Perspectives of Giftedness

On The Nature of Giftedness and Talent:

Imposing Order on Chaos
Martha J. Morelock in the end the truth will be one should just avoid the whole issue.
admitted and utilized as everything is Whenever one mentions the term "gift-
finally utilized that has power to bring ed," just make sure that it is followed
order to human life.
immediately by "talented" in the hope
- Leta Stetter Hollingworth, 1939 that the two terms together will cover all
In recent years, there has been a move away (as cited by Silverman in Roeper, 1995, p. vii) related combinations and permutations
from IQ as the accepted gauge of "giftedness" and no one will question anything.
with a concomitant embracing of multiple con-
cepts of talent. Some in the field welcome this
diversification, heralding the changes as por-
tending a shift to a more humane and democ-
T he issue which this article
addresses is one that has fol-
lowed its author for the last decade and
F or a field that hopes to be taken
seriously, this is a deplorable
situation. Certainly, such a "house divid-
ratic view of human potential with "talent has plagued the fields associated with the
development for all children" becoming an ed against itself with regard to founda-
inspired and laudable goal. Others decry what study of giftedness and talent for even tional concepts cannot hope to garner
they see as too hasty a dismissal of the needs longer. Who are the gifted and who are the respect of professionals in other
of "the gifted child." The field of gifted educa- the talented? And are the two categories fields and to be regarded as having
tion thus finds itself in a morass of confusion. mutually exclusive? When we seek to
Fragmented by ideological differences and a something of importance to contribute.
lack of consensus regarding fundamental defi- meet the needs of "gifted" and "talented" Meanwhile, within the field itself, prac-
nitions, it has as well become charged with children, what does that mean! titioners become so confused that they
Downloaded At: 00:38 11 April 2011

intense emotion. In the United States, these questions are fair game for any new fad that comes
This article traces the development of the have developed into such a controversy along. Parents looking to "the experts"
confusion enveloping the field today. It finds
its roots in the very beginnings of the modern
that there are those who advocate totally for counsel struggle for some way to
study of giftedness and talent and charts its doing away with the word "gifted," advocate for the needs of their particular
evolution through to the establishment of two which they see as an elitist concept and, children, who may not be displaying the
contemporary opposing Movements: the Tal- instead, talking about "talent develop- type of giftedness or talent most favored
ent Development Movement and the Colum-
bus Group Movement. It is argued that these
ment" for all children. Others advocate a at a particular point in time. Budding
two Movements exemplify the culmination of relativist position, asserting that gifted- professionals in the field face an identity
two strands of research, theory and practice— ness is a social construct (Borland, crisis. And, as always, the children
"the gifted achiever" strand and "the gifted 1996). Along this line of thought, one whose needs are yet again left unmet are
child" strand. Vygotskian theory is proposed
as providing a conceptual framework which
might conclude that whatever child per- the ones who are victimized most.
can accommodate what has been learned forms above the average level of his or How did we arrive at this morass of
about giftedness and talent since the advent her age peers (no matter how poorly confusion? The thesis presented here is
of IQ testing, resolve differences in the field those age peers perform) in some area
by providing an overarching theoretical syn- that if one can cut through the politics
thesis, and orient us toward future directions
that is culturally valued (no matter what long enough to dispassionately consider
for research and practice. it is) is "gifted." Or perhaps, since "gift- what has been learned over the years
edness" is merely a social construct since the advent of IQ testing, there is
(Sapon-Shevin, 1996), it should be rele- some order and sense that can be dis-
gated along with, say, "unicorns" to a cerned. This discussion targets three
Martha J. Morelock is a Senior Lecturer spe- category of entities of dubious reality,
cializing in gifted development and education objectives: First, it is the aim of this arti-
o —J
nd what is talent! Over the
in the Department of Learning, Assessment
and Special Education, at the University of
Melbourne.
A; Lyears, depending on who was
addressing the issue, "talent" has gone
cle to reflect back on the history of the
field and the evolution of its theoretical
concepts and, by so doing, to get some
from denoting a remarkable ability falling perspective on how we came to be in our
somewhat short of superlative (Holling- current situation. Second, we will take
worth, 1926) to specialized aptitudes stock of the solid empirical knowledge
assumed unrelated to general intelligence, accumulated over the years through the
such as those in music or art, to a gener- efforts of those committed to the study
alized concept meant to replace the more of giftedness and talent. In the interest of
offensive gifted. After all, all children carefully constructing a developmental
have talents that can be developed — understanding spanning a number of
children formerly known as "gifted" decades, we will begin at the beginning
could simply take their place among the of the modern study of giftedness and
various other multiple talent possibilities talent. Based on these findings, implica-
as the "academically talented." Surely tions will be drawn for current thinking,
that will satisfy everyone! Or perhaps practice and research. Finally, a devel-
Manuscript submitted July, 1995.
Revision accepted July, 1996.

4/Roeper Review, Vol. 19, No. 1

 opmental theoretical framework will be the connection between achievement in predecessor's contribution, Terman said
suggested which can accommodate all adulthood and its assumed precursors of Binet:
that has been learned about the nature of embodied in the form of "gifted chil- The fact is that previous to the publi-
giftedness and talent over the years and dren" was first made. Galton's central cation ofBinet's 1908 scale the signifi-
orient us towards the future. emphasis on the hereditary forces in the cance of age differences in intelli-
gence was very little understood.
emergence of genius is well-known.
C ompleting all of the above
objectives would be quite an
ambitious undertaking for a several vol-
Less remembered is the fact that he rec-
ognized as well the role of environment
Psychologists were not aware of the
extraordinary and detailed similarity
that may exist between a dull child of
ume series of books, let alone a journal in nurturing or stifling talent. Thus, in a twelve years and a normal average
article. I would like to make it clear that discussion of eminent men of science, child of eight. No one recognized the
in tracing the history of concepts and he notes: significance, for future mental devel-
opment, of a given degree of retarda-
findings in the field, I will not aim to be It therefore appears to be very impor- tion or acceleration...
exhaustive. Indeed, probably to the tant to success in science, that a man
annoyance of some readers, I may entire- should have an able mother... Of two The value of the Binet method in the
men with equal abilities, the one who identification of the intellectually gifted
ly leave out of the discussion a number had a truth-loving mother would be the became immediately evident to the
of those personal favorites who are rec- more likely to follow the career of sci- writer when... .he made trial of the
ognized as making contributions to the ence; while the other, if bred up under 1908 scale. It was obvious that chil-
field. I will go about this as an impres- extremely narrowing circumstances, dren who showed marked accelera-
sionistic painter would go about render- would become as the gifted children tion in mental age were, by any rea-
in China, nothing better than a student sonable criterion, brighter than
ing a image. Some details will be left out and professor of some dead literature. children who tested at or below their
in the interest of tracing holistic patterns (Galton, 1869/1952, p. 189) (empha- chronological age. A little later Stern's
of continuity and change in the flow of sis added) suggestion looking toward the use of
ideas and identifying major points of an intelligence ratio, or quotient,
origination and critical disjuncture. Galton made it clear in the above refined still further the method of Binet
comments that, in his view, men of and made possible more accurate
The picture that emerges based on
genius are those who actively accom- comparisons of children of different
selective events will of course be my plish and achieve in the world. He ages (Terman, 1925, p. 3).
construction. But this is, after all, the would regard the mere attainment of
nature of the role played by all histori- academic erudition (i.e., being "a stu- It is obvious in retrospect that Ter-
ans. In the last analysis, what really mat- man made a leap in reasoning in which
Downloaded At: 00:38 11 April 2011

dent and professor of some dead litera-

ters is if the resultant framework is help- ture") as a failure in outcome. Galton he assumed that the developmentally
ful in creating understanding, generating used the term "gifted" to refer both to advanced child was a child possibly des-
harmony, and charting a future course children showing the potential for such tined for genius or near-genius-level
for the field. active achievement and to adults having achievement. Indeed, this assumption
demonstrated it. Thus, mulling over the was revealed through his choice of title
impact of environment on the fruition of for the series of volumes documenting
The Cosmic Egg of Modern talent, Galton notes: the findings from his longitudinal study
Research Into Giftedness It is, I believe, owing to the favourable of children above 140IQ: Genetic Stud-
and Talent: Galton, Binet, conditions of their early training, that ies of Genius (Terman, 1925). The title
Terman, and Hollingworth an unusually large proportion of the remained in use for 70 years, only being
sons of the most gifted men of sci- discontinued with the publication of the
ence become distinguished in the sixth volume of the series in 1995
I designate the combined seminal same career. (Galton, 1869/1952, pp.
contributions of Frances Galton, Alfred (Holahan & Sears, 1995).
189-190) (emphasis added)
Binet, Lewis Terman, and Leta Holling- As Terman continued to follow his
worth "The Cosmic Egg of Modern It is a curious paradox that in spite gifted group into mid-life "to see what
Research Into Giftedness and Talent" of Galton's less than enthusiastic regard kind of adults they might become" (Ter-
for a specific reason: the work of these for academic talent, his successors even- man, 1954, p 23), it became apparent
researchers formed a germinal seed—an tually redefined "giftedness" exactly in that non-intellective factors played a
undifferentiated mass of conceptual those terms—with one minor but crucial role in determining whether gifted chil-
understanding with potential for spawn- additional change.... dren would become extraordinary
ing a number of contrasting and contra- achievers. It took more than an impres-
dictory paths for research and practice. Binet and Terman sive intelligence quotient to produce
In the interest of constructing a develop- With the advent of the Binet-Simon extraordinary achievement. There was
mental understanding spanning a centu- scale of 1908 and Lewis Terman's sub- the matter of family support and nurtu-
ry, I go back now to the origination of sequent extension of it into what he saw rance of ability as well as an individ-
the cosmic egg. as the upper ranges of intelligence, the ual's drive to excel. Terman concluded
gifted child became the child who, in that more research was needed in order
those kinds of abstract, logical, and to fully understand the dynamics pro-
Francis Galton
judgmental reasoning abilities required ducing extraordinary achievement.
In 1869, the publication of Francis
Galton's Hereditary Genius marked the in school settings, performed at a level
beginning of the systematic study of commensurate with the typical child Leta Stetter Hollingworth
individual differences and extraordinary who was chronologically older. Thus, While Terman's main goal was the
achievement—operationally defined by the concept of "mental age" (as opposed selection of those who would perform
the author as the attainment of emi- to chronological age) came into being. and achieve, Leta Stetter Hollingworth's
nence. It was in Hereditary Genius that In considering the importance of his emphasis was placed on how best to pro-

September, 1996, Roeper Review/5

 vide for high IQ children educationally, emerged as two value-laden rationales, ming models began to be devised with
socially, and emotionally (Witty, 1951). each providing an optional lens through an aim towards being more inclusive,
In so doing, she became deeply aware of which one can view the whole notion of more targeted on performance-based cri-
the social/emotional difficulties emerg- gifted education (See Borland, 1989, for teria for identification, and less focused
ing out of the disparity between these a discussion of the "National Resources" on ferreting out academic excellence
children's advanced awareness and the vs. "Special Educational" rationales for alone (Renzulli, 1979a; 1979b; 1980).
emotional needs that they shared with gifted education). In the next two sec-
their agemates. Hollingworth found that tions, each of these strands will be dif- Efforts to Rejuvenate the Field
the problems increased as the disparity ferentiated and discussed further. For In the mid-1970's, the Social Sci-
between mental age and chronological these purposes, they will be designated ence Research Council embarked on an
age became greater. Thus, she notes in as (1) the "gifted achiever" strand and effort to rejuvenate the field of gifted-
her book, Children Above 180 IQ, "To (2) the "gifted child" strand. For the ness and creativity research, and a group
have the intelligence of an adult and the sake of clarity, they will be discussed as headed by Robert R. Sears was con-
emotions of a child combined in a child- if they were separate in their evolution . vened to consider the issue (Feldman,
ish body is to encounter certain difficul- Csikszentmihalyi, & Gardner, 1994).
ties" (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 282). Sears had spent his life close to the Ter-
The Gifted Achiever Strand: man study, having been one of Terman's
H ollingworth used various terms
in referring to these children.
She referred to them as "rapid learners"
The Evolution of Ideas and
Empirical Evidence
gifted children himself and, upon the
death of Terman and at Terman's
in discussing educational provisions. request, having taken over the research
Following Terman's example, she also directorship of the longitudinal study.
Over the years, a number of forces
referred to them as "gifted." She The group was convened to give new
have helped to shape the development of
assumed that they had the potential to be direction to the field of research on the
the gifted achiever strand. Since Ter-
leaders in society and that it was those study of giftedness, but ran into prob-
man's erection of the IQ monolith, wave
who nurtured them who were responsi- lems because of a stand-off between
after wave of opposition has crashed
ble in determining whether this would those in the group believing that the
against it, eroding and chipping away at
indeed be the outcome of their develop- field had to make a radical shift in
its credibility. The Terman study itself
ment. She specifically chose not to refer emphasis if it were to thrive, and others
provided the first research raising ques-
to these children as "geniuses," pointing who believed that the basic approach of
tions about the effectiveness of IQ alone
the field (psychometric and IQ-based)
Downloaded At: 00:38 11 April 2011

out that first, there was no agreement on in selecting out children who would
the meaning of that word and second, all was sound, but should be expanded into
become extraordinary achievers. With
that was really known about these chil- areas neglected in its first half-century.
J.P. Guilford's address to the American
dren was that they were extreme deviates When it was disbanded after three years,
Psychological Association in 1950,
from mediocrity in general intelligence a subgroup of the original committee
awareness of creativity as an important
(Hollingworth, 1942). Thus, in the writ- consisting of three developmental psy-
factor in notable achievement was raised
ings of Hollingworth, as in the writings chologists—David Henry Feldman,
and efforts were launched to develop
of Galton and Terman, the use of multi- Howard Gardner, and Howard Gruber—
creativity tests that could select out indi-
ple terms and vague referents seems to met independently and decided to start a
viduals capable of creative thought and
reflect a less than precise concept of new committee with a developmental
contributions (as opposed to the conver-
exactly what giftedness is or should be. emphasis and oriented toward the study
gent thought argued as being reflected in
of great giftedness and creativity.
traditional measures).
The Undifferentiated Themes in With the 1954 Supreme Court deci- It was through this second commit-
the Cosmic Egg of Giftedness and sion to desegregate public schools and tee that a number of scholars came into
Talent the consequent emphasis on equality of play in "re-charting" the field of gifted-
As can be seen from the discussion human beings and their education and ness research who were later to become
above, beginning with Terman, there opportunity, IQ came under further well-known names in the talent develop-
was a confusion of two themes in writ- attack for being biased against some ment movement—e.g., Robert J. Stern-
ings about "the gifted child." The first racial minorities and the socio-economi- berg (1985; 1988) Mihaly Csikszentmi-
theme identified "giftedness" as an cally depressed (Tannenbaum, 1983). haly (1990), and Jeanne Bamberger
unusual generalized capacity for judg- The growing push for egalitarianism and (1982; 1991). In addition, a number of
ment and abstract reasoning revealing a broadened view of valued human abili- publications were either directly or indi-
itself in childhood. The primary signifi- ties was reflected in a congressional rectly spawned by the committee and its
cance of this was thought to be that it mandate issued in 1970. Targeting "gift- founders (e.g., Feldman, 1982; Horowitz
presaged extraordinary adult achieve- ed and talented children" as recipients of and O'Brien, 1985; Sternberg and David-
ment across fields of endeavor. The sec- special federal assistance, it broadened son, 1986; Wallace and Gruber, 1989).
ond theme acknowledged "giftedness" the definition of eligible children to the In the latter 1970's, Feldman
as intellectual development surpassing upper 3 to 5 percent of school-aged chil- released his studies of child prodigies,
that expected for a child's chronological dren showing outstanding promise in six showing that these children did not
years. This resulted in emotional vulner- categories of giftedness: general intel- exhibit across-the-board extraordinary
ability and educational and social needs lectual ability, specific academic apti- performance. Indeed, they could show
different from those of agemates. These tude, creative or productive thinking, extreme prodigious achievement in such
two themes have, over the years, leadership ability, visual and performing areas as chess or music composition and
evolved as two intermeshed strands of arts, and psychomotor ability (Marland, yet fall within the typical range of varia-
thought and work. They have also 1971). In addition, new gifted program- tion in the more general developmental

6/Roeper Review, Vol. 19, No. 1

 levels of logic, role taking, spatial rea- ularly intriguing have been studies of the goal for the field. In a recent article by
soning and moral judgment. Giftedness, talent profiles of child prodigies (Feld- Treffinger and Feldhusen (1996) herald-
asserted Feldman, was "domain-specif- man, 1980: Morelock, 1995)—which ing the talent development movement as
ic" and could not be accounted for by have led to comparative studies of savant the "successor to gifted education," the
some generalized umbrella concept such and prodigy capabilities, speculation as authors state "As educators, our task is
as IQ (Feldman, 1979a, 1979b, 1980). to how they are alike and different and not to identify and tell youth that they
are (or are not) 'gifted.' It is, instead, to
I n the early 1980's, Gardner's book
Frames of Mind (1983) was
released, positing seven distinct intelli-
discussion of what that implies for the
relationship between IQ-independent and
IQ-related abilities (Miller, 1989; More-
help them discover emerging talent
strengths and help them develop their
gences (linguistic, logical-mathematical, lock & Feldman, 1993, Morelock, 1995). talents." The gifted achiever strand has
spatial, inter-personal and intra-personal, Also important has been the growing thus become seriously engaged in talent
musical, and bodily-kinesthetic), and recognition of the vital role in talent development. Some fear, however, that
lending force to the challenge against the development played by supportive influ- an unforeseen side-effect of the move to
idea of a single, generalized power of ences—from the family (Bloom, 1985; democratize and diversify concepts of
mind accounting for all human capabili- Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde & Whalen, talent may be that the field of gifted
ties. Gardner reviewed existent studies on 1993; Feldman, 1991a; Feldman & Piir- education is in the process of moving
prodigies, gifted individuals, brain-dam- to, 1995; Morelock, 1995) as well as towards total obsolescence or irrele-
aged patients, idiots savants, normal chil- from the culture (Feldman, 1991a; 1993; vance (Borland, 1996).
dren, normal adults, and considered the Gardner, 1993; Morelock & Feldman, Are the paradigm shift intuitions an
range of developed expertise across cul- 1991; Wallace & Gruber, 1989; Wozni- accurate interpretation of what is hap-
tures. He posed that these developmental ak & Fischer, 1993). pening in the field? One could argue that
end-states provided clues to the nature of the "paradigm shift" concept cogently
the structural constraints of the human The Paradigm Shift captures the evolution of thought and
brain from which they had evolved. His The recent proliferation of concepts work in the gifted achiever strand. But,
conclusions formed the basis of his theo- of multiple forms of intellectual talent as will be argued below, it fails to take
ry of multiple intelligences. from the work discussed above as well into account the gifted child strand.
During the latter 1970's and early as from that of other researchers and
1980's as well, Robert Sternberg scholars has had a tremendous impact
emerged as a major player in the move- on educational thought. It has spawned a The Gifted Child Strand:
Downloaded At: 00:38 11 April 2011

ment to go Beyond IQ (Sternberg, 1985) number of talent development models The Evolution of Ideas and
with his triarchic theory of human intel- for identification and programming Empirical Evidence
ligence. Drawing upon an information- (e.g., Feldhusen, 1992; Renzulli, 1993;
processing model, he has since expand- 1994). Early in this decade, the changes After Leta Hollingworth's death in
ed his argument for different kinds of wrought in the field of gifted education 1939, most of the energies of the gifted
intelligence—speaking of "practical," were described by Treffinger (1991), child strand went into exploring optimal
"creative," and "analytic" intelligence Feldman (1991b) and Treffinger and ways of educating high IQ (i.e., "gift-
(Sternberg, 1988) and even taking a stab Sortore (1992) as a "paradigm shift" in ed") children. Hollingworth's concepts
at describing just what it is that we call which the fundamental concept of "gift- of an "enriched" curriculum combined
"wisdom" (Sternberg, 1990). edness" was changing. Feldman, for with less time spent on learning the
example, saw the paradigm as shifting basic skills became fundamental guide-
Promising Trends Emerging From from a traditional elitist one of gifted- lines in crafting programs for the gifted.
the Talent Development ness as a stable, unchangeable trait con- Although her educational ideas provided
Movement sisting of high IQ and identifiable by a the accepted foundation for the field of
There have been several notably psychometric test to one of giftedness in gifted education, Hollingworth as an
promising aspects of the move away multiple forms, developmentally based individual was all but forgotten (Kear-
from IQ as the assumed sole determi- and defined and identified by excellence ney, 1990). Her unique insights into the
nant of achievement potential. Enquiries in performance. social-emotional issues emerging from
giftedness were echoed in later writings
into the extent to which manifested
intellectual abilities are learnable
(Perkins, 1995; Sternberg, 1986) rather
T he paradigm shift notion
seemed to capture and provide
form and words for some intuitive amor-
(for example, see Getzels & Dillon,
1973; Newland, 1976; O'Shae, 1960;
than innate have caused us to scrutinize phous recognition shared by many. Roedell, Jackson and Robinson, 1980;
more carefully our assumptions about Once articulated, it found widespread Terman & Oden, 1974), but in general
biologically-based potential. The current resonance in the field. Indeed, in the were overshadowed by the gifted
enthusiastic reception of Vygotskian spirit of the changes which many see as achiever strand's more vocal emphasis
sociocultural theory in education and taking place, a statement issued by the on the identification of future leaders
psychology has focused our attention on U.S. Department of Education (1993) and performers. The findings of Terman
the extent to which cognitive abilities declared that "the term 'gifted' connotes and others (Gallagher, 1958; 1975; Lid-
are either constrained or facilitated by a mature power rather than a developing die, 1958; Terman, 1925)—showing the
cultural shaping (Moll, 1990; Rogoff, ability and, therefore, is antithetical to majority of children with moderately
1990;Wertsch, 1985). recent research findings about children" advanced intellectual skills to be social-
In addition, there has been an (p. 26). According to the proponents of ly adept, emotionally secure and gener-
acknowledgment of and more open this view, child potential in all its myri- ally successful in both school and life—
exploration into IQ-independent abilities ad forms should be designated "talent" perhaps resulted in still less attention
(Feldman, 1979a; 1979b; 1980; Her- and "talent development for all" should being directed to the problems enumer-
melin & O'Connor, 1986; 1990). Partic- become the inspired vision and laudable ated by Hollingworth.

September, 1996, Roeper Review/7

 A Hollingworth Revival terms of who they were in the totality of and requires modifications in parent-
In 1989, 50 years after Holling- their being. Thus, she believed that chil- ing, teaching and counseling in order
dren should be educated for life rather for them to develop optimally (The
worth's death, a conference was held at Columbus Group, 1991).
the University of Nebraska where she than educated for success
had graduated at the age of 15. The The education for life model differs In crafting its definition, the Columbus
event commemorated her contributions radically from the education for suc- Group incorporated influences ranging
to the fields of psychology and educa- cess model. The latter grows out of beyond the gifted child strand in Amer-
the belief that people are defined by ica to the work and thought of Polish
tion. At it, Kathi Kearney commented on psychiatrist, Kazimierz Dabrowski
their skills, that they are what they do
Hollingworth's unique contribution to and how well they do it. The former, (1964; 1972), French psychologist,
exceptionally gifted children and their by contrast, stems from the belief that Jean Charles Terrassier (1985), the
families: people are defined by their unique theoretical and empirical contributions
Leta Hollingworth's unfinished legacy, selves. Emphasis is placed on the of Alfred Binet (1909)' and the Russ-
Children Above 180IQ, remains the growth of the self and mastery of the ian developmental theory of Lev S.
only major research work of its kind... environment (Roeper, 1995b, p. 111). Vygotsky (1986, 1978). While Miraca
Children Above 180 IQ has become a Gross's 1993 Australian study of 15
living legacy, for it is a volume that
The Roepers established The exceptionally gifted children was
brings both comfort and understanding Roeper Review with the purpose of released too late to be a precursor of
to the families of such children today. focusing holistically on the philosophi- the Columbus Group definition, the
Upon reading it, they often remark, cal, psychological, moral, and academic temper of her study placed it firmly in
"Finally someone has described my issues relating to the lives and experi- the gifted child strand.
child. Finally we are not alone in this ences of the gifted and talented. Reminiscent of the response that the
experience." A research work that can
touch families in this way, almost fifty talent development movement's paradigm
years after its publication, is truly a The Columbus Group Vision shift construction evoked in the United
legacy and a treasure. (Kearney, In February, 1991, (Morelock, States, the Columbus Group definition
1989) 1991; in press) I reported a case study of rang true for many throughout the world.
The conference was followed by a a 4 1/2 year old girl who, over a period It became the central organizing theme for
special memorial issue of The Roeper of 10 months experienced a dramatic the Eleventh World Conference on Gifted
Review (Silverman, 1990) dedicated to cognitive leap in her capacity for and Talented Children held in Hong Kong
Leta Stetter Hollingworth as well as a abstract thought accompanied by a peri- in 1995 (Silverman, 1995).
reissuance of Hollingworth's biography od of extraordinary emotional turmoil.
Downloaded At: 00:38 11 April 2011

(Hollingworth, 1943/1990) which had The plight of "Jennie" (a pseudonym) Comparing the Columbus Group
been written by her husband, Harry L. became a catalyst for the crystallization Movement with the Talent
Hollingworth and originally published in of a concept of giftedness distilling the Development Movement
1943. insights accumulated over the years by The Columbus Group Movement
the gifted child strand. In July of 1991, curiously shares some features with the
The Columbus Group—a group of prac- Talent Development Movement. It, too,
"Education for Life"—Annemarie titioners, parents, and theorists—gath- focuses on development as a central con-
Roeper ered to construct a new phenomenologi- cern. But whereas the Talent Develop-
One particular educator and cal definition of giftedness which made ment Movement emphasizes the shaping
philosopher is notable for keeping the its debut in the literature the following of potential into mature performance
spirit of the gifted child strand alive year (Morelock, 1992). The Columbus through the interaction of domain-specif-
(Roeper, 1990; 1991). Survivors of the Group took issue with the widespread ic requirements with individual biologi-
Nazi Holocaust, Annemarie and George emphasis on performance and achieve- cally-based predispositions, the Colum-
Roeper arrived in New York in the ment in defining giftedness, arguing that bus Group Movement emphasizes the
Spring of 1939—the year of Leta the qualitatively different inner experi- intra-individual interaction and melding
Hollingworth's death. Two years later, ence of the gifted child lies at the heart of cognition and emotion in asynchro-
they founded the Roeper City and Coun- of the phenomenon. They underscored nous development. The Talent Develop-
try School in Bloomfield Hills, Michi- the need for a definition of giftedness ment paradigm shift asserts the death of
gan. The original mission of the school that would take into account the "unusu- IQ as the instrument for identifying the
was to create an environment which al mental processing that constitutes potential for significant achievement.
would allow children to grow up with a giftedness" (Tolan, 1994, p. 137), The Columbus Group Movement also
minimum of hostility so that they would including a heightened ability for the seeks to shift the focus from IQ as a
not feel the need to mistreat others, as construction of meaning in the context measure of potential achievement, claim-
the German youth of Nazi Germany had of experience (Morelock, 1993) and the ing that IQ remains what it was before
been led to do. In 1956, the school resultant complex moral and emotional Terman's leap in reasoning resulted in
became a school for gifted children. One life of the gifted child (Silverman, erroneous attributions. For the Columbus
of Annemarie Roeper's special contribu- 1994): Group, IQ is simply a minimal index of
tions lay in her understanding of the
Giftedness is asynchronous develop-
asynchrony—the extent to which cogni-
inner experiences of gifted children and
ment in which advanced cognitive abil- tive development (mental age) diverges
their developmental differences in the
ities and heightened intensity combine from physical development (chronologi-
way they thought, felt, and learned
to create inner experiences and cal age)—with all the cognitive, social
(Roeper, 1995a). She perceived gifted- awareness that are qualitatively differ- and emotional ramifications implied by
ness as ^process rather than ^product, ent from the norm. This asynchrony that. In addition, the Columbus Group
and believed that too often, children Increases with higher intellectual seeks to shift the focus off of achieve-
were seen solely in terms of what they capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted
renders them particularly vulnerable ment entirely in talking about giftedness,
could potentially produce rather than in

8/Roeper Review, Vol. 19, No. 1

 and to focus instead on "the different "Gifted infants" (or infants who gressed at a higher intellectual level and
reality that marks giftedness" (Morelock, have later been identified as high IQ were advanced in their cognitive devel-
1992, p. 11). children) have been reported in the liter- opment or reasoning.
ature as appearing more interactive with
While perhaps some in the gifted
child strand might be amenable to find-
ing another term besides gifted for the
the environment, inner-directed and
expressive (Lewis & Michalson, 1985).
R ecent case studies of two pro-
foundly gifted children (More-
lock, 1995; in press) raised the question
phenomenon of this form of asynchro- They are frequently reported as needing of enhanced right brain functioning as a
nous development, the question remains less sleep than average infants and being possible explanation for a phenomenon
as to what could be used? As Roeper more demanding of cognitive stimula- of "spontaneous knowing" apparent in
(1995) points out, "precocious develop- tion (Morelock, in press; Silverman & both children. Convergent evidence
ment" captures the quantitative aspects Kearney, 1989). from neuropsychological studies with
of gifted development (i.e., a child's A recently-published longitudinal precocious and average ability male and
going through developmental milestones study—the first prospective study of the female adolescents (O'Boyle, Benbow,
at a more rapid rate), but it fails to cap- development of intellectual giftedness & Alexander, 1995) also suggest that
ture the qualitative dimensions (i.e., the (Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst & enhanced right brain hemisphere
complexity, depth and intensity of the Guerin, 1994) documented that an early involvement during basic information
inner experience accompanying those demand for heightened cognitive stimu- processing as well as superior coordina-
rapid changes). Furthermore, the term lation is a widespread phenomenon tion and allocation of cortical resources
gifted connects contemporary research among gifted children. The researchers within and between the hemispheres are
and thought pertaining to this subgroup followed a randomly selected group of unique characteristics of the gifted
of children to a literature stretching back 107 children from middle-class families brain.
to Terman's original selected group (Sil- for their first eight years of life, taking Another line of research promising
verman & Kearney, 1992). Therefore, numerous measures of various develop- in terms of revealing structural and
most in the Columbus Group Move- mental milestones. At the age of 8, all of functional differences in the gifted brain
ment—as well as many who don't the children were administered an IQ stems from neuropsychological studies
overtly declare themselves members of test and some of the children scored in showing that the degree to which an
the Movement (e.g., see Gottfried, Got- the "gifted" range while others did not. individual has mastered different
tfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994)—hold The researchers then went back into aspects of language is strongly predic-
that in order to minimize confusion and their files to study the antecedents of
Downloaded At: 00:38 11 April 2011

tive of aspects of cerebral organization

facilitate the connection of current giftedness. that the individual displays (Mills, Cof-
research with what has come before, it fey-Corina & Neville, 1994). Since the
makes sense to retain the term gifted to Gifted children were found to be
different from the first year of life, days of Hollingworth and Terman, one
refer to this particular form of asynchro- feature consistently connected with gift-
nous development. demanding more stimulation from their
environment and receiving it. The find- ed development has been the early onset
ings were supportive of Freeman's of receptive language in gifted children
Research Evidence Supporting (1979) suggestion that gifted children (Hollingworth, 1942; Gottfried, Got-
the Columbus Group Definition received more stimulation because they tfried, Bathurst & Guerin, 1994). This is
Much of the empirical research sup- process information more effectively frequently manifested through early
porting the Columbus Group Definition and therefore assimilate more quickly. expressive language as well (Holling-
has come in the form of qualitative case Parents appeared to recognize their gift- worth, 1942; Gottfried, Gottfried,
studies—Hoi ling worth's case studies of ed child's potential early in infancy and Bathurst & Guerin, 1994). In the case
children above 180IQ (Hollingworth, to respond to that recognition by provid- studies of profoundly gifted children
1942), Roeper's sensitive portrayals of ing more stimulating environments. In mentioned above (Morelock, 1995), I
gifted children (1995); Gross's (1993) addition, from infancy, gifted children hypothesize that this early onset of lan-
studies of exceptionally gifted children, demonstrated more engagement and guage in gifted development is revelato-
the previously-cited case study of "Jen- persistence in cognitively-demanding ry of underlying precocious develop-
nie" (Morelock, 1991, in press) and tasks when presented with them in test- mental changes in brain organization
studies of profoundly gifted children ing situations. and integration. Consequently, it fol-
(IQs 200+) and their families (More- Results from the study also indicat- lows that there are important differences
lock, 1995). Additional support has ed that gifted IQ implies generalized in information processing characteristics
come from clinical findings (Lovecky, high intelligence. The gifted children of the young gifted brain.
1994; Silverman, 1993; Terrassier, were superior across an array of cogni-
1985). tive tasks beginning as early as the
More recently, research findings preschool period. Globality rather than Giftedness and Talent: A
have begun to mount demonstrating the specificity in cognitive performance Suggested Rapprochement
ways in which gifted children differ characterized intellectual giftedness.
developmentally from early infancy. For Gifted and nongifted children did Both the Talent Development
example, research into infant cognition not differ substantially in their patterns Movement and the Columbus Group
has shown that later intellectual func- of cognitive or intellectual abilities (i.e., Movement have found widespread reso-
tioning in terms of enhanced IQ can be individual uneven profiles of strengths nance and support because both repre-
predicted on the basis of evidenced and weaknesses). The differences sent the culminating manifestation of
heightened generalized speed of infor- resided in the rate of development (in research evidence accumulated through
mation processing and retentiveness of infancy) and in the level of performance their individual strands. One criticism
memory in infancy (Colombo, 1993). thereafter. The gifted children pro- being leveled at the concept of "gifted-

September, 1996, Roeper Review/9

 ness" in children is that it is a social charged with the responsibility of help- understand themselves, develop emo-
construct (Sapon-Shevin, 1994; 1996). ing children to realize whatever poten- tionally fulfilling relationships with oth-
Gallagher (1996), in response to this tial they have and to help them find a ers, feel comfortable in an imperfect
criticism points o u t . . . . niche in the world where their potential world when they see the imperfections
We should admit that "gifted" is a con- is put to good use. Consequently, we so clearly, and maintain their natural
structed concept Sapon-Shevin points need to assume that some level of talent enthusiasm for learning. As parents,
this out as though it was the ultimate is present in all children, and it is our educators, and counselors, we need this
proof of its nonusefulness. But "opera information in order to provide for these
singer" is a constructed concept,
responsibility to discover and foster it in
"short-stop" is a constructed concept, all children (Feldman, 1979b; 1980; children. The collected insights need to
"boss" is a constructed concept; every Treffinger & Feldhusen, 1996). infuse the education of these children if
concept that we use to describe they are to grow to be healthy, happy
human beings is a constructed con- Why do we need to identify a subclassi- adults.
cept. Is giftedness an educationally fication of children called gifted?
useful construct? That is the important The research suggests that gifted In addition, if we are serious about
question (Gallagher, 1996, p. 235). children are special needs children talent development for all children, it
because they learn differently, function follows that some differences in imple-
The above data, accumulated from differently neuropsychologically and mentation will be required for any sub-
various research sources, clearly suggest require a different level and type of cog- class of children who have special psy-
that the "social construct" of giftedness nitive stimulation. They are also poten- chological and educational needs. This
is a valid one in terms of representing a tially socially and emotionally at risk. includes the special needs group of chil-
specific form of developmental differ- The developmental differences increase dren called "gifted." Our pride in our
ence. To carry the thought beyond the as the level of asynchrony increases. egalitarian culture needs always to be
immediate question, what is actually Some critics of this stance have implied tempered by an empathetic respect for
revealed by a careful review of all the that "the gifted child" is an abstraction and understanding of individual differ-
accumulated evidence presented in this which has been reified (Margolin, 1994; ences and special needs arising from
article is that both giftedness and talent 1996; Sapon-Shevin, 1994; 1996). How- them. Both research and theory empha-
are social constructs referring to dis- ever, a review of the empirical evidence size that these children are sparked
tinctly different phenomena and both are accumulating through the gifted child through interaction with mental peers
educationally and psychologically use- strand suggests that in truth, real chil- and need to be with mental peers in
ful—which brings us to the next point. order to develop true peer relation-
Downloaded At: 00:38 11 April 2011

dren with real developmental differences

What implications does all of the fore- and differentiated special needs are in ships—both for cognitive development
going discussion hold for practice and danger of being reduced to mere (Rogers & Span, 1993; Tudge, 1990)
research in the field? This overall query "abstractions" and sacrificed in the and for deeply satisfying social (O'Shea,
will be broken down into sub-questions interest of contemporary social and 1960) and emotional (Silverman, 1993)
in the following section and I will offer political agendas. connections.
some possible resolutions to the issues
In addition, if these children are
involved. What is the proper place for the ideas encouraged to continue their normal
espoused by the Talent Development rates of learning, they can be expected to
Movement? show accelerated progress in general
Questions Pertaining to As is recommended by a number of learning and even more acceleration in
Implications for Practice its proponents (e.g., Feldhusen, 1992; areas of special talent. As children, they
Renzulli, 1994; Treffinger & Feldhusen,
and Research 1996), talent development needs to
need to be allowed to develop cognitive-
ly, socially, and emotionally at their own
become a foundational concept in gener- rate(s)—unimpeded by administrative or
What constructs do we need in order to al education, with the identification of
understand the phenomena we are social policy agendas. In consideration
talent potential and the active fostering of all of these factors, gifted education
observing? of its development a central goal for all
Both "giftedness" and "talent" are /counseling must be continued as a spe-
children. Concepts and strategies which cial needs provision targeting these chil-
needed concepts. "Giftedness" is needed have emerged from the field of gifted
to identify the particular form of asyn- dren. New knowledge from the talent
education, developmental psychology— development movement about the devel-
chronous development referenced in the or from any other field—that can help in
Columbus Group definition, observed in opment of domain-specific expertise and
this regard should certainly be used for how to facilitate it will enrich the devel-
childhood across cultures (Silverman, all children—or at least for all of those
1995), and specifically studied since opment of talent for all children, but the
children who benefit from them. processes of talent development, social
Terman's IQ test provided an imperfect
way of finding these children. It has per- What is the proper place for the ideas integration, and affective education will
vasive implications for all of the gifted espoused by the Columbus Group always have to be tailored to the needs of
individual's experience and develop- Movement? gifted children in special ways.
ment—cognitive, social, emotional and The educational and psychological
findings of the gifted child strand col- What directions of research are needed
even physical (Morelock, 1995). "Tal- in terms of talent development?
ent" is needed to refer to multi-leveled lected over the years and distilled into
the Columbus Group vision of gifted- We need additional research into
potential for domain-specific creative- the optimal means of identifying and
productivity in the world which can be ness provide a rich understanding of the
inner experience of the gifted child. The facilitating all kinds of talent. More
fostered through appropriate identifica-
insights gleaned suggest what kinds of research into the nature of expertise in
tion and environmental support. As edu-
emotional, social and educational sup- various fields and the characteristic
cators and developers of talent, we are
ports are needed to help these children developmental progression from novice

10/Roeper Review, Vol. 19, No. 1

 to expert within various domains is structed domains of knowledge, relates Vygotskian theory as a means of inte-
important. We need to explore further mainly to what Vygotsky called the grating and bringing new understanding
the nature of both IQ-related competen- interpsychological level of development to all that we have learned from both the
cies and IQ-independent abilities, find (Vygotsky, 1981). By this, Vygotsky gifted achiever strand and the gifted
out how these combine to create varying was referring to the transmittal of mas- child strand (See Morelock, in press). It
manifestations and levels of domain- tery via instruction from a more compe- is perhaps enough at this point to be
specific talent, and determine how tent mentor to an individual seeking able to take heart in the realization that
required facilitative support differs induction into the use of cultural tools we need not continue to be at odds with
across these varying manifestations. and signs. Talent development takes one another. Curiously, all that has been
place at the juncture between a domain learned over the history of our field can
What directions of research are needed of knowledge and an individual striving be integrated into a greater, more holis-
in terms of gifted development? for mastery of domain-specific con- tic understanding provided by the theory
We need to identify more precisely structs and tools. It is mediated through of a genius who died more than sixty
what undergirds the manifestation of social facilitation. years ago.
asynchronous development in neuropsy-
chological terms. We need to know how In contradistinction, I posit that is appropriate that this article
best to support the emotional develop- "gifted development" relates to an atypi- Lend with a line from a poem by
ment of vulnerable gifted children and cal form of developmental process Tyutchev that Lev Vygotsky loved to
how to help these children in the formi- occurring at the intrapsychological recite. Blanck (1990) notes that it could
(Vygotsky, 1981) level. It results in part serve as a metaphor for Vygotsky him-
dable task of finding a niche in the world.
from the precocious onset and rapid self because of the continuing value and
We must continue efforts in developing
development of the mastery of cultural- impact of his work far beyond the man's
optimal educational methods and theories
ly-evolved symbols (Morelock, in death. I suggest that it can also provide
addressing their needs. We also need to
press). Gifted children, because of dif- us with the hope of salvaging all that is
know how to help adults and all children ferences in underlying neuropsychologi- solid and helpful from our past collec-
accept intellectual diversity just as we cal function/structure, differ from more tive experience with the domain of
encourage attitudes of acceptance and typical children in the level and nature knowledge that we have constructed
celebration of diversities in culture, race of cognitive stimulation which they elic- together. Rather than being haunted by
and talent. Gifted children are "different- it from their environment (Gottfried et the spectres of obsolescence and irrele-
ly abled" just as other special needs chil- al., 1994). Because of their consequent- vance, we have the option of moving on
Downloaded At: 00:38 11 April 2011

dren are "differently abled". All children ly advanced cognitive development, together to create a stronger, clearer, and
deserve to be respected and understood they characteristically master and interi- more comprehensive knowledge of the
for who they are. orize culturally constructed abstract rep- nature of giftedness, talent, and develop-
resentations of thought early in their ment.
In Conclusion: A Suggested developmental trajectory. "Not everything that was must
Theoretical Framework Vygotsky saw emotional and cogni- pass."
Which Can Accommodate tive development as interrelated, with (Tyutchev, as cited in Blanck, 1990, p. 31)
children's ability to respond emotionally
the Multidimensionality of to abstractions intimately linked with To be continued
Giftedness and Talent the gradual course of cognitive develop-
ment spanning the childhood years. This
In reviewing the findings emerging is a developmental progression that REFERENCES
takes place precociously and at an accel- Bamberger, J. (1982). Growing up prodigies: The midlife
out of both the gifted achiever strand crisis. In D. H. Feldman (Ed.), Developmental
and the gifted child strand, the name of erated rate in gifted children (Morelock, approaches to giftedness and creativity (61-77). San
in press) with important implications for Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
one theorist appears in both—the Russ- Bamberger, J. (1991). The mind behind the musical ear:
ian developmentalist Lev. S. Vygotsky. the quality of inner experience. Follow- How children develop musical intelligence. Cam-
ing Vygotsky's line of thought, both the bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky's brilliance enabled him to Binet, A. (1909). Les idees modernes sur les enfants.
see development in its full complexity. cognitive and emotional experiences of Paris: Flammarion.
gifted children would be qualitatively Blanck, G. (1990). Vygotsky: The man and his cause. In
Consequently, he wrote about the shap- L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instruc-
ing of cognition that comes about as a different from that of their agemates tional implications and applications of sociohistori-
whose minds have not yet been cal psychology, (pp. 31-55). New York: Cambridge
child learns to use socioculturally- University Press.
evolved symbols (e.g. language) to con- reshaped by the integration of cultural Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people.
symbols into the flow of thought. Such a New York: Ballantine Books
struct and express meaning. He was par- Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing pro-
ticularly interested in how children, qualitative difference—and the emotion- grams for the gifted. New York: Teachers College
al vulnerability associated with it Press.
through the instruction of more compe- Borland, J. H. (1993). Giftedness and "The new philoso-
tent others, come to master the physical (Morelock, in press)—has indeed been phy of science." Understanding Our Gifted, 5(6), 1,
documented by accumulated research 11-14.
and psychological "tools" and "signs" of Borland, J. H. (1996). Gifted education and the threat of
their culture. He also wrote about the from the gifted child strand. The Vygot- irrelevance. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
skian perspective thus supports 19, 2, 129-147.
resultant changes in inner experience as Colombo, J. (1993). Infant cognition: Predicting later
this development occurred and the sub- Annemarie Roeper's (1995a) contention intellectual functioning. New York: Sage.
and the Columbus Group's assertion Columbus Group (1991, July). Unpublished transcript of
sequent impact that those changes in the meeting of the Columbus Group. Columbus,
inner awareness then had on continued that the developmental differences com- Ohio.
prising gifted development are both Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of
development. optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
The concept of "talent develop- quantitative and qualitative. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. & Whalen, S. (1993).
Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure.
ment," rooted as it is in the interaction It is beyond the scope of this article New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. London:
between the individual and socially con- to discuss fully the implications of using Little, Brown.

September, 1996, Roeper Review/11

 Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. Perspectives on development and education, pp. 35- Rogers, K. B. & Span, P. (1993). Ability grouping with
London: Gryf. 57. New York: John Wiley & Sons. gifted and talented students: Research and guidelines.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1992). TIDE: Talent identification and Liddle, G. (1958). Overlap among desirable and undesir- In K. A. Heller, F. J. Msnks, & A. H. Passow, Inter-
development in education. Sarasota, FL: Center for able characteristics in gifted children. Journal of Edu- national handbook of research and development of
Creative Learning. cational Psychology, 49, 219-223. giftedness and talent (pp. 585-592). New York: Perg-
Feldman, D. H. (1979a). The mysterious case of extreme Lovecky, D. V. (1994). Exceptionally gifted children: amon.
giftedness. In H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talent- Different minds. Roeper Review, 17(2), 116-120. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive
ed: Yearbook of the national society for the study of Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emer- development in social context. New York: Oxford
education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. gence of gifted children. New York: Aldine De University Press.
Feldman, D. H. (1979b). Toward a nonelitist conception Gruyter. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted edu-
of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 660-663. Margolin, L. (1996). A pedagogy of privilege. Journal for cation and the disruption of community. Albany:
Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 164-180. State University of New York Press.
development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Marland, S. P., Jr. (1971). Education of the gifted and tal- Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Beyond gifted education:
Feldman, D. H. (Ed.) (1982). Developmental approaches ented. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Building a shared agenda for school reform. Journal
to giftedness and creativity. San Francisco: Jossey- Printing Office. for the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 194-214.
Bass. Miller, L. K. (1989). Musical savants: exceptional skill in Silverman, L. K. (Ed.) (1990). Roeper Review, 12(3)
Feldman (with Goldsmith, L. T.) (1991 a). Nature's gam- the mentally retarded. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- (Special Issue commemorating Leta Stetter Holling-
bit: Child prodigies and the development of human baum. worth)
potential. New York: Teachers College Press (Origi- Mills, D. L., Coffey-Corina, S. A., & Neville, H. J. Silverman, L. K. (1993) (Ed.). Counseling the gifted &
nal work published 1986). (1994). Variability in cerebral organization during talented. Denver: Love.
Feldman, D. H. (1991b). Has there been a paradigm shift primary language acquisition. In G. Dawson & K. W. Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted
in gifted education? In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, Fischer (Eds.), Human behavior and the developing children and the evolution of society. Roeper Review,
and D. L. Ambroso (Eds.) Talent development: Pro- brain (pp. 427-455). New York: Guilford. 17, 110-116.
ceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wal- Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional Silverman, L. K. (1995). The universal experience of
lace National Research Symposium on Talent Devel- implications and applications of sociohistorical psy- being out-of-sync. Advanced Development: A Collec-
opment (pp. 89-94). Unionville, NY: Trillium. chology. New York: Cambridge University Press. tion of Works on Giftedness in Adults. (Special Edi-
Feldman, D. H. (1993). Cultural organisms in the devel- Morelock, M. J. (1991, February). The child of extraordi- tion of Advanced Development: A Journal on Adult
opment of great potential: Referees, termites, and the narily high IQ from a Vygotskian perspective (Or Giftedness.
Aspen Music Festival. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Jennie through a Vygotskian Lens). Paper presented Silverman, L. K., & Kearney, K. (1989). Parents of the
Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and at the Esther Katz Rosen Symposium on the Psycho- extraordinarily gifted. Advanced Development, 1, 41-
thinking in specific environments (pp. 225-251). logical Development of Gifted Children, The Univer- 56.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. sity of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. Silverman, L. K. & Kearney, K. (1992). The case for the
Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Gardner, H. Morelock, M. J. (1992). Giftedness: The view from with- Stanford- Binet L-M as a supplemental test, Roeper
(1994). Changing the world: A framework for the in. Understanding Our Gifted, 4(3), 1, 11-15. Review, 15 (1), 34-37.
study of creativity. Westport, CT: Praeger. Morelock, M. J. (1993). Imposing order on chaos: A theo- Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of
Feldman, D. H. & Piirto, J. (1995). Parenting talented retical lexicon. Understanding Our Gifted, 5(6), 15- human intelligence. New York: Cambridge Universi-
children. In M. H. Bomstein (Ed.), Handbook of par- 16. ty Press.
enting. Vol. 1: How children influence parenting. Morelock, M. J. (1995). The profoundly gifted child in Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. family context. (University Microfilms No. 0234 of human intelligence. New York: Viking.
Freeman, J. (1979). Gifted children: Their identification TUFTS-D 9531439) Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1990). Wisdom: Its nature, origins,
and development in a social context. Baltimore: MTP Morelock, M. J. (in press). The child of extraordinarily and development. New York: Cambridge University
Press. high IQ from a Vygotskian perspective. In R. C. Press.
Gallagher, J. J. (1958). Peer acceptance of highly gifted Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents within: Cog- Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of
children in elementary school. Elementary School nition and development. Washington, D. C : Ameri- giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded At: 00:38 11 April 2011

Journal, 58, 465-470. can Psychological Association. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological
Gallagher, J. J. (1996). A critique of critiques of gifted Morelock, M. J. & Feldman, D. H. (1991). Extreme pre- and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, cocity. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Hand- Terrassier, J-C. (1985). Dyssynchrony: Uneven develop-
19(2), 234-249. book of gifted education (pp. 345-364). Boston, MA: ment. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted
Galton, F. (1952). Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry Into Its Allyn and Bacon. children: on development and education, pp. 265-
Laws And Consequences. New York: Horizon Press. Morelock, M. J. & Feldman, D. H. (1993). Prodigies and 274. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
(Original work published 1869). savants: What they have to tell us about giftedness Terman, L. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. I:
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multi- and human cognition. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Msnks, & Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted chil-
ple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of dren. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of cre- research and development of giftedness and talent Terman, L. (1954). The discovery and encouragement of
ativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, (pp. 161-181). New York: Pergamon Press. exceptional talent. American Psychologist, 9, 221 -
Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New Newland, T. E. (1976). The gifted in socio-educational 230.
York: Basic Books. perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Terman, L. M. & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of
Getzels, W., & Dillon, J. T. (1973). The nature of gifted- O'Boyle, M. W., Benbow, C. P. & Alexander, J. E. genius: Vol. 5: The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five
ness and the education of the gifted child. In R. W. (1995). Sex differences, hemispheric laterally and years' follow- up of the superior child. Stanford, CA:
M. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on associated brain functions in the intellectually gifted. Stanford University Press.
teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. Developmental Neuropsvchology, 11(4), 415-443. Tolan, S. (1994). Discovering the gifted ex-child. Roeper
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K. & Guertin, O'Connor, N. & Hermelin, B. (1987). Visual and graphic Review, 17, 134-138.
D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental abilities of the idiot savant artist. Psychological Medi- Treffinger, D. J. (1991). Future goals and directions. In N.
aspects—The Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New cine, 17, 79-90. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
York: Plenum. Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging sci- education (pp. 441-449). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. ence of learnable intelligence. New York: The Free Treffinger, D. J. & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recog-
New York: Routledge. Press. nition and development: Successor to gifted educa-
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, Ratner, C. (1991). Vygotsky's sociohistorical psychology tion. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3),
5, 444-454. and its contemporary applications. New York: 181-193.
Hermelin, B. & O'Connor, N. (1986). Idiot savant calen- Plenum Press. Treffinger, D. J. & Sortore, M. R. (1992). Programming
drical calculators: Rules and regularities. Psychologi- Renzulli, J. S. (1979a). The enrichment triad model: A for giftedness (Vols. 1-3). Sarasota, FL: Center for
cal Medicine, 16, 1-9. guide for developing defensible programs for the gift- Creative Learning.
Hermelin, B. & O'Connor, N. (1990). An and accuracy: ed. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance U.S. Department of Education (1993). National excel-
The drawing ability of idiot-savants. Journal of Child (Eds.), Educating the ablest (2nd ed.). Itasca, Ill.: F. lence: A case for developing America's talent. Wash-
Psychology and Psychiatry, 31(2), 217-228. E. Peacock ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Holahan, C. K. & Sears, R. R.'(1995). The gifted group in Renzulli, J. S. (1979b). What makes giftedness? Los Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental
later maturity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Angeles, CA: National/State Leadership Training functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of
Press. Institute on the Gifted and Talented. activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk,
Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature Renzulli, J. S. (1980). Will the gifted movement be alive NY: M. E. Sharpe. [Originally published in Russian
and nurture. New York: Macmillan. and well in 1990? Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(1), 3-9. in 1960 as Razvitie vysshikh psikhicheskikh (The
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ (Stan- Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Schools are places for talent devel- development of higher mental functions), pp. 224-
ford-Binet): Their origin and development. Yonkers- opment: New directions for the schoolwide enrich- 231].
on-Hudson, NY: World Book. ment model. Communicator: The Journal of the Cali- Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cam-
Hollingworth, H. L. (1990). Leta Stetler Hollingworth: A fornia Association for the Gifted 23(4), 4-13. bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
biography. Bolton, MA: Anker. (Original work pub- Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development
lished 1943). practical plan for total school improvement. Mans- of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V.
Horowitz, F. D. & O'Brien, M. (1985). The gifted and tal- field Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds.).
ented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, Roedell, W. C . Jackson, N. E. & Robinson, H. B. (1980). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
D.C.: American Psychological Association. Gifted young children. New York: Teachers College Wallace, D. B. & Gruber, H. E. (1989). Creative people at
Kearney, K. (1989, October). Leta Hollingworth's unfin- Press. work: Twelve cognitive case studies. New York:
ished legacy: Children Above 180 IQ. Paper present- Roeper, A. (1990). Educating children for life: The mod- Oxford University Press.
ed at the Hollingworth Commemorative Confer- ern learning community. Monroe, NY: Trillium Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation
ence—The Legacy of Leta Hollingworth: Roeper, A. (1991). Gifted adults: Their characteristics and of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Contributions to Psychology and Gifted Education, emotions, Advanced Development, 3, 85-89. Witty, P. (Ed.) (1951). The gifted child. Boston, MA: D.
The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB Roeper, A. (1995a). Annemarie Roeper: Selected writings C. Heath.
Kearney, K. (1990). Leta Hollingworth's unfinished lega- and speeches. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Wozniak, R. H. & Fischer, K. W. (1993). Development in
cy: Children Above 180 IQ. Roeper Review, 12(3), Roeper, A. (1995b). Participatory vs. hierarchical models context: Acting and thinking in specific environments.
181-188. for administration: The Roeper School experience. In Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lewis, M. & Michalson, L. (1985). The gifted infant. In J. A. Roeper, Annemarie Roeper: Selected writings and
Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted children: speeches (pp. 109-123). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

12/Roeper Review, Vol. 19, No. 1