Giftedness Research Paper

This sample Giftedness Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of psychology research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

Shortly after the 1916 release of the Stanford-Binet Scale of Intelligence in the United States, Lewis Terman initiated research to find out more about those who had unusually high scores on this individually administered test. The formal study of giftedness had begun. Terman’s Genetic Studies of Genius was published in 1925 and reported on 1,528 gifted children. Since that time the field of giftedness has grown dramatically as measured both by the literature and the number of professional organizations concerned with the nature and education of the gifted. This extensive literature has been characterized by a lack of unanimity as to a definition of giftedness or how it is to be measured. Yet the huge amount of available information clearly shows that knowing about the gifted is considered to be important. This is likely because of the possible highly desirable consequences of giftedness. These consequences are both for the gifted individuals and for the society that may have the contribution of its gifted citizens.

It is the position of this author that in most areas of life, some people are naturally gifted and will be able to acquire competencies more easily than others. Examples would include not only reading and mathematics but also athletic, musical, artistic, and interpersonal skills sets. This approach is in line with that of Howard Gardner and his proposal, first made in 1983, that there are “multiple intelligences.” Gardner then proposed visual/spatial intelligence, musical intelligence, verbal/linguistic intelligence, logical/mathematical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, and bodily/kinesthetic intelligence; he has recently added naturalistic intelligence. Only three of these refer to skills that would likely be assessed by intelligence tests. The field of gifted-ness has largely concerned itself with intellectual gifted-ness. Why the particular interest in intellectual giftedness? A major reason is likely because this is the pool from which come scientists, inventors, academicians, doctors, lawyers, psychologists, politicians, and business leaders. A secondary reason may be because there is the possibility of measuring intellectual giftedness in a standardized way and at a relatively early age.

The emphasis on giftedness as being a characteristic of the intellect is also shown by the frequent use of the alternative label “talented” when referring to those who are gifted in such areas as art, music, or other special skills. Although making some occasional reference to other areas, this chapter will focus upon the findings and issues associated with intellectual giftedness, found in the children who in everyday language are often referred to as “smart.”

Definition

What is giftedness? One thing that experts in the field of gifted education agree on is that there is no universally accepted definition. This is true both for educators and for those involved in describing legally what is met by the term “gifted.” Congressional reports or educational acts have provided several definitions of gifted, and these have then often been used later by states. Karnes and Marquardt (2000) report on these definitions and further state, “All of the definitions note that gifted children need educational programs and/or services beyond the ordinary school curriculum” (p. 4). It is generally the case that gifted and talented students are described as those who have capability and who have demonstrated high achievement in multiple areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields. Although most states have adopted a definition specifying multiple ability areas, public schools have typically focused on identifying and serving intellectually and academically gifted students. Occasionally schools do offer specialized programs for gifted students in artistic domains. It might be argued that especially athletic skills but also musical and other talents in the performing arts are recognized and rewarded in formal competitions. However, observation of what actually happens would show that accomplished participants rely heavily upon lessons and tutelage outside the public schools. This lack in general may partially reflect a problem with funding but likely is also a result of the prevailing view that the major function of public education is to develop knowledge rather than performance skills.

Some definitions have indicated a need for evidence of high achievement in order for a student to be considered gifted. Other definitions, such as the one included in National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (1993, as cited in Karnes & Marquardt, 2000), have clearly included as gifted those students with potential to perform at high levels. Numerous other definitions for the gifted exist— constructed by educational agencies, organizations, and experts in the field—all exploring the concept of giftedness from multiple perspectives. It has also been noted by some that the concept of giftedness differs from culture to culture.

The most practical approach to take is that giftedness will be defined and assessed differently for different fields, different cultures, and different times in history. Giftedness would be understood to exist in a specific domain rather than in all aspects. One might well then hear someone say that a child was gifted when this was true only for math and not other areas.

Nonetheless, the majority of the literature on intellectual giftedness has concerned itself not with the gifted in an academic area but rather with those who have been identified as gifted at least in part by a measure of intelligence like that originally used by Terman. With such an approach one could find that a gifted child might also be someone with a learning disability. We will next generally consider possible approaches and specific measures used to assess giftedness.

Assessment Of Giftedness

The procedure for determining giftedness differs depending on the population and the purpose of the assessment. Most children are labeled as gifted as the result of a selection process through a school system. There are also professionals, often psychologists, who will do such assessments privately. The most commonly used measure is an individually administered intelligence test. Such tests are often referred to as IQ tests and the resultant score as an IQ. IQ, the abbreviation for “intelligence quotient,” is a term left over from the time when such scores were derived as a quotient. IQ tests were originally created to give information about who would be more likely to do well or have problems in school. That is still their primary function.

It is time-consuming and somewhat expensive to give individuals IQ tests. Possible alternatives are group IQ tests, grades, or ratings. In fact, schools often require a screening process involving group tests or teacher assessments prior to offering individual tests. A major reason for the requirement of individual tests is that the other measures are not as valid or accurate. Group IQ tests may underestimate some children who have difficulty with reading or who don’t understand the procedure. In an attempt to be objective, teacher judgments are typically solicited using rating scales specifically designed for this purpose. It is still likely that teacher ratings will differ depending upon their background experience. The two major individual intelligence tests presently available are the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB-V), both new versions published in 2003. Periodic revisions of intelligence scales have occurred for several reasons. One is that populations experience IQ gains over time. That is, if an earlier version of the WISC were given to groups of children every year the average score would increase. One consequence of this is that sometimes not only parents but also other adults may conclude that children are gifted because they know more than the adults themselves did at the same age. Long-term teachers also are likely to note this increase. IQ tests must be constantly restandardized so that subjects are not scored against inaccurate norms and their comparative abilities then overestimated. Another reason for a new version is that this allows for tests’ making use of new conceptions of what is involved in intelligence. At the present time the WISC-IV derives a full-scale score as a result of performance on scales of verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. The last two scales were not present in prior versions. The SB-V is very different in nature from the Stanford-Binet test originally developed and used by Terman. In addition to a full-scale score it is also possible to obtain scores for knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory. An obvious major content difference between the two is that the SB-V has a heavy component of quantitative reasoning. Because of the differing content of the two tests it should be clear that if children took both tests they would not necessarily have the same score. It also remains to be determined whether one of these better measures the general cognitive ability, or abilities, that we wish to consider as giftedness.

Tests use a format in which scores are reported both in terms of IQ numbers and percentiles. The resulting IQ scores are on a continuum that typically ranges from 40 to 160. The test manuals also give labels for levels of scores on this continuum. For example, scores of 120 to 129 are categorized as “superior” and scores of 130 or above are in the “gifted” range. Only 10 percent of the population will have scores above 120 and only 2 percent of the population will have scores above 130. Sometimes researchers give additional labels such as “highly gifted” or “profoundly gifted” to children at various points in the top scores.

Intelligence testing in schools in the United States is most frequently conducted using information about learning problems. The Wechsler Scales are the most commonly used. Perhaps because of the familiarity of schools with these tests, researchers have found the Wechsler Scale to be the test most frequently used for the assessment of gifted children. Studies with gifted children and the newer WISC-IV have found that scores tend to be lower on the working memory and processing speed portions of the test.

The selection of an IQ score or level for the purpose of placement in special programs in public education will typically be arbitrary in the sense that a number must be chosen. This need for arbitrary cutoffs is seen in other areas such as the age for entry into kindergarten, arbitrary point breaks for grades, grade point average requirements for school honors, and so forth. One of the major issues in education is to work out a procedure that can be both clearly stated and followed and thus is fair to everyone. A problem is that there is always an error of measurement and that on a different day some children who did not obtain the needed score might have done so. Some systems take into consideration this possibility by allowing for retesting, either with a different test or after a period of time. It is certainly clear that the policy setting the level required for gifted programs differs from one school system to another. It is often the case that private schools can be more flexible in their approach and consider other factors than the obtained intelligence test score.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that the choice of a cutoff for making use of a label is arbitrary and that intelligence test scores in general are subject to error with respect to individuals. This individual error will influence individual lives. Minor categorization changes are not likely to influence research findings involving groups.

Consequences

It is generally thought that giftedness as an individual difference characteristic is recognized and diagnosed early in life. What are the consequences of giftedness? Research in this field has been carried out for decades with respect to a variety of possible consequences. In contrast to the longitudinal research by Terman, most research is cross-sectional and concerned with only a few variables. It is typically reported in journals that are concerned solely with the population of gifted. Well-known journals include the Gifted Child Quarterly and the Roeper Review.

Gifted children are usually high achievers. They often have good grades, but even more so, they tend to score high on standardized achievement tests. However, some gifted children and teenagers are underachievers. The concept of underachievement lacks a clear-cut operational definition. However, generally this refers to a notable discrepancy between the achievement one would expect on the basis of the ability and actual classroom performance as determined by teacher evaluation; such a discrepancy should last over time for a child to be labeled underachieving and, ideally, professionals should have screened him or her for a learning disability. It is also important to keep in mind the possibility that a high IQ score has resulted from a test in which there were variations in subtests and that one should not expect high achievement in all areas. See Moon (2004) for a collection of articles on underachievement; these articles support the conclusion that underachievement occurs for only a small number of gifted children and that it does not come from any one factor. Some studies have focused on attempts to reverse underachievement and find that it is possible to do so for the majority of underachievers. Successful interventions came from a variety of caring relationships with adults.

One additional common assumption is that gifted children will become highly accomplished adults. Is this so? Terman’s longitudinal study provided an empirical, but partial, answer to this question. These original children were examined as young adults and then as they entered middle age (see, for example, Terman & Oden, 1959). The results are clear; not every intellectually highly gifted child will become an eminent adult. This is in part because eminence in different fields appears to require different characteristics. For example, few of the Terman sample attained leadership in an occupation such as politician or CEO that requires reaching masses of people. Most of his group grew up to become professors, scientists, and professionals such as doctors and lawyers.

It would also be possible to determine the precursors of achievement by examining a group of achievers and assessing the characteristics shown by them. Typically, studies of this nature have shown that variations in scores in the top 10 percent of the population are less likely to predict success than are such traits as persistence and determination.

It is also likely that certain beliefs may interfere with the best expression of gifts. Dweck has found that holding a malleable view of intelligence is more likely to lead to both feelings of self-worth and high achievement levels. That is, individuals who are aware that not doing well in one instance does not mean that one is not intelligent do best. It is certainly easy for good parents with gifted children to produce children who have the expectation that they will always succeed. If very young children are always given work at their level and praised for success, they may associate the approval as resulting primarily from the success and not because of the effort. Smart children can see that they are doing better than others and may come to expect that this will always be the case. Researchers and theorists have sometimes referred to such potentially maladaptive reactions as “perfectionism.” There are various measures of perfectionism, including some developed to assess this in college students (Speirs Neumeister, 2006)

One other important question to ask regarding the consequences of giftedness concerns the possible effects on social and emotional development (see Moon, 2004). Gifted children are intellectually like children who are several years older. Does this advanced development also extend to other mental areas? Overall, gifted students have excellent personal and social adjustment as compared to their chronological age peers. They also compare favorably with older children at a similar mental level. Some of the bright children do have more anxiety; this may be related to perfectionism issues, or one might hypothesize that some gifted children may become more readily anxious because of their greater awareness of possibilities and an active imagination. One researcher has suggested that the gifted have five specific areas of sensitivity that he refers to as overexcitabilities. Emotionality is one of these areas. However, studies of groups of gifted adolescents have found no difference in depression or anger as compared to their nongifted peers.

Researchers have reported one area of social difference. Young highly gifted and verbally gifted students have more difficulty with peer relationships and have fewer friends than do the moderately gifted or those especially talented in math. An obvious interpretation is that they do not have many peers with whom they can communicate readily. This finding may depend, then, upon the lack of peers like them.

Finally, we will consider the question whether the intellectually gifted are more likely to behave well. It is evident that some people who are clearly gifted in some areas can behave in “stupid” ways in others. Educated persons with high IQs may break the law or behave in what most people consider immoral ways. Reasons for these and other inappropriate behaviors are considered in the book Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid (Sternberg, 2002). In general, it appears that much of behavior is affected as much or more by personality than by intellectual ability.

At the present time, we have no reason to believe that children in gifted classrooms show better moral behaviors than those in regular classrooms. Piechowski (2003) has made the interesting suggestion that there may be emotional and spiritual giftedness and that these are separate from intellectual giftedness.

Origin

Both the general public and psychologists are interested in the origin of giftedness. When we consider the origins of individual differences, we typically phrase our answers in terms of the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors. Because intellectual giftedness is most often defined and assessed by intelligence measures, we will first ask what is known about their role in intelligence. The most defensible answer to this question is that both genetics and the environment are important factors but that there is “significant and substantial genetic influence” (Plomin & Price, 2003, p. 113). The role of genetics is most clearly illustrated by the empirical findings concerning the correlation of IQ scores in twin and nontwin siblings. Correlation coefficients indicate the degree of relatedness of two measures. Identical twins who share the same genes are most similar, as demonstrated by studies of identical twins reared apart. Fraternal twins who do not share genes but have similar environments are next most similar. Biological siblings have scores more similar than adopted children in the same family. It is also relevant to note that the relation between children’s IQs and those of their biological parents gets stronger as the children get older. Another finding related to age differences is that the genetics that contribute to differences in early childhood appear to be different from those that contribute to intelligence in middle childhood.

Some might wonder whether the findings concerning genetics and IQ are different for those with IQs typically categorized as gifted. Research by Plomin and Thompson (as cited in Plomin & Price, 2003) found that genetic factors are as important for those at the high end as for those throughout the rest of the distribution.

The findings just described were based on a variety of different tests. However, there is a positive relation among all of these tests and their components, although some of the measures are better related than others. For example, verbal measures are highly intercorrelated whereas tests of memory or reaction time are less well related to other measures. It is also likely that the verbal and spatial ability factors are more heritable. Of course we do not directly inherit intelligence. What we inherit is a set of genes with DNA variants, and some DNA differences result in the heritability of behavioral traits. At the present time there is no information as to what genes or DNA markers are related to intelligence differences.

One interpretation of the genetic influence on intelligence is that what is inherited and thus influences giftedness is not primarily “aptitude” but rather “appetites” that bring about “aptitude.” For example, it may be that one of the major genetic influences in the development of giftedness has to do with a predisposition to explore the environment in general or to master it in a particular way. Some may have a desire to move their body, to make music in a variety of ways, to visually copy the world, to seek information, to enjoy new words, and so on. It does not appear that personality, in general, influences giftedness. The current major descriptive model of personality includes five broad factors discovered through empirical research. None of these five, which include neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, are related to intelligence test scores. It may be, however, that these personality traits will be for adults an important determinant of the extent to which giftedness is demonstrated in performance.

To say that giftedness or any other trait is importantly influenced by genetic inheritance does not negate the importance of the environment. Genetics may limit what can be; innate ability does not by itself produce what can be. Proper training and considerable practice must occur if genetic potentials are manifested. Children with the potential to be talented in any area need a learning environment that is appropriately challenging and at a level of challenge and complexity that is right for them. There is reason to believe that this need begins early. The top performers in sports and music have a history of early exposure and encouragement in these areas. The history of intellectually highly gifted children typically includes early and complex speech and, often, early reading. I discuss the need for a nourishing environment in the next section.

Education Of The Gifted

Should educators make special curricula available to the gifted? What about textbooks? Who is available for them to identify with?

One of the observed consequences of giftedness as measured by intelligence tests is that, in general, gifted children learn school material more rapidly. This might suggest that gifted children will require less attention from educational systems. Not so. Briefly stated, the view of government task force reports (see also Colangelo & Davis, 2003) is that gifted children are a population that needs special services. Likewise, human development textbooks frequently have a section titled “special children, special needs,” which includes gifted and creative children. In one way, public schools acknowledge this in that teachers of the gifted, like teachers of the other special populations, are generally required to have had additional courses and meet the state requirements to teach classes for the gifted.

There is a major difference between the population of gifted children and others who have special educational needs. (The term “exceptional” is often used for these children collectively.) This is that there are federal laws mandating the existence of programs and services for such differences as autism, mental retardation, and learning disabilities. The federal government provides some funding for such programs, but school districts must also provide monies. As indicated earlier, federal definitions have included statements that the needs of the gifted cannot be met in a regular curriculum. Nonetheless, there is no federal legal requirement for the education of the gifted. Although some states may have laws saying that schools must have some programs recognizing the needs of the gifted, this is rarely accompanied by funds. What this often means in practice is that there is little likelihood that schools will provide special services for the gifted, although it is likely that they will provide some services for other identified populations. Generally speaking, special educational programs for the gifted tend to occur in elementary schools. This appears to be because of the likelihood that students beyond elementary school have the option of choosing honors or advanced classes.

In actual practice there are a variety of methods used in an attempt to meet the special needs of the gifted prior to high school. The most expensive is to create classrooms where all the children are gifted. This generally requires transportation out of the usual school. Some large cities do this by creating entire schools with only gifted in attendance. These are often referred to as “magnet schools.” More common is the existence of full-day classrooms at one or more buildings in a school district; these may be referred to as “magnet classes” or self-contained classrooms. Such classes are likely to have a requirement not only for a measure of ability indicating giftedness but also often for measures indicating appropriately high achievement levels. Even more common than such self-contained classrooms is the existence of part-time programs in which children identified as gifted are taken out of the regular classroom for work with a special teacher. The scheduling of this will differ from school to school and may occur on a daily basis or as little as once a week.

The existence of such special programs requires that a number of children be identified as gifted. Clearly there is an investment of money in both the identification process and the gifted teacher for the special curriculum For this reason many school systems may attempt to deal with exceptionally bright children in other ways. At times “grouping,” in which children within the classroom are working with others at a similar level, has been popular. Infrequent, but often useful, approaches for a few children have included early admission to kindergarten and grade advancement. These various options and others are discussed in A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Although most children are pleased with the attention to their special intellectual needs, there are reports of a minority who have been upset by the labeling of gifted or the attention that comes from special classes. These reactions are influenced by the particular school culture and view of giftedness; the child who is most unusual may have the most difficulty.

Perhaps the most common way that schools have attempted to recognize the needs of the intellectually gifted is by the use of special work done by the regular classroom teacher. Previously, educators referred to this approach as either “acceleration” or “enrichment.” Acceleration referred to advancing students through work at their own, more rapid pace, whereas enrichment involved experiences beyond the usual range experienced in public schools.

Probably the most popular approach for the regular classroom teacher at the present time is referred to as “differentiation.” This may occur with respect to the content of material presented, how it is presented, or what product is requested of the student (see Tomlinson & Reis, 2004, for a discussion of differentiation). The differentiation literature emphasizes that many students need to have their particular ability level and style considered and that this is not an approach that educators use in the classroom.

Many parents for whom special services for a gifted child are not available in school may feel the need to take steps themselves. For example, real estate agents are aware that families often consider information about schooling prior to purchasing a house. Some families may choose to move in order to find a system that meets their family needs. Other possible major steps include home schooling or entering the child into a private school (often called an independent school). Many private schools are especially willing to listen to parent concerns, engage in such practices as early admission or grade advancement, and often have smaller classes than do the public schools. There are some schools that specifically cater to the gifted. A few of these are paid for by large city systems or the state; however, most are private schools. Some families remaining in public schools may choose to pay to send their children to extra classes specifically designed for gifted students. Available resources may include classes held on weekends during the regular school year and summer classes that last for a week or more. The criterion for admission to such programs varies, but it is typically a score in the top 5 to 10 percent on some standardized measure. Very rarely, parents seek redress through some legal means, but this is only possible in states for which there is a legal mandate for gifted education.

It is clear that one of the major issues associated with giftedness has to do with the means of meeting the educational needs of the gifted. In fact, a large number of the intellectually gifted do not live up to their academic achievement potential.

Underachievement

Researchers originally devised intelligence tests to predict who would be more likely to do well in school; in general, they are successful in making such predictions. It is also possible to use intelligence test scores to alert us to discrepancies between measured abilities and actual achievement. Such discrepancies are often referred to as “underachievement,” and although this is clearly not just an issue for the gifted, it may well be that the loss to society is greater with this group. Rimm (2003) cites research findings that between 10 and 20 percent of high school dropouts are in the tested gifted range. Of the top 5 percent of high school graduates, 40 percent do not complete college. Only 50 percent of high school underachievers go on to complete college. These are dramatic differences, but there is also evidence that for a significant minority, underachievement begins in elementary school.

Schools and families who try to remedy underachievement will first need to find out what is causing this. In trying to understand what brings about underachievement, the most important thing is to realize is that there are multiple causes that vary widely from one individual to another. We now consider some of the major causes that researchers have documented.

Some gifted children have “dual-exceptionalities”; that is, they may have learning disabilities or a reading problem. These problems typically are not assessed by individual IQ testing, which rarely requires reading. Such children may have had precocious early development but problems have occurred with school attendance. Others may have an attention deficit disorder (ADD). Although ADD with hyperactivity is recognized by others, it is often the case that ADD does not manifest with high activity levels but rather such symptoms as inattention and lack of organization.

There is also fascinating evidence (see Dweck, 2002) that some beliefs and thought patterns are likely to interfere with performance and achievement. For example, people who believe their current performance is an indication of their overall intelligence are less likely to continue to be motivated to work following apparent failure. They may even avoid challenging tasks that might result in a challenge to their self-concept about their level of intelligence. It is likely that such erroneous beliefs are also associated with the characteristic sometimes referred to as perfectionism. Concern over being right may be associated with the belief that one must repeatedly prove that one is worthy by achieving. This may also inadvertently result from parents or teachers praising children by saying how smart they are rather than praising them for their effort and reliability. It is also likely that parents and teachers who always present material only at a child’s level of ease may not be teaching them how to deal with the real world.

Recent research by Preckel, Holling, and Vock (2006) found that one of the major factors associated with under-achievement in middle school and high school students was anxiety. This finding is supported by Wood (2006), who found that a program decreasing anxiety in high-anxiety children resulted in both improved school performance and better social functioning. Preckel et al. also found not only that underachievement was associated with anxiety but also that the Need for Cognition Scale was a predictive factor. The Need for Cognition Scale consists of questions asking about the enjoyment of cognitive stimulation, preference for complexity, commitment of cognitive effort, and the desire for understanding. Those children who are lower on this scale are more likely to be underachievers.

Plomin and Price (2003) cite multivariate findings suggesting that the discrepancy between ability as measured by IQ tests and performance as measured by achievement tests is largely due to environmental influences. One then needs to consider what possible environmental influences might account for this “underachievement.” Family, school, and peers are all possible areas of influence. Rimm (2003) cites a study comparing the families of achieving and underachieving gifted. Some of the characteristics found more frequently with the families of achievers included parental satisfaction and commitment to career, family structure and organization, and good family relationships. Siblings also may influence underachievement; the presence of one gifted child may result in others in the family deliberately not trying to achieve when it appears to them that they cannot be as good as the sibling.

Peer reaction also may be a factor. For example, some individuals may find themselves in a situation where giftedness not only is not valued but also may be seen as an undesirable difference. This may be an argument for the desirability of having special classes for the gifted.

The nature of a successful intervention will obviously depend upon the cause. For some, remedies would involve teaching deficient skills, such as time management and organizational skills. Many schools include such things not only for children requiring special services but also in the regular classroom. For others, a change in belief system may be necessary. Such changes may require talking with a school counselor, but it is also possible that a classroom teacher familiar with the gifted could do this kind of intervention successfully. The issue of learning to deal with perfectionism or high anxiety may well require intervention with counselors or professionals skilled in this area. Mentoring may be especially important in a situation where achievement is not important for the family or the peers.

However, the major educational resource for children is the classroom teacher. It is clear from the empirical literature that there is a major need for teachers to be taught not only about curriculum methods but also how to recognize both the intellectual and personality characteristics of gifted children, as well as how to use strategies to meet their needs.

Additional Information

This chapter has not had space to deal with all of the important questions concerning the gifted and their education. A major current issue concerns the identification of the gifted coming from disadvantaged backgrounds (see Van Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2007). Another frequently raised issue concerns whether there are differences in the identification of gifted boys and girls or the achievement of gifted men and women.

The Web site for the National Association for Gifted Children is www.nagc.org. This is a resource that would be of use to both parents and educators, including future parents and educators. Most states also have a state association for the gifted that includes teachers, parents, and researchers. These groups will have conventions and workshops. They frequently are advocacy groups trying to influence state legislators.

Summary

In most areas of life some people are naturally “gifted” and will learn the skills involved more easily than do others. There are many areas of skills but this chapter has examined particularly intellectual and academic performance. Is everyone gifted in something? This is unlikely, and I believe that it is possibly dangerous to say this and then start looking for the giftedness in someone. One should not have to be “gifted” in anything in order to be worthy of respect as a human being and to be treated with equity and dignity.

Is there any reason, then, to label some children gifted? The answer is “yes” because the gifted have not only potentially great skills but also special needs, even though this population is not often included in a list of special-needs children. Not only skill but also beliefs and emotional responses will influence whether gifted individuals will be able to make the best use of their talent. Their need is for a curriculum that enables them to find challenge as well as achievement, and that enables them to learn the skills of persistence and organization; they need to learn that they will not always be best and that they will make mistakes. Examination of the literature and discussion with teachers of the gifted also suggest that special classes or schools for the gifted are important because they allow peer interaction with others like themselves. Children with higher intelligence often wish to think about and consider social and other “big issues” that are typically dealt with by those who are older. Grouping of the gifted together allows this in an accepting atmosphere. It is also likely that bright children can better learn from interactions with other bright children how to deal with differences and conflicts and how to think about their own emotions. Special classes for the gifted may be particularly important for those children from families who do not have models for identity formation and occupational decisions.

Classes for the gifted are typically reserved for those in the top few percent. It is important to remember that the data support the conclusion that any of those in the top 10 percent have the ability to be readily successful with respect to accomplishment in higher education and the resulting occupational opportunities. Sternberg (1996) concluded that it is not IQ that determines success in life but rather what he calls practical and creative intelligence. He delineates examples of specific characteristics involved and makes some suggestions as to how to activate these.

References:

Colangelo, N, & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2003). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dweck, C. S. (2002). Beliefs that make smart people dumb. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 24—1-І). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gardner, H. (І983) Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (2000). Gifted children and legal issues: An update. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Moon, S. M. (2004). Social/emotional issues, underachievement, and counseling of gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Piechowski, M. M. (2003). Emotional and spiritual giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Plomin, R., & Price, T. S. (2003). The relationship between genetics and intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp.113-123). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Vock, M. (2006). Academic under-achievement: Relationship with cognitive motivation, achievement motivation, and conscientiousness. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 401-U1.
Rimm, S. (2003). Underachievement: A national epidemic. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 424—443). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2006). Perfectionism in high ability students: Relational precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 238-251.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2002). Why smart people can be so stupid. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Reis, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Differentiation for gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2007). Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (Conference Proceedings from the National Leadership Conference on Low-Income Promising Learners). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Wood, J. J. (2006). Effect of anxiety reduction on children’s school performance and social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 42, 345-349.