State of Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education: An in- depth analysis

Introduction

Giftedness is a concept whose perceptions have changed over time and the variations in its conception have created problems and cultural differences as its nature varies from culture to culture. Talking about the field of gifted education, it dates over 100 years in the United States to the establishment of schools for bright students, but education for the society’s most intellectually smart and talented student can be traced back to hundreds of years, if not thousands. As the scientific study of giftedness has a much more limited past, Galton’s (1869) Hereditary Genius if often accredited with the first scientific study of achievement and high ability [1]. Among other early seminal works are Hollingworth’s (1926) researches of high IQ students in New York City [2] and the pivotal and path-breaking longitudinal study of high IQ students in California by Terman (1926) [3]. Further, the essential areas of giftedness research will be highlighted; and an overview of the issues faced by them in terms of their cognitive and emotional well-being and the challenges faced by the contemporaries shall be emphasized.

Tracing the Development from a Theological, Through a Metaphysical, to an Empirical Approach to Giftedness

The three phases or approaches to giftedness over the period of modern history have been differentiated by Raul and Ziegler (2000) in accordance with the theoretical basis given by the philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857): a) a theological phase, b) a metaphysical phase, and c) a scientific, or empirical phase. As per the first phase, giftedness came to be considered as a blessing from the supreme power. Gifted people were seen as supernatural beings [4]. As a matter of act, a lot of cultures reflect this mindset.

For example, both Plato in Greece and Confucius in China spoke about “heavenly children”. Even Bible has a statement-“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us”. According to this approach, even the various discoveries and inventions were considered as rediscoveries of previous creations of God [5].

In the second phase i.e. the metaphysical phase, giftedness came to be more deeply connected and arising out of an individual; talent and giftedness were recognized as aptitudes possessed by an individual. Also, in this phase though gifted individuals weren’t considered as supernatural beings, but certain myths were still widely accepted, like there was a belief that gifted individuals tended to have shorter life spans and died earlier. Further, their tag of being a “crazed genius” was still widely prevalent in this phase [6].

Focusing on the third phase which demonstrates an empirical approach reveals that post the 20^th century, the approach to giftedness was dominated by scientific reasoning. This transition can be credited to the scientific and accurate progress in the field of psychology and the application of progressively sound and controlled empirical research methodology. Moreover, in this phase, scientists and social researchers began to measure gifts and talents and took them as a strong basis for exceptional achievement. As a matter of fact, talents were closely linked with higher levels of intelligence. Gradually, giftedness started to be identified as an interaction among various personality traits [7].

Current Status and Implications of Theory

The early ideas and conceptions of giftedness reflect the theoretical advancement in the areas of intelligence and creativity. For that matter, the early intelligence theories of two broad categories – be it unitary; or more multidimensional, stressed upon the significance and importance of an individual and they were predominantly psychometrically derived. Even the theories on creativity used to be on similar lines. Another thing worth mentioning here, are the successfully launched programs for gifted youth like the Talent Search programs by Julian Stanley and his colleagues by which were based on the psychometric conceptions [8].

Soon after, a significant impact was made in the 1970s when the intelligence and creativity theories started to emphasize the role of environmental influences and the multidimensionality, giving way to the momentous and substantial development in the form of the first definition by the federal government which projected that giftedness was revealed broadly in 6 varied areas namely general intellectual ability, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts, specific academic aptitude and psychomotor ability [9] and it was directly associated with the need for specialized programming in schools for such children.

Further in this line, a much broader approach started to emerge where the key features were intelligence, creativity and giftedness. The most well-known examples of such theories is the path-breaking work citing the interaction among creativity, task commitment, and above average ability. Numerous studies have been conducted by Renzulli and his colleagues validating the three-ring conception [30]. Additionally, Gagné’s (1995, 2000) contribution was a milestone as he gave the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DGMT) where he defined gifts as certain innate and inborn abilities in at least one domain area i.e. creative, academic/intellectual, sensorimotor or socio-affective that help the individual in reaching among the top 10% of similar age band peers [10].

The most recent major theoretical development is done by Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell by proposing a model where giftedness is defined as that performance which reaches the upper end of the continuum of a specific ability / domain even in relation to other differently abled individuals of that domain [11]. This approach laid great emphasis on the difference between potential and outcomes, and unequivocally stated that construct to change as people grow and mature.

Current Status of Research

Broadly speaking, the literature in gifted education consists of theoretical models, generative essays, research studies and projects, and advice pieces. Talking particularly about research, there is an ample number of correlational, descriptive and empirical evidence available [12]. It is rather unfortunate because there is either dearth of funding or the small sample sizes that make it quite difficult for the application of randomized controlled designs. This leaves the field with a considerable amount of ambiguity in the arena of research. Further, even the intervention studies are very less in number making it quite inconsistent and lacking specificity when defining giftedness and its statistical modeling within gifted education.

Areas where Results can be implemented to Guide Policy and Practice proves to be a little challenging when there is an absence of interventions for advanced students who can otherwise learn the material at an above average pace. The first initial research studies produced by the National Research Centre on the Gifted and the Talented (NRC/GT) provided evidence that deficits in curricular and instructional differentiation weren’t challenging enough for the gifted students across all the subject areas in both elementary as well as secondary schools [13].

Another area with a wide research base is Acceleration. Broadly, schools around the globe tend tobe age based so as to bring parity among the students progressing through their education at the same pace. They are broadly put under two categories namely: content or subject based acceleration and grade based acceleration. Meta-analyses of a few authors and the traditional views have reflected largely positive reviews and conclusions about all the types of academic acceleration [14].

The third most significant area with immense research support is curriculum design. These can be characterized in two broad models- a descriptive framework of curriculum where teachers use a model as a guide in developing daily lesson plans or Individualized Education Programs (IEPs); or as Prescriptive where teachers follow a pre-developed plan based on a model’s guiding principles.

Areas where Solid Empirical Foundations of Gifted education, Developmental Psychology and Cognitive Ability Research are Evolving

Numerous recommendations have been proposed to improve the identification practices of the gifted children. A point worth noting here is that the current policy practices are emphasizing the identification of the underrepresented populations of students coming from various ethnic backgrounds such as African-American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian, and students from the low socio-economic strata.

Giving a new perspective to all of this, Peters, Matthews, and McBee (2014) presented an argument that identification should be used as a process of inclusion (adding more students) rather than it being taken as a means of exclusion (keeping students out) [15]. They further added that most programs must be made open to all those students who wish to challenge themselves. With such new aforementioned conceptions about giftedness, the future of improvements in the identification process seems quite optimistic.

Coming on to another realm which has shown impressive progress is the field of innovation and creativity. These constructs have become hot topics of discussion across a number of fields like psychology, economics, business, management, organizational behavior, and social entrepreneurship to name a few demonstrated the fact that there are several other areas too which need immediate attention in terms of research including the most effective ways to help the prospective teachers learn diversely interesting ways to teach for creativity, and linking creativity to specific academic content areas [16].

Areas in Need of Research

There are still many areas that need further significant research in the field of gifted education. While one end of the research conclusions point towards the presence of the gifted children possessing unique social and emotional development and needs which are equal to or superior to the general population, there is yet another extreme which tend to vouch for the fact that no such unique social and emotional characteristics are present, rather it’s their family, school, and environmental and cultural influences that manifest such traits in unique ways [5–7].

Despite the fact that there have been concerted efforts since the past several decades to address serious issues like underrepresentation and narrow achievement gaps among the subgroups of talented and bright students, there is considerable amount of evidence that supports the fact that underrepresentation does exist as a problem and that these “excellence gaps” have only grown over the past generation [8].

Future Policy and Practice

The development and improvements in policy and practice will prove fruitful only if there are sufficient support mechanisms to sustain further research. The death knell of the Javits Act funding and the lack of funding support for the formation of a National Research Centre will hamper the rapid developments of our understanding of gifted students’ changing needs with the changing times. Moreover, the mainstreaming of gifted students in regular schools while satiating their hunger for knowledge must be catered to adequately. There is also a dire need for the regular updating of the knowledge and skills of the special teachers appointed specifically for the teaching of gifted children.

The changing age in the milestone accomplishments of the gifted students these days also needs a special mention here. Since they tend to be physically, emotionally, and developmentally progressing at a different pace, their varied needs must be met well in time and steps must be taken to help them overcome the frustrations and imbalances that might crop us as a result of such unwarranted changes.

Conclusion

Putting in a final word, we may assert here that the longitudinal study by Terman has undoubtedly been a milestone in the field of gifted education, it has brought to the gifted individuals a special mention, recognition and identification [4]. Today, after all these years there have been numerous developments and changes in the lives of the gifted children with huge gaps too in terms of research, intervention strategies, policies, identifications, inclusions and mainstreaming; and there have also been huge developments in the areas of developmental, cognitive well-being, physical agility, emotional strength and resilience, importance of humor, adjustment related issues and adaptive skills. Amidst all of this, giftedness has been rapidly evolving with the mental well-being and needs of the gifted children being seen in a new light and their recognition and a fair acceptance has been witnessed by one and all. It just needs to be reiterated here that with the rapidly changing times, there needs to be constant up gradation of the policies and the research gaps must be covered making the gifted individuals feel inclusive and adaptive.

References

1. Galton F. Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. D. Appleton; Vol 93; 453 1914. [doi:10.1038/093453b0]
2. Hollingworth LS. Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. MacMillan APA; 1926. [doi:10.1037/10599-000]
3. Terman LM. Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted Children. Genetic Studies of Genius. Vol 1, Stanford Univ. Press; 1925. [doi:10.1037/10786-017]
4. Ziegler A, Raul T. Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness. HIGH ABIL STUD. 2000 Dec 1;11(2):113-36. [doi:10.1080/13598130020001188]
5. Campbell G. King James Bible [Internet]. 400th Anni. Oxford Univ. Press. 1611 [cited 2023 Jun 27]. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/king-james-bible-9780199557608?cc=in&lang=en&
6. Benbow CP, Minor LL. Cognitive profiles of verbally and mathematically precocious students: Implications for identification of the gifted. Gifted Child Q; 1990 Jan; Vol 34(1):21-6. [doi:10.1177/001698629003400105]
7. Sternberg RJ, Davidson JE, editors. Conceptions of giftedness. Vol 2, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2005 May 16. [doi:10.1017/cbo9780511610455]
8. Olszewski-Kubilius P, Lee SY, Thomson D. Family environment and social development in gifted students. Gifted Child Q; 2014 Jul; Vol 58(3):199-216. [doi:10.1177/0016986214526430]
9. Marland Jr SP. Education of the Gifted and Talented. Report to the Congress of the United States by the US Commissioner of Education. Am Educ Res J; 1971; Vol . [Google Scholar]
10. Renzulli JS. What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. J. Educ. Gift; 1999 Oct; Vol 23(1):3-54. [doi:10.1177/016235329902300102]
11. Gagné F. From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper review. J. Educ. Gift; 1995 Dec 1; Vol 18(2):103-11. [doi:10.1080/02783199509553709]
12. Subotnik RF, Olszewski-Kubilius P, Worrell FC. A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Q; 2012 Oct; Vol 56(4):176-88. [doi:10.1177/0016986212456079]
13. Dai DY, Swanson JA, Cheng H. State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998—2010 (April). Gifted child Q. 2011 Apr; Vol 55(2):126-38. [doi:10.1177/0016986210397831]
14. Peters SJ, Matthews MS, McBee MT, McCoach DB. Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Routledge dict; 2021 Sep 3. [doi:10.4324/9781003233299]
15. Westberg KL. An Observational Study of Instructional and Curricular Practices Used with Gifted and Talented Students in Regular Classrooms. Research Monograph 93104. J. Educ. Gift; 1993. [Google Scholar]
16. Pellegrino JW, Hilton ML. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century (p. 257). National Research Council of the National Academes. Wash. DC, NAP; 2012 Dec 18. [doi:10.17226/13398]
17. Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Hendry A, Potter J, Bone I, Muir KW. Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale across multiple raters: benefits of a structured interview. Int J Stroke. 2005 Apr;36(4):777-81. [doi:10.1161/01.str.0000157596.13234.95]
18. Kenett YN, Medaglia JD, Beaty RE, Chen Q, Betzel RF, Thompson-Schill SL, Qiu J. Driving the brain towards creativity and intelligence: A network control theory analysis. Neuropsychologia; 2018 Sep 1;118:79-90 [doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.01.001]
19. Penney AM, Miedema VC, Mazmanian D. Intelligence and emotional disorders: Is the worrying and ruminating mind a more intelligent mind?. Pers. Individ. Differ; 2015 Feb 1; Vol 74:90-93. [doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.005]
20. Gere DR, Capps SC, Mitchell DW, Grubbs E. Sensory sensitivities of gifted children. The Am J Occup Ther. 2009 May; Vol 63(3):288-95. [doi:10.5014/ajot.63.3.288]