Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted

By Frances Karnes and Suzanne Bean

The newly revised and updated Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted offers strategies and resources for differentiating instruction for gifted learners. The book acts as an excellent introduction to gifted education curricular planning, instructional unit design, evaluation, and teaching methods.

The chapters of this comprehensive textbook are written by respected leaders in the field of gifted education. The authors review the needs of gifted learners, instructional planning and evaluation, strategies for best practices, and ongoing enhancement and support of gifted programs. Chapters include topics such as differentiated curricular design, extending learning through mentorships, building challenging instructional units, and developing creative thinking. Also, instructional practices, such as problem-based learning, independent study, classroom simulations, and more are addressed.

The third edition includes a brand-new chapter on educational technology for the gifted, as well as updated information on books, teaching materials, Web sites, and other resources for differentiating instruction and planning gifted education curriculum.

Educational Resource

• Language: English
• Publisher: Sourcebooks
• Release date: Nov 1, 2008
• ISBN: 9781593634766

Frances Karnes

Frances A. Karnes is professor of curriculum, instruction, and special education at The University of Southern Mississippi. She is widely known for her teaching, research, publications, innovative program developments, and service activities in gifted education and leadership training.

Book preview

third edition

METHODS

and

MATERIALS

for

TEACHING

the

GIFTED

edited by

Frances A. Karnes, Ph.D.

Suzanne M. Bean, Ph.D.

PRUFROCK PRESS INC.

WACO, TEXAS

Copyright © 2009, Prufrock Press Inc.

Edited by Jennifer Robins

Cover and Layout Design by Marjorie Parker

ISBN-13: 978-1-59363-476-6

ISBN-10: 1-59363-476-5

No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America.

At the time of this book’s publication, all facts and figures cited are the most current available. All telephone numbers, addresses, and Web site URLs are accurate and active. All publications, organizations, Web sites, and other resources exist as described in the book, and all have been verified. The authors and Prufrock Press Inc. make no warranty or guarantee concerning the information and materials given out by organizations or content found at Web sites, and we are not responsible for any changes that occur after this book’s publication. If you find an error, please contact Prufrock Press Inc.

Prufrock Press Inc.

P.O. Box 8813

Waco, TX 76714-8813

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

http://www.prufrock.com

We dedicate this book to our families

Ray, John, Leighanne, Mary Ryan, Mo, Emma, Brooks, Betsy, Mark, Meriweather, and Hudson for their support and love, and to Christopher Karnes, for his special love and guidance.

This book also is dedicated to all gifted learners who need differentiated instruction to reach their potential and to their specialized teachers.

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION

SECTION I: CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS OF GIFTED LEARNERS

Chapter 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTED LEARNERS: CONSISTENTLY VARIED; REFRESHINGLY DIVERSE

Sally M. Reis and Erin E. Sullivan

Chapter 2. PLANNING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Barbara G. Hunt and Robert W. Seney

SECTION II: INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING AND EVALUATION

Chapter 3. AN ANALYSIS OF GIFTED EDUCATION CURRICULUM MODELS

Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Elissa F. Brown

Chapter 4. LAYERING DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULA FOR THE GIFTED AND TALENTED

Sandra N. Kaplan

Chapter 5. PROCESS SKILLS AND THE GIFTED LEARNER

Robert W. Seney

Chapter 6. PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR GIFTED STUDENTS

Kristen R. Stephens and Frances A. Karnes

Chapter 7. WRITING UNITS THAT REMOVE THE LEARNING CEILING

Julia Link Roberts and Richard A. Roberts

Chapter 8. MAKING THE GRADE OR ACHIEVING THE GOAL?: EVALUATING LEARNER AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES IN GIFTED EDUCATION

Carolyn M. Callahan

SECTION III: STRATEGIES FOR BEST PRACTICES

Chapter 9. TEACHING ANALYTICAL AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS IN GIFTED EDUCATION

Sandra Parks

Chapter 10. ADAPTING PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING FOR GIFTED STUDENTS

Shelagh A. Gallagher

Chapter 11. NURTURING CREATIVE THINKING

Bonnie Cramond and Elizabeth Connell

Chapter 12. DEVELOPING RESEARCH SKILLS IN GIFTED LEARNERS

Kate Brown

Chapter 13. TEACHING GIFTED STUDENTS THROUGH INDEPENDENT STUDY

Susan K. Johnsen and Krystal K. Goree

Chapter 14. AFFECTIVE EDUCATION: ADDRESSING THE SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL NEEDS OF GIFTED STUDENTS IN THE CLASSROOM

Stephanie K. Ferguson

Chapter 15. DEVELOPING THE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL OF GIFTED STUDENTS

Suzanne M. Bean and Frances A. Karnes

Chapter 16. EXTENDING LEARNING THROUGH MENTORSHIPS

Del Siegle, D. Betsy McCoach, and Hope E. Wilson

Chapter 17. COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND GIFTED LEARNERS

Mary Ruth Coleman and Susanne Marie Nelson

Chapter 18. TEACHING THROUGH SIMULATION AND GAMING FOR THE GIFTED

Dorothy A. Sisk

SECTION IV: SUPPORTING AND ENHANCING GIFTED PROGRAMS

Chapter 19. TEACHING GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS IN REGULAR CLASSROOMS

Tracy L. Riley

Chapter 20. PUBLIC RELATIONS AND ADVOCACY FOR THE GIFTED

Joan D. Lewis and Frances A. Karnes

Chapter 21. TEACHING ON A SHOESTRING: MATERIALS FOR TEACHING GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS

Tracy L. Riley

Chapter 22. GETTING WHAT YOU NEED: LOCATING AND OBTAINING MONEY AND OTHER RESOURCES

Kristen R. Stephens and Frances A. Karnes

Chapter 23. CHANGING NATURE OF TECHNOLOGY AND THE PROMISE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FOR GIFTED EDUCATION

Kevin D. Besnoy, Brian C. Housand, and Lane W. Clarke

ABOUT THE EDITORS

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

INDEX

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1.1. Taxonomy of Behavioral Manifestations of Giftedness According to Renzulli’s Three-Ring Definition of Gifted Behaviors

TABLE 1.2. Characteristics of Talented Readers

TABLE 1.3. Characteristics of Gifted Students With Learning Disabilities

TABLE 4.1. Basic Elements Defining the Core Curriculum

TABLE 4.2. Differentiating the Core: Modifying the Process Element–Thinking Skills 109

TABLE 4.3. Differentiating the Core: Modifying the Process Element–Research Skills 110

TABLE 4.4. Differentiating the Core: Modifying the Content Element

TABLE 4.5. Differentiating the Core: Modifying the Content Element

TABLE 5.1. Process Skills Rating Scales-Revised

TABLE 5.2. The Galvin Model

TABLE 10.1. Shared Qualities of Expert Problem Solvers and Gifted Students

TABLE 10.2. Summary of Adaptations of PBL Problems for Gifted Students

TABLE 11.1. Attribute Listing Chart–How to Improve the Playground

TABLE 11.2. Second Attribute Listing Chart–How to Improve the Playground

TABLE 14.1. Dabrowski’s Overexcitabilities, Manifestations, and Strategies

TABLE 14.2. Affective Characteristics, Needs, and Manifestations of the Gifted

TABLE 14.3. Affective Traits and Acclimation Strategies

TABLE 14.4. Transforming Negative Statements Into Positive Parameters

TABLE 14.5. The Benefits of Service Learning

TABLE 15.1. Trends in Leadership

TABLE 19.1. Principles of Qualitative Differentiation

TABLE 19.2. Creating a Menu for Bloom’s Taxonomy

TABLE 21.1. The Spectrum of Resources for Teaching Gifted Students

TABLE 21.2. Searching With Purpose

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2.1. A responsive learning environment checklist.

FIGURE 2.2. Example of an IEP: The Strength-a-Lyzer.

FIGURE 2.3. Example of an IEP: The Compactor.

FIGURE 2.4. Example of a student questionnaire.

FIGURE 2.5. Program options.

FIGURE 4.1. Design for the layered curriculum.

FIGURE 4.2. Layer 1: The core curriculum content.

FIGURE 4.3. Dimensions of depth.

FIGURE 4.4. Dimensions of complexity.

FIGURE 4.5. Content imperatives.

FIGURE 4.6. Content imperatives and depth and complexity.

FIGURE 4.7. Redefining the differentiated curriculum layer.

FIGURE 4.8. Instructional plan.

FIGURE 4.9. Layer 2: Differentiating the core curriculum content.

FIGURE 4.10. Layer 3: Classical learning.

FIGURE 4.11. Layer 4: Individualized learning.

FIGURE 4.12. Layers 5 and 6: Theme and generalization.

FIGURE 4.13. Interactive bulletin board example.

FIGURE 4.14. Interactive bulletin board with universal concept and big idea.

FIGURE 4.15. Learning center example.

FIGURE 5.1. Tips for interviewing.

FIGURE 5.2. Tips for debate.

FIGURE 6.1. Product ideas.

FIGURE 6.2. Product planner.

FIGURE 6.3. Systems for transformation.

FIGURE 6.4. Completed rubric.

FIGURE 6.5. Student product inventory.

FIGURE 6.6. Product description.

FIGURE 7.1. Model of the relationship of unit components.

FIGURE 7.2. Picture of the relationship of unit components.

FIGURE 7.3. Elements of learning experiences.

FIGURE 7.4. Planning form for learning experiences.

FIGURE 7.5. The six categories of the cognitive process dimension.

FIGURE 7.6. Example of completed planning form for learning experiences.

FIGURE 7.7. Example of completed planning form for learning experiences.

FIGURE 7.8. Example of completed planning form for learning experiences.

FIGURE 8.1. Sample items to measure process skills in social studies.

FIGURE 8.2. Rubric exemplifying professional standards of performance.

FIGURE 8.3. Checklist for rating collaborative group behavior.

FIGURE 8.4. Student independence.

FIGURE 8.5. Sample item for scoring children’s dramatic performance.

FIGURE 8.6. A sample performance assessment task.

FIGURE 8.7. One dimension of a rating scale to evaluate Type III products.

FIGURE 8.8. Levels of performance for reporting data as an aspect of secondary research projects.

FIGURE 8.9. Sample dimensions of the rubric for scoring the The Best of Times task.

FIGURE 8.10. Selected items from a rating scale to score creative writing compositions.

FIGURE 8.11. Student self-assessment rating scale.

FIGURE 8.12. Sample items from a document review form.

FIGURE 8.13. A rating scale for use by experts in assessing curricular quality.

FIGURE 9.1. Map of the thinking domain.

FIGURE 9.2. Classifying animals by types of protection.

FIGURE 9.3. Questions about reliability of source information.

FIGURE 9.4. Determining the reliability of sources.

FIGURE 9.5. Blank decision-making matrix.

FIGURE 9.6. Completed decision-making matrix.

FIGURE 9.7. Graphic organizer to analyze metaphors.

FIGURE 9.8. Organizer created with graphic software.

FIGURE 9.9. Correlated thinking strategies to types of writing.

FIGURE 9.10. Assessment tasks.

FIGURE 10.1. Brent Spar problem.

FIGURE 10.2. Sample learning issues board for Brent Spar.

FIGURE 11.1. Taylor’s levels of creativity.

FIGURE 11.2. Morphological analysis grid.

FIGURE 11.3. Morphological synthesis grid.

FIGURE 11.4. Creative problem-solving solution evaluation grid.

FIGURE 11.5. Part of the TRIZ matrix.

FIGURE 11.6. Graph of the Buddhist monk problem.

FIGURE 12.1. Possible reference sources.

FIGURE 12.2. Sample student form for evaluating information.

FIGURE 12.3. The research process.

FIGURE 12.4. Problem/research question generator.

FIGURE 12.5. Suggested presentation formats.

FIGURE 12.6. Sample student research project planning document.

FIGURE 12.7. Teacher self-assessment of research-friendly classroom climate.

FIGURE 13.1. The Enrichment Triad Model.

FIGURE 13.2. Purdue Three-Stage Model.

FIGURE 13.3. The Purdue Pyramid.

FIGURE 13.4. Model for self-directed learning.

FIGURE 13.5. Classroom teaching styles.

FIGURE 13.6. The Autonomous Learner Model.

FIGURE 14.1. Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration.

FIGURE 14.2. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development.

FIGURE 14.3. Krathwohl’s affective taxonomy.

FIGURE 14.4. Sample bibliotherapy guide.

FIGURE 14.5. Sample film clip usage guide.

FIGURE 14.6. Open-ended response form.

FIGURE 14.7. Sample responses of junior high school gifted students.

FIGURE 15.1. Generational changes.

FIGURE 15.2. Leadership web.

FIGURE 15.3. Leadership matrix.

FIGURE 15.4. The history of leadership.

FIGURE 15.5. Leadership development plan.

FIGURE 16.1. The Community Talent Miner: A survey for locating community resources.

FIGURE 16.2. Sample mentor application.

FIGURE 16.3. Mentorship flow chart.

FIGURE 16.4. Mentee Selection Scale for evaluating students who are likely candidates for mentorship experiences

FIGURE 17.1. NAGC Position Paper on Creative Learning.

FIGURE 17.2. Room for improvement: Sample worksheet for data collection.

FIGURE 17.3. Rubric planner.

FIGURE 18.1. Design your own simulation.

FIGURE 18.2. Advantages and disadvantages of simulation games.

FIGURE 19.1. Learning agreement.

FIGURE 19.2. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model.

FIGURE 19.3. The Multiple Menu Model.

FIGURE 20.1. Audiences internal to the educational system.

FIGURE 20.2. Audiences external to the educational system.

FIGURE 20.3. Nonprint media.

FIGURE 20.4. Print media.

FIGURE 20.5. Other media.

FIGURE 20.6. Determining topics for advocacy.

FIGURE 20.7. Information dissemination.

FIGURE 20.8. Points of personal power.

FIGURE 20.9. Personal power connections.

FIGURE 20.10. Talent Identifier of Unique Skills.

FIGURE 20.11. Public relations annual plan.

FIGURE 20.12. Sample public relations annual plan.

FIGURE 20.13. Gifted education survey.

FIGURE 20.14. Public relations survey.

FIGURE 21.1. Criteria for the selection of educational materials for gifted students.

FIGURE 21.2. Recyclable materials.

FIGURE 21.3. Sample resource file card.

FIGURE 21.4. Sample letter of request.

FIGURE 21.5. Resources for teachers.

FIGURE 21.6. Student choice menu for exploration.

FIGURE 22.1. Steps in securing funds.

FIGURE 23.1. 5-Step Integration Plan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

MANY PEOPLE have made valuable contributions to this book. We extend a special thank you to chapter authors who have given their expertise across the many dimensions of teaching gifted and talented learners. Our gratitude is extended to Joel McIntosh and his staff at Prufrock Press. Words of appreciation are given to the staff at the Frances A. Karnes Center for Gifted Studies at The University of Southern Mississippi and to the staff at the Roger Wicker Center for Creative Thinking at Mississippi University for Women in Columbus, MS, for their support and encouragement. To our colleagues and administrators at The University of Southern Mississippi and Mississippi University for Women, we give our deepest appreciation for their support of this book and our other professional accomplishments.

INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION

THE SECOND EDITION of Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted, published in 2005, was extremely well received by teachers, administrators, state consultants, colleges and university professors and their students, and others interested in differentiated and quality education for gifted children and youth. With the overwhelming response to the first and second editions and the rapid growth of knowledge in the field of gifted education, the third edition became an immediate priority.

The purpose of the third revision of Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted is to give updated strategies and resources for differentiating the instruction of gifted learners. Although there is general agreement in the field of gifted education as to the need to modify regular instruction to address the unique characteristics and behaviors of gifted learners more appropriately, the original edition of this book was one of the first to focus on specific ways differentiation can be accomplished. Methods were given for developing appropriate learning environments, blending advanced content with instructional processes, and selecting products that match the needs of this population of students.

The revised text continues to provide an array of current books, teaching materials, Web sites, and other resources for teaching gifted students. In addition to the updated and expanded information, teacher statements on each topic and discussion questions are included with each chapter, and a comprehensive index has been provided.

After determining the chapters to be included in the third revision, the editors selected contributors from across the nation who have specific expertise in the areas defined and are recognized leaders in the field of gifted education. The goal continues to be to provide readers with current information about best practices for gifted learners from experts who have developed and tested these strategies.

This book begins by revisiting the characteristics and needs of gifted learners, for these understandings have a critical role in determining appropriate learning environments, content, processes, products, and resources for this population. Although the introductory chapter gives an excellent summary of the nature and needs of gifted learners, the editors believe that more information may be necessary as a prerequisite to this text in order to give educators the essential understandings about gifted learners they need to work with them effectively. Therefore, this text would best be used following a text or course about the general characteristics and needs of gifted learners.

The first section of the book offers chapters that address the unique needs of gifted learners and how to plan appropriate learning environments for them. The second section features chapters focusing on instructional planning, including content, process, and product differentiation for gifted learners. Also included is a chapter on writing units that are appropriate for gifted learners. The culmination of this section is a chapter on evaluating learner and program outcomes. The third section of the text provides chapters on specific strategies for best practices with gifted learners. From critical and creative thinking to strategies for research, independent study, and mentorships, rich and substantive ideas are highlighted. Also included in this section are chapters on affective education, leadership development, and cooperative learning for gifted learners. The fourth section presents often-neglected areas of importance in supporting and enhancing programs for gifted learners: public relations and advocacy, locating funding sources, finding appropriate resources and materials, teaching on a shoestring budget, teaching the gifted in the regular classroom, and technology and gifted youth. Although these areas may not be considered critical to the daily work of teachers, they are critical to the overall success and defensibility of strong gifted programs and services.

Educators in all areas can benefit from this book. Certainly, preservice and in-service teachers in elementary and secondary schools who are training to work with gifted learners in specialized programs could use it for instructional planning. Many sections of the text also might be used by coordinators of gifted programs as they conduct staff development programs to address the needs of various groups. General classroom teachers also may find it helpful as they prepare to individualize their instruction to meet the needs of gifted learners. Other school personnel, such as administrators, counselors, and school psychologists, could use the book to increase their understanding about gifted students and to develop strong programs for them. Parents of gifted students may use it to assist them in their own home instruction or to compare these best practices with what is offered for their children in specialized programs for the gifted.

Section I

CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS OF GIFTED LEARNERS

CHAPTER 1

CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTED LEARNERS

Consistently Varied; Refreshingly Diverse

by

SALLY M. REIS

and

ERIN E. SULLIVAN

IN AN IDEAL WORLD, researchers and educators could collaborate to compile a definitive and exhaustive list of characteristics of gifted learners, which then could be used to guide identification, teaching strategies, and curriculum selection for this population. Unfortunately, no such list can or should be created, for one of the unifying themes in research on characteristics of gifted learners is, in fact, the great diversity among them. Gifted and talented learners are not a homogeneous group; to the contrary, they are varied and unique.

Despite this diversity, research suggests that there are a handful of traits that may occur with greater frequency in gifted learners than in the general population. In this chapter, some of these characteristics are discussed, with the caveat that it is not the intention to provide a checklist by which students may be identified as either gifted or not gifted. Rather, the intent is to provide educators with an overview of characteristics that may be present in some gifted and high-ability students, and to illustrate how these characteristics may vary based on a variety of factors, including gender, sociocultural group, the presence of a hidden or overt disability, age, and whether a student is achieving or underachieving. By discussing the heterogeneity associated with gifted and talented learners, this chapter may be useful to educators attempting to look beyond rigid stereotypes to more diverse and flexible conceptions of giftedness in a broad spectrum of children and young adults. To begin, the following illustrative case studies are presented.

MELINDA

Melinda was a shy and quiet girl who had been identified as gifted in second grade. An avid reader and introvert, she displayed few characteristics related to most traditional notions of giftedness. She was so quiet that her teachers did not believe she was creative. Her verbal skills were hard to identify because she was shy. Although she read avidly, she did not appear to display verbal precocity. Her teachers had not seen any indications of problem solving, humor, or other commonly acknowledged characteristics of academic giftedness. Melinda was primarily known for being quiet and kind and an advanced reader who did not like to discuss or share what she was reading, perhaps due to her shyness.

Melinda did well, but was not considered to excel in many areas between second and fifth grade. When she was in fifth grade, however, circumstances enabled some latent characteristics to emerge. One day, as she later explained to her teacher, she watched from her school bus window as the bus stopped and a mother had to verbally encourage, and when that failed, actually push her very young son onto the bus. As the weeks passed, Melinda became increasingly interested in this little boy who wore thick glasses and often had tears rolling down his face as he climbed on to the school bus. She quietly began making inquiries about him, and found that he was a kindergarten student who was visually impaired. She discussed him with her mother who encouraged Melinda to sit close to the front of the bus and reach out to the little boy. The day after they had this conversation, Melinda sat at the front of the bus and as the little boy climbed tearfully up the stairs, she asked him what was wrong. He replied softly that he hated school.

Well, said Melinda, none of us love school but you don’t find anyone else crying about getting on the bus every day.

You don’t understand, the little boy replied, I am visually impaired, in fact, legally blind and I have to wear these thick funny glasses. The older kids in third grade make fun of me and I feel different. Sometimes they trip me as I come into school and sometimes when I go to physical education class, they find me and push me around. I can’t even take any books out of the library cause there aren’t any with print that is large enough for me to see. When all of the kids in my class go to the library, I have to pretend to read because I can’t get books with large enough print. I can’t read Braille yet, although I am learning, so I don’t get to read any books from the school library.

Melinda thought about that conversation and wondered how she could help. She discussed it with her fifth-grade classroom teacher who suggested one idea. Melinda could organize a group of the biggest fifth graders who could meet her little friend’s bus each day and escort him to class. They also could be excused from class to accompany him to physical education. The new bodyguards were arranged with minimal effort and were a huge hit with the little guy. The bullying stopped overnight as word spread around the school that the little boy had his own personal protection service. In fact, he gained some notoriety in the school as other boys were told to leave him alone because the biggest kids in the school were watching out for him.

Melinda thought about the other problem, too, and discussed it both with her mother and her teacher. Melinda, who was beginning to emerge as a very good writer, decided to write an original story in an area of interest of the little boy, and get one of the better artists in her class to illustrate the story. The story could be copied in very large print, large enough for him to read, while he continued to read Braille, and he would be able to have access to this book in the school library.

She also knew that one book would not hold his interest for very long. She came up with the idea of recruiting the students who were good writers in her class and the other fifth-grade classes, and maybe even the sixth-grade classes. What if she used an interest-a-lyzer she had completed as part of her school’s enrichment program to find out what his interests are? Within a couple of weeks, she had modified the interest assessment device for him and identified his interests as mysteries, sports, and historical events. She met with her new little friend, who had begun to idolize her, and learned the print size necessary for him to be able to read his new big books. She recruited more than two dozen students as writers and illustrators, and within a few months, the little boy had an entire personalized library available for him in the school library. Melinda’s efforts made an enormous difference in the little boy’s life, according to his mother.

Interestingly enough, few of the characteristics that Melinda displayed when she was working on her big book project had been apparent to her teachers prior to this time. It was the circumstances that emerged that enabled Melinda to actively demonstrate and further develop these latent traits.

ANDREW

Although he had been identified as gifted in third grade, Andrew’s work in school had frustrated both his parents and teachers for years. Always a child of remarkably high potential, his grades fluctuated in elementary, junior, and senior high school. In elementary school, Andrew was identified as gifted in a district that required an IQ of 130 or above in addition to evidence of high achievement. He was a social student who enjoyed discussing his ideas with others and was highly verbal, but had poor work habits in work required out of his areas of interest, which were technology and math. As the years progressed, Andrew’s work became less and less impressive. His teachers questioned his identification as gifted as he became older. His writing was considered below average and the only class he consistently did well in was math.

Andrew disliked reading fiction and nonfiction that was unrelated to his interests. His grades were quite variable, from top marks in math and technology to failing grades in subjects that did not interest him. Although he took advanced math classes in middle and high school and achieved a near perfect score on the math section of the SAT, taken during his junior year of high school, Andrew had become an underachiever because of his variable attitudes toward school. He rarely displayed characteristics of a gifted student in classes in which he did not have an interest. His technology and math teachers realized his potential and saw his talents in problem solving and his persistence and creativity. Few other teachers noted any positive characteristics and he continued to underachieve in school. Over time, a pattern emerged. If Andrew liked his teacher, he would do well in class, regardless of the content. If Andrew liked the content of the class, but not his teacher, he would do enough to get by with marginal grades, usually C’s. If Andrew did not like either his teacher or the content, or the content was well below his achievement level, Andrew usually failed the class or earned a grade of D. He always did well on his exams, even when he had not completed the assigned work in class. He simply lost credit for the homework and class work that he failed to complete.

The problem wasn’t that Andrew was idle. In fact, his parents usually had to plead with him to go to bed on time because he was reading books about artificial intelligence or pursuing his own interests, which happened to be designing software and building computers. In his senior year, Andrew got recruitment letters from the best colleges in the country because his SAT scores were nearly perfect, but unfortunately, he did not graduate from high school, failing both English and history. He did not like his teachers, and the work was too easy in the lower track classes to which he had been assigned because of his lack of effort and low grades in earlier years. Not graduating from high school was for Andrew the lesser of two fates. The worse fate, in his opinion, was pretending to be interested in boring, noninspiring classes taught by teachers he believed did not care about him. Despite the many creative and motivational characteristics that Andrew displayed at home or in content areas in which he had a sincere interest, his teachers failed to see the traits associated with his gifts and talents.

SANDRA

Sandra was a cheerful, energetic, and outspoken high school student who had been identified as gifted in elementary school, and who showed a fluctuating pattern of achievement and underachievement throughout her school career. Sandra, who was Puerto Rican, participated in a bilingual program until third grade and then had been mainstreamed to an all-English classroom in fourth grade. At this time, she was accepted into the school’s gifted program due to her ...above-average intelligence, leadership, and creativity...

Sandra lived with her parents, an older sister, and a younger brother. During elementary school she and her family lived in a low-income neighborhood. Her mother was a housewife who only had a fourth-grade level of education. Sandra described her mother as ...a little cuckoo and clinically depressed. Her father was a machine operator in a factory. Both Sandra’s sister and brother were adopted. Sandra always believed that she also was adopted but her parents never confirmed this, which provoked many confusing feelings.

Sandra’s grades during elementary school were outstanding. Teachers described her as a very good, obedient girl, and an excellent and enthusiastic student. However, it was also noted that although she was bright and very eager to learn, she could be careless and tended to finish work too quickly. Sandra’s junior high school years were harder and more competitive for her than elementary school. She acknowledged feeling angry and experiencing problems because she felt that people couldn’t stand her. Looking back on this period later, she said, I used to get like C’s. I got lazy. I went from my straight A’s in elementary school to B’s and C’s.

Early in her high school career, Sandra’s family moved from the housing project to what she called a White neighborhood. She reported with frustration that others saw her as a high class Puerto Rican, simply because she and her family now had their own house with an above-ground pool. On top of this we don’t have roaches in the house. This makes us high class!

Sandra’s academic performance improved early in high school after her under-achievement in junior high. By 10th grade, Sandra’s grades were mostly B’s and A’s again. However, she did get one D—in an honors-level algebra class. In 11th grade, Sandra got a C in a geometry honors-level class and a D in U.S. History. In her senior year, Sandra was failing biology and was doing only average work in Spanish. Nonetheless, her high school teachers depicted Sandra as a very creative writer and original thinker, a good speaker, and one of the best, if not the best, student in her speech class. Of her performance, Sandra said she felt lazy but would do the work in some of her classes if she felt like doing it.

Sandra had entered high school with the career goal of becoming a criminal defense lawyer, but a major life event changed her opinion. Overwhelmed with the demanding responsibilities placed on her by her mother’s mental illness, Sandra attempted suicide by taking an overdose of her mother’s psychiatric medicine. Sandra’s experiences during her depression and recovery helped her to reevaluate her career goals, and for a period of time her underachievement again abated. In her senior year of high school, she had changed her vocational goal to becoming a pediatrician. She had been accepted at a state university where she intended to major in biology, with a goal of attending medical school upon completion of her undergraduate degree.

Similar to Melinda and Andrew, Sandra’s experiences may not reflect what many educators would see as typical for a gifted child. At times she performed well, but often her academic behaviors and outcomes did not reflect her ability. Her teachers in junior high, for example, may have had little awareness of Sandra’s gifts, as she was not actively demonstrating her superior ability at that time. A variety of factors including cultural, economic, social, family, and emotional issues, were interacting in Sandra’s life throughout her school years. How these factors individually affected Sandra’s outcomes is unclear; however, no child, gifted or otherwise, lives in a vacuum. When considering characteristics of gifted children, flexibility about what constitutes giftedness or talent and sensitivity to the whole child is key.

GIFTEDNESS AS A CONSTRUCT

Key to understanding the characteristics of giftedness and talent is a recognition of the many competing and/or overlapping definitions of these constructs. In many fields, it is appropriate to adopt operational definitions for key constructs, so that discourse on a particular topic converges on a single, recognizable phenomenon. Gifted education, in its drive to serve diverse groups of learners, has embraced diverse definitions of its central constructs. Thus, the terms giftedness talent, intellect, and intelligence are not so easily defined.

This was not always the case. For many years, researchers and psychologists following in the footsteps of Lewis Terman, equated giftedness with high IQ. In practice, this legacy survives to the present day, with some researchers, educators and parents assuming that psychometric intelligence is equivalent to giftedness.

Since Terman’s time, however, other researchers have argued that giftedness is a multidimensional construct incorporating a variety of traits, skills, and abilities, and manifesting in manifold ways. This thinking is particularly evident in the examination and subsequent reexamination of giftedness in Sternberg and Davidson’s (1986, 2005) edited editions of Conceptions of Giftedness, in which most contributors propose conceptions of giftedness that go beyond or minimize the importance of IQ. Rapid learning as compared to others in the population (Cross & Coleman, 2005); attention control, memory efficiency, and characteristics of perception (Heller, Perleth, & Lim, 2005); desire to develop one’s gifts (Reis, 2005); and task commitment (Renzulli, 2005) all are proposed as aspects of giftedness i the models in Conceptions of Giftedness.

One of the earliest models to propose a multifaceted conception of giftedness was Joseph Renzulli’s (1978) three-ring conception. The theory promotes the idea that gifted behaviors result from a synergy among several distinct intrapersonal characteristics, as is outlined in the excerpt below.

Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits—above average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity. Individuals capable of developing gifted behavior are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance. Persons who manifest or are capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional programs. (Renzulli & Reis, 1997, p. 8)

Characteristics that may be manifested in Renzulli’s three clusters are presented in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1

TAXONOMY OF BEHAVIORAL MANIFESTATIONS OF GIFTEDNESS ACCORDING TO RENZULLI’S THREE-RING DEFINITION OF GIFTED BEHAVIORS

Above-Average Ability (General)

high levels of abstract thought

adaptation to novel situations

rapid and accurate retrieval of information

Above-Average Ability (Specific)

applications of general abilities to specific area of knowledge

capacity to sort out relevant from irrelevant information

capacity to acquire and use advanced knowledge and strategies while pursuing a problem

Task Commitment

capacity for high levels of interest, enthusiasm

hard work and determination in a particular area

self-confidence and drive to achieve

ability to identify significant problems within an area of study

setting high standards for one’s work

open to new experiences and ideas

curious

willing to take risks

sensitive to aesthetic characteristics

Note. Adapted from The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A How-to Guide for Educational Excellence (2nd ed., p. 9), by J. S. Renzulli and S. M. Reis, 1997, Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Copyright © 1997 by Creative Learning Press. Adapted with permission.

The United States’ current federal definition of giftedness likewise takes a multidimensional approach. It states, as follows:

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, 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. (U.S. Department of Education, 1993, p. 26)

One conception of giftedness is quite different from those presented above. The 1991 Columbus Group definition of giftedness focuses not on achievement or production but on developmental trajectory and affective qualities:

Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in parenting, teaching and counseling in order for them to develop optimally. (Columbus Group, 1991)

In accepting the validity of multiple definitions of giftedness it is acknowledged that there can be no single discussion of the characteristics of gifted students. Thus, this chapter has been partitioned to reflect research about various subgroups of gifted learners, the better to honor varied conceptions of the construct.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ACADEMICALLY GIFTED STUDENTS

For many people, the term gifted is most readily associated with those who perform well in the academic realm, a talent Renzulli (2005) refers to as schoolhouse giftedness or high academic giftedness, and others might refer to as cognitive ability or intellectual ability. Schoolhouse giftedness is test-taking, lesson-learning, or academic giftedness, and often is manifested by persons who score well on traditional intellectual assessments. This section of the chapter deals with characteristics that may be associated with students who are gifted in the academic realm.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Over the years, many researchers and textbook writers have summarized broad characteristics of academically gifted students. One of the most extensive is the list of characteristics presented by Clark (2002), divided into different categories including:

cognitive (thinking) characteristics, such as retention of large quantities of information, advanced comprehension, varied interests and high curiosity, and a high level of language development and verbal ability;

affective (feeling) characteristics, such as unusual sensitivity to the feelings of others, keen sense of humor, heightened self-awareness, feelings of being different, and idealism and sense of justice;

physical (sensation) characteristics, such as heightened sensory awareness, unusual discrepancy between physical and intellectual development, and low tolerance for lag between their standards and their athletic skills;

intuitive characteristics, such as being open to intuitive experiences and creativity apparent in all areas of endeavor; and

societal characteristics, such as strongly motivated by self-actualization needs, advanced capacity for conceptualizing and solving societal problems, leadership, and involvement with the meta-needs of society (i.e., justice, truth, beauty).

Comparing Clark’s (2002) list with other research on characteristics of gifted students reveals broad consensus on traits commonly found in this group. Research by Feldhusen (1989), Renzulli (2005), and Reis (1989) identified characteristics such as the ability to learn more rapidly than other students, understanding of complex or abstract topics, and advanced verbal ability and problem-solving skills. Steiner (2006) likewise suggested that gifted students more consistently use advanced problem-solving strategies than other learners. Frasier and Passow (1994) identified characteristics of giftedness that they found to be cross-cultural. These include, again, problem-solving ability, as well as traits found on Clark’s (2002) list such as motivation, sense of humor, creativity, and well-developed memory.

Perhaps the most comprehensive, well-researched compilation of characteristics of talented students across numerous content areas and areas of strength is the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) by Renzulli and his associates (1976, 2002). The SRBCSS (Renzulli et al., 2002) were recently expanded to include scales in reading, math, and technology in addition to the original scales in the areas of learning, motivation, creativity, leadership, artistic, musical, dramatic, communication, and planning abilities.

In addition to the more generic lists and syntheses of traits and characteristics discussed, other research has focused on characteristics of distinct subgroups within the population of students identified as high potential or above average. These include groups such as gifted readers.

TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH GIFTED READERS

Identifying the characteristics of talented readers has been the focus of a recent research study by researchers at The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (Reis et al., 2004). Research indicates that not all gifted students are talented readers and not all talented readers are academically gifted, but many demonstrate some or most of the characteristics summarized in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2

CHARACTERISTICS OF TALENTED READERS

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL TRAITS

The question of whether gifted and talented learners have unique affective, social, and emotional characteristics has been a topic of lively debate for decades. Recently, a comprehensive review of research on this topic was conducted by a task force of researchers, psychologists, and educators from the National Association for Gifted Children (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002). This task force found a limited research base from which to draw conclusions about whether gifted and talented learners have unique social and emotional characteristics. It did find, however, that there is no evidence that gifted children or youth—as a group—are inherently any more vulnerable to psychological problems than any other group of students. In general, they have no higher (or lower) rate of serious maladjustment, suicide, delinquency, or severe behavioral disorders than do students not identified as gifted. Rather, many gifted young people possess assets that, when supported, may enhance their resilience to negative life events and enable them to use their talents to achieve productive and satisfying lives. When troubling social and emotional traits do occur in gifted students, they often are the result of a poor fit between the individual and his or her academic or social environment (Gross, 2002; Neihart, 2002).

In support of this idea, a notable exception to the findings on social/emotional adjustment of gifted children is the research that suggests that children with exceptionally high IQ scores, that is, IQs over 160, and students gifted in the visual arts and writing, do indeed have more problems than other students (Gross, 2002; Hollingworth, 1926, 1942). Although we remain unsure about why artists and writers have difficulties, Gross (2002) suggested that students with exceptionally high IQs may be so different from their age-mates that they cannot fit in socially even when consciously attempting to underachieve. To make matters worse, their skills and abilities may likewise so far outstrip grade-level material that only radical acceleration of several grades will yield positive outcomes similar to those of other gifted students.

Although there is limited consensus in research regarding whether social/emotional characteristics of gifted students differ from the norm, one theory does seem to hold promise for addressing certain elements of the issue. Over the years, a body of literature (Ackerman, 1997; Bouchet & Falk, 2001; Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984; Piechowski & Cunningham, 1985) has developed suggesting that Dabrowski’s (1964) Theory of Positive Disintegration can be usefully applied to gifted students. The theory, which centers on developmental potential, posits that five personal intensities can contribute to an individual’s personal growth. To paraphrase Mendaglio and Tillier (2006) and other researchers, these five overexcitabilities (OEs) are as follows:

Psychomotor Overexcitability. Psychomotor OE is a surplus of energy or a translation of nervous energy into a variety of psychomotor behaviors, such as tics, nail biting, broad gestures, or impulsive behavior.

Sensual Overexcitability. Sensual OE is a sensitivity to sensory input and a tendency to use sensory outlets to release tension. Sensual OE can include an interest in the aesthetics of appearance and other sense-oriented stimuli.

Intellectual Overexcitability. Intellectual OE is an intense focus on understanding, pursuit of the truth, academic interests, and intellectual achievement.

Imaginational Overexcitability. Imaginational OE is an affinity and talent for imagery, fantasy, invention, and other facets of the imagination and can manifest as daydreaming or distractibility.

Emotional Overexcitability. Emotional OE is characterized by intense feeling, and may include heightened sensitivity to others’ emotions, inhibition, or shyness; heightened ability to recall emotional experiences; anxiety; and fear of the unknown.

Research has linked each of the overexcitabilities to giftedness, but Emotional OE is by far the most commonly associated with giftedness across studies (Acker-man, 1997; Bouchet & Falk, 2001; Miller, Silverman, & Falk, 1994; Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984; Piechowski, Silverman, & Falk, 1985). Although further research is needed on this topic to assess its validity, it may be that some gifted students are more emotionally intense than other students.

PERSONALITY AND GIFTEDNESS

A number of studies have found interesting patterns in the personality traits of gifted students (Cross, Cassady, & Miller, 2006; Cross, Speirs Neumeister, & Cassady, 2007; Delbridge-Parker & Robinson, 1989; Gallagher, 1990; Harris, 2004; Hawkins, 1997). Most recently, Cross et al. (2007) administered the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI; Myers, 1962) to 931 gifted adolescents attending a residential school and found that many gifted adolescents demonstrate personality traits that are less commonly found in other students. The MBTI is designed to measure personality preferences on four dichotomous traits: Extroversion/Introversion (E/I), Intuition/ Sensing (N/S), Thinking/Feeling (T/F), and Judging/Perceiving (J/P). Introversion vs. Extroversion refers to the degree to which one is oriented to the outside world vs. the internal world. Extroverts are reported to be energized by interactions with others and seek out social situations, while Introverts are described as being energized by time alone, and may require less social interaction than Extroverts. Intuition vs. Sensing describes one’s preference for either focusing on abstract ideas (Intuition) or attending to concrete information gathered through the senses (Sensing). Thinking vs. Feeling refers to one’s preferred style for making decisions. According to the theory behind the MBTI, Thinkers prefer to make logic-based decisions that exclude subjective factors, while Feelers prefer to take others’ feelings and personal values into account when making decisions. Finally, Judging types are reported to prefer order, structure, and deadlines, while Perceiving types prefer to be spontaneous, open, and free to change course as they see fit (Cross et al., 2007).

Cross et al. (2007) found that the most common type preferences for gifted adolescents in this study were INTJ, INTP, INFP, ENFP, and ENTP—all of which are types that prefer abstract thinking (Intuition) to focusing on the concrete (Sensing). In fact, almost 70% of these adolescents preferred Intuition to Sensing. Likewise, Perceiving was preferred to Judging by about 57% of the participants. Approximately 40% of participants had a combined preference for Intuition and Perceiving. In contrast, the most common types in adolescents not identified as gifted are ESTP, ESFP, ESTJ, and ESFJ. All of these types are sensing types, preferring concrete reality to abstract thought. Judging (a preference for order and structure) was about as common as Perceiving (preference for flexibility and openness) in this population.

This data echoes previous research (Delbridge-Parker & Robinson, 1989; Gallagher, 1990; Hawkins, 1997; Sak, 2004) that has likewise found a disproportionate number of Intuitive and Perceiving types among gifted students. Sak (2004) analyzed 14 studies with a total of 5,723 gifted adolescents and found Intuitive and Perceiving types to be the most common across studies. Similar to the work completed in the Cross et al. (2007) study, about 70% of gifted adolescents in the studies analyzed by Sak preferred Intuition to Sensing. By comparison, only about 30% of adolescents in the general population prefer Intuition. Approximately 60% of the gifted adolescents in Sak’s analysis preferred Perceiving, as compared to 45% in the normative population. These data may suggest that many gifted adolescents have personalities and traits that differ in some key ways from other students.

CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH CREATIVE GIFTEDNESS

According to Renzulli (2005), creative/productive giftedness is reflected in individuals who tend to be producers (rather than consumers) of original knowledge, materials, or products, and who employ thought processes that are inductive and problem oriented. Whereas Renzulli suggests that many gifted students possess attributes of both schoolhouse giftedness and creative productive giftedness, research shows that individuals with high intelligence may or may not have high creative ability or potential (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Renzulli & Reis, 1985). As noted by Sternberg and Lubart (1993), the academically successful children of today are not necessarily the creatively gifted adults of tomorrow (p. 12).

In 1978, MacKinnon proposed an influential theory that suggested a base level IQ of about 120 is necessary for creative productivity. According to the theory, beyond that threshold, there is no relationship between creativity and intelligence as measured by IQ tests (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993). A 2005 meta-analysis of 21 studies and 45,880 participants, however, suggests otherwise. The analysis found that the correlation between IQ and creativity was negligible, leading the researcher to conclude that the data did not support the idea of a threshold effect (Kim, 2005).

Regardless, few would argue against the idea that creatively gifted people often possess characteristics different from those we see in academically talented people. What are the traits that help to define individuals with high creative ability or potential? A review of creativity literature by Selby, Shaw, and Houtz (2005) produced a long, varied, and sometimes contradictory list of characteristics of creative individuals. However, within the complexity of their collection, certain patterns can be detected. For example, they listed a variety of traits that might be labeled courage or independence, such as the ability to make independent judgments, assertiveness/dominance, limited use of suppression as a defense mechanism, relatively high levels of impulsivity, openness, self-acceptance, and willingness to see oneself as unconventional. Traits having to do with motivation included an affinity for complexity, aesthetic appreciation, intrinsic motivation, appreciation of challenge, and curiosity. Other characteristics were affective, such as relatively low sense of well-being, a tendency toward self-criticism, a high degree of empathy, and emotional instability.

Sternberg and Lubart (1993) proposed that a person’s resources for creativity allow a process of creative production to occur. Because they believe that six separate resources must interact to yield creativity, they suggest that creative giftedness is a rare occurrence. Sternberg and Lubart’s six resources describe many traits of creative individuals:

Intellectual processes. Creatively gifted people excel in problem definition, using insight (selective encoding, selective comparison, and selective combination) to solve problems, and using divergent thought as a problem-solving strategy. These intellectual processes of creatively gifted learners are all immeasurable by traditional IQ tests.

Knowledge. Knowledge of the domain allows for one to identify areas where new and novel work is needed, and to some extent, may serve as a hindrance to creativity, as too much knowledge can limit one’s ability to have fresh ideas.

Intellectual (cognitive) styles. Creatively gifted people tend to prefer a legislative style (creating, formulating, and planning) and a global mode of processing information (thinking abstractly, generalizing, and extrapolating) that can be encouraged through approaches such as the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997).

Personality. Five key personality attributes are important to creative gift-edness: tolerance of ambiguity, moderate risk-taking, willingness to surmount obstacles and persevere, willingness to grow, and belief in self and ideas.

Motivation. A task-focused orientation is a drive or goal that leads a person to work on a task. Goal-focused orientation, which includes extrinsic motivators, rewards, or recognition, leads people to see a task as a means to an end, and this exists often in creatively gifted individuals (Renzulli, 1978).

Davis (1992) summarized a list of characteristics of individuals with high creative ability or potential after reviewing research on the topic. On the positive side, he suggested that creative individuals possess originality, curiosity, open mindedness, attraction to complexity and novelty, and a willingness to take risks. On the other hand, he suggested that some traits—such as a tendency to be emotional, to question authority, and to take little interest in details—may be seen in a negative light by parents, educators, and peers of creative children, as they may lead to behaviors considered inappropriate. Interestingly, although there is a great deal of research dealing with academically gifted students’ perceptions of their own abilities and the impact of those abilities on their social and emotional lives, we have little to no such knowledge about how creatively gifted students feel about their talents and characteristics. Future research might explore creative students’ perceptions of their traits—both those that may be seen as positive and those that could be viewed by some as problematic.

In summary, although creative and academic ability may overlap in some students, other highly creative students may exhibit distinctly different characteristics than those commonly seen in academically gifted children. As such, programming for social and emotional needs may likewise be different for these students.

DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS OF GIFTEDNESS

Developmental issues are an important consideration in the recognition of the diverse characteristics of talented and gifted individuals. Traits and behaviors seen in gifted learners at one developmental level may not hold true for students at other ages.

THE YOUNG GIFTED CHILD

As might be expected, there is research to support the idea that early signs of precocity exist in some children (Baum, Reis, & Maxfield, 1998). Parents are quite capable of describing their child’s early behaviors, although they may not necessarily identify the behaviors as precocious. Because of this, parents should be viewed by educators as important sources of information about children’s talents (Robinson, 1987). Early language development and early reading are precocious behaviors easily identified and assessed in young children.

Gross motor competence and reaction time also may identify young gifted children. Hemmelgarn and Kehle (1984), for example, assessed reaction time in 59 gifted elementary school students and found a significant inverse relationship between IQ and reaction time. These findings suggest that both motor abilities and nervous system response may be more highly developed in young gifted students.

In general, however, assessing advanced abilities and talents in young children proves difficult and unreliable, especially when using traditional intelligence tests. According to Robinson (1987), several researchers have found that strength in very early novelty preferences, visual attention, and visual recognition memory during infancy can be somewhat effective predictors of intelligence in childhood. Because little research exists in this area as compared to research on older gifted students, parents and teachers should keep their views broad and flexible if we are to identify reliable and significant indices of precocious development (Robinson, 1987, p. 162). Feldman’s (1993) research on child prodigies, defined as children usually younger than 10 years old who are performing at the levels of highly skilled adults, suggests that prodigies have highly focused talent, extreme motivation to develop the talent, and unusual self-confidence in their ability to do so. Psychometric intelligence plays a role in the development of a prodigy, but is not central to his or her development (Feldman, 1993).

GIFTED ADOLESCENTS

Along with the multitude of issues faced by any adolescent, particular personality, intellectual, and social characteristics may present unique challenges to gifted and talented teenagers. Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen (1993) conducted an in-depth longitudinal study of 200 talented teenagers and identified a strong core of personal attributes that distinguished the talented teenagers in their study from their average-ability counterparts. These included intellectual curiosity, active reception of information from the world, strong desire to achieve, perseverance to attain their goals, preference for leading and controlling, desire to display accomplishments and gain others’ attention, and little questioning of their own worth. It is important to note, however, that some of these personality attributes were displayed by only one gender. For example, talented male teens, in comparison to average male teens, valued stability and predictability more, preferred to avoid physical risks, enjoyed arguments more, and had an unusual need for social recognition. The talented female teens, when compared to their average counterparts, were less inclined to identify with values often seen as feminine, such as orderliness, neatness, and predictability. Overall, researchers found that the cluster of attributes that described the talented teens suggested an autotelic (self-directed or self-rewarding) personality. The teens in this study entered adolescence with personality attributes well suited to the difficult struggle of establishing their mastery over a domain: a desire to achieve, persistence, and a curiosity and openness to experience (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993, p. 82).

Karnes and McGinnis (1996) also found support for differences between academically talented adolescents and average adolescents. Their study indicated that their sample of academically talented adolescents had a more internal locus of control than average students. Locus of control is the extent to which individuals believe that their behavior causes subsequent reinforcement; individuals who perceive reinforcement as contingent upon behavior or characteristics usually have an internal locus of control.

Assouline and Colangelo (2006) note that although gifted adolescents have relatively healthy self-concepts, gifted teens may have less positive self-concepts than younger gifted students. Gifted high school girls, in particular, may demonstrate this trend. In general, gifted adolescents also are more likely to report feeling anxious and isolated than younger gifted students. Both male and female gifted adolescents may have low estimations of their social abilities and suffer from lowered self-satisfaction. On the positive side, they tend to report high opinions for their intellectual and academic status.

In addition to the factors mentioned above, many gifted adolescents are abstract thinkers with a strong preference for flexibility and freedom, as previously noted. These personality characteristics contrast with the personality preferences of most adolescents. They also may put gifted adolescents in conflict with school environments in general, which tend to favor students who excel in lesson learning (Renzulli, 2005).

SPECIAL POPULATIONS OF GIFTED LEARNERS

The last two decades have been marked by an increasing interest in diverse gifted students. These students may include children from ethnic, racial, and linguistic minorities, as well as those from economically disadvantaged homes. Literature on gifted girls; gifted underachievers; gifted gay, lesbian, or bisexual students; and gifted students with disabilities is likewise growing, consistently finding that underrepresentation of these groups in gifted programs is pervasive. With increased awareness of this issue, some policy makers and educators have been seeking ways to ensure that diverse gifted students receive the same opportunities that other gifted students enjoy. Complicating the process, however, is the reality that many current identification and selection procedures may be ineffective and inappropriate for the identification of these young people. Certainly, limited referrals and nominations of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) students, as well as other diverse populations of gifted students, affect their low placement in programs (Frasier & Passow, 1994).

Research suggests that part of the problem may be that gifted students in these populations demonstrate characteristics that are different from those of typical gifted students. Recognizing the need to acknowledge characteristics of different cultures in the identification of talent among diverse groups, Ford (2007) urged educators to avoid assessments that are culture-blind when working with students of color in favor of identification procedures that may be more sensitive to cultural differences.

Ford and Moore (2006) describe a variety of ways that students may differ in behavior and expression style based on ethnicity and culture. They note, for example, that Asian and Native American students may be less animated and expressive, speak more quietly, and generally use less personal space than Hispanic or White students. African American students may be more animated and expressive, speak more loudly and take up more space than other students. Native Americans, Asians, and Hispanics may be less direct in their communication style than African American and White students, who may be quite direct. Native Americans, Asians, and Hispanics also may use less physical contact in communicating than African American and White students. Finally, White students may place value on tasks over relationships, while other cultural groups value relationships over tasks. Although these characteristics do not refer specifically to gifted students, they may nonetheless raise awareness of what types of overt behaviors educators, counselors, and others may see in gifted students of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

A study by The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented explored characteristics of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted students. Following 35 economically disadvantaged, ethnically diverse, talented high school students in an urban high school for 3 years, Reis, Hebért, Diaz, Maxfield, and Ratley (1995) found a number of common personal characteristics in participants who achieved despite the challenges they faced. These characteristics included motivation and inner will, positive use of problem solving, independence, realistic aspirations, heightened sensitivity to each other and the world around them, and appreciation of cultural diversity. A determination to succeed was consistently echoed by most of the high-achieving participants in this study, despite what could be considered prejudice leveled against them. One of the study participants, for example, said that she had experienced various types of prejudice in her community and occasionally in academic experiences. This prejudice occurred in school, from teachers as well as students, and in the summer programs she participated in for high-achieving students, which often are held at some of the most prestigious private schools in the state. She explained, "I know that people will occasionally look at me and say, when they find out