WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “GIFTEDNESS”?

Li-fang ZhangFaculty of Education

The University of Hong Kong

December 1, 2007

Objectives

Why do we care about understanding our conceptions of giftedness?

Is it possible to attain any degree of universality in people’s conceptions of giftedness?

How could we apply our knowledge about conceptions of giftedness to educational practice?

Is giftedness developmental?

What is going on?

Why is it that a student who is viewed as gifted by one teacher could be considered as being dumb by another teacher?

How could it be that a child previously enrolled in the gifted program in his old school found himself in a mainstream class in his new school?

Implicit theories of Giftedness

Not public or formal Reside in people’s minds

Why bother studying conceptions of giftedness?

To establish common cultural views that dominate the thinking within a society “ Society decides on the direction toward

its (referring to “high potential”) fulfillment by rewarding some kinds of achievement while ignoring or even discouraging others”

Tannenbaum (1986)

More powerful than explicit theories

Our focus today

The Pentagonal Theory (Sternberg & Zhang, 1995)

Giftedness as developing successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1996)

Giftedness as a preference for the flexible use of intellectual styles (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006)

The Five Individually Necessaryand Jointly Sufficient Criteria

of the Pentagonal Implicit Theory of Giftedness(Sternberg & Zhang, 1995)

Pentagonal ImplicitTheory of Giftedness

valuecriterion

productivitycriterion

demonstrabilitycriterion

raritycriterion

excellencecriterion

Sample case for the Pentagonal Theory

Excellence: Denise's score on XXXtest--good.

Rarity: Denise's score -- top 20% of her school.

Demonstrability: The XXXTest --accurate in predicting gifted performance for 40% of students.

Value: The school considers the XXXTest to be a mediocre measure of giftedness.

Productivity: 4 independent projects.

Value: The school considers the test mediocre measure of giftedness. My judgment School’s judgment

Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses:Student Sample & Parent Sample (Sternberg & Zhang, 1995)

β (Standardized regression coefficient)

Rating (statement) Girls-School Girls-Self Boys-School Boys-Self

Student Sample

Excellence (1) .32*** .73*** .28*** .55***

Rarity (2) .45*** .38*** .25** .23***

Productivity (5) .37*** .22*** .44*** .58***

Demonstrability (3) .00 .13** .03 .28***

Value (4) .49*** .26*** .50*** .19***

Value (6) .26*** .10* .28*** .07

R2 .78*** .91*** .68*** .87***

Root-mean-square-error .46 .33 .60 .38

(Student sample: N = 24 students evaluating 21 girls and 18 boys)

Parent Sample

Excellence (1) .33*** .53*** .34*** .49***

Rarity (2) .29*** .35*** .24** .37***

Productivity (5) .34*** .50*** .44*** .67***

Demonstrability (3) .02 .25*** .00 .11**

Value (4) .50*** .28*** .43*** .18***

Value (6) .44*** .20*** .35*** .13**

R2 .76*** .90*** .68*** .91***

Root-mean-square-error .49 .24 .66 .26

(Parent sample: N = 39 parents evaluating 21 girls and 18 boys)

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p< .001.

Giftedness Revisited (Zhang & Sternberg, 1998)

β (Standardized regression coefficient)

Rating (statement) Girls-School Girls-Self Boys-School Boys-Self

Yale Sample

Excellence (1) .32*** .73*** .28*** .55***

Rarity (2) .45*** .38*** .25** .23***

Productivity (5) .37*** .22*** .44*** .58***

Demonstrability (3) .00 .13** .03 .28***

Value (4) .49*** .26*** .50*** .19***

Value (6) .26*** .10* .28*** .07

R2 .78*** .91*** .68*** .87***

Root-mean-square-error .46 .33 .60 .38

H. K. Sample

Excellence (1) .32** .34** .47*** .60***

Rarity (2) .30** .46*** .25* .29**

Productivity (5) .11 .24 .26* .34***

Demonstrability (3) .10 .25* .04 .26***

Value (4) .56*** .33** .39*** .27***

Value (6) .33*** .20 .41*** .27**

R2 .79*** .73*** .79*** .84***

Root-mean-square-error .26 .25 .30 .25

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p< .001.

(Yale sample: N = 24 students evaluating 21 girls and 18 boys)(Hong Kong Sample: N = 72 students evaluating 35 girls and 37 boys)

Differential Expectations for Boys and Girls on excellence(102 teachers; 41 males, 60 females, 1 unspecified; 59 social sciences and humanities, 40 science and technology, 3 unspecified)

4.4

4.3

4.44

4.28

4.43

4.09 4.08 4.06 4.06 4.06

Overall sample S.S. & H S & T Males FemalesMe

an

ra

tin

g e

ffe

cti

ve

ne

ss

of

six

te

sts

fo

r id

en

tify

ing

gif

ted

ne

ss

in B

oy

s a

nd

Gir

ls

Boys

Girls

(p < .01 for all tests)

From Pentagon to Triangle(Mainland Chinese sample) (Zhang & Hui, 2003)

β (Standardized regression coefficient)

Rating (statement) Girls-School Girls-Self Boys-School Boys-Self

Excellence (1) .53*** .76*** .54*** .65***

Productivity (5) .35** .52*** .30** .52***

Value (4) .37*** .24*** .37*** .28***

Value (6) .38*** .27*** .45*** .30***

R2 .72*** .90*** .77*** .83***

Root-mean-square-error .40 .17 .36 .24

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

(N = 189 Pre-service teachers evaluating 96 girls and 93 boys)

Findings across the three culturesWhat happened?

All three cultures Not demonstrability (esp. Schools)

Mainland: Not rarity“The essence of Confucianism is to provide all the people with

an education that includes both basic knowledge and moral precepts so that all individuals can develop their own capabilities to their utmost and become leaders in society.” (Chen, Seitz, and Cheng,1991, p.316; Quoted in Stevenson, 1998, p.64).

What is the big deal?

What percentage of children should be identified as gifted?

What measures should we use to identify giftedness?

What kind of educational program is ideal for gifted children?

What percentage of children should be identified as gifted?

No one correct answer

Problem with norm-referencing confusing rarity with excellence

Solution: criterion-referencing followed by norm-referencing

What measures should we use to identify giftedness?

Again, no definite answer depends on what we value.

What kind of educational program is ideal for gifted children?

Again, ask ourselves what we value:

If rapid learner acceleration program If depth enrichment OR, a combination

Whatever we do, we should ensure that the values expressed in the instructional program are the same as those expressed in the identification program.

Giftedness as developing successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1996)

understand both strengths and weaknesses about oneself

know how to capitalize on one’s strengths and correct for one’s weaknesses

Dr. Robert J. SternbergIBM Professor of Psychology and

EducationPast APA President

Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence (Sternberg, 1985)

AnalyticalAnalytical

PracticalPractical CreativeCreative

Assessment of Triarchic Abilities--STAT

Part 1. Analytical-verbal Part 2. Analytical-Quantitative Part 3. Analytical-Figural Part 4. Practical-Verbal Part 5. Practical-Quantitative Part 6. Practical-Figural Part 7. Creative-Verbal Part 8. Creative-Quantitative Part 9. Creative-Figural

Analytical-Figural

Creative-Verbal

Practical-Figural

Giftedness as developing successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1996)

A gifted person understands both strengths and weaknesses about oneself and knows how to capitalize on his/her strengths and correct for his/her weaknesses.

Characteristics of Successful Intelligence

(giftedness)

Traditional versus successful intelligence adaptation vs. shaping and selection adaptation vs. shaping and selection

as wellas well criteria relevant for assessing criteria relevant for assessing

predictive validity (academic predictive validity (academic achievement and IQ scores vs. achievement and IQ scores vs. achievement/IQ + other information)achievement/IQ + other information)

School performance vs. life-long School performance vs. life-long performanceperformance

largely culture-free vs. culture-specificlargely culture-free vs. culture-specific

Giftedness is culture-specific

“In ‘The Country of the Blind’, the sighted person who wanders into that strange land finds he cannot dominate the inhabitants because they have found a coherent set of adaptations to their blindness.”

“Self-construction of the extraordinary” Howard Gruber

H. G. Wells, 1911

Giftedness (as successful intelligence) can be cultivated

research—experimental studies

(e.g., Sternberg et al., 1992, 1993, 1999)

Developing Giftedness through teaching and assessing

Analytic Creative Practical

Psychology Compare Freud’s theory of dreaming to Crick’s.

Design an experiment to test a theory of dreaming.

What are the implications of Freud’s theory of dreaming for your life?

Biology Evaluate the validity of the bacterial theory of ulcers.

Design an experiment to test the bacterial theory of ulcers.

How would the bacterial theory of ulcers change conventional treatment regimens?

Literature In what ways were Catherine Earnshaw and Daisy Miller similar?

Write an alternative ending to Wuthering Heights uniting Catherine and Heathcliff in life.

Why are lovers sometimes cruel to each other, and what can we do about it?

History How did events in post-World War I Germany lead to the rise of Nazism?

How might Truman have encouraged the surrender of Japan without A-bombing Hiroshima?

What lessons does Nazism hold for events in Bosnia today?

Mathematics How is this mathematical proof flawed?

Prove: … How might catastrophe theory be applied to psychology?

How is trigonometry applied to construction of bridges?

Art Compare and contrast how Rembrandt and Van Gogh used light in …

Draw a beam of light. How could we reproduce the lighting in this painting in the same actual room?

From Sternberg (1997). In R.J. Sternberg & E. Grigorenko, Intelligence, heredity, and environment.

Giftedness as a preference for the flexible use of intellectual styles

What is an intellectual style?

Not ability, but preferred ways of processing information (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005, 2006)

E.g., cognitive styles, learning styles, thinking styles, mind styles, decision-making styles…

Theory of Mental Self-Government(Sternberg, 1988, 1997)

Functions: Judicial, Legislative, & Executive

Levels: Global & Local Leanings: Conservative & Liberal

Forms:Oligarchic,Monarchic Hierarchic & Anarchic

Scopes: Internal & External

Thinking Styles Re-conceptualized

(Zhang, 2004)

Type I thinking styles--higher levels of cognitive complexity and creativity-generating (legislative, judicial, liberal, hierarchical, global)

Type II thinking styles-- lower levels of cognitive complexity and norm-favoring ( executive, conservative, monarchic, local)

Type III Thinking styles -- manifest characteristics of both Type I and II styles, depending on specific tasks (internal, external, oligarchic, anarchic)

Three Types of Intellectual Styles

Style Type Type I Type II Type III

Style

Construct

a Learning Approach Deep Surface Achieving

b Career personality type Artistic Conventional Realistic, Investigative, Social, Enterprising

c Mode of thinking Holistic Analytic Integrative

d Personality type Intuitive, Perceiving Sensing, Judging Thinking, Feeling, Introversion, Extraversion

e Mind style Concrete random Concrete sequential Abstract random, Abstract sequential

f Decision-making style Innovation Adaptation

g Conceptual tempo Reflectivity Impulsivity

h Structure of intellect Divergent thinking Convergent thinking

i Perceptual style Field independent Field dependent

j Thinking style Legislative, Judicial, Global, Hierarchical, Judicial

Executive, Local, Monarchic, Conservative

Oligarchic, Anarchic, Internal, External

Note: Theoretical foundations: a Biggs’s theory of student learning, 1978; b Holland’s theory of career personality types, 1973;

c Torrance’s construct of brain dominance, 1988; d Jung’s theory of personality types, 1923; e Gregorc’s model of mind styles, 1979;

f Kirton’s model of decision-making styles, 1976; g Kagan’s model of reflectivity-impulsivity conceptual tempo, 1965; h Guilford’s model of structure of intellect, 1967; i Witkin’s construct of field-dependence/independence, 1962; j Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government, 1988.

Thinking Styles InventorySample items Scale Type

I like tasks that allow me to do things my own way. Legislative

I like situations in which it is clear what role I must play or in what way I should participate.

Executive

I like to evaluate and compare different points of view on issues that interest me.

Judicial

I like to complete what I am doing before starting something else.

Monarchic

When undertaking some task, I like first to come with a list of things that the task will require me to do and to assign an order of priority to the items on the list.

Hierarchic

I usually know what things need to be done, but I sometimes have trouble deciding in what order to do them.

Oligarchic

When working on a written project, I usually let my mind wander and my pen follow up on whatever thoughts cross my mind.

Anarchic

Usually when I make a decision, I don’t pay much attention to details.

Global

I like problems that require engagement with details. Local

I like to be alone when working on a problem. Internal

I like to work with others rather than by myself. External

I like to do things in new ways, even if I am not sure they are the best ways.

Liberal

In my work, I like to keep close to what has been done before. Conservative

Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory

Sample itemsScale Type

I like students to plan an investigation of a topic that they believe is important.

Legislative

A good student always listens carefully to directions. Executive

Teachers should give continual feedback on students’ progress.

Judicial

I think that teachers must increase the conceptual as opposed to the factual content of their lessons.

Global

A teacher must give his or her pupils a lot of concrete and detailed information about the subject being taught.

Local

Each year I like to select new and original materials to teach my subject.

Liberal

Students should adopt the views their teachers believe to be “correct”.

Conservative

Research on MSG – Cultural contexts

Hong Kong Mainland China The Philippines The United States The United Kingdom South Africa (to be written up)

Australia, India, Israel, Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey … (requests from more than 30 countries)

General findings on intellectual styles in academic settings

Both students and teachers use a variety of intellectual styles depending on personal and situational characteristics

Intellectual styles make a difference in teachers’ teaching

Intellectual styles make a difference in students’ learning

Intellectual styles make a difference in student-teacher interaction

The above relationships largely vary across cultures

The Nature of intellectual styles

Intellectual styles are malleable

Intellectual styles are value-laden

Evidence?

It depends on what you mean by “Giftedness”

Achievement, creativity, cognitive complexity, moral maturity, career interest …personality a wider range and more flexible use of intellectual styles

Understanding giftedness from a different perspective

Question: Are gifted students problem-free?

Characteristics of gifted students

(Popular views)

Advanced in intellectual abilities affective development learning/cognitive/thinking styles moral development perspective taking highly creative

Critique???

Common adjustment disorders of gifted students

Stress Depression Suicide Perfectionism Multipotentiality Underachievement

What am I getting at?

Giftedness, like love, is a many-splendid thing.

Thank You!

lfzhang@hku.hk