believed he would be able to graduate, his immediate response was “no” (Rimm, 2008b).

Achieving students recognize a competitive environ- ment as one in which they may experience degrees of success or failure, and they take the risks of working hard in full awareness that they may not be the top (most perfect) scholars. When they are disappointed with their performance, achievers reevaluate their study skills or request the help they require, but they don’t label them- selves as failures.

Directions of avoidance Behaviors

Two directions of avoidance behaviors have been described by Kaufmann (1986) as withdrawal responses or aggressive, hostile responses. In a related fashion, Rimm (2008b) found underachievers to exhibit their defenses by dependency or dominance. Figure 12.3 shows these two directions. Conforming underachievers differ from those in the nonconforming category in degree and visibility. That is, conforming dependent and dominant students have the characteristics that may lead to greater underachievement problems, but their undera- chievement is neither as extensive nor as obvious. Non- conforming dependent and dominant underachievers already exhibit serious problems. The prototypical names used in Figure 12.3, Passive Paul, Rebellious Rebecca, and so on, are used to emphasize the main characteristics of these underachievers, but any one child typically

see themselves as losers, quit, and do not seem to have the resilience to recover from failure experiences. Many young adults who were underachievers as children concede that their early inability to cope with competition was a critical component of their avoidance patterns, although they also acknowledge that they would never have admitted their feelings about competition at the time. Donna Draves (a pseudonym), television news anchor (Rimm et al., 1999), confessed to having feelings of competition during child- hood that she would not have admitted to if she had been required to use her real name for the study. For example, she remembered that she quit ballet lessons because she was no longer the best dancer in class, but at the time she gave her parents the excuse of finding the classes boring. (To teachers, “boring” is a familiar excuse.) Donna avoided math and sports because she feared that she could never do as well in those areas as her brother. She also gradually left her peer group because she won a speech competition (encouraged by her teacher), and her peers did not value winners, but a new group of peers did.

A high school student visiting Rimm’s Family Achievement Clinic in the midst of his underachievement problem asserted with bravado that competition didn’t bother him at all. Then, on second thought, he added, “[E]xcept related to my 150 IQ. I really get mad at a person if I hear they have a higher IQ than me.” His actions reflected his unadmitted competitive feelings. He avoided all competitive activities, including doing his homework assignments. He is an example of a young man with a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2006), stymied by the fear that others might discover him to be less capable than his early 150 IQ score guaranteed. His more recent IQ score was a lower 138—no surprise after years of underachievement.

Underachievement of gifted students may also appear at the college level if students have not learned to function in competition. The U.S. Department of Educa- tion reported that, of the top 5% of high school graduates, 40% do not graduate from college (DeLeon, 1989). Although the reasons for noncompletion of college may be more complicated and diverse than an inability to function in competition, the first author’s clinical experience with gifted students who lose confidence in competitive college environments provides evidence for this serious undera- chievement problem. Here is an example:

Bruce was a National Merit Scholar and valedictorian of his very academic high school. He had received few Bs during his entire edu- cational experience. He was well liked and well adjusted. He loved computers and became engaged in almost every kind of learning.

Underachievement 241

exhibits a group of these symptoms. Rimm also points out that some underachievers exhibit both dependent and dominant defensive behaviors.

In Peterson’s (2001) retrospective study of achieving adults who had been underachievers in adolescence, 48% of these adults reported themselves as dominant and 38% reported themselves as dependent, when all were specifi- cally asked. More than half also perceived that they were difficult to raise. No doubt, they were dominant and dependent, and had other problems as well.

Richert (1991a) summarized how others’ expecta- tions can inf luence gifted children not only in the area of academic achievement (or underachievement) but also in emotional, ethical, social, creative and spiritual achieve- ment and underachievement (Table 12.2). Richert’s ideal pattern, and one to be encouraged, is neither to accept nor to reject others’ expectations fully but to transcend them with healthy self-expectations, which will optimize achievement, independence, creativity, self-acceptance, and so on. Note that Kaufmann, Rimm, and Richert show considerable agreement in their descriptions and interpretations of the behavior of underachieving gifted children.

Siegle and mccoach model characteristics

Siegle and McCoach (2005b) provide a model for achieve- ment orientation that includes four major components on the path to achievement motivation (Figure 12.4). Two components—confidence in one’s ability to perform the task (self-efficacy) and expecting to succeed—are similar to the key underlying issues described by Rimm (2008b):

fiGUre 12.3 Inner circle of achievers. Source: From “Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and What You Can Do about it: A Six-step Program for Parents and Teachers’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

taBle 12.2 Patterns of Response to Expectations

Aspects of Potential

Accept Reject Transcend

Conformity Withdrawal Rebellion Maximizing

Ability Achievement Productivity

Successes satisfy others Extrinsically motivated

Safe mediocrity Evades pressure to perform

Failure/rejects external expectations

Satisfies own values Intrinsically motivated

Values Based on norms Externally dependent

Evades external judgment

Reacts against Independent

Creativity Repressed Fear of failure

Repressed/refuses to take risks

Divergent Negative

Creative Risk taker

Self-esteem Insecure/dependent on others’ perceptions External locus of control

Follower/avoids competition External locus of control

Dependent Internalizes negative external judgment External locus of control

Independent Self-accepting Internal locus of control

(continued)

242 Chapter 12

Social relations Roles that lead to rewards/pleases others

Follower/avoids competition

Loner or gang leader Isolated or domineering

Withdraws or takes leadership May have few friends

Emotional impact of experiences Vulnerability

Reinforces dependence on external rewards and approval for self-esteem

Reinforces feeling of self-dissatisfaction and fear of judgment

Punishment Betrayal Rejection

Potency: asserts control over own life Compassion

Source: Global Institute for Maximizing Potential, Inc.

TABLE 12.2 (Continued )

Aspects of Potential

Accept Reject Transcend

Conformity Withdrawal Rebellion Maximizing

Model of Achievement-Orientation

Sets Realistic

Expectations and

Implements Appropriate Strategies

to Successfully

Complete Goals (S e lf-

Regulation)

Possesses Adequate Skills to Perform

the Task

Task Engagement

and Achievement

School Peers Home

Values the Task or

Outcome (Task Valu e)

Demonstrates Confidence in

One’s Ability to Perform the

Task (Self-Efficacy)

Motivation

Expects to Succeed (Environ me ntal Perception)

FIGURE 12.4 Achievement model—Siegle and McCoach. Source: From “Living up to their potential: Strategies for promoting achievement-oriented students. Gifted Education Communicator’’ by Del Siegle. Copyright © 2004 by California Association for the Gifted.

internal locus of control and functioning in competition. They add to their model values the task or outcome (task value or meaningfulness) and sets realistic expectations (self-regulation), which are included in the steps of the TRIFOCAL model for reversing underachievement. The Siegle and McCoach model is derived from school research, whereas the TRIFOCAL model emerged from clinical treatment and research. The meshing of these two models provides excellent support for both research and

treatment. Some of the suggested classroom applications found effective from the Siegle-McCoach research will be added to the six-step TRIFOCAL model presented later in this chapter.

Other Characteristics of Underachievers

Because underachieving children avoid effort and achieve- ment to protect their precarious self-esteem, other charac- teristics arise that support the pattern of underachievement,

Underachievement 243

including deficient academic skills, poor study habits, peer acceptance problems, poor school concentration, and home and school discipline problems (Fine & Pitts, 1980; Rimm, 2008b). These indicators of underachievement seem to be the visible “tip of the iceberg” characteristics that result mainly from the avoidance behaviors that protect undera- chievers from the primary problem of low self-esteem and the related feelings of low personal control.

Skill deficiencies may cause several kinds of prob- lems. Redding (1990) found that gifted underachievers did as well as gifted achievers on tasks that required holistic information processing, but they could not perform as well with detailed or computational tasks requiring precision. Rimm (2008b) similarly found that gifted underachieving elementary children performed well on tasks requiring information, abstract reasoning, and vocabulary, but they performed poorly on processing-speed and handwriting tasks. If writing is difficult, some gifted children avoid writing assignments in favor of verbal tasks. Rimm (2008b) facetiously labeled this characteristic “pencil anxiety.” Their poor coordination has little to do with coordination with Legos or screwdrivers—only with pencils. And, as you can guess, more boys seem to exhibit these handwrit- ing problems. Computers are helpful! Because many ele- mentary-age children equate “fast” with “smart,” poor writers may worry that their slow writing confirms they are not as “smart” as they or their parents and teachers believe them to be (Rimm, 2008b).

etioloGieS of UnDerachievement

Children are not born underachievers. Underachievement is learned behavior; therefore, it can be unlearned. Underachievement can be taught by families, schools, or cultures. Because underachievement is such a broad topic, it will be discussed again in the next three chapters. Chapter 13 will emphasize the underachievement related specifically to cultural and economic disadvantage. Chapter 14 will describe gender achievement issues. Chapter 15 will expand on underachievement as it is related to learning and emotional disabilities.

Common themes will emerge in this chapter. Oppor- tunity for learning and its enjoyment are primary. Siegle and McCoach (2005a) remind us that students are moti- vated either because they enjoy the activity or a byproduct of that activity. Byproducts could include things such as praise, high grades, or the belief that learning the material will be useful to them. High, but not too high, expectations by and respect between parents and educators matter as part of opportunity (Peterson, 2001; Rimm, 2008b). Devel- oping a work ethic, self-efficacy, and a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006) is an oft-repeated topic. Resilience, or the

ability to cope with failure experiences without feeling like a failure, counts for motivation.

The next several sections of this chapter will describe rituals and reinforcements that maintain patterns of under- achieving in the home and school. Recognizing factors that cause, support, and reward underachievers should help the reader understand the dynamics of underachievement and therefore should assist in preventing and reversing the problem.

family etioloGy

When families of underachieving children are compared with families of achievers (Hébert, 2001; Peterson, 2001; Rimm & Lowe, 1988; Zilli, 1971), certain characteristics become apparent. Some of these characteristics are difficult to alter, but some can be changed easily by concerned parents once they are aware of the dynamics. Among the characteristics resistant to change are general poor family morale and family disruption (French, 1959) caused by death or divorce. Among those that can be changed relatively easily are parent overpro- tection, authoritarianism, excessive permissiveness, and inconsistencies between parents. These characteristics fre- quently result in manipulative rituals and parent identification problems that can be recognized and changed.

The aforementioned family problems appear across socioeconomic strata. For example, the family etiology model was noted by Baker, Bridger, and Evans (1998) in their study of preadolescent underachievers. The authors found a com- bined, more complex etiology model that included individual, family, and school etiology. In Hébert’s (2001) qualitative analysis of young men in urban classrooms, he, too, found a complex etiology that included individual, family, and class- room. In Peterson’s (2001) study of adult achievers who had been adolescent underachievers, family and school etiology were important again. An analysis of college-age achievement by King (1998) found family etiology so important that he recommended using the Family Environment Scale for identi- fying college students at high risk for underachievement.

As part of the family pattern, sibling issues were included by Hébert (2001). Competition between siblings, which identifies one child as a hard-working achiever and the other as a gifted but unwilling-to-work underachiever, is found frequently as part of the family etiology (Rimm, 2008b; Rimm & Lowe, 1988).

It is helpful for teachers to be familiar with “problem family” patterns because an understanding of these pat- terns helps the teacher communicate with parents more effectively. Also, family patterns that include manipulations by a child are sometimes extended into the classroom. Thus, a sensitivity to underachieving patterns can help the teacher avoid being manipulated.

244 Chapter 12

identification and modeling

Terman and Oden’s (1947) study of lower-achieving gifted men showed that their most significant characteristic was nonidentification with their father. Rimm (Peterson, 2001; Rimm, 2008b; Rimm & Lowe, 1988) similarly found that underachievers frequently did not identify with the same- gender parent. Some, however, identified very strongly with a same-gender parent—if that parent appeared from the child’s perspective also to be an underachiever or to be giving the child messages that “avoiding schoolwork is acceptable.” Peterson (2001) asked successful adults who were underachieving adolescents about their same-gender role models; absolutely none of the women named their mothers, and only 20% of the men named their fathers.

Freud (1949) explained identification with the same- gender parent as a product of the resolution of the Oedipal or Electra complexes. During the phallic stage of develop- ment (ages 3 to 5), said Freud, the child finds him- or her- self romantically attached to the opposite-gender parent. Recognizing that the parent already has a partner, the child sees the impossibility of the affair and resolves the issue by unconsciously identifying with the same-gender parent. This identification purportedly causes the child to adopt the behaviors, conscience, and appropriate gender role of that parent. The 3-year-old boy walking in Daddy’s shoes or the girl imitating Mommy’s telephone conversation is said to be evidence of this early identification.

Whereas conceding that it is nice for children to love their parents, contemporary social learning theorists ques- tion whether identification truly stems from the unconscious resolution of a sexual conflict. Rather, they describe identifi- cation and imitative behavior in terms of modeling (Bandura, 1986; Meichenbaum, 1977). Research by Mussen and Rutherford (1963) and Hetherington and Frankie (1967) indicated that the parent model chosen for identification and imitation depends largely on a combination of three varia- bles, as perceived by the child: (1) nurturance, (2) power, and (3) similarities between the parent and child.

The nurturance variable is very straightforward. The child tends to identify with, and model the behavior of, the parent who is highly nurturant. There may be an especially warm, loving relationship between the parent and a par- ticular child or children in the family. If that parent is an underachiever or does not stress achievement, the child may adopt similar attitudes.

The way that power influences identification, imita- tion, and underachievement is sometimes direct and at other times more complicated. In the most direct way, if one par- ent is definitely more powerful from the child’s perspective but does not value education or school achievement, the identifying child is not likely to perform well in school.

Teachers need to be aware of this pattern because they may see only the concerned mother of an underachieving boy at parent conferences. However, it may be the father with whom the conference should be taking place. It is difficult to motivate a boy who identifies with his father and if the father and the boy view education as “women’s work.”

Some typical, more complicated power patterns that foster underachievement in children are described by Rimm (2008a, 2008b) as “Father is an Ogre,” “Daddy is a Dummy,” “Mother is an Ogre,” and “Mother is the Mouse of the House.” These power patterns tend to arise because parents unintentionally compete with each other in order to establish their own child-rearing approach as best or in order to feel like the “good parent.” The impact of the rivalry to establish oneself as the better parent is that the other person is given the role of “bad” or “dumb” parent. Rimm stated that awareness by parents of these rituals frequently is sufficient to encour- age a change in parenting approaches. This awareness may make a major difference for underachieving gifted students.

In the first pattern, “Father is an Ogre,” the father is viewed as successful and powerful, the mother as kind and caring. Often, a closer view of the home life shows a father who wears a big “No!” on his forehead. That is, he firmly prohibits many of the activities the children wish to pursue. However, the children learn to bypass his authority by appealing to their kind, sweet mother. Mother either man- ages to convince Dad to change his initial decision or sur- reptitiously permits the children to carry out their desired activities anyway. Children quickly learn the necessary manipulative maneuvers.

The ritual worsens because, as the children grow older, the father begins to recognize his lack of power over his fam- ily, and he becomes more and more authoritarian as he tries to cope with his powerlessness. In response to his increasing authoritarianism, the mother feels an increasing need to pro- tect and defend her children. In desperation, she invents new approaches to sabotage her husband’s power, in the belief that she is doing the best thing for her children. Although girls in this family are likely to be achievement-oriented because they see their mother as powerful and positive, boys tend to under- achieve. They see no effective model in their father, who appears both hostile and powerless. They may fear and resent him, but they are not likely to want to emulate him.

“Daddy is a Dummy” is a slightly different but equally disruptive ritual. This syndrome is often discovered in homes where Mother has a college education that includes courses in education and psychology because teachers, counselors, and psychologists are especially vulnerable to the syndrome. Dad has no college education or may be an educated scientist or engineer who did not take a psychology course. Mother is certain that she knows the “correct” way to bring up the chil- dren, which, according to her training, should include an

Underachievement 245

Eventually—and, usually, by high school—the parents identify the manipulations and unite in desperation to con- trol their adolescent who seems to be pushing all limits. The adolescent, who has earlier managed to do exactly what she chose, now feels overcontrolled by her parents and rebels. Her rebellion sparks a series of punishments increasing in severity, which in turn causes more rebellion. The adoles- cent underachievement becomes only one of the symptoms. More severe behaviors, including alcohol and drug abuse, depression, and/or sexual promiscuity, become the acting- out behaviors that capture adult attention. Underachievement is viewed as a minor offense in comparison.

Although these four parenting rituals may appear separately in some families, they sometimes appear simul- taneously in the same family. Parents actually may take “good” or “mean” roles differently for each child in the family. They also may change roles from early childhood to later childhood, to adolescence. The crucial issue for underachievement is that, if children are exposed to one parent who challenges them and another parent who shelters them, they learn to “take the path of least resist- ance” and automatically back away from challenge, with the protection and support of the sheltering parent.

To prevent a child from developing an underachiev- ing pattern, parents must compromise their points of view to avoid either overpressuring or overprotecting their chil- dren so that an appropriate and positive challenge message is issued by both parents. This permits children to accept challenge and please both parents, who have set reasonable expectations for them.

In addition to nurturance and power, the third variable that affects identification is the similarity the child sees between him- or herself and a parent. This similarity pro- vides a good basis for gender-role identification. High simi- larity between mother and daughter or between father and son strongly supports same-gender identification when the nurturance and power of the parents are equal. However, unusual similarities in appearance, abilities, interests, or per- sonality between boys and mothers or between girls and fathers may lead to cross-gender parent identification. Cross-gender parent identification can contribute strongly to either achievement or underachievement. Achievement motivation may be strengthened by female identification with a powerful and effective father if he is intellectually ori- ented, but it can be weakened if he is negative about school and learning. Underachievement appears to be fostered often by the cross-gender identification of sons with their mothers. Whereas that doesn’t seem like a fair conclusion, Rimm’s clinical experience substantiates the issue repeatedly. The clinical experience could be biased because boys who identify with their mothers and achieve success are unlikely to come in for counseling.

important father role. However, whenever Dad attempts to play his parent role, Mother corrects him and explains a bet- ter way in which he can play his part. Dad feels uncomfort- able and powerless in handling the children and makes every effort to withdraw, sometimes working 70 hours a week at the office. If Mother insists that he come home, the television screen becomes his escape. Sons again tend to be the underachievers in this family because they see their father as powerless, absent, or expressing passive-aggressive behavior. These underachieving boys often assume the same passive-aggressive posture in front of the television screen.

In the third parenting pattern, “Mother is an Ogre,” we find a disciplinarian mother and a kind, sweet, but undisciplined father. This results in at least two more poor patterns for identification. (1) If the disciplinarian mother is viewed by the children as fair and strong and supported by “kind father,” this provides a weak male image for the sons but a strong mother figure for female identification. (2) However, if the mother’s discipline is overruled by the father, we have potential models for underachievement for both male and female children. The boys may identify with Father because he is viewed as powerful, but he models some characteristics and habits that make for undera- chievement—ignoring or violating (Mom’s) rules, procras- tination, and lack of discipline and perseverance. To the girls, Mother may be viewed as insignificant sound and fury; therefore, she cannot become the model for an achieving daughter because of the children’s perceptions of both her powerlessness and her continuous anger.

“Mother is the Mouse of the House” is the “dummy” ritual that results in rebellious adolescent daughters. It begins with a conspirational alliance between father and daughter—“Daddy’s little girl.” Mother is not included in the special relationship and is treated as if she were not as intelligent as Dad. The daughter is typically a very good student in elementary school and pleases father, mother, and her teachers. By her fourth or fifth grade, good achieve- ment continues at school, but an unexplainable conf lict between mother and daughter begins at home. Father takes the role of mediator or, worse yet, rescuer for his daughter, who has learned to convince her daddy that she is right and that Mother is too controlling and overreacting. This manip- ulative ritual continues until adolescence when father begins to worry about teenage dangers from which he must protect his daughter. He then takes a firmer discipline posi- tion and will no longer give in to his daughter’s persuasion. In frustration and surprise at her new ineffectiveness, the daughter may attempt to manipulate her mother for support. Mother, impressed by the improved mother–daughter relationship, may then ally herself with her daughter. The manipulations increase and vary between mother–daughter opposed to father and father–daughter opposed to mother.

246 Chapter 12

Counteridentification has not been thoroughly explored in research, but it appears to have the potential to influence either high achievement or underachievement. The potential for positive contributions to achievement comes mainly from the parents’ sharing of skills and their investment of time and resources. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Bloom (1985; Sosniak, 2003) found that the early training of extremely talented youth included coaching by one or both parents who had a strong personal interest in the particular talent field. Bloom emphasized that the parent provided an early and influential model for the child. According to Bloom’s descriptions, it is likely that most parents counteridentified with their talented children. On the negative side, several forms of counteridentification can lead to manipulative rit- uals by children, supporting underachievement. Two such rituals begin with kind, empathic parents who try to be helpful to their children and try to understand their points of view. In one negative ritual rooted in counteridentifica- tion, the child manipulates parents into completing his or her homework. This extremely common problem begins innocently enough. The child does not understand an assignment and goes to the parent for an explanation. The counteridentifying parent not only explains the assignment but also, in order to prevent the child’s “suffering,” contin- ues to work with the child. The parent explains the assign- ment step by step, over and over. The child soon learns that he or she needs to express confusion only briefly, and the parent is brought quickly to his or her side for the evening. Together they complete the daily assignments. When father or mother does not cooperate, the child punishes the parent by failing the assignment, thus inviting the parent to be more helpful with the next homework assignment.

It is not surprising that, as time progresses, the child finds the assignments more difficult and takes longer and longer to complete the work. Not only has the child found comfortable reinforcement in the form of attention from mother or father, but also the child loses confidence in his or her ability to achieve independently. Because mother or father is now carrying the responsibility for much of the work, the child may no longer believe that it is possible to learn the required skills him- or herself.

An early manifestation of this dependent pattern in the classroom is a child seeking continuous aid from unsuspecting teachers. For example, this is the child who typically waits until instructions have been given twice and then raises his hand and innocently announces, “Ms. Jones, I just don’t understand what I’m supposed to do.”

This dependent pattern sometimes has its origins in an early teacher recommendation to a parent. For example, in a primary grade, a teacher may have suggested that a parent regularly help the child with homework. Teachers should be cautious in making such recommendations and

In the relationships that develop after a divorce or in single-parent households, ogre and dummy rituals become more complex and further increase the likelihood of under- achievement. Approximately 28% of children are in a single-parent home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013), 24% with single mothers and only 4% with single fathers. There are even higher percentages of children who experience part of their childhood in single-parent homes. Kutner (1991) pre- dicted that more than half would spend part of their child- hood in a single-parent home. The need for good male role models for homes led by mothers is obvious. Although the prognosis for a family etiology of underachievement is not optimistic, it is hoped that additional research in new family styles will provide a blueprint for avoiding undera- chievement in a variety of family structures.

As we will see in Chapter 14, Hoffman (1996), Marini (1978), Radin (1974), Rimm et al. (2014), Rimm & Rimm- Kaufman (2001), Rodenstein and Glickauf-Hughes (1979), and Sutherland (1978) found that girls’ attitudes toward careers were strongly and positively influenced by successful working mothers. However, this held true only if there was a good family attitude toward the mother’s employment and if the mother’s role conflict was minimal. Actually, school achievement improves for both girls and boys in families where both parents are working (Grant, Battle, & Heggoy, 2000; Jacobs & Weisz, 1994; Radin & Epstein, 1975).

In summary, the identification literature clearly sup- ports the significance of identification with good parent models as an important family factor in high achievement. The lack of that identification, or the identification with a poor parent model, seems to be related to underachieve- ment. Parents who view their own lives as interesting and successful and who model an equitable and respectful hus- band–wife relationship provide ideal role models for both male and female children.

manipulative rituals and counteridentification

Parents’ identification with their children is referred to as counteridentification. The parent who counteridentifies with the child invests him- or herself in the child’s activities and empathically shares efforts, successes, and failures. Counteridentification goes beyond normal and healthy guidance and empathy. A familiar example of counteriden- tification is the vociferous father who argues desperately with the referee at the Little League baseball game as if it were he who had been unfairly called “out.” Counteridenti- fication is not always bad. Many parents vicariously enjoy seeing their children excel in sports or other talent areas, attend prestigious colleges, or travel—activities that the parents either experienced or missed in their own youth.

Underachievement 247

student has managed to avoid “irrelevant” math or science assignments by claiming to need time for his or her special talent (Rimm, 1990b, 2008b). Creatively gifted undera- chievers often have a history of avoiding tasks that they describe as “boring” because they believe that they must function creatively all the time. Whereas talented students should have extra time to devote to their special interests, these kinds of avoidance habits can become manipulative rituals that deprive them of taking responsibility for learn- ing (Rimm, 2008b).

The teacher who works with dominant students must recognize that the verbally powerful child needs to be led carefully to the conclusion that he or she must learn and study. Opposing this child will lead to a no-win battle, and antagonism is the likely result. Recognizing the power pat- tern that exists at home can help the teacher guide this child in the classroom. Whitmore (1986) described the necessary relationship as a problem-solving partnership. This alliance minimizes the potential for conf lict and an adversarial relationship. Rimm (2008b) abbreviates the alliance partnership for reversing underachievement in an acrostic, which is shown in Box 12.1.

We have seen that intuitive responses by parents and teachers can reinforce underachievement—in other words, make matters worse. For example, with dependent stu- dents, an intuitive reaction is to do too much (e.g., home- work) for them; with abrasive dominant students, a natural reaction is to “put them in their place” by overreacting and overpunishing. Less natural, counterintuitive measures are more effective. For example, with dependent children, adults should insist that the children take small steps forward independently, even when they show signs of feel- ing under pressure. For dominant students, adult attitudes of respect, alliance, compromise, working together to solve problems, along with a negotiated and fair agreement

should be explicit in the kinds of help that they suggest so that this help does not lead to overdependence.

The dependent ritual is relatively easy to change if identified early, but it is very resistant to change in the high school years. Children who are anxious are more likely to fit into this paradigm. Avoidance of effort increases anxi- ety and lowers self-esteem (Rimm, 2014). By adolescence, the youth has little remaining confidence in his or her school-related competence. The sad example from the author Rimm’s clinic of a 12th-grade young man with an IQ of 160 who believed that he could not accomplish his homework without his mother’s help reminds us of how maladaptive dependence can be.

The second maladaptive ritual that stems from coun- teridentification is one in which parents give too many choices and convey too much power to their gifted children; the children in turn become dominant or aggressively manipulative. Because the children appear so bright and because they use adult vocabulary and reasoning, parents find themselves interacting with them almost as adult peers long before the children have attained the wisdom to match their verbalizations (Fine & Pitts, 1980; Rimm, 2006, 2008a). Parents and sometimes teachers may be awed and convinced by the child’s adultlike rationalizations for why they need not perform routine school tasks. To their own detriment, these children learn to manipulate their parents and teachers, frequently bypassing skill development because the work is “boring” or “irrelevant.” They may also claim that there is no reason to write material that they can answer orally, and they may depend on their verbal preco- ciousness until their writing skills actually become deficient.

Dominant children may also use their talent area to manipulate their parents and teachers into permitting them to avoid assignments in which they are less confident about undertaking. More than one musically or artistically gifted

BOX 12.1

ALLIANCE for Reversing Student Underachievement

Ally with the student privately about interests and concerns.

Listen to what the student says.

Learn about what the student is thinking.

Initiate opportunities for recognition of the student’s strengths.

Add experimental ideas for engaging curricular and extracurricular activities.

Nurture relationships with appropriate adult and peer role models.

Consequences should be meted out reasonably, but firmly, if the student doesn’t meet commitments.

Emphasize effort, independence, realistic expecta- tions, and how strengths can be used to cope with problems, and extend possibilities patiently.

Source: From “Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and What You Can Do about it: A Six-step Program for Parents and Teachers’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

248 Chapter 12

assignments usually leads to more assignments. These typ- ically are not more challenging or more exciting but are busywork to keep the active child occupied.

Initially, the gifted child may be pleased and motivated by the special treatment by the teacher. Eventually, as the child finds the busywork unchallenging and boring, he or she concludes that these additional assignments are punishment for rapid work. To avoid the punishment, the child slows his or her pace and no longer completes assignments before the rest of the class does. However, because the student’s mind remains active and alert, he or she usually must find other diversions, such as daydreaming, troublemaking, or surrepti- tiously reading an exciting book. In some cases the diversions become powerful reinforcers that distract the child from com- pleting even the regular assignments, which appear dull by comparison. Consider this actual case:

Robbie, 8 years old, was a highly verbal child with an IQ in the very superior range. How- ever, he was 2 years behind in mathematics and never completed his math assignments. His problem became clear after he was observed in class by the psychologist. On his lap, hidden from the teacher’s view, was a book he was reading while the teacher explained the math assignment. The book was shifted to underneath the math book while stu- dents were to be doing math written work. Robbie moved further and further behind in mathematics, which was taught too slowly for his quick mind, but he read many exciting books. He was referred to the psychologist as having a “learning problem.”

At the 1992 Annual National Rimm Underachieve- ment Institute in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, John Feldhusen, a long-time leader in gifted education, shared his own story of surreptitious reading to avoid his childhood school bore- dom. Perhaps many adults committed to gifted education recall their own techniques for coping with inflexible and dull classrooms. Can you, the reader, recall your own novel adjustments?

Reis (1998a) described the dilemma of her stepson, Mark, as “dropping out with dignity” and explained that his school performance was directly related to whether he liked or disliked the curriculum content and his teachers. His complaints of too-easy work were valid in totally inappropriate lower-track courses, where his earlier under- achievement had led him. His experience is an example of how underachievement can leave gifted students helplessly placed in inflexible environments.

In addition to busywork, other ritual punishments tend to discourage the gifted child from achieving in the

regarding schoolwork, are essential for a successful strat- egy for reversing underachievement. Parents and teachers should put such agreements in writing and hold to them firmly to avoid again becoming victims of manipulation.

That last component of family etiology (respect and responsibility) is worth emphasizing. Erickson and Ellett (1990) point out that, during the last three decades, American educators have been more concerned with students’ rights than students’ responsibilities. Perhaps more emphasis at home and in the media on students’ personal responsibilities, coupled with a clear message of respect for educators, would be an effective means of encouraging student achievement (Rimm, 2006a, 2008a, 2008b).

School etioloGy

The gifted child is often exposed to the “good year, bad year” syndrome. Archambault and Hallmark (1992; Renzulli, 1992) found that 42% to 62% of the 7,000 teach- ers in their study had absolutely no exposure to methods for teaching the gifted. Teachers without training supply most of the “bad years.” However, other teachers—even some without training in gifted education—do detect and provide for the special needs of gifted children, creating the “good years.” Fortunately, not all “bad years” are dev- astating. Most gifted children are resilient enough to func- tion well even—temporarily—in a less-than-responsive environment. However, certain personal and classroom conditions do create problems for the gifted child and initi- ate or accelerate underachieving behavior patterns.

School climate

Whitmore (1980) described classroom environments that appear to cause and support underachievement. The main characteristics were a lack of respect for the individual child, a strongly competitive climate, an emphasis on out- side evaluation, inf lexibility and rigidity, exaggerated attention to errors and failures, an “all-controlling teacher,” and an unrewarding curriculum. We will look more closely at the effects of inflexible and competitive classrooms.

inflexiBle claSSroomS The inflexibility and rigidity that demonstrate a lack of respect for the individual child together provide a strong reinforcement for gifted children to underachieve. The intellectually gifted child learns faster and integrates information more easily than the aver- age child. The creatively gifted child thinks differently and asks frequent questions. The rigid teacher, however, adheres to an organized schedule that allows little flexibil- ity for those who differ in speed or learning style. The gifted child quickly discovers that rapid completion of

Underachievement 249

rigid, inflexible classroom. For example, if the gifted child responds too frequently in class or asks too many ques- tions, he or she is not called on to speak. However, if the ignored child waves his or her hand too enthusiastically, calls out answers, or talks excitedly to a neighbor, he or she is rewarded with a scolding. The scoldings may serve either to reinforce or to punish the child. If the child views them as punishment, he or she stops responding, deciding that such enthusiasm is somehow inappropriate to the school setting. If the child views the scoldings as reinforc- ing, he or she increases the talking out of turn and the hand waving, which become nuisances to both teachers and peers. Either way, enthusiasm for learning and thinking is diminished.

comPetitive claSSroomS The classroom where competition and comparative evaluation are heavily stressed is a serious problem for underachievers. The announcement of grades to the class, the comparisons of students’ test scores, the surprise expressed by a teacher when a student scores higher or lower than expected, and the continuous ranking of students all foster extreme com- petition within the classroom. That competition is attached to extrinsic evaluations of performance based on objective criteria that, from the perspective of the child, are viewed as the true measure of his or her competence and worth. Children who are already strong achievers and who con- tinue to find themselves at the top of the class may become even more motivated to achieve in very competitive envi- ronments. Even for highly motivated children, however, too much emphasis on extrinsic rewards may detract from the intrinsic rewards of learning and creativity.

Underachievers, of course, are most dramatically affected by severe competition (Covington & Beery, 1976). Underachievers, who do not have a clear sense of their own competence, are informed on a daily basis that they are not measuring up to the standards of excellence of the class- room. These children are given objective evidence of their average or below-average abilities. Because competitive achievement is the only source of teacher recognition and rewards in the classroom, and because these children do not believe that they are capable of attaining that recog- nition, they search for other classroom rewards or other evidence of personal worth, or they adopt the defensive measures noted earlier in this chapter.

A highly competitive environment may be a “good year” or a “bad year” for the achieving gifted child. For the underachieving gifted child, it is always a “bad year” because it provides convincing evidence of his or her incompetence. Whereas an overly competitive environ- ment causes problems for many students, learning to func- tion in a gradually more competitive environment is

appropriate for students who must adjust to real-world competition (Rimm, 1992a, 2003, 2008b).

negative expectations

Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) book Pygmalion in the Classroom inspired a landslide of research, most of which strongly supports the notion that a teacher’s expectations can have a dramatic impact on children’s self-concepts and school achievement (Good & Weinstein, 1986; Keneal, 1991). The problem is that, for children, teachers and school success are the major—if not the only—source of feedback concerning one’s ability, competence, and worth (Covington & Beery, 1976). The teacher who sends mes- sages of negative expectations usually finds exactly what he or she expects: Both regular and gifted students undera- chieve. As a perhaps surprising source of negative expecta- tions, Felton and Biggs (1977) concluded that “remediation, as it is sometimes practiced, may help the student to label herself as stupid, and this, in turn, may affect the teacher’s attitudinal responses to that individual. This means that underachievement may be caused directly in the classroom and in the ‘helping’ provided there.”

Not all gifted children respond to the negative atti- tudes and expectations of a teacher by lapsing into poor achievement. Some may see this attitude as a special chal- lenge and make additional efforts to meet that challenge. However, the underachieving gifted child, whose self- concept already is poor, normally perceives the teacher’s expectations of failure as a confirmation of his or her own poor self-evaluation. Consider another true story:

It was fall conference time for fifth-grade parents. Any teacher can relate to the early confusion of matching the correct parents with students. There were two Amys in Mrs. James’ class. One Amy was an excellent and positive student, but the other Amy was quite the opposite.

The second Amy’s parents entered the classroom and introduced themselves. Mrs. James, assuming these to be parents of the first Amy, immediately exclaimed glow- ing praise for their delightful daughter. Amy’s parents’ faces ref lected shock. Their response was, of course, enthusiastic. Mrs. James, immediately realizing that these par- ents belonged to the other Amy, regrouped quickly. Still on a positive note, she explained that Amy did have a few problems.

The description of Amy’s problems never dampened the parents’ enthusiasm. They

250 Chapter 12

returned home after the conference to tell Amy that this would surely be her best year in school. Amy, too, was delightfully surprised. She agreed that this would surely be a wonder- ful year.

Amy ended fifth grade with a B average, in startling contrast to her D average of the year before—a very dramatic impact of teacher expectation.

Kolb and Jussim (1994) found that teachers’ low expectations for a child help create a climate that encour- ages underachievement. They found that teachers may assign lower grades to gifted children who do not follow classroom behavioral norms. They concluded that teacher expectations of improved performance may lead to the reversal of underachievement for some students.

Peer Pressure and Underachievement

Attitudes of peers toward achievement have a dramatic impact on achievement (Neihart, 2006). By third grade, many children begin to believe it is “not cool” to achieve. In the fifth edition of this text, fifth grade was specified as the grade when children begin to believe that it is not cool to achieve, but in her Growing Up Too Fast research, Rimm (2005) found that, by third grade, 15% of the children wor- ried a lot about popularity with the opposite sex. The media has stolen middle childhood and prematurely introduced adolescent-like behaviors. Terms such as brain, geek, dork, dweeb, or gay bring tears to the eyes of many reasonably mature middle-grade students. Rakow (2011) points out that gifted students may struggle to find compatible peers because their age peers and their intellectual peers can be quite different. The peer pressures continue in many com- munities through high school (Brown & Steinberg, 1990; Kinney, 1993; Rimm, 2005). Clasen and Clasen (1995) interviewed 40 middle and high school students partici- pating in a Jacob Javits program for minority gifted stu- dents. Sixty-six percent of the students considered peer pressure to be the primary force against their getting good grades. Some students identified good friends as buffers from that peer pressure; their friends encouraged their achievement. Finding a safe support group for achievement, like a gifted program, can often make a positive difference if underachievers have not already been dropped from such programs.

an Unrewarding curriculum

Although complaints from the underachieving gifted child that the school curriculum is irrelevant, dull, or

unchallenging may be only a defensive avoidance ritual, gifted children are often driven by a real difficulty. Gifted children are particularly vulnerable to the “unre- warding curriculum” problem because of their intellec- tual and creative needs. They are often anxious to question, criticize, discuss, and learn beyond the levels that are appropriate for most students in the class. If the gifted students are not challenged by the curriculum, they will find stimulation outside the curriculum, and school will indeed be viewed as dull and boring. It is not uncommon for gifted underachievers who perform poorly in school to achieve excellence in nonschool- related activities in which they create their own reward- ing “curriculum.” Consider this case:

Trevor was described as a poor reader and dis- interested in school. In fourth grade he rarely completed assignments; he daydreamed, per- formed his class work sloppily, and in general was considered a below-average student. At home he was immersed in comic books or baseball. He read and enjoyed literally thou- sands of comic books. As for baseball, he had easily committed to memory baseball statistics of the previous 20 years and talked knowl- edgeably about batting averages and pitching records that involved mathematics well beyond what he had learned in school. The same skills he seemed unable to apply in the classroom setting were readily exhibited in his areas of true interest—comic books and baseball. A more rewarding curriculum could have brought together Trevor’s interests and abili- ties and expanded both.

matching efforts with outcomes for Self-efficacy

Underachievement among gifted children may have been caused by complex family and school situations, but it nonetheless is critical that children experience the relation- ship between their efforts, on the one hand, and their out- comes in the classroom, on the other.

The educational needs of gifted children are best served by classrooms that provide intrinsically motivating curricula (Goldberg & Cornell, 1998; Rea, 2000; Siegle & McCoach, 2005b). Rea described optimal motivation as an experience in which students became absorbed in a task. They are most likely to experience motivation when chal- lenge, interest, and arousal are present. That intrinsic moti- vation builds self-efficacy, or the relationship between effort and outcome.

Underachievement 251

Figure 12.5 (from Rimm, 2008b) illustrates how the appropriateness of the difficulty of the task can lead to either achievement or underachievement. Quadrant 1 repre- sents achievement. Children demonstrate appropriate effort. They have learned to work hard; they understand persever- ance and have developed appropriate skills. Intrinsic enjoy- ment of challenge is part of the process, and they accomplish easy tasks quickly in order to pursue more challenging activities. Goals are set appropriately high but not beyond their abilities. They continue to achieve as long as they see the relationship between effort and outcome. Children con- tinue to achieve if they learn that strong efforts result in good intrinsic and extrinsic results. When children expend little effort, they should be disappointed in their learning experiences, grades, and teacher and parent approval.

Quadrant 2 in the figure leads to underachievement when efforts are appropriate, but goals or outcomes are set either too low or too high. In the cases of goals set too low, children may have internalized a message from parents, society, or their peers that being “smart” is not as impor- tant as being well adjusted, cool, or popular. Intellectual accomplishment is less valued than beauty or athletic prowess, and they do not wish to be “geeks” or “nerds.”

Another example of goals that are set too low by teach- ers comes from unchallenging, cooperative learning environ- ments in which gifted children too frequently play the role of teacher (Rimm, 1992b; Robinson, 1997, 2003) or when gifted children must conform to a heterogeneous group.

When goals are set too high (Quadrant 2), students may initially make a good effort, but outcomes are not suc- cessful. Twice-exceptional students—particularly dyslexic students—struggle in that scenario (Baum, 2004; Renzulli, 2005; Schultz, 2000). Although they feel intelligent in many ways, they feel unsuccessful in reading. Because reading is omnipresent in all curricula, difficulty with reading affects their ability to produce successful outcomes in most subjects.

Students who have handwriting problems struggle with producing legible work and are slowed down in the completion of workbook pages or timed math tests. These “pencil anxious” children, mostly boys, who may manipu- late screwdrivers and Legos deftly, feel inept and “dumb” because they compare themselves with their classmates. They often define intelligent students as those who have finished their work first. When one young man was asked how smart he was compared with his classmates, he said, “I’m fifth from the bottom.” He explained further that when he completed his work, there were always four other students who hadn’t completed theirs. Gifted students with disabilities—who were accustomed to early praise and notice for their intelligence—feel as if something major has gone amiss, lose interest, and label their work as “boring.”

The Quadrant 2 problem of goals set too high may also appear in a highly competitive school environment in which, despite the child’s excellent intelligence and study skills, good grades are not attainable. If parents set expec- tations beyond children’s abilities (and some do), this too will have the impact of establishing goals that are too high.

Generally, if goals are set too low, children will stop making appropriate efforts; they have learned that it is easy to achieve those lower outcomes. If goals are set too high, they give up in desperation because they do not believe that any amount of sustained effort will make a difference in accomplishing these difficult outcomes.

Quadrant 3 in Figure 12.5 leads to underachievement when the process of making an effort has not been learned appropriately. Parents and students value good grades and school performance, but students find that they can receive good grades and significant praise without any major effort. Other students, parents, and teachers remark on how quickly and easily they learn difficult material. Report card grades reflect the excellent performance, and children feel positive about school. However, the curriculum is not suf- ficiently challenging, and children learn that achievement is easy, success is readily attainable, and learning and study are effortless. In early grades, outcomes are almost always successful, despite minimal effort. Students describe intelligence as “fast and easy” and don’t experi- ence the effort required of students with only average abili- ties. Occasionally, they may comment on boredom or lack of challenge, but as long as their grades continue to be high, they exhibit no problem behaviors. Unfortunately, they do not develop the good habits of perseverance, intense study, or dealing with challenge. This accomplish- ment with little effort leads to a fixed, rather than a growth, mindset (Dweck, 2006).

At some point in the academic development of all children, the curriculum material becomes more complex,

fiGUre 12.5 Relationship between effort and outcomes. Source: From “Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and What You Can Do about it: A Six-step Program for Parents and Teachers’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

252 Chapter 12

the student population becomes more competitive, or both. For some students, the curriculum feels difficult by middle school (Baker, 1996; Rimm, 2005, 2008b); for others, the curriculum becomes more difficult by high school. Pro- foundly gifted students may not experience true challenge until college and adulthood. At some point, even very gifted children “hit a wall.” Although some increase their efforts and struggle to meet new challenges, others initiate defensive avoidance behaviors. They hide their sense of inadequacy for fear that they may no longer appear gifted. They avoid work that challenges and fall further behind in skills. Their goals continue to be appropriately high, but they have not learned the processes or efforts required to produce the desired outcomes. Grades decline, and teach- ers’ and parents’ disappointment and punishments increase. Some students adjust to the additional effort that is needed, and parent and teacher consequences are sufficient for immediate reversal of the underachieving pattern. Others have already lost their sense of self-efficacy and no longer believe that effort can deliver success. Others hide behind their threatening feelings. They worry that they are not as smart as they would like to be, and they invent or discover a whole herd of rituals and excuses that prevent them from making a good effort. As mentioned earlier, evaluations of self-efficacy come from comparison with other students, and the increase in complexity of the curriculum is typi- cally paired with schools that are larger and more competi- tive, thus doubling the pressures for these students.

Quadrant 4 in the figure represents the most advanced stage of underachievement syndrome. It appears after the children described by Quadrants 2 or 3 have not functioned as achievers for some time. Quadrant 4 underachievement takes place when children’s efforts and skills both show defi- ciencies for such a long period that the children give up on reasonable goal setting. Even when underachievers describe their study, it’s typically unengaged study. For example, they may claim that they have studied after reading something over once lightly and simultaneously watching TV or listen- ing to music. Teachers rarely identify these children as gifted because their intelligence or creativity is no longer exhibited in the classroom. Even parents begin to doubt their children’s abilities. In conversation, they may refer to the past when they recall that their children were smart, but at this point they have given up on high-level goals and are willing to set- tle for their children’s earning a high school diploma.

reverSal of UnDerachievement

As we have seen, the underachieving gifted child continues to underachieve because the home, school, and/or peer group support that underachievement. The student is not

motivated to achieve, and there probably are deficiencies in the skills necessary for achievement. Working below one’s ability affects both immediate education success and eventual career achievement; it is an important problem requiring attention.

the trifocal model

Although it may seem like a tall order to reverse a long- standing pattern of underachieving, Rimm’s strategies have proven successful in case after case (Rimm, 2008b). A foundational theory of Rimm’s work comes from early research on a growth mindset by Carol Dweck (2006). She has found that the treatment of underachievement involves the collaboration of school and family in the implementation of the six steps of her TRIFOCAL model (Figure 12.6). Consider that the TRIFOCAL model pro- vides a flexible framework within which excellent peda- gogy and parenting can be included. Examples of other successfully researched projects fit well within the model framework, and the model provides plenty of opportunity for additional teacher innovation. Here are the six steps of Dweck’s model:

1. Assessment of skills, abilities, reinforcement contin- gencies, and types of underachievement

2. Communication 3. Changing the expectations of important others 4. Role model identification 5. Correcting skill deficiencies 6. Modifications of reinforcements at home and at

school

Biographical studies of achievers who indicated that they previously had been underachievers show that all six steps usually are included in the change process. These “spontaneous changers” typically initiated their turnabout with Step 3 or Step 4, the discovery of a positive model for identification or a change in expectations of important others—for example, a teacher, boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse. Note that teachers have been credited frequently for their pivotal role in reversing underachievement. These relationships, which are common in spontaneous undera- chievement conversion, need to be recognized as important elements in the deliberate treatment of underachievers. Parents and teachers should remain aware of the central role they play in the implementation of the critical six steps, particularly in the areas of setting expectations and finding or becoming good models. In addition to using the TRIFOCAL model, parents and teachers should be equipped with “patience, dedication, and support” (Hoffman, Wasson, & Christianson, 1985). In the absence of parents, teachers can implement the TRIFOCAL model

Underachievement 253

The individual intelligence test is a highly recom- mended first assessment instrument. That venerable IQ number has the potential to communicate important expec- tations related to the child’s true abilities. Because the child has not been motivated, it is likely that group intelligence test scores have underestimated his or her intellectual potential. Also, it is difficult to score above 125 or 130 on some group intelligence tests—a serious problem for intel- lectually gifted students. In addition, group intelligence tests are typically timed and thus cause serious problems for gifted children with processing-speed problems, and, as noted earlier (see Chapter 3, “Identifying Gifted and Tal- ented Students”), many gifted children have this problem.

Even with these individually administered tests, there are problems. As noted in Chapter 3, the highest possible score on the Wechsler tests is 155. In addition, underachieving gifted children often have uneven skills; thus, several tests may need to be administered in combi- nation to identify strengths and problem areas.

During testing, the examiner should be especially aware of particular task-relevant characteristics of the

and reverse underachievement. If parents cannot or will not participate, reversal of the problem is helped by teach- ers working with a counselor or gifted coordinator so that students feel sufficiently supported.

Step 1: assessment of Skills, abilities, reinforcement contingencies, and types of Underachievement

The first step in underachievement reversal is an assessment that involves the cooperation of the school psychologist, teachers, and parents. The school psychologist should have primary involvement in this process. However, because few school districts allocate time for gifted children within the psychologist’s role, it may be necessary for the guidance counselor, gifted and talented (G/T) coordinator, or classroom teacher to assume some of the responsibility. Ideally, the person should (1) have some background in educational measurement, (2) be sensitive to various learn- ing and motivational styles and problems, and (3) be aware of the special characteristics of gifted and creative children.

4. Role Model Identification

3. Changing Expectations2. Communication

5. Correction of Deficiencies

1. Assessment

6. Modifications at Home and School

(select appropriate ones)

Conforming and Nonconforming Dependent

Conforming Dominant

Nonconforming Dominant

fiGUre 12.6 TRIFOCAL model for reversing underachievement. Source: From “Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and What You Can Do about it: A Six-step Program for Parents and Teachers’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

254 Chapter 12

child: symptoms of tension, attention to the task, persever- ance in the task, responses to frustration, problem-solving approaches, defensiveness, and responses to personal encouragement by the examiner. These reflect, in minia- ture, approaches to educational tasks that the child very likely uses in the classroom and at home. Sometimes, these observations are even more important than the final IQ scores.

Intelligence testing should be followed by individual achievement tests to assess strengths and deficits in basic skills—particularly reading and math. Both timed and untimed tests are helpful in understanding students’ achievement issues, but administering only a timed test may underestimate a child’s skills.

A creativity test or inventory, which can be adminis- tered by the teacher or psychologist, also should be part of the assessment. Such an evaluation produces not only a norm-referenced creativity score but also descriptions of abilities, characteristics, and interests that are relevant to understanding the child’s personality, creative potential, and learning style. The GIFT and GIFFI tests include sub- scale scores such as Independence, Self-confidence, and Risk-Taking that provide important insights for under- standing underachievement.

GAIM can be used for children in Grades 5 through 12, whereas AIM and AIM-TO can be completed by par- ents or teachers of all school-age children. The scores pro- vide a description of the extent and type of the child’s underachievement. Subscale scores reveal whether the child is mainly dependent or dominant, or a mixture of both. Scores also reveal insights regarding parent consist- ency in messages about achievement.

Parent and student interviews can also be very help- ful in identifying underachieving patterns unintentionally maintained at home and school. Examples of parent and student interviews, which can be adapted, are available in the Guidebook for Implementing the TRIFOCAL Undera- chievement Program in Schools (Rimm et al., 1989). Ide- ally, if there are two parents, both should be at the interview. If only one appears, it is important to ask about the other parent’s relationship with the child. Overall, the analysis of student abilities and home and school patterns is critical to the second step of the underachievement modification program.

Step 2: communication

Communication between parents and teachers is an impor- tant component of the reversal of underachievement. Either a parent or the teacher may initiate the first confer- ence, but the initiator must assure the other person of sup- port rather than place blame. If it appears to a teacher that

the parents are not interested in or capable of working with him or her, the teacher should select another child advocate in the school—for example, a counselor, gifted coordina- tor, or resource teacher. Reversing an underachievement pattern without parental assistance is not as efficient but nevertheless can be very effective.

The content of the communication between par- ents and teachers should include a discussion of assessed abilities and achievements, as well as formal and infor- mal evaluations of the child’s expressions of depend- ence or dominance. These are especially important so that adults at home and at school do not fall into the trap of continuing to reinforce these problem patterns (Rimm, 1991a, 2008b). Also, continued daily or weekly accountability communication between home and school can be arranged so that parents can support teachers, and vice versa.

Step 3: changing the expectations of important others

Parent, teacher, peer, and sibling expectations, as well as self-expectations, can be difficult to change. As noted, IQ scores, if higher than anticipated, are very effective in modifying expectations. Anecdotal information can also provide convincing evidence of the child’s abilities. For example, a teacher convincing an adolescent or his or her parents of the child’s mathematical talent can explain that the child solves problems in an unusually clever way or seems to learn math concepts more quickly than anyone else in the class. A psychologist trying to convince a teacher that a child has unusual talent can describe the unu- sual vocabulary or problem-solving skills that the child revealed during testing. Specific rather than general descriptions of unusual strengths are good evidence of gift- edness. Helping students set expectations that are realistic—difficult enough to be challenging yet not so dif- ficult that they are unattainable (Siegle & McCoach, 2005b)—is crucial.

Changing self-expectations was described by Siegle and McCoach (2005b) as answering the question, “Am I smart enough?” (p. 24). Suggestions for helping students answer that question include guiding students to recognize their growth by viewing past accomplishments, viewing samples of previous work to show progress, and encourag- ing children to chart and compete with themselves. All these emphasize the growth mindset also advocated and researched by Dweck (2006).

Changing self-expectations and peer expectations can be done in individual therapy, group counseling sessions, and classroom settings. Teachers of the gifted, although not trained as counselors, can be effective in

Underachievement 255

helping gifted students, underachieving or otherwise, to better understand realistic goal setting, perfectionism, competition, and peer pressure. See the list of suggested topics in Box 12.2. A book designed specifically to help gifted students learn about these topics is Gifted Kids Have Feelings Too (Rimm, 1990a), which includes stories and poems for and about preadolescents and adolescents. An accompanying discussion and activity book, Explor- ing Feelings (Rimm & Priest, 1990), is for teachers and counselors to use in classrooms or counseling sessions.

It is important to underachieving children that par- ents and teachers be able to say to them honestly that they believe in their ability to achieve. The expectations of these important others are basic to the personal change in self-expectation that is necessary to reverse course from underachievement to high achievement and are referred to in the Siegle and McCoach (2005b) model as well. Students work better in an environment where they perceive that teachers want them to succeed—thus the emphasis by Rimm (2008b) earlier in this chapter on an alliance between the teacher and the student. In their longitudinal research with bright fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade underachievers, Jackson, Cleveland, and Mirenda (1975) showed that positive expectations by parents and teachers had a significant long-range effect on achievement in high school. Bloom’s (1985; Sosniak, 2003) studies of talent development found that parents of research neurologists and mathematicians always expected their children to be very good students. High parent expectations were typical among the successful women researched in the Rimm Report (Rimm et al., 2014; Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001), but those high expectations were paired with expectations of hard work as well. For example, the girls would hear from parents

statements such as, “You can do anything you want to in your future, as long as you are willing to work hard enough.” Communicating the importance of hard work fosters the growth mindset referred to by Dweck (2006).

Because sibling competition frequently is a causal component of the underachievement syndrome, changing the expectations of siblings is also important (Rimm, 1999b, 2008b). In the sibling rivalry that often exists, an achieving child may have assigned the role of “loser” to a brother or sister, and a change in that role may be threaten- ing to the “winner.” An individual and personal communi- cation to the “winner” about the expected change is helpful. Parents should provide the assurance that the sibling’s sta- tus change will not displace the achiever’s role. Geneti- cally and environmentally, a “whole smart family” is not only possible but likely. This explanation may deter the achiever from subtly trying to keep the underachiever in his or her underachieving status.

Because it is difficult to change the expectations of persons who know the child, changing the child’s school environment sometimes is an effective measure. Changing schools is a drastic step to take unless one is reasonably certain that the change will make a worthwhile difference. If extraordinarily gifted children are stifled by school envi- ronments that set only average goals and expectations, the children sometimes will change their entire achievement pattern when put in an environment that expects and values high achievement. For most children, however it is more realistic to try to change relevant expectations within the school.

Step 4: role model identification

A critical turning point for the underachieving child is the discovery of a role model for identification. All other

BOX 12.2

Discussion Topics for Students in Small Group Sessions

Competition—game playing

Discussion of feelings

Competition—comparison to sports

Peer relations—popularity versus friendship

Reading and discussion— Yes, italic, it’s a title

Competition and siblings

Reading and discussion—brothers and sisters SR: Please leave.

Pressure—how to cope and how much is too much

Leadership versus “bossyship”—understanding the difference

Understanding parents

Responsibility and organization

Perfectionism

Creative problem solving

Source: From “Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and What You Can Do about it: A Six-step Program for Parents and Teachers’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

256 Chapter 12

treatments for underachievement dim in importance com- pared with strong identification with an achieving role model. As noted previously, Bloom’s (1985; Sosniak, 2003) biographical research with highly talented students showed that parents modeled the values and the lifestyles of successful achievers in the child’s talent area. Radin (1976) argued that the best family environment for a gifted boy is provided when a father is perceived as competent and strong, is pleased with his job, and permits his son to master tasks independently. Because this ideal situation is rarely provided for the gifted underachiever, parents and teachers need to help the student find a good alternative role model for identification.

Research on parent identification (e.g., Mussen & Rutherford, 1963) indicates that the selected parent identi- fication figure is nurturant and powerful, and shares com- mon characteristics with the child. These same characteristics can be used to locate an appropriate achiev- ing model for the underachieving gifted child. Be fore- warned, however, that an underachieving adolescent sometimes selects a powerful, nurturant model who shares the underachieving characteristics of the adolescent. This person then becomes a strong model for underachieve- ment. You may recall the account earlier in this chapter of a sample of achieving adults who had been underachievers in adolescence. When asked who their role models were, none of the women and only 20% of the men reported their same-sex parent as a role model. Furthermore, 26% of the participants reported hearing negative talk about their jobs from working fathers, and 48% indicated that one parent belittled the other parent’s work. Negative comments about the mother’s work by the father predominated. How- ever, role models were important. Twenty-three percent of the group chose teachers as role models, and a full 68% named role models in other areas of high achievement (Peterson, 2001).

Underachieving children should be matched with an achieving person to serve as a model for them. The person selected can serve in a model capacity for more than one child. His or her actual role may be tutor, mentor, compan- ion, teacher, parent, sibling, counselor, psychologist, min- ister, scout leader, doctor, and so on. However, the model should have as many of the following characteristics as possible:

1. Nurturance. The model must care about the child assigned. Many adults are pleased to encourage youth with whom they can counteridentify.

2. Same gender. Although identification with an opposite-gender model is possible, the equality in gender facilitates identification.

3. Similarities to the child. Similarities may include religion, race, interests, talents, physical disabilities, physi- cal characteristics, socioeconomic backgrounds, specific problem experiences, or any other characteristics that create the necessary easy rapport. When the child realizes that the model can be truly understanding, empathic, and sympathetic—because the model has experienced similar problems—rapport is more easily established and the pro- cess of identification is facilitated.

4. Openness. A model ’s willingness to share his or her own real problems in establishing him- or herself as an achiever is important for encouraging communica- tion and identification and for motivating the under- achieving child.

5. Willingness to give time. Achieving adults frequently have shortages of this most precious commod- ity. However, it is not possible to be an effective, positive model without providing time. It can be work time, play time, or talk time. Models who work on tasks with the child or play with the child can be most effective. It becomes possible for the child to see firsthand important achievement characteristics such as responding to chal- lenge, winning and losing in competition, reasoning styles, leading, communicating and relating to others, and experi- encing successes and failures.

6. Sense of positive accomplishment. Although the model’s life need not be perfect, the model must exhibit to the child the sense that his or her achievements have been personally fulfilling. Achievement involves sacrifice and postponed gratification. The underachiever must recognize that these costs and postponements are worthwhile.

Research by Emerick (1992) on students who reversed the  ir underachievement found that they often attributed their reversal to a teacher who was an important inspiration in their lives. A longitudinal study of disadvan- taged children in Hawaii (Werner, 1989) showed that teach- ers, ministers, and other important adults were important as role models for achievement. Teachers and coaches were also pivotal in the Rimm research about successful women (Rimm et al., 2014; Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001).

The concept of important role models is now being used in hundreds of school programs where community members volunteer to participate in mentorship programs. The concept of all-male and all-female academies for African American students (Holland, 1991) is intended to provide appropriate role models for underachievers in disadvantaged populations. Role models based on biographies have also been found to be motivating (Rimm et al., 1999; Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001; Siegle & McCoach, 2005b).

Underachievement 257

rewards within the value system of parents and within the capabilities of teachers, however, to administer—for exam- ple, free time. The rewards should not be too large. In fact, they should be as small as possible yet effective enough to motivate behavior. They can be increased in value as nec- essary, but if one already has used large rewards, small rewards will no longer be effective. It is important always to supply the rewards agreed upon, and to pay them on a regular basis immediately after the activity is successfully completed. Rewards may be based on activities completed, or they may be based on the quality of the activity. Rewards should never be paid for incomplete work or when the work is not attempted.

Modification of reinforcements at school includes much more than reward schedules. For example, accelera- tion by subject or grade skipping are appropriate reinforce- ments for some underachievers (Rimm & Lovance, 1992a, 1992b). Participation in Future Problem Solving was found to be effective in reversing underachievement (Rimm & Olenchak, 1991). Encouraging a student’s strong interests in the classroom may also facilitate the reversal of undera- chievement (Emerick, 1989). Independent studies and cur- riculum compacting were used effectively by a sixth-grade teacher as part of the reversal of underachievement for her students (Lemley, 1994). Providing students with the util- ity value of their tasks is motivating and logical (Siegle & McCoach, 2005b).

Modifying reinforcements for homework and study is an important component of reversing underachievement. However, this modification by itself is not sufficient. Dozens of other recommendations for home and school changes are described by Rimm (2008b) and Siegle and McCoach (2005a, 2005b). Research continues on the effectiveness of Siegle’s achievement-orientation model, and findings hold promise for development of more inter- ventions (Ritchotte, Matthews, & Flowers, 2014.)

assistance Beyond home and School

The preceding recommendations for the treatment of underachievement at home and school are effective with many children and adolescents if the underachievement is not complicated by heavy involvement in drugs, alcohol, or crime, or by serious depression. However, even the adolescent who shows a long history of “complicated” underachievement may be able to reverse the undera- chieving pattern, as well as substance abuse, crime, and other problems. In addition to needing the collaborative work of the parent and educator, this youth is likely to need attention by a psychologist specializing in such problems.

Richert (1991a) summarizes role model importance well with the following statement: “The single most awesome influence educators and parents have are as role models.”

Step 5: correcting Skill Deficiencies

The underachieving gifted child almost always has skill deficiencies as a result of inattention in class and poor work and study habits. Because he or she is gifted, however, the skill deficiencies can be overcome reasonably rapidly. Defi- ciencies are less of a problem for a young child because the deficiencies are less likely to be extensive.

Tutoring should be goal-directed, with movement to a higher reading or math group or acceptance into an accelerated class the anticipated aim. The tutoring should be of a specified duration—for example, weekly for 2 months until the child takes a proficiency test—rather than ongoing. Ideally, the tutor should be an experienced and objective adult who recognizes the child’s undera- chievement and giftedness. Parents or siblings are not appropriate because the personal relationships are likely to cause the child additional pressure and dependency. The correction of skill deficiencies must be conducted care- fully so that (1) the independent work of the underachiev- ing child is reinforced by the tutor, (2) manipulation of the tutor by the child is avoided, and (3) the child senses the relationship between effort and the achievement outcomes. Charting progress during tutoring helps visually confirm the rapid progress for both child and tutor. Breaking larger tasks into smaller tasks permits the student to build confi- dence (Rimm, 2008b; Siegle & McCoach, 2005b).

Step 6: modification of reinforcements at home and at School

The analyses in Step 1 can certainly identify some of the manipulative rituals discussed earlier in the sections on home and school etiology. These behaviors need to be modified by setting important long-term goals as well as some short-term objectives that can ensure immediate small successes for the child both at home and at school. These successful experiences can be reinforced by rewards—anything from gold stars or extra art time to money or special outings with parents.

There are several considerations in determining the rewards to be used. First, they must be meaningful to the child. Money may seem unimportant to a 6-year-old, whereas stars are not particularly motivating to the adoles- cent. They must also be within the value system and range of possibility for the givers of the rewards. Schools usually do not use money as a reward, and parents may not want to pay (bribe) their children to learn. There are effective

258 Chapter 12

Summary

The underachieving gifted child represents both society’s greatest loss and its greatest potential resource. The National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) reported that half of gifted children do not perform up to their abilities in school. Richert is convinced that even these large figures are underestimates of the amount and degree of underachievement because the figures do not include underachievers who were not identified when IQ scores were the criterion. The lack of precision in defining underachievement makes it difficult, if not impossible, to calculate percentages of underachievers, but too much pre- cision in definition would prevent many underachievers from being identified and therefore receiving services.

Underachievement is typically defined as a discrep- ancy between the child’s school performance and some index of his or her actual ability, such as intelligence, achievement, or creativity test scores or observational data. Prolonged underachievement may cause test scores to underestimate a child’s abilities, as in Harry’s case. Rimm researched parent and student inventories that identify underachievers and describe patterns of their problem behaviors.

Whitmore prepared a checklist of characteristics of gifted underachievers. McCoach and Siegle compared the characteristics of achievers with those of underachievers, using the School Attitude Assessment Survey–R (SAAR), and documented that, compared with achievers, undera- chievers differed in their attitude toward school and teach- ers, their motivation, and their valuing of school goals. The researchers also reported that the underachievers were not a homogenous group but differed from each other. Thus, they recommended that the chosen methodology of revers- ing the underachievement should also differ depending on the unique profile of each underachiever.

Characteristics of gifted underachievers include low self-esteem; low self-efficacy; perfectionism; inability to cope with competition; defensive avoidance of threatening academic tasks; and deficiencies in skills, study habits, peer acceptance, school concentration, and discipline. If a child does not experience the relationship between efforts and outcomes, he or she is not likely to make efforts to achieve.

Dweck described two mindsets: A fixed mindset causes students to believe that their abilities are permanent and they can’t do anything about them. They expend efforts trying to appear intelligent and correct. If they have a growth mindset, they understand that their efforts will develop their talents over time and they can open them- selves to learning.

Perfectionism provides a different protection. Because perfection is unachievable, it provides ready

excuses for poor performance. Many underachieving gifted students have difficulty functioning in competitive situa- tions unless they believe that they can win.

Two directions of avoidance behaviors were described by Kaufman as withdrawal responses and aggressive responses. These responses are similar to Rimm’s identified patterns of dominance or dependence. In Peterson’s study of achieving adults who had been underachievers, 48% reported themselves as dominant and 38% reported being dependent.

Richert noted that others’ expectations inf luence achievement, values, creativity, self-esteem, social rela- tions, and emotional impact. She recommended transcend- ing others’ expectations with healthy self-expectations.

Siegle and McCoach provide a model for achieve- ment orientation that includes four major components on the path to achievement motivation. Two components— “confident in one’s ability to perform the task (self- efficacy)” and “expects to succeed”—are similar to the key underlying issues described by Rimm (internal locus of control and functioning in competition). They add to their model “values the task or outcome” and “sets realis- tic expectations,” which are included in the steps of the TRIFOCAL model for reversing underachievement. The Siegle and McCoach model is derived from school research, whereas the TRIFOCAL model emerged from clinical treatment and research. The meshing of these two models provides excellent support for both research and treatment.

Underachievement is learned and can be unlearned. Underachievement can be taught by families, schools, or cultures. Siegle and McCoach remind us that students are motivated because they enjoy either the activity or a byprod- uct of that activity. Recognizing factors that cause, support, and reward underachievers should help educators and others understand the dynamics of underachievement and therefore should assist them in preventing and reversing the problem.

When families of underachieving children are com- pared with families of achievers, certain characteristics become apparent. As part of family patterns, sibling issues were included by Hébert and Rimm. Competition between siblings, which identifies one child as a hard-working achiever and the other as a gifted but unwilling-to-work underachiever, is found frequently as part of the family eti- ology. Gifted underachievers are less likely to identify with their same-gender parents unless the parent also is an underachiever or does not value achievement.

Several parent-power patterns foster inappropriate identification and underachievement. Research shows

Underachievement 259

An unrewarding curriculum prevents the gifted child from fulfilling his or her needs to question, discuss, criti- cize, and so forth. A history of underachievement, in com- bination with inf lexibility on the part of educators, may lock gifted underachievers out of challenging classes.

Underachievement among gifted children may have been caused by complex family and school situations, but it is critical nonetheless that children experience the rela- tionship between their efforts, on the one hand, and their outcomes in the classroom, on the other. The educational needs of gifted children are best served by classrooms that provide intrinsically motivating curricula. Rimm illustrates how the appropriateness of the difficulty of the task can lead either to achievement or underachievement.

The TRIFOCAL model for reversing underachieve- ment requires six steps: (1) assessment of skills, abilities, reinforcement contingencies, and types of underachieve- ment; (2) communication between parents and teachers; (3) changing the expectations of parents, teachers, peers, and siblings; (4) locating appropriate role models; (5) cor- recting skill deficiencies; and (6) modifying home and school reinforcements that support underachievement.

Parents and teachers should be aware of the central role they play in the implementation of the critical six steps, particularly in the areas of setting expectations and finding or becoming good role models. In addition to using the TRIFOCAL model, parents and teachers should be equipped with “patience, dedication, and support.” Even without parent support, teachers can implement the TRIFOCAL model and reverse underachievement. If parents cannot or will not participate, reversal of the problem is helped by teachers working with a counselor or gifted coordinator so that students feel sufficiently supported.

Professional psychological help is needed if under- achievement is complicated by drugs, crime, or other serious problems.

worse achievement for males in father-absent homes, and worse math and problem-solving skills for both males and females in father-absent homes. Successful career mothers serve as effective models for achieving girls. School achievement improves for both boys and girls in families where both parents are working.

Counteridentification can lead parents to spend time with their children and reinforce the development of aca- demic, artistic, or athletic skills. It can also lead to manipu- lation by children and to underachievement. Parents who complete the child’s homework can encourage excessive dependence. If parents give their highly verbal children too much power, the children may manipulate their environ- ments to avoid expending any effort.

Creative students may dodge academic work by claiming that they must spend time on, for example, their art or music interests.

Counterintuitive responses by parents and teachers can help reverse underachievement. Dependent children must take small steps independently; dominant children require respect, support, and fair agreements on schoolwork.

Teachers who recognize and provide for gifted stu- dents create their “good years”; other teachers who cannot give them their “bad years.” Inflexible teachers, who may pile on extra busywork, encourage underachievement.

Teachers may ignore or scold the hand-waving, question-asking gifted student, who then stops responding in class.

Too much competition in the classroom is devastat- ing to the underachiever, whose self-concept is damaged by repeated evidence of incompetence.

Low expectations by teachers of gifted students become self-fulfilling prophecies and help create a climate that encourages underachievement. Being assigned reme- dial work may label a student as inept. Attitudes of peers toward achievement also have a dramatic impact on the achievement of gifted students.

260

13 Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage The Invisible Gifted

Learning OutcOmes

1. Summarize the legislation that affects gifted education for the culturally diverse and economically disadvantaged.

2. Analyze the contributing factors and outcomes of economic poverty related to educational poverty in terms of special needs.

3. Classify the challenges of identifying culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted children.

4. Recommend gifted programming components to meet the needs of and retain gifted students who are culturally different.

5. Identify strategies to address the challenges to gifted programming in rural areas.

C H A P T E R

T he scene is the principal’s office in an inner-city elementary school. The principal, an African American woman, is bright, determined, dedicated, and very professional; she has been carefully selected from among many competitors to lead a daring new approach to educating inner-city youngsters. Many of these

children, who have learning and social problems, had been written off as nonlearners by teachers in other schools. Today, several members of the school board who are interested in the goals and methods of this innovative, fun- damental school program interview the principal. Their questions begin with the who, why, and how of this unique school. The principal answers that the school program is based on certain fundamentals: carefully selected staff, parent involvement, basic skills, mastery of learning, firm discipline, and homework. Then a significant question arises:

“Ms. Jones, how will you teach your gifted students?”

And the response comes back: “In this school we have no gifted children.”

Culturally different and economically disadvantaged African American, Hispanic American, Native American, Asian American, and Caucasian children living in large urban centers, in underprivileged rural areas, and on Indian reservations are identified or described less frequently as gifted or talented. They are underrepre- sented in programs for the gifted. Their formal educational needs are often assumed to be only in basic skills areas, and their adjustment to school and learning more often involves strict discipline than it does for others. Their cultural and language differences plus their lack of exposure to mainstream U.S. culture usually combine to obscure from society the gifted children among them. These gifted culturally, linguistically, and economi- cally diverse (CLED) children typically proceed invisibly through school with their giftedness unrecognized.

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 261

Poverty is the dominant force in their underrepresentation in gifted education (Van Tassel-Baska, 2010). For example, the percentage of free and reduced lunch stu- dents in a school is negatively related to the percentage of students identified as gifted (NCRGE, 2016). Giftedness does not discriminate; unfortunately, however, educational opportunities do (Siegle, 2016).

In addition to their wholesale exclusion from gifted and talented (G/T) programs, the families and peers of CLED children also often do not have the necessary resources to reinforce the development of their children’s intellectual or creative talents. Thus, they are in even greater-than-typical need of strong school support. This chapter will discuss the special needs of CLED children, factors that contribute to their academic success, identi- fication methods, programming and counseling strate- gies, and some special considerations for rural gifted children.

LegisLation

In 1977, Representative Shirley Chisholm introduced leg- islation to include funding for gifted and talented minority and culturally different children within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. She was confronted imme- diately with the reality of widespread misunderstanding of these students (Chisholm, 1978). She pointed out that her Caucasian colleagues did not seem to recognize the exist- ence of gifted minority children and that they assumed that all minority children were in need of academic remedia- tion. Her African American colleagues, with little apparent support, questioned her sponsorship of programs that “did nothing but promote (discriminatory) IQ testing and money for affluent white children.” In her keynote address before the National Forum on Minority and Disadvan- taged Gifted and Talented, Chisholm lamented the failure of our educational institutions to nurture the talents of gifted disadvantaged students. She faulted U.S. education for (1) devising inadequate methods for recognizing talent among culturally different children and (2) allowing insuf- ficient funding to provide special programs for these children.

The late 1960s and 1970s saw the introduction of major educational and social programs to improve oppor- tunities for minority, culturally different, and economi- cally diverse children. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Head Start programs, educational TV pro- grams for children (for example, Sesame Street, Barney, Dora the Explorer), bilingual-education funding, and court-ordered desegregation all contributed to enhancing educational preparation and opportunities. The actual

educational and social impact of these investments has been both controversial and difficult to evaluate. However, some statistics were encouraging; for example, the per- centage of minority students who dropped out of school decreased dramatically.

According to a 1977 U.S. Department of Commerce report, in the mid-1950s, 50% of African American youth and 60% of Hispanic American youth dropped out of high school. By 2010, the dropout rate decreased to 6% for African Americans, 5% for Hispanic Americans, and 2% for Caucasians (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). There has been undeniable and excellent progress for all, including culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse youth.

In 1988, Congress passed the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (P.L. 100– 297, aka the Javits Education Act), which funded the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, as well as a multitude of educational programs throughout the United States. The programs and the research conducted by the National Research Center (NRC/GT), and now the National Center for Research on Gifted Education (NCRGE), are specifically dedicated to the identification of, and programming for, gifted and talented youth with disadvantages. Since 1988, more new research has been conducted in this area of gifted and talented education than in any other period in history. Much of this chapter will include research findings that would not have been possible without funding from the Javits Education Act. Reis (2009), when she was the Legislative Chair for the National Association for Gifted Children, surveyed current research and concluded the following with specific reference to economically and culturally disadvantaged students: “Gifted education programs and strategies are effective at serving gifted and high-ability students in a variety of educational settings and from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic populations. Gifted education pedagogy can also reverse underachievement in these students” (p. 1; Baum, 1998; Baum, Renzulli, & Hébert, 1999; Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004b; Gavin, Casa, Adelson, Carroll, Sheffield, & Spinelli, 2007; Hébert & Reis, 1999; Little, Feng, VanTassel-Baska, Rogers, & Avery, 2007; Reis & Díaz, 1999; Reis, McCoach, Coyne, Schreiber, Eckert, & Gubbins, 2007). The Javits Education Act was defunded between 2011 and 2013; however, Congress appropriated $5 million for research and discretionary grants in 2014 (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) and has since increased funding. This trend holds out hope for underserved gifted students in the future.

262 Chapter 13

speciaL needs

There is a long, sordid history of the relationship between economic poverty and educational poverty. This chapter will specifically focus on how this problem shows itself in relation to gifted students.

Between 1995 and 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the number of ethnic minorities increased from 27% to 34% of the U.S. population (Anderson, 2007). There has been a significant increase in the population of U.S. immigrants over the past half century, which reflects the impact of the Immigration Act of 1965. The act removed the national origins quota system and opened American shores for reuniting families and increasing the numbers of skilled workers (Lee, 2014). With the Immi- gration Act of 1990, the rate of the foreign-born population in the United States doubled to 35.2 million between 1990 and 2005, with a 47% increase since 1990 of the number of U.S. residents above age five that speak a language other than English at home (Rong, & Preissle, 2009). Many of the new immigrants are of Asian and Latin American descent (Grieco et al., 2012) but immigrants and their children are an increasingly diverse group with over 350 different languages being spoken, according to the U.S. Census data collected through 2013 (American Com- munity Survey, 2015). New immigrants also are more likely to experience poverty than are native-born families, with 23% of current immigrant households living in pov- erty compared to 13.5% of native-born households in 2010 (Camarota, 2012).

It is estimated that, by the year 2060, ethnic minori- ties will make up 51% of the U.S. population. Hispanics actually have surpassed African Americans as the largest minority population, and that trend is expected to continue (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2004).

Underserved populations are not faring well in identification for gifted programming. In a study of gifted student identification by Grissom and Redding (2016), the researchers found that one-third as many Black students were identified for a gifted reading pro- gram by non-Black educators as when the identifiers were Black educators. Additional research will be needed to determine the causes of bias, but the serious- ness of the underidentification is urgent. Ford (2014) points out that underrepresentation can no longer be ignored. A recent case, McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School District U-46 (2013) affirmed that a separate gifted program for only Hispanic students vio- lated both the U.S. Constitution’s and the Illinois state constitution’s Equal Protection clauses. The judge deter- mined that “a separate gifted education program based on ethnicity or race perpetuates the very myths that our

nation’s civil rights laws were created to prevent” (Ford, 2014).

At the college undergraduate level, minority under- graduate enrollment increased from 17% to 33% between 1976 and 2010. Enrollment for Hispanics rose from 3% to 13%, Asian/Pacific Islanders from 2% to 6%, and African American climbed from 9% to 14%. During the same period, the percentage of White students decreased from 83% to 61% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012).

Graduate school degrees earned have increased for minority students (National Center for Education Statis- tics, 2012). As expected, percentages for master’s degrees earned are higher: African Americans have increased from 9% to 12.5%, Hispanics from 4.8% to 7.1%, and Asian/ Pacific Islanders from 5.8% to 7.0%. For American Indian/ Alaskan Natives, there was no change, at 0.6%. African American women received only slightly more master’s degrees than African American men. Within the minority groups, African Americans received the highest percentage of doctorates in education and the lowest in biology and medicine. Native Americans and Hispanics obtained doc- toral degrees chief ly in psychology (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007a).

There have been slight increases in doctorate degrees earned by minorities between 2000 and 2010. African Americans have increased Ph.D.s from 6.6% to 7.4%; His- panics from 4.7% to 5.8%, and Asian/Pacific Islanders from 10% to 11.8%. American Indian/Alaska Natives have stayed the same at 0.7% (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

Guterl (2014) urges educators to recognize that “sci- ence and technology are society’s main engines of prosper- ity” (p. 39). His findings on diversity in the U.S. workforce issue a call to gifted educators to find and educate diverse youth and direct them toward science degrees.

Figure 13.1 compares race and ethnicity in the popu- lation to that of the science and engineering work force.

Underrepresenation of cLed students in gifted programs

Siegle, McCoach, Gubbins, Callahan, and Knupp (2015), using data from a state with a mandate to identify and serve gifted students, examined the extent to which traditionally underserved students were underidentified as gifted. Prior to controlling for achievement or for any school or district differences, the researchers found that White students who did not receive free/reduced-price lunch and were not English learners (ELs) were far more likely to be identified as gifted than were Black students, ELs, and students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch programs. In fact, the odds of

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 263

being identified as gifted were over 3.5 times higher for these White reference students as for Black students not eligible for free/reduced-price lunch programs, almost 12 times higher for these White reference students than for Black students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch pro- grams, and over 15.5 times higher for these White refer- ence students than for Latino students who were EL and eligible for free/reduced-price lunch programs. However, these findings did not control for earlier reading and math achievement, nor did they control for school or district demographics.

After controlling for students’ math and reading achievement test scores and each of the student character- istics, school and district socioeconomic status (SES), and district reading and math achievement, Siegle et al. (2015) reported that students were still less likely to be identified as gifted if they were Black or Latino, if they received free or reduced-price lunch, or if they had ever been classified as English learners. Holding school and district demo- graphics, percentages identified of gifted students, and reading and math achievement constant at the overall mean, the odds of being identified as gifted were over 2.5 times higher for White students who did not receive free/ reduced-price lunch and were not English learners than they were for students who are Latino, free/reduced-price eligible, and English learners for students with the same

third-grade mathematics and reading scores. These results indicate that traditionally underserved students in their sample (students who are Black and Latino, students who receive free/reduced-price lunch, and English learners) were less likely to be identified as gifted, even when their achievement is on par with their peers.

Research has illustrated the widening of the excellence-achievement gaps among students with varying demographic characteristics, such as racial/ethnic groups, low socioeconomic status, limited English proficiency, and gender (Plucker, Burroughs, & Song, 2010). In addition, students with high potential from lower-income families lose more educational ground and excel less frequently than their higher-income peers (Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007). Disparities between students from lower- and higher-income families are evident starting in first grade due to lack of access to preschool programs and other edu- cational resources that influence intellectual development. Students from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse communities represent disproportionately low numbers of students scoring at the highest levels of achievement, raising concerns that students in today’s schools are potentially being “intellectually barred” from achieving their obvious, emergent, and latent talents and abilities. In fact, Plucker, Hardesty, and Burroughs (2013) concluded that the United States was creating a

0

10

W hi te

M al e

W hi te

F em

al e

Hi sp

an ic

Fe m

al e

Bl ac

k Fe

m al e

Hi sp

an ic

M al e

Bl ac

k M

al e

As ia n

M al e

20

30

40

50

Resident Population

60

As ia n

Fe m

al e

O th

er F

em al e

O th

er M

al e

Science & Engineering Workforce

FigUre 13.1 Comparison of Race and Ethnicity in the Resident Population (ages 18–64) to the Science and Engineering Work Force: Source: From Diversity in Science: Why It Is Essential for Excellence in Science and technology are society’s main engines of prosperity. Who gets to drive them?. BY Fred Guterl. Copyright year © 2014. Published by Scientific American.

264 Chapter 13

Wertlieb (1989). Taylor (1991) found resilient African American youth to be mature and academically and socially confident. Clark (1991; also Ford, 1993) consid- ered them to have bicultural identities and to believe in the American dream.

In another study, characteristics of female achievers included involvement in multiple activities, independence, resilience, and dedication to a career (Reis et al., 1995). These high-achieving students were extremely supportive of other achieving students. Male high achievers also were involved in multiple activities, had positive personal traits, and had a positive peer group. They, too, had reasonable career aspirations. Table 13.1 lists factors inf luencing achievement.

In reviewing a study by Arnold and Denny of 81 val- edictorians, Moses (1991) itemized roadblocks to post– high school achievement by gifted underserved students. The group as a whole was very successful. However, the study found that, although Caucasian, middle-class stu- dents had considerable family support, the eight African American and Hispanic American students struggled with financial issues, lack of family support, and “fitting in” at predominately Caucasian colleges. The intellectual self- esteem of women students decreased after they entered college, despite their grades being higher than those of many men. They also often lowered their career expecta- tions. Overcoming the difficulties that underserved gifted students will face in college should be part of their guid- ance preparation in high school if we wish to increase the likelihood that they will complete college.

Family support

VanTassel-Baska (1989) used a case-study approach to determine the dynamics underlying the success of 15 eco- nomically disadvantaged gifted adolescents who had

taBLe 13.1 Factors Influencing Achievement

• Belief in self

• Personal characteristics

• Support systems

• Participation in special programs, extracurricular activities, and summer enrichment programs

• Appropriately challenging classes

• Realistic aspirations

Source: From Case Studies of Talented Students Who Achieve and Underachieve in an Urban High School. Research Monograph 95120 by Sally M Reis, Thomas P Hebert, Eva I Diaz, Lori R Maxfield, Michael E Ratley. Copyright © 1997. Published by University of Connecticut.

talent underclass with it fastest growing segments of K–12 students.

Therefore, recognizing, acknowledging, and address- ing these achievement differences and barriers to excel- lence is imperative (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012). Ford (2014) adds, “We must be proactive, deliberate, and diligent about correcting intentional and unintentional problems to equitably recruit and retain Hispanic and African American students in gifted education” (p. 152).

Factors reLated to sUccess For disadvantaged YoUth

Literature that includes differentiated information on the successes of underserved children can provide insights into appropriate programming to encourage the success of these gifted youth.

resilience

Werner (1989) provided impressive information in a 30-year study of 201 high-risk children from the Hawaiian island of Kauai. These children had experienced multiple risks, including moderate to severe perinatal stress, chronic poverty, troubled family environments, and parents with fewer than eight grades of education. While two-thirds of these children developed serious problems, one-third grew into adults who “lived well, worked well, and played well.” They were successful in accomplishing educational and career goals; 46 of them completed college. Werner termed these children resilient and documented the characteristics in their childhood that appeared to support their success despite their extreme disadvantages.

The critical factor for these resilient children appeared to be their informal support networks. Many mentioned a teacher who had been a role model during periods of family disorganization. Others mentioned a youth leader, a favorite minister, participation in 4-H, the school band, a cheerleading team, or the Y. These impor- tant people or activities seemed to help the children develop meaning and a sense of personal control over their lives.

The Werner study was the first of a large number of significant studies identifying resilience among under- served youth. Javits legislative funding allowed additional significant research. The findings of the separate studies support each other.

Ford (1994a) summarized research on the character- istics of resilience among gifted African American youth (described later in this chapter). Internal locus of control, a positive sense of self, and feelings of empowerment were characteristics cited by Hauser, Vieyra, Jacobson, and

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 265

unsuccessful in managing the peer culture, and acknowl- edged fewer support systems.

Perhaps the most neglected research in education is the area of gifted Native American students. Gentry, Fugate, Wu, and Castellano (2014) conducted exploratory research among the Dine, Lakota, and Ojibwe nations and issued a call for more research in the ethnically rich but economically disadvantaged members of marginalized cultures.

An important difference between the Werner (1989), VanTassel-Baska (1989), Kerr and Colangelo (1994), Taylor (1991), McLoyd (1990), Hébert (1996), and Leppien (1995) studies lies in the role of family versus that of community. In Werner’s research, the disadvantaged children all came from dysfunctional families and the needed support came from school and community sources. In the VanTassel-Baska, Kerr and Colangelo, Taylor, Hébert, and Leppien studies, good family relationships seemed critical. One might conclude that the assistance of community members becomes even more crucial in the absence of role models and high expectations from the dis- advantaged child’s family.

racial identities

Ford and Harris (1997) studied the racial identity of 152 African American male and female gifted and regular ado- lescents. They found that achievers and females tended to have more positive racial identities than underachievers and males. In addition, gifted students had more positive racial identities than regular students did. Harris and Ford (1991) earlier noted the conf lict between maintaining racial identity and striving for academic honors—largely the “acting white” issue. Tonemah (1991) and Duran and Weffer (1992) pointed out that the achievement ethos is in conf lict with cultural values for both Native Americans and Mexican Americans.

grit, investment of time, and opportunity

Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly (2007) entitled as grit that “stick-to-it-iveness that matters more for suc- cess than high IQ scores.” High scores on their Grit Scale—which included items such as “Have overcome set- backs to conquer an important challenge”—did indeed predict success among West Point cadets, spelling-bee participants, and older adults with very high IQ scores (Packard, 2007). Gladwell (2008) credited consistent effort (or grit), rather than the genetics of IQ, for extreme suc- cess. But in addition to believing that 10,000 hours of invested hard work were required to become an “outlier,” or brilliant contributor in any field, Gladwell recognized the important role of opportunity.

attended public schools in the Midwest. She uncovered important home and school variables that can help parents and educators to guide disadvantaged youth. Aspirations, expectations, and standards of the parents and the extended family were high for these children. Mothers were extremely influential and, for some children, grandmoth- ers were critical. Fathers and grandfathers also were cited as important.

School was pleasant and productive for these chil- dren. Many were A students. For those who had been accelerated, acceleration had been a positive experience. Involvement in extracurricular activities appeared extremely helpful. Also, the students had many positive relationships with teachers. Although they had friends, peer influence did not play a critical role in their education or career plans.

Another study of a sample of underserved students who scored above the 95th percentile on their American College Testing Program (ACT) Assessment included 64 African Americans, 20 Native Americans, 85 Mexican Americans, and 50 Asian Americans (Kerr & Colangelo, 1994). The mean grade point average of the students was 3.35. The most popular college major chosen, by far, was engineering. Natural sciences were the next most popular. These students credited their success to their personal efforts and the support of their families. Many of them stated that they had to “prove” their talents to the larger society.

Taylor (1991) and McLoyd (1990) described resil- ient African American youth as having positive school experiences and strong family values, and actively par- ticipating in religious activities. Positive and strong peer relations were added to the characteristics of resilience by Garmezy (1991). These characteristics serve as protec- tion for African American youth and promote social and academic success.

Developing resilience of three urban, gifted Latino young men was described by Hébert (1996) as including supportive families that emphasize school success, men- tors and role models, and involvement in extracurricular activities.

A qualitative study of 12 high-ability African Ameri- can girls in an urban elementary school differentiated the characteristics of achievers and underachievers (Leppien, 1995). The achieving girls had a strong belief in self. They used learning strategies to maintain academic performance and to deal with the negative effects of peer culture. They acknowledged the importance of teacher, school, and family support. The underachievers used negative behav- iors (e.g., rebelliousness) to maintain a belief in them- selves, had poor learning and behavior strategies, were

266 Chapter 13

IdentIfIcatIon

Culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted children are not easy to identify. They often remain invisible and must be discovered or uncovered. Indeed, because of cultural bias in test instruments and other identification methods, many typical procedures actually obscure their giftedness—by “proving” that these children are not gifted. Because actual achieve- ment often is not outstanding, identification must be based on superior potential instead of superior perfor- mance. At least 19 states now advocate the use of multi- ple criteria for the identification of gifted children (NAGC, 2015). McBee, Peters, and Waterman (2014) evaluated one state’s multiple-criteria identification sys- tem that included cognitive ability, achievement, creativ- ity, and motivation. In their simulation study, they examined the outcome of using an and rule, which requires students to be above a cut score on all measures, versus an or rule, which requires students to be above a cut score on at least one measure. They concluded that there was not a single correct way to combine scores from multiple measures. The and rule identified fewer students, and the or rule worked well if there were no consequences for misidentification.

Frasier (1997) reminded us that minority populations remain underrepresented in gifted programming. She related this identification problem to two main issues: “(1) differences in test performance among racial, cultural, or ethnic groups; and (2) the effects of cultural, economic, and language differences or deprivations on the ability of minority students to achieve at levels associated with gift- edness” (p. 498). Although there has been progress, approximately a decade later Borland (2004), Horn (2004), Joseph and Ford (2006), Lohman, (2005), Siegle (2001), Smutny (2005), Sternberg (2007), and VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2007) remind us of these same identifica- tion problems again and again.

A major problem in identifying CLED gifted chil- dren comes from the focus on homogeneity rather than heterogeneity. Group stereotypes are perpetuated because of the tendency to characterize all members of an underserved group with the attributes of group mem- bers who perform the least well (Banks, 1993; Tonemah, 1987). When weaknesses and problems obscure strengths, giftedness is missed. This section will review typical identification methods and evaluate their useful- ness for populations that are culturally different and eco- nomically disadvantaged. It will also recommend other identification procedures that in some cases are more effective.

Intelligence tests

High intelligence test scores on either group or individual tests are one valid way to identify intellectually gifted minority youngsters. However, an average or even low IQ score may be a poor or misleading indicator of student ability if the child comes from a culturally deprived or cul- turally different environment.

This issue is exceedingly complex. There are fre- quent and continuing debates regarding cultural bias in mental testing, and the dust is far from settled. For exam- ple, some argue that the lower average scores of some groups are simply evidence of discriminatory test bias. From this perspective, intelligence tests “have devastating labeling—and pigeonholing—effects . . . and they are nothing more than an Anglo yardstick designed to make Whites look ingenious, and Blacks and other minorities stupid” (Hoffman, 1964). In the book The Mismeasure of Man, Gould (1996) passionately lambastes and condemns the unitary measure of intelligence or IQ as politically motivated and refers to it as biological determinism. In his words, “few injustices [are] deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as living within” (p. 60). For another view, Arthur Jensen (1976; see also Jensen, 1980, 1998), known for his “racial differences” hypothesis, argues that intelligence tests show practically no evidence of differential culture bias, by which he means that the tests predict school success for both minority and majority cultures.

Thorndike and Hagen (1977) argued for the useful- ness (prediction ability) of intelligence tests but also noted that (1) the tests do not determine a person’s ability but simply suggest strengths and weaknesses; (2) they describe how a person is doing at the present time; and (3) we should consider the cultural, personal, and family back- ground in interpreting test scores.

Frasier, Garcia, and Passow (1995) agree strongly that IQ tests are racially biased. In their review of assess- ment issues, they claim that there are three major reasons for the underrepresentation of minority groups in gifted programming:

1. Test bias. Standardized testing is unfair to ethnic minorities, for cultural and language reasons.

2. Selective referrals. Teacher attitudes and knowledge about minority students and the schools they are likely to attend translate into fewer referrals. This is further supported by the research by Grissom and Redding (2016) where Black teachers identified three times as many gifted students as non-Black teachers.

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 267

3. Reliance on deficit-based paradigms. The focus on deficits makes recognition of strengths of minority children difficult.

To that list, Donna Ford (2010) adds social- emotional concerns and resulting decisions by students and their caregivers about participating in gifted education programs. This is prompted by (a) isolation that results from being one of a very few from a subpopulation iden- tified and served through a particular service delivery model, particularly if joining the served group requires separation from peers; (b) curriculum that is not rele- vant to the students; (c) instructional practices that are based on competition or on methods of instruction that are culturally mismatched to the learning practices of students’ communities; (d) the inattention to social relationship building; and (e) emotional distress that may come from the feelings of responsibility or the stress of representing a particular group (Moore, Ford, & Milner, 2005).

Educators and psychologists—whether liberal or conservative; African American, Hispanic, Native American, Asian American, or Caucasian—agree that culturally different students are more likely than the average student to have a difficult time when taking tests of verbal ability (vocabulary, comprehension). These tests, of course, are based on middle-class English. The problem is that subcul- tural languages such as African American English, Hawaiian pidgin, or Navajo or other Native American languages are different, so the person’s linguistic struc- tures, categories, and associations are also different. Group intelligence tests depend heavily on language ability and therefore are more likely to be biased than individually administered tests.

Perceptual IQ Tests (Nonverbal)

As you may remember from Chapter 3, the Wechsler tests separate subtests and IQ scores into verbal, perceptual, working memory, and processing speed indices, thereby allowing a bright child with deficient English to score high on some indices. You will recall, also from Chapter 3, that the National Association for Gifted Children has a position statement recommending that students be identi- fied for gifted programming on the basis of either the Ver- bal Comprehension Index, Perceptual Reasoning Index, Full Scale IQ, or General Ability Index and that gifted programs accommodate the needs of differences in giftedness.

Several other perceptual (nonverbal) IQ tests have been developed and can assist in identification of

economically and culturally disadvantaged youth. For example, Project Athena used two nonverbal measures of intelligence: the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT; Lohman & Hagen, 2005), nonverbal scales; and the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT; Bracken & McCallum, 1998). By using these two additional nonverbal tests, the program doubled the number of Title 1 students identified for gifted programs, compared with procedures used by the school district. Increased numbers of African American students were identified by both tests as well. Other reliable nonverbal tests that are frequently used are the Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test (NNAT2; Naglieri, 2008) and the Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test (1976). (See Chapter 3 for additional information on the use of nonverbal intelligence tests for identifying gifted students.) Notice also, however, that nonverbal tests may not hold all the answers to the problem of identification. One criticism of using nonverbal tests is that students who do well on them may not be successful in verbally intensive gifted programs. As we have cautioned throughout this text, identification practices need to align with program services. Therefore, nonverbal tests may be appropriate for some types of gifted program services but less helpful for others types of programs.

Other IQ Test Issues

Helms (1992) pointed out that some African American cul- tural issues could negatively affect cognitive ability testing for these students (see Table 13.2). Besides suggesting other recommendations for cultural equivalence in stand- ardized testing, she suggested the use of separate racial group norms.

The use of IQ tests for Asian American students presents different issues. Woliver and Woliver (1991) and Plucker (1996) pointed out several important weak- nesses in our understanding of gifted Asian American students. In the area of assessment, there may be some Asian American populations that will be disadvantaged if traditional assessments are not used. Plucker also emphasized that little is said about creative development in discussions of Asian American populations. He also reminds educators that the dominant role of males in most Asian cultures must inf luence achievement for girls (Lee & Cynn, 1991). Consideration of the hetero- geneity of Asian cultures is also important for both iden- tification and programming for gifted Asian American students. The model minority stereotype and grouping of Asian American and Pacific Islanders into one homogenized racial group may mask the low

268 Chapter 13

educational attainment of AAPI subgroups and their underrepresentation in gifted programming (Kitano & DiJiosia, 2001).

In sum, any identification process based on intelligence/aptitude tests will surely underidentify disad- vantaged gifted students, students with underdeveloped potential. A high IQ score, of course, is convincing evi- dence of high intellectual ability among culturally, lin- guistically, and economically diverse children, just as it is with other children. However, many gifted CLED children will be overlooked if intelligence tests are used as the only, or the most important, identification instrument.

An experiment in Tanzania by Sternberg and his col- leagues (Sternberg et al., 2001, 2002) demonstrated how IQ scores can be changed with instruction and cultural support. IQ tests were administered to 358 school children. At a later date this same group of students was given 10 minutes of instruction on how to do better on the tests and then administered a retest of the same test. Not only did scores improve significantly but the second group of scores also showed only weak correlations with the first group of scores and were better predictors of transfer to other learning than the first scores. If such a small amount

of training can make so large a difference, imagine the impact of test-taking training on children who are cultur- ally disadvantaged (Sternberg et al., 2001, p. 291). Consider that educated families spend dozens of hours familiarizing their children with learning tasks that are often similar to IQ test items. Many books are available for teaching test-taking skills, but these are unlikely to make their way into the homes of economically or culturally diverse children.

The use of IQ tests is recommended, but average or low scores should be interpreted with caution and in con- sideration of the language, cultural and family background, and the circumstances of testing. Their use alone as a gate- keeper to gifted programs is absolutely not recommended for any student, but particularly not for culturally or eco- nomically disadvantaged students.

achievement tests

Achievement tests typically are administered at regular intervals in almost every school system, so achievement information is readily available. Whereas standardized achievement tests are highly recommended as an identifi- cation tool for most populations, for culturally different

taBLe 13.2 African Cultural Components in Cognitive Ability Testing: Hypothesized Effects of African-Centered Values and Beliefs

Dimension General Description Influence on Test Responses

Spirituality Greater validity of the power of immaterial forces in everyday life over linear, factual thinking.

It may be difficult to separate relevant aspects of the test stimuli from factors caused by luck or circumstance.

Harmony The self and one’s surroundings are interconnected.

The ambiance of the environment in which one takes the test may influence one’s responses.

Movement Personal conduct is organized through movement.

Active test-taking strategies may result in better performance than sedentary ones.

Affect Integration of feelings with thoughts and actions.

Feelings may facilitate or hinder test perfor- mance; respondent may find it difficult to “under- stand” persons in test stimuli who act without feeling.

Communalism Valuing of one’s group(s) more than individuals.

Performance may be influenced when a person perceives that it represents the group.

Expressive Unique personality is expressed through one’s behavioral style.

Test taker may choose the more imaginative response alternative.

Orality Knowledge may be gained and transmitted orally and aurally.

Test performance may differ when the person is tested orally and aurally.

Social time Time is measured by socially meaningful events and customs.

The belief that obtaining a “good” answer is more important than finishing on time may lead the test taker to “waste” time.

Source: From Why Is There No Study of Cultural Equivalence in Standardized Cognitive Ability Testing? by Janet E. Helms. Published by American Psychological Association. Copyright © 1992.

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 269

Assessment Profile (F-TAP; Frasier & Passow, 1994) have been developed to bring together data from a vari- ety of sources and to specifically include variables that will help identify minority and disadvantaged gifted children.

F-TAP includes aptitude and achievement test data— as well as self-report and observational information—in data categories such as intelligence, specific academic talents, motivations, creativity, and others (see the F-TAP discussion in Chapter 3).

teacher nominations

In many instances, the teacher nomination of giftedness is a highly suspect and invalid identification strategy (see Chapter 3). Nonetheless, it continues to be the most popu- lar identification method. For underrepresented popula- tions, the teacher nomination method creates special hazards. “Teacher pleasers,” who are tidy, clean, and nicely dressed; who speak middle-class English; and who turn in their work neatly done and on time, are likely to be named as “gifted.” Other students—poor, African American, Hispanic American, or Native American—are automatically “disadvantaged” by many teachers in the nomination process. Shade (1978) found that African American gifted achievers, despite their giftedness, receive less praise and attention and more criticism in the classroom than their nongifted African American counter- parts. Clark (1983) observed that there remains the persis- tent attitude that gifted children are not found in certain populations.

On the other hand, a sensitive and caring teacher who is knowledgeable about the characteristics of gifted children may, in fact, be the very best identifier of the cul- turally different gifted child. Such a teacher may be able to guide and inspire a talented child who may or may not score high on any ability or achievement test. Deborah Roberts, an African American news reporter for ABC’s 20/20 television program, described her early days of desegregation as “nervous times” but credits her seventh-grade teacher for setting high standards and expec- tations for her, and inspiring her to believe that she could move out of her small-town environment in Georgia to become successful on national television in New York (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001).

Several studies cast serious doubt on the validity of teacher nominations for culturally different students. For example, when teachers use rating scales that include language items to rate Hispanic limited English proficient (LEP) students, the teachers may neglect stu- dents’ verbal proficiency in Spanish and evaluate only their English proficiency (Fernandez, Gay, Lucky, &

students they are plagued by exactly the same problems as intelligence tests. Although it is critical that achievement scores not be misused because of cultural bias, it certainly is reasonable to use them as one index of gifts and talents for minority children. As with students tested by IQ scores, children who produce high scores on achievement tests are showing good evidence of special kinds of giftedness. However, in culturally different populations, gifted chil- dren may not score high on these tests despite their gifted- ness. Achievement tests alone, then, are not a sufficient measure for the identification of underrepresented populations.

Because achievement test scores are often used to deny entrance into gifted programming to disadvantaged students, Lynch and Mills (1990) designed a program to improve the achievement of 45 high-potential sixth-grade students in the Pasadena Unified School District. The group included a high proportion of African Americans and Hispanic Americans, as well as socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Their Skills Reinforcement Pro- ject (SRP) was sufficiently effective to allow nine of these students into gifted programming without recourse to affirmative action, proof that achievement test scores can be improved rapidly with a little hard work.

creativity tests

Creativity tests, both divergent-thinking tests and self- descriptive inventories (see Chapter 3), can be very helpful in selecting minority and culturally different children for participation in G/T programs. Specifically, they are useful in identifying highly creative children who are not moti- vated to achieve and who may not score high on ability or achievement tests. Research with minority children sup- ports the use of both kinds of creativity tests.

Central to the appropriate use of divergent- thinking tests such as the Torrance Tests or personality/biographi- cal inventories is the recognition that (1) scores from a single creativity test should be combined with other information, such as teacher ratings of creativity or scores on a second creativity test, in order to reach a valid decision; and (2) low creativity test scores abso- lutely must never be used to eliminate children from G/T programs. Creativity tests are not perfect; there simply are too many types of creativity and creative people. However, creativity tests can identify creatively gifted children, majority and minority, who may not be identi- fied in other ways.

Matrix identification Models

Matrix identification models such as the Baldwin Identi- fication Matrix (Baldwin, 2004) and the Frasier Talent

270 Chapter 13

Gavilan, 1998). Peterson and Margolin (1997) found that Anglo teachers often passed over Hispanic and other minority-group gifted students because of their own cultural mainstream definition of giftedness. Even when rating scales were used to identify 274 fifth-grade students, the extent to which Hispanic students were acculturated into the mainstream culture predicted the likelihood that they would be identified by teachers as gifted (Masten, Plata, Wenglar, & Thedford, 1999). Peterson (1999) claimed that classroom teachers’ cul- tural perceptions of giftedness were pivotal in underi- dentifying African American, Hispanic, Native American, Asian immigrant, and low-income Anglo children for gifted programs.

Teachers value behaviors that are not necessarily related to academic giftedness. Twenty-four percent of the characteristics used to describe gifted students on fre- quently used rating scales are potentially biased against students from different cultures or with limited English proficiency. These items measure behaviors such as asser- tiveness, initiating activities, asking questions, and

contributing in class (A. Brice & R. Brice, 2004). For example, students with limited English may be reluctant to ask questions or contribute in class due to language diffi- culties. Students from some cultures are taught to respect authority and not to question adults or to assert themselves with adults.

The nomination procedure will be greatly improved when teachers are educated regarding characteristics of gifted and talented minority children, some of which are different than the usual characteristics of giftedness (Coleman & Shah-Coltrane, 2011).

Swenson (1978) constructed a helpful list of charac- teristics of creativeness in a culturally different and socio- economically deprived urban school area. Her list came from information generated by 36 teachers and was based on observed original behavior related to classwork, art, and antisocial—yes, antisocial—behavior (see Table 13.3). Because teachers are accustomed to disciplining children for antisocial behavior, they may overlook the creativity exhibited in such behavior (see especially items 2, 9, 18, 23, and 24 in Table 13.3).

TABLE 13.3 Characteristics of Creativity in Culturally Different Students

1. Repeats activities so that he or she can do them differently.

2. Invents imaginative lies.

3. Shows that he or she sees hidden meanings, cause-and-effect relationships that are not obvious.

4. Writes and illustrates stories without being asked to do so as an assignment.

5. Utilizes free time by making up games or making something from paper and material scraps as opposed to more structured activities.

6. Finds many answers to a situational question.

7. Lets his or her imagination “run” when writing a story; sees more possibilities.

8. Finds activities for spare-time work with little or no additional help.

9. Decorates the border of his or her paper when doing an assignment.

10. Doesn’t copy other children’s ideas in art.

11. Builds and constructs things using unusual materials; uses ordinary materials in different ways.

12. Interrelates his or her experiences and draws on them with ease in discussions.

13. Doesn’t let classroom events go unnoticed; questions them.

14. Accomplishes things without help.

15. Writes poems and stories in his or her spare time.

16. Asks unusual questions during class discussions.

17. Makes up ideas when the class does a project together.

18. Suggests to the teacher alternate ways of doing an activity.

19. Is willing to risk friendship to express his or her feelings or thoughts.

20. Enthusiastic about new activities in music and art.

21. Goes beyond what is required in class assignments; makes his or her work “fancier.”

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 271

in four states, with 1,115 teachers participating. Teachers believe they would have overlooked 22% of the students of color without the TOPS instrument and particularly would have missed 53% of the African American boys primarily because of their behavior problems. The authors acknowl- edge that additional research is needed but pointed out that recognizing strengths among students who exhibit non- teacher-pleasing behaviors (for example, corrects the teacher in class, manipulates situations for specific pur- poses, is seen as “bossy,” wants to be the center of atten- tion) permitted them to recognize high-ability students who had potential.

Parent Nominations

Appropriate gifted programming should encourage parent identification. However, in order for parent identification to be effective for underserved populations, special efforts are necessary to educate those parents about characteristics of giftedness and the advantages of gifted programming for their children.

A survey sent to Caucasian, Hispanic American, and African American parents of children in a gifted and talented program of a large urban district yielded an important clue to the underrepresentation of minority children in gifted programming (Scott, Perou, Urbano, Hogan, & Gold, 1992). Parents were asked about the characteristics that had suggested to them that their child was gifted and current characteristics of their gifted child. They were also asked if they had requested an evaluation of their child for placement in the gifted pro- gram. There were no significant differences between the groups for the first two questions, but significantly fewer minority parents than white parents had requested that their children be evaluated for gifted programming. This finding seems to underline the importance of reaching parents of minority children and involving them in the identification of giftedness (e.g., Scott et al., 1992). Smutny (2005) encourages consulting with both parents and community leaders for insights on identification within the Hispanic culture, and that plan would seem appropriate in any culturally different community.

Renzulli (as discussed in Siegle, 2001) has long been a proponent of teacher nomination, in accordance with his belief that teachers who actually know their stu- dents well often nominate students that tests miss. He and his colleagues developed, and later revised, the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Stu- dents (SRBCSS; Renzulli, 1997), which were included in Chapter 3 of this text. Siegle also alerts teachers to his own research that found specific biases by teachers in their nomination procedures. He discovered that gender bias continues to hinder nomination because teachers were more likely to nominate those who have atypical interest for their gender, as when a male reads a lot or a female excels in math problem solving. Siegle and Powell (2000) found from their research that teachers often nomi- nated disorganized boys, but not disorganized girls, assuming, no doubt, that disorganization in bright boys was acceptable, but for girls it was symptomatic of less capability. Gender stereotypes continue to be difficult to eliminate.

Perhaps not so surprising is that teachers were more likely to nominate students whose interests were more eso- teric or unique, assuming that differences in interests were a manifestation of intelligence (Powell & Siegle, 2000). And, of course, sometimes, they are.

A third concern, reinforced by Siegle and also referred to earlier in this chapter, is that weaknesses attract more attention by teachers than strengths do. Teachers worried that gifted students with weaknesses would not be able to function successfully in gifted pro- grams. Siegle (2001) advocates training teachers for identification so that they become aware of typical biases, become sensitive to their own biases, and thus can exer- cise cultural fairness in nominating students for gifted programs.

The Teacher’s Observation of Potential in Students (TOPS)

TOPS was designed by Harradine, Coleman and Winn (2014) to observe systematically the academic strengths of 5- to 9-year-old students of color. Research was conducted

22. Comes up with fresh, original comments or an unusual correct answer when there is more than one correct answer.

23. Finds new ways to get attention.

24. Tries original ways to get out of work he or she doesn’t want to do.

25. Takes the initiative when he or she wants to know something; reads or asks questions without prompting.

Source: From Teachers of Gifted Students: Suggested Multicultural Characteristics and Competencies Volume 23, Issue 4 by Donna Y. Forda & Michelle Frazier Trotman. Copyright © 2001. Published by Good Roeper Review.

272 Chapter 13

1985) and the Potentially Gifted Minority Student Project (Alamprese & Erlanger, 1988). These approaches appear to be less culturally biased than others and thus increase the number of minority students identified (Patton, 1992).

Woods and Achey (1990) increased the percentage of racial/ethnic minority students in the Academically Gifted (AG) Project by 181% by using a series of evalua- tions. Whereas some students qualified at the first step on the basis of the group aptitude and achievement testing, other students were permitted to proceed through two other steps of group and individual testing. The use of a variety of objective measures was successful in identifying addi- tional gifted minority students for the AG Project while following the traditional definition of “gifted” adopted by North Carolina. The AG Project method differs from the traditional method because it encourages additional testing for those who would not have qualified in the initial testing.

Promising improvement in the identification of culturally different gifted children has been found through the use of dynamic assessment, which was developed in an effort to evaluate immigrant children in Israel who have learning problems (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979). Dynamic assessment involves a test, then an intervention that teaches test-taking skills, fol- lowed by a retest (Kirschenbaum, 1998). Gifted children make significantly greater improvement after the inter- vention than do average children. G. Chaffey (personal communication, August 29–30, 2001), of the University of New England, Armidale, Australia, used dynamic assessment to identify gifted Australian Aboriginal chil- dren ages 8 to 11. He found significant changes in the children’s mean scores from pretest to posttest, but what is more important is that he found very large improve- ments for the gifted children. In the pretest, no children scored above the 90th percentile. After the intervention, 7 of the 84 participants scored above the 90th percentile. Kirschenbaum noted that the test-taking strategies can be taught by teachers. Teachers who learned the inter- vention tasks viewed themselves as better able to recog- nize skills of children in economically disadvantaged populations.

Based on multiple intelligence theory (Gardner, 1983) and assessment research (Maker, 1993; Sternberg, 1984b, 1988a), Problem Solving Assessment (PSA) was used to assess 1,100 students in a large school district in the southeastern United States (Reid, Romanoff, Algozzine, & Udall, 2000). Positive correlations were found with other measures, and different and more diverse populations were identified as gifted. Sarouphim (1999) reviewed research conducted by the use of the DISCOVER

Educators have to reach beyond the classroom to identify giftedness.

peer nominations

Peers of gifted children from some underserved groups usually do not place a high value on school achievement. However, they are as aware of gifts and talents among their friends and classmates, as are other young people. Bernal (1979), for example, found that members of a particular ethnic group almost always can identify the “smartest” among their peers.

To identify unusual intellectual, creative, or leader- ship ability, it may be necessary to look beyond the class- room to the cliques and crowds outside school. One interesting approach is to meet with students named by peers as “leaders” outside school. These leaders can explain characteristics of culturally valued giftedness within their own peer culture (Bernal, 1979; Bruch & Curry, 1978), gifts that might qualify the person for the special opportunities of a G/T program. In inner-city areas, for example, creative approaches to self-maintenance or even survival may be reasonable arenas in which to dis- cover giftedness. Culturally valued art and music talent— which is known to peers but not expressed in the classroom—would also be important information for the identification of giftedness. The “different” or lonely child in a minority culture, even though he or she does not value intellectual pursuit, may be considered someone with unu- sual talent. The child may well have special interests and talents, suppressed due to peer pressure, that should be cul- tivated in a G/T program.

self-nomination

The self-nomination process was described in Chapter 3. Although the authors recommend it for all gifted program- ming, it is especially important in schools with economic or cultural diversity. Students who believe that they are capable and who can build a case to establish their ability, interest, and strong motivation should be given opportuni- ties to demonstrate their capabilities. Persuading students to nominate themselves may be more difficult in school environments where there is peer pressure to underachieve, but at least schools should invite the process. Teachers may find happy surprises among their self-nominated students.

additional identification plans

Two programs that effectively use dynamic “activity” approaches to identifying gifted African American students rather than “static” test scores are the Program of Assess- ment, Diagnosis, and Instruction (PADI; Johnson et al.,

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 273

assessment (Maker, 1996; see Chapter 3), which is also based on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, and reaffirmed its usefulness in identifying different kinds of giftedness among diverse populations. She cautions about the importance of a match between identified giftedness and appropriate programming. For example, programs for logical–mathematical students might be inappropriate for children with high interpersonal intelligence but average logical–mathematical intelligence. Whereas her advice seems sensible to any educator, it is not so easy to match a program to a type of giftedness in the real world of schools.

Creative efforts to identify gifted students with dis- advantages are being developed. It is hoped that future research will add to effective identification procedures, which are, of course, the first steps to cultivating giftedness in diverse populations.

Borland (2004) shares the following additional teacher nomination strategies that were used effectively for identifying culturally and economically disadvantaged gifted students in the Javits Grant Project Synergy:

●● A post-positivistic approach to assessment (see Borland, 1990), including the use of observation and other forms of the “human instrument” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

●● A focus on “best performance” (Roedell, Jackson, & Robinson, 1980) instead of averages of scores and ratings

●● Curriculum-based assessment and other forms of “authentic assessment” instead of, or in conjunction with, standardized measures

●● Portfolio assessment (Coleman, 1994; Wright & Borland, 1993)

●● Dynamic assessment, based on the work of Vygot- sky (e.g., 1978) and Feuerstein (e.g., 1980), in which assessment is carried out in Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development”

●● Open-ended teacher referrals instead of checklists ●● A case-study approach to identification that relies on

human judgment instead of a mechanical approach such as combining scores, which is characteristic of a matrix

●● Conceiving of identification as a process, not an event—that is, making the identification process a long-term one, extending at least over a period of months

The National Center for Research on Gifted Educa- tion (2016) suggests the following additional practices when identifying gifted students from underserved populations:

●● Establish preparation programs prior to screening ●● Consider expanded definitions of gifted ●● Offer professional development about characteristics

of gifted underserved populations ●● Use universal screening ●● Consider nonverbal measures ●● Conduct periodic assessments ●● Use checklists that ref lect characteristics of

underserved populations ●● Understand that multiple criteria mean or not and ●● Consider excellence in outside school activities ●● Use the children’s native language for assessment ●● Be aware of stereotype threat ●● Consider speed of language acquisition for EL

populations ●● Avoid deficit thinking/promote strength-based thinking ●● Value EL interpreters ●● Offer culturally relevant curriculum ●● Be aware of who approaches parent or guardian

Quota systems

One reasonable solution to minority representation in G/T programs is the quota system. A fixed percentage of cultur- ally different children, calculated from the percentage of those students in the school or district, are included in a program regardless of comparative test scores or grades. The quota system assumes that the same percentage of minority students are gifted and talented as majority stu- dents. Many urban, gifted, specialty schools use quota sys- tems for admission. As one might guess, the quota system is based on a much-debated assumption. A central issue is the fairness to majority students who are excluded and who, according to objective criteria, appear more qualified.

The effectiveness of the quota system has been borne out by a longitudinal study of minority students identified by the Racine school system with the use of a quota system (Smith, LeRose, & Clasen, 1991). Twelve years later, of the 24 students identified by the quota system for a gifted program, not one had dropped out, compared with 45% of 67 equally able minority stu- dents who were in regular school programs. Admitting minority students to gifted programs can make a dra- matic difference.

prograMMing For giFted stUdents Who are cULtUraLLY diFFerent

The first part of this chapter was dedicated to the important issue of identification for, or recruitment to, gifted pro- gramming; however, retaining minority students in gifted

274 Chapter 13

programming is at least an equally great challenge (Moore, Ford, & Milner, 2005).

Programming for culturally diverse and socioeco- nomically disadvantaged gifted and talented children can include any of the curriculum options for acceleration, enrichment, and grouping described in earlier chapters. However, important additional components should be given special consideration: (1) maintaining ethnic iden- tity, (2) extracurricular cultural enrichment, (3) learning- style differences, (4) counseling, (5) parent support groups, (6) development of significant models, (7) accelerated and enriched curricula, and (8) career education. Although it may not be possible to include all of these components at the outset, it is desirable to include all of them eventually if minority gifted children are to have an optimal opportunity to develop and use their abilities.

The important findings by Reis, Hébert et al. (1995) certainly should be considered in planning programs for gifted students to ensure that the special needs of minority students are included. In their study of highly able African American, Hispanic American, and Caucasian undera- chievers in an urban high school, family factors, school factors, personal factors, and community factors were found to affect achievement adversely. These factors will be considered later in this chapter.

Other factors that adversely affect successful place- ment of economically disadvantaged African American students in gifted programs were outlined by Ford (1994b). For example, she points out that African American stu- dents are likely to feel socially isolated in classrooms in which there is no racial and cultural diversity. They may also feel peer pressure if they participate in a pullout program.

Ford noted that families of disadvantaged students require a better understanding of gifted programs than most typical families, which often already have that under- standing. Many of the disadvantaged students’ parents have also been disadvantaged, so they may have negative memories of their own school experiences and may be resistant to any special school experience for their chil- dren. Ford also stressed the importance of multicultural training for teachers and counselors, and of the recruitment of culturally diverse teachers and counselors, in order to keep students in gifted programming once they are identified.

Table 13.4 shows Ford and Trotman’s (2001) sug- gestions regarding characteristics of exemplary teachers of culturally diverse gifted students. The authors make it clear that these characteristics are over and above the typical characteristics expected of exemplary teachers of the gifted.

To build resilience in African American youth, Ford (1994a) recommended the following promising strategies:

1. Improving family–school community relations. Achievement test scores of African American youth improve if parents participate in school.

2. Self-concept enhancement. Counseling, aca- demic enrichment, and the provision of role models and mentors will improve self-concept and thus resilience.

3. Improving social and emotional relations. Group experiences, multicultural curricula, consideration of learning-style differences, and teaching of social compe- tence within the community environment are techniques for building social and emotional resilience.

Maintaining ethnic identity

The assimilationist position holds that upward mobility in the United States requires conformity to the language, cul- ture, and societal rules of the majority Caucasian popula- tion. Assimilationists point out that minority subcultural values prevent or at least discourage integration into the majority community and thus limit the minority person’s educational and socioeconomic opportunities (Banks, 1979). Exum (1983) noted that assimilationist attitudes of African American families who wish to succeed and be accepted in the White world not only may be pro-White but even anti–African American.

On the other hand, the cultural pluralist position emphasizes the importance of pride in one’s ethnic identity as an important part of education and career achievement. Noting the close relationship of ethnic pride to the devel- opment of healthy self-concepts, cultural pluralists con- sider heterogeneity and diversity to be beneficial to both individual and cultural growth.

Ogbu (1992) emphasized that cultural diversity con- tinues to be poorly understood and that underserved stu- dents, whose cultural frames of reference are often oppositional to those of American mainstream culture, face greater difficulties in learning. Moore, Ford, and Milner (2005) reviewed multiple studies in which African American students reported feeling isolated in gifted programs. Some were taunted by Caucasian students, but others only wished there were more African American students in their gifted classes.

Gifted programming generally gives lip service to a cultural diversity point of view. However, a survey by Van- Tassel-Baska, Patton, and Prillaman (1989) suggested that program policies typically do not include accommodations for diversity.

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 275

Some practical classroom ideas for teaching students to value diversity by enhancing sensitivity are suggested by Baldwin (1991, 1993):

1. Help students experience what it feels like to be different. Students can use masks and become members of another ethnic group; they should stay “in character” for at least 48 hours. A journal and discussion of emotions can be used.

2. Have students produce resource books on differ- ent cultural groups. Include books, films, activities, field trips, and local resource people.

3. Use games that have been developed for the pur- pose of placing persons in the roles of other ethnic groups.

4. Use other activities such as debates; unfinished stories; and fictional stories, such as Kindred (Butler, 1988), to develop sensitivity toward different ethnic groups.

If a G/T program serves students in a multicultural area, explicit objectives of the program should include the provi- sion of multiethnic experiences and—for underserved stu- dents especially—the development of positive ethnic identity.

Ford, Howard, Harris, and Tyson (2000) and Ford and Trotman (2001) characterized culturally responsive classrooms as including the following ingredients: culturally relevant instruction (see also Patton & Townsend, 1997); equity training; a holistic teaching philosophy; a “we–us–our,” or communal, philosophy; respect for students’ primary language; culturally congruent instructional practices; culturally sensitive assessment; student–family–teacher relationships; and a diverse teaching staff. This last component requires that schools be assertive in recruiting minority teachers for gifted education. According to a survey conducted by Ford, Grantham, and Harris (1997), minority teachers are often discouraged from working with gifted students. Perhaps minority teachers also suffer from underidentification of their giftedness.

TABLE 13.4 Characteristics of Effective Teachers of Gifted Diverse Students

Characteristics of Gifted Education Teachers

Characteristics of Multicultural Education Teachers

Characteristics of Gifted Multicultural Education Teachers

Knowledge of the nature and needs of gifted students.

Knowledge of the nature and needs of diverse students.

Knowledge of the nature and needs of students who are gifted and diverse.

Ability to develop methods and materials for use with gifted students.

Ability to develop methods and materials for use with diverse students.

Ability to develop methods and materials for use with students who are gifted and diverse.

Skills in individualized teaching. Skills in addressing cultural differences in students’ learning styles, cognitive styles, and behavioral styles.

Skills in addressing individual and cultural differences.

Skills in teaching higher-level thinking skills and questioning techniques.

Skills in teaching higher-level thinking skills and questioning techniques, using multicultural resources and materials.

Skills in teaching higher-level thinking skills and questioning techniques, using multicultural resources and materials.

Ability to identify gifted students. Seeks to develop students’ self-concept.

Ability to recognize the strengths of diverse students. Seeks to develop students’ concept as a person of color (i.e., racial identity).

Ability to recognize the strengths of students who are gifted and diverse. Seeks to develop students’ sense of self as a gifted individual and diverse individual.

Skills in counseling gifted students.

Skills in counseling diverse students (multicultural counseling skills).

Skills in counseling students who are gifted and diverse.

Skills in creating an environment in which gifted students feel challenged and safe to explore and express their uniqueness.

Skills in creating an environment in which diverse students feel challenged and safe to explore and express their uniqueness.

Skills in creating an environment in which diverse gifted students feel challenged and safe to explore and express their uniqueness.

Source: Copyright © 2001 From Teachers of Gifted Students: Suggested Multicultural Characteristics and Competencies Volume 23, Issue 4 by Donna Y. Forda & Michelle Frazier Trotman. Reproduced by permission of The Roeper Institute, (http://www.roeper.org).

276 Chapter 13

extracurricular cultural enrichment

The cultural enrichment that comes from attending con- certs, theater, and ballet and visiting exhibitions, art galler- ies, and museums usually is provided by families of middle-class gifted children. Exhibits that emphasize the contributions of underrepresented populations to the arts and sciences should also be included. For the socioeco- nomically deprived child, these experiences typically are nonexistent or limited to occasional school excursions. Exposure to the arts can be a valuable experience for culturally deprived gifted children, as well as good reinforcement for their participation in the gifted program. It is important to note that such exposure strongly rein- forces students’ own artistic or scientific efforts and talents.

For maximum benefit, art or science experiences should be tied to other knowledge, skill, or creative com- ponents of the G/T program. For example, an exploration of the historical backgrounds of particular artists, com- posers, or scientists would add knowledge and depth to the experiences. Understanding that these gifted contrib- utors did not accomplish their works easily but overcame failures to achieve success is motivating to students (Siegle & McCoach, 2005). Also, discussions of the ante- cedents and idea sources of particular products or perfor- mances, or comparative evaluations of various works, further embellish the event. “What would happen if . . .?” or “In what other ways might we . . .?” questions add creative and futuristic thinking to the experiences. Stu- dents can also do additional research; prepare written or oral reports to present to the class; or write stories, news- paper columns with photos, or news reports about a per- son or event. As we noted earlier, field trips are most beneficial when students are armed with specific objec- tives to be met and questions to be answered before they climb onto the bus.

School funding for many enrichment experiences is certain to be limited or even absent. Ideally, travel and admissions monies are built into the original program budget. If not, local industries, businesses, or civic groups may be encouraged to fund specific trips. For the business owner, such sponsorship has the attraction of combining a small tax-deductible investment with a superb public rela- tions opportunity (news coverage).

counseling

The support that comes from an intact and secure family structure is less available to many economically disadvan- taged or culturally different students. Although family problems are not unique to students in these groups, it is

true that complicated and temporary marital relationships, alcohol abuse, mobility, and other forms of stress and instability exist for some. Peer pressure not to achieve is strong. In some difficult circumstances, survival itself takes strong precedence over educational achievement and developing gifts and talents.

Gifted children need shelters, persons to whom they can go when their intellectual, social, developmen- tal, and even safety and survival needs are threatened. This shelter should include an adult—foremost, an empathic and professional counselor—who understands the local economic and ethnic realities and who cares about the welfare of all children. Exum (1983) recom- mended that counselors should first increase their knowl- edge about the community where they are working—for example, by becoming acquainted with population char- acteristics, availability of resources, availability of pub- lic transportation, community leadership styles, and the particular types of problems that come to the counselors’ attention. Exum noted that, second, the counselor’s cred- ibility and trustworthiness will be enhanced if he or she becomes more visible in the community, perhaps by serving on multicultural committees and by patronizing local businesses. A third recommendation was for coun- selors to be f lexible in scheduling appointments—using evenings and weekends—because so many parents can- not attend counseling sessions during the regular work- day. Generally, said Exum, counselors should seek to build personal relationships with families because “par- ents are much more responsive to counselors who they believe have a genuine personal interest in their chil- dren” (p. 29).

Counseling that takes place within school becomes especially important in economically disadvantaged schools. Group counseling that encourages racial identity is considered essential with students of color (Moore et al., 2005). Referrals to outside-school psychologists are unlikely to be followed through by parents who don’t have the means to pay for such services.

Informal counseling by concerned adults played an extremely important role in the success of the disadvan- taged youth in the Kauai study (Werner, 1989). Teachers, ministers, and club leaders can be encouraged to support gifted students who may not have the family support and expectations that are important for disadvantaged, gifted adolescents.

Harris (1991) emphasized the importance of peer support among gifted new immigrants who came mainly from Third World countries. Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992) also underscore the critical role of peer cul- ture in achievement. They concluded that the peer group

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 277

The Science and Mathematics Advocacy and Recruitment for Teaching (SMART) program, sponsored by Northwestern’s Center for Talent Development and the Chicago Urban League, is designed to provide social sup- port for minority high school students who are economi- cally disadvantaged (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 1994). The program components that provide social support are listed as follows:

●● Weekly after-school clubs ●● Tutoring and academic support ●● Cultural enrichment activities ●● An intensive summer program ●● A professional person who serves as mentor

Goals of the SMART program include successful high school graduation, college enrollment, election of teacher training, and college graduation. The long-term goal is for these students to become successful full-time science and mathematics teachers, preferably in Chicago’s public schools.

The Center Scholars Program (Fraleigh-Lohrfink, Schneider, Whittington, & Feinberg, 2013) is another suc- cessful program intended to invite minority students to sci- ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. It prepares high school students for college-level research. Eighty-six percent of Center Scholars, compared to 50% of the comparison group, chose to pursue careers in science research.

parent support groups

Although every gifted program should encourage parent education and involvement, parents of socioeconomi- cally deprived and culturally different children have a special and greater need. These parents will become sup- portive and involved only if they understand (1) their child’s gifts and talents and (2) the opportunities availa- ble to the gifted in our society. They are more likely to assist their children and contribute to the G/T program if they do not see the program as elitist (e.g., for Whites only) or as threatening. For example, parents may resist a G/T program if they believe that the program will psy- chologically separate them from their children or cause their children to respect them less. It may be frightening to parents with little education to learn that their child is very bright and on a track toward a middle-class educa- tion that, they believe, could alienate the child from them.

On the other hand, if the program emphasizes posi- tive cultural identity, fears of alienation should be reduced. Parents will also have an avenue for relating to and

both mediates positive or negative family effects and directly inf luences attitudes toward achievement. For example, with Asian American students, peer support toward academic excellence can offset negative parenting effects. Unfortunately, among African American adoles- cents, the positive influence of parenting is often is under- mined by a negative peer environment.

The anti-learning peer-pressure terms used for African American students (acting White) and Native American students (“apples”—red on the outside, white on the inside) may be a reflection of more than peer pressure. Ogbu (1994) reminds us that education has not considered that some minority groups have cultural frames of refer- ence that are oppositional to the frames of reference of the American mainstream. Academic success for these fami- lies may truly represent leaving the cultural community to join the Caucasian majority culture. For disadvantaged minority children, achievement could feel like betrayal to their own race. Their racial identities may well be tied to the stance of opposing mainstream educators. Even their teachers who are of similar race may not be considered part of their cultural community. Educators thus are faced with the complex task of proving to children that school education is not “White” education but truly has multicul- tural value. Minority group counselors are particularly encouraged to help minority groups internalize the impor- tance of education.

Certainly, a critical goal of counseling must be to develop a peer support group for academic excellence among gifted youth. Summer enrichment programs can be an effective means of providing peer support for students who are not supported in their intellectual pursuits in their own schools.

Providing social support systems for disadvantaged gifted youth may be critical. Studies of gifted middle-class youth have emphasized the importance of family support, although it has been found that, in the absence of such sup- port, interventions that provide positive substitute support yield promising results (Olszewski-Kubilius, Grant, & Seibert, 1994).

Gifted African American students are managing increasingly to provide their own social support. Headlines in the Boston Globe (Irons, 2009) read, “The new cool kids [are] smart black teenagers [who] are flexing their intelli- gence instead of hiding it” (p. 1C). During the past 8 years, more than 300 high school students have met together reg- ularly at the W. E. B. Du Bois Society at Harvard to discuss books, black solidarity, and setting personal high expecta- tions. Member students feel supported by highly motivated black peers who aim for high grades, excellent colleges, and high-level careers.

278 Chapter 13

making contributions to the program. Parent meetings in which the G/T program and activities are explained, the problems are addressed, and the parents share issues and optimism will benefit the program and the gifted children involved.

High expectations by parents were crucial for the successful women from diverse backgrounds in a study by Rimm, Rimm-Kaufman, and Rimm (2014; Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001). Also, a study of the relationship between parental expectations and school performance of fourth- and fifth-grade students showed significant differences among Asian American, Latino, and Euro- pean American families in their expectations of the chil- dren’s educational achievement and grades (Okagaki & Frensch, 1998). Encouraging high expectations is foun- dational for gifted children’s achievement. Unfortu- nately, some parents who found their own school experience discouraging may unintentionally discourage success for their children. Teacher communication to these parents may assist them in recognizing that their gifted children can achieve.

Middle- to upper-middle-income white parents have led the advocacy movement for gifted education in this country. Parent advocacy by parents of economically dis- advantaged and African American children has been lack- ing (Baytops, 1994). The causes of insufficient advocacy are many. Important among them, historically, are the poor relationships between these groups and schools (e.g., Comer, 1988). Education may not be a high priority for those who are struggling to meet more basic needs. How- ever, it is in everyone’s best interests to convince parents that schools and gifted programs can make a difference for their children. Rimm continually finds in community par- enting talks in economically disadvantaged school districts that free meals and child care arrangements are effective provisions for attracting crowds of interested parents. How else can two working parents, or a single parent, attend a seminar to learn more about how to encourage their chil- dren without leaving them at home to fend for themselves?

Development of Significant Models

Significant others are persons who exercise a major inf lu- ence on the attitudes of individuals. Chapter 12, “Undera- chievement: Identification and Reversal,” emphasized the critical role of parents, as significant others, in the mod- eling of achievement values. Shade (1983) pointed out that, for African American youth, significant others extend beyond the immediate family to include the extended family, the media, and mainstream society. Studies of occupational choice (Pallone et al., 1973)

indicated that African American high school girls were most inf luenced by their mothers, whereas boys were most inf luenced by persons holding the job to which they aspired. In one study of African American college fresh- men, Shade (1978) found that parents ranked last in inf luence, whereas peers, teachers, counselors, friends, and siblings ranked at the top.

Project Synergy is a unique mentoring program that pairs middle-school gifted students with extremely disad- vantaged kindergarten children who show indicators of giftedness (Wright & Borland, 1992). The adolescents receive guidance for their mentoring. Project staff mem- bers also attempt to involve the family for more complete support. One has to believe that significant life experiences are taking place for these children.

These studies again emphasize the importance of parent achievement models for academic success. They also point to an important gap: The disadvantaged African American matriarchal family only rarely provides a male achievement model for adolescent boys.

Disadvantaged gifted boys are in almost desperate need of achievement-oriented males to serve as role mod- els for achievement. In the absence of appropriate models, television media (Fedler, 1973; Leifer et al., 1974) and peer and street culture (Perkins, 1975) strongly influence African American adolescent males. In one study ( Bridgemen & Burbach, 1976), the presentation of a video of African American male youth being rewarded for excellence in school resulted in a significant increase in academic expectations by the African American male viewers.

The concept of an all–African American male acad- emy has become a resounding answer to the recognized need for positive role models for primary-grade African American inner-city males (Holland, 1991). In addition to providing appropriate role models in teachers and adminis- trators, adult male volunteers from business and industry participate and involve boys in tutoring or learning pro- jects. The first such program was known as Project 2000 because kindergarteners with whom the program began in the 1988–1989 school year would graduate in the year 2000. The project was adopted by an all-male community service organization, the Washington, DC, chapter of Concerned Black Men, Inc.

The model of the all–African American male acad- emy has been adopted in many urban areas and has been expanded to include all–African American female acade- mies as well. These experimental models are based on the following objectives and principles:

1. Examining the effectiveness of gender-specific instructional strategies

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 279

American students, Ford found gifted students to be the most supportive of an achievement ideology, and average students the least supportive. Paradoxically, the very same fifth- and sixth-grade students who believed in the relation- ship of schooling, hard work, and effort to success in life did not exert the effort they espoused. Although 88% of the gifted males considered school very important, 94% reported low levels of effort. Among the gifted girls, 94% considered school to be very important, yet 87% reported low levels of effort. Despite low effort, these students earned relatively good grades. Low effort should be con- sidered an indicator of underachievement (Rimm, 2008c). If children are not making an effort, regardless of their grades, they are underachieving. If the children in the Ford study continue to get good grades without effort, one might ask whether teachers’ expectations were low because the children were African American and/or disadvantaged.

Milner and Ford (2007) urged teachers to move beyond color and culture blindness to provide a curriculum that permits children of color to develop their strengths. They also recommended that all teachers need training to sensitize themselves to cultural differences—even those teachers of similar race and nationality to their students. Tuning in to media and music that surrounds these students helps teachers to reach out to them. Teachers who acknowledge the rich

2. Obtaining release time for employees in the public and private sectors to serve as volunteers in classrooms

3. Investigating ungraded primary-grade models 4. Emphasizing team teaching 5. Establishing secondary homerooms led by teacher–

advisors who keep the same group of children throughout their junior or senior high school careers, thereby providing them with an adult within the school who can serve as a mentor

At this time the results appear promising. Providing achievement role models is critical to enhancing giftedness in populations of disadvantaged students and should be a requirement of every gifted program for disadvantaged stu- dents. Some recommendations are included in Box 13.1. The box addresses mainly male models, but the sugges- tions are also applicable to providing appropriate female role models.

Accelerated and Enriched Curricula

Research by Ford (1993) documents a need for more chal- lenging curricula for disadvantaged gifted children more than it points to individual motivation problems. In her study of average, above-average, and gifted African

BOX 13.1

Curriculum Ideas for Establishing Male Achievement Models

1. Videos of achievement-oriented males in various careers (e.g., doctor, lawyer, professor, businessman). Men should tell about childhood experiences that fostered achievement.

2. Videos of a panel of minority gifted children (males and females) discussing their problems and successes in achievement. Emphasis may be placed on cultural pride and achievement.

3. Cultural intermediary—a young man who is achievement-oriented and “streetwise” to meet with and counsel adolescent boys.

4. Speaker series—weekly talks by successful minority community persons (male and female) about their careers and their lifestyles.

5. Lunch seminars for small groups of students with minor- ity community persons to talk about achievement.

6. Parenting classes for fathers only, led by a male coun- selor or teacher who is also a parent.

7. Parenting classes for single mothers, with the specific goal of assisting them in establishing appropriate minority role models.

8. General parenting classes with emphasis on the importance of appropriate role models.

9. Videos of the parenting classes for fathers only, single parents, and general parenting, available on loan to parents unable to attend classes.

10. Student interview assignments with achieving adults. Collection of interviews may be assembled into a book for discussion and review.

11. Bibliography of books emphasizing the childhoods of successful minority persons.

12. Visits to college campuses, including meeting with minority college students.

13. Involvement in summer and Saturday college-campus enrichment programs.

14. Funding for minority teachers to spend extra per- sonal time with minority adolescents (one-to-one or in small groups) in and outside school enrichment activities.

15. Funding for special-interest mentor activities with successful adults.

280 Chapter 13

2. Teachers and schools do not have to excel in all the areas just cited to have a positive impact on the aca- demic achievement and lives of low-SES students of color.

3. Whereas individual teachers can foster increased academic achievement in individual students, increasing achievement in large groups of low-SES students of color requires a schoolwide, emphati- cally enacted mission to do so.

4. Educators’ definitions of success have long-term consequences for low-SES students of color and should include a mastery of skills required by aca- demic tests as well as those needed for powerful problem-solving and life-long learning.

5. Because identifying high-potential, low-SES stu- dents of color is not always easy, schools and teach- ers must offer quality curricula and instruction to all low-economic students of color—not as a reward for performance but as a necessary precursor to achievement.

6. Successful instruction for low-SES students of color allows students to advance in their development of skills and concepts while simultaneously addressing deficiencies in prior learning.

7. Teachers who are most successful in promoting achievement in low-SES students of color teach their students how to succeed in the “mainstream” while continuing to value and identify with their own cul- tures. This means not only giving students skills and opportunities to enter into a new world but also being willing to enter into their worlds with them.

career education

Career education is an important priority for all students. Career education for the gifted child with lower SES, of course, should stress the professional opportunities availa- ble and the necessary educational preparation. However, a realistic career education program also must emphasize the lifestyles, values, ethics, and goals that accompany particu- lar professional careers (Moore, 1979; Perrone, 1997). To compete successfully, the disadvantaged gifted child must acquire the many subtle attitudes and skills that accom- pany a given profession—attitudes and skills learned at home by children of educated, professional parents.

An important—indeed, crucial—component of career education is the involvement of suitable mentors. These are professional persons of similar ethnic back- grounds who have in fact emerged from difficult socio- economic circumstances. They need to share their experiences, problems, and strategies for success with

cultures that culturally different students bring into the class- room and who develop lessons and curricula that uncover their wealth of information can provide support to retaining these students in gifted programs.

Some important conclusions drawn from Javits Grant Projects can guide gifted educators as they plan cur- ricula for low-income and minority gifted learners. Van- Tassel-Baska (2003) concludes with some of the following recommendations:

●● Curricula for gifted learners should be heavily infused with aesthetic, artistic aspects.

●● The skills of understanding group dynamics, the organization of complex tasks, and how to motivate others must underlie a curriculum for the gifted.

●● A healthy balance must be struck between independ- ent and homogenously grouped pursuits and hetero- geneous group opportunities.

●● There must be a balanced perspective in the areas of general and specialized talent development; equal valuing of cognitive, affective, aesthetic, and social development of gifted and talented students; and a concern for both individual and social contributions.

●● Gifted and talented students cannot be served ade- quately without some adaptation of a continuous progress/mastery learning model.

Conclusions regarding support for the academic suc- cesses of high-potential, low-economic minority students come from a two-year program in three very different school sites (Tomlinson, Gould, Schroth, & Jarvis, 2006). The first was a high school where the majority of students were Caucasian and aff luent and a small minority were African American and of low socioeconomic status (SES). The second was a pre-K through eighth-grade school in an urban neighborhood where almost all students were low- SES and African American students. The third was a pre-K through sixth-grade school with half the students being Hispanic, one-third African American, and the remainder Caucasian and second-language learners of Asian or African descent. Some of the following important conclu- sions from the program fit well with other conclusions by VanTassel-Baska and Milner and Ford:

1. Factors that contribute to academic achievement in low-SES students of color include (a) a schoolwide commitment to reversing underachievement in this group, (b) teachers who demonstrate a deep under- standing of the lives and needs of low-SES students of color and who take responsibility for increasing achievement in these students, (c) appropriate curri- cula and instruction, and (d) assessment-driven instruction.

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 281

gifted, young, disadvantaged people. Presentations, men- torships, and on-the-job visits are good ways to provide gifted youth with a taste of career and life goals worth working for. The mentors can also help students under- stand that, within the professional areas, there is support and that once high-level positions are attained, both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards make the educational and economic struggle worthwhile. Professional persons from disadvantaged backgrounds typically are very sensi- tive to the problems of culturally different and economi- cally disadvantaged gifted youth and are motivated to help. As an example, the Texas Governor’s Honors Pro- gram, which follows the theme “Leadership in a Multi- Cultural Society,” provides not only in-depth leadership instruction but also instructors and seminar speakers who serve as models and mentors to inspire these gifted stu- dents of diverse cultures to look toward college (Sisk, Gilbert, & Gosch, 1991).

An important component of career education should be visits to college campuses and, if possible, participation in gifted programs on these campuses. Tennessee State University is one of many universities making an effort to attract ethnically diverse students for summer programs to inspire young scientists to consider a biomedical education beyond high school (Adams, 1989). Participation in such programs provides appropriate role models and peer sup- port, an enriched educational opportunity, as well as an opportunity to live and feel more comfortable on a college campus. Many math/science, gifted high school programs are located on university campuses for the same reasons. State universities are particularly anxious to attract and hold these bright students and help them to feel comfortable.

Insight from a career-counseling program in a major urban center in the Midwest provides some addi- tional goals for college-counseling programs. Fifty-five disadvantaged gifted students were enrolled in the pro- gram to prepare them for college (Olszweski-Kubilius & Laubscher, 1996). As a result of the program, enrolled students changed some of their plans for financing their college education and recognized that college would be lonelier than they had anticipated. A three-year follow- up study compared this group with a group of economi- cally advantaged students in a summer preparation program and found that the disadvantaged students had experienced college as significantly more boring, dull, and snobbish. They had more difficulty adjusting socially and forming attachments to their university. Clearly, more counseling is needed to prepare for the social and cultural integration that will help disadvantaged students feel more socially comfortable in college environments.

Northwestern University led an effective area educa- tion program that emphasized family empowerment and targeted junior-high students and their parents in seminars about college choices, academic planning, and applying for scholarships (Olszewski-Kubilius & Scott, 1992; Olszewski-Kubilius, Grant & Seibert, 1994). Students from underserved populations require assistance in finan- cial planning and direction in finding scholarships or other funding assistance. The first author of this book, Rimm, is especially conscious of this issue because the guidance counselors at her high school in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, Edward and Henrietta Herbert, were pivotal in her attend- ing college by providing her with this important informa- tion and their support.

The extraordinary value of a well-designed career education program for gifted, disadvantaged youth is that it may guide very talented persons to become fulfilled and productive individuals, individuals who will make valua- ble contributions to self and society. However, if these gifted youth meet only dead ends and frustration and have no outlet for the development and expression of their tal- ents, society not only will lose their positive professional contributions but also may be taxed (almost literally) by their negative contributions.

effectiveness of programming for gifted students Who have disadvantages

The new emphasis on programming for gifted and talented students with economic and cultural diversity is effective in many school districts.

In a study including 147 gifted seventh- and eighth- graders, of which 97 were considered of middle SES and 50 of lower SES, and of which 56 were African American and 91 Caucasian, VanTassel-Baska, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Kulieke (1994) drew the following important conclusions:

●● Self-esteem tends to be high among gifted students regardless of ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class.

●● The greatest differences were found between advantaged and disadvantaged, supporting the con- cept that class may be more important than ethnic- ity in impeding achievement. Disadvantaged students believed that they had less support from classmates. They also felt less academically and socially competent.

●● Gender differences were also found, with females feeling less academically and socially competent. They also felt that they received less social support from classmates than did their male counterparts.

282 Chapter 13

A dramatically successful program, A Better Chance (ABC), has identified more than 8,000 talented minority children and fostered and supported their education (Griffin, 1992). Recognizing the difficulty in using test scores for identification, they used the following additional measures: a strong sense of self, an independent mind, a questioning attitude, and a willingness to take risks and persevere. The effectiveness of selecting these children and matching them to appropriate high-level educational set- tings is best borne out by the extraordinary results. Con- sider this sample of postsecondary education by ABC graduates:

Degrees completed or in progress

Bachelor’s 96%

Master’s 38%

Doctor’s 7%

There is much that educators of the gifted can learn from ABC.

giFted prograMMing in rUraL areas

The word rural typically elicits images of farms and farm- ing communities located far from urban centers. In fact, there are four categories of rural communities, defined as communities with fewer than 2,500 people (Colangelo, 1999). In addition to (1) farm areas, there are (2) rural fish- ing villages, as in New England and Alaska; (3) isolated logging towns, as in America’s Northwest; and (4) reserva- tions and small towns in the North Central, West and Southwest, home to many Native American and Mexican American people.

Gifted students who live in rural areas appear to be greatly disadvantaged. Sparse populations, poverty, tra- ditional rural values, small school size, and inadequate school finances all contribute to the paucity of gifted programming. Davalos and Griffin (1999); Colangelo (1999); Colangelo, Assouline, Baldus, and New (2003); Gentry, Rizza, and Gable (2001); and Spicker, Southern, and Davis (1987) noted the following problems in provid- ing gifted education for rural students:

●● Resistance to change makes it difficult to initiate new offerings for gifted students.

●● There is less parental pressure for gifted programs. ●● A smaller budget prevents expensive educational

programs (e.g., a district G/T coordinator), particu- larly if the program is perceived as benefitting only a small number of select students.

●● Rural isolation prevents access to universities, librar- ies, other schools, teacher training, and cultural

opportunities, as well as exposure to professional careers.

●● Teachers in rural secondary schools have more prep- arations across several different subjects, making it difficult for them to keep up with newer, specialized information.

●● There typically are fewer counselors, school psy- chologists, and curriculum specialists to assist the faculty in building programs for the gifted (Hudley, Moschetti, Gonzalez, Cho, Barry & Kelly, 2009).

●● In accord with the national movement, there is a trend toward heterogeneous grouping and “teaching all students as if they are the same” (Davalos & Griffin, 1999, p. 308).

●● The needs of gifted students are not understood. There also may be confusion about acceleration.

●● With small enrollments, there will be few gifted peers. Fewer gifted students are actually identified in rural schools (Gentry et al., 2001; Hudley et al., 2009).

●● A belief in self-sufficiency and local control make it less likely that rural districts will seek outside assis- tance from state agencies or universities to develop gifted programs.

●● Some adults may feel threatened by a so-called brain drain.

At the same time, many features of rural schools and communities promote social and emotional support that encourages school achievement and could aid innovation (Colangelo, 1999; Davalos & Griffin, 1999; Gentry et al., 2001). For example,

●● A smaller class size allows greater student–teacher contact and promotes a warm, interactive, and family-like atmosphere; greater social and emotional support; and a sense of belonging.

●● Everyone is acquainted, which promotes respect among students, respect for the teacher, and hard work.

●● There is good rapport between teachers and adminis- trators and close interaction between school and community.

●● With less bureaucracy, administrators can mobilize the smaller teaching staff more easily to implement instructional improvements and schoolwide changes.

●● There are strong family ties and family support of educational activities.

●● There is greater community stability compared with the mobility often found in urban settings (Spicker, Southern, & Davis, 1987).

Attempts to identify giftedness in a rural Mexican population in the southwestern United States were suc- cessful in terms of increasing community involvement and

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 283

taBLe 13.5 Characteristics of Giftedness Identified by Community Teachers and Parents

• Is curious about knowing the how and why.

• Thinks of unusual ways to solve problems.

• Is able to influence or persuade others.

• Is clever at making things out of ordinary materials.

• Understands the importance of culture and family.

• Has the ability to learn a new language.

• Knows how to interact and get along with people.

• Is a decision maker.

• Has abilities in the arts (music, drawing, dancing, etc.).

• Has a good sense of humor.

• Has above-average physical coordination.

• Has a good memory.

• Has good skills in organizing and planning.

• Likes to make up stories or poems.

• Is able to express his or her feelings.

• Understands the importance of nature (the weather, the moon, the soil, the stars, etc.) in relation to farming.

• Is able to adapt to a variety of situations or to new surroundings.

• Helps others solve problems.

• Thinks about what he or she wants and sets goals to accomplish it.

• Is aware of and sensitive to the feelings of others and is liked by a lot of people.

• Is a self-starter; initiates and does things without being told.

Source: From Developing local multidimensional screening procedures for identifying giftedness among Mexican-American border population Volume 18, Issue 3 by Reyes, Fletcher, & Paez. Copyright © 1996. Published by Roeper Review.

enhancing a culturally relevant understanding of giftedness (Reyes, Fletcher, & Paez, 1996). Table 13.5 lists character- istics of giftedness gathered by community parents and teachers. Although most of these characteristics would seem to be relevant in any community, a few surely are culture-specific (e.g., ability to learn a new language, knowledge of nature and farming).

As one solution, innovative educators can encourage cooperation among small school districts. For example, a consortium of school districts brought Purdue University and seven rural public schools together to provide compre- hensive in-service training for their teachers, a resource center, and a broad range of effective programming for gifted and talented students (Ruckman & Feldhusen, 1988).

Witters and Vasa (1981) found the itinerant (trave- ling) consultant model to be effective in providing services to rural gifted children. Still another solution is for volun- teer community persons to take an active role in gifted pro- grams if school staff members are unable to provide suitable programming (Yoder, 1985).

Telecommunications, including electronic bulletin boards (Southern & Spicker, 1989), Web casts, Web chats, podcasts (Lassos, 2013), televised professional development for teachers (Clasen & Clasen, 1989; Lewis, 1989), and distance learning (University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, 1992) are being incorporated effectively to heighten awareness of faculty and provide peer group interaction to overcome the geographic separation of gifted students in rural areas. Technology holds great hope for expansion of opportunities for rural gifted students.

Rural adolescent girls have few role models in STEM subjects (Howley, Showalter, Klein, Sturgill, & Smith, 2013). Jacobs, Finken, Griffin, and Wright (1998) examined the influences on 220 high school girls for stay- ing in science. Variables that were important for keeping rural girls in science, in addition to their intrinsic interest, included their science grade point average (GPA), extra- curricular science activities, and their friends’ and mothers’ support of their interest in science. The research empha- sizes the importance of building supportive environments to encourage rural girls toward science.

Not only are there insufficient role models for girls in science but role models in STEM subjects are in short supply for both girls and boys. Howley et al. (2013) point out that math teachers will have to make instruction more responsive to rural content to engage gifted students.

A key focus is teacher education—raising awareness of gifted students’ academic, social, and emotional needs, as well as educational strategies that accommodate the stu- dents’ learning rates and interests. Many of the same (low- cost) strategies that are effective in larger communities are—or would be—effective in rural schools (Colangelo, 1999; Colangelo, Assouline, Baldus, & New, 2003; Davalos & Griffin, 1999; Lassos, 2013). For example, dis- tance learning with computers provides opportunities to explore any topic—art, math, geology, history, space sci- ence, and so on—in any depth (see Chapter 6), as well as to provide e-mail contact with gifted peers. Other strate- gies include grade acceleration; tutoring across grade lev- els (Colangelo, 1999); using learning contracts (and, in general, individualizing learning); cluster grouping to solve problems or produce creative products (Davalos & Griffin, 1999); mentoring, perhaps using secondary stu- dents, available local professionals, or e-mail contacts (e.g., Duff, 2000, see Chapter 6); allowing gifted students to work at their own pace with topics of personal interest,

284 Chapter 13

Summary

Culturally, economically, and linguistically diverse stu- dents are underrepresented in gifted programs. The Javits Education Act had increased funding for research, with many findings presented in this chapter. The Javits Educa- tion Act was defunded between 2011 and 2013; however, Congress appropriated $5 million for research and discre- tionary grants in 2014 and increased the funding in 2015 and 2016.

Low-income students are more likely to be in reme- dial classes, less likely to be in AP or college-prep classes, and more likely to attend poorly funded public schools. Both Hispanic American and African American students are underrepresented in gifted programming.

Undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degree minor- ity enrollment has actually increased continuously for almost all minority groups except for American Indian/ Alaska Natives, where there have been no gains.

Characteristics of resilience, such as internal locus of control, positive self-worth, maturity, academic and social confidence, belief in the American dream, positive school experiences, strong family values, and positive peer rela- tions, serve as protection and promote social and academic success for minority youth.

Studies show that support from family, other adults in the community, and teachers help gifted disadvantaged students develop their potential.

There is often conflict for minority students between maintaining cultural identity and striving for academic honors. Successful minority students credit their success to personal effort and the support of their families. Gifted,

achieving, and female students were found to have more positive racial identities than average, underachieving, and male students.

Grit, investment of time, and opportunity were rea- sons for success. For disadvantaged students, lack of opportunity continues to be a problem.

Low IQ or achievement-test scores may be misused to “prove” the absence of giftedness. Because average or below-average achievement can be common among gifted disadvantaged students, identification must be based on potential rather than on actual academic performance.

Whereas a high IQ score is valid evidence of gifted- ness, an average or low score may be misleading, and IQ tests may be racially biased.

Family, cultural, and language differences and testing circumstances must be considered. African-centered values and beliefs can affect ability testing. An understanding of Asian cultures is an important factor in both identification and programming for gifted Asian American students.

Debates regarding cultural bias in intelligence test- ing continue, with some arguing that the lower average scores of minority groups are simply evidence of discrimi- natory test bias, whereas others argue that intelligence tests have no cultural bias and are accurate predictors of school success for all.

Perceptual IQ tests are nonverbal and can assist in identification of economically and culturally diverse youth. Yet they may not hold all the answers to identification either. Cultural beliefs and values may also affect minority students’ test scores.

which may be at a higher grade level; and allowing cross- grade movement that matches student capability with a suitable curriculum—for example, a gifted fourth-grade student may require middle-school math and science classes.

Lassos (2013) taught Indian Education classes in the Denver public schools. He cautioned non–Native American teachers not to judge students through their own cultural lenses. Punishing student behaviors that are part of their own survival struggle in their cultural environ- ment widens the student-teacher relationship gap. Lassos named four consistent elements that guided his success with Native American middle school students: (1) Build a strong teacher–student relationship, (2) focus on student strengths, (3) appeal to the visual-spatial learner, and (4) utilize technology. While this excellent advice is important for most children, Lassos points out that 80% of

Native American students are visual-spatial learners. Most schools emphasize verbal more than spatial learning; for many rural cultural minorities, students feel disadvan- taged from the start.

Education for the gifted in small rural schools is in its infancy, and most gifted children in rural schools are not served by appropriate programming (Spicker, Southern, & Davis, 1987). Compared with gifted students in urban and suburban environments, gifted students in rural elementary schools reported less challenge and interest. By middle school, rural gifted students reported less engagement as well. Gifted students in rural schools seemed to be even more shortchanged than those in urban and suburban schools (Gentry et al., 2001). There appear to be very few Javits Grant programs, with resulting research, that have emerged from rural schools. In short, gifted children in rural schools may indeed be withering on the vine.

Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage 285

An identification process based on intelligence/ aptitude tests surely underidentify gifted students from diverse populations. IQ tests are recommended, but scores should be interpreted with caution and with consideration for language, cultural and family background, and the cir- cumstances of testing. The use of IQ tests alone as gate- keepers to gifted programs absolutely is not recommended for culturally or economically disadvantaged students.

Although high achievement is good evidence of tal- ent in particular areas, achievement tests scores suffer from the same problems as intelligence test scores do.

Research indicates that creativity tests such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and the GIFT and GIFFI inventories are good instruments for identifying cre- ative disadvantaged and minority students (see Chapter 3).

Matrix identification models, including the Baldwin Identification Matrix and the Frasier Talent Assessment Profile, have been developed to bring together data from a variety of sources and successfully identify more qualified minority and disadvantaged gifted children.

Teacher nominations may favor members of the majority culture and were found to underidentify African American and Hispanic students in several studies. Swenson itemized characteristics of creativity in culturally different students. A sensitive and caring teacher who is knowledgeable about characteristics of gifted children may be the best identifier of the culturally different gifted child. The Teacher’s Observations of Potential of Students (TOPS) scale shows promise for increasing teacher nomi- nation of minority students.

Parent nominations are important in the identifica- tion of gifted students, especially if parents are made aware of the characteristics of giftedness and the advantages of gifted programming for their children. Peer nominations are also a good identification strategy. Self-nomination allows minority students to make a case for opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities. Persuading students to nominate themselves may be difficult.

Identification methods not based on static test scores but using a series of evaluations instead of just one have increased minority participation in gifted programs.

Other promising identification methods include the use of dynamic assessment in a pretest; the teaching of test-taking intervention, followed by a post-test; identifica- tion tasks based on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelli- gences; and a focus on portfolio assessment and best performance instead of scores and ratings.

Quota systems are based on the assumption that gifts and talents exist in equal proportions in all cultural groups and ensure their proportional representation in G/T programs.

Programming options described in earlier chapters may be used with underserved students. However, the

following additional components should be included: (1) maintaining ethnic identity, (2) providing extracurricu- lar cultural enrichment, (3) recognizing learning-style dif- ferences, (4) counseling, (5) developing parent support groups, (6) using significant models, (7) placing greater emphasis on enrichment, and (8) providing for career edu- cation. School, family, personal issues, and community all must be considered.

Ford and Trotman suggested characteristics of exem- plary teachers of culturally diverse gifted students.

Cultural pluralism includes maintaining ethnic iden- tity; cultural pride is central to self-esteem and to educa- tional and career success. Assimilationism refers to conforming to the majority (Caucasian) system. Differ- ences between the two positions influence many aspects of programming for gifted students.

Culturally responsive classrooms should include cul- turally relevant instructional training; equity instructional training; a “we–us–our,” or communal, philosophy; respect for students’ primary language; culturally congruent instruc- tional practices; culturally sensitive assessment; student– family–teacher relationships; and a diverse teaching staff.

Extracurricular enrichment can include knowledge, skill, and creative objectives.

Counseling is important. Exum recommended that counselors learn about the local community, become vis- ible, and be f lexible in scheduling appointments. Infor- mal counseling by concerned adults in the community is valuable.

A support group of gifted peers is beneficial to lessen anti-learning peer pressure and feelings of culture disloyalty; summer enrichment programs create such peer groups. The SMART program is designed to provide social support for economically disadvantaged minority high school students.

Parents are more likely to support G/T programs and to become involved if they understand the importance of the program for their child’s future and if they are not threatened by the program or its possible effects on their child. Parent meetings aid in educating parents regarding G/T programs, and allow parents to share problems and optimism. Helping parents set high expectations for their children is crucial.

Disadvantaged gifted children—especially males— need achievement models. One way to provide a positive cultural model is found in all–African American male and all–African American female academies.

Accelerated and enriched curricula emphasizing cre- ativity are important for challenging gifted underserved students and should focus on providing a stimulus-rich environment, using nonverbal materials, and providing independent and small-group assignments.

286 Chapter 13

Career education must include not only career options and the preparation needed to attain them but also informa- tion about the lifestyles, ethics, and goals that accompany various professions. Mentors—professional persons from similar disadvantaged backgrounds—are a vital component of career education programs. College visits and college counseling are valuable. Disadvantaged students require assistance in finding scholarships or other funding assistance.

In studies of the effectiveness of gifted programming for disadvantaged students, self-esteem tended to be high among gifted students, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic issues. Disadvantaged students believed that they had less support from peers, and females felt less academically and socially competent than males.

Many problems impede the development of gifted programs in rural areas—for example, sparse populations, smaller budgets, and fewer support personnel. Compared with students in urban and suburban environments, rural gifted students reported less challenge, interest, and engagement. Some solutions are increased community involvement; an understanding of giftedness; cooperation among several small districts; itinerant consultants; volun- teer community members; the use of telecommunications; and low-cost G/T strategies such as computer information searches, grade acceleration, learning contracts, cluster grouping, mentoring, and allowing cross-grade matching of ability with curriculum. Gifted children in rural schools may indeed be withering on the vine.

287

14 Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys

Learning OutcOmes

1. Discuss the issues related to the education of gifted girls.

2. Explain the historical background of gender issues in achievement.

3. Describe the present status of gifted women’s careers, pursuit of equity, and continued bias.

4. Discuss the issues related to the education of gifted boys.

5. Compare and contrast the issues related to gifted boys versus gifted girls.

6. Summarize the debate surrounding math ability in boys versus girls.

7. Compare and contrast differences in expectations, achievement orientation, and aspirations related to home, school, and society.

8. List and explain recommendations for reversing gender-based underachievement.

C H A P T E R

C hapter 14 has always been revised more heavily than any other chapter in this text. The dramatic changes are a credit to the quantity of improved opportunities for gifted girls and women in school and in life. In the past several years, reviewers and our publisher have recommended that this chapter be changed from “The

Cultural Achievement of Females” to “Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys” to include concerns related to gifted boys. We are thus making the change for this seventh edition. Part of this chapter will be related specifically to issues for gifted boys. It should also be recognized that more gifted boys underachieve in school and have dual exceptionalities, so that, in effect, Chapters 15 and 16 refer mainly to issues regarding gifted boys. They have not been forgotten nor should they be.

Gifted Girls

The education of gifted girls and women has been a low priority throughout history, a matter that led to wholesale female underachievement. Some gifted girls continue to be systematically discouraged—by peers, family, teachers and counselors—from using their talent in productive ways.

Compared to earlier generations, women have made extraordinary progress and have more choices than ever before in world history. Optimism, stick-to-itiveness, and resilience will keep girls moving forward. Most women are not willing to trade family priorities to help run our world, although more women now believe they are almost “having it all” (Rimm, Rimm-Kaufman, & Rimm, 2014).

288 Chapter 14

Girls have made great progress in improving their school grades and graduation rates. As of 2012, 72% of girls, compared with 64.1% of boys, graduated high school, and as of 2015, they make up 59% of all college students. They earned 57% of all bachelor’s degrees and 60% of all master’s degrees (National Center for Educa- tional Statistics, 2011). Our 2014 data shows a slim major- ity of Ph.D.s earned (50.3%) belong to women (Scientific American, 2014). Nevertheless, these higher graduation rates and even better grades haven’t necessarily resulted in equitable career and life successes. Reis (1987) pointed out that the underachievement of adult women is indeed a dif- ferent concept than that measured by grades in school and might be better defined as “what a person believes can be attained or accomplished in life.”

Historical BackGround

History shows that leading educators and psychologists played a deliberate role in limiting educational opportuni- ties for females. Whereas many early educators simply ignored the education of females, some were explicit in designing education to maintain women’s subservience to men. Smith (1981) quoted one of the most inf luential educators of the 18th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, regarding his theory for the education of “Sophie,” the ideal girl:

Women’s entire education should be planned in relation to men. To please men, to be useful to them, to win their love and respect, to raise them as children, care for them as adults, counsel and console them, make their lives sweet and pleasant. These are women’s duties in all ages and these are what they should be taught from childhood on.

Smith also reminds us that Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung, two illustrious leaders of early psychoana- lytic psychology, described what they perceived as inferior female characteristics. Freud noted the main traits of femi- ninity as narcissism, masochism, and passivity. Jung described the mentally healthy female as being more emo- tional, and less rational and logical, than an equally men- tally healthy male. Unfortunately there are still men who believe the latter.

G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924), another leading psy- chologist and educator, reflected Freud’s views in recom- mending that education for women should aim at nothing but motherhood. Edward L. Thorndike, a psychologist and educator who practiced early in the 20th century, pro- gressed only slightly beyond Hall, suggesting that educa- tion is not likely to “harm women’s health” and that some women could even be educated toward careers, provided

that those careers involved nurturing roles (Smith, 1981). All of these quaint views both reflected and reinforced pre- vailing social attitudes.

A survey of 544 graduates of a highly selective school for gifted females found that, among those who graduated between 1910 and 1979 and who had careers, almost half (46%) became teachers, 28% went into social work, and only 10% were physicians or engineers. Seventy-three percent of the respondents described themselves as homemakers (Walker, Reis, & Leonard, 1992).

A book by Margaret Rossiter (1995), Women Scien- tists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 1940–1972, dramatically recalls how different the world of science used to be. Although World War II mobilized women sci- entists into the laboratory, women were forced to leave their occupations after the war. Not only did they lose their jobs, but they were no longer recruited into universities or colleges because they were supposed to be mothers, not scientists.

A unique exception to the shutting out of women from science took place in 18th-century Bologna, Italy (Cielak-Golonka & Morten, 2000). The University of Bologna encouraged women scientists to compete on an equal footing with men, and many distinguished women scientists f lourished in that environment. Laura Bassi (1711–1778) was the university’s first female professor. She occupied a chair in physics while managing a complex family life. She and her husband, a physician, parented 12 children. It was rumored that her family obligations interfered with her publication productivity.

Apparently, even in the 18th century, fathers were inf luential in encouraging women scientists. Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718–1799) was a brilliant professor of mathematics and wrote a celebrated book in her field, but she acknowledged that she had become an accomplished professor of mathematics only to please her father.

Except for the Italian oasis of science and, of course, Marie Curie’s scientific contributions, it was assumed by most men and women that women couldn’t be scientists. A sad example was Mileva Maric, Albert Einstein’s first wife (Gabor, 1996), whom he initially wrote about as “an equal.” He indicated in his letters to her that he looked forward to their working together on relative motion and credited her, at least initially, for stimulating his thinking. Einstein soon tired of being married to a scientist and rejected being a family man as well. He divorced Maric, leaving her to do all the parenting, and he married a woman “who placed no intellectual demands” on him. We shall never know Maric’s contributions to Einstein’s early work or about her pioneering role in physics. Opportunities were simply not available in most fields, including music (see Box 14.1).

Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 289

In the book How Jane Won, Rimm (2001) wrote the following:

Women of my generation discovered that we were oppressed, and we moved to change that for ourselves, for our daughters, and for the generations of women who would follow. . . . We lived the various lives that permitted us to be good helpers but provided few avenues for self-fulfillment. Most of us were even con- tented with our lot. Fortunately, some of us were not, and we changed the world forever.

In the United States, very few women were employed in medicine, law, business, government, art, serious media, or music until the 1960s (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001; Rimm et al., 2014). Consider how strange the prevailing perceptions about women were just one generation ago. Women who played in symphony orchestras were instructed to wear their hair pulled back, dress in pants, and sit toward the center of the orchestra in order to keep their gender hid- den. Just as strange were the assumptions made about men. For example, men could design, manufacture, and sell washing machines and be executives of the huge companies that produced them, yet they were never expected to be able to run the machines to help with home laundry.

Considering women’s history, the status of women has changed dramatically. Although the situation is not yet equitable, this part of the chapter will help to identify how far gifted females have come and how far they need to go before equity is achieved. This chapter will review and update some statistics and opinions regarding the present status of women in the career world and also in their per- ceptions of life satisfaction. It will also review arguments and data regarding biological differences between men and women, along with information regarding the other view- point—that observed differences are sociocultural in ori- gin. This first part of the chapter includes suggestions for teaching and counseling gifted females and for reducing gender-role stereotyping, bias, and discrimination.

Present status of Women

There is now an official global Gender Gap Statistic that ranks 136 major countries according to how they divide the economy for males and females. The four areas that are examined for equity are Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Political Empower- ment, and Health and Survival. The top eight countries are Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Philippines, Ireland, New Zealand, and Denmark. The United States ranks only 23rd and is behind both Cuba and Canada (Greenfield, 2013). An analysis of the present status of women in the United States continues to provide documen- tation for the argument that many gifted women in this country are indeed functioning as underachieving adults.

Gifted Women in careers

Reis and Callahan (1989) appropriately entitled one paper “Gifted Females: They’ve Come a Long Way—or Have They?” Recent statistics continue to document women’s slow progress toward equality in many areas. Salary dif- ferentials continue, although they have decreased signifi- cantly (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2014, full-time work- ing women earned only 81% as much as full-time working men, which is up considerably from the 62% in 1979, the first year such ratios were calculated (Skillern, 2014). The BLS points out a serious marriage penalty. Women who never married earned 96% of men’s wages; those who do earn only 77% of what men earn. Men endure no marriage penalty. According to an American Association of Univer- sity Women study (Schlisserman, 2007), that gap widens over time and, 10 years after college graduation, the dif- ferential between men and women is 30%.

Doyle (2000) argues that the salary differential within the higher-paid professions is directly attributed to either the fewer hours women work or women’s selection of the lower-paying specialty areas within these professions— for example, pediatrics rather than orthopedic surgery.

BOX 14.1

The Importance of Opportunity

A novel, based on historical information, relates how the talents and ambitions of Mozart’s older sister Maria Anna Mozart, nicknamed Nannerl, were snuffed out and destroyed by her parents. Her brilliant gifts at performance on the violin and piano, and her early extraordinary music compositions were hailed and admired by both her genius younger brother and appreciative audiences. Despite her extraordinary talent, her father commanded her never to

compose or hold a violin again. She was allowed only to teach piano to children and was ordered to contribute her earnings to her brother’s musical tours. Her musical genius was denied and her dreams shattered. Her undeniably bril- liant talent died for lack of opportunity (Charbonnier, 2008).

Source: From “Mozart’s Sister: A Novel” by Rita Charbonnier. Published by “Three Rivers Press” © 2008.

290 Chapter 14

academic specialties is clearly not hospitable to women, as illustrated by the remarks of one orthopedic surgeon:

A comment in medical school made my drive to be a surgeon stronger. On my third year sur- gery rotation, the attending doctor (a Navy captain) said, “Back when I was a resident, ships were made of wood, men were men, giants roamed the halls, and (looking directly at me) women went into nursing” (Rimm et al., 2014).

According to other female orthopedic surgeons who participated in the Rimm study, surgery specialties con- tinue to discourage women. There continues to be an invis- ible glass ceiling in medicine. Even in nursing, where nine out of 10 nurses are women, men’s salaries are higher than women’s (Rapaport, 2013).

Women teaching at medical colleges don’t seem to be faring much better. Tesch, Wood, Helwig, and Nattinger (1995) found that, 11 years after graduating from medical school, only 59% of the female graduates were associate or full professors, compared with 83% of the male graduates. In the full-professor rank, there were 23% males, com- pared with only 5% females (Coffman, 2005). Some uni- versities have offered faculty extra time to earn tenure, but most women don’t ask for such an exception for fear that it will reflect poorly on their qualifications (Science, 2004). The authors described this not as a glass ceiling effect but as a “sticky floor.” Medical schools and other universities continue to have a very sticky floor.

Figure 14.1 compares more recent statistics for males and females at the various ranks of medical colleges. With five times the percentage of males as females at the highest rank of professor, and a slightly higher percentage of females as males at the lowest instructor level, it seems obvious that women are not being promoted at the same pace as men. With regard to chairs of departments, only 13% were women (Coffman, 2005).

In medical school administration, for the 1986–1987 academic year, only 1.6% of all medical school deans were women (Martin, Parker, & Arnold, 1988). By 2010, that percentage had increased to 13%. Higher percentages of women are associate deans and assistant deans, at 32% and 43%, respectively (Magrane & Lang, 2006).

Compared with the time when there were almost no women in these fields, the increase in the percentages of women in the areas of science and engineering is hopeful (National Science Foundation, 2000). Women have made strides in the life sciences and physical sciences, but there are slow increases for female engineers. The percentage for computer and mathematical sciences has actually declined since 1993 (see Table 14.1).

Rubenstein (1997) supports this finding by noting that women’s earnings approach 98% of men’s among young people who have not yet had children.

Forty-four percent of the faculty at colleges and uni- versities were women in 1996, compared to only 36% in 1983 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1997). New data finds that 47% of tenured full-time professors at community colleges are women. They are certainly at gender equity levels. That percentage decreases to approximately one-third at under- graduate colleges, and to only 24% at universities that grant doctoral degrees. Women hold 57% of the lecturer and instructor positions, but only 36% of assistant through full professor positions. For all ranks and positions, women earn only 81% of the amount earned by men (Banerji, 2005).

In the 1980s, an area of temporary rapid progress for women was business. There was an extraordinary relative increase in the number of women majoring in business. The business share of all degrees earned by women increased dramatically, from less that 3% in 1970 to over 20% in 1986. This apparent progress was at first balanced by a downside because women with MBAs earned much less than men. Then, surprisingly in 1995, women MBA graduates outpaced men in starting salaries by $5,000. Unfortunately, a more recent 2010 study found that women MBAs had reversed that progress and made an average of $4,600 less than men in starting salaries and were out- earned by men throughout their careers, even after consid- ering experience and geography (Kibilko, J., 2010).

Only 2.6% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women, and that percentage has not varied much in the last 40 years (Catalyst, 2011). In 1997, women held 10.6% of the total board seats in Fortune 500 companies, and 84% of Fortune 500 companies had at least one woman on their boards (Sara Lee Corp., 1997). There is little improvement in business for women despite the evidence that advancing women in business is actually good for business. “Compa- nies with more women in top leadership positions, on aver- age, far out-perform those with fewer” (Catalyst, 2012).

There has been improvement in medicine. Women constituted less than 4% of medical students in 1905 and only 10% in the early 1970s (Bickel & Povar, 1995). That percentage had increased to 48.3% as of 2011 (Barzansky & Etzel, 2011). As of 2012, 34.3% of physicians were women, compared to the beginning of the 20th century, when only 5% were women (Catalyst, 2012). Unfortu- nately, neither status nor earnings have kept pace with those of male physicians. The salary differential was explained away as related to the number of hours worked as well as the specialty areas that women tend to select. Most women choose primary-care specialties rather than high-paying specialties such as surgery. Although those numbers may be related to women’s choices, the environment of some

Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 291

In 1966, there were almost no baccalaureate degrees granted to women in civil, electrical, or mechanical engi- neering. By 1985, the figures had increased to 17, 12, and 10% respectively (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2004). Instead of continued increase, however, the percentages decreased slightly 11 years later, to 15, 8, and 7%, respec- tively (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2004). By 2004, 22% of engineering graduates were women, but that per- centage had dropped to 17.8% by 2009 (Schelmetic, 2013). Females continue to bypass engineering as their career choice. A study that compared women engineers to women math educators found that the challenging mathematics coursework was not what distinguished the two groups. The women in engineering expressed greater desire for prestige and leadership, while the educators tended to look for dependability and reliability of their positions (Brown, Eisenberg, & Sawilowsky, 1997). Only 4% of all engineers were women in 1990; although that percentage tripled to 14% by 2013, it continues to be low (Schelmetic, 2013). Judging by the declining engineering graduation rates, only small percentage increases are likely to continue in the future unless engineering can make itself more attractive to women.

fiGure 14.1 Distribution of U.S. medical school faculty by sex and rank.

Rank Male Female Unreported Total

Professor 24,535 5,268 145 29,948

Associate professor 18,534 7,745 121 26,400

Assistant professor 30,426 20,976 260 51,662

Instructor 6,776 7,210 41 14,027

Other 1,624 1,535 19 3,178

Total 81,895 42,734 586 125,215

taBle 14.1 Percentage of Scientists and Engineers in the Labor Force Who Are Women: 1993, 1997, 2007, and 2011

Occupation 1993 1997 2007 2011*

Total scientists and engineers 22.8 22.8 23.8 26

Computer/mathematical scientists 30.7 27.3 25.3 26

Life and related scientists 34.3 36.2 36.9 47

Physical and related scientists 21.5 21.9 53.6 41

Social and related scientists 50.5 52.1 52.4 61

Engineers 8.6 9.1 14.6 13

Source: From “Public Law 95-561”. Published by “U.S. Government Publishing Office” 1978. *The information in this column come from Del Giudice, Marguerite (2014), Why It’s Crucial to Get More Women in Science. National Geographic.

Nobel Prizes were awarded beginning in 1901. Until 2009, there has never been more than one woman Nobel laureate in a year, and for most years there were none. In 2009, for the first time, four awards were earned by women: Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider in physiol- ogy or medicine, Ada Yonath in chemistry, and Elinor Ostrom in economics, thus bringing the total percentage of women Nobel laureates to 2.8%, only 17 during the entire time that the prizes have been awarded.

Says Alice Silverberg, professor of mathematics at the University of California–Irvine, who graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, “I no longer ask why there are so few women in mathematics; I ask why there are so many. I can think of few male mathematicians who would have stayed in the field if they faced the prejudice and discrimination female mathematicians deal with” (Monastersky, 2005).

It is surprising that the status of women in education further documents underachievement. Elementary and, to a lesser degree, secondary teaching have long been known as female-stereotyped professions. In 2004, 71% of all K–12 educators were female (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). How- ever, not only are the roles in the upper echelon of power in

292 Chapter 14

elementary and secondary education filled predominantly by males, but the average salary of female teachers is 18% below that of males (Lipson, 2001). Dramatic progress is taking place for females in educational administration. In 2000, only 13% of school superintendents were women (Educational Research Service, 2000), but that percentage has almost doubled to 24% by 2011. It is reasonable to predict higher percentages for the future.

College administration had been a virtual “no wom- an’s land.” In 1972, a Time magazine article recommended, “If a woman wishes to become a college president, she is advised to become a nun.” At the time, just 1% of college presidents were women, and all were nuns. Although opportunities may not abound, one no longer needs to be a nun to qualify.

The number of women in college administration is increasing gradually. The percentage of college presidents who are women has risen to 23% (American Council on Education, 2007). Now, even Princeton University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have women presidents.

Opportunities have gradually expanded for women in law and government. Whereas 50% of all law school graduates are women and 31.9% of lawyers are women, only 19.2% had achieved partnership status as of 2011. In addition, the American Bar Association found that men earn 20% higher salaries and are twice as likely to earn partnerships, despite qualifications similar to those of women (Werner, 2005). At this writing, women hold only 19% of the seats in Congress (Center for American Women and Politics, 2012).

Why Women’s Progress for equity is slow

Although the trends are mostly in a positive direction, increases are slow, and they continue to document the underachievement of gifted women in most of the prestig- ious careers in our society. We must thoughtfully address the issue of why women’s progress is so slow.

Some continue to attribute slow progress to genetic differences. Harvard’s former president, Larry Summers (2005), initiated a discussion at a National Bureau of Eco- nomic Research (NBER) conference on diversifying the science and engineering workforce to consider that bio- logical differences could direct men, more than women, toward the single-minded pursuit of knowledge necessary for science and could cause men to be more capable of higher-level mathematical and scientific thinking than women. Outraged women scientists walked out of the con- ference in protest at the all-too-familiar historical genetic argument. There may indeed be genetic differences, but when opportunities for women are withheld, there can be

no fair way to judge genetic differences. The next sections will review the continued bias against women and further discussion of biological and sociocultural differences between men and women.

continued Bias against Women

Although the bias in favor of men may be unconscious, it continues. A series of studies conducted over time and reported in Women in Science: Can Evidence Inform the Debate? shows that the bias that favors men is consistent (Linn, 2007). Whether raters evaluate college essays, job applications, grant applications, portfolios, or tenure reviews, identical materials receive higher ratings when a male name rather than a female name is attached to the materials. In the tenure example, 70% of the male-named petitioners, compared with 45% of the female-named peti- tioners, were recommended for tenure. Another dramatic example of male bias came in auditions for symphony orchestras (Marks, 2001). Women had been underrepre- sented in symphony orchestras for many years, and it wasn’t until the initiation of blind auditions in 1970 that women’s representation rose gradually, from 10% to 35% (Wakin, 2005). Goldin and Rouse (2000) compared blind auditions with regular auditions. The difference was tell- ing. In the blind auditions, 28.6% of female musicians, compared with 20.2% of male musicians, advanced to the final round, compared with 19.3% of women and 22.5% of men in those auditions that weren’t blind. It’s no wonder that women were cautioned to remove their shoes to avoid the click and clack of high heels. Women hold the prestig- ious position of concertmaster in only four major orches- tras. Marin Alsop became the first woman music director of a major orchestra: the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra. There are no blind auditions for concertmasters or conduc- tors, so these opportunities come much more slowly. Says Alsop, “When men make forceful gestures, they come off as being masculine and virile. Sometimes when women do that, they’re interpreted as being pushy and bossy. I’ve really worked hard at trying to, sort of, degenderize my gestures” (Woolfe, 2013).

Sculptor Linda Stein finds a glass ceiling in the arts. Although women make up more than 50% of the under- graduates in the arts, she points out that doors slam closed on women after graduation. She concluded, “Studies have shown that if you submit work to a juried exhibit and the jurors don’t know the gender of the person submitting, it ends up pretty equal in terms of who is selected. But as soon as the artist’s gender is known, women drop back to one-third.”

Alas, even in gifted education, educators are biased against girls. Bianco et al. (2011) explored the effect of

Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 293

gender on teacher identification of students for gifted pro- gramming. The 28 participants were given identical vignettes of students and were asked to rate them on a 1–4 Likert scale for recommendations for placement into the gifted program. Half the teachers’ identical vignettes were labeled as Caucasian male and the other half were rated as Caucasian female. Seventy-seven percent of the teachers referred the males to the gifted program, while only 54% of the teachers referred the females. Not only were the actual number of selections biased against females, but the descriptions of females focused on the negative character- istics such as oppositional behaviors, arrogance, and bossi- ness, while these same characteristics were described as strengths for the males using the words independent and exhibiting leadership skill. Educators must prepare girls to recognize that pioneering and resilience continue to be required, but encouraging girls in a positive way is at least equally critical.

Gifted Boys

Although women certainly have disadvantages in lifetime careers, boys seem to have more than their share of disad- vantages in childhood. Durden-Smith and DeSimone (1982) itemized some apparently biological differences between the sexes that, on balance, make females look noticeably superior physically, psychologically, and socially. Consider these differences:

Boys are now falling behind in every state and at every school level (Kristof, 2010).

Girls are stronger in verbal and communication abil- ities and outperform boys in reading (Kristof, 2010; Mead, 2006; Pagnini, 2013).

There are more boys at both ends of the intellectual spectrum—intellectually disabled and extraordi- narily intelligent.

Girls develop faster.

More boys have more major birth defects and are born less sturdy.

Boys are four or five times more likely to be autistic (being mute or having bizarre speech) or aphasic (unable to produce or comprehend speech; aphasia also includes emotional and thinking disorders).

Boys are much more likely to have problems with reading (dyslexia), writing (dysgraphia), or arithmetic (dyscalculia), or to have other learning disabilities.

Boys are five times more likely to stutter.

Some traditional observations also might be men- tioned: Boys are more likely to be hyperactive, disruptive,

and aggressive in class, and boys are three times as likely to repeat a grade (Brown, 1991; Kristof, 2010; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008, 2009). Boys fall- ing behind is now a pervasive problem throughout the industrialized world, including Scandinavia, Canada, and Britain (Kristof, 2010).

Boys are at a disadvantage in schools. There are very few male teachers in most elementary schools, and boys easily see school as a female enterprise if fathers and other males don’t make it clear to boys how important they believe education to be.

Boys often have handwriting and processing-speed problems. Perhaps some of these could be prevented. Because so many boys are being diagnosed with attention deficit disorders, teaching boys concentration skills is a priority. Reading to boys and encouraging them to work on puzzles and listen to audio devices—instead of watching screens and playing video games—also might improve their concentration and early success in school (Rimm, 2005, 2007a). Sibling issues for boys also seem to be more competitive, with one child establishing himself as the achiever and the other the underachiever (Rimm, 2008a).

The issue of manliness or machismo is an important issue for gifted boys (Hebert, 2002). Boys who are not ath- letic or are very sensitive are often shamed and alienated by other boys and sometimes not even accepted by their own fathers because they are not masculine enough (Kerr & Cohn, 2001; Pollock, 1998). Too many gifted boys are taunted and teased for their sensitivity instead of being sup- ported in its valuable expression.

The issue of violence must be dealt with, especially because gifted boys have indeed been involved in the recent episodes of violence in schools. Although isolation and being taunted should never be an excuse for violence, problems of exclusion need to be dealt with so that they never lead to violence (Schroeder-Davis, 1999). The social and emotional needs of gifted children who feel isolated should be addressed by counselors within the schools and by referrals to professionals outside school.

sex differences or Gender differences

Reis and Callahan (1989) emphasize the importance of distinguishing between sex differences and gender differ- ences; the first relates to the biological, the latter to the sociocultural. Separating the two provides a basis for determining the extent to which the underachievement of women can be modified. Sex differences are biologically determined and could be viewed as potentially limiting the achievements of gifted women. However, gender differ- ences, related to sociocultural norms—stereotypes, bias,

294 Chapter 14

and most studies did indeed document large differences in math abilities, activity levels, leadership, communication styles, attribution, and several other areas. It isn’t surpris- ing that earlier studies assumed mainly differences; after all, physical differences are obviously great, why not psy- chological differences? As individual study numbers mounted, meta-analysis studies increased to accumulate the differences found (Gray, 1992, Tannen, 1991). Some meta-analytic studies of differences included math perfor- mance (Hyde, Fenema & Lamon, 1990), self-esteem (Kling, Hyde, Showers & Buswell, 1999), personality (Feingold, 1994), and aggression (Archer, 2000). For the most part, these studies found that gender differences were quite small.

An alternative perspective was presented by Hyde in 2005 and is known as the gender similarities perspective. Hyde hypothesized that the genders were more similar than different on most psychological dimensions, and the differences were likely to be small in magnitude. His research has become classic and has generated a change in direction in comparative gender studies. Gender similarity meta-analytic studies include social, personality, cognitive, and psychological well-being variables.

Zell, Krizan, and Teeter (2015) used a highly sophis- ticated meta-synthesis approach for analyzing 106 meta- analytic gender studies. The actual total sample size was huge; there were 12,238,667 participants. With this gigan- tic amount of data, the average absolute difference between genders yielded a d of .21, which is explained as a small difference effect that reflects 84% overlap in the genders.

Although most gender differences were small, some of those that follow were large or moderately large. Females scored higher than males on measures of reactiv- ity to painful stimuli (.56), peer attachment (.51), and inter- est in people compared to things (.49). These are moderate scores. Males scored much higher than females for mascu- line versus feminine traits (.73), and somewhat higher for mental rotation ability (.57), importance of beauty in mates (.53) and aggression (.45).

The authors of this very large study also found that the small gender differences were fairly constant across age, culture, and time period, although they acknowledge limitations in their collected data in all three areas. They explained that these findings should not be taken to mean that gender differences are permanent. The authors also emphasized that, although gender differences were found to be small, “even small effects can have important every- day consequences” (Zell, Krizan, & Teeter, 2015, p. 17). Based on these researchers’ strong advice to consider the impact of even small differences, we will continue to review some of the sociocultural factors that could have gender effects on school and life achievement.

and discrimination—can be changed, and the correction of these problems may be seen as freeing women to achieve equality with men.

Sonnert and Holton (1996) describe two different models for looking at career differences between males and females in the sciences. The deficit model, they explain, is based on the existence of exclusion, both formal and infor- mal. That is, women receive fewer opportunities for suc- cessful careers. The second model, called the difference model, assumes that there are deeply ingrained differences in behavior, outlook, and goals between men and women. These may be innate or the result of different socialization.

Here’s an example of how these models could be used in interpreting male–female differences: Sonnert and Holton (1996) found that 70% of the men, compared with 52% of the women, in their study considered their scientific ability to be above average. Twenty-five percent of the women and only 5% of the men thought that they should have had the confidence to be more assertive. If these self-assessments are viewed according to the difference model, one would assume that women cannot be as successful in science because they do not possess sufficient confidence. However, the deficit model, which Rimm sees as a better fit, explains that structural obstacles cause women to lose confidence and adjust their ambitions and self-expectations downward.

It is a complex task to determine whether differences in performance are sex or gender imposed. Thus, determin- ing whether to use the deficit model or the difference model is a challenge. Here are a few more examples. Decide which model you think fits best:

In sports, no one debates that men perform better than women relative to strength and speed. However, Whipp and Ward (1992) declare that running speeds for both have improved, and women’s speed has actu- ally improved more than men’s. Dyer (1990) found the same to be true for swimmers and cyclists. These researchers all projected that differences in these three sports could disappear in the future. Should you use the deficit model or the difference model to explain current speed differences in these sports?

Shilt and Wiswall (2008) studied men and women who underwent sex-change operations. Women who changed to men did better financially than men who changed to women. Should you use the deficit or difference model to explain the better earning power of the men?

Gender similarities and differences

When earlier editions of this text were published, only a few studies that studied gender differences were available,

Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 295

books. There are now many books for girls to choose from. However, gender stereotypes die slowly. Sadker and Sadker (1994) reported that, in history textbooks, only 2% of space is devoted to women. More recently, a 2006 American Library Association (ALA) campaign to energize reading featured mainly media and sports celebri- ties, and apart from noting these celebrities, boys viewed posters with male firefighters, a conservationist, a chef, a physicist, and multibillionaire Bill Gates. Girls saw no equivalent heroes to admire beyond the media and sports celebrities (Stauffer, 2007).

sexualization of Girls The American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) report of the Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (Choate & Curry, 2009) pronounced a dramatic trend toward the sexualization of girls in popu- lar culture. That’s no surprise to parents and teachers who glimpse what tweens and teens see on TV, on the Internet, or in the movies, nor is it startling that the APA suggests that such sexualization can impede learning and achieve- ment. In her survey of 5,000 middle-grade students, Rimm (2005) found that, by Grade 3—yes, that’s approximately by age 8—15% of the children, both boys and girls, were worried a lot about being popular with the opposite sex. With each higher grade, that percentage increased. Rimm recalls the story of an 8-year-old girl in her clinic wishing that she had sexy clothes. When asked for a clarification on what the girl meant by “sexy clothes,” she replied, “You know, like the clothes on television.” Sex is a powerful dis- traction from learning. In one study (Choate & Curry, 2009), college women were asked to try on either a swim- suit or a sweater, look at themselves in the mirror privately, and then complete a math exam. You guessed it. The “sweater women” achieved much higher scores on the exams than those who tried on swimsuits. There was no such difference for the males. See Box 14.2 for another story of sexual distraction. Clinical experience finds such distractions for males as well, but they are more likely dur- ing the teen years.

Can gifted girls overcome the impact of families, schools, and sex-role stereotyped literature and media on their own self-perceptions? If we are to help girls, we will have to start early. Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, and Blumenfeld (1993) found that, by first grade, girls believed that they were less competent in athletics and mathematics. On the other hand, they had higher beliefs in their compe- tence in reading and music. In contrast, boys had higher competence beliefs in their athletic and mathematical abili- ties, and fewer indicated that they felt competent in reading and music. Only with high levels of awareness and some deliberate “counterconditioning” will we be able to over- come these gender stereotypes.

sociocultural differences

Although gender differences can be described and, to some degree, even quantified, research cannot delineate the exact extent to which specific differences are cultural versus bio- logical in origin. Studies of the changing role of women in society provide good documentation that many differences that men assumed to be biologically based are actually sociocultural in nature.

Gender stereotyPes The choice of a pink or blue blanket, which persists in identifying gender differences even at birth, is the first step in giving differential direction to the sexes. Next comes the infant’s nursery, with pastel colors, lace, frills, and dolls for girls and bright primary colors, heroes, spaceships, and dump trucks for boys. The expectations of docility and conformity for girls, in con- trast to the expectations of action, energy, and a “boys will be boys” attitude throughout early childhood for boys, ini- tiate the gifted girl to her eventual underachieving role in society.

In the process of developing her Bem Sex-Role Inventory, Bem (1974) itemized stereotyped characteris- tics associated with men and women. It is interesting, but not surprising, that characteristics considered “masculine” are also typical of successful people—for example, aggres- siveness, ambitiousness, analytical ability, assertiveness, competitiveness, leadership ability, independence, and self-reliance. Characteristics in the “feminine” column included those that might be associated with mothering or, at best, a narrow range of nurturant, female-dominated occupations—for example, affection, cheerfulness, com- passion, gentleness, love of children, shyness, understand- ing, and warmth.

Bem’s stereotyped traits continued to be reinforced by textbooks, literature, and the media. For example, there are “girls’ books,” such as Little Women and Little House in the Big Woods, and “boys’ books,” which include tales of mystery, adventure, risk taking, and accomplishment (Sadker, Sadker, & Hicks, 1980). Studies conducted during the 1970s found that the main characters in children’s books were three times more likely to be boys than girls. The titles of children’s books included more than five times the number of male names than female names. Children’s picture books included women illustrated as mothers and as housewives, and in the occasional women-stereotyped professions, such as secretaries, teachers, or nurses (Stauffer, 2007). There were very few biographies availa- ble of accomplished and successful women. After these studies were published, there was an explosion of literature that emphasized strong girl protagonists, and Newbery Awards were presented to many of these female-centered

296 Chapter 14

BOX 14.2

Sex Can Be a Distraction from Learning

Sixth-grader Terra had recently stopped doing her daily assignments. She told her parents that she couldn’t concen- trate since her grandfather had died. Her work habits had degenerated at about that time. In counseling, Terra blamed her grandfather’s death for her missing work, and she had genuine tears in her eyes as she described her feelings. However, she also repeatedly talked about her first boy- friend; the many e-mails back and forth; and then, finally, the e-mail he sent telling her that he wasn’t ready for a girlfriend yet. She admitted that she felt rejected at first, but

she insisted that the boyfriend episode no longer bothered her. During our session, as she discussed other topics, she initiated questions and comments about her boyfriend at least five times. Was she afraid to seem too smart? Well, maybe. Did her girlfriends have boyfriends, too? Well, yes. Terra is working hard at school again, but it took some counseling to help her deal with getting over the distraction of her boyfriend breakup. Terra was only 11 years old, but even then sexualization can become a distraction (Clinical case study, Family Achievement Clinic, 2007).

matHematics aBilities

The most prominent and heated argument related to dif- ferential abilities regards whether males have superior mathematical abilities (Armstrong, 1980; Benbow, 1986, 1992a, 1992b; Benbow & Lubinski, 1997; Benbow & Stanley, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983; Ceci & Williams, 2007; Dweck, 2007; Fennema & Carpenter, 1998; Fennema, Carpenter, Jacobs, Franke, & Levi, 1998a; Geist & King, 2008; Kerr, 1997; Kuo, 2015; Pallas & Alexander, 1983; Spelke, 2005; Spelke & Grace, 2007; Stanley, 1994; Stanley & Benbow, 1983; Wiley & Goldstein 1991). Math- ematics ability is crucial because it is a threshold subject for entering not only math but engineering, science, high- level business, computer science, and any research field.

test scores and Grade differences in math

Giele (1978), Fennema (1980), Spelke (2005), and Spelke and Grace (2007) concluded that male and female math abilities are about equal in childhood. Historically, consid- erable research has pointed to differences in math achieve- ment beginning in adolescence. Cramer and Oshima (1992) blame girls’ lesser achievement on girls’ seeing suc- cess in math as contradictory to peers’ expectations of their roles. Almost all pertinent studies have found that the math differences seem to widen over the school years, becoming quite prominent by middle school (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Maccoby & Jacklin (1974) found that, at about age 12 or 13, boys begin to show math superiority. Even com- puter use declined for girls as they approached adolescence (Enrico, 1995). At a fast-paced computer summer program that was made up of 75% girls, the girls, despite their quick acquisition of skills, assumed that boys were better at com- puters than they were. Rimm (2005) found that middle school girls used computers both less and differently than

boys. Girls used them more for e-mail, word processing, or education, whereas boys used them more for games.

Not all research has found that girls’ math skills and scores decline at adolescence. Among the successful women who participated in the Rimm research (Rimm et al., 2014; Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001), most women in the areas of science, medicine, and business did not experience grade decline in mathematics in middle school and were more likely to take advanced math courses in high school. They attributed their taking advanced courses either to liking math or to the inf luence of parents and teachers. Women in the more verbal professions were less likely to take advanced math courses and indicated either that they were disinterested or that they feared the diffi- culty of mathematics. Enjoying math was the variable that differentiated the women doctors and surgeons from those who selected nursing careers.

A longitudinal study by Hall (1980) of 59 gifted stu- dents (29 boys and 30 girls) from preschool through Grade 12 found no significant gender differences in arithmetic or spatial abilities or in math SAT scores. She attributed her unique findings to an environmentally specific sample. The students were mainly from a university environment in which many of the females’ fathers were Ph.D.s and cross- gender support for education was evident.

A male–female math comparison study in Hawaii of students in Grades 4, 6, 8, and 10 found superior achieve- ment for females over males (Brandon, Newton, & Hammond, 1987). An analysis by ethnic background of these students further indicated that gender differences favoring girls were smaller for Caucasian students than for Japanese American, Filipino American, and Hawaiian children. Females from Japan and Singapore considerably outscore U.S. males on mathematical measures (Ceci & Williams, 2007).

Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 297

math. In 2009, 297 students scored a perfect triple 800 on the SATs. Of those, 62% were boys, and on the math sec- tion 69% of the 10,052 were boys. Kathleen Steinberg of the College Board did not quote the percentages for the verbal scores only, but there is a good chance that scores could have favored girls (Kristof, 2010).

Stanley (1992) stunned an audience of educators with his report of higher average scores for males on the majority of 86 subtests of aptitude and achievement tests, including the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), Scho- lastic Aptitude Tests (SAT), the American College Testing Program (ACT), and Advanced Placement (AP) tests. For example, males scored higher than females on all 17 of the subject-area tests of the GRE, with political science, math, chemistry, engineering, and history showing the largest gender differences. There were no differences in verbal GRE scores, but large differences favored males in quanti- tative GRE scores. On the Law SAT (LSAT), females scored the same as males. Females scored higher than males on the English portion of the ACT but generally lower on the other tests (social studies, math, and natural science). Females also scored higher on the French AP test but lower on computer science, physics, chemistry, and calculus. There were no differences on the Spanish and English literature AP subtests. Stanley found the matter perplexing and unexplainable, particularly because females generally are better students.

Despite the large numbers of analyses of ability- test differences, even when test-score differences favor boys, they do not ref lect high school grade differences. Among the 1989 SAT examinees, for example, 54% of the females and 46% of the males reported an A1 grade point average, and 58% of the females and 42% of the males reported an A grade point average (Educational Testing Service, 1989a). Kelly-Benjamin (1990) reported that, when females are allowed additional time to com- plete the SAT, they outperform males, indicating that females are just as capable of doing the work but at a slightly slower average pace. Spelke (2005) concludes that the math SAT is a poor predictor of math perfor- mance for females because, whereas males continue to outscore females on the SAT (Spelke & Grace, 2007), girls and boys now take equally difficult math courses in high school and girls get better grades. About half of the math degrees from U.S. colleges are earned by females, and they earn grades equal to male graduates. Equal num- bers of males and females now earn Ph.D.s in math. Females are indeed catching up. Because equal numbers of males and females do not continue in mathematics careers, Spelke (2005) concludes that we must look beyond cognitive abilities to societal reasons for not retaining women in math-related careers.

Kuo (2015) focused on neuropsychological imaging as well as gender math problem solving and found that gifted high school–age males and females did equally well on their math problem solving. The brain imaging revealed, however, that there was a significant difference in the areas of the brain used by males and females for solving similar problems.

Another international study is convincing. Research- ers Guiso, Monte, Sapienze, and Zingales (2008) analyzed math and reading score data from the 2003 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) involving 276,165 15-year-old students from 40 countries. Although girls’ math scores averaged 10.5 points (2%) lower than those of the boys, the results varied by country according to the degree to which women were emancipated. The great- est gender gap for math favored boys in Turkey by 22.6 points; at the opposite extreme, in Iceland, the math gender gap favored females by 14.5 points. This variation held in the same direction for students who scored above the 95th percentile. The authors stated that underperformance by girls in math disappeared in gender-equal societies. Girls outperformed the boys in reading in all countries, and in more gender-equal countries, the reading gap between girls and boys widened further in favor of girls.

Camilla Benbow and Julian Stanley (1980, 1981, 1982, 1983) based their work on years of math SAT scores collected for thousands of students in Stanley’s Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY); they concluded that their data support a biological superiority of male math ability, which could be related to male superiority in spatial tasks. They indicated that environmental influences are not likely to affect so dramatically the “extreme absence of extraordinary female talent” among students involved in the SMPY talent search. A November 1983 Associated Press news release, based on an article in Sci- ence magazine (Benbow & Stanley, 1983), noted that in the years 1980, 1981, and 1982, Benbow and Stanley found that the average math SAT score for 19,883 gifted seventh-grade boys was 416. For 19,937 gifted girls, the average score was a noticeably lower 386. Average verbal SAT scores were almost identical, 367 for boys and 365 for girls. Boys outnumbered girls by better than 2 to 1 among those scoring above 500, by better than 4 to 1 among those who scored over 600, and by almost 13 to 1 in the group scoring 700 or higher (113 boys, 9 girls). Despite the con- tention of the biological superiority of male math ability, much of that disproportion found by the SMPY changed within 10 years after the study. By 1997, the gender ratio of those who scored above 700 was 4 boys to 1 girl, and by 2005, it was 2.8 boys to 1 girl (Ceci & Williams, 2007). Much like the faster women runners, cyclists, and swim- mers mentioned earlier, girls seem to be catching up in

298 Chapter 14

the math SAT. Gallagher and Kaufman (2005) referred to “stereotype threat” as being a crucial element in girls’ lesser performance (e.g., Quinn & Spencer, 2001). For example, in research conducted by Davies and Spencer (1998), females who were required to specify their gender before taking the test scored lower on the AP calculus test than those where gender was requested after taking it. The study concluded that simply changing the instruction about indicating gender would have allowed almost 3,000 more women per year to enter college with credit for calculus. Another example of stereotype threat pertained to Asian American girls—a finding that their test scores were better after pretest reminders of their ethnicity compared with pretest reminders of their gender (Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999). Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2006) reported improved scores on female math tests when, prior to taking their tests, students read essays indicating no math-related gender issues. Gallagher and Kaufman (Lewis, 2005) don’t claim that math test items are gender-biased, only that “the stereotype of inferior female mathematics ability is so per- vasive in American culture” that simple reminders of gen- der can deflate math scores significantly (p. 1871).

fatHer identification As we saw in Chapter 12, sev- eral studies (e.g., Sutten-Smith, Rosenberg, & Landy, 1968) reported that early father absence, before the child is age 8 or 9, has a depressing effect on later math scores of both males and females. These researchers hypothesized that children learn a mathematical problem-solving think- ing style from their fathers. Helson (1971) similarly reported that creative women mathematicians and scien- tists tended to identify with their fathers. As noted previ- ously, Hall (1980) attributed the strong math achievement of the gifted girls in her longitudinal study to support by the fathers. In the study of the childhoods of over 1,000 successful women (Rimm et al., 2014), women in all career groups identified more with their mothers than with their fathers, but the scientists and physicians had the highest percentage of women identifying with their fathers. It is possible that learning mathematical thinking and problem solving may take place informally in the family through the process of identification with fathers.

different Play and activities Another hypothesis is that early childhood play with gender-role stereotyped toys improves visual–spatial abilities for boys more than for girls (Monastersky, 2005) and that spatial ability is thus, at least in part, experientially determined (Chan, 2007). Trains, model airplanes, race cars, trucks, electrical sets, Legos, Tinker Toys, and other construction toys all are more likely to be played with by boys. Play with such toys may enhance spatial skills more than play with typical

culture-Based explanations of Gender differences in math

The counterarguments to a biological explanation of male math superiority are mainly that any gender differences in mathematics ability are cultural in origin. Some specific arguments are discussed in the following subsections.

cultural stereotyPes During adolescence, society encourages boys more often than girls to show superior intellectual ability in order to attract members of the oppo- site sex. However, girls, in accord with cultural stereo- types, may believe that boys do not like girls who excel in math and therefore do not seek to develop mathematical abilities (Fox, 1977). When a talking Barbie doll included in her mechanical conversation the statement, “Math is really hard,” women protested loudly and Mattel withdrew the stereotyped message (“Barbie’s Remarks,” 1992).

Parental expectations make a difference in perpetuat- ing cultural stereotypes (Dickens & Cornell, 1993). In a study of 165 high-ability adolescent girls, mother and father expectations, rather than role-model identification, made the difference in the adolescent mathematical con- cept. Thus, parents either carry on the cultural stereotype or change it, and that is the main difference for girls. Jacobs and Weisz (1994) also found parents’ stereotypic beliefs to affect both girls’ attitudes and their actual math perfor- mance, and Callahan et al. (1996) discovered that even girls with high abilities in math or science perceived that their parents discouraged their attendance at specialty schools for math, science, or technology.

The cultural stereotype that females are not as capa- ble in mathematics and science adversely affects girls’ esti- mates of their own talents (Heller & Ziegler, 1996). Improvements can be made with retraining and positive environments. In research studies involving attributional retraining conducted in a German high school with univer- sity students in physics and mathematics (Ziegler & Heller, 2000), female students showed significant improvements in their science and math performance. In another study (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000), where self-efficacy was found to be critical for women in mathematical and scientific careers, the women’s positive belief in themselves was fos- tered by relationships with others within their academic and career settings. Although intentional training as well as supportive environments can remove cultural stereotypes, major societal commitments must be made to dispel the long-held stereotype that women are less capable in math- ematics and mathematical sciences than men.

stereotyPe tHreat Other, subtle issues are related to cultural stereotypes involved in girls’ underperformance on

Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 299

dolls, tea sets, coloring books, jump ropes, and needlecraft usually played with by girls. A visit to a day care center, preschool, or kindergarten class reminds one of how infre- quently girls will be found in the block corner or boys in the dollhouse.

Chan (2007) compared the spatial skills of 337 pri- mary and secondary grade students and found the expected gender difference favoring boys, as well as the expected improvement with age and grade. He also asked the students to report their spatial experiences, including both the visual- arts and spatial-orientation dimensions. The girls reported more activities in the visual arts; the boys reported more spatial-orientation activities. Chan hypothesizes that provid- ing or encouraging more spatial-orientation activities, such as finding directions and using maps, could provide the experiences that would enhance girls’ spatial abilities. Many other studies have also found that spatial skills can be taught (Baenninger & Newcombe, 1989; Gerson, Sorby, Wysocki, & Baartmans, 2001; Vasta, Knott & Gaze, 1996).

teacHer and Parent exPectations Mathematics has long been considered a male domain by both students and teachers. Ernest (1976) found, in interviewing teach- ers, that 41% thought that boys were better at math than girls, whereas none thought girls were better. Because teacher expectations may affect achievement by as much as 20% (Brophy, 1982; Good & Weinstein, 1986), a self- fulfilling prophecy can help perpetuate the concept of mathematics as a male domain.

Male and female self-perceptions about math abili- ties may be reinforced by teachers who see girls as work- ing harder and producing better work in math and science (Siegle & Reis, 1994). Although their work was perceived as better, the girls did not receive higher grades that reflected the better quality. Teachers indicated that they did not believe that girls were less able than boys, but perhaps the girls’ lower grades caused the girls to lower their self- perceptions. In contradistinction, perhaps it is the sensitiz- ing of teachers to higher math expectations for girls that has been most instrumental in attracting today’s girls to advanced math classes.

scHool suPPort In an analysis of schools that success- fully teach math and science to girls, Casserly (1979) found that teachers in those schools did not feel threatened by mathematically gifted girls, that they used older females to tutor younger girls, and that they introduced good math programs before the sixth grade—before girls come to view math as a male subject. Women who attended girls’ schools reminded Rimm and Rimm-Kaufman (2001) in interviews that they typically assumed that girls could do math well. Fox (1974) similarly found that girls were

successful in a math program for the gifted when school personnel were enthusiastic and supportive of the girls. When Gavin (1996) surveyed 16 female mathematics majors in a highly selective liberal arts college, the women revealed that parental and teacher encouragement was crit- ical for them. Most of these math majors recall being rec- ognized by peers and teachers alike as top math students during their precollege school years.

An absolutely crucial conclusion is that no ability is totally and exclusively related to gender. Research reports are based on average scores on tests involving large num- bers of students. There is always near-total overlap in the distributions of male and female ability and achievement- test scores. Nevertheless, we must consider the possibility that test results that favor males can have the effect of per- petuating stereotype threat. We need to inform gifted girls of this issue to help them to perform at their best on tests, in their coursework, and in their careers.

importance of the math difference Hypothesis

Differential skill in mathematics is a critical issue in rela- tion to the professional development of gifted females. Male-dominated fields that convey high status and good financial rewards (for example, medicine, engineering, architecture, pharmacy, computer sciences, and all physical sciences) require skill in mathematics. A lack of prepara- tion creates barriers to the entrance of females into many challenging and rewarding professions.

differences in exPectations, acHievement orientation, and asPirations

Family, school, and peer expectations can encourage or discourage a strong achievement orientation, risk taking, independence, and self-confidence in girls. These expecta- tions can lead to low or high aspirations that in turn result, respectively, in underachievement or lifetime high achievement.

family expectations and identification

High education achievement and high career aspirations begin at home. Both the mother’s role modeling and the father’s expectations have compelling inf luences on the achievement orientation of gifted girls and boys. Boys are mainly expected to become breadwinners; girls, at least now, have choices.

In regard to career aspirations, many researchers (e.g., Hoffman, 1996; Marini, 1978; Radin, 1974; Rimm et al.,

300 Chapter 14

strong role models that, along with positive and supportive father expectations, inf luence the education and career achievement of gifted girls.

Peer expectations

From early adolescence, and sometimes before, peer expectations play a strong part in directing the achieve- ment of gifted girls and boys. Girls risk being considered “unfeminine,” and boys risk being considered “uncool” if they become too involved in school achievement (Webb et al., 2007, Rimm, 2005).

Brown and Steinberg (1989) reported the existence of peer pressure to get good, but not outstanding, grades. Kramer (as cited in Reis & Callahan, 1996) found that gifted girls deliberately underestimated their abilities for fear that exposure of their high abilities would cause peers to view them as socially less competent or as unattractive. The Rimm research (Rimm et al., 2014; Rimm & Rimm- Kaufman, 2001) found that 40% of the successful women described themselves as less social than was typical, and many reported paying a social price for their good grades. The successful women managed their peer pressure by finding peer groups that shared their interests and respected their intelligence. For example, Cleveland Orchestra flutist Martha Aarons recalled coming home in tears daily from middle school after being taunted and teased as “hairy legs” and “brainiac.” At summer music camp, however, she felt accepted among her orchestra friends, and by high school her youth orchestra pals provided her with a good social life. As an adult, Martha finds her social skills to be a strength. African American neurosurgeon Alexa Canady, known as a “math nerd,” didn’t fit in with the high school mainstream but was comfortable with her intellectual crowd and was not lonely. Middle school gifted girls and boys who met with Rimm for her research about middle school students commented frequently on how the pressures they experienced to be popular interfered with their wishes to perform well in school (Rimm, 2005). As to peer pressure on girls who participate in gifted programming, Read (as cited in Reis & Callahan, 1996) found that girls tended to drop out of gifted programming more than boys. In early grades, there were more girls participating than boys, but by 10th grade there were more boys than girls in gifted pro- gramming. Tween and teen girls and boys should be made aware that they are not alone, and peer pressure should not cause them to underachieve in order to be popular.

school expectations

From nursery school onward, we find continuous docu- mentation of school biases that deter an achievement ori- entation for females. Serbin and O’Leary (1975) compared

2014; Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001; Sutherland, 1978) concluded that career modeling by mothers motivates females to have higher education and career aspirations.

Fathers’ direct expectations of their daughters also influence female achievement. Radin and Epstein (1975) found that fathers’ short- and long-term academic expecta- tions of their daughters were positively correlated with measures of the girls’ intellectual functioning. In the Rimm research (Rimm et al., 2014; Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001), many of the successful women with nontraditional careers credited their fathers’ high expectations for their career success. Gender-stereotyped expectations of girls— and all women—by their fathers (Lynn, 1974) and domi- nating fathers (e.g., Heilbrun, 1973) appear to have a negative effect on girls’ achievement.

Research findings on the comparative importance of the mother role model versus the father role model for female achievement are not always consistent nor are the dynamics uncomplicated. Helson (1971), as noted earlier, found that creative women mathematicians tended to be oldest daughters who identified with their fathers. More of the successful women in the Rimm research (Rimm et al., 2014; Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001) in both traditional and nontraditional careers identified with their mothers than with their fathers, but the highest percentage of women who identified with their fathers were those in sci- ence and medicine. Some of the successful women also remembered being cautioned by their full-time homemaker mothers to find their own identities and not be dependent on men. Their mothers served as models of what not to do, giving advice about what to do. Cady Coleman began her interview by saying, “I had a very special mom. . . . She brought me up to think I could be anyone I wanted to be.” Cady’s mom was a full-time homemaker and role model while raising Cady, who became a NASA astronaut.

Incidentally, the inf luence of the media on parents also affects the children in the family. Reports of the Benbow and Stanley (e.g., 1980) research on gender differ- ences in math reasoning appeared in many popular magazines and newspapers. Jacobs and Eccles (1985) dis- covered that parents exposed to these research findings changed their math expectations of their daughters. Com- pared with other mothers, mothers who read about the research appeared to expect less of their girls in terms of math success. The effect of the exposure on fathers was to increase the importance of their daughters’ taking calculus and higher math. Apparently, although the media coverage seemed to encourage mothers to provide an easy way out for their daughters, it inspired fathers to come to their daughters’ defense.

In conclusion, despite some special circumstances and exceptions, career-oriented mothers do indeed provide

Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 301

●● Girls are advancing in math but declining in science. ●● Boys get more SAT-based scholarships than girls do,

even when SAT scores are the same. ●● The decrease in girls’ self-esteem during school

years is three times greater than that of boys. ●● Only half of girls take pride in their schoolwork. ●● Teachers allow boys to try again but tend to take over

for girls.

Dweck and Bush (1976; Nichols, 1979) found, in teacher feedback given to children, that poor performance is often described as “lack of ability” in girls, whereas sim- ilar poor performance in boys is noted as “not working hard enough.” This difference is important. If poor perfor- mance is seen by students as lack of ability, then they believe that increased effort will not solve the problem. However, if poor performance is interpreted as lack of effort, then the students will be motivated to work harder to achieve (Dweck, 2006; Weiner, 1985).

sense of comPetence First, studies of the sense of competence among women repeatedly show that, on aver- age, women exhibit lower feelings of competence than do men. For example, Stake (1981) found that females tended to score lower than males in predicting their future ability to perform well in high-level careers. Addison (1981) simi- larly found that, in evaluating their own performance, females tended to underestimate their degree of success, whereas males tended to overestimate it.

Gifted girls seem to be extremely susceptible to the loss of confidence in adolescence (Klein & Zehms, 1996). Although overall self-concept scores declined for both gifted and nongifted girls between grades 3 and 5, and again between grades 5 and 8, eighth-grade gifted girls scored lower in the areas of intellectual and school status and popularity than did the nongifted eighth-grade girls.

In a sample of gifted and regular sixth-grade stu- dents, girls scored lower than boys on measures of aca- demic self-concept, interest, and motivations, although there were no gender differences in grade scores. Differ- ences between the genders was greater for the gifted group than for the regular group (Preckel, Goetz, Pekrun, & Kleine, 2008).

Fox, Sadker, and Engle (1999) suggest that the low- ering of girls’ sense of intellectual competence may be part of the reason that girls lag behind boys in critical college, graduate school, and professional tests. Girls start to lose ground to boys on standardized tests around the middle school years, the same time they seem to begin to lose self- esteem. Perhaps their lack of confidence causes them to avoid risk taking, such as intelligent guessing of answers where they have only partial knowledge (Ben-Shakhar &

differential treatment of boys and girls in 15 nursery school classes and recorded the following behaviors that they felt reinforced aggressiveness, confidence, and independence in boys, but not in girls: Boys were encouraged to work on their own much more often than girls, and teachers rewarded girls for being dependent by responding more when they were near but gave similar attention to boys regardless of physical distance. All 15 teachers gave more attention to boys than to girls, including more individual- ized instruction and more tangible and verbal rewards.

Rimm-Kaufman (1996) compared the adjustment to kindergarten of inhibited (fearful) children with that of unin- hibited (outgoing) children. There was no gender difference in the adjustment for the inhibited children. However, for uninhibited children, there were surprisingly rapid changes that were different for boys than for girls. Observations of “circle time” over a 4-month period in 31 classes showed an increase in volunteering by uninhibited boys, but a dramatic decrease in talking and volunteering by uninhibited girls. Rimm-Kaufman also noted a difference in teachers’ atti- tudes when children “acted out.” For example, the teachers’ typical response to boys’ behavior was, “Boys will be boys”; but for girls, it was, “There must be something wrong with her” or “She’s immature” (and this was only kindergarten).

Siegle and Reis (1998) found that teachers con- cluded that female students worked harder and produced better-quality work; however, girls did not receive higher grades than boys. The teachers also concluded that their male and female students had similarly high abilities, except in language arts, where they rated the females higher. This represents progress in teacher expectations because earlier research had found that teachers believed that males had higher abilities in math and science. Despite the equal expectations of teachers, the gifted girls in the study did not rate themselves as high as did the boys in social studies, science, or math; however, the girls did rate themselves higher than the boys did in language arts. The researchers suggested that the teacher perceptions of greater effort by the girls caused the girls to assume that they had lesser abilities.

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) report How Schools Shortchange Girls (AAUW, 1992; McKay, 1994) focused on some critical disadvan- tages with which girls cope in public schools:

●● Girls receive less attention than boys do in the classroom.

●● African American girls get even less attention than other girls.

●● Sexual harassment of girls by boys is increasing. ●● Girls are included less in the subject matter of

textbooks.

302 Chapter 14

In a study of sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade girls, the attribution of success to hard work or luck persisted. None of the gifted females acknowledged their excellent abilities (Callahan et al., 1994). In a more recent study of over 4,000 gifted students in Grades 3 through 11, there were similar findings. Most boys at all grade levels attrib- uted their success to being smart, whereas most girls attrib- uted it to hard work (Assouline et al., 2006). Considering that these students were all identified as gifted, it’s difficult to understand why girls couldn’t credit their success to their abilities. Perhaps they’ve had too much instruction on being humble. The attribution of hard work to success may at least explain why girls now get better grades in school than boys. If they take pride in working hard, and if teach- ers recognize their capabilities, girls can succeed, and their hard work can pay off. On the other hand, later in life, when women are in highly competitive careers where they may face failures despite their hard work, the mindset of not crediting their abilities for their achievements could cause them to lose resilience. As mentioned earlier in this chapter (Heller & Ziegler, 1996; Ziegler & Heller, 2000), attribution can and should be taught so that girls can feel smart when they succeed. Connecting hard work to excel- lent ability is important. In Rimm’s clinical work, she reminds underachieving, gifted students (more boys than girls), “The harder you work, the smarter you become, and vice versa, the smarter you are, the harder you work.”

acHievement motivation Our third factor in gender underachievement is low achievement motivation. The need to achieve is a highly consistent personality trait that begins developing as early as the second grade (Atkinson, 1974; McClelland, 1976). Lower achievement motivation persists more for gifted young women compared with young men (York, 2008). A study of 92 valedictorians found females, compared with males, less likely to plan to major in mathematics, computer science, or engineering; more likely to major in the humanities and social sciences; but equally likely to major in science. More females were planning lower-paying careers and were also planning to attend less-selective colleges. The author of the study cau- tions counselors to be sensitive to the career and college counseling needs of females. They continue to require encouragement. Consider that most boys are raised with the belief that they will be breadwinners, while most girls are raised to believe they have choices.

Efforts to teach achievement motivation basically encourage the learner to think as achievement-oriented individuals do, that is, to (1) value success and achieve- ment, (2) accept moderate risks, (3) set realistic and achiev- able goals, and (4) feel confident that he or she can achieve these goals.

Sinai and Gallagher & DeLisi, as cited in Fox, Sadker, & Engle, 1999). In reviewing the research literature, Reis (1998b) found that gifted girls were less likely to lose con- fidence in their abilities if they were involved in gifted pro- grams and numerous extracurricular activities compared with gifted girls who were not in such programs.

Denny (cited in Callahan, 1991) studied self- perceptions of competence in a group of high school val- edictorians. At graduation, 23% of the males and 21% of the females rated themselves “far above average.” By the end of their sophomore year of college, that percentage decreased 1 point for males and 17 points for females— only 4% of the females continued to perceive themselves as highly competent.

Arnold (as cited in Fox et al., 1999), in a 15-year study of high school valedictorians, found that, although there were more female than male valedictorians, and those females surpassed the males on all measures of col- lege achievement, the female valedictorians lost confi- dence in their intelligence in college, and many of them lowered their career aspirations to traditional female career paths, voicing early concerns about the difficulties of com- bining career and family.

There was both good news and bad news in girls’ development, according to Rimm’s (2005) survey of middle-grade students. Comparing third-graders with eighth-graders, she found that higher percentages of eighth-grade girls considered themselves confident, lead- ers, independent, and risk takers, but lower percentages considered themselves happy, kind, bookworms, and smart. These characteristics varied in the same direction for boys; hence, they are undoubtedly a result of peer pres- sure for both genders. The percentages of eighth-grade girls and boys who considered themselves smart were very close, with girls higher—63% of the girls and 59% of the boys—both, though, less than the 71% of third-graders. Still, girls are making progress.

attriButional differences The lower confidence that females exhibit is ref lected in studies of the causal attributions they make. Studies of both children and adults report a similar gender-related tendency (Assouline, Colangelo, Ihrig, & Forstadt, 2006; Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994; Deaux, 1976; Frieze, 1975; Post, 1981). Females tend to attribute their successes to hard work or to luck but their failures to lack of ability. Males tend to follow the reverse attribution process, blaming others, bad luck, or their lack of effort for fail- ures but crediting their own high abilities for successes. Notice the date of the references. They span more than 30 years of research on this issue, and attributions con- tinue in similar directions.

Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 303

and competitive resilience. Provide opportunities for personal best competition (Rimm, 2003; Rimm et al., 2014).

5. Educate teachers, counselors at school, and parents at home about providing equal opportunities for girls and boys (Rimm, et al., 2014).

6. Encourage leadership opportunities for both girls and boys. Provide leadership training for those who are interested. See Chapter 11 in this textbook.

7. Counsel gifted students who may be perfectionists to accept the challenges of advanced classes and weight grades appropriately to encourage their taking risks for these advanced courses.

8. Provide separate girl and boy small-group counsel- ing to help students cope with topics such as gender issues, peer pressures, confidence building, coping with competition, sensitivity, perfectionism, anxiety, and other topics selected by students or recommended by counselors (Hébert, 2002; Rimm et al., 2014).

9. Provide opportunities for career role models and mentors to visit and speak to gifted students and arrange opportunities for shadowing and mentor- ships in high-level careers. Include mentors of both genders.

10. Fathers and mothers should be encouraged to inspire their daughters as well as their sons toward high- level courses. They should set expectations for careers regardless of gender. They should also place value on their own and their partner’s careers (Rimm et al., 2014).

11. Encourage opportunities for peer interaction with other gifted students in school and in summer pro- grams for gifted students.

12. Provide tutoring and encouragement to females in math and science and to males in language areas if they lack confidence in skills. Recognize the needs of the twice-exceptional student. Chapter 15 provides additional recommendations for students with learning disabilities. Consider that learning differences feel like disabilities to gifted children (Gilman et al., 2013).

13. Encourage involvement in extracurricular activities including sports, music, speech, debate, and drama. Teachers, coaches and counselors can be very effec- tive in recruiting hesitant students. Many successful adults credit their teachers for their involvement (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001; Rimm et al., 2014).

14. Single-gender schools and classes have been credited for building confidence in many academic areas (Riordan, 1990; Subotnik & Strauss, 1990;

We have seen throughout this chapter that cultural stereotypes, biases, and home and school expectations work to reduce female independence and aggressiveness and consequently women’s need for high-level academic and career achievement. Early achievement motivation leaders McClelland (1976) and Atkinson (1974) attribute needs for achievement to learning rather than to heredity and point to parental influence in childhood as the crucial factor. Educators and families continue to have much to accomplish if gifted girls are to be encouraged to work to their potential.

An interesting historical fact is that, in an 873-page compilation of research into achievement motivation con- ducted in the middle of the last century, only a single foot- note commented on achievement motivation research with women (Atkinson, 1958). Times have finally changed.

reversinG Gender-Based underacHievement

It is hoped that society will continue to improve in provid- ing a support system in which gifted men and women may develop their potential equally. Schools must take a leader- ship role, however, in fostering this equal development. Chapter 12 provided the TRIFOCAL model for reversing underachievement for gifted children and should be helpful for both girls and boys. Specific additional gender- oriented suggestions follow. Although some of the recom- mendations below are primarily targeted to either girls or boys, they are also applicable to both genders and are thus not separated by gender.

1. Provide books, films, and other media that encour- age girls to choose achieving careers. Biographies of successful men and women who persevere can be very effective (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001; Hebert, 2011; Rimm et al., 2014; Siegle, Rimm, & McCoach, B., 2013).

2. Encourage early spatially oriented activities, such as Legos®, mathematics, laboratory science, com- puter work, engineering, and puzzles for both girls and boys while brain growth is rapid. For boys, it will maintain intrinsic interest. For girls, it will encourage them to explore perceptual talents before female peer pressure intervenes (Lubinski, & Benbow, 1992; Winkler & Jolly, 2012; Rimm et al., 2014).

3. Encourage early printing, crafts and art for both boys and girls to avoid handwriting problems, which is especially a problem for boys (Rimm, 2008).

4. Encourage both collaborative and competitive activi- ties for girls and boys to teach both cooperative skills

304 Chapter 14

16. Devalue oversensitivity and avoidance. Gradually encourage fearful children to take small steps toward risk taking, resilience and confidence. Replace over- sensitivity with strategy and reason (Rimm, 2013).

17. Encourage engagement in interests. Replace the call for passions with realistic goals for career fulfillment and contribution. Temper emotions with reason (Rimm, 2014b).

Lee, 1995; Meyer, 2008; Rimm et al., 2014). In 1990, women graduating from women’s colleges earned $5,000 more than men and twice as much as women with traditional college degrees (Mann, 1994). Encourage some single-gender opportunities for students to foster building gender confidence.

15. Value reasonable sensitivity and kindness in both boys and girls (Hébert, 2011).

Summary

The title of Chapter 14 had been changed from the “Cultural Underachievement of Females” to “Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys” for this seventh edition and will relate to specific gender issues of both girls and boys. The edu- cation of gifted women has been largely ignored histori- cally. Some early inf luential educators publicly specified a nurturing domestic role for women. The mobilization of women scientists during World War II and the f lourishing of women scientists at the University of Bologna during the 18th century provide early proof of how important opportunity is for gifted women. The concept of a “disap- pearance of giftedness in girls” implies that gifted females excel in childhood but frequently underachieve as adults. Until the 1970s, women were drawn to female- dominated careers—teaching, nursing, social work, and homemaking.

In the workforce, women continue to be dramatically underrepresented in most traditionally male professions. Although women’s entry into “male careers” is improving in terms of numbers, the percentage of women at higher salaries and in the upper ranks in these fields is still low. As of 2011, only 2.6% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies were women. There are five times the percentage of males as females in professor ranks at medical schools and very few female deans or department chairs. The National Academy of Sciences is concerned about the pipeline that seems to be “leaking” women scientists as they continue into the workforce. Women continue to be underrepre- sented in education administration in elementary and sec- ondary schools, in college teaching, and in college administration.

Opportunities have gradually expanded for women in law and government. Whereas 31.9% of lawyers are women, only 19.2% have achieved partnership status. As of 2016, women held 19% of the seats in Congress. From an international leadership perspective, although women make up close to 14% of the 40,000 publicly elected offices, they lead 24 of the 192 nations around the world, still only 12.5% (Christensen, 2009).

Although the trends are mostly in a positive direc- tion, increases are slow and continue to document the underachievement of gifted women in most of the prestig- ious careers in our society.

Although bias in favor of men may be unconscious, it continues. Whether raters evaluate college essays, job applications, grant applications, portfolios, or tenure reviews, identical materials receive higher ratings if a male rather than a female name is attached to the materials. Alas, even in gifted education, educators are biased against girls and identify fewer girls for gifted programs. Educa- tors must prepare girls to recognize that pioneering and resilience continue to be required, but it is at least equally critical to encourage young women to fulfill their aspirations!

Although women have disadvantages in lifetime careers, boys seem to have more than their share of disad- vantages in childhood. Boys are now falling behind in every state and at every school level. Girls are stronger in verbal and communication abilities. Boys are more likely to have learning disabilities and disruptive behaviors in class. The issues of manliness and machismo are important for boys. The issue of violence must be dealt with for gifted boys who have a history of isolation and being taunted. The needs of gifted children who feel isolated should be addressed by counselors in schools.

Career differences between successful males and females can be analyzed with two models: The deficit model, based on exclusion, and the differences model, based on deeply ingrained differences in behavior, outlook, and goals.

Sociocultural differences in the treatment of the sexes begin almost at birth. Differences exist in room deco- rations and toys and in stereotyped characteristics—for example, as reflected in Bem’s Sex-Role Inventory. Text- books, literature, and the media, especially television, rein- force gender-role stereotypes and sexualization of females.

The most heated debate centers on math ability. Until recently, considerable research pointed to differences in

Gifted Girls, Gifted Boys 305

math achievement beginning in adolescence. In fact, some studies concluded that male and female math abilities are about equal in childhood. Cramer and Oshima blame girls’ lesser achievement on girls seeing success in math as con- tradictory to peers’ expectations of their roles. Almost all earlier studies found that the math difference seemed to widen over the school years, becoming quite prominent by middle school or junior high school.

Spelke concludes that math SAT scores are poor pre- dictors of math performance for females because, whereas males continue to outscore females on the SAT, girls and boys now take equally difficult math courses in high school and girls get better grades. About half of the math degrees from U.S. colleges are earned by females, and female graduates earn grades equal to male graduates. Equal num- bers of males and females now earn Ph.D.s in math. Females are indeed catching up. Because equal numbers of males and females do not continue in mathematics careers, Spelke concludes that we must look beyond cognitive abil- ities to societal reasons for women not remaining in math- related careers.

Counterarguments propose that the math differences may be due to (1) cultural stereotypes, (2) boys’ identifica- tion with their fathers, (3) different types of toys, (4) teacher and parent expectations, and (5) lack of school support. The issue is important because a lack of mathe- matical training permanently closes the doors to high- status and well-paying male-dominated careers.

Family, school, and peer expectations can encourage or discourage a strong achievement orientation in girls and boys. Boys continue to be expected mainly to be breadwin- ners; girls, at least now have choices. They can lead to low

or high aspirations that in turn result, respectively, in either underachievement or lifetime achievement.

High education and career achievements are related to family expectations. Identification with the mother, especially a career mother, appears important. Fathers’ expectations of their daughters also inf luence achieve- ment. Research shows that creative women mathemati- cians tend to identify with their fathers. Traits of independence and self-esteem may be learned from fathers as well as mothers. Career modeling by mothers is an important motivation for girls. High expectations by both parents appear to have the greatest positive effect on both males and females.

Peer attitudes and expectations often affect both males and females. Girls risk being considered “unfemi- nine,” and boys risk being considered “unusual.”

Female aspirations and achievement orientations surely are changing. This change includes altered self-per- ceptions and self-expectations. If gifted females are also to develop their talents and make their contributions to soci- ety, they must acquire confidence and strong achievement needs, and they must make plans for a sound education.

Research suggests four important factors that seem to be linked to lower self-expectations and aspirations of females: (1) a lower sense of competence, (2) a tendency to attribute failures to oneself and successes to external fac- tors, (3) lower achievement motivation, and (4) the “fear of success” syndrome mentioned in the chapter. These factors are undoubtedly interrelated and together decrease the like- lihood of gifted women aspiring to challenging professions.

Recommendations for reversing grade-based under- achievement are summarized in the chapter for educators.

306

15 C H A P T E R

Gifted Children with Disabilities

Learning OutcOmes

1. Describe the needs of gifted students with disabilities.

2. Explain the challenges of identifying gifted students with disabilities.

3. Recommend critical ingredients of programs for gifted children with disabilities.

4. Propose strategies to reduce communication limitations among stakeholders.

5. Design ways to foster self-concept development.

6. Explain the importance of incorporating high-level abstract thinking skills for gifted children with disabilities.

7. Summarize the issues parents face in dealing with giftedness and disabilities at the same time.

T ypically, and unfortunately, gifted children with disabilities are recognized only for their disabilities, not for their gifts and talents. Their special needs stemming from their disabilities are provided for by mandated pro- grams in special classes and special schools funded by state and federal governments. Because most disabling

conditions do not preclude or prevent giftedness, it is logical to expect approximately the same percentage of gifted and talented (G/T) students among students with disabilities as in the general population. However, labeling the child as having a disability, plus attending to the priority needs of the disabling condition, often obscures the creative, artis- tic, intellectual, or scientific talents of the child (Zirkel, 2004). The children are thus much less likely than nondisabled gifted children to be identified as gifted and to be included in school programs that help develop their special talents.

This chapter will explore the needs and problems of children with disabilities, their identification, and some programming ideas directed toward accommodating those needs.

Needs of Gifted studeNts with disabilities

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015) reports that 6.4 million children were served by special education programs during the 2012–2013 school year. The number of children served annually has increased by approximately 3 million since 1976–1977, the first year such data were reported by OSEP. The area of largest increase was in children classified as having specific learning disabilities (SLDs). The number of children in most other categories actually declined. Students classified with SLDs make up 35% of students enrolled in special educational services.

Gifted Children with Disabilities 307

The gifted disabled are individuals with exceptional ability or potential who are capable of high performance despite disabilities such as hearing, speech, vision, ortho- pedic, or emotional impairments; learning disabilities; or other health problems, either singly or in combination (U.S. Congress, 1975; Yewchuk & Lupart, 1993). They are often referred to as twice-exceptional (2e) children.

Until the 1970s, it was assumed that giftedness and disability were mutually exclusive categories (Grimm, 1998). A 1989 study in Texas found 91% of the school dis- tricts had not identified learning-disability students for gifted programming. In 1995, Grimm conducted a similar study in Minnesota and found 81% of the school programs to be serving disabilities within their gifted programs. Either there was progress or there are great differences among states.

Legislation clearly states that children with disabilities must be served. However, the disabled gifted child may be omitted from special services (the special education class, a reading teacher, psychological services, Individualized Edu- cation Programs [IEPs]) if he or she is functioning reasona- bly well within the regular classroom. This means that an intellectually gifted child who performs at grade level, but whose achievement nonetheless is depressed by his or her disability, would not necessarily be provided with any spe- cial services because his or her performance is equivalent to that of average classmates. To the extent that the special ser- vices would individualize evaluation and instruction, help the gifted child remediate academic weaknesses, help the child compensate for the disabling condition, and/or develop individual talents, such special attention is lost.

Zirkel (2004) found that case law related to dual exceptionalities typically has favored the defendant school districts. In most cases, the court decisions have not recog- nized that a gifted child has masked her exceptionality. Here is an example of a case where neither giftedness nor disability was served:

Victoria is a sixth-grader whose WISC-IV full scale IQ score was measured at 132. Her Verbal

Comprehension Index score was 138. Her read- ing and math achievement test scores were approximately at grade level or in the 50th–70th percentile range. The school refused to include her in either gifted or learning disabilities programs. They viewed her as an average stu- dent whose parents were requesting unneces- sary services. Middle-grade peer pressure served to support her social comfort as an aver- age student, but future opportunities will be lost and her parents are aware of that potential loss. They have been advocates, but prefer not to take their case to court for fear of causing harm to their daughter. (Zirkel, 2004, pp. 309–314)

Bireley (1991) noted that children with low- incidence disabilities such as hearing or visual impairment usually are taught by trained specialists. The specialists’ inexperience with gifted children may cause them to focus more on the impairment, thus making it less likely that they will identify the giftedness. Peterson (1993) found that gifted people who are deaf don’t seem to be comfort- able with the “gifted” label.

Several studies have shown that mainstreamed children with disabilities, particularly emotional distur- bances, frequently are not accepted by peers in the regular classroom (e.g., Heward & Orlansky, 1992; Yewchuk & Lupart, 1993). Generally, the greater the severity of the problem, the greater the degree of social rejection.

A National Commission on Twice-Exceptional Children was convened for the purpose of adopting a research-based definition of twice-exceptionality (Reis, Baum & Burke, 2014). Box 15.1 includes this complex definition. The authors indicate that it is intentionally broad in scope in order to improve identification and ser- vices for those students.

An example of a low-incidence disability is autism (Cash, 1999). The unique overlap between giftedness and autism shows itself in unusual talents among some

Box 15.1

Operational Definition of Twice-Exceptional Students

Twice-exceptional learners are students who demonstrate the potential for high achievement or creative productivity in one or more domains such as math; science; technology; the social arts; the visual, spatial, or performing arts or other areas of human productivity AND who manifest one or more disabilities, as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria.

These disabilities include specific learning disabilities; speech and language disorders; emotional/behavioral disorders; physical disabilities; autism spectrum disorders (ASDs); or other health impairments, such as attention deficit hyperac- tivity disorder (ADHD). These disabilities and high abilities combine to produce a unique population of students who

(continued )

308 Chapter 15

autistic persons. For example, Temple Grandin, who is autistic, was diagnosed as deaf and brain-damaged at age 2 but tested with an IQ of 137 at age 8. As an adult who earned her Ph.D. at age 42, she continues to struggle with social behaviors. She has made unique contributions, including dozens of papers and books on both autism and animal science, and has designed equipment including the “human squeeze machine” to relieve tension. In an inter- view in which she referred to autistic characteristics that Einstein showed, Grandin commented, “You wonder why there are no Einsteins today? It’s probably because they flunked their GREs” (Baldwin & Vialle, 1999, p. 222).

Researchers have discovered more and more autistic persons (Rimland, 1995; Donnelly & Altman, 1994) who are indeed gifted and talented, and also have noted eminent indi- viduals who have autistic traits (Grandin, 1995; Donnelly & Altman, 1994). In addition to Albert Einstein, included in the celebrated list of eminence with autistic characteristics are Bill Gates, Bobby Fischer, Howard Hughes, Sir Isaac Newton, and Vincent Van Gogh. Their extreme ability to concentrate, their poor social skills, and their extraordinary visual talents are characteristic of autism. Nevertheless, they are known for their gifted contributions, not their autism.

Asperger’s syndrome (AS), sometimes referred to as high-functioning autism, is a disability sometimes diagnosed or misdiagnosed for gifted children. Indeed, the classic gifted “nerd” has qualities that resemble, at least to a small degree, an AS child. Thus, gifted children who are not particularly social and become intensely engaged in a single interest are easily misdiagnosed. According to the Diagnostic and Sta- tistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM- IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 80), diagnosis must include “severe and sustained impairment in social interaction . . . the development of restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities . . . and the

disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment . . . in important areas of functioning.” Because every teacher knows some gifted students that resemble this description, and “significant impairment” is a matter of degree, one can easily see that AS can be overdiagnosed (Webb et al., 2005). Whether the social-skills impairment qualifies as significant or not, children do benefit from learning reasonable social skills, which are clearly more difficult to learn for some chil- dren than others. Nevertheless, it is better not to label a gifted child quickly as having a disorder because he or she has a more reserved and less social personality type.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; (2013) made the controversial decision to exclude AS as a disorder. Their rationale was that there was too much overlap between AS and high-functioning autism (HFA). HFA refers to autism without any intellectual disability. AS continues to be a classification in the World Health Organization’s Interna- tional Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, 10th Edition (ICD-10).

Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, and Stinson (2012) researched the differences between gifted students diagnosed with AS compared to those diagnosed with HFA and found significant differences. Those with AS had significantly higher Verbal Comprehension Index scores than those diag- nosed as autistic. Those diagnosed with autism had higher scores on tests of math fluency and written expression. Unfor- tunately, their findings did not have an impact on the DSM-5.

On the bright side, for Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) in schools, the DSM-5 is often used. The advantage for the change in classification from AS to HFA is that autism classification is allowed federal funds for a student’s IEP. It is hoped that the additional funding that comes with the new diagnosis will allow for better school opportunities for these children.

may fail to demonstrate either high academic perfor- mance or specific disabilities. Their gifts may mask their disabilities, and their disabilities may mask their gifts.

Identification of twice-exceptional students requires comprehensive assessment in both the areas of giftedness and disabilities because one does not preclude the other. Identification, when possible, should be conducted by professionals from both disciplines and, when at all possi- ble, by those with knowledge about twice-exceptionality in order to address the impact of co-incidence/ co- morbidity of both areas on diagnostic assessments and eligibility requirements for services.

Educational services must identify and serve both the high achievement potential and the academic and social- emotional deficits of this population of students. Twice- exceptional students require differentiated instruction,

curricular and instructional accommodations and/or modi- fications, direct services, specialized instruction, accelera- tion options, and opportunities for talent development that incorporate the effects of their dual diagnosis.

Twice-exceptional students require an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or a 504 accommodation plan with goals and strategies that enable them to achieve at a level and rate commensurate with their abilities. This comprehen- sive education plan must include talent development goals, as well as compensation skills and strategies to address their disabilities and their social and emotional needs.

Source: From “An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and Applications.” by S. M. Reis, S. M. Baum, & E. Burke. Published by “National Association for Gifted Children” © 2014.

Gifted Children with Disabilities 309

not only extended special educational services to three- to five-year-olds but also assisted states in implementing intervention services for handicapped infants and toddlers. For the first time, the service recipient was defined as the family in addition to the child, and an Individualized Fam- ily Service Plan (IFSP) was required. Yell and Espin (1990) believe that the U.S. Congress passed the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act (HCPA) of 1986 (P.L. 99–372) in response to court rulings that seemed to undercut par- ents’ opportunities to dispute school decisions. This law allows parents to take legal action when they feel that their children are not receiving an appropriate education, but as noted earlier by Zirkel’s (2004) research, few parents of gifted children have prevailed in court cases.

In 2004, another change was made in IDEA that has made the task of serving 2e children much more difficult (Gillman, Foley-Nicpon, Rimm, & Amend, 2013). This change now allows schools to use Response to Intervention (RtI) instead of comprehensive assessment to determine if a child qualifies for special education. If interventions suc- ceed in bringing children to grade level, it is typically assumed that no special interventions are necessary. Gifted children’s performance at grade level is not working to their potential and if comprehensive assessment is delayed, it is likely that both school performance and IQ scores will decline. Educators, parents, and even students themselves will no longer view themselves as capable of furthering their education and fulfilling their potential. More will be discussed about this topic in the identification section of this chapter. See also Box 15.2 for excerpts of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) position paper, “Ensuring Gifted Children with Disabilities Receive Appro- priate Services: The Call for Comprehensive Assessment.”

Baum and Owen (1988) found gifted students with learning disabilities (LDs) to be the most disruptive in class. These students felt less effective in school compared with other gifted students and even with average LD stu- dents. A study by Vespi and Yewchuk (1992) found that gifted LD children had good self-esteem despite their learning difficulties. The children were eager to talk about their strengths, and their parents and teachers confirmed their healthy self-concepts. However, the children assumed that learning tasks would be easy for them and were not prepared for the difficulty of learning activities in an area of disability (e.g., language). Their frustration, tension, and fear of failure led to defensiveness.

Swesson (1994) pointed out that the identification of a disability immediately leads teachers to the lowering of expectations for the student almost regardless of the stu- dent’s giftedness. The students tend to react to these lowered expectations with genuine feelings of inadequacy. Making things worse, Birely (1991) reminds us that the higher goals of gifted students may be especially and frustratingly diffi- cult to achieve when the student has a disability.

Reports of success came from a strengths-based, talent-focused approach to 2e middle school students in a private school. Researchers identified five factors that con- tributed to students’ successful growth and development: (1) psychological safety; (2) tolerance for asynchrony; (3) time; (4) positive relationships; and (5) the consistent use of a strengths-based, talent-focused philosophy (Baum, Schader, & Hebert, 2014). More effective practices come later in this chapter.

The 1986 Amendments to the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 99–457; renamed in 1990 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA])

Box 15.2

Excerpts from NAGC Position Statement Entitled “Ensuring Gifted Children with Disabilities Receive Appropriate Services: Call for Comprehensive Assessment”

Like all other students with disabilities in America’s schools, gifted students with co-existing disabilities—the Twice- Exceptional (2e)—have the right to a free, appropriate, public education. However, due to challenges inherent in accurately evaluating a student’s learning strengths and weaknesses, and special education identification processes that focus on below-grade-level achievement, many 2e students are going unidentified. NAGC recommends five strategies that will increase the probability that gifted students with disabilities are identified and that their advanced abilities and disabilities are simultaneously addressed and supported.

For many gifted students with a disability, overlap- ping exceptionalities may render them invisible as either gifted or as students with learning disabilities. Research has shown that gifted students with disabilities that significantly impact learning present diagnostic challenges and are best identified through . . . a combination of standardized assessments of intellectual potential, achievement, and areas of suspected disability [that] can provide sufficient data to correctly diagnose and identify many twice- exceptional students for special education services and for gifted education programs and services.

(continued )

310 Chapter 15

some learning disabilities have the effect of slowing devel- opment and may result in deceptively lower IQ scores. Children who are blind and deaf tend to be more concrete in their thinking because of their sensory deficits, which will hardly help the abstract reasoning necessary for a high IQ score. Children with dyslexia will certainly suffer on verbal components of an intelligence test, although Gilman, Foley-Nicpon, Rimm, and Amend (2013) sug- gested that some of these children may have much higher than normal spatial-oriented giftedness. Other disabilities (for example, emotional disturbance or social maladjust- ments, orthopedic or health impairments, and speech or language impairments) can also interfere with obtaining an accurate high score on an intelligence test.

In some cases, then, the intelligence test—the most commonly used instrument for identifying gifted children— may add a handicap to the discovery of giftedness among already disabled children. As cited in the earlier case of Victoria, the intelligence test provided the only insight into her giftedness other than her parents’ observations.

The combination of giftedness and disability can deliver a double disadvantage. The disabilities of such stu- dents may hide their giftedness, causing them not to be identified for gifted programs. Their high intellectual abili- ties may mask their disabilities, causing them to be over- looked for special education programs (Moon, 2004; Neihart, 2003; Olenchak & Reis, 2001). A dramatic exam- ple of overlooking gifted students who are learning

Clearly, we are dramatically underserving a segment of the population that has high potential for personal devel- opment and achievement and for making high-quality con- tributions to society. Among outstanding creative individuals who have disabilities, Karnes, Shwedel, and Lewis (1983) listed Ludwig van Beethoven, Thomas Edison, Helen Keller, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. We might add the names of musicians George Shearing, José Feliciano, Stevie Wonder, and Ray Charles, all blind indi- viduals; violinist Itzhak Perlman, crippled by polio; and Hollywood personality Jack Paar, former Tonight Show host, who stuttered. Unlike most gifted persons with disa- bilities, these people are noted for their gifts and talents, not their disabilities.

In sum, gifted children with disabilities continue to be ignored, programs for them are lacking, and their prob- lems are compounded by sometimes severe social prob- lems and rock-bottom feelings of self-worth and personal integrity. As Baldwin and Vialle (1999) emphasized, it is indeed time to lift the mask.

ideNtificatioN

Identifying gifted children with disabilities usually is diffi- cult. A major problem is that their gifts typically remain invisible to teachers and sometimes even to parents. The disability itself may obscure the expression of the special gifts and talents. For example, blindness, deafness, and

. . . [G]iftedness may also remain hidden without compre- hensive assessment due to the “masking” effects of con- comitant exceptionalities (McKenzie, 2010), which can reduce achievement and increase the likelihood that the students will be denied access to gifted programs. In essence, gifted students with disabilities may appear “not impaired enough” for disability-related services if they perform at grade level and “not gifted enough” to receive gifted education services.

In order to improve identification processes that enable 2e students to be recognized and served as having both gifts and talents and disability(ies), NAGC recom- mends the following:

1. Provide comprehensive assessment whenever a disa- bility or second exceptionality is suspected in a gifted child or when students identified with a disability show signs of advanced reasoning, creativity, or problem solving. Utilize comprehensive assessment by qualified school personnel such as school psychol- ogists for diagnosis, eligibility determinations, and to guide interventions and accommodations.

2. Ensure that parents who report concerns of under- performance in a bright child are informed of the

student’s rights concerning comprehensive assess- ment and the process to request it.

3. Adapt Response to Intervention to ensure that screening identifies all potential twice-exceptional children. In addition to using below-grade-level performance, look for students whose perfor- mance is discrepant across major academic areas, highly variable across academic tasks, or whose school performance, as reported by parents, differs greatly from outside of school learning and achievement. Refer these children for further assessment.

4. Include gifted education specialists in planning RtI interventions that may involve gifted or 2e students.

5. Provide training for teachers and other school pro- fessionals on the nature of and performance pat- terns of twice-exceptional students to improve identification and raise academic expectations.

Source: From “Ensuring Gifted Children with Disabilities Receive Appropriate Services: Call for Comprehensive Assessment”. Pub- lished by “National Association for Gifted Children” © 2013.

Gifted Children with Disabilities 311

suggested that other tests, which are specifically designed and normed for children with disabilities, may be more appropriate. Examples of such instruments are the Leiter International Performance Scale–Revised (Leiter-R), which can be used for children who are deaf, are hearing impaired, and have speech or language difficulties; the Blind Learning Aptitude Test (Newland, 1969); the Pictorial Test of Intelligence–2 (PIT-2), which can be used for children with motor disabilities; and the Perkins-Binet Tests of Intelli- gence for the Blind, with one version for children with some usable vision and the other for children with nonusable vision. Other tests for children with handicapping conditions are described by Bauman and Kropf (1979), Salter and Tozier (1971), and Sullivan and Vernon (1979). Notice that the tests for students who are handicapped date back to the 1960s and 1970s. Revisions of these tests are rare.

In observing possibly gifted children with disabili- ties, one would, of course, watch for the types of character- istics and behaviors described in Chapter 2, along with an additional interesting one. Eisenberg and Epstein described their gifted children with disabilities as being able to “understand faster, ask questions, zip through math—and they are terribly disruptive.” With “normal” gifted students, disruptiveness is a trait that sometimes appears because the child is bored or frustrated in school. Because frustration and stress can be everyday matters for gifted students with disabilities, it is not surprising that disruptiveness can be a good indicator of giftedness in these children. Of course, disruptiveness alone should never be the only indicator.

disabled (LD) comes to us from two surveys conducted in Texas (Boodoo et al., 1989). Of the 180 responses by spe- cial education centers, 91% reported no gifted LD chil- dren. There were 143 responses from gifted and talented programs, and 77% of these reported no gifted LD children in their programs. A later survey of 388 gifted coordinators in Texas found that only 75 school districts reported the selection of gifted children with learning disabilities for gifted programming (Tallent-Runnels & Sigler, 1995). Minner (1990) discovered that when teachers studied near- identical vignettes of children, they were less likely to identify for gifted programming those students who were also described as having a learning disability. Two dra- matic examples of disabilities obscuring giftedness are given in Box 15.3, which describes Daniel and Kevin.

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales are the most fre- quently used intelligence tests and can be used in modified form for children with disabilities. Verbal Comprehension and Working Memory Indices can be used for blind children. Working Memory is often a strength for blind children, who use their auditory processing skills to compensate for their lack of sight. Perceptual Reasoning and Processing Speed Indices can be used for deaf children, but no Full Scale IQ can be calculated for either handicap. Other nonverbal tests such as the Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test (Naglieri, 2005), the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (Bracken & McCallum, 1998), or the Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test can also be used with deaf children, provided that instruc- tions are given in writing or sign language. Brown (1984)

Box 15.3

Examples of Disabilities Obscuring Giftedness

daniel: Gifted and adhd At age five, Daniel was having dramatic behavior problems in kindergarten. Impulsivity and even aggressive behaviors dominated his day and prevented both learning and social adjustment. He was diagnosed with severe ADHD ( hyperactive-impulsive type) and, after behavioral interven- tions were not successful, he was medicated using Concerta. Daniel’s learning and social behaviors changed dramatically, as did his Wechsler IQ score. His first testing full-scale IQ score was 105. By Grade 3, his reevaluation yielded a full scale score of 150. His behavior problems were entirely gone, and Daniel’s giftedness was fully recognized with differentiated curriculum far above grade level and math acceleration three years beyond grade level.

Kevin: Gifted and blind Kevin, a 9-year-old fourth-grader, was totally blind. He was a very good looking child and was small for his age.

His disability and his young appearance invited adults to “take care of him” and to do much more for him than was appropriate. Kevin’s initial evaluation indicated his Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Revised (WISC-R) verbal IQ score to be 109. It had been recommended that he repeat fourth grade. One year after the initial evaluation, and after the dependency patterns were changed and the skills gaps were closed by tutoring, Kevin’s IQ—as tested by the same unbiased tester, who had no knowledge of the treatment program—was 141. Kevin appeared to everyone to be a very bright child, but his dependent, underachieving behavior related to his blindness had a major impact on lowering his ability scores and on the initial nonidentifica- tion of his giftedness.

312 Chapter 15

of Finding Creative Talent (GIFT; Rimm, 1976), and Group Inventory for Finding Interests (GIFFI; Davis & Rimm, 1980, 1982) creativity inventories have been specifically validated for use with children with learning disabilities and also should be usable with students with other disabilities.

LaFrance (1995) recommended the use of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Figural Form B, for identifying gifted children with learning disabilities, according to her identification research with 90 students. In comparing gifted, gifted with learning disabilities, and regular groups with learning disabilities (30 students in each group), she found that the gifted students with learn- ing disabilities exhibited humor, emotion, richness of imagery, and cognition that separated them from the less talented group of students.

Children with cerebral palsy who are not able to communicate with speech are not likely to be identified for gifted programming. However, the dramatic work of Willard-Holt (1994) should remind teachers that even children with such extreme disabilities can thrive in gifted programs. Jan was identified for gifted program- ming at age 6, and Brad elected to participate in the research study at age 14. Data were collected over a three-year period. The researcher concluded that these students exhibited the following characteristics of gifted- ness: advanced academic abilities, a broad base of knowl- edge, quickness of learning and recall, a sophisticated sense of humor, curiosity, insight, maturity, desire for independence, and the use of intellectual skills to cope with their disabilities.

Right to comprehensive assessment and services

As we pointed out earlier in this chapter, since the 2006 changes to IDEA, Response to Intervention (RTI) has replaced comprehensive assessment as a first and often only approach to serving gifted children with disabilities. Grade-level performance has become the acceptable level of performance for gifted children in many states and school districts. Educators and parents should be made aware of the importance of the need for comprehensive evaluations for twice-exceptional (2e) children. In addition to the definition provided by Reis et al. (2014) in Box 15.1, educators and parents can bring to the school’s attention the following important papers recommending compre- hensive assessment:

Gilman , B. J., et al. (2013). Critical issues and the interpretation of gifted students with co-existing disabilities. SAGE Open. doi: 10.1177/2158244013505855.

Especially good indicators of giftedness from the Renzulli Learning scale were the following:

●● Possesses a large storehouse of information about a variety of topics.

●● Has rapid insight into cause-and-effect relationships, tries to discover the how and why of things, asks pro- vocative questions, wants to know what makes things (or people) “tick.”

●● Is a keen and alert observer, usually “sees more” or “gets more” out of a story, film, and so on, than others.

Especially good items from the Motivation scale were the following:

●● Becomes absorbed and truly involved in certain topics or problems, is persistent in seeking task completion.

●● Prefers to work independently, requires little direc- tion from teachers.

Eisenberg and Epstein also found peer nominations and self-nominations to be valuable—more valuable, in fact, than teacher nominations. The peers knew who were bright, were creative, and learned quickly. Many students with disabilities nominated themselves as gifted or tal- ented, and 9 out of 10 were right!

Johnson, Karnes, and Carr (1997) described a parent checklist and a teacher checklist designed especially for identifying gifted youngsters with disabilities. Both instru- ments focus on the six areas of the 1972 federal definition: intellectual ability, specific academic talent (with scales for reading, math, and science), creativity, leadership, visual and performing arts (with scales for art and music), and psychomotor abilities. Scores on the two checklists are combined and tabulated on a talent identification summary. Decisions regarding talent are made by teams consisting of parents, teachers, and ancillary staff. Following Renzulli, Johnson, Karnes, and Carr assumed that 10% to 20% of any class is potentially gifted. In their words, “A ‘wide net’ approach is used to make sure that potentially gifted disa- bled children are not overlooked” (1997, p. 522).

To help in the identification of gifted children with disabilities, Maker (1977) recommended that (1) disabled students should be compared with others who have the same disability, and (2) characteristics that enable the child to compensate effectively for his or her disability should be weighted more heavily. For example, if an orthopedically impaired student cannot write, his compensating verbal and cognitive abilities should receive more weight; if a stu- dent cannot speak, his written, artistic, and creative talents should be examined.

As for creativity, the Renzulli Creativity Scale men- tioned earlier is very useful. The Preschool and Kindergarten Interest Descriptor (PRIDE; Rimm, 1982), Group Inventory

Gifted Children with Disabilities 313

Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000; Tallent-Runnels & Sigler, 1995; Gilman et. al., 2014; Reis et al., 2014). They may function at or below grade level and may exhibit deficits in cognitive ability, including long- or short-term memory problems, visual or auditory processing weaknesses, and/ or visual–motor integration problems (Suter & Wolf, 1987). Processing speed problems related to handwriting are very common, especially for boys (Rimm, 2008c). Nonverbal disabilities, which lead to problems with math, are also common (Rimm, 2008c). Cognitive areas of gift- edness found among many learning-disabled children are good problem-solving skills, abstract thinking abilities, and excellent oral communication skills (Daniels, 1983; Hadary, Cohen, & Haushalter, 1979; Whitmore, 1980). Behavior problems, poor self-concepts, and dependent behaviors complicate the identification of both the gifted- ness and the learning disability.

Rimm (2008c) pointed out that sometimes children who are labeled as “learning disabled” in school actually are dependent underachievers. Table 15.1 includes charac- teristics that may help separate children with learning dis- abilities from those who are underachieving. Separating the two categories for the purpose of differential treatment is important.

Bade, J. M. (2015). 2e and IDEA: The right to assessment and services. 2e Newsletter.

Peters, D. B. (2015). Smart shaming: Sorry but your child is too bright to qualify for help. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost. com/daniel-b-peters-phd/sorry-but-your-child- is-t_b_7223364.html

Box 15.4 includes a letter written by Dr. Melody Musgrove, director of the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education, to Dr. Jim Delisle. Dr. Musgrove sent copies of this letter to all state directors of special education to remind them of the importance of the broader requirements of IDEA for gifted students with disabilities. Despite the wide circula- tion of this information, many school districts continue to delay and even avoid comprehensive evaluations for 2e children.

identification of Gifted children with learning disabilities

As is true of children with other handicaps, gifted children with learning disabilities are also often overlooked by typical G/T program selection procedures (e.g., Brody & Mills, 1997;

Box 15.4

Musgrove’s Letter to Delisle and to State Directors of Special Education About Children With Disabilities and With High Cognition

To: State Directors of Special Education

From: Melody Musgrove, Ed.D.

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

Subject: Letter to Delisle: Children with disabilities with high cognition

I am writing to draw your attention to the Office of Spe- cial Education Programs’ (OSEP) December 20, 2013, let- ter to Dr. Jim Delisle (Letter to Delisle) regarding determining eligibility for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for children with disabilities with high cogni- tion; students who Dr. Delisle terms “twice exceptional students” or “2E students.” Letter to Delisle pointedly addresses children with high cognition who may be eligi- ble for special education and related services as a student with a specific learning disability, but also cites . . . the broader requirements in 34 CFR §300.304(b)(1) and (2) that state, in part:

. . . in determining whether a child has a disa- bility . . . the IDEA requires the use of a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather rel- evant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, and prohibits the use of any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child.

In spite of the guidance provided in Letter to Delisle, we continue to receive letters from those who work with children with disabilities with high cognition, particularly those with emotional disturbance or mental illness, express- ing concern that some local educational agencies (LEAs) are hesitant to conduct initial evaluations to determine eligibil- ity for special education and related services for children with high cognition.

Source: United States Department of Education.

314 Chapter 15

(Lutey, 1977) and significant discrepancies between Verbal and Perceptual or Performance scores (Kaufman, 1976a, 1976b, 1979a, 1979b; Wees, 1993) are often used to identify a learning disability. Whereas the average Verbal- Performance discrepancy is 9.7 IQ points, Schiff, Kaufman, and Kaufman (1981) found an average Verbal- Performance discrepancy of 18.6 points for a gifted learn- ing-disabled group. A full 87% showed a higher Verbal than Performance score, although in Wees’s Canadian pro- gram, all but two students had higher Performance scores, several as many as 20 points higher.

Dole (2000) noted that, although more boys than girls are identified as learning disabled, there is a greater risk factor for girls. Research (Lyon, Alexander, & Yaffe, 1997; Shaywitz et al., 1997) shows that girls have as many learning disabilities as boys, but they are identified later because they show fewer behavioral problems. Later iden- tification of learning disabilities decreases the opportunity for improvement in those difficulties (Lyon et al., 1997).

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales are frequently used for the identification of children with learning disabilities. The “scatter,” or differences, between subtest scores

table 15.1 Ways to Discriminate Between Dependence and Disability

Dependence Disability

1. Child asks for explanations regularly despite differences in subject matter.

1. Child asks for explanations in particular subjects that are difficult.

2. Child asks for explanation of instructions regardless of style, either auditory or visual, used.

2. Child asks for explanations of instructions only when given in one instruction style, either auditory or visual but not both.

3. Child’s questions are not specific to material but appear to be mainly to gain adult attention.

3. Child’s questions are specific to material and once pro- cess is explained, child works efficiently.

4. Child is disorganized or slow in assignments but becomes much more efficient when a meaningful reward is presented as motivation.

4. Child’s disorganization or slow pace continues despite motivating rewards.

5. Child works only when an adult is nearby at school and/or at home.

5. Child works independently once process is clearly explained.

6. Individually administered measures of ability indicate that the child is capable of learning the material. Individual tests improve with tester encouragement and support. Group measures may not indicate good abilities or skills.

6. Both individual and group measures indicate lack of spe- cific abilities or skills. Tester encouragement has no signif- icant effect on scores.

7. Child exhibits “poor me” body language (tears, helpless- ness, pouting, copying) regularly when new work is presented. Teacher or adult attention serves to ease the symptoms.

7. Child exhibits “poor me” body language only with instructions or assignments in specific disability areas and accepts challenges in areas of strength.

8. Parents report whining, complaining, attention getting, temper tantrums, and poor sportsmanship at home.

8. Although parents may find similar symptoms at home, they tend to be more sporadic than regular, particularly the whining and complaining.

9. Child’s “poor me” behavior appears only with one par- ent and not with the other, only with some teachers and not with others. With some teachers or with the other parent, the child functions fairly well independently.

9. Although the child’s “poor me” behaviors may appear only with one parent or with solicitous teachers, perfor- mance is not adequate even when behavior is acceptable.

10. Child learns only when given one-to-one instruction but will not learn in groups, even when instructional mode is varied.

10. Although child may learn more quickly in a one-to-one setting, he or she will also learn efficiently in a group setting provided the child’s disability is taken into consideration when instructions are given.

Some children who are truly disabled have also become dependent. The key to distinguishing between disability and dependence is the child’s response to adult support. If the children perform only with adult support when new material is presented, they are too dependent whether or not there is also a disability.

Source: From “Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults” by James T. Webb, Edward R. Amend, Nadia E. Webb. Published by “Great Potential Press” © 2005.

Gifted Children with Disabilities 315

A great deal of research has been conducted to understand attention disorders. Although findings are sug- gestive of possible neurochemical imbalances, even the best-known specialists admit that “definitive empirical support has been lacking” (Anastopoulos & Barkley, 1991, p. 16). Zametkin (1991) explained that, even after two dec- ades of an extensive search for biochemical markers for ADHD, findings were disappointing. He also indicated that it may be a long time before an underlying cause of the disorder is found, and he recognized that interacting bio- logical and psychosocial variables may cause ADHD. Breggin (1991) asserted that “the idea that Ritalin or other stimulants correct biochemical imbalances in the brain of hyperactive children . . . is false on two counts.” First, there is no known biochemical imbalance in these children, and second, it generally is accepted that Ritalin has the same calming effect on normal children regardless of diagnosis or behavior (Anastopoulos & Barkley, 1991, p. 16).

The DSM-V also states that, in order to fit the ADHD diagnosis, symptoms must have been present prior to age 12. Children must have at least six symptoms from either or both inattention and hyperactivity categories, and adolescents and adults must show at least five symptoms to fit the diagnosis.

Stimulant drugs are overused and misused (e.g., Safer & Krager, 1988). It seems incredible, but a teacher of gifted children in Florida reported that half of her students were taking medication for ADHD (Rimm, 1991a). Medi- cation can produce side effects for some children, includ- ing loss of appetite (and some loss of growth), tics, insomnia, nausea, stomachaches, headaches, depression or sadness, social withdrawal, flattened emotions, and loss of energy (Breggin, 1991). Medication can also dramatically improve behavior, attention, achievement and social rela- tionships, as was the case with Daniel in Box 15.3.

overdiagnosis or Misdiagnosis

Needless to say, it would be better if ADHD children could learn to function well without medication. Many of the symptoms of attention disorders can be controlled behav- iorally, but some children do require both medication and behavioral help in order to work to their abilities in school.

The growing interest in attention deficit disorders has caused a serious problem (Baum, Olenchak, & Owen, 1998): an overdiagnosing of the disorder by parents, teachers, and professionals. Ritalin, Adderall, and other stimulant medica- tions are being hailed by many as magical cures. The problem is especially severe for gifted children. For example, Webb et al. (2004) reminds us that some of the characteristics used to identify ADHD resemble those of high-intensity, high-energy gifted children. Also, characteristics that iden- tify high creativity are similar to some characteristics listed as indicative of children with ADHD (Cramond, 1994;

An examination of the case histories of 17,000 chil- dren referred to the Temple University Reading Clinic between 1952 and 1979 produced 322 (246 boys, 76 girls) who were both gifted and learning disabled. Large Verbal- Performance discrepancies of 15 points or more were found for half of the gifted sample. Similarities (abstract verbal reasoning) and Comprehension (commonsense thinking) subtests were highest for these students, whereas Digit Span and Arithmetic were lowest. Note that the latter two subtests require considerable concentration and attention, which are often poor in children with learning disabilities (Satler, 1982). In the more recent revisions of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales (IV and V), Digit Span and Arithmetic are grouped into a Working Memory Index, which provides important information related to potential disability.

Fox and Brody (1983), Maker and Udall (1983), Rimm (2008c), Gilman et al. (2013), Bade (2015), and Peters (2015) all have suggested a multidimensional approach to identifying gifted students with learning disa- bilities. Such an approach might include individual IQ tests, individual achievement tests, teacher and parent reports, behavioral and attention inventories, creativity tests, and interviews with the child and his or her parents.

As with the similarly difficult challenge of identify- ing gifted disadvantaged and minority children, using a quota system ensures that children with disabilities are examined closely for gifts and talents and that many will be placed in programs for the gifted (see Chapter 13 for additional recommendations). The identification of gifted students with disabilities will continue to be difficult. However, sensitivity to the characteristics of giftedness and a willingness to look beyond the too-visible disability will aid in the discovery of talent.

identifying Gifted children with attention disorders

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), impulsive-hyperactive, and inattentive types, are the catch- all diagnoses for children, gifted or otherwise (Rimm, 2008c). These disorders are characterized by difficulty with concentration, distractibility, impulsivity, disorganiza- tion, and hyperactivity for the first diagnosis, and all these characteristics but the last for the second diagnosis.

It is tempting to latch on to a “sure cure,” and statisti- cal data can reassure parents that stimulant medication is appropriate for some children, but it is critical for parents and teachers to understand that most tests for attention dis- orders are observational. There are absolutely no definitive biological tests for attention deficit disorders at this time. Doctors, teachers, and parents usually deduce a biological cause from observations of children’s behavior without any biological evidence whatsoever.

316 Chapter 15

differences obscured her giftedness (see other such exam- ples in Chapter 13, “Cultural Diversity and Economic Dis- advantage: The Invisible Gifted”). She was later identified as gifted and skipped a grade for more appropriate chal- lenge. Her poem, which received a first place award in the Torrance Creativity Contest, follows:

new World

I can barely wheeze out a sentence in English, my lips struggle to recite the alphabet. When I make a noise, it isn’t a word; it’s a sound of fear and humiliation. This rambling code tongue-twists me.

Back in India, chicken biryani was chock-full of spicy chilies, like alligator-infested waters. Just nearing my face made my eyes smart with tears. My tongue’s taste buds prolonged the unwanted presence of chili whenever it came in contact; I’d scream for a cooling raita.

Now, it’s the simpleton hamburgers, fries, and the elephant-portioned milkshakes that taste like shortening. Full of grease, fat, and unwanted saltiness. My mouth aches and pleads for smoky paprika and pungent mustard powder. And I don’t eat at funky restaurants like McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s. I savor the most delicious butter chicken and palak paneer back at my haven home.

Girls strut fancily, noses arched snootily, feet clacking like potential missiles. I wear dingy, golden, clingy bangles on my wrist, shining carnation red, robin’s egg blue, and chick yellow, making me feel I’m not elegant compared to those fashion models.

My brain spins a cyclone every minute, trying to work a simple problem, wondering about an advanced topic,

Leroux & Levitt-Perlman, 2000). Reif (1993) and Rimm (2008c) remind us that an unchallenging curriculum for gifted children can also cause children to show ADHD-like symptoms.

Webb and Amend (2004) emphasized that gifted behaviors may direct psychologists who are not knowl- edgeable about giftedness to diagnose gifted children incorrectly (Webb & Webb, 2005). Following is a list of considerations for differentiating correct diagnosis from gifted behaviors (Webb & Amend, 2004):

●● Take a developmental history to look for early mile- stones or precocious development.

●● Evaluate whether the person’s current school, per- sonal behaviors, or test results suggest high intellec- tual or creative potential.

●● Consider whether the behavior patterns are typical for gifted children or adults.

●● When examining the DSM-V diagnostic criteria, remember to consider the child’s or adult’s develop- mental level in terms of giftedness, and whether these could account for some of the behaviors that otherwise would fit the diagnostic criteria.

●● Examine carefully the context in which “problem- atic” behaviors occur, and whether those behaviors could be explained most parsimoniously as stem- ming from a gifted/creative person being in an inap- propriate situation.

●● Consider whether the “problematic” behaviors are found only in certain contexts rather than across most situations.

●● Evaluate the extent of the situational contribution to the difficulties.

●● Note whether the “problematic” behavior patterns are greatly reduced when the person is with other gifted persons or in intellectually supportive settings.

●● Consider whether there is more frequent “cycling” of problem behaviors than would be expected for such a diagnosis.

●● Evaluate the extent to which specific situations may markedly ameliorate the “problem behaviors” for gifted persons.

●● Evaluate the extent of impairment caused by the behaviors. Are the behaviors really problematic ones that impair personal or interpersonal functioning, or are they quirks or idiosyncrasies that cause little impairment or discomfort?

A dramatic example of the misdiagnosis of a child is demonstrated by a poem created by 10-year-old Snehal Choudhury. She was diagnosed as having Asperger’s disor- der, was retained from appropriate entrance to kindergarten, and was not initially identified as gifted. Her cultural

Gifted Children with Disabilities 317

(1) the double exceptionality of giftedness and ADHD is common and (2) giftedness does not provide protection from the difficult symptoms of ADHD.

Consistency, appropriate limit setting, curriculum changes, and emphasis on positive interests and accom- plishment are some of the many alternative approaches that can be used for gifted children who are presently being diagnosed with ADHD (Rimm, 2008c). Some will require medication. Some gifted children are easy to rear; many of them frustrate their parents and teachers to tears and guilt. There is no easy way out of so great a challenge.

Summary of Identification Issue for Twice-Exceptional Children

The National Education Association (NEA; 2006) summa- rized considerations on the basis of research for the identi- fication of twice-exceptional children. Their summary follows (NEA, 2006, p. 7):

●● Use multiple data sources for gifted programming identification: intelligence and achievement tests, teacher reports, creativity tests, student interviews, self-referrals, portfolios, and family or peer referrals.

●● Avoid combining multiple pieces of data into a sin- gle score; combining scores allows lower scores to depress the total score, thereby disqualifying stu- dents with strengths from gifted programs.

●● Reduce qualifying cutoff scores for gifted programs to account for depression of scores due to the disability.

●● Compare expected performance on statewide stand- ardized testing, as well as psycho-educational assess- ments, with actual performance, using the student’s daily classroom achievement as well as other authen- tic assessments.

●● Use both formal (such as standardized tests) and informal (such as student classwork) assessments.

●● Confer with families about student performance out- side school.

●● Be aware that identification is seldom pursued for students whose gifts and disabilities mask one another. Hence, be hypervigilant about looking for indicators of exceptionality in students.

●● Use culturally sensitive assessment processes to pre- vent language and cultural differences from creating bias in the identification process.

CrITICal IngrEdIEnTS of ProgramS for gIfTEd ChIldrEn WITh dISabIlITIES

Programming for gifted children with disabilities may vary in type and content to the same extent as for other gifted children. It can include the same acceleration, enrichment,

or basically thinking, like gears rotating to operate.

People think I’m peculiar in ways, probably due to the way I eat, drink, and speak, or even the way I do simple everyday tasks.

While I write two page equations for one amateur problem, my peers do the dinkiest, most shortcut methods of math for the same thing; I always feel peer-pressured by my peers that way.

People push me around like I’m a doggy chew toy, giving me silence because I’m diverse, but I’m confident soon I’ll be used to their social ways I won’t even bother.

With the lack of friendships and a surplus of loneliness that I have, I hope life goes smooth and tranquil for a ten year old immigrant: me.

It is important for educators and psychologists to rec- ognize the serious peer-pressure effect, particularly among teens and young adults. Stimulants have become a fad among some high school and university students. They have learned that a diagnosis of ADHD-Inattentive type and stimulant medication can improve concentration, depress appetite, require them to sleep less, and provide them with time extensions for SAT and ACT college admissions tests. In short, stimulant medication can be a teenager’s magical dream pill (remember when you used NoDoz in college?). Teens have learned from each other how to explain to psy- chologists how difficult they find concentration during chal- lenging classes. They mimic restlessness in office interviews by shifting in their seats, shaking their legs, appearing dis- tracted, and avoiding eye contact. They intentionally slow their speed on timed processing-speed tasks and hope for the magic diagnosis that will allow them extended time to take their SATs. How fair is all this? It is not fair at all, but ADHD is easily misdiagnosed without careful parent inter- views and histories for diagnosing children and adolescents.

Although it’s important to emphasize the problems of overmedication, it’s also critical to consider that gifted- ness may mask ADHD, and ADHD may mask giftedness (Leroux & Levitt-Perlman, 2000; Kaufmann, Kalbfleisch, & Castellanos, 2000; Rimm, 2008c; Zentall, Moon, Hall, & Grskovic, 2001). Flint (2001) emphasized two factors: that

318 Chapter 15

interpreter to class, parking the smiling interpreter squarely next to the on-stage lecturer. Orthopedically impaired stu- dents scoot from building to building in electric wheelchairs; if they cannot write, they also use recorders and take exams orally. Dyslexic students pay maximum attention to lectures and illustrations, with less time devoted to frustrating printed words. On the one hand, these students are admired for their courage and ingenuity. On the other, as energetic and tal- ented individuals, they simply are doing what they must do.

Regardless of the compensatory device used, stu- dents with disabilities are usually required to invest more time in their course work than normal students. Successful attorney Martha Lindner, who is dyslexic (Rimm & Rimm- Kaufman, 2001), discovered in middle school that she needed to invest three times more time than average stu- dents in her homework and study in order to feel ade- quately intelligent. That translated to an advantage to her when she entered law school. She was accustomed to read- ing material multiple times, and her diligence permitted her to graduate first in her law school class.

All persons with disabilities must compensate as best they can for their limitations. In school, they must be able to perceive, respond, and express themselves; in short, they must be able to communicate. The regular and special-education teacher must help ensure that technolog- ical aids and special training are available that will permit the gifted child with a disability not only to function “nor- mally” in the regular class but also to develop his or her superior abilities and gifts. A short list would include wheelchairs, hearing aids, lip reading, sign language, Braille training, Braille texts, magnifiers, recorders, artifi- cial limbs and hands, paintbrush and pencil attachments for the head or arm, tablets, and computers.

grouping, and counseling tactics, and with the same view toward developing the child’s strengths, promoting high achievement, and enhancing creative and other high-level thinking skills. However, the program also must include some special components based on additional needs related to the handicapping condition.

Instead of categorizing the student first as having a disability and second as gifted, the G/T program should view the child primarily as a gifted child but one who may need some special accommodation because of his or her disability. The primary emphasis should be on the recogni- tion and facilitation of the child’s strengths. A secondary focus is to prevent the disability from becoming a deterrent to the development and expression of the child’s talent.

Although different disabilities create different obsta- cles, a core list of obstacles appears to be critical for almost all children with disabilities. We address this core list as priorities for gifted programs that include children with disabilities. One important caution: More accommodations than a 2e child needs can risk the child’s self-confidence. See Box 15.5 for two case studies.

ReduciNG coMMuNicatioN liMitatioNs

Countless high-achieving college students with disabilities have learned effective and socially acceptable ways to com- pensate for their disabling conditions. Blind students listen to recordings, study with sighted friends, make easy arrange- ments to take exams orally, or use voice-activated comput- ers. Students with severe visual impairment can obtain (usually at government expense) head-mounted devices or other machines that magnify the pages of standard college texts. Students who are deaf can bring a sign-language

Box 15.5

Case Studies: Maria and Edward

Maria Maria was diagnosed with a reading disability. One of her accommodations was having recordings of tests read to her. She acknowledged that recorded tests were helpful to her for science because of the extensive vocabulary that she found difficult. She asked the counselor to allow her to take her math tests with the class and insisted the recording and isolation was totally unnecessary and made her “feel like a dummy.” Maria proved her insight was correct. She became a strong math student without accommodations.

edward Edward had failed his first-year college classes and dropped out of college. He expressed his anger at his

school for providing too many accommodations and not enough instruction. He complained that his IEP never gave him guidelines on how to write papers but only allowed him to pass class assignments with minimal qual- ity, brief work. It is difficult to determine whether Edward’s conclusions were accurate, but Edward believed that the teachers assumed that he was “too stupid” to learn and did not recognize his high abilities in any areas. Edward never returned to college and may never work to his potential in life.

Gifted Children with Disabilities 319

beneficial effects of the aids and the potential talent that can be uncovered and developed when communication barriers are lifted.

self-coNcePt develoPMeNt

We noted earlier that rejection by others, labeling, lowered teacher expectations, and the sense of being different com- bine to make gifted children with disabilities feel less capable and of less worth than other children. See Sara Renzulli’s (2005) perspective in Box 15.6. Because a poor self-concept is a primary characteristic of underachieve- ment, dealing with the extremely poor self-images of these children should be a primary underlying goal of a gifted program for students with disabilities.

In addition to feedback from others, a realistic appraisal of one’s own skills and achievements feeds the self-concept. Therefore, program activities should be directed not only toward helping disabled gifted children achieve but also toward helping them appreciate the worth of their achievements. Nielsen and Mortorff-Albert (1989) found improved self-concepts for gifted students with learn- ing disabilities who were involved in gifted or gifted/ learning disability programs compared with gifted students who were involved only in learning disability programs. Appropriate gifted programming can improve students’ sense of worth when they actually do qualify for these programs.

Achievements can be evaluated according to two sets of standards. The first set of standards would be the same as applied to nondisabled persons, which should make it clear to all that the contributions of disabled gifted students are valuable and even superior to those of the average stu- dent. A second set of standards acknowledges the special talent and effort needed to overcome the disability. If gifted children with disabilities have high expectations placed on them, and if communication barriers are removed, their

Computers present growing possibilities for extend- ing the communication potential of children with disabili- ties. For example, children who are learning disabled by reason of poor handwriting skills often do very poorly in written expression until they learn to use a typing program. Typing writing assignments has the dual advantages of encouraging both f luent expression and independence. Dictation programs can also be effective. Orally express- ing oneself to a microphone provides an excellent first draft and encourages children who struggle with writing to free themselves from “pencil anxiety” (Rimm, 2008).

Gleason, Carnine, and Boriero (1990) compared problem-analyses learning for students with learning disa- bilities as taught by an expert teacher to computer-assisted instruction. The pre- and post-change with the teacher went from 51% to 93%, and for the computer group, it went from 49% to 91%.

Another example of the use of technology is Ovation, which permits a blind child to feed pages into a reading machine and have them read aloud in either a male or a female voice. (For information on Telesensory Systems and the nearest Ovation dealer, see their online site.) For the blind and dyslexic, Learning Ally is a national nonprofit organiza- tion that makes recordings of books, including many text- books, available for a small fee to students who are legally blind or have reading disabilities. This organization claims that it now offers the world’s largest collection of audio text- books and literature, and it also has resources for teachers and parents. Also, many local libraries have recorded books available to all who are interested in listening.

The gifted child with a disability clearly must be pro- vided with all possible resources to become a skilled user of substitute means of communication. Without these aids, the expression of talent is impeded and locked within. Leaders of gifted programs not only must help obtain these resources but also must interpret to the community the

Box 15.6

Sara Renzulli told her story to parents and teachers in the California Gifted Education Communicator. She was identi- fied in fifth grade as having dyslexia, and information- processing and auditory-processing disorders. She was also identified as gifted. She struggled mightily in school but never really felt gifted because of her disabilities. In her words, “Throughout most of my educational experiences, I felt stupid and inferior compared to every other student sitting in the classroom around me. It has taken me a long time to realize that there are exceptional things about me and the way I learn” (Renzulli, 2005, p. 5). She recalls her first two years of high school as being exhausting and remembers being told repeatedly by teachers what she

would never be able to do. She found a new chance at Miss Porter’s School, an independent school in Connecticut. Sup- port from teachers at that school and her family led her to success in college.

Dr. Renzulli is currently the Learning Coordinator for the Counseling Program for Intercollegiate Athletes at the University of Connecticut. She completed her doctoral dis- sertation in counselor education and counseling psychology in 2013, and her current research interests relate to increas- ing academic achievement in students with learning differ- ences or from high-risk backgrounds.

Source: Sara J. Renzulli zzz warrenville rd, mansfield center, CT 06250.

320 Chapter 15

social skills and social relationships of children with disa- bilities while providing unique sensitivity-building insights for the nondisabled child. Box 15.7 (Katt, 1988) includes sample activities that the Wyoming, Michigan, gifted and talented program used to increase their students’ sensitivity to students with disabilities.

classroom tactics

Several classroom strategies may increase contact and pos- itive feelings between different student groups. For exam- ple, mixed learning teams, which require all members to work together, have been successful in improving between- group attitudes and friendships. In Aronson’s (Aronson et al., 1975) jigsaw method, mixed groups of six upper- elementary students are told that in one hour they will have a test to see how well they have learned, for example, about the life of newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer. Each of the six is given one paragraph covering a different aspect of Pulitzer’s career. To do well, each student must read his or her own paragraph and then explain its contents to the oth- ers. Cooperation and interdependence is the only route to success. With mixed-race groups, teachers reported that changes in attitudes and self-concepts—and an improved classroom atmosphere—were very impressive.

Peer tutoring also has the effect of increasing friendli- ness between different students. Nondisabled gifted students may tutor gifted students with disabilities, or students with disabilities may tutor others. The disabled students also may tutor younger children. Gartner, Kohler, and Reissman (1971) stressed that when anxious, low-esteem, low- achieving students are placed in the important and prestig- ious role of teacher, they learn new skills, feel much better about themselves, and improve their attitudes toward school. In addition, the younger children reap educational benefits and learn that persons with disabilities are people, too.

academic and creative achievements can be excellent, just like those of any other gifted child. Through the challenge of true high-level achievement, these children can realisti- cally attain the positive self-concept that they desperately need for their own personal growth.

social skills

Nondisabled children use all of their senses and their mobility spontaneously in order to learn social skills that permit them to be accepted by their peers. Children with disabilities need to learn more concretely and specifically about the social life that they too need and want. This goal is indeed a challenge.

Gifted students with disabilities require social activi- ties with other bright or creative children who have similar disabilities and similar goals and interests so that they will not feel alone. Peer support and peer-support groups have been recommended throughout this text as an effective solution to many self-concept and social problems of gifted students. Also, due to a lack of experience, gifted children with disabilities may require social coaching so that they do not guarantee themselves rejection by, for example, try- ing to show off, forcing themselves on a group, or with- drawing completely. These are common self-defeating coping strategies adopted unsuccessfully by many children and adolescents with disabilities who so strongly wish to be “part of the group” (Halverson & Victor, 1976).

The other children in the class probably will also require sensitivity training to help them empathize with children who are disabled—that is, to help them under- stand the problems and feelings of individuals with disabil- ities so that they will think before mistreating or excluding them. Group discussions, which encourage open and hon- est communication between disabled and nondisabled youth, can provide an important avenue for developing the

Box 15.7

Activities for Encouraging Awareness of Handicaps

Physical handicaps Rent or borrow a wheelchair. Ask nonhandicapped students to do one-hour activities in the wheelchair, including getting a drink from the water fountain, going out to recess, doing an assignment on the blackboard, changing classes, and so on.

communicative disability Ask students to assume that their speech and language abilities have been interrupted. Have them attempt to tell the class something while they are mute.

visual impairment Plan a sightless half-day by use of blindfold and cane. Alert students to be ready to describe how their senses of hearing, touch, and smell can guide them through the day. Students will each need a buddy to guide them through the more dif- ficult adventures such as recess games and playing on equip- ment. Stop several times to discuss experiences and awareness.

Source: Based on “Gifted students develop handicap awareness” by T Katt, 1988.

Gifted Children with Disabilities 321

crucial themes that could be adapted by educators to assist students with disabilities.

In the successful adults, there seemed to be a con- scious effort to gain control or to take charge of their own lives despite their disability. Adaptability that involved per- sistence, learning, creativity, and personal support systems made a difference. They set explicit goals for themselves and were able to reframe or reinterpret their learning- disability experiences. They showed a capacity to confront their disa- bling challenges in order to live with or overcome them.

Learning and teaching these characteristics sounds like a tall order for students and teachers alike. Yet by understanding that learning-disabled gifted adults can be successful, students with disabilities can find inspiration and encouragement despite their own disabilities.

In an interesting study of 12 successful gifted college students who also were learning disabled, Reis, Neu, and McGuire (1995) found that the students’ giftedness had masked their learning disabilities, and these disabilities were not discovered by others until later. Several of the students had not been included in gifted programs despite high IQ scores; three had been nominated for gifted pro- grams but were not served because of low test scores.

These young adults with learning disabilities reported both positive and negative school experiences. The positive memories were of teachers who made accom- modations for them, such as providing extra time on tests and challenging them. The negative memories included social problems, difficulties with teachers, and frustrations with particular academic areas. Successful college students with learning disabilities reported that elementary and sec- ondary school would have given them better preparation if they had been taught learning strategies rather than just content (Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000). Positive experi- ences outside school were part of what permitted learning- disabled students to survive and eventually to adapt to school. These students’ memories provide useful tips to teachers of gifted learning-disabled children.

Another retrospective qualitative study of 16 twice- exceptional students who were 10 to 23 years of age con- cluded that most participants believed that their school experiences did not allow them to learn to their potential, although they were able to use their strengths to overcome their weaknesses. They wished they had more choice and f lexibility in topics, methods, assessment, and pace of learning, as well as greater opportunity for group collabo- ration (Willard-Holt, Weber, Morrison, & Horgan, 2013).

Although mentorships are effective for most gifted children, mentorships for children with disabilities can be especially effective if the children are paired with talented, achieving adults who also have learning disabilities (Baum, 1990). Not only does this pairing provide good

Coleman (1992) found gifted children with learning disabilities to be better planners in their use of problem- solving strategies than average children with learning disa- bilities. She thus recommended that the direct teaching of coping strategies could be helpful to all children with learn- ing disabilities. Montague (1991) found considerable dif- ferences among gifted students with learning disabilities in mathematical problem solving. She emphasized the impor- tance of teaching effective math problem-solving strategies.

Although few school districts would consider a self- contained gifted learning-disabled class appropriate in the era of degrouping, Wees (1993) reported outstanding success for 10 elementary students in a two-year program in Calgary. Emphasis was placed on kinesthetic learning and independent studies. The children, selected from regular and learning- disability programs, made excellent progress with reading and writing skills. Work and organizational habits also improved. In junior high, these children were integrated into regular or learning-disability programs, and the study’s author reported continued success. Parents whose children attended a special school for gifted and learning disabled found that their chil- dren achieved better in the private school than in public school special- education programs (Hishinuma & Nishimura, 2000).

Project-based learning (PBL) (Baum, 2015) allows 2e students to participate in 10-week offerings based on their interests and strengths. Some elective topics include Japanese culture, game theory, inventions, music design, film criticism, and integrated science. Cluster activities include projects with deadlines, group work, time manage- ment, collaboration and competition, and field trips. Stu- dents showed increased enthusiasm and self-direction, even toward nonpreferred tasks and subjects.

Spatial giftedness or “the ability to generate, retain, retrieve and transform well-structured visual images” is often missed in 2e children who are less verbally fluent. Yet it is crucial to creativity in many areas of science and engineering (Wai, 2013).

Wai and Mann (2014) encourage educators to pro- vide opportunities for learning through imaginative rea- soning and hands-on opportunities to uncover these talented students who may die on the vine in classrooms where almost all instruction is verbal. Many successful engineers have reminded educators of how inadequate they felt during their elementary school years.

learning from the Past

Educators learn much about teaching children by studying the childhoods of successful adults. One such study sought to understand the characteristics and behaviors that permit- ted gifted learning-disabled children to become highly successful (Gerber et al., 1991). This study identified

322 Chapter 15

hiGh-level abstRact thiNKiNG sKills

We noted earlier that limited sensory input may have the effect of depressing the development of high-level abstract- thinking skills. Compared with persons with unimpaired senses, experiences of sensory-disabled students tend to be interpreted in a more concrete vocabulary. For children with disabilities, a weakness in abstract and high-level thinking skills should be viewed not as “lack of ability” but as a deficiency that may require even more attention than is given to nondisabled gifted children.

More than other gifted students, then, the gifted child with a disability must be exposed to programming methods that foster the development of skills such as creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, classifying, generalizing, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Encouraging such skill development is common in most gifted programs, but it is doubly important for the gifted child with a disability.

An example of introducing abstract thinking skills is provided by a creative problem-solving (CPS) program for 16 emotionally disabled, aggressive middle school stu- dents who were not identified as gifted (Mathew, 1984; see Chapter 8). The researcher taught the youth to apply CPS to real problems. The effect of CPS training on these chil- dren was increased creativity as measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The intervention also reduced aggression significantly.

Baum (1984) described the use of Renzulli’s Enrich- ment Triad Model (see Chapter 7) with gifted children who were learning disabled. Their gifted behavior was exhib- ited outside the classroom and was definitely absent within the classroom. Baum emphasized that enrichment activi- ties should be designed to develop strengths and interests and to challenge, but not necessarily to provide remedia- tion. Box 15.8 describes the Triad program, which helped these children feel more motivated, challenged, and confi- dent. Baum’s (1988) success with the Triad model for gifted learning-disabled students was again demonstrated with seven students who met 2½ hours a week over a

learning strategies for these students but the student is also more likely to identify with the adult because of their similarities (Hetherington & Frankie, 1967; Mussen & Rutherford, 1963).

encouraging independent learning

One-to-one attention is characteristic of and often neces- sary for educational programs for students with disabilities. However, these children sometimes become too dependent on the individual attention and the continuous positive feedback that supports their learning. Such dependence limits the motivation and achievement of any child. There- fore, children with disabilities must be encouraged to develop both intrinsic motivation, with learning and suc- cess as their own rewards, and the ability to learn indepen- dently. They need both independent, self-initiated learning experiences and cooperative small-group activities in which they can serve as leaders and as equal participants.

In selecting methods by which children can compen- sate for their disability, attention to independence is very important. For example, the child who has a writing disabil- ity could (1) tell his or her story to a teacher, (2) dictate the story into a recorder, (3) compose the story on a computer, or (4) talk the story by using a voice-activated computer. The first item in the list increases dependence; the latter three permit independence. Blind children could (1) have material read to them, (2) read the material in Braille, or (3) hear it on a listening device. Again, the first helps keep the children dependent, whereas the latter two aid independence. Dependent help certainly is appropriate occasionally, but these examples are reminders that too much dependency can further impede the progress of the already disabled child.

Independent self-initiated learning and learning as part of a class group are important for all children, espe- cially gifted children who will be faced with challenging college work and complex professions. We must be inno- vative in providing independent learning opportunities for gifted children with disabilities, just as such opportunities are provided for gifted children who are nondisabled.

Box 15.8

Example of Enrichment Triad Model in Action for Learning-Disabled Students

type i—exposure The students were taken to see the Lego® Road Show. This is an elaborate display of Lego brick constructions of animals, buildings, and vehicles. These structures, built from thou- sands of Legos, were designed and built by Lego engineers. The students were overwhelmed by the exhibit and expressed a desire to become more elaborate in their own designs.

type ii—training We called Lego headquarters (located fortunately in our area) and arranged for a consultation with an engineer. He explained to the group how designs evolved; how creative thinking skills, especially flexibility, are needed; and how principles of calculus and physics are part of the building process. Basically, ideas come from experimenting with the bricks. Once the concrete

Gifted Children with Disabilities 323

●● Where appropriate, provide the same gifted educa- tion services that would be afforded to other advanced learners (such as curriculum compacting, differentiation, acceleration).

●● Explore multiple avenues to meet student needs (such as after-school activities, clubs, related art pro- grams, mentoring, online learning, and interest- based independent studies).

●● Avoid using gifted education services as an incentive for addressing problem behaviors or academic weakness.

●● Allow students to participate in enrichment pro- grams and experiences.

Parenting Children with disabilities

Parenting is a critical component of any program for chil- dren who are gifted. However, parents of gifted children with disabilities must deal with their child’s special needs related to the disability as well as attend to his or her gift- edness. Parents of children who are disabled often devote resources, time, energy, attention, and patience far beyond that given to a normal child, which can result in advan- tages or sometimes disadvantages for the child. Consider these situations identified by Rimm in her psychology practice:

1. Intensive parental teaching of the child provided on a continuous one-to-one basis increases sensory awareness, knowledge, vocabulary, and skill development. The child will learn a great deal about his or her environment from this abundance of early teaching in the home. This is an obvious advantage (Rimm, 2007a).

9-month period. Gains in self-esteem, learning behavior, and creative productivity were found for six of the seven students. Huntley (1990) also reported on a successful, gifted learning-disabilities program using the Triad model in the Norwich, Connecticut, public schools.

At the Texas School for the Blind, Hackney (1986) conducted a summer program for 15 gifted students with visual impairment. The program included higher-level thinking skills, advanced problem solving, creative writ- ing, mentorships, and most of the same elements included in many gifted programs. Outdoor risk taking, independent learning, and counseling were components that are more specific to programs for gifted children with disabilities. It is ironic that this program endured some of the same criti- cism that plagues all gifted programming: Some charged that the program was elitist and that there was no need to treat gifted children who are blind differently than other children who are blind.

To ensure that the gifted needs of twice- exceptional children are met, the National Education Association (2006, p. 12) summarized best practices in the classroom for meeting the strongest component of these children’s needs:

●● Use an interdisciplinary curriculum to allow the stu- dent to find connectedness between topics.

●● Provide opportunities for student inquiry and question- ing of content—allow students to challenge material.

●● Address passion areas in student instruction. ●● Rely on student strengths to hook student interest,

learn about a topic in depth, and demonstrate under- standing of the concepts.

●● Offer alternative ways to demonstrate understand- ing; this practice is crucial to gifted children with disabilities.

structure is completed, the design is drawn. The students were delighted to hear this. So many school assignments reverse this process—“put your plan in writing before you begin.”

type iii—investigation of a real Problem The Lego executive in charge of marketing asked the stu- dents to design original structures for the museum display that the Lego Company was planning. The company agreed to furnish the bricks, offer technical advice, and display the product. Two boys, ages 10 and 12, eagerly accepted the challenge.

The 10-year-old designed and built an 18-wheeler truck, complete with separate tractor and trailer. The trailer was mounted on an appropriate platform and pivoted to

allow a wide arc of movement. At the end of its 2- foot-long trailer was a gate that opened and closed by means of a pulley. Concern was shown by the young engineer for a streamlined design for maximum function and form.

The 12-year-old created a motorized amusement- park ride. Intersecting aerial arms supported four minia- ture planes, suspended in mid-air, that revolved around its 3-foot-high base. The ride consisted of 27 revolutions of the planes. When asked why there were 27 revolu- tions, the young designer replied, “Because I set up the gears that way.”

Source: Copyright © 1984 From “Meeting the needs of learning disabled students” in Roeper Review Volume 7, Issue 1 by Susan M. Baum, Steven V. Owen. Reproduced by permission of The Roeper Institute, (http://www.roeper.org).

324 Chapter 15

4. Involvement by one parent may be so intense that it precludes the other parent from participating. For exam- ple, special skills such as using Braille, communicating by a sign language, or adopting special teaching procedures may need to be learned by a parent. If the second parent (usually the father) has not also learned these techniques, he may be omitted from the special relationship and may decide that he is not a very good parent. This is particularly a problem if the child is a boy and the close parent is a mother. The alien- ation of the father may deprive the boy of an important identification figure and impede his independence and growth. As he matures, the boy will feel both grateful to his mother for her commitment but angry and impatient with her for his dependence on her. Neither mother nor son will understand the deterioration of what in childhood was such a strong positive relationship. Excluding one parent from close family relationships always causes a serious problem.

A parent-involvement group should always be part of a gifted program that serves students with disabilities. Such a group can help parents avoid common problems. The group can also help parents focus on their children’s strengths rather than dwell on their handicaps.

Although parents should always be involved in the education of their children, the special stresses and demands of parenting gifted students with disabilities requires an even closer partnership between the formal and informal educators—teachers and parents. Parents must be guided in setting appropriate, high expectations for the gifted child despite his or her disability (Rimm, 2008c).

2. Counteridentification, the parent’s deriving of per- sonal feelings of success or failure through the child’s accomplishments, may cause a parent to do too much for the child. A too-helpful parent may rob the child of oppor- tunities to learn skills and to build independence and self- confidence. In some cases, parents may even deny the existence of their child’s disability (for example, dyslexia, partial hearing loss). In other cases parents may use the child’s disability as an excuse for allowing the child to avoid responsibilities. Of course, the child soon learns to use the same kind of excuse to avoid unpleasant chores—for exam- ple, learning math facts. The thwarting of independence and skill development is a disadvantage (Rimm, 2008c).

3. Manipulation by the child can also be an outcome of the parents’ anxieties about the child. Because the par- ent is so anxious for their united success, the child, perhaps unconsciously, learns that he or she can easily control the parent (“I can’t do it! You’ve got to help me!”). This manipulation skill may be extended to teachers and peers. Manipulative attention-getting behaviors may take the form of overly dependent behavior or a stubborn refusal to put forth effort into anything but the child’s most preferred activities. This child and his or her parent(s) will blame the school, the teacher, other children, and the rest of the world for not helping the child to learn instead of encouraging the child to take responsibility for his or her own learning. Manipulation, dependence, and refusal to work are also disadvantages. Loving, caring parents and teachers can feel too sorry for a child who is disabled, thus destroying his or her confidence (Rimm, 2014).

Summary

The gifted disabled are individuals with exceptional ability or potential despite their disabilities. They are usually referred to as twice-exceptional children. Gifted children with disabilities typically are recognized for their disabil- ity, not their gifts. Few G/T programs have been designed for the gifted who are disabled, and too often schools fail to accommodate these students. If the gifted child can function reasonably well, special education services may be withdrawn. Gifted children with disabilities continue to be ignored, and their problems are compounded by some- times severe social problems and rock-bottom feelings of self-worth and personal integrity.

A national commission on twice-exceptional children prepared a research-based definition of twice- exceptionality.

Identification is difficult. Gifted students with disabili- ties tend to be unseen by teachers and even parents. Also, the

disability may obscure the expression of gifts and talents or lead teachers to lower their expectations. While IQ scores can be extremely useful, they may be depressed by the tendency of sensory-impaired students to think less abstractly than nondisabled students. In-service training dealing with charac- teristics of giftedness and identification methods is important.

NAGC provides a position statement that calls for com- prehensive assessment. Eisenberg and Epstein successfully used IQ and achievement scores, and Renzulli used rating scales, peer nominations, and self-nominations for identifica- tion. Rimm emphasized the importance of discriminating between learning disabilities and underachievement. The Renzulli Creativity Scale and the PRIDE, GIFT, and GIFFI inventories might be used for identifying creative giftedness.

Gifted children with learning disabilities are often overlooked by typical G/T program selection procedures. These children may function at or below grade level and

Gifted Children with Disabilities 325

Learning to value their own superior achievements and tal- ents should help their self-concepts. Helping other students to appreciate the achievements of gifted students with dis- abilities also may be valuable. Peer support groups help gifted students with disabilities develop good self-concepts and social skills.

Teaching coping and problem-solving strategies and using self-assessments are appropriate for gifted students who are learning disabled. Understanding the characteristics and behaviors of successful adults who were gifted learning-disabled children can help teachers encourage and inspire learning-disabled students. Men- torships, especially for children with disabilities, encourage identification with talented adults who are learning disabled.

To ensure that the gifted needs of twice-exceptional children are met, the National Education Association sum- marized best practices in the classroom for meeting the strongest component of these children’s needs.

Despite the necessity of one-to-one instruction for gifted students with disabilities, both the teaching of inde- pendent learning and learning in small groups are also nec- essary. Even more than with other gifted students, high-level abstract thinking skills must be encouraged.

The great attention parents must pay to their child who is disabled may result in superior learning and cogni- tive development. However, it can also lead to the suppres- sion of self-confidence and independence; to a habit of manipulating parents, teachers, and peers; and to the elimi- nation of one parent from the family relationship. Parent- involvement groups are a critical component of programs for gifted students with disabilities.

may exhibit deficits in cognitive ability, including long- or short-term memory problems, visual or auditory process- ing weaknesses, and/or visual-motor integration problems. Behavior problems, poor self-concepts, and dependent behaviors complicate the identification of both the gifted- ness and the learning disability.

Identifying gifted children with attention-deficit dis- orders may be difficult because there is no biological test for ADHD, and some of the characteristics of giftedness and ADHD overlap. Teachers must be cautious in not over- recommending medication. However, gifted children with ADHD may require both medication and therapy. Webb and Amend emphasized that gifted behaviors may direct psychologists who are not knowledgeable about giftedness to diagnose gifted children incorrectly.

G/T programs for gifted children with disabilities can include the same acceleration, enrichment, grouping, and counseling components as other programs. However, the program also must include some special components, chosen on the basis of additional needs related to the hand- icapping condition.

Communication weaknesses must be compensated for via the use of technological and mechanical aids and/or special training. James (1993) urged better communication between universities and school districts on computer use by students with disabilities. The gifted child with a disa- bility clearly must be provided with all possible resources to become a skilled user of substitute means of communi- cation. Without these aids, the expression of talent is impeded and locked within.

Developing positive self-concepts should be a main program goal of teaching the gifted with disabilities.

326

16 Parenting the Gifted Child

Learning OutcOmes

1. Explain the theory of parenting gifted children by positive expectations.

2. List and explain special concerns of parenting gifted children.

3. Describe the ways that parents may support gifted preschool children.

4. Summarize the special problems that gifted children may face with nontraditional parenting.

5. Discuss the importance of support groups and advocacy for parents of gifted children.

6. Recommend ways to teach gifted teens self-advocacy.

7. List the pros and cons experienced by families with parents as teachers in home schooling gifted children.

C H A P T E R

T he “good parenting” any child needs is the main requirement for parenting the child who is gifted. However, some special obstacles, risks, errors, challenges, and joys accompany being the parent of a child with unusual talents. Teachers should be sensitive to these issues in order to help guide parents of gifted children.

For example, contrary to popular belief, all parents everywhere do not believe their children are gifted. Some par- ents of gifted children deny their children’s special abilities in an attempt to keep them “normal” and “well adjusted.” Other parents, with the opposite attitude, seem to magnify their children’s abilities and put excessive pressure on them for high achievement in all areas. This latter problem may include the tacit assumptions that (1) other children necessarily are inferior; and, (2) by association, the parents are also superior. Either of these extremes, denying or magnifying giftedness, can cause problems for gifted children. As a matter of fact, avoiding extremes is an important key to parenting children who are gifted.

This chapter will emphasize some practical approaches to dealing with the special problems of parenting children who are gifted and talented. Although some concepts found here may apply to parenting all children, they are of special concern to parents of gifted children. They are also critical for teachers, who are often in positions of communicating with and advising the parents of gifted children.

Parenting by Positive exPectations

Parenting by positive expectations can be extraordinarily successful in guiding gifted children both in school and out (DeVries, 2005). If high achievement, positive attitudes, and constructive behavior are expected and reinforced by parents, they will become internalized by the child, and the need for punishment will usually be minimal. How do some parents guide their children so well without punishment, whereas others seem to need and use it so frequently?

Parenting the Gifted Child 327

In questionnaires completed by successful women in nontraditional careers (Rimm et al., 2014; Rimm & Rimm- Kaufman, 2001), most respondents, with only a few excep- tions, indicated that their parents had set high expectations for them. Clear and consistent messages, agreed upon by both parents and transmitted to the child, are basic. In Bloom’s (1985) study of talent development of concert pianists, sculptors, mathematicians, and neurologists, he  found that all had in common some very clear early messages provided by parents:

Parents placed great stress on achievement, on success and on doing one’s best at all times . . . they were models of the “work ethic” in that they were regarded as hard workers. . . . To excel, to do one’s best, to work hard, and to spend one’s time constructively were empha- sized over and over again. (p. 510)

Rimm et al. (2014) found the same early messages of high expectations given to the successful women whose childhoods were researched. Mental health practitioners and educators might have considered those expectations too high, yet the successful women felt the stated expecta- tions proved that their parents believed in them. The author (Rimm) attributes the success of these messages to their being given in the voices of parents as coaches rather than of judges, and the pairing of those high expectations with strong work ethics. For example, Catherine Burns (a pseu- donym), a civil engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), recalls her dad’s dual message as “You can do anything you want if you work hard” and “Nothing comes for free” (Rimm et al., 1999, p. 204).

Csikszentmihalyi (as cited in Adler, 1991) studied 210 high school students who were exceptionally talented in math, science, music, sports, or art. He discovered that the most motivated students came from families who pro- vided both support and challenge. He compared these stu- dents with students from families that provided challenge but not support; support but not challenge, and neither challenge nor support. The students from the supportive and challenging families were more intrinsically interested in learning and were more alert while they were studying.

In a study of 394 gifted middle school students, the importance placed on mathematics and sciences by parents was the most powerful influence on the students’ decisions to take math and science courses (Olszewski-Kubilius & Yasumoto, 1994). Parental support, even compared with that of friends and romantic partners, was found to be the most important factor in predicting college grades (Cole,  Colangelo, Assouline, & Russell, 1994). Parental agreement on values such as (1) the importance of study, learning, and school; (2) respect for individuality; and

(3) recognition of the need for reasonable amounts of rec- reation and fun seem to underlie a positive, achievement- oriented atmosphere.

If the gifted children in the family are performing well, enjoying the expression of their talents, and growing positively in other ways, it is reasonable to assume that parents are doing their parenting job very well. Again, there is not one right way but many right ways. If the chil- dren (1) appear to be under stress, (2) are not achieving well and responsibly, (3) have serious social problems, and/or (4) have unusually difficult family relationships, one should look for possible family patterns causing the problem.

Parents certainly can be effective mentors for their children (McCollim, 1992; Roberts, 1992). In studies of giftedness and eminence (Bloom, 1985; Rimm & Lowe, 1988; Walberg, Williams, & Zeiser, 2003), there were always themes of family organization and consistent and predictable expectations for conduct. High energy and an achievement orientation were also characteristic of almost all parents (Albert, 1980; Bloom, 1985; Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962).

some sPecial Parenting concerns

Other issues related to gifted children in the family must be addressed. Teachers can be helpful in advising parents in the areas discussed in the following subsections.

the “Who’s in charge?” Problem

If gifted children were meant to run their homes, God would have created them bigger (Rimm, 2008b).

Children who show unusual verbal and abstract thinking ability appear to be wise and mature beyond their years, and to a degree they are. These deceptive character- istics may obscure the lack of experience and maturity that is typical of all children. It sometimes happens that devoted parents, intent on providing an ideal climate for their gifted children, fall into the trap of believing that these little beings, by virtue of their extensive vocabularies and impressive speech and logic, are capable very early of making complex decisions and setting their own goals and directions.

Bromfield (1994) reminds parents that accelerated language does not guarantee accelerated development. He points out that language may enhance experiences, but it does not necessarily bring advanced emotional maturity.

Highly verbal children may carry additional burdens. Well-meaning parents often share their own psychological problems with such children, and highly verbal children

are often expected to be especially well behaved or compli- ant, resulting in self-conscious or overly inhibited behavior.

The interests and concerns of these highly capable children should be considered, of course, but parents and teachers must not abdicate responsibility for guidance and protection. Parents of gifted children must constantly remind themselves to stay in charge. They have the matu- rity and responsibility for setting limits and guiding their unusual children, despite the children’s giftedness (Rimm, 2007a).

Hollingworth (1942) pointed out how critical it was to reach the “middle ground between arbitrary abolition of all argument and incessant argumentation.” Finding that middle ground helps the child to accept the behavioral demands of adults while maintaining reasonable independ- ence (Sebring, 1983). Ginsberg and Harrison (1977) made the following recommendation:

Discipline your gifted child when he needs dis- ciplining. Correct him when he needs correc- tion. Give direction when he needs direction. He should not be granted special privileges nor should unacceptable behavior be tolerated because of his intellectual gifts (p. 7).

Empowering children with adult decision making provides power without wisdom. This can lead to formida- ble and continuing conflicts between gifted children and their parents as they compete for the power that parents give too early and try to recover too late. The resulting adversarial mode may force adolescents to rebel too stub- bornly, parents to respond too negatively, and both to lose the positive home atmosphere that is so valuable in educat- ing a gifted child (Rimm, 2008b).

Baldwin (1988) described “cornucopia kids” as chil- dren who were given too much, and de Graaf et al. (2005) describe this overindulged population as suffering from “aff luenza, an all-consuming epidemic.” They indicated that overindulged children acquire an inappropriate sense of power. Whatever the reasons for the overindulgence, it gives the children a sense of control over their parents and the belief that getting what they want is their right. Overin- dulged, overempowered, and entitled children appear to be on the increase (Rimm, 2005, 2007a). Read what these tweens had to say:

I think parents can help us make some deci- sions, but if we want to make them ourselves, they should just accept that and let us do it. (7th-grade girl)

My parents won’t listen to me. My dad thinks I should be treated differently just because I’m a kid. I want the same treatment

as my parents. He says, “I’m the adult here, and I should be treated differently because I’m older.” I don’t agree. (5th-grade boy)

My parents trust my judgment. They might give me some ideas, but I make 90% of the decisions. (7th-grade boy)

competition and Pressure

Competition encourages and motivates gifted children to perform to the best of their high ability, and the recognition they receive for their successes provides the motivation for continued competition. The successful women in the Rimm report (Rimm et al., 2014) indicated “winning in competi- tion” as a positive experience in their childhood, and it was more frequent than any other. Winning was both motivating and exhilarating. Many of these women learned resilience from their competitive involvement. For example, environ- mental engineer Teresa Culver (Rimm et al., 2014) was very competitive and even took the risk of competing in music, an area in which she did not excel, although her sis- ter did. She found that monitoring her personal progress and breaking difficult material into small, manageable parts served her later in her challenging engineering courses.

Karnes and Riley (2005) suggested that entering competitions can enhance gifted children’s process and presentation skills, including critical thinking, written and oral communication, group dynamics, and leadership. Expanding organizational and people skills also come with meeting deadlines, following rules, and interacting with sponsors and judges. Parents can find any number of com- petitions to match the strengths and interests of their gifted children in the compendium of competitions documented in Karnes and Riley’s (1996) book, Competitions: Maxi- mizing Your Abilities (see Chapter 6).

However, extreme competitiveness comes with some negative side effects. The too-competitive child may feel under continuous stress. Such children may exhibit symp- toms of tension, such as nail biting, bed wetting, extreme sibling rivalry, loss of appetite, bullying, irritability, stom- ach pains, headaches, or depression. These problems can complicate children’s lives; they can also be informative to parents who are aware of the potential meaning of such symptoms. Of course, every normal child exhibits these symptoms occasionally. Continued or increased symptoms can sometimes be attributed to competitive stress; they are physical reactions to frustrations and anxieties.

Parents and teachers should try to help the child identify specific stressors and then restructure tasks and goals to diminish the stress. For example, the parents or teachers of a high school student can help the student decide on a sensible academic load that challenges his or

328 Chapter 16

Parenting the Gifted Child 329

Rimm’s Law (Rimm, 2008b), which covers Clarence’s case, states,

Children feel more tension when they are wor- rying about their work than when they are doing that work.

If parents or teachers cannot identify the source of the stress, professional help from a guidance counselor or a school or clinical psychologist may be required. It is much easier to identify and treat a stress problem early than after it leads to habitual maladaptive coping patterns for the child.

A helpful way to understand the relationship between stress and efficient performance was presented in the clas- sic Yerkes-Dodson law. This principle holds that, under very low stress (or motivation, or “psychological stimula- tion”) people perform inefficiently. As the stress or stimu- lation level increases, efficiency also increases. Performance and efficiency peak at an intermediate level, which varies for different persons and different tasks. As stress continues to increase, efficiency decreases until, at extreme tension levels, performance is disordered.

Competitive children—and many gifted children are competitive—are more vulnerable to stress than noncom- petitive children. Parents and teachers cannot deliver them from stress, but they can model and teach stress reduction measures. Involvement in many different competitive activities may help children learn to cope with competition in a more routine way. Suggesting that they concentrate on the activity itself instead of their place in the competition encourages less stress and better-quality performance. Measuring their personal best and valuing their individual improvement are also helpful.

Some other simple approaches to dealing with stress include regular physical exercise, recreational and “fun” activities, and especially the availability of a safe and empathic environment in which children can talk openly about their pressures and anxieties. A caution, however, is that in providing that safe environment, parents should not counteridentify so much with the child that their own felt anxiety actually increases the anxiety level of their child. Being too anxious with a child can empower the child to avoid reasonable challenges in the name of felt stress (Rimm, 2014).

Webb, Meckstroth, and Tolan (1982) recommend using humor to help reduce stress. For example, parents can be melodramatic about their own “intolerable” stresses and problems—making it clear that they are laughing at themselves. Internationally renowned violin- ist Pamela Frank, at eight years old, performed a concert for none other than her own parents and grandparents. She recalls making a mistake and running off to her

her abilities but is not overwhelming. Decisions can be made that keep extracurricular activities manageable.

A subtle source of competitive stress comes from repeated adult praise that focuses on being perfect, the best, the smartest, the most beautiful. Such superlatives may have the impact of creating unreasonable pressure to be perfect, the best, the smartest, or the most beautiful. Adults do not intend to create pressure for children by such comments. To the contrary, their intent is to build confi- dence. However, if children receive too much attention based on “being first,” it takes on a value that they may feel pressured to maintain. Exaggerated praise that uses terms such as brilliance, genius, smartest, most creative, or most talented leads to pressure, but with very gifted children these words are often hard to resist. Occasional overpraise is not likely to cause serious harm, and comments from adults that address effort, improvement, perseverance, good thinking, creative problem solving, kindness, sensi- tivity, talent, and intelligence—and which do not empha- size best and first—can encourage motivation without pressure (Dweck, 2007).

Cornell and Grossberg (1989) found that all of the 83 families of children who were involved in gifted pro- grams thought of their children as gifted. There were no significant differences between children in either achieve- ment or adjustment, regardless of how parents defined gift- edness or whether they thought of their children as “usually” or “sometimes” gifted. However, among the 25% of the children who were verbally referred to as “gifted” by their parents, there were more who were likely to experience adjustment problems that included discipline and/or poor self-control, plus anxiety and guilt. The authors suggest that direct reference to the child as “gifted” places excessive pressure on the child. No doubt referring to the child as “gifted” operates in precisely the same way as does lavishing extreme praise on the child.

In some cases, children who appear not to get any- thing done may also be feeling stress. The tension may stem more from worries about inadequacy and from work undone than by the actual hard work. Here is an example:

Clarence, a gifted fourth-grader, complained of stomachaches, which he related to worrying about the difficulty of his mathematics. He said that even while he watched TV and tried not to think about his math, he felt sick to his stomach. It was recommended that Clarence change his study habits and do his math right after school, before watching TV and worry- ing. The stomachaches “miraculously” disap- peared, and Clarence found math to be much simpler than he thought.

the learning/thinking game without fear of failure. To expe- rience the joy of intellectual discovery is a critical goal for all gifted children, and noncompetitive and collaborative intellectual activities are good routes to this goal.

sibling Pressures

Sibling rivalry seems inherent in western civilization. It can be minimized and adjusted for, but it will not disap- pear. The underlying cause of sibling rivalry is competition for parents’ attention and sometimes resources. With gifted children, particular sibling combinations seem to cause special complications and therefore require special han- dling by parents and teachers. Several of these will be described shortly.

First, however, it is important to recognize a vital underlying principle for the care and handling of all chil- dren: Each and every child in a family should be provided the opportunity for intellectual and creative development most ideal for that particular child. Opportunities for gifted children should not be avoided or ignored simply because less able and less interested siblings cannot par- ticipate in the same activity. Other children can be offered comparably attractive—but not necessarily identical— educational or recreational opportunities. For example, if one child strongly wishes to attend a Russian language camp or a Saturday computer class, then an alternative in music, art, swimming, or tennis could be offered to a sib- ling who might feel cheated. Children have different abil- ities and different needs, and the most productive and most fair approach is to accommodate those differences. Treating siblings exactly the same actually exacerbates competition as children vie for recognition of their own individuality.

A subtle source of sibling rivalry may stem from preferential treatment of one child over the other from significant others, for example, grandparents, aunts, uncles, or neighbors. Certainly, parents should ask those adults to be cautious and fair to all siblings. Sometimes, this does not work, and parents must take the responsibil- ity of monitoring fair treatment. Grandparents and impor- tant adults may continue to provide individual children with special opportunities according to age or particular interests and abilities but not because of a favored child relationship.

the gifted child with less talented siblings

The gifted child with very high intelligence or an extraor- dinary special talent provides impossible competition for other children in his or her area of giftedness. The unique ability often requires the investment of an inordinate amount of time and resources to provide the special

bedroom to pout in disappointment at her performance. Her father followed her, not to sympathize with her per- ceived disaster but to humor her in her crisis. He explained, “Who do you think you are, Itzak Perlman [who can’t make a mistake]?” Pamela recalls her parents reminding her often that the “most important thing in life is a sense of humor.” She considers her family’s sense of humor a gift that always gave her perspective on her life (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001).

Parents can also encourage their child to think out loud about stress by gently raising questions such as, “What is the worst thing that could happen in that situa- tion?” and “How big a catastrophe would that be?”

Reeves (2014) reminds parents of the value of teach- ing their children to fail. Fear of failure is common among gifted children. Her recommendations included teaching children the value of making mistakes and learning from them. She urges parents to model resilient behavior by intentionally sharing how they manage their own failure experiences positively.

In sum, parents and teachers can best help children deal with stress from competition by (1) identifying the source of the stress and then helping the student redefine priorities to reduce the stress; (2) recognizing that a mod- erate and manageable amount of stress is necessary for peak performance; (3) helping provide outlets or “therapy” in the form of physical and other enjoyable activities; and (4) lending an understanding, empathic, and perhaps humorous ear. These techniques can be very useful in pre- venting deterioration of performance due to high stress.

noncomPetitive intellectual activities Gifted high achievers and gifted underachievers may both be highly competitive and competition conscious. In the case of the high achievers, such competitiveness is functional. For underachievers, it is dysfunctional because they may perceive themselves as “losers” in the school game and withdraw from activities they perceive as competitive.

For both groups, however, involvement in intellec- tual activities that are noncompetitive can be extremely valuable. Some examples of noncompetitive intellectual activities might include individualized self-paced instruc- tion (for example, with the computer, at learning centers, or with language-learning CDs); after-school clubs or interest groups; home hobbies or interests such as crafts; science; reading; small-group field trips; independent research pro- jects; or creative arts, drama, or writing. For the highly competitive achiever, such activities broaden their knowl- edge and interests, encourage the reflective pause neces- sary for creativity, and provide a comfortable respite from more highly competitive efforts. For underachievers, non- competitive intellectual activities entice them into playing

330 Chapter 16

Parenting the Gifted Child 331

that nongifted siblings eventually “came to terms” with the gifted label of their siblings.

A study by Chamrad, Robinson, and Janos (1995) referred to negative sibling relationships as a “myth” when one or more children in a family were gifted. They exam- ined the sibling relationships of 366 triads that included mothers and children ages 7 to 14 in two-child families in which at least one child was gifted. They used a question- naire and targeted school achievement, mental ability, adjustment, and sibling relationships. Contrary to the stud- ies already mentioned, they found giftedness to be associ- ated with more positive responses by mothers and siblings. The authors suggested that their unusual findings might be attributed to using a questionnaire rather than an interview, implying that, in an interview, families might be more likely to complain about problems because they perceive themselves as having a sympathetic listener.

An analysis of the success of siblings of the suc- cessful gifted women in the Rimm report (Rimm et al., 2014) suggested a differential effect on girl siblings com- pared with boy siblings. For example, in two-child fami- lies, when the sibling of the successful women was a brother, 87% of the brothers had earned college degrees and had successful professional careers. When the sibling was a sister, 76% of the sisters had earned college degrees, but only 43% were using their degrees in professions out- side the home. In many families, if one sister identified herself as a professional, the other saw herself as a home- maker. In  interviews with the successful women, the women often described that difference from childhood. Here’s an example:

Dr. Anne Caroles (a pseudonym) was referred to as the “brain” in her family. Her sister was called the “beauty.” As a teenager, Anne viewed herself as “ugly” and believed she would never be attractive to anyone. Her stud- ies became a hiding place for her. Now she looks back at her pictures and realizes she was quite normal looking. Although at the time Anne felt stigmatized by the label, she believes now that her label gave her an advantage. She was inspired to go on with her education, whereas her beautiful sister discontinued her education to marry after high school, although she, too, had high intelligence.

As a psychologist who specializes in working with gifted children, Rimm finds a continuous impact of gifted- ness on siblings. It is often difficult to ferret out the impact because children may prefer not to admit that they resent their siblings. They know that they are supposed to get along well. Here are three case studies.

educational opportunities necessary to develop the talent and meet this child’s unconventional needs. In the process, the gifted child naturally receives a large amount of atten- tion and recognition. His or her brothers and sisters need to be able to admire the gifted sibling’s success but also rec- ognize that a similar level of success probably is not attain- able for them. They must use a different measuring stick to evaluate their own abilities, or they may fall into the trap of viewing their own real successes (and themselves) as fail- ures. Here are the words of one successful and gifted “sec- ond sibling”:

Once I realized that there was nothing I could do to achieve as well as my sister, I decided to stop competing with her, to do the best I could, and to realize that what I was doing was really good too.

Although this youngster came to realize that he could be successful despite his being a “second-place” stu- dent, that realization was not automatic. Parents who value each child’s strengths and needs help siblings to cope with natural rivalries (Fertig, 2006).

Research on families in which one child is identified as gifted and others are not confirms that problems arise for the nonlabeled child. In one study, parents reported a negative and disruptive effect on the nongifted siblings that disturbed the status quo of the family (Fisher, 1981). Cornell (1983) also found “nongifted” siblings of gifted children to be less well-adjusted than a control group of other nongifted children. In a study by Cornell and Grossberg (1986), children who had been rated as “less gifted” than their siblings had higher anxiety and lower self-esteem than their sisters and brothers in gifted pro- grams. Grenier (1985) also reported higher self-esteem for children labeled “gifted” compared with their siblings. In addition, there was increased friction when the age differ- ence between siblings was less than three years. Pfouts (1980) similarly found that the closer the age spacing, the more the siblings were affected negatively in family rela- tionships and personal adjustment, and also that younger siblings were affected negatively in academic performance. Ballering and Koch (1984) found that the gifted children perceived the sibling relationships as more negative than did their nongifted brothers and sisters.

Although all the aforementioned studies included gifted children and their nonlabeled siblings, the Pfouts (1980) study was based on siblings at all intelligence levels—suggesting that the results of gifted–nongifted comparisons may be less related to labeling than to sibling rivalry in general. Colangelo and Brower (1987a) con- cluded that there were no long-term effects (five years or more) from the differential labeling within the family and

except for a B in Honors Math, which she vowed to the psychologist to improve. Her brother, Alex, also intellectually talented, underachieved since fourth grade and had fail- ing grades the first quarter of the seventh grade. Sonya helped him during the second quarter, and his grades improved.

Sonya wanted to help her brother further and appealed to the psychologist, who was hoping to build Alex’s independence but who also was aware that the sibling relationship could be maintaining Alex’s underachieve- ment. Sonya—bright, sophisticated, and open—had difficulty understanding that she could do any harm to Alex. When asked how she would feel if Alex suddenly reversed his underachievement and excelled in math, find- ing it to be so easy that he surpassed her math achievement, Sonya’s instant response was, “That would be horrible!” She immediately grasped the competitive issue. Sonya did not appear to others or perceive herself to be com- petitive, but that would only hold true as long as she held her competitive edge.

These three cases are a few samples of dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of sibling rivalries in which gifted stu- dents, whether achieving or underachieving, act out the sibling rivalry they feel. Many do not express these feel- ings openly, and only a minority of parents are aware of how competitive their children are with each other. Whether there is more sibling rivalry among families with gifted children than families with children of average intel- lect cannot be verified by case histories, but the existence of significant rivalry is clear. It is not a myth.

the gifted child in a Family of other achieving gifted children

It is not unusual to find that all children in a family are gifted; this could be due to genetics, a favorable environ- ment, positive parent and teacher expectations, or most likely all of the above. It is important to recognize that each child in the family will feel increased pressure to ful- fill the expectations set by preceding siblings. The first day of school for child two, child three, or child four inevitably begins with, “Oh yes, I know your sister. She was such a good student!” If the child is gifted and confident, this identification may be pleasing because he or she recog- nizes that the teacher has expectations that can be fulfilled. This early recognition may quickly produce privileges and trust that otherwise would take longer to earn.

Case 1

Maria, a 7-year-old first-grader, seemed happy in school, but complained to her parents that she didn’t like reading and was bored at school. She was in the highest reading group in her class and apparently was sufficiently challenged. Her IQ test scores were in the 130s, and her achievement test scores sug- gested she had been appropriately placed in the high reading group. Yet she maintained that she was not happy at school.

One sister, Beth, had skipped a grade the year before, had read spontaneously before entering school, and had an IQ test score in the  profoundly gifted range. When asked how she felt about her sister’s grade skip, Maria, in a burst of emotion, confessed that she “hated it” and it made her “feel dumb.” The intense sibling rivalry she expressed is unlikely to have been apparent in any questionnaire. Her par- ents were shocked to realize the impact of Beth’s giftedness and grade skip on her younger sister’s confidence. With only a little assistance, Maria adjusted to and enjoyed school.

Maria’s parents were encouraged to be sensitive to the sibling rivalry that was very intense between all the sisters in the family, but particularly between the extremely gifted child and her less gifted sister. Beth, inciden- tally, did not explicitly express feelings of rivalry, but her efforts to keep her sister “in her place” were subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, apparent.

Case 2

Roger, age 14, was the younger of two broth- ers. His older brother was adopted, and Roger was the “surprise” natural child that his par- ents believed they would never have. Both boys had IQ scores in the very superior range. Both were talented in music and sports. Roger, how- ever, was an underachiever in all his talent areas. His words reflected the extreme sibling rivalry he felt: “How would you feel,” he asked, “if everything you did, your brother did better?” (Rimm, 1990b)

Case 3

Sonya was a high-achieving talented junior in high school. She carried an all-A average,

332 Chapter 16

Parenting the Gifted Child 333

On the other hand, a less confident child may see the early identification by the teacher as a threat because the child may worry that his or her performance will be less impressive than that of the older sibling. A sensitive teacher will quickly learn to recognize differences between sib- lings. Nonetheless, parents may still need to explain to their child, “Mrs. Jones had Carlos, too, but she’ll soon get to know that you’re also a good worker, even though you’re different than your brother.”

Perhaps most important, parents of several gifted children may need to make a specific effort to ease the grade pressure for younger children. Parents should let them know that the parents understand the special pres- sures the children feel due to the inevitable comparisons with their siblings. The parent’s “expectation message” should be that each child is expected to do the very best he or she can and that the child’s performance will be indi- vidually evaluated, not compared with the record of the older brother or sister.

Regardless of differences in sibling ability, it is usu- ally better to acknowledge achievements and to reward them, as we noted before, relative to each child’s capabili- ties. Democratically pretending that differences do not exist, withholding important opportunities from the gifted

child, or accepting less than the best efforts from less capable children are common but unproductive responses of parents of gifted children.

Generally, helping parents to deal with their chil- dren’s competitive feelings is a difficult problem. How- ever, the patterns described in this section are common and recurrent, and the recommended solutions have proven effective again and again. The teacher should be aware of the patterns, set to recognize them, and prepared to make good recommendations to parents.

Suggestions that teachers can make for raising a “whole smart family” are discussed in Box 16.1.

gender issues

Parents should be sensitized to the gender issues and ste- reotypes that may prevent their gifted children from fulfill- ing their potential. Chapter 14 of this book provided discussions specifically related to gender issues of concern to parents and teachers.

Peer Pressure

During early childhood, almost all children are motivated by a desire to please parents and teachers and to be “good” children.

BOX 16.1

What Parents Can Do to Create a Whole Smart Family

avoid labeling Although it’s obvious that all children in the family are not exactly alike and that some children may be different in intellectual, artistic, musical, or physical abilities, it is also obvious that family competition encourages each child to seek special attention that is different from that of the other children. When parents emphasize their children’s differences, it seems to label them and limit their confi- dence in almost all other areas.

Prioritize Education as First. It’s important for parents to consider all their children intelligent even if one seems a bit more intelligent than the others. When parents of the successful women in the Rimm study (Rimm et al., 2014) expected all their children to be smart and value challenge, the children were actually less competitive with each other.

Consider Both Parents Intelligent. When the parents of the successful women considered each other to be intelli- gent, their children had high regard for both. Even when their mothers were full-time homemakers, they were valued by the entire family as intelligent. Regardless of which parent the women identified with, they automati- cally considered themselves smart.

an example of raising a Whole smart Family Dr. Teresa Culver’s (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2014) family provides an excellent prototype of how parents can raise a whole smart family. Although there were five children in the family, all went to college and all have careers. Teresa’s parents considered all the children to be smart, includ- ing Teresa’s brother, who had a learning disability. Being smart and hardworking were emphasized. The children varied in their musical and athletic skills and activities, but all participated. The whole family was included, whether they were going to a concert or a basketball game. Music, science, camping, and sports were part of growing up in their enriched family environment. It was assumed that all would continue their education beyond high school and indeed they all did.

Source: Based on S. Rimm, What Happens to Jack and Susan: How to Raise a Whole Smart Family, 2000. Retrieved from: www. seejanewin.com.

absolute requirement for entrance. Jon had been a straight-A student until sixth grade. When he entered junior high school, he decided that he no longer wanted to be known as a “nerd.” He looked at his older brothers, who were underachievers, and decided that they were much more “casual.” Jon’s two sis- ters were excellent students, but they were known as nerds. He embarked on his new “cas- ual” approach to school. His grades went down to Bs at first, and then to Cs. He never failed a course and was not worried until he heard about the new college entrance requirements. Jon then felt that it was be too late to open opportunities for the college of his choice.

Uncomfortable peer pressures can be reduced for scholarly adolescent boys if they can dissipate their brainy image and replace it with excellence in sports, and for girls if they have the good fortune to be pretty (Coleman, 1961). Surveys of high school students (Schroeder-Davis, 1998, 1999) showed that 66% of high school students felt that high school athletes received more recognition than stu- dent scholars.

Another important qualification for peer acceptance is skill in playing down one’s academic ability and excellence—for example, by not using a sophisticated vocabulary, not showing enthusiasm for high achievement, not carrying too many books at one time, and not mention- ing one’s large quantity of reading and studying time or one’s enjoyment of intellectual matters. A gifted student may continue to achieve, however.

Most gifted students agree that continued achieve- ment exacts a social price (Rimm, 2001b; Rimm, 2005; Rimm et al., 2014). When over 3,500 Minnesota secondary students were asked in a survey conducted by Schroeder- Davis (1999; see also Gross, 2001) whether they would rather be best looking, most athletic, or smartest in their class, over half (53.8%) indicated “most intelligent,” 37.3%, “most athletic,” and 8.9%, “best looking.” On first examination, the results seem to favor giftedness, but further review of these students’ essays revealed an anti- intellectual stigma that they perceived to be expressed by their peers, and almost none described any social benefit to being intelligent.

Swiatek and Dorr (1998) investigated the social cop- ing strategies used by gifted adolescents and found five main approaches: (1) denial of giftedness (saying that their ability isn’t really that good), (2) emphasis on popularity (the extent to which they emphasize popularity), (3) peer acceptance (their perceived impact of giftedness on social integration), (4) social interaction (the extent to which

Kohlberg (1974, 1976; Kuhmerker, 1991) in fact titled this period the “good boy, good girl” stage in children’s moral development. During these years, there is little peer pressure to distract the child from parental and school goals. Beginning usually in the preadolescent period, and now earlier than ever, the normal tendency to conform to peer norms and expectan- cies exerts its influence (Rimm, 2005). Peer pressures become strongest and most influential in the middle school years. This is a time when gifted adolescents often describe feelings of being different from their peers (Rimm, 2005; Rimm et al. 2014; Swiatek & Dorr, 1998).

Adolescence marks the beginning of a crucial devel- opment phenomenon, the formation of a perhaps perma- nent identity—a personal knowledge of who and what one is and where one is going in life (Erikson, 1968). The youth, who is changing rapidly both physically and men- tally, may have a difficult time during this “identity crisis” period. The structured standards of adolescent peers often provide the needed direction, support, and strength. Close family relationships and good parent models help to dif- fuse some of the ambiguity, but the necessary chore of establishing an identity separate from the family reduces parental inf luence during this period—and strengthens peer influence.

While positive relationships with parents typically are not harmful to peer relationships (Montemayer, 1984), reliance on peers for advice and acceptance can be nega- tively associated with closeness to parents (Kandel & Lesser, 1972). Continuous bickering with parents seems to propel adolescents to more dependence on and acceptance of peer norms, with rejection of parent norms (e.g., Hill, 1980). The gifted child who previously had taken pride in earning high grades now faces a difficult personal contra- diction. The greatest tragedy occurs when the gifted young person mentally drops out of school, accepting literally the peer mandate that “studying is not cool.” They worry that popular students will harass them if their grades are too high or they work too hard (Rimm, 2005). Maintaining a positive family environment helps gifted children deal with the antigifted peer pressure they may feel during adoles- cence. Here is a case study:

Jon came to the psychological clinic of his own volition. He felt desperately in need of help. As a junior in a highly academic high school, he had little confidence that he could do anything about his problem. Although Jon’s IQ score was 147, his grades were mainly Cs, with the exception of one D. He was no longer in accelerated courses. He wanted to go to the University of Wisconsin at Madison, but no longer ranked in the top third of his class, an

334 Chapter 16

Parenting the Gifted Child 335

Gross (1993a, 1993b) found ongoing stress for a group of stu- dents with IQs over 160. Eighty percent reported experienc- ing intense social isolation and continuous self-monitoring of their social behavior for peer acceptance.

As we have mentioned several times, probably the best way to stimulate gifted and talented students, particu- larly adolescents, is to help assemble a gifted cohort group. Such a group can encourage high achievement and rein- force the full use of one’s talents. For example, youth sym- phony orchestras, high-level Saturday and summer programs, special classes, and peer discussion groups for the gifted help young people value their talent and build constructive self-concepts and identities.

Webb (2003) suggested that gifted children benefited from multiple peer groups. Finding peers who share inter- ests reassures gifted children about their social compe- tence, but those peers can be quite varied. Peers in chess may be different than peers in baseball or video games, and different still than peers for talking and hanging out. Par- ents and teachers who worry too much about gifted children fitting in with same-age peers often put uninten- tional pressures on their children to fit in with the so-called popular crowd; thus, these children may underachieve in order to conform.

It also is important for parents to value and support their children’s talent during this precarious period in their development and not to add to the pressures that the child is already feeling—for example, by sending messages stressing high popularity and social success. Parents may have to counter peer messages of popularity by pointing out that the emphasis on popularity, as a competitive form of friendship, ends at high school graduation (Rimm, 2005). They will need to point out, subtly if possible, that students who are conscientious about their studies will carry away the best scholarships and will be accepted to first-rate colleges and that, once college begins, the stress on popularity is viewed as irrelevant and immature. The story of a successful “nerd” is included in Box 16.2.

students get involved in extracurricular activities), and (5) downplaying giftedness (not telling people test grades, etc.). They found that girls were more likely than boys to deny their abilities and report high levels of socialization.

The successful women in the Rimm report (Rimm et al., 2014) also seemed to become extremely involved in extracurricular activities to cope with their feelings of differ- ence. The specific activities of their involvement were often predictive of skills they used in later careers; for example, attorneys were often involved in debate, and women in media were writers or active in drama.

A survey conducted by Brown and Steinberg (1989) of 8,000 high school students in California and Wisconsin found that less than 10% of the high achievers were willing to be identified as part of the “brain” crowd, and students often withdrew from debate, computer clubs, and honors classes to avoid being labeled a “geek” or a “nerd.” The percentage was lower for females than for males, higher for Asian American (14%), and lower for African American students. None of the high-achieving African Americans was willing to be considered part of the brain crowd. Luftig and Nichols (1989) also found evidence that gifted boys hide or mask their giftedness, for example, by being funny. In contrast, Luftig and Nichols (1990) found that gifted boys ranked as most popular the nongifted boys and the nongifted girls as second most popular; gifted girls were ranked as least popular of the four groups.

Overall, these studies show peer pressures on gifted students to which parents should be alerted. Brown and Steinberg (1990) ask a critical question: “Are we support- ing a peer system that trains students to harbor diminished aspirations so that, as adults, gifted individuals continue to underachieve in order to be socially acceptable?”

Many studies that have compared peer pressures of moderately gifted students with students with extremely high IQs have concluded that popularity is a much greater problem for students with unusually high intelligence (e.g., Feldman, 1986; Gallagher, 1958; Hollingworth, 1942).

BOX 16.2

What Happened to One Nerdy, Smart Boy

A long time ago, in the post-Sputnik years, when gifted programming was new and was targeted toward science and mathematics, we [Rimm and her husband] lived in northwestern rural New Jersey. My new husband was a graduate student working on his graduate degree in dairy genetics. I had just graduated college and was substitute teaching, hoping to get my first real teaching job.

Our only neighbors were my husband’s major pro- fessor, Bob Mather; his wife, Martha, who was an elemen- tary school teacher; and their two children, John and Janet. We visited back and forth, and Martha told me about the importance of ability grouping for gifted children. Bob was interested in astronomy and had gotten a telescope so that he and his middle-grade children could explore the

(continued)

children’s bedroom. In a study of the parenting differences between a gifted and nongifted group of middle-class chil- dren (Karnes, Shwedel, & Lewis, 1984), the clearest differ- ence was in the amount of time spent reading and engaging in academically related activities with the child. The evi- dence provides a clear directive to parents regarding the need for early, concentrated involvement with their child for the child’s full development of both language and non- linguistic abilities.

Language experience is probably the most critical kind of involvement. Talking to children, reading and tell- ing stories, rhyming and imitation, word games, children’s music, and even simply listening to children all increase the children’s opportunities to learn communication and attention skills. Being read to at home continues to be the best indicator of advanced reading ability in the preschool years (Teale, 1984). Puzzles, blocks, and construction toys help children develop small-muscle coordination, spatial abilities, and concentration skill. Large toys (tricycles, wag- ons, riding horses) help the development of large-muscle coordination. Many games help children learn to follow directions and to cooperate. Questioning, curiosity, and independence should also be encouraged.

A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the parent- ing behaviors of 46 gifted preschoolers in nine states (Snowden & Christian, 1999) focused on important strate- gies of parents of gifted children. All but one of the fami- lies in the study included two working parents. Parents were dedicated to their children’s learning and were authoritative in their parenting approaches. A quantitative analysis of the Parent as a Teacher Inventory (PAAT; Strom, 1984) showed that parents “fostered creativity, showed low levels of frustration, exerted an appropriate amount of f lexible control, viewed play as a highly

Consider two thoughts pertaining to peer pressures and the stresses of adolescence: First, if the gifted child has been accelerated, there is a tendency to blame difficulties during adolescence on the acceleration practice—“Well, skipping sixth grade just didn’t work!” Maybe the accel- eration was working fine, and the child might have been worse off without it. Second, if a gifted child is not achiev- ing up to capacity—due entirely to an unchallenging curriculum—it is not unusual to blame anti-academic peer pressures rather than educational deficiencies. Tips for guiding gifted children through the challenges of peer pressure are discussed in the Gifted Modules of the Parent- ing for Achievement course (Rimm, 1994) and in the book Growing Up Too Fast (Rimm, 2005).

Preschool children

Parents of very young gifted children frequently ask teach- ers the best way to help their children before they enter school. It is an important matter because research clearly demonstrates the strong impact of early environment on language and cognitive development. For example, White, Kaban, and Attanucci (1979) found in their Harvard Pre- school Project that “live language” directed at the child during his or her first three years was the single most criti- cal factor in the child’s later competence in cognitive, lin- guistic, and social areas. Morrow (1983) compared the home environments of 58 kindergarten children showing high interest in reading with the homes of 58 children showing low interest. The high-interest children came from homes with supportive literary environments. That is, the family used the public library, parents did a great deal of reading, and parents read to children frequently; there were more books in the home and specifically in the

star-studded sky that a rural area can provide so well. The children didn’t have many friends but spent a lot of time learning, working, and having fun with their family. I never heard the parents describe their children as brilliant, extraor- dinary, or even gifted, although they did consider them smart. John, particularly, seemed shy and definitely in the “nerd” category. Later, he said that he was a “nerd” even before others had coined the word. That telescope encour- aged astronomy to become John’s love. John went to a public, rural school in a very small school district and chose a small college, Swarthmore, because he considered it “to be respectable to be a ’nerd’ there.” He went on to do graduate work in astronomy at the University of California at Berkeley where he graduated with a 4.0 grade point average. After graduation, John took a job with NASA.

That’s what post-Sputnik gifted education was all about— no surprise there, but here’s the surprise! That shy, timid, nerdy kid, John C. Mather, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006, for his work on the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite that helped cement the big-bang theory of the universe and can be regarded as “the starting point for cosmology as a precision science” (Mather & Boslough, 1998).

Most parents and teachers can’t count on raising or teaching gifted children to become Nobel Prize winners. John’s parents and teachers didn’t expect him to become a Nobel Prize winner. But perhaps if we can inspire our gifted children to become engaged in interests, to work hard and be resilient enough to endure “nerdhood,” they, too, may make meaningful contributions.

336 Chapter 16

Parenting the Gifted Child 337

the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that children under age two have absolutely no screen time, and for children ages three and older, total screen time should be limited to no more than two hours.

early identification and testing

There is good evidence that parents can recognize their children’s giftedness quite early (Gogul, McCumsey, & Hewett, 1985). A national survey of 1,039 parents of gifted children between the ages of one and three found that 70% of them were accurately identified by their parents. Of the characteristics that caused parents to suspect giftedness, “early verbal expressions” was mentioned most frequently. Other observed characteristics included an unusually long attention span, a good memory, high level of curiosity, and an early demonstration of original and creative behavior.

The reliability of parents’ recognition of preschool giftedness was also supported by a program at Towson State University in Baltimore, Maryland (Hanson, 1984). Parents were encouraged to enroll their children in a pro- gram for four-, five-, and six-year-old gifted children on the basis of their own perceptions of the children’s verbal giftedness. After enrollment, these children were given a battery of tests. Ninety percent of the children tested at least one year above grade level in reading, and all of the five- and six-year-olds had high scores on the Fund of Knowledge subtests. Mathematics scores were not as con- sistently high, but parents had not been asked to consider math skill in their decision making. Louis and Lewis (1992) also found that parents’ beliefs about their pre- school children’s giftedness squared well with the chil- dren’s actual abilities.

Eighteen preschool children between the ages of 2 and 5 years, 11 months, were brought to the author’s (Rimm) Family Achievement Clinic for evaluation follow- ing the publication of a local newspaper article about Mensa’s youngest member ever admitted, a child age 2 years, 4 months, with an IQ score of 175 on the Stanford- Binet LM. Of the 18 children brought to the clinic, three of the 2-year-olds were found to be too young to test. The remaining children were evaluated with the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI), Stanford-Binet LM, or the Stanford-Binet IV. IQ scores var- ied between 120 and 175, and Preschool and Kindergarten Interest Descriptor (PRIDE) creativity scores were between the 47th percentile and 99th percentile. All children tested at least within the superior range of ability, and two-thirds of those tested scored 130 or above (Rimm, 1999).

Although we have no way of knowing the percentage of children who are missed by a parent-identification proce- dure, the evidence suggests that parents do not overidentify

valuable activity, showed confidence in their abilities as teachers, and acted as facilitators of the teaching/ learning  process” (p. 215). Unfortunately, this study had no control group.

Here are a few more preschool precautions, some dos and don’ts in helping gifted children. First, television watching, which is basically a passive-receptive activity, should be monitored and limited (Jensen, 1995; Johnson, Cohen, Kasen, & Brook, 2007). Healy (1990) found the effect of TV viewing to be “neurologically addictive,” and the practice may actually change the brain’s electrical impulses. She indicates that “zombie” TV watching may impair listening, problem solving, and sustaining attention. This observation seems particularly important in a time when many gifted children are being identified with atten- tion deficit disorders. Early television watching has been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Stern, 2007). Heavy TV watchers (two or more hours a day) were 40% more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than those who watch less than two hours a day. Other problems that increased with TV watching were learning problems, obesity, and diabetes (Johnson, Cohen, Kasen, & Brook, 2007; Rimm, 2004b; Stern, 2007).

Abelman (1992a) believes that TV can be either good news or bad news for gifted kids. The bad news is that the average child watches, on television, about 1,000 murders, rapes, or aggravated assaults during a one-year period (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1995). Bushman and Anderson (2001) argued that the magnitude of violence on TV is as toxic a relationship to violence in our society as cigarette smoking is to lung can- cer, yet scientists have not been able to argue this case suc- cessfully. A second piece of bad news for gifted youth is that they are rarely represented on TV. When they are, they are typically viewed as social misfits (Abelman, 1986, 1992b). The good news is that, in studies of gifted children of all ages, they are often attracted to programming that is more complex and intellectually stimulating, and they tend to be bored by more standardized program formats. And more good news is that Rimm (2005) found that gifted stu- dents watched less TV, on the average, than students who were not identified as gifted. However, both groups, on average, spent much more time in front of TV screens than doing homework.

In the Morrow (1983) study mentioned earlier, the high-interest kindergarten readers came from homes in which there were rules limiting television viewing and in which mothers watched less television than mothers in the homes of low-interest readers. Educational programs, obviously, should be included within the limited watching.

Screen time is no longer limited to TV and now includes tablets and video games. According to Summers (2014),

●● Test scores give quantitative data, which you may or may not choose to share with the school when com- municating about your child’s special needs. These quantitative data are usually normative, comparing your child’s development with that of a sample of average children of similar age.

●● Weak areas may be discovered that may be masked by your child’s intellectual giftedness. Preschool testing permits you to assist your child in practicing these skills.

●● Test scores give you confidence in your personal observations or correct them appropriately. They can prevent you from placing too much pressure on your child.

●● Early test scores provide baseline information for monitoring your child’s intellectual growth and progress.

Early entrance is often the best alternative for gifted children, but if parents have serious doubts about early entrance, then it is advisable to start the child at the regular age, with subject acceleration in the child’s areas of great- est strength. Observation by the teacher in the accelerated subject(s) over time will provide the required evidence for the next decision. Teachers are good observers, provided that they, too, have knowledge about gifted children and acceleration research (Colangelo et al., 2004b; Rimm & Lovance, 1992a, 1992b).

Recently, there has been a trend to delay entrance to kindergarten in the belief that an older, more mature child will have an educational and confidence advantage. However, research consistently confirms that average children who are delayed entrants do not achieve better

to the extent that teachers often believe. Some studies indi- cate that parents usually underestimate rather than overesti- mate their children’s giftedness (e.g., Chitwood, 1986).

Box 16.3 presents Silverman and Kearney’s (1989) summary of some of the impact and challenges that accompany the evaluation and identification of highly gifted children. Many parental and family adjustments are clearly in order.

If parents believe that their preschool children are gifted, they should ask to have them evaluated. Tests of preschool children are appropriate, with the caution that such early tests are somewhat unreliable. Scores can be adversely affected by many factors, including fatigue, stress, and diet (Perino & Perino, 1981). The scores should not be taken as an absolute measure of the child’s ability and certainly not viewed as a limit to that ability. Tests of young children are likely to be conservative estimates of their ability because “test construction makes it virtually impossible to score at a level higher than [the child’s] potential” (Chitwood, 1986).

A survey by Sankar-DeLeeuw (1999) of 91 parents who belonged to a gifted association in Edmonton, Alberta, and 44 preschool teachers found that only 74% of the par- ents and 50% of the teachers believed that preschool chil- dren should be assessed during those early years.

There are good reasons for early assessment (Rimm, 2007a):

●● Children who are intellectually gifted may benefit from early entrance to kindergarten, special curricu- lum planning within kindergarten, or a uniquely enriched preschool environment (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004b).

BOX 16.3

Impact of Extraordinarily Gifted Children on Parents

The discovery of one or more exceptionally gifted children in a family brings with it some extraordinary challenges. Some of these challenges are unique to families of highly gifted children, and some are intensified issues that all families of the gifted face. Among these issues are:

• Gaining an accurate assessment of the child’s abilities. • Coming to terms with the results of testing. • Determining appropriate educational provisions for

the children. • Handling financial stress—even in upper-middle-

class families. • Dealing with society’s lack of understanding of and

responsiveness toward this group.

• Coping with the heightened sensitivity, intensity, and perfectionism of these children.

• Facing the possibility of an early empty nest because of the extreme acceleration of the children.

• Discovering and coming to terms with one’s own giftedness.

• Deciding whether to develop one’s own aspirations or devote oneself to nurturing the children’s development.

Source: From “Parents of the extraordinarily gifted. Advanced De- velopment, 1, 41-56” by Linda Silverman and Katheryn Kearney. Copyright © 1989, by Linda Silverman and Katheryn Kearney. Used with the permission of Linda Kreger Silverman.

338 Chapter 16

Parenting the Gifted Child 339

However, the quality of that environment does count. Consider the findings of a study by the University of North Carolina (1999):

Children in higher-quality classrooms dis- played more advanced cognitive skills in two areas: language development and premath skills. They scored higher on individual assess- ments of receptive language ability, indicating that they had a better understanding of lan- guage than children in lower-quality class- rooms. Children’s understanding of language showed the strongest relationship to quality of all the outcomes measured. Children in higher- quality classrooms also evidenced better soci- oemotional development.

Another study by the National Research Council (1998) found the following results:

The number of months that children spend in preschool has been found to be related to achievement test scores in second grade, behavior problems in third grade, and school retention in kindergarten through third grade. Children with more preschool experience had higher achievement scores and fewer behavior problems and were less likely to be required to repeat a grade.

Although none of these studies was of gifted chil- dren specifically, the findings are especially important for disadvantaged gifted children. Today, quality child care is important for all children because more children are in early child care than ever before.

nontraditional Parenting

According to a U.S. Census Bureau (2003) report, half of the children in the United States live in nontraditional fam- ilies. Rogers and Nielson (1993) asserted that gifted chil- dren of divorced families may indeed be an underidentified and underserved population in gifted education. They base their concerns on the very few research studies that com- pare parents’ marital status with the stereotypes laid down by the longitudinal study by Terman (1925) over 90 years ago. Rogers and Neilsen concluded that fewer gifted children came from divorced homes than from the usual population. Among the 1,036 women in the Rimm study (Rimm et al., 2014), there also were fewer gifted children from divorced parents than in the typical population; how- ever, those who did come from divorced parents often credited their single mothers for being effective role mod- els. The authors of this book call for new research on the

academically or socially than typical-age entrants (e.g., Davis, Trimble, & Vincent, 1980; Graue & DiPerna, 2000; Langer, Kalk, & Searls, 1984; Wang 2010). Ceci (1991), in analyzing 200 studies of the relationship between schooling and IQ, found that a child’s IQ score falls behind that of others of the same age when formal classroom education is delayed, as when entrance to kin- dergarten is postponed. Perhaps that finding is not sur- prising because the child is less likely to be in an enriched learning environment, and IQ scores compare children’s learning performance with their age rather than their grade level. Further research on red shirting, or holding children back, from kindergarten finds more behavior problems among red-shirted boys in middle school (Graue & DiPerna, 2000). By high school, red-shirted children were less motivated and didn’t perform as well as early entrants (Wang 2010).

day care and Preschools

Day care and preschools for young gifted children have become increasingly common as more women seek to com- bine careers with child rearing. The importance of language stimulation during early childhood seems to recommend a close parent–child relationship during this critical period. A day-care center on a full-time basis cannot substitute for that unique, attention-filled experience, although part-time care may be satisfactory. A high-quality child care provider, who will talk to and interact with the child on a one-to-one basis, is a good alternative for a full-time working mother.

Attending preschool for two or three half-days per week for a year or two before kindergarten can provide excellent language training and other forms of skill develop- ment and educational enrichment for any three- to five-year- old child. Note, however, that (1) the quality of the nursery school, (2) its sensitivity to the needs of very bright children, and (3) its encouragement of language and creative expres- sion are important considerations in making a selection.

Creel and Karnes (1988) confirmed that parents of gifted preschool children were eager to have education ser- vices for their young children. Forty-nine of 51 such par- ents surveyed indicated that they would support having a specialized, gifted-preschool program on at least a half-day basis. Strom et al. (1992) designed a curriculum for par- ents of 68 gifted minority and low-income preschool and primary children that was very helpful to them in develop- ing a family–school partnership.

The decision about whether to place the gifted child in day care or a preschool is not an easy yes or no one. It must be a careful decision based on an examination of the particular needs of the child and the alternatives available for that child.

imaginativeness and single-parent families reciprocally nurture each other by reason of the amounts of “empty space” preschoolers have within single-parent families.

An example of the impact of increased attention and stimulation stemming from single parenting comes from the following clinical case study:

Elizabeth was born to a teenage mother of average ability. Her father left the area imme- diately after he discovered the pregnancy. There was no indication of his having above- average ability. Elizabeth’s mother felt a great deal of guilt about the out-of-wedlock preg- nancy and promised herself she would com- pensate Elizabeth by almost total attention. Elizabeth received extraordinary amounts of time, attention, and talk, and she was read to during her preschool years. In third grade her measured IQ score was 155.

Increased stimulation and attention, as well as val- ued time alone, for the child in a single-parent family can provide some advantages for giftedness and imagination (Rimm, 2007b). Also, children raised today in single- parent homes often know many other children in similar circumstances and thus don’t feel as different. On balance, it’s clear that the risks of single-parent families outweigh the advantages, but there is no reason for single parents to despair. Many children from single-parent homes succeed and grow into happy adults.

Studies of gifted children in single-parent homes are based on female-led families. Whereas there are many more single-parent families led by mothers, there are now an increasing number of single fathers who lead their homes. Very little research is available on the effects of single parenting on children, and none specifically on father-led families of gifted children. Research is needed. Box 16.4 summarizes some of Rimm’s (2008a) precau- tions for single parents.

families of gifted children and emphasize that almost no current research is available on children of divorce in the gifted population.

Nontraditional family settings can cause extra stress for parents and children. However, there are some precau- tions that can be followed to lessen that stress and enhance the child’s adjustment.

single-Parent Families

Fifty percent of today’s children have spent part of their childhood in a single-parent setting, and only three out of 10 children live with two parents in their first and only marriage (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). More anxiety and emotional disturbance exist for children in single-parent homes compared with children in homes that have two par- ents (Dunn & Deater-Deckland, 2001; Henderson, 1981; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982). Most single-parent homes do not include the father, and father absence con- tributes greatly to chemical dependency, suicide risk, vio- lence, crime, and delinquency among children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Gelbrich and Hare (1989) found that gifted male and female students in single-parent fami- lies achieved at lower levels than students from traditional families; the underachievement problem was greater for males than for females. There also are some surprising, positive effects of single-parent families.

In research reported by Cornelius and Yawkey (1985), children in single-parent families tended to have higher imaginativeness scores, had more imaginary com- panions, used more imaginative talk with their fantasy friends, played more imaginative games alone, and engaged in more imaginative out-of-doors games than those in two-parent families. These results were based on scores from a group of 50 preschoolers aged four and five who were administered a 28-item Imaginative Predisposi- tion Interview Scale (Yawkey, 1983). Manosevitz, Prentice, and Wilson (1973) suggested that individual

BOX 16.4

Suggestions for Single Parents

As a single parent, are you destined to have an undera- chieving child? Of course not, but your job is more difficult. Here are some simple rules to guide you—simple only in that they’re few and straightforward. In reality, they’re ter- ribly difficult for single parents to negotiate. Pat yourself on the back for each successful day. You deserve it.

• Find a career direction for your life to give you a sense of purpose and to build your personal self- confidence. Making your children your only purpose gives them power and causes them pressure that will be too stressful for them to manage.

340 Chapter 16

Parenting the Gifted Child 341

through divorce should get professional counseling for support rather than depend on their children at this vulner- able time. Children also should have the opportunity to talk things through with a “safe” person who is not an involved member of the family or part of the strife. Here’s a story about a troubled adolescent with four parents:

Dayton, age 12, came to Family Achievement Clinic because of behavior problems and his argumentativeness with teachers. He had been dismissed from the weekly gifted pullout pro- gram. All four of his parents came together to report their shared concerns. At first appearance, they seemed a respectful, united parenting team.

After Dayton told his story, it was easier to understand how he had received his overem- powerment and learned his continual arguing with teachers. First, he shared the fact that he had a history of problems getting along with peers and didn’t feel accepted by most. He then explained that he was very good at win- ning arguments with teachers, and he was motivated to argue because arguing brought his peers’ cheers and admiration.

Dayton then shared his most recent behav- ioral incident when he responded aggressively

multiple-Parent Families

When children have multiple parents living in different homes by reason of divorce or remarriage, the challenge of appropriate parenting certainly is extended. Many books have been written specifically on the topic, so this brief summary emphasizes only some key risks related to gifted- ness. Because gifted children, by reason of vocabulary and advanced reasoning, appear so adultlike, the biggest prob- lem is that, during a divorce, one or both parents will assign them adult roles. That is, they are often treated as confidant, partner, and counselor. Initially, they may enjoy this new adult status because they feel empowered by it. However, the risks are great. These children feel torn by their loyalty to both parents, who no longer seem to like each other. They feel insecure because of the adult responsibility given too early. They easily fall victim to manipulations and learn a manipulative style of relating to both parents. Often, the mother who confides in her adolescent gifted child in an adult manner during the immediate predivorce and postdi- vorce period is likely to find herself with an unmanageable adolescent. It is as if the teenager who has been given adult status refuses thereafter to acknowledge the parent’s right to parent him or her. Even during the trauma of divorce, gifted children must reserve the right to remain children, or their social and emotional health will suffer. Parents going

• Find some adult social outlets for yourself. Don’t feel guilty about enjoying yourself as an adult away from your children.

• Find reliable child care or a day-care facility for your children. Consistency in caregivers and surround- ings is important for young children.

• Treat your child as a child, not a toy to be played with or an adult to be depended on. Do not share your bed with your child (except during thunder- storms). That is an adult status that you should reserve for a spouse.

• Don’t tell your children that you will love them more than anyone else forever, or else finding a new part- ner for yourself will cause them to believe that you deceived them.

• If your children come home from a visitation with your former spouse and are unruly, don’t blame that poor behavior on the other parent. Instead, tell your children you’re pleased that they had a nice time, and if you can manage a nice comment about the other parent, they’ll settle down more easily. They need to know that they can love you both.

• Take time (you have little) to enjoy your children’s achievements and encourage them to take respon- sibilities.

The following are three special rules for single mothers who are parenting boys:

• Boys should have an older male as a model. Find effective role models for your boys. Uncles, grand- fathers, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, and Big Broth- ers may all be helpful to your sons in learning to be comfortable with their masculinity.

• If you don’t view your children’s natural father as an effective role model, absolutely do not tell your boys how much they look like and remind you of their father, especially when you are angry.

• Avoid power struggles with your children’s father. If their father mistreats you and shows open disre- spect toward you, your sons are likely to imitate this powerful but disrespectful behavior.

These rules will sound simplistic to some of you and impossible to others. They may be difficult for a single par- ent to live by, but they are effective for parenting your children in a single-parent household.

Source: From “How to Parent So Children Will Learn: Strate- gies for Raising Happy, Achieving Children’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

their gifted child. The first step is to talk with their child so that they are confident of his or her feelings or needs; the second step is to talk to the child’s teacher; and the third step, moving up the ladder of administration, should take place only after a good-faith effort has been made to talk to the teacher. It is hoped that, in most cases, the third step will be unnecessary.

In advocating for the gifted child, Mocilnikar (2006), Devries (1999), Kord (2001), and Rimm (2008b) encour- age parents to resist the urge to be confrontational. Parents will accomplish more by being pleasant “pushy parents” and by allying with teachers, gifted coordinators, and prin- cipals. Box 16.5 provides an acrostic for improved parent- advocacy communications with educators. Hewton (2007) reminds parents to keep a strong sense of humor.

Despite recommendations from most researchers to parents for allying with schools, the Fresno (California) Parents for the Gifted organization ignored the positive “lukewarm” approaches advocated by most parent gifted organizations. They succeeded in getting a gifted spe- cialty school by using an adversarial approach (Rowe, 1990). However, this negative strategy was adopted only after more positive approaches had failed. Fortunately, most parent groups need not resort to antagonistic approaches that risk alienating the very persons whose help is needed.

For parents who may wish to explore legal remedies for their children’s inadequate education, Karnes and Marquardt (1991a, 1991b, 2000, 2003; see Chapter 1) have assembled court case histories and guidelines for decision making in three comprehensive books:

Gifted Children and the Law

Gifted Children and Legal Issues in Education

Gifted Children and Legal Issues: An Update

to a student’s taunts. The principal set his conse- quence for fighting as the forfeiture of his end- of-year class trip. When Dayton completed his story of the incident, he added, “Two of my four parents thought I should have punched the kid harder, and three of them said the principal had no right to take my trip away.”

His parents were less united than it at first appeared, and Dayton could manage to manipulate battles between them. It was quite clear that his argumentativeness and overem- powerment had both family and school origins. It isn’t easy for four parents to remain united.

Parent suPPort grouPs and advocacy

Because gifted children, by definition, are a minority, ade- quate educational opportunities will often be provided for them only if there is a vocal and visible support group in the community. If adequate G/T programs are not availa- ble, joining or organizing a parent support group should be a top priority for concerned parents of gifted children and for teachers interested in gifted education. A fringe benefit of such visible membership is that parents make a clear statement to their children that education, cultural growth, and challenge are top priorities in family values. Joining a local or state organization permits parents to advocate not only for their own children but for all gifted children in their school district and state. The California Association for the Gifted (2003) has assembled an excellent handbook for parents that is sure to make parent advocacy even more effective.

Smutney (2001) recommended that parent advocates take a three-step approach when they need to stand up for

BOX 16.5

ALLIANCE for Successful Parent-to-Teacher Communication

Ally with the teacher privately about your concerns.

Listen to what the teacher has observed about your child.

Learn about what the teacher thinks is best for your child.

Initiate a conversation about your child’s strengths and problems.

Ask about experimental ideas for engaging and interesting curricular and extracurricular activities.

Negotiate to find appropriate adult and peer role models.

Consent to alternatives if experimental opportuni- ties are not effective.

Extend possibilities patiently.

Source: From “Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and what You Can Do about it: A Six-step Program for Parents and Teachers’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

342 Chapter 16

Parenting the Gifted Child 343

certain to make their desires known. A teacher–parent communication acrostic (see Box 16.6 and the similar parent–teacher acrostic in Box 16.5) will help teachers communicate to parents who seem to the teachers to be pushing too much. Parent groups can help educate indi- vidual parents regarding the problems and needs of gifted children and the educational opportunities that are—or should be—provided to them. Parent groups can also help organize enrichment activities for gifted children, such as Saturday, summer, or mentor programs. Individual par- ents themselves may teach special art, music, math, or computer minicourses (e.g., Tkach, 1986, 1987). Parents can also serve as the important volunteer staff—tutoring, transporting, and mentoring in their area of professional expertise—which will extend the opportunities that schools can provide to gifted and talented children.

Gifted education is more likely to survive in a school district if there is parent group support. Box 16.7 provides guidelines for starting a parent group.

Educators would also benefit by exploring this legal information to ascertain that, indeed, they are providing for the education needs of the gifted children within their schools. Legal recourse is in order only when all positive efforts have failed because the time-consuming nature of the legal process, in the long run, may not benefit the child’s immediate needs.

Names and websites of three national organizations are listed in Appendix 16.1 at the end of this chapter. These organizations can direct parents and teachers to  state and local groups. They are also a source of information and have publications intended specifically for parents of gifted children.

It is best that teachers of gifted children recognize the important roles of parent groups and parent support. Ideally, parents will learn about giftedness and can thus become full instructional partners for their children (Radaszewski-Byrne, 2001). Teachers should not view these parents as threatening, even though they are

BOX 16.6

ALLIANCE for Successful Teacher-to-Parent Communication

Ally with the parents privately about your concerns.

Listen to what the parents have observed about their child.

Learn about what the parents think is best for their child.

Initiate a conversation about the student’s strengths and problems.

Add experimental ideas for engaging and interest- ing curricular and extracurricular activities.

Negotiate to find appropriate adult and peer role models.

Consider alternative possibilities if experimental opportunities are not effective.

Extend possibilities patiently.

Source: From “Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and what You Can Do about it: A Six-step Program for Parents and Teachers’’ by Sylvia B. Rimm. Copyright © 2008 by Great Potential Press, Inc.

BOX 16.7

Guidelines for Forming a Parent Support Group

1. Define Your Purpose: Is it advocacy, socialization/ membership, education, or all three?

2. Start Small: Connect with other parents to get started, but don’t expect to conquer all at your first meeting.

3. Find an Inspiring Speaker: Inviting all families to hear a speaker talk about perfectionism, persever- ance, or achievement can attract membership.

4. Capture Data: You can collect interests and e-mail addresses from your speaker audience.

5. Create Structure: Affiliate with your state associa- tion to receive guidance and support.

6. Communicate Constantly: Websites, social media, e-mail, and school activities for parents pro- vide communication avenues.

7. Partner and Offer Value: Work closely with your school district to offer parents and students enrich- ment opportunities.

Source: Based on “How to form a gifted parent organization for your district. Ohio Association of Gifted Children, Review, 25” by Angela Grimm, 2014.

to present their data; parents, their stories. Both affect change.

●● Prepare for persistence. You may have to call back multiple times. You may feel that no one cares about your important message because they do not return your call. Don’t feel hurt. You have a mission. You will eventually get your three min- utes or your small column. Consider how many people will learn about gifted and talented educa- tion needs if you just don’t quit!

In summary, the media can help you multiply your mission messages by millions and can also provide some fun experiences.

Teaching Teens self-advocacy

Parents should be the primary advocates for gifted chil- dren, but as children become teens, they too can learn the skills for communicating to teachers about their needs for differentiation and acceleration in curriculum ( Douglas, 2004a, 2004b). Encouraging teens to advocate for themselves should be accompanied by reminders about their responsibility for proving their capabilities and for showing respect for their teachers’ perspectives. The acrostic in Box 16.5 (Rimm, 2008b) that parents can use for communicating with teachers can be shared with teens to remind them that teachers also have valuable knowledge and that proving their competence and inter- ests to teachers will require some experimentation and patience.

ParenTs as Teachers—home schooling gifTed children

Parents typically are important teachers for their gifted children. They usually introduce their children to their love of learning and ideally provide them with enriching experi- ences during their entire childhood. However, a significant number of parents of gifted children choose to either par- tially or completely home-school their children (Ensign, 2005; Rivero, 2002; Jolly et al., 2012).

Parents of highly gifted children often find them- selves frustrated in their advocacy efforts because of the difficulty of convincing school districts to provide the unusual education that their children require. For these children, academic skills may be far ahead of other developmental and social skills (Davidson & Davidson, 2004; Julicher, 2000). Here’s an example:

At age 3½, Andrew was comfortably reading third-grade material. Although he was still

Parents can bring attention to the needs of gifted students throughout the community, state, and nation through the use of the media (Karnes & Lewis, 1997). Local newspapers, radio, television, and Internet blogs provide opportunities to focus on exemplary school pro- grams for talented children. A caution in sharing these programs is that, in the content of publications, it should not appear that an unfair proportion of resources is being targeted for the gifted students. If you wish to feature a special activity or field trip, make sure that it’s one for which the participating students themselves have earned the funds.

Rimm (1996b) found in her own work as a regular NBC Today parenting expert and an expert host on a pub- lic radio program that the media are extremely effective in informing the public about the needs of gifted children. She reached millions of parents and included giftedness in her media opportunities regularly. Here are some point- ers, based on the author’s experience, that may help par- ents and educators use the media in ways that benefit all children:

●● Personal interest helps. Search for people in the media who care and who share your goals. They are the most likely to invite you to their talk shows or interview you.

●● Make their interest your interest. Be sensitive to ways that you can help with some of the media’s other goals, for example, by volunteering for on-the- air fundraisers. Your contributions will be appreci- ated, and you will likely be asked to return for more help and more publicity for your case and theirs.

●● Don’t talk too much. Time on the air and TV screen is precious. Viewers and listeners are accustomed to fast-moving programs, and normal conversation often takes too long for radio and television. Plan ahead and organize the main ideas you want to share. Be sure to focus the interview to include your points. Be succinct.

●● Make your host look good. When on the air, do not show off your expertise by appearing to be smarter than your host. Hosts are on regularly and need to maintain their credibility. You can present your message in a win–win conversation as long as your host agrees with your message at the start.

●● Consider your strengths. Persons with very different personalities are successful in the media. If humor is not your strength, leave the jokes to someone else. Rimm found that if she forgot the audience and talked and laughed directly with Matt Lauer or Katie Couric, her conversations seemed most genuine. A different style may work for you. Researchers need

344 Chapter 16

Parenting the Gifted Child 345

1. Parents believe they knew their children’s abilities better than schools did (not a surprising finding because there would be no other reason to home- school them).

2. Parents only home-schooled after making disap- pointing efforts to arrange with schools for appropri- ate learning.

3. Mothers, rather than fathers, were almost always the children’s teachers.

4. Home-schooling parents and children typically experienced a sense of isolation.

5. Finding balance in home schooling multiple children in the family was difficult.

6. Rimm’s personal experience in helping home- schooled children adjust to Menlo Park Academy (a charter school for gifted students) indicates great dif- ficulty for these children for adjusting socially and emotionally. Home-schooled children were typically prepared very well academically.

toddling about and tripping over his feet, he could count, add, and subtract. By age 4½, he was pretty good at multiplication, loved science and learning, and was already reading chapter books. Andrew was finally eligible for kindergarten, but a fourth-grade class- room would barely be intellectually challeng- ing enough. His father took the responsibility for continuing his education by home school- ing him.

There is no doubt that parents who home-school their children must make a great commitment to their chil- dren’s education. Because there are now so many children being home-schooled, they can often join together for social and athletic activities. Although home schooling has increased dramatically for gifted students, research spe- cific to home schooling is difficult to find. Jolly et al. (2012) interviewed thirteen parents of gifted, home- schooled children and found the following:

Summary

Some parents deny their child’s giftedness; others may exaggerate it. Parenting by positive expectations includes showing expectations of high achievement, having good attitudes, and giving positive support.

With the “Who’s in Charge?” problem, children are overempowered and overindulged, which can lead to later problems and even underachievement.

Competitiveness motivates high achievement. How- ever, feelings of competitiveness that are too strong cause stress, perhaps leading to loss of appetite, bed wetting, nightmares, irritability, and so forth. Parents should help gifted children and adolescents to identify sources of stress and should guide them in making the burdens more manage- able. A subtle source of stress may come from too-frequent adult praise that emphasizes superlatives and perfection.

As suggested in the Yerkes-Dodson law, an intermediate level of stress (stimulation) produces optimal performances; stress beyond that level becomes counterproductive. Recrea- tion, exercise, an empathic environment, and humor can help reduce stress. Parents should be careful not to reinforce avoid- ance of challenge in the name of anxiety.

Noncompetitive intellectual activities, such as indi- vidualized learning, clubs, hobbies, field trips, or inde- pendent research projects, lead to enjoyable experiences of intellectual discovery without fear of failure.

Sibling rivalry is usually due to competition for par- ents’ attention or resources. Giftedness can have a signifi- cant impact on sibling achievement, for better or worse.

One basic recommendation is that each child receives individualized opportunities for creative and intellectual development; a democratic attitude that leads to treating all children alike is counterproductive. Each child should be evaluated and reinforced for accomplish- ments relative to his or her own abilities and efforts. Preferential treatment and labeling by significant others such as grandparents, aunts, and uncles may exacerbate sibling rivalry.

Peer pressure, combined with adolescent identity formation, severely reduces parental influence. A disdain for academic accomplishment is a common form of peer influence that can lead to underachievement—that is, men- tally dropping out. Popularity should be deemphasized by parents and explained as a competitive form of friendship that ends at high school graduation.

The gifted student can learn to downplay his or her “brainy image” but still be a high achiever, although sur- veys and research continue to show that gifted high achiev- ers usually pay a social price. The best solution is to help assemble interest groups of gifted peers who support the gifted student’s achievement orientation.

Preschool learning is critically important for lan- guage and cognitive development. Research indicates that habits of reading and skills of independent problem solv- ing are acquired in the early home environment. Parents are very important early teachers for their children.

Precautions can be taken with preschool children to enhance their learning. Television watching should be moderated and monitored. Quality television watching may contribute to children’s knowledge base that enhances giftedness. Violence on TV may have as much of a rela- tionship to violence in our society as cigarette smoking does to lung cancer. Moderated parent chatter, teaching of basic writing skills, daily alone time, and f lexibility are also recommended.

Studies show that parents are good identifiers of pre- school giftedness. Parents who observe characteristics of giftedness in their preschool children may have the chil- dren evaluated. The benefits of identification and testing are early entrance to kindergarten, comparison with other children, discovery of weak areas, confidence in personal observations, and baseline information. Studies have found a decline in IQ and behavior problems later when formal classroom education is delayed.

Quality of day care and preschools has been found to make a significant difference in children’s cognitive abilities.

It is especially important because more children than ever before are in early child care.

Nontraditional parenting and multiple-parent fami- lies provide special problems for gifted children. New and updated research is needed to identify gifted children of divorce and of families led by single fathers.

Parent support groups can lead to the creation of G/T programs, teach children that parents value education, help educate individual parents, organize enrichment activities, teach minicourses, and assist with the G/T program. Parents can also use the media to bring the needs of gifted children to the attention of the community.

Parents need to stand up for their gifted kids. Although proactive approaches are always recommended, in some cases legal remedies may need to be pursued. Teens can be encouraged to advocate respectfully for their education needs.

For some highly gifted children with asynchronous development, home schooling provides a path to appropri- ate learning. Home-schooling parents shared some problems including feelings of isolation by both parent and child.

AppendiX 16.1 nAtiOnAl Gifted And tAlented educAtiOnAl OrGAnizAtiOnS

Council for Exceptional Children—Talented and Gifted (CEC- TAG), http://cectag.com/standards-2/ National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), http://www. nagc.org/

Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted (SENG), http:// sengifted.org/

346 Chapter 16

347

17 Understanding and Counseling Gifted Students

Learning OutcOmes

1. Summarize the historical background of understanding and counseling gifted students.

2. Describe the personal and social issues that gifted children may experience.

3. Analyze the causes, effects, and strategies to help gifted students with neurotic perfectionism.

4. Describe the facets of emotional sensitivity and overexcitabilities in gifted children.

5. Investigate the issues facing students who are gifted and gay, and recommended supports.

6. Investigate the issues facing students who are gifted and overweight, and recommended supports.

7. Identify the suicide risk factors and prevention steps for gifted students, families, professioinals, and peers.

8. Use career guidance and counseling to support gifted adolescents.

9. Recommend strategies for counseling gifted students.

10. Apply stress management strategies for gifted learners.

11. Develop a counseling program for gifted students with administrators, teachers, counselors, and parents.

C H A P T E R

I n contrast to the educational and career counseling needed by all other students as they approach high school graduation, gifted students—from the lowest elementary grades through high school—also need help with a variety of self-definition, social, and family issues, along with education- and career-related problems.

Many thoughtful specialists in gifted education continue to argue strongly that counseling and guidance are essential for the full development of gifted children and that counseling should be an integral component of every gifted program (e.g., Bireley & Genshaft, 1991; Colangelo, 2003; Delisle, 1992; Gallagher, 1990, 1991a; Hébert, 2006; Landrum, 1987; Mahoney, 2006; Meckstroth, 2006; Neihart, 2006; Perrone, 1997; Robinson, 2006; Silverman, 1997; VanTassel-Baska, 1983a; Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan, 2005). Rimm, the first author of this book, proclaims that parents and teachers of gifted children also need to understand the psychology of giftedness so they can guide these children well.

As a general rule, the greater the gift, the greater the counseling need. As a preliminary sample of counseling needs, the common problem of feeling different and not fitting in with

friends is almost a given for highly gifted children and adolescents unless they are at a school for gifted students. Bright students usually become idealistic thinkers many years ahead of their peers. The average child’s narrow, per- sonal concerns contrast sharply with the gifted child’s deep and often upsetting concern for moral issues and justice, such as world hunger, high divorce rates, and the unequal distribution of wealth that jams prisons with members of the economically disadvantaged minority. Personal and home problems can include conflicts with siblings, peers, and

parents (Peterson, 2008); resistance to authority; depression and withdrawal; and sometimes alcoholism, drug addiction, delinquency, and even suicide (e.g., Blakeley, 2000; Cross, 1996; Fleith, 2001). Many are bored with school learning, which sometimes leads to apathy and underachievement (Rimm, 2008c). As mentioned in Chapter 12, one estimate is that between 18% and 25% of all dropouts are gifted (Solorzano, 1983; Renzulli & Park, 2000). Sadowski (1987; described in Renzulli & Park, 2000) reported that gifted high school dropouts had “unstable” homes, consumed alcohol and drugs, had low school motivation, were rebel- lious toward school and authority, had poor peer relations and social adjustment—and there was poor counseling in high school and inadequate communication with parents.

Some gifted students drop out of high school; others waste their talents by choosing not to attend college. Other gifted students become overcommitted with school and outside activities, and need help coping with the pressures.

Family members and peers may not understand gift- edness, which leads in some cases to unrealistic expecta- tions and in others to jealousy, resentment, or outright hostility about the gifted one’s high ability (e.g., Clasen & Clasen, 1992; Rimm 1990b; Silverman, 1983a). As noted in Chapter 16, research by Brown and Steinberg (1990) showed that many teenagers express their resentment of high achievers by affixing the label brain, meaning “high achiever,” to the label nerd, meaning “loser” in the peer social system. Underachievement and its seeming reverse, an irrational compulsion for perfectionism, are both com- mon in gifted students. Their high intelligence, self-analytic ability, and perfectionism lead many highly gifted youth to evaluate themselves critically and often harshly (e.g., Reis & Moon, 2002). As described by Piechowski (1997), highly gifted and creative students can experience self-judgment, self-doubt, self-criticism, and sometimes even self-loathing; they may desperately search for meaning in their lives and for their place in the world; they may feel weak, unbal- anced, and irrational; and as we will explain later, many are intricately sensitive yet relentlessly intense. Because of their obvious uniqueness, many ask themselves, “What’s wrong with me?” and some look for themselves in descrip- tions of mental disorders (Piechowski, 1997; Tolan, 1987).

Some of the most frequently occurring problems are the following (Dai & Renzulli, 2000; Delisle, 1992; Landrum, 1987; Niehart et al., 2002; Rimm, 2003a; Rimm et al., 2014; Silverman, 1983a, 2002):

●● Difficulty with social relationships, isolation from peers.

●● Conformity pressures—hiding talents in order to be accepted by peers.

●● Anxiety, depression.

●● Difficulty in accepting criticism. ●● Nonconformity and resistance to authority. ●● Lack of sufficient challenge in schoolwork. ●● Refusal to do routine, repetitious assignments. ●● Excessive competitiveness or avoidance of competition. ●● Poor study habits. ●● Difficulty with self-understanding and self-discovery. ●● Difficulty understanding the nature and significance

of intellectual differences. ●● Intellectual frustration in day-to-day and life situations. ●● Difficulty in selecting a satisfying vocation from

among a diversity of interests (multipotentiality). ●● Struggle to develop a satisfying philosophy of life. ●● Perfectionism.

One of the main goals of this chapter is understand- ing the unique personal, psychological and education problems of gifted students. When teachers, counselors, parents, and gifted peers comprehend the problems, they can then aid and support the troubled gifted students, helping them realize that they are not abnormal, they are not weird, and they are not alone. Many counseling activities are designed to assist gifted students in self- discovery—understanding themselves and their abilities, motives, interests, and values. A second goal of the chap- ter is to suggest counseling functions, activities, and strategies that can be carried out by teachers, counselors, parents, or others. Another goal for counseling some gifted students is to assist them in transitions when and if they move from a traditional classroom to a gifted cluster group or special school for gifted students (Rimm & Rakow, 2014).

The remainder of the chapter will review the follow- ing topics:

Historical background

Personal and social issues

Perfectionism

Emotional sensitivity and overexcitability

Gifted and gay

Gifted and overweight

Depression and suicide

Career guidance and counseling

Strategies for counseling gifted students

Group counseling

Family counseling

Stress management

Developing a counseling program for gifted students

Counseling roles for administrators, teachers, coun- selors, and parents

348 Chapter 17

Historical Background

In Chapters 1 and 2 we commented brief ly on Terman’s landmark longitudinal studies of high-IQ gifted persons (Burks, Jensen, & Terman, 1930; Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959). One of the best-known findings of that research f lew in the face of the folklore assumption that intellectually gifted people are physically and mentally inferior. In 1895, for example, Cesare Lombroso tied genius to insanity and feebleness. The philosophy of the 19th century seemed to be that the “average man” is nature’s ideal, and deviations toward better or worse are nature’s mistakes (Boring, 1950; Silverman, 1983a).

Terman and associates found that, in fact, people with IQs of 140 or more were physically, psychologically, and socially superior. He thus erased one myth but simulta- neously created another—the idea that gifted children are clearly well adjusted and therefore do not need counseling. It is a serious myth! When Rimm indicated to her first advisor for her doctorate program in school psychology that she wanted to specialize in gifted children, she was told that gifted children didn’t need psychologists and was encouraged to change advisors. She did.

Leta Hollingworth’s (1926, 1942) early work helped correct Terman’s conclusion. For example, Hollingworth noted that, because regular schooling fails to meet the needs of the gifted, many gifted children become apathetic. She also identified problems stemming from gaps among the intellectual, emotional, and physical aspects of devel- opment. “To have the intellect of an adult and the emotions of a child combined in a childish body is to encounter cer- tain difficulties” (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 282). That une- venness was later termed asynchronous development and is a very helpful concept for understanding gifted children.

In the early 1930s John Rothney and John Gowan studied at Harvard University under the direction of John Brewer and Truman Kelly, who were pioneers in educa- tional guidance (Silverman, 1983a). Throughout his career, Gowan, one of the founders of the National Association for Gifted Children, argued the case for counseling services for the gifted (see, e.g., Gowan, 1979).

In the 1950s, John Rothney founded the Guidance Laboratory for Superior Students at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Later renamed the Guidance Insti- tute for Talented Students (GIFTS), the lab conducted in-service training and workshops on counseling the gifted, helped establish guidance programs in schools, and pro- vided direct counseling services to gifted high school stu- dents. GIFTS ended in 1984.

Supporting the Emotional Needs of the Gifted (SENG) was founded in 1981 by James T. Webb at Wright State University, after the 1980 suicide of Dallas Egbert, a

highly precocious 16-year-old student attending Michigan State University who wanted desperately to be “normal.” Now based in Scottsdale, Arizona, SENG continues to focus on the counseling and psychological needs of the gifted.

In 1982, at the University of Nebraska, Barbara Kerr established the Guidance Laboratory for Gifted and Talented, extending the work of both GIFTS and SENG (Colangelo, 1997). In 1988, the Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development was created by Nicholas Colangelo and Barbara Kerr. The Belin-Blank Center at the University of Iowa retains a strong focus on personal counseling, career guidance, and family counseling, and offers summer programs for the gifted (see Chapter 6). There continues to be few counselors and psychologists who specialize in eval- uating and counseling gifted children and their families.

Personal and social issues self-concept, self-esteem, social adjustment, and identity

Problems and challenges associated with giftedness begin early. Silverman (1997) related that, beginning at birth, some gifted children are active babies who may sleep less than their parents, respond intensely to their environment, and exhaust parents with their need for stimulation.

Development may be uneven; for example, preco- cious verbal skills may accompany average small-muscle coordination (Rimm, 1995d), or children who are late talk- ers may suddenly explode with language. Remember the story in Chapter 2 about Christopher, who read in its entirety the sign about low interest rates instead of demonstrating his learning to read incrementally, as most children do.

Unevenness and surprises are typical of gifted chil- dren. Bright students may prefer to play with older chil- dren, sometimes “mother” younger children, and often relate well to adults. They sometimes have problems play- ing with average age-mates.

Because regular classes group students according to chronological age rather than mental age, gifted students find themselves in situations that meet neither their intel- lectual nor their social needs. Many experience feelings of isolation, social frustration, and even depression (Barkett, 2002; Sands & Howard-Hamilton, 1995). They may develop poor social skills from their inability to find “true peers”—other gifted students with similar abilities, inter- ests, problems, and needs. They may become social out- casts among age-mates who do not appreciate peers who are more adult in their abilities and interests, who are labeled gifted, and who learn and excel with little apparent effort (Sanborn, 1979).

Understanding and Counseling Gifted Students 349

350 Chapter 17

self-concepts for nongifted students, small but insignifi- cant differences with “mildly gifted” students (IQ of 120 to 131), but much stronger intellectual self-concepts than social self-concepts with a more highly gifted group. In Rimm’s study of more than 5,000 middle school stu- dents, significantly more of those who described them- selves as having far-above-average intelligence expressed stress about popularity and appearance than those who rated themselves as having only above-average intelli- gence (Rimm, 2005).

Over a half-century ago, Hollingworth (1942) noted that children with IQ scores between 120 and 145 are in an ideal range—they can achieve almost anything they wish yet can have normal social relationships. Above that IQ level, the child may be too different, too alone, too impa- tient with slow-witted friends and teachers, and too aware of so many irrationalities and hypocrisies in the world to function normally in social contexts. Unfortunately, as noted in Chapter 3, present-day deviation IQ scores don’t help us identify students above the 140 range because of the limitations of these tests.

Due to their social isolation, uniqueness, feelings of not being normal, and ability to self-analyze, many gifted youth experience severe identity problems regarding who they are and what they wish to become. Colangelo (2003) recommended that counselors help gifted students clarify and understand self-perceptions and relationships

In Chapter 2 we summarized a few findings by Kunkel et al. (1995), indicating that, on the positive side, seventh- and ninth-grade gifted students felt skillful, self- satisfied, and intellectually superior and believed that other people trusted them and asked for their help. On the nega- tive side, they felt social stress, difference from others, and frequent boredom; they reported that people made fun of them and made them wish they weren’t smart. See the response of one 12-year-old girl to the question “What does it mean to be gifted?” in Box 17.1.

The self-esteem of all school children is affected by their level of academic achievement. It follows that gifted children typically have higher self-esteem and self- confidence than regular students—at least regarding aca- demic matters (Colangelo, 2003; Dixon, 1998). Academic self-concepts are strong, but social self-concepts are often poor. Many gifted children believe that nongifted peers have negative opinions of them, which is frequently true, and even that some teachers share this negative view (Colangelo & Kelly, 1983; Dixon, 1998; Gross, 2003; Kerr, Colangelo, & Gaeth, 1988; Rimm, 2005, 2006c). Some hide their giftedness in order to improve their friendships or to avoid being judged a “nerd” or a “geek.”

It seems that the higher the IQ, the greater the chances of poor peer relations. Silverman, Chitwood, and Water (1986; Silverman, 1991), for example, found no discrepancy between intellectual and social

Box 17.1

What Does It Mean to Be Gifted?

James R. Delisle (1987) compiled delightful and insightful remarks from gifted children in a small book entitled Gifted Kids Speak Out. For example, when asked “What does it mean to be gifted?” a young girl from Germany replied, “Being gifted means having to stay in for kindergarten recess to do first-grade math.” (With this school policy, chances are good that not many Deutsch kinder wanted to be “gifted.”)

A 12-year-old Pennsylvania girl responded in writing to the question “What does it mean to be gifted?” with this thoughtful reaction:

A Afraid, that at some point in time I’ll slip and do something wrong and everyone will notice.

G Guilty, when pressured into not doing my best.

I Isolated, when others make me feel left out of “the group.”

F Frustrated, when I do something great and every- one laughs.

T Terrified, when I don’t know the answer and everyone stares at me.

E Excited, when I create something that everyone appreciates.

D Disgusted, that my special needs are neglected.

P Privileged, when I get extra time during school to do something for myself.

E Embarrassed, when the teacher announces my grades.

R Relieved, when people don’t laugh at me for getting less than 100%.

S Satisfied, when I am able to help someone else with something they don’t understand.

O On top of the world, when somebody says they enjoyed my work.

N Nervous, when pressured to always be the best.

Source: From “Gifted Kids Speak Out. Minneapolis:’’ by J. R. Delisle. Copyright © 1987 by Free Spirit Publishing.

Understanding and Counseling Gifted Students 351

counseled to surround themselves with social and aca- demic support.

Martin, Burns, and Schonlau (2010) took an epide- miological approach by comparing a great many studies of depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) between gifted and other youth and found no differences between the two groups. They noted the paucity of good research and urged further rigorous study.

Labeling

Labeling is always a dilemma in gifted education as well as in special education designed for students with general emo- tional disturbance or learning disabilities. The classification and labeling are necessary for obtaining funding and provid- ing programs. Nonetheless, when students are labeled “gifted” or as having “emotional disturbance” or “a learning disabil- ity,” these labels sometimes cause adults to make stereotyped and often false assumptions about individual children. A mis- diagnosis of gifted children, such as ADHD, autism, bipolar disorder, or depression, is common by those who are not sen- sitive to the emotional intensities that are often paired with giftedness (Rimm, 2008c; Webb et al., 2005). This issue was discussed in greater detail in Chapter 15. The labels can also cause the children to perceive themselves differently.

Although the “gifted” label strikes most of us as strongly positive, Colangelo and Davis (2003) and Weiss and Gallagher (1980) pointed out that giftedness and gifted programs run counter to the idea of a democratic, egalitar- ian society. The ambivalence has produced a love–hate rela- tionship between society and the concept of giftedness: We value and admire talent and drive, especially in someone who rises from a humble beginning, but we are also deeply committed to the concept that “all people are created equal.”

Berlin (2009) collected student perceptions of being labeled gifted for both moderately gifted and highly gifted groups. Box 17.2 includes both positive and negative self- generated perceptions of both groups.

Most elementary school children are willing to be labeled gifted and to participate in school gifted and talented (G/T) programs, but when they become conformity- conscious tweens, some may not want such a label and may drop out of gifted programs. A very popular children’s book by Andrew Clements (2006), The Report Card, tells the story of a profoundly gifted child, Nora, who hides her gifts and strives to earn Ds on her report card because of her wish to prevent her friends from feeling less intelligent by compari- son. The story, unfortunately, is resolved by a very antigifted approach: allowing Nora to skip the gifted program in order to stay with her friends. Nora’s gifted program becomes a matter of searching the Internet in her spare time. Clearly, Clements does not understand the needs of gifted children.

with others. He suggested exploring the following discus- sion questions with individuals or groups:

●● What does it mean to be gifted? (Variations: What do your parents think it means to be gifted? What do your teachers think it means to be gifted? What do other kids in school think it means?)

●● How is being gifted an advantage to you? How is it a disadvantage?

●● Have you ever deliberately hidden your giftedness? How?

●● How is your participation in this group different from your regular school day?

●● Would you rather be a gifted boy? A gifted girl? What does it mean to be gifted and Hispanic?

●● Is there a time in school (elementary, middle, high school) when it is easiest to be gifted? More difficult to be gifted? Why?

When bright students have the good fortune to be placed in special schools, classes, and programs where all students are gifted—and where intelligence and capability are valued—social relationships blossom, and both aca- demic and social self-concepts become strong (Higham & Buescher, 1987; Silverman, 1997).

In a study of 44 adolescent girls, ages 13 to 17, who were accelerated into a residential college program, Cornell, Callahan, and Lloyd (1991) found that individual social and personal maladjustment—for example, depres- sion, suicide threats, lack of friends, rule breaking, or drop- ping out due to stress—was related to prior adjustment and family-relationship issues. Specifically, these adolescents were more likely to have adjustment problems if they entered the program with a poor self-concept (social, aca- demic, or physical); a weak sense of responsibility; or dis- harmonious family relationships, particularly a poor-quality relationship with their mothers.

In another study of 294 gifted college students, Rinn (2007) found that students who enrolled in honors programs in a large university earned higher grades and had better academic self-concepts than those who were in regular programs. Reinforcing the importance of select peer groups among students, a comparison study of 1,339 freshman college students—42% of whom were the first generation of their family to go to college and the remaining percentage of whom had parents who had attended college—showed that the most important high school predictors of their college success were their membership in a positive, college-directed peer group and their comfort level in asking for assistance from teachers and counselors while in high school (Hudley, Moschetti, Gonzalez, Cho, Barry, & Kelly, 2009). These studies all support the fact that gifted students need to be

352 Chapter 17

sense of control, and readiness to take on a new chal- lenge. Of course, risk taking, she noted, inherently pre- sents the possibility of failure—otherwise, it would be called sure-thing taking.

Five types of risk taking itemized by Niehart (1999a) are intellectual risks (e.g., taking calculus), social risks (e.g., becoming best friends with a minority student or an unpopular boy or girl), emotional risks (e.g., telling some- one you really like them), physical risks (e.g., bungee jumping), and spiritual risks (e.g., questioning your reli- gious beliefs). As a teacher of the gifted and a school coun- selor, Neihart included the topic of risk taking in classroom curricula and in individual, group, and family therapy. She acquainted persons with the dynamics of risk taking and required students to take one risk per quarter. She helped students and others understand the different types of risk taking, along with these six steps:

1. Understand the benefits of risk taking. 2. Do a self-assessment of risk-taking categories. 3. Identify personal needs. 4. Select a risk to take. 5. Take the risk. 6. Process the risk-taking experience (the most impor-

tant step).

With increased understanding and experience, said Neihart (1999a), risk taking increases. Chapter 12

Having a gifted child in the family may increase sib- ling jealousy and competition (see Chapter 16). Siblings of children labeled gifted may not be as well adjusted socially and emotionally as siblings of nongifted children (Cornell, 1983). Colangelo and Brower (1987a, 1987b) found that sibling difficulties appear to be most intense when the sib- ling is first labeled gifted; within five years the negative effects seem to diminish.

As we saw in Chapters 1 and 7, Treffinger and Feldhusen (1996; Treffinger, 1995b) and Renzulli (1994) solve this and other problems by adopting the concept of talent development instead of giftedness. The focus is on strengthening the talents of all students, including highly capable ones. The strategy also circumvents social prob- lems created by labeling a few students “gifted” and the rest, by exclusion, “not gifted.”

risk taking

Some degree of risk taking is essential for academic and career success. According to Neihart (1999a), taking a risk means making an active choice toward one’s own growth. If students are unable to take risks, they severely compromise their potential for high achievement or strong leadership. Neihart noted that students must examine their feelings about success and failure, and select a risk-taking route toward increased confidence,

Box 17.2

Student-Generated Attributes of the “Gifted” Label

Positive Perceptions Negative Perceptions

Exposed to different curriculum Separation from friends for classes

Making new friends Parent expectations/pressure

Special experience in gifted classes Expectations of others (not teachers or parents)

Interaction with other gifted students Feeling more pressure than others to do well

Greater academic challenges Teacher expectations/pressure

Enjoying class more/not bored Teacher assumptions about giftedness

Receiving greater opportunities More homework/schoolwork

My friends regarding me as being smart Impact on relationship with friends

People looking up to you (giving respect) Stereotyped by others

Teacher perceptions Being taken advantage of by others

Self-confidence, sense of uniqueness Perceptions of nongifted students

Making parents happy/proud Gifted program not valued by others

Becoming a better writer People punishing you for being smart

Better teachers Scheduling issues related to being in gifted program

Understanding and Counseling Gifted Students 353

speak of perfectionism problems of the gifted, they mean neurotic perfectionism.

Neurotic perfectionism is born in gifted students’ long history of outstanding schoolwork and the perpetual, glow- ing feedback from teachers and parents. Because of the gifted children’s advanced vocabulary, reasoning, and out- standing schoolwork, parents may laughingly call them “genius,” “Einstein,” or “perfect.” Many gifted children inter- nalize the high praise and come to depend on it for their self- definition. They feel strong pressure to achieve at a level that matches the praise (Rimm, 1990a, 1990b, 2007c, 2008c). They work desperately—sometimes neurotically—to protect their identity. Some do not allow themselves mistakes or a less-than-perfect performance. Yet they are rarely satisfied with their accomplishments because they set standards that are “high beyond reach or reason” (Siegle & Schuler, 2000, p. 39). Their outcomes never feel good enough. When they do less than perfectly in all areas, regardless of their high level of performance, they feel guilty, frustrated, or depressed.

Some children have perfectionistic tendencies only in specific areas (Rimm, 2007c). For example, different children may be perfectionistic about different things— their grades, clothes and appearance, room organization and cleanliness, athletic prowess, or their music or art tal- ent. They may be perfectionistic in two or three areas but not disturbed by imperfection in other areas. Such “specifi- cally” or “partially” perfectionistic students “are more likely to be healthy perfectionists” (Rimm, 2007a, p. 2).

Greenspon (2006) reminds us that perfectionism is relational. Thus, perfectionists judge themselves harshly by comparing themselves unfavorably to others. Unhealthy perfectionism not only affects the perfectionist but also affects those around them. In their efforts to feel very good about themselves, perfectionists may unconsciously cause others to feel not as good. Spouses, siblings, or friends of perfectionists may feel angry and oppositional and may not understand their own irrational feelings (Rimm 2002). Sometimes, family members feel depressed and inadequate because they can’t measure up to the impossibly high standards of their family perfectionist.

For perfectionists to maintain their perfect status, they may unconsciously put others down and point out how imperfect they are, usually in a very “nice” way. For example, perfect sister Sally may say, “I don’t understand why my brother isn’t even trying to do his homework.” Giving others continuous unsolicited advice seems to reas- sure perfectionists of how intelligent they are. Perfection- ists are so determined to be impossibly perfect that causing others to feel bad has the unconscious effect of confirming their own perfection. The perfectionistic spouse, in his or her effort to feel “better than,” may also cause his or her partner to feel inadequate or less intelligent.

discusses the area of risk taking as it relates to intellectual risks, as well as the correlation of risk taking with undera- chievement in gifted students. Consider that much of early curriculum is so easy for gifted students that there is little early risk for them. When they first face a true challenge in environments with other gifted children, it may feel like a frightening intellectual risk. Chapter 13 focuses on disad- vantaged gifted students who face social and emotional risk when it isn’t comfortable to be considered gifted within their family or peer culture.

Are you, the reader, right now examining your own usual level of risk taking? What do you think? Is there room for a healthy change?

Perfectionism

According to one estimate, half the population of America has perfectionist tendencies (Adderholdt-Elliot, 1999). For gifted students, the proportion is higher. A study of 112 gifted adolescents in Grades 7 and 8 showed that 87.5% have strong tendencies toward perfectionism (Schuler, 1999). Another study of more than 1,000 successful women (Rimm et al., 2014) found that about one-third considered themselves to have been perfectionistic as teens. More mid- dle school girls than boys were found to be perfectionistic about their organization, but boys were found to believe that their parents expected more of them (Seigle & Schuler, 2000). Researchers Neumeister and Finch (2006) found that parent style contributed to perfectionism in 265 college honor students, with parenting that was both authoritative and per- missive supporting less perfectionism and parenting that was authoritarian and uninvolved leading to perfectionism.

The good news is that striving toward excellence or healthy (normal) perfectionism is a positive characteris- tic that drives high effort and accomplishment. Healthy perfectionists derive strong pleasure from their concen- trated effort, and they can adjust their work level as the situation requires.

Fong and Yuen (2014) point out that perfectionism is perceived very differently by students of non-Caucasian descent. The authors find that the Chinese view of perfec- tionism is more positive and consists of persistence; learn- ing from mistakes; and, even more important, involvement of family. The authors see it as connected to the growth mindset associated by Dweck (2006).

Perfectionism can be normal or neurotic in its emo- tional and interpersonal effects (Schuler, 1999, 2002). Baker (1996) confirmed that gifted students are stressed by perfectionism more than others but that “perfectionism becomes a clinical concern only when it prohibits gifted students from appreciating their competency or the ade- quacy of their work” (p. 365). Typically, when writers

354 Chapter 17

●● Accept mistakes; help students reduce their fear of failure.

●● Analyze personal problems. ●● Develop creative and problem-solving skills. ●● Develop good attitudes toward learning, school, and

society. ●● Learn to help others and to receive help from others. ●● Develop a sense of humor in regard to accepting

themselves and others.

Are you a perfectionist? Is good ever good enough? Do you remember this rhyme from your childhood: “Good, better, best; never let it rest, till your good is better and your better best”? One student told Dr. Rimm that her teacher had replaced that rhyme with a new one: “Trying your hardest is succeeding, but expecting perfection is self- defeating.” Striving for excellence is healthy, but when kids never feel satisfied with their work, perfectionism becomes a serious problem. Some characteristics of mala- daptive perfectionism in children, as cited by Adderholdt- Elliot (1999), include making themselves sick or cheating to get straight As, getting sweaty palms or accelerated heart rates before tests, continually comparing their test scores with those of other students, procrastinating until the last minute as an excuse for not having a perfect pro- ject, resenting editorial changes, and avoiding new experi- ences for fear of failing.

Box 17.3 gives clinical examples of how perfection- ism is dealt with by Rimm at the Family Achievement Clinic. Helping gifted children to take healthy intellectual

Schuler (1999) focused on both healthy and dysfunc- tional perfectionism, and itemized suggestions for teachers and counselors of gifted students. For example, teachers can do the following:

●● Learn how perfectionism affects the social and emo- tional traits of gifted students.

●● Recognize stressful perfectionism (e.g., inability to tolerate mistakes, impatience with others’ lack of perfectionism, delays in starting work, refusal to turn in less-than-perfect work).

●● Expect excellence, not perfection—teachers or coun- selors can discuss the difference with students.

●● Discuss how high standards motivate good work. ●● Encourage the flexible and creative principle dare to

dream. ●● Reward creativity. ●● Encourage perfectionistic students to explore areas in

which they are not guaranteed success and perfection. ●● Provide an environment that is safe for trying new

experiences, taking risks, and perhaps failing. ●● Use humor to lighten the atmosphere. Create a

“Humor Bulletin Board.” Laugh at yourself.

Counselors and teachers can help students in the fol- lowing ways as well:

●● Recognize strengths and weaknesses, and under- stand that no one is superior in everything.

●● Appreciate similarities and differences among people.

Box 17.3

Helping Perfectionists at Family Achievement Clinic

robert, kindergartener Robert’s profoundly gifted IQ test score encouraged the psy- chologist to arrange for skipping a grade from kindergarten to second grade. One purpose of skipping the grade was to provide reasonable challenge to prevent perfectionism. Robert’s parents followed other suggestions related to not overpraising, providing opportunities to develop other talents and skills, encouraging normal play and sports involvement, and teaching competition skills. Robert made an excellent adjustment to second grade and beyond. When Robert entered middle school, his mother contacted the clinic because he was experiencing stomachaches. The psychologist met with him, and he expressed anxiety about traveling between classes on time. Otherwise, he seemed reasonably happy, both academically and socially. Later that year, the tele- vision program 20/20 asked the clinic to arrange a program on perfectionism. The host, John Stoessel, interviewed Robert and

asked about his stomachaches. Robert surprised all by explain- ing that he was a little worried about his grades, which had fallen from the typical 99s and 100s to occasional 96s or 97s.

After a few additional sessions with Robert at the clinic, his stomachaches disappeared. Ten years later, 20/20 chose the Family Achievement Clinic to participate in another program on perfectionism. They searched for Robert and discovered that he was a premedical student at the Univer- sity of Wisconsin at Madison. When John Stoessel inter- viewed him this time, he asked whether Robert remembered his perfectionism problems and whether his therapy had helped. Robert said that he thought the therapy had helped him and that he recalled his parents getting him involved in sports in which he was only an average player. Thus, he learned to participate in activities in which he wasn’t as pro- ficient. Robert concluded his interview by saying that perfec- tionism was actually a handy habit for a premedical student.