Charting A New Course in Gifted Education

Parts I and Ii. A Special Double Issue of the peabody Journal of Education

Anne L. Corn, Lynnette M. Henderson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135064969
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Highlighting the work of 17 distinguished national authors, this special issue suggests a new course for the field of gifted education -- one that emphasizes the individual and suggests that the focus of gifted education be dynamic and contextual. From legal perspectives to changing concepts of giftedness, talent, and assessement; from using new technologies to identify differences in brain structures to using new research paradigms to reveal the nature of giftedness; from compelling reasons for early intervention to tailoring opportunities for college-ready gifed persons, this two-part issues of PJE exposes new dimensions along which paths between previously held beliefs and practices and new courses for thought and action can be forged. A parental perspective is also included.

Editors' Introduction to Part I

Anne L. Corn and Lynnette Μ. Henderson

"What do you mean when you say a child or adult is gifted?" "Isn't everybody gifted in some way?" "Why should we allocate additional educational funds for students who are already getting high grades?" "Why do I need to know about gifted children if I'm going to teach in special education?" These are typical questions that are raised at an institution of higher education. These questions prompt deeper questions such as, What is giftedness? How do we know if a child is gifted? What could or should individuals, schools, or society do in response to giftedness? The very foundations of gifted education are being questioned today by those within and outside this educational discipline.

Long ago, children were educated on a very individual basis; families were responsible for educating their own children. When one-room schoolhouses were the norm in America, children often had the experience of being grouped for education with others who were ready to learn similar material regardless of age. The large-scale grouping of children for instructional purposes is only a century or so old. The educational grouping of children by age rather than preparedness for learning specific content is an even newer concept. Yet, it is so pervasive that adaptation for those whose learning ability is outside the norm for their age requires legally mandated teams of people to plan such a monumental undertaking as the individualization of a child's education.

The large-scale implementation of age grouping made clear that the range of ability present in a classroom of same-age children was far greater than educators were equipped to address. Those engaged in the study of psychology began to explore the range of human ability found in groups of people and began to study the characteristics of those who were intellectually outstanding as well as those whose mental development was delayed. In the early part of this century, Terman (1925-1955) and Holling worth (1926) were two of the leading psychologists investigating the group of children who were mentally precocious. In later years, the interest in children of exceptional ability spread to include educators who attempted to translate into practice ways to accommodate the characteristics and psychological uniqueness of the intelligent individual. Among these educators and psychologists it soon became clear that other facets of the personality were involved in the course of development from existing potential into actual greatness. Torrance (1969) highlighted creativity, and the intersection of creativity and intellect enriched the possibilities for educating gifted students. Renzulli (1978) reminded us that task commitment must be considered, and, again, gifted education adapted. The components of affective education, career education, learning style and personality-type awareness, study skills, social skills, emotional intelligence, brain-based learning, portfolios, thematic instruction, discovery learning, real problems, real audiences, self-directed learning, moral education, critical thinking, logical thinking, and cultural and ethnic inclusion were conceived, implemented, and studied to determine their appropriate place in the education of gifted children.

As each of these ingredients added to the "stew" of gifted education, it became more and more difficult to identify the uniqueness of gifted education. Gifted education was reasonably and unreasonably criticized for its lack of identity, for its exclusionary philosophy and practice, and for its reliance on psychometric measures. A crisis emerged. A reexamination of foundational issues seemed necessary and expedient. Psychologists returned to their psychological roots, and educators sought refuge in curriculum differentiation. Many in the field grew uncomfortable with the word gifted and searched for new terms, new definitions, and new constructs. Practitioners waited out the furor with a sense of dissatisfaction, realizing that the definitions, criteria, and identification procedures they were relying on were remnants of a the philosophy of a previous era, but no new definitions, criteria, and identification practices, it seems, have yet been identified to plot a new course. It is clearly a time for change—the old theses have eroded; it is time to lay foundations for implementing a synthesis for our times.

When we began to delineate the specific questions we wanted these issues of the Peabody Journal of Education to address, we thought we had a clear understanding of the concept map along which these issues would be directed. We imagined discrete directions, "superhighways" if you will, such as societal impact, appropriate educational responses, and the role of institutions of higher education. The questions seemed to us to be elemental and pointed in specific directions, as if on a compass. We believed major leaders in the field would bring their multidimensional orientation and vision to these questions and provide well thought out—if not definitive— answers. We underestimated them. When we received their manuscripts, we realized that our concept map would require complete reorganization to reflect the new and unexpected directions the authors had charted. No longer were the categories discrete, for indeed, each article seems to relate to the others and press upon and further professional thought. These issues suggest a new course (though not a definitive one) for the field of gifted education, one that emphasizes the individual and suggests that the focus of gifted education be dynamic and contextual.

We have gathered 17 distinguished national authors from universities and other educational settings for this special two-part issue. In addition, we are pleased to include a parental perspective. From legal perspectives to changing concepts of giftedness, talent, and assessment; from using new technologies to identify differences in brain structures to using new research paradigms to reveal the nature of giftedness; from compelling reasons for early intervention to tailoring opportunities for college-ready gifted persons, this two-part issue of the Peabody Journal of Education exposes new dimensions along which paths between previously held beliefs and practices and new courses for thought and action can be forged.

In the first part of this issue, the authors provide an overview of the prevailing philosophies and constructs that have and will continue to have influence in the direction of gifted education. The authors also propose new ways of approaching and integrating the lessons of the past with their own new ideas.

James Borland's article outlines the development of the construct of giftedness, its evolution, its critics, and his opinion of the process. Thorough, wide-ranging and exceptionally thought-provoking, it is important for its honest self-awareness and challenge to those in the field of gifted education. His proposed new directions include new thinking about assessment and gifted education without gifted programs. Carolyn Callahan's article traces the relatively recent differentiation of the construct of talent and the ways in which talent emphasis has changed and enriched the field of gifted education. In the third of the construct presentations, Linda Silverman explicates the construct of asynchronous development and advocates for its inclusion in theory and practice as we plan for and educate gifted learners. These three constructs represent the choice of known alternate routes for the direction of gifted education.

Lyrinette Henderson and Ford Ebner open an entirely new pathway by offering evidence from neuroscience that intelligence has a biological basis and may indeed be physiologically identifiable in the future. Their proposal for early intervention to maximize the potential of gifted children and expand the opportunities for young gifted children in impoverished circumstances is a brain-based, research-supported approach to a good start for gifted young children.

Barbara Clark examines the myths about gifted education held by society and educators. In exposing the myths and providing the research-supported realities, she passionately defends the existence of gifted education. Her defense, although passionate, is a reasoned one. She includes suggestions for how best to shape and present gifted education in a way that creates a wider acceptance of its mission.

Rena Subotnik and Paula Olszewski-Kubilius examine the life lessons from eminent individuals and offer excellent suggestions for incorporating those experiences into gifted education. Their article represents one possible synthesis of the prevailing constructs and is fascinating in its possibilities. Larry Coleman concludes this exploration of philosophy with a challenge to researchers to use new landmarks in studying gifted persons and their development. His thoughtful synthesis of Feldman's and Vygotsky's theories as applied to giftedness suggests a new perspective for researchers in the field of gifted education.

The second part of this issue of the Peabody journal of Education examines educational responses to giftedness. The authors explore the existing practices in public education and propose responsive and innovative approaches to providing gifted education. Three of the biggest questions facing gifted education are: "Who do we serve?"; "How do we find them in ways that are inclusive enough to go beyond the obvious and exclusive enough to provide real differentiation?"; and "How do we meet the needs of gifted children?" The authors in the second issue provide responses and available options of interest to educators and parents. The articles address various issues including assessment, least restrictive environment, legislative and legal issues, psychological and social needs, minority students, and the role of universities in educating gifted undergraduates.

As editors we are privileged to have worked with such forward-thinking authors. We hope these issues will serve as a catalyst for thoughtful change. We especially hope those who ponder the very foundations of gifted education will receive the benefit of the new approaches suggested by these authors.

ANNE L. CORN is Professor in the Department of Special Education, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

LYNNETTE M. HENDERSON is a Doctoral Student in the Department of Special Education, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Anne L. Corn, Department of Special Education, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203.

References

Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children, their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan.

Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftedness? Phi Delta Kappan, 60,180-184.

Terman, L. M. (1925-1955). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 1-5). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1969). Creativity. Belmont, CA: Dimensions.

The Construct of Giftedness

James Η. Borland

In this article, I assert that giftedness is not a fact of nature or something that educators and psychologists have discovered. Instead, it is a socially constructed concept, something recently invented. I review the evolution of this construction and discuss some of the practical implications of the construct's application in education. Last, I speculate about some of the possible ways in which the construct may evolve in the future.

One of the concerns most frequently voiced when the topic of gifted students arises is that the term gifted itself is, in one way or another, objectionable. Few, it seems, are very happy with this descriptor because of what it implies about students to whom it is applied and because of what it implies about those to whom it is not. Interestingly, these concerns come not only from critics of gifted education (e.g., Margolin, 1994,1996; Sapon-Shevin, 1994, 1996) but also from writers identified with the field, myself included (e.g., Borland, 1989, 1996a). Add to this the complaints that are routinely heard from school teachers and administrators who have had more than their fill of parents' assertions that their children deserve, require, or will fail to thrive without the label "gifted student," and it could well be concluded that the term gifted is about as popular in the world of education as the term virus is in computer circles.

Things could be worse, however, and for a while, early in our history, they were. The provenance of the word gifted as applied to highly capable students is a bit uncertain, but its use clearly predates Terman's seminal study (1925-1959). In the 19th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Henry (1920) credited the coining of the term to Guy Whipple, an all-but-forgotten pioneer in this field, who later edited the 23rd National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (1924), which, like the 19th, focused on gifted children and their education. But before damning Whipple's memory, those who abominate the word gifted should pause to consider the accepted psychological and educational usage that his term supplanted: supernormal children. To repeat myself, things could be worse.

This digression into the etymology of the most basic item in our field's lexicon has a purpose, and that is to focus on the construct of giftedness—the topic of this article—not merely as a construct, but as a construction. By that I mean that giftedness, especially in children and adolescents in the schools, is something we as a field have constructed or invented through our writing and talking, not something that we have discovered.

Although it is fashionable in academic circles to regard many things as being, for the most part, socially constructed, this is a valid way to think about some important constructs in psychology and education. To state that a construct is socially constructed is to state that it gains its meaning, even its existence, from people's interactions, especially their discourse. Concepts and constructs that are socially constructed thus acquire their properties and their influence through the give and take of social interaction, not through the slow accretion of empirical facts about a preexisting entity, at least not exclusively.

Although the idea is alarming to some people in the field of gifted education, the notion that giftedness is a social construction has been advanced by writers other than those some consider to be radical critics of the field. For example, in a response to a series of critiques of gifted education published in a special issue of the Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Gallagher (1996), one of the more conservative writers in the field, wrote, "We should admit that 'gifted' is a constructed concept...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Contents
• Editors' Introduction to Part I
• The Construct of Giftedness
• The Construct of Talent
• The Construct of Asynchronous Development
• The Biological Basis for Early Intervention With Gifted Children
• Social Ideologies and Gifted Education in Today's Schools
• Restructuring Special Programs to Reflect the Distinctions Between Children's and Adults' Experiences With Giftedness
• Studying Ordinary Events in a Field Devoted to the Extraordinary
• Editors' Introduction to Part II
• Assessment Beyond Definitions
• Least Restrictive Environment and Gifted Students
• The Fragmented Framework of Legal Protection for the Gifted
• Psychological and Social Aspects of Educating Gifted Students
• Helping Gifted Minority Students Reach Their Potential: Recommendations for Change
• The Role of Universities and Colleges in Educating Gifted Undergraduates
• One Year at a Time: Parents' Perspective on Gifted Education