gifted children v1n2

8/14/2019 Gifted Children V1N2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gifted-children-v1n2 1/15

Pho

The statistician keeps his finger on the pulse of Humanity,

and gives the necessary warning when things are not as they should beAdolphe Quetelet

GIFTED CHILDRENAn Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent.

Volume 1 Number 2 Spring 2007

Letter from Editor

Jonathan A. Plucker, Indiana University

Welcome to the second issue of the Research on Giftedness and Talent SIG’s new electronic

journal. The Publications Committee appreciates the many messages of encouragement and

offers of support in response to the first issue. We especially appreciate the time and energy

of the authors who participated in this issue’s feature and supporting articles.

This issue contains three featured articles. Frank Worrell’s research study on comparing the

psychosocial characteristics of talented students and students at risk for school failure is the

centerpiece of this issue. Frank continues to explore the psychological aspects of giftedness

in interesting and provocative ways, and we appreciate him sharing his work with the

ROGAT membership. In the second featured article, Meihua Qian, a doctoral student at

Indiana University, shares some thoughts about the study of creativity in China, where

problem-solving and creativity have largely been neglected but are increasingly a focus of

school reform efforts. Michael Matthews provides a critique of Florida’s new gifted

education rule in the final featured article. All three articles represent the types of

scholarship that the e-journal was meant to include and foster, and we hope to include

similar work in the future.

The brief book and article reviews in the first issue proved to be quite popular, so we have

included several more in this issue. Special thanks goes to Rita Culross, Ruth Hewston,

Dona Matthews, and Marion Porath for their contributions to this section.

The issue closes with information about the upcoming World Conference at the University

of Warwick in Coventry, England. Our appreciation goes to Alison Rowan and her

colleagues at the University of Warwick for the willingness to prepare the brief article in this

issue, which includes information about both this year’s conference and the history of the

Conference.

With this issue, I turn the editorial reins over to Dona Matthews. Please continue to offer

your support to Dona as she kicks off the second year of the e-journal!

In closing, I would like to thank Leigh Kupersmith, the managing editor for these two

issues, for her talent and hard work. Leigh is responsible for the look-and-feel and

production of the journal, both of which have received many compliments. For providing

the quotation below, I thank Michael Pyryt. Finally, I appreciate the assistance of

publication committee members Dona Matthews, Robin Kyburg, and Leigh Kupersmith,

and also SIG chair Michael Pyryt and past chair Carolyn Callahan.

AERA Special Interest Group Web Site: http://www.aeragifted.org/

Contents

Letter from Editor

Jonathan A. Plucker .................... 1

Talented Students and ResilientAt-Risk Students: Similarities and

DifferencesFrank C. Worrell .......................... 2

Big Country, Little Creativity—Creativity Research: A Rising Starin China

Meihua Qian ................................ 6

Some Thoughts on Florida’sProposed Gifted Rule Revision

Michael S. Matthews .................. 7

Book Reviews Models of Counseling Gifted Children, Adolescents, and Young

Adults

Reviewer: Rita R. Culross .............. 9The Genesis of Artistic Creativity:

Asperger’s Syndrome and the ArtsReviewer: Dr. Ruth Hewston .... 10

The Nature of Creative Development

Reviewer: Dr. Ruth Hewston .... 10

Mindset: The New Psychology of SuccessReviewer: Dona Matthews ........ 11

Article ReviewCognitive Development in Gifted ChildrenReviewer: Marion Porath .......... 13

World Conference 17 th BiennialAlison Rowan .......................... 14

AERA Research on Giftednessand Talent Officers ...................... 15

Working Committees ................... 15



Abstract

This study compared academically talented students (n = 23) who were not at risk for school failure andresilient at-risk students (n = 27) on risk factors and protective/promotive factors. Participants’ risk status wasdetermined by student assignment. The academically talented students were attending a summer program ata major research university and the at-risk students were graduates of a continuation high school for studentswho had had numerous infractions at regular high schools. As expected, the two groups differed on riskfactors and on factors related to academic status. However, the groups did not differ on psychosocial variablesrelated to positive functioning, suggesting that some of the factors that act as protective factors in at-riskyouth may serve as promotive factors in gifted and talented youth.

Students who are at-risk for school failure and students whoare identified as gifted and talented often experience schoolsin very different ways, and these two groups seldomoperate in the same sphere in school settings. Similarly,these two groups are rarely compared in the researchliterature. However, I have argued that resilient at-riskyouth may share certain psychosocial characteristics withacademically talented youth (Worrell, Latto, & Perlinki,1999). Using the language of the risk-resiliency paradigm,these psychosocial characteristics act as protective factorsfor youth who are at risk, but serve as promotive factors foryouth who are not at risk. In other words, the samecharacteristics that lead to outstanding performance in

talented youth who are not at risk promote resilience inyouth who are at risk. In this study, I comparedacademically talented students to resilient at-risk studentson a variety of risk and protective/promotive factors.

In brief, the risk-resiliency paradigm originated in theclinical literature on coping with stress and negative lifeevents (see Garmezy, 1987; Rutter, 1987; Werner, 1989,1990). Researchers in this field distinguish among riskfactors and protective factors. Risk factors are “biological orpsychosocial hazards that increase the likelihood of anegative developmental outcome” (Werner, 1990, p. 97),whereas protective factors are individual andenvironmental characteristics that “ameliorate or buffer a

person’s response to constitutional risk factors or stressfullife events” (Werner, 1990, p. 98). Vulnerability increases ordecreases with the number of risk and protective factors thataffect an individual, and an individual who is at-risk butdoes not succumb is described as resilient.

Only a few studies have compared academically talentedstudents and at-risk students on risk andprotective/promotive factors. Worrell (1997a) compared 24academically talented students attending a talentdevelopment program and 17 resilient at-risk studentsattending an alternative high school. He reported that the

at-risk students differed from the academically talentedgroup on eight of nine risk factors. The at-risk group hadsignificantly lower GPAs, greater involvement in problembehaviors, lower rates of participation in extracurricularactivities, and more frequent confrontations with parents.However, the groups did not differ on several factors, suchas rates of receiving help from teachers and relatives,numbers of close friends, and global self-esteem. The onlyvariables that the at-risk and talented groups differed onwere academically focused ones, including scholasticcompetence and self-ratings of competence as students, withthe academically talented students obtaining higher scores.These findings are in keeping with Hoge and Renzulli’s

(1993) finding that the only consistent difference on self-concept variables between gifted and non-gifted students ison academic self-concept.

Worrell et al. (1999) compared students in a continuationhigh school (n = 33), an after-school mentoring program (n =20), and a summer program for the academically talented (n= 50). Both the continuation school and the mentoringprogram students were at-risk for dropping out. Theseresearchers reported that that the three groups did not differon global self-esteem. However, the students in thementoring and talent development programs obtainedsignificantly higher scores on the Measure of Perceived LifeChances (Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1990) than the students

at the continuation school. Worrell et al. suggested that thesimilarity between the mentoring program students and thetalented students had to do with the former’s resilience—they chose to be in the mentoring program, which was notmandatory, perhaps in part because they had high hopes forthe future, as did the talented students.

Both the Worrell (1997a) and the Worrell et al. (1999) studieswere conducted in urban areas. Worrell, Gibbons, Starks,and Nicosia (2003) reported similar findings in a sample of

(continued on next page)

Talented Students and Resilient At-Risk Students: Similarities and Differences

Frank C. Worrell

University of California, Berkeley

Web site: atdp.berkeley.edu/Frank.html

Gifted Children Volume 2 Spring 2007



(Worrell, continued)

students from rural Montana. In this study, 79 honorstudents were compared to 33 at-risk graduates (resilient)and 31 at-risk dropouts. As before, the honor studentsreported fewer risk factors (e.g., truancy, problembehaviors) than the two at-risk groups, but did not differfrom the at-risk graduates on perceived school climate,

supportive adults in school, and supportive teachers.

In two of the studies, resilience was inferred. For example,Worrell (1997a) inferred resilience on the basis of teacherreport, and Worrell et al. (1999) hypothesized that thementoring program students were resilient based on theirsimilarity on perceived life chances to the talented students.In the Worrell et al. (2003) study, the resilient students werehigh school graduates, but that study is limited by aretrospective design, as the resilient group had alreadygraduated when the data were collected. In the currentstudy, academically talented youth are compared to at-riskyouth using a prospective design. It was hypothesized thatresilient at-risk youth would report significantly more risk

factors than a talented group, and that the talented groupwould report significantly higher levels of academic self-concept and achievement.

However, the groups were not expected to differ onpsychosocial variables related to an optimistic future or toperception of school climate. Variables related to the futurewere of particular importance in this study as several ofthese have been found to be related to resilience, includingperceived life chances (Jessor et al., 1990; Worrell et al.,1999), hope (Snyder et al., 1996; Worrell & Hale, 2001), andpossible selves (Nurius & Markus, 1986; Osyerman &Markus, 1990a, 1990b).

Method

ParticipantsThe participants consisted of 50 adolescents attendingschools in the San Francisco Bay Area. Twenty-sevenstudents were graduates of a continuation school forstudents who had had been re-assigned to the continuationschool from their home schools, as they had gotten intotrouble on many occasions. Despite this assignment, thestudents had graduated from the continuation school andwere considered resilient. These students were 52% maleand ranged in age from 16 to 20. They came from a varietyof ethnic backgrounds, including Asian American (11.5%),African American (23.1%), Chicano/Latino (38.5%), White

(18.5%%), and American Indian (7.4%). Seventy-sevenpercent of them were born in the US and had English as afirst language. Mothers were present in most of theirhouseholds (89%), but fathers were present in only abouthalf of the households (52%). Forty percent of this groupreported working more than four hours a week. Nineteenpercent of fathers and 7% of mothers of this group hadcollege degrees.

The other 23 students were attending a competitive summerprogram for academically talented youth at a major researchuniversity. They came from a variety of schools in thegreater Bay Area and were accepted into the program on the

basis of teacher recommendations, standardized test scores,interests, and GPA. Thirty-six percent of these studentswere male and they ranged in age from 14 to 18. Ethnicgroups represented included Asian American (54.5%),African American (13.6%), Chicano/Latino (9.1%), andWhite (22.7%). The majority (70%) were born in the UnitedStates and 65% had English as a first language. Motherswere present in all of these students’ households and fatherswere present in the majority of households (82.6%). Twenty-eight percent of this group reported working more than fourhours a week. Mean ages and GPAs for both groups can befound in Table 1. Seventy percent of fathers and 74% ofmothers of this group had college degrees.

MeasuresData were collected on several variables. Academicvariables included self-reported GPA, a single item ratingthe importance of attending college on a 4-point scale, andthe five-item scholastic competence subscale from the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents (SPPA) (Harter, 1988).SPPA items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale and theinstrument has been used in many studies. Scholasticcompetence scores have yielded adequate reliability andvalidity estimates in previous research (e.g., Harter, 1988;

Harter, Whitesell, & Junkin, 1998; Worrell, 1997b, 2000a).Risk factors included number of days truant, number ofmiddle and high schools attended, and engagement innegative behaviors based on a 13-item composite. Behaviorson the composite included getting into trouble with thepolice, smoking in school, shoplifting, damaging schoolproperty, and obtaining items by threatening other students,and were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Scores on thiscomposite are reliable and have been found to distinguishamong risk groups in previous research (e.g., Worrell &Hale, 2001).

Three protective/promotive factors were assessed: (1)expecting a good job by age 30, (2) hope in the future, and

(3) a perceived school climate composite based on the 20-item Instructional Climate Inventory-Student Form (ICI-S;Braskamp & Maehr, 1988). ICI-S scores are reliable and yielda single factor (Worrell, 2000b). Moreover, the total scorediscriminates among schools (Krug, 1989). Global self-esteem was also assessed as a general measure that shouldnot be related to risk status. This was measured using theRosenberg (1965) Self-Concept Scale (RSES), a 10-itemunidimensional measure with well-establishedpsychometric properties (e.g., Worrell, 2000a). Reliabilityestimates for the composites in this study are reported inTable 1 by risk group.

Procedure After receiving informed consent from parents andstudents, participants completed a packet of questionnaireswhich had all of the measures included in their classrooms.They were paid $10 for participation and were debriefedabout the purpose of the study upon completion. The studywas approved by the Committee for Protection of HumanSubjects at the University of California, Berkeley.





In 2006, the Florida Department of Education drafted aproposed revision to the state's gifted rule (6A-6.03019)which would eliminate the option for districts to developalternate plans and criteria for identifying gifted learnersfrom low-income and limited English proficiencybackgrounds. The admittedly laudable goal for this revisionis to provide a uniform identification process for its giftedlearners, but I find there are several aspects of the proposednew rule that may have unintended adverse consequences.As I write this, the full text of the current rule is availableonline at http://www.firn.edu/doe/rules/6a-63.htm#6A-6.03019, and the proposed revision is available as a PDF file

published by the Florida Administrative Weekly athttp://faw.dos.state.fl.us/newfaw/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2006/3242/SECTI.pdf. Because the state of Florida hasone of the largest and most diverse school populations inthe United States, as well as relatively strong giftededucation mandates and funding, it is important to considerFlorida's experiences as an indicator of where other statesmay be heading in the future.

The new gifted rule that has been proposed would allowstudents who obtain scores of 4 or 5 (of the five possibleoutcome categories) on the statewide FloridaComprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT) to be identifiedas gifted if they obtain IQ scores of 120-129. An IQ score of130 or higher would be sufficient on its own for giftedplacement. No student with an IQ score below 120 would beable to qualify. In contrast, the current rule does notmandate a minimum IQ score for gifted students from low-income or limited English proficient backgrounds, and mostdistricts currently allow these learners to qualify if theyobtain IQ scores of 115 or higher.

From the standpoint of equity, the proposed new criteria areless than ideal. As noted in Part II, paragraph 4 of theNational Excellence report (Ross, 1993):

Several categories of talented children areparticularly neglected in programs for top students.These include culturally different children (including

minority and economically disadvantaged students),females (who are underserved in mathematics andscience programs), students with disabilities, highpotential students who underachieve in school, andstudents with artistic talent. Some schools arediscouraged from serving these students by statelaws or regulations which require the schools to usecertain IQ cutoff scores or specific levels ofperformance on standardized tests [italics added]

District data shared at one of the public hearings held on theproposed new rule demonstrate that it would dramatically

increase the number of mainstream learners consideredgifted, while it would simultaneously deny gifted placementto the relatively few Florida students fromunderrepresented backgrounds (see Shaunessy, Matthews,& Smith, 2006) who have qualified under currentprocedures. By this two-pronged assault on the diversity ofthe student body eligible for gifted programming, theproposed rule would subject educational institutions inFlorida to the sorts of costly and time-consuming legalchallenges that produced the current two-trackidentification plan. Furthermore, no additional state fundingwould be provided to districts despite the huge increase in

the number of psychological evaluations that the newcriteria would mandate. I would prefer that the Departmentof Education take advantage of the golden opportunity arule revision offers to become a national leader in giftedidentification, rather than return to being a proving groundfor civil rights lawsuits.

If a new rule is indeed necessary, it should be one thatclearly takes into account research findings onidentification, as well as the experiences of other similarstates such as Georgia that have adopted a multiple-criteriaidentification approach (e.g., Krisel & Cowan, 1997). TheGeorgia approach retains IQ (mental ability) as part of thegifted identification process, but also recognizes creativity—which would be removed from consideration in Floridaunder the new proposed rule—as well as criteria based inmotivation and academic achievement. Portfolio evaluationsare also specifically provided for under the Georgia rule(McBee, 2006), offering an alternative entry path for thosegifted learners who may be unable to meet strict test-basedcriteria due to their emerging language proficiency inEnglish, specific learning disabilities, or other issues thatadversely influence test performance.

Other aspects of the proposed rule also are troublesome. Aswritten the rule would require high marks in both IQ andachievement, measures that tend to be correlated. Despitetheir strong relationship, requiring both criteria is likely toyield false negatives, i.e., a failure to identify some learnerswho are in fact gifted. Allowing lower IQ scores ifachievement scores are high is likely to identifysubstantially more high-achieving learners as gifted, addingmany students who already are well served by otherprogram options such as AP and IB coursework. A moreequitable approach would set a high standard, but would


Some Thoughts on Florida's Proposed Gifted Rule Revision

Michael S. Matthews, Ph.D.

The University of South Florida

([email protected])




(Matthews, continued)

require superior performance in either IQ or achievement.An equitable approach should also allow other, alternativepathways through which to demonstrate superior ability orachievement in specific domains.

The use of the FCAT scores of Levels 4 and 5 is problematicin itself, because it is unclear how these levels aredetermined, how the proportion of students attaining theselevels may change from year to year, or the degree ofrelative ability that these levels actually indicate. Thisinformation has not been forthcoming from those chargedwith developing the FCAT program, nor is it clear that thistest has a sufficient ceiling to identify gifted learners. If weare to believe that all students will be proficient by 2014, asmandated by NCLB, then performance levels 4 and 5 soonmay encompass one half to two-thirds of the schoolpopulation. This clearly would not be sufficiently exclusivefor the label "gifted" to retain any real meaning. Rather,restriction of the gifted category to somewhere less than tenor perhaps even less than five percent of the studentpopulation would allow this label to encompass realdifferences that can be served through provision ofappropriately differentiated curricula. If a standardized

achievement test such as the FCAT is to be used for giftedidentification, provisions should be made for it to be givenas an above-level test. The talent search approach hasdemonstrated the feasibility and success of this approach togifted identification (Lee, Matthews, & Olszewski-Kubilius,in press). A defensible approach using achievement testresults also might rely upon national percentile ranks ordevelopmental standard scores, both of which carry moreinformation than performance levels do, and therefore are

able to discriminate more finely among different levels ofability.

Other concerns are equally relevant to both the current andproposed state rules. Policy language mandating the use ofcharacteristics checklists is not specific. Currently, manyFlorida districts use checklists for gifted identification thatshow no evidence of validity or reliability, or that rely onevidence that is outdated. Any change to the gifted ruleshould include language specifying that such characteristicschecklists must be nationally normed, ideally within the

past six to ten years, or locally normed with populationsthat are representative of learners in Florida schools.

There is wide latitude in how 'need' for gifted services isoperationalized in Florida school districts. What does 'need'mean? It might mean that gifted program services reflectstudents' academic capabilities (e.g., accelerated pace) aswell as their affective characteristics (e.g., tolerance forambiguity, desire for complexity). Leaving need entirely tolocal interpretation can allow this criterion to be usedinappropriately in the identification process. A clear ruleshould specify what 'need' looks like, as well as how it canbe established.

Although the goal of having a uniform gifted identificationrule is commendable, the draft rule as currently proposedclearly would benefit from additional development. It is myhope that these concerns may lead to discussion in Florida,as well as in other states seeking to update their policies forgifted learners. I would like to believe that those educatorswho have chosen to work with gifted learners possess boththe desire and the ability to lead the way in identifying andserving these students, rather than settling for a return tothe practices of an earlier era.

References Krisel, S., & Cowan, R. (1997). Georgia’s journey toward multiple-criteria identification of gifted students. Roeper Review, Gifted

Education Supplement (December 1997), A1-A3.

Lee, S.-Y., Matthews, M. S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (in press). A national picture of talent search and talent search educationalprograms. Gifted Child Quarterly.

McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17 (2), 103-111.

Ross, P. O. (1993) National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Available online athttp://www.ed.gov/pubs/DevTalent/toc.html

Shaunessy, E., Matthews, M. S., & Smith, D. (2006). District policies in the identification of underrepresented populations in giftededucation. Presented at the 53rd annual convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Charlotte, NC,November 1–5, 2006.




Gifted education as a field is rich in resources to assistteachers of the gifted and other school personnel in how toidentify, characterize, and plan instruction for gifted andtalented students. There is also a growing literature on thesocial and emotional development of gifted students toassist parents and teachers in addressing the affective needsof the gifted. Beyond the field of gifted education, however,

knowledge about working with gifted persons in counselingsituations is less available. Among CACREP-accreditedprograms, e.g., only 62% included information ondevelopmental concerns and counseling issues related tostudents of high ability (Peterson, 2005). Similarly, fewclinical or counseling psychology programs prepare theirgraduates to work with the gifted. Although the AmericanPsychological Association’s Center for Gifted EducationPolicy has begun sponsoring continuing educationworkshops and professional literature targeted at informingpracticing psychologists about people with gifts, few booksare available that integrate counseling and giftedness in asingle publication. Into this void comes Models of CounselingGifted Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults.

Mendaglio & Peterson’s book is an excellent addition to theprofessional literature on counseling the gifted. The book isdivided into three sections: 1) two initial chaptersintroducing the book and providing an overview of researchrelated to counseling the gifted, 2) a series of chapterspresenting various models for counseling the gifted, and 3)a final integrative chapter comparing and contrasting themodels in the book. All of the chapters in the models’section use a similar structure, including conceptions ofgiftedness and personality, an explanation of the modelpresented, and an application section in which a caseexample is included. There is great variety among themodels discussed with developmental, systems, family

therapy, and other models represented. The application

section is a particularly strong feature of the book, as caseexamples of clients who are gifted are presented, often withdialogues from client sessions, interspersed with commentsby the practitioners. Most of the contributors have hadexperience in counseling gifted individuals. Unlike mostcounseling texts, however, the models they present gobeyond familiar theories to present the unique models that

have evolved in those contributors’ practices.The challenge in edited books is often what to include vs.what to leave out. One particular perspective that ismissing is that of diversity. While Kerr and Thomas et al.do discuss some issues of cultural difference, there are nocase studies of such students. Likewise, there is somediscussion in Peterson’s chapter on group work with giftedstudents, but a chapter written from the perspective ofgroup counseling would be extremely helpful to schoolcounselors or others who work in group settings. Anotheraddition that might be helpful would be a case that dealsmore explicitly with career counseling issues.

The book is suitable for courses dealing specifically with

counseling the gifted, although a supplementary book ofreadings in the social and emotional development of thegifted might be needed in some cases. There is really nobook on the market at this time comparable to Mendaglio &Peterson’s, but perhaps the book’s release will result inadditional titles about this topic.

In 1981, John Feldhusen, as President of the NationalAssociation for Gifted Children (NAGC), appointed NAGCBoard Members George Betts and Jim Webb to foundNAGC’s Division of Counseling and Guidance because of agrowing recognition of the affective needs of gifted children.Some 25+ years later the field has its first real book to assistthose in the helping professions conceptualize counseling

issues with the gifted. It’s about time!

References Peterson, J. S. (2005). Survey of CACREP-accredited school-counseling programs regarding attention to giftedness. Unpublished

raw data.

Models of Counseling Gifted Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults.

By Mendaglio, S. & Peterson, J.S. (Eds.) (2007) Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Review by Rita R. CulrossRita Cuilross is the Jo Ellen Levy Yates Professor of Education at Louisiana State University

where she serves as leader for the program in gifted education. Her interests are in underachieving gifted

students, counseling the gifted, and creative behavior.

e-mail: [email protected].

Book Review




This text poses the question ‘What features of Asperger’sSyndrome might foster artistic success?’ Fitzgerald hasalready made significant contributions to the debate on autismand creativity and this new book from him is to be welcomed.It offers compelling insights into the association betweencreative genius and autism spectrum disorders – ranging fromArthur Conan Doyle’s interest in cricket statistics and Ludwigvan Beethoven’s inappropriate proposals of marriage to AndyWarhol’s obsessions with work, publicity, and his health.

The book’s subdivision into parts discusses the creative talentsof genius ranging across music, painting, literature, poetryand philosophy. The text covers the recognised criteria for

diagnosis of high-functioning autism and Asperger’sSyndrome (AS). However, it is written in an uncomplicatedand well explained manner, assuming the reader has only amoderate level of understanding of AS.

Fitzgerald brings together a number of individuals in whomgenius and AS coincided, including George Orwell, ImmanuelKant, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Vincent van Gogh.Although the author acknowledges the partial need for an

artistically creative environment in order for these talents tobe expressed, this book does present a comprehensiveargument concerning the association between AS andcreativity.

Fitzgerald writes clearly for the layperson. His writing takes apsycho-historical approach by documenting the life historyand family background of persons with artistic genius and AS.The text could be criticised for linking, and indeed thediagnosis of such individuals after their death. However,Fitzgerald presents a comprehensive wealth of biographicaland autobiographical information about their lives. His workbroadly references and describes indicators of AS including

social behaviour, language, humour, and obsessive interestsand routines. With these criteria in mind, in reading accountsof their lives Fitzgerald proposes that these individualsbehaved like persons with autism. Despite Fitzgerald’sconclusions being rather limited, the text will provide thereader with a greater understanding of AS and creativegenius. This is an affordable and highly recommended read.

Feinstein presents a comprehensive discussion concerning the basic concept of creativity and the patterns of development forindividuals engaged in creative endeavour. This text is clearly the fruit of many years of questioning in the field and demonstratesa well grounded empirical basis to the author’s line of enquiry.

The core of creative development consists of three elements, and this text adopts this same structure: the formation of creativeinterests; the process, exploration and development of the interest creatively; and the defining and execution of projects rooted inthis interest and growing out of its development. The book is filled with case study material of individuals who have achievedacross a wide range of creative fields. Individuals famous in the arts and social sciences, technology and business include VirginiaWoolf, Thomas Edison, Charles Darwin, and Piet Mondrian. This rich contextualised information is integrated with the creative

development of contemporary individuals interviewed by the author.

The author himself acknowledges that some may see his text as too sweeping and an attempt to seek a false generality regardingthe development of creativity. However, I consider the text to be an important step in attempting to understand individualdifferences in the creative process. Feinstein adopts a theoretical framework which integrates both rich case study detail regardingthe individual and the wider cultural and environmental place of these individuals in society. The text is highly affordable and arecommended read for any professional interested in the field.

The Genesis of Artistic Creativity: Asperger’s Syndrome and the Arts (Book ref no: 8305

By Michael Fitzgerald, (Jessica Kingsley Publichers, London, 2005)

Review by: Dr. Ruth Hewston, Research Fellow at the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, The

University of Warwick.

Celebrating Genius

Book Review


Review by: Dr. Ruth Hewston, Research Fellow at the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, The

University of Warwick.

The Nature of Creative Development

By J.S. Feinstein, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2006



My friends, family, colleagues, and students know all aboutmy enthusiasm for Carol Dweck’s new book on mindsets,where she synthesizes her research findings on motivationand achievement spanning the past 35 years and involvingmultiple triangulating studies and collaborations. I can’tstop talking about it or writing about it because I think it hashuge and important consequences for much of what we doas educators, psychologists, and parents, and because of itsvalidation of the importance of moving intentionally towardthe mastery model perspective on giftedness that I’ve beenwriting about recently (Matthews & Foster, 2005, 2006). Forthose of us involved in gifted education, I think that Mindset may come to represent the tipping point in a paradigm shiftin the field. At the very least, it stands to change the way wedo business.

In Mindset, Dweck distinguishes between a fixed mindset onthe one hand (what she has previous called the entity theoryof intelligence) and a growth mindset on the other hand (theincremental theory, to those who have been following workin this area for some time). From a fixed mindset, ability isseen as innate and permanent: some people are intelligentand some are less so. From a growth mindset, abilitydevelops incrementally over time with appropriateopportunities to learn: intelligence develops. Mindsets aredomain-specific—you might have a fixed mindset about

your mathematical ability, for example, and see yourself asterrible (or great) at math; but have a growth mindset aboutsports, and realize that you can’t just pick up a tennis racketand expect to be good at tennis.

As reviewed in this book, the outcome differences for thesetwo mindsets are strikingly large and persistent across age,sex, culture, ability level, and socioeconomic status.According to study after study in a number of lines ofresearch conducted by Dweck and her associates, andpublished in the major journals in education andpsychology, there is a big advantage for those holding thegrowth mindset: they are happier, healthier, more fulfilled,and more successful in school, work, sports, business, love,

friendships, and life. Happily for those whose mindsets arefixed in one or more domains, mindsets can be changed.

Dweck addresses the topic of extreme giftedness, referringto Ellen Winner’s work with child prodigies. She concludesthat people tend to focus too much on what they see as theinnate component of exceptionality, and ignore thetemperamental and motivation dimensions that areconnected to mindsets: “Most often people believe that the‘gift’ is the ability itself. Yet what feeds it is that constant,endless curiosity and challenge seeking.” (p. 63).

Although giftedness per se is discussed only briefly, thebook is full of important concepts for the field. Implicationsfor gifted education begin with conceptual foundations: ourconception of what giftedness is and how it develops shiftsdramatically when we move from a fixed mindset, wheresome students are categorized as inherently smart and someare not—to a growth mindset--where intelligence isconceptualized as dynamic, as developing over time withappropriately scaffolded opportunities to learn. Looked atfrom this perspective, teachers who encourage theirstudents’ continued engagement in the learning process arefostering gifted development, quite independently of wheretheir students may start in ability or intelligence test scores:“The great teachers believe in the growth of the intellect andtalent, and they are fascinated with the process of learning”(p. 188).

I will discuss the details of the fixed/growth mindsetdistinction using as a framework the major implications Isee for gifted education:

1. The Nature of Intelligence. From a fixed mindset, somepeople are inherently smart, and some are not, andthere are ways to measure this (e.g., IQ tests). From thegrowth mindset, intelligence develops over time withappropriately scaffolded opportunities to learn (think

Bloom’s Taxonomy, Vygotsky’s Zone of ProximalDevelopment, and recent findings on neuraldevelopment and plasticity). From the growthmindset, there are many fewer limits on who might ormight not be gifted, and many opportunities along thedevelopmental trajectory to “become” gifted. This isconsistent with emerging findings about gifteddevelopment (Gottfried, Gottfried, & Guerin, in press).It is also an important perspective for those who areconcerned about minority under-representation andgiftedness (Graham, in press; Worrell, in press).

2. Praise. Rather than praising children for theirpersonality or innate and permanent attributes, we

should instead praise students for their growth-oriented processes, what they accomplish throughpractice, study, persistence, and good strategies. It iseven better to ask them about their work in ways thatappreciate their effort and choices. “Praising children’sintelligence harms their motivation and it harms their

performance” (p. 170).

3. Effort. When I ask parents or teachers who are new tothe field if there any recognizable signs of giftedness,almost invariably I get a response concerning speed of


Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.

By Dweck, C. S. (2006). New York: Random House.

Review by Dona Matthews, Hunter College, The City University of New York

Book Review

Gifted Children Volume 2 Spring 2007 Page 1



Research in gifted education and cognitive developmenttraditionally have proceeded in parallel. With some notableexceptions, our understanding of gifted children’s thinking isnot informed by cognitive developmental theory andmethods. Cognitive developmental studies relevant tounderstanding gifted children’s cognition are reviewed in thispaper with the goal of informing a research agenda that unitesmodels of intellectual development and gifted education inmeaningful ways. As we move from IQ as a primarydeterminant of giftedness to more complex views of whatgiftedness is and how it develops, research can capitalize on

the explanatory frameworks of cognitive developmentaltheories.

Four areas of cognitive developmental research – processingspeed, nature of the knowledge base, metacognition, andproblem solving and strategy use – provide a framework forthinking about what we know, what we need to know, andhow we might forge research directions that will give us amore complete picture of what develops in giftedperformances and how. Siegler’s (1996) overlapping waves

model of strategy development, applied longitudinally andmicrogenetically, is suggested as a valuable framework tohelp us understand how gifted children acquire and usestrategies and the nature of the strategies themselves. Thismodel also allows for the possibility of articulating howcognitive processes, usually studied in isolation, are part ofintelligent behavior.

Studies of strategy development need to be united with“complex systems” theories of intelligence. Sternberg’s (1985)triarchic theory and Ceci’s (1996) bioecological theory are

suggested as compatible with the study of strategydevelopment because of their recognition of the complexsituated nature of cognitive development. The researchdialogue suggested in this paper includes the integration ofcontemporary models of gifted education (e.g., Barab &Plucker, 2002) in cognitive developmental research. Thisresearch agenda will inform assessment, education, andconceptions of intelligent behavior in ways that honor thecomplexity of giftedness and the developmental processesthat underpin it.

References Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated

approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165-182.

Ceci, S. J. (1996). On intelligence: A bioecological treatise on intellectual development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Yale University Press.

Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence.

Educational Psychology Review, 15, 215-246.

By H. H. Steiner and M. Carr.

Review by: Marion Porath, Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Article Overview




In August 2007, England will play host to the WorldCouncil for Gifted and Talented Children’s 17th Biennial

World Conference at the University of Warwick, Coventry.

This conference marks over 30 years of internationalcollaboration on gifted and talented education.

Whilst preparations are well underway for the 2007conference it is useful to reflect on the homecoming of thisinternational event which was the brainchild of EnglishmanHenry Collis. Collis, with a keen interest in giftededucation, was aware that nationally educators and

researchers were pooling their ideas on gifted education andrealised the need to look beyond what we are doing in ourown country and share policies and best practice fromacross the globe. It was due to Collis’ vision of aninternational community of educators interested in giftedand talented students that the first World Conference onGifted Children was held in London in 1975.

Over 500 people attended the first conference, representing53 nations with keynote papers from 24 countries. It was atthis conference that the notion of a permanent internationalcollaboration was proposed. At the second WorldConference in 1977 in San Francisco, the World Council forGifted and Talented Children was established as anassociation, its mission to focus attention on gifted andtalented children and ensure the realisation of their valuablepotential benefit to humankind.

Today, the World Council for Gifted and Talented Childrenis a diverse organization networking the globe with anactive membership of educators, scholars, researchers,parents, educational institutions, and others interested ingiftedness from over 46 countries. Conferences have beenheld every two years since 1975 at locations spanning theglobe including: Turkey, Spain, Australia, Hong Kong, andin 2005 in New Orleans, USA.

The 17th Biennial Conference, ‘Worlds of Giftedness: FromLocal to Global’, echoes the ethos behind Henry Collis’

initial ideas on international collaboration. The overarchingtheme for this conference is the way different cultures createdifferent conceptions of giftedness and talent, which in turn

feed into differing policies and practices. In addition tocelebrating the homecoming of the conference and over 30years of the World Council for Gifted and TalentedChildren, the conference also marks 10 years of governmentpolicy on gifted and talented education in England, animportant milestone.

In keeping with the global theme of the conference, leadspeakers have been invited from Africa, Canada, China,Finland, The United Kingdom, and the United States ofAmerica. One of the lead speakers will be Professor LoyisoNongxa, Vice Chancellor of Witwatersrand University,

Johannesburg. Professor Nongxa was South Africa’s firstblack Rhodes scholar and first black Vice Chancellor andhas developed an important programme to improve accessto university for children in the South African townships.

Also speaking will be Nancy Green, Executive Director ofThe National Association for Gifted Children, America; DrChris Yapp, Head of Public Sector Innovation at MicrosoftUK - well known for his thinking about learning in thefuture, and Dr Elena Grigorenko, Associate Professor ofChild Studies and Psychology at Yale University andAssociate Professor of Psychology at Moscow StateUniversity.

Hosted by the University of Warwick and generouslysupported by the DfES, the 17th Biennial Conferencepromises to be an exciting event and a wonderfulopportunity for colleagues from around the globe to meetand share ideas and policies. With a full social programmealready well into its final planning stages and the possibilityof a student event running concurrently, this is an event notto be missed by anyone with an interest in gifted andtalented education. We look forward to meeting you there!

Full details on the conference programme and speakers is now

available on the website at www.worldgifted2007.com.

Registration and booking can be completed online and any

queries should be directed to the Conference Secretariat at:[email protected], Tel: +44 (0) 24 7657 4620

Gifted Education Comes Home!

Alison Rowan

Press & Publications Officer, NAGTY

World Council for Gifted and Talented Children’s 17th Biennial World Conference




GIFTED CHILDRENAn Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent.

AERA Special Interest Groups Web Site: http://www.aeragifted.org/

AERA SIG

Research on Giftedness and Talent

Officers

Chair Michael Pyryt

Chair Elect

Karen Rogers

SecretaryMarcia Gentry

TreasurerCatherine Brighton

Program ChairCarol Tieso

Assistant Program Chair

Dona Matthews

Members-at-Large

Catherine LittleDavid LohmanMichael Matthews

Jane Piirto

Student Representative Bronwyn MacFarlane

Newsletter Editor Jill Adelson

WebmasterD. Betsy McCoach

Past-Chair

Carolyn Callahan

AERA SIG

Research on Giftedness and Talent

Working Committees

Constitutional Review Committee

Tonya MoonMary RizzaTarek Grantham

Membership Committee

Carol TiesoBetsy McCoachBonnie CramondSusannah RichardsWilliam Bart

Jean Gubbins

Program Planning CommitteeCheryll Adams, ChairCarol Tieso, Assistant Chair

Nancy HertzogMichael MatthewsRena SubotnikFelicia DixonMarcia GentryBetsy McCoach

Awards CommitteeCatherine BrightonFrank WorrellMichael Matthews

Elections Committee

Del Siegle, Chair

Publication Committee

Jonathan Plucker, ChairDona MatthewsRobin KyburgD. Leigh Kupersmith

gifted children v1n2

Documents