Pioneering Definitions and Theoretical Positions in the Field of Gifted Education
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s Jennifer L. Jolly, Ph.D. Pioneering Definitions and Theoretical Positions in the Field of Gifted Education The previous Historical Pe r s p e c t i v es column California Teachers’ Association, published an arti- focused on the foundations of gifted education and cle written by Stedman detailing her work at the the influence that Francis Galton, Alfred Binet, and Southern Branch of the University of California Cesare Lombroso had in shaping the field. This (now UCLA). This article was the prelude to a work seeks to extend the examination of the histor- more comprehensive and detailed account of the ical roots of gifted education by focusing on defin- opportunity room and a sample of its students in itions and theoretical underpinnings of giftedness her book Education of the Gifted (1924). from the viewpoints of four pioneering researchers Stedman noted that the children included in the and practitioners during the early 20th century— opportunity room were of “great capacity.” Thus, the foundational period of gifted education. the practice of special education for gifted children The four individuals addressed in this column only helped to fulfill their unique potential. The a re Lulu Stedman, Leta Ho l l i n g w o rth, Lew i s underlying principle of individual differences also TTerman, and Guy M. Whipple. Hollingworth and guided educational practices to develop students’ Terman are figures synonymous with gifted educa- individual differences to their fullest capacity tion; Stedman and Whipple are lesser known indi- (Stedman, 1919). As she wrote, “In starting this viduals who conducted some of the earliest ‘opportunity room’ it was the aim of the school to empirical studies in the field. This column will establish for gifted children an environment where explore how these four pioneers defined and theo- their abilities might develop in accordance with the rized giftedness and their subsequent influence on psychological principles underlying individuality” current definitions of giftedness. (Stedman, 1924, p. 5). In Education of the Gifted, Stedman did not offer Lulu Stedman an explicit definition of giftedness. Instead, she described the characteristics of the group of chil- Lulu Stedman was a “training teacher” (now dren enrolled in the opportunity room. These referred to as a clinical faculty member) who included “enterprising,” “adventurous,” “maturity,” worked with preservice teachers in the practical “greatly above average,” “self-control,” and “poise of application of teaching skills at the Los Angeles an adult.” The group of 10 children comprising the State Normal School, which in 1918 had recently inaugural opportunity room was initially selected become part of the University of California system from the results of a battery of achievement and (Minton, 1988). Stedman established an opportu- aptitude tests. The students ranged in age from 7 to nity room for gifted students in January 1918 just 11 years of age; however, the Stanford-Binet indi- after this transition took place. In 1919, Sierra cated a mental age ranging from 11 1/2 to 14 1/2. Educational News, the official publication of the Their intelligence quotients (IQ) ranged from 125 38 summer 2005 • vol 28, no 3 to 167. This selection pro c e s s included superior intelligence along C h i l d ren Ab ove 180 IQ was published remained in place at the time with a list of behaviors or traits that in 1942, no established definition of Education of the Gifted was published most often accompanied superior genius existed. Ho l l i n g w o rth postu- in 1924, except that the lower range intelligence. By her standards, a 130 l a t e d , of IQ scores had been raised to 140. IQ (Stanford-Binet) qualified a child Mental endowment appeared to be as having superior intelligence. Only It will perhaps be many ye a r s the sole criterion for selection into 1 in 100, or the top 1% of children, b e f o re it will be appare n t this opportunity room for gifted chil- was born with a 130 IQ or above whether the children studied dren. Despite Stedman’s lack of a def- (Hollingworth, 1924, 1927, 1928, h e rein are geniuses or not. inition of giftedness, she described 1931, 1932, 1936, 1937a, 1939a). Perhaps this can never be deter- qualifying opportunity room students Descriptions of gifted childre n mined, as the word “g e n i u s” as “endowed with superior intellec- included “m a t u re, ” “d e p e n d a b l e , ” may eventually be found to have tual endowment,” “superior ability,” “wise,” “w i t t y,” “youngest chro n o l o g i- no meaning that can be agre e d “extraordinary ability,” “exceedingly cally in class,” “e xcellent memory,” and upon. All we know about the studious,” and having learned to read “e n j oys the company of adults” status of the subjects of the pre- at a very early age (Stedman, 1924). ( Ho l l i n g w o rth, 1924, 1927, 1931). sent study is that they test above Academic behaviors in these childre n 180 IQ (S-B) and are thus more Leta Hollingworth comprised early interest in both num- than +10 PE (probable erro r ) bers and words, as did an ability to re a d re m ove d from mediocrity in T h rou ghout Leta Ho l l i n g w o rt h’s with comprehension at a young age; general intelligence. (p. 1) work, definitions of giftedness often a d vanced awareness of the clock, calen- appeared in the introduction of each d a r, and almanac; and relentless curios- In adulthood, Ho l l i n g w o rth found publication, as if to establish early on ity (Ho l l i n g w o rth, 1924, 1927, 1928). that cre a t i ve thinking of high merit the distinct nature of gifted students. By the 1930s, Hollingworth began a p p e a red in persons testing most often In 1927, Hollingworth felt that the to acknowledge that giftedness could at 180 IQ. “Ab ove 180 IQ (S-B, 1916) field was still too embryonic for manifest itself in additional ways. She original re s e a rch is often sponta- “established and static terminology.” n ow included the arts, drawing, neously and successfully undert a k e n , At this time she stated, “Nearly all we mechanical aptitude, abstract knowl- b e t ween the eighteen and the twe n t y - really know about gifted children has edge, and leadership (Hollingworth, fifth birthdays, by these persons test- been learned from researchers in the 1931, 1932, 1939b). She acknowl- i n g” (Ho l l i n g w o rth , 1937b, p. 75). past ten years” (p. 3). As research in edged that intelligence could be mea- Ho l l i n g w o r t h’s definition of gifted- the field of giftedness continued to sured, yet the Stanford-Binet only ness included those children testing at evolve, so too would the definition. measured the degree of intelligence, or above 130 IQ, or the top 1% of Hollingworth would eventually offer not the kind (Hollingworth, 1932). c h i l d ren. Such children exhibited sig- not only definitions, but also lists of The 1930s also offered the first nificantly different behaviors than behaviors and traits that characterized glimpses of identified gifted children those of the mainstream gifted popula- gifted children as a whole. entering adulthood, which aided in tion. Howe ve r, tow a rd the end of her Hollingworth’s first articles in the further defining the thresholds for c a re e r, Ho l l i n g w o r th encouraged field centered on the study of Child IQs in the upper ranges (Holling- b roadening the definition of giftedness E, who possessed a 187 IQ. However, worth, 1937b). to incorporate more nebulous behav- Child E was referred to as “prodi- Ho l l i n g w o rth also re c o g n i zed a dis- iors such as creativity and leadership. gious,” not gifted. Hollingworth con- tinction within the ranges of superior sulted several dictionaries to help mental ability. Those children with a Lewis Terman clarify for the reader the meaning of 180 IQ and above posed special chal- prodigious. Included were the words lenges to the school system, where Lewis Terman’s definition of gift- wonderful and extraordinary (Holling- c h i l d ren with significant mental edness was inextricably tied to that of worth, 1917, 1922). e n d owments could rarely be satisfied intelligence. As a graduate student, As Hollingworth’s research deep- socially or academically (Ho l l i n g - Terman studied Alfred Binet’s work ened, her definition of giftedness w o r th, 1942). When her book on intelligence tests, and nearly a gifted child today 39 Pioneering Definitions and Theoretical Positions decade later, he somewhat serendipi- mental ability equated to a 125 IQ or Dull 70–80 IQ tously found himself transforming above, which was found in 2 out of Feebleminded below 70 IQ the Binet-Simon into the Stanford- 100 children. Binet for an American audience However, by 1919, Terman, now However, he rescinded this conclu- (Minton, 1988). His work on the using the St a n f o rd - Binet, raised sion after realizing that this would Army Alpha and Beta during World exceptionality to a 140 IQ and above, include too many of the school-aged War I further cemented his belief that or the top 1% of children, in identi- population “and about a quarter of all measuring the degree of intelligence fying 59 superior students.