A Report Card on the State of Research in the Field of Gifted Education
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
a Report card on the State of Research in the Field of Gifted Education Nancy M. Robinson University of Washington The research community in the field of giftedness the normal curve?). There is also an increasing body is earnest, caring, and clearly dedicated to the welfare of work on talent development in young people (e.g., of this woefully underserved population. Our efforts Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, are, though, targeted toward a limited range of topics; 1993) and a substantial body of work on eminence and research in the field is seriously underfunded, if funded the factors that contribute to it (e.g., Simonton, 1994). at all; and we are missing some very good bets in terms In addition, we are making inroads into the multiple of theories, topics, and resources that are likely to bear social/emotional issues facing gifted students, although fruit. there is still much to be done. The beachhead we have established suggests that gifted students are no more vul- nerable than any other group, but that when we fail to W h a t a re We Doing Well? meet their needs for advanced and challenging work and for true mental peers, they are at risk for underachieve- Although our field has thus far restricted itself pre- ment, depression, and loneliness. Furthermore, gifted dominantly to studies relating to the education of gifted students are immune to none of life’s disabilities except students, we can take considerable pride, I believe, in mental retardation, and twice-exceptional students have some bodies of research that we have created and are their own issues that intersect with their high abilities continuing to refine. Leading the list are curriculum (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002). development models and effective approaches to differ- Nonetheless, I think we will all have to admit that entiation of instruction, with spillover into general edu- our imaginations exceed our empiricism. We take a good cation, as well as research assessing several accelerative deal on faith. We really have very few well-controlled options, ability grouping, cluster grouping, and modified investigations pitting one approach against another or even one approach against business as usual, very few cooperative learning groups. Educational investigations substantial data bases, practically no studies with ran- clearly have been given highest priority in our commu- dom assignment of children to one condition or another, nity, even though about half the people identified as most often not even very detailed descriptions of the “gifted influential in gifted education in a recent survey (Karnes children” who are the subjects. We have very few theo- & Nugent, 2002) are or were not primarily educators but ries to guide and organize our efforts. We can do better. psychologists. Probably the most impressive body of work since that of Lewis Terman has been that following to adult- What Else Should We Be hood the educational trajectory of students who have Investigating? participated in the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) established by the late Julian Stanley, Compared with our research on educational alterna- demonstrating the virtues of acceleration, the predic- tives, there are only scattered studies in the current liter- tive power of tests administered to young adolescents, ature of a number of very compelling topics. Here is a list and the value of investment in talent development (e.g., of places I’d like to see us start to expand our knowledge Webb, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2002). Per capita, we prob- base: ably know more about exceedingly gifted children than 1. Individual differences among gifted students. Far too any other subgroup (Gross, 2003), although there are often we settle for convenience samples enrolled in significant questions about the shape of the distribution programs that select gifted students on a variety of of talent at the highest levels (Are there more such pro- criteria, sometimes several years before the research foundly gifted individuals than one would predict from takes place. We seldom describe in our reports 342 GIFTED C HI l D Q u a RTER l y • F a l l 2 0 0 6 • v o l 5 0 N o 4 Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on March 4, 2011 R ep o rt c a rds o N the S T a te o F R ese a R c H in the F ie l D o F G ifted E D u c a ti o N how advanced those students are, either in ability but also with older individuals who are mental-age or achievement, how the most advanced may differ peers (a CA-MA comparison). from the least, or from what socioeconomic back- 6. More information about our assessment tools. How effec- grounds they come. It is ironic that in a field that is tive are ability and achievement tests at predicting based on a dimension of difference and that uses for how well students will do in advanced and/or spe- identification a set of classic measures of individual cial classes, and are some measures (e.g., abstract differences, we pay so little attention to differences verbal reasoning) better predictors than others (e.g., within our target group. This criticism applies just quantitative or spatial reasoning) of such success as strongly, if not more, to our educational programs (Lohman, 2005)? How can we use the tests to devise themselves, where, having argued that one size in educational strategies to capture and enhance special the regular classroom does not fit all, we proceed in abilities? What do teacher recommendations and our special classrooms to teach as though it did. portfolio assessments add to the picture? 2. The origins of giftedness, derived both from nature and 7. The long-term trajectory of code-breakers, that is, children from nurture. This includes, for example, who enter school with advanced math and/or read- • Differences within gifted groups, and between ing skills but with general mental ability only in the gifted and nongifted age peers, in the structure and average or high-average range. Do code-breaking function of the central nervous system, particularly the skills by themselves predict eventual high levels of brain. academic competence? • Family studies of both molecular genetic and environ- 8. Antecedents of the “rage to master” new challenges mental factors. We could profitably look at families (Winner, 1996) and the willingness to undertake with more than one gifted child, as well as fami- the major effort needed to achieve expertise (Erics- lies in which one or some of the children are of son & Charness, 1994). We know much more about high ability and one or more, apparently unim- underachievement than healthy achievement. paired, are not. What distinguishes the experi- 9. The anomalous late underachiever, that is, the great stu- ence of the children, both between and within dent who fails as an adult to fulfill the promise of families? What can we learn from parents of childhood. What is missing? What can we do to pre- modest ability whose children are of high ability, vent this loss? and vice versa? 10. The late bloomer, that is, the gifted childhood under- • Detailed observational studies of interactions achiever who “takes off” during adulthood. What between parents and their gifted children, interactions triggers the shift? that promote learning, curiosity, and healthy 11. Counseling and parent-education approaches that work motivation. with parents of gifted children who vary in ethnic- 3. “Precocious” children, ages birth through kindergarten. ity, education, and engagement. What do early talents look like? How much do these 12. Career and personal counseling approaches that work young, talented children profit from educational with gifted adolescents of various groups. Students options appropriate to their maturity, programs we of color are an important target. We need to find practically never provide? ways to help them feel comfortable in multiple cul- 4. Ways to identify and nurture children of promise, chil- tural settings. dren from unpropitious backgrounds who may not 13. Adult roles of former gifted children as marital partners meet the more stringent criteria for giftedness, but and parents and in the world of work. What, espe- who may blossom with energetic intervention over cially, about those who emerge from the educational a period of time. The first place to look is Project system at young ages? Head Start. We need to expand the number of pro- grams we provide and to follow in detail the trajec- tories of children who participate. How much can How Does Research in This we accomplish, and how best can we do it? F i e l d c o m p a r e W i t h T h a t 5. Cognitive and personal maturity. Does the advance- i n o ther Fields in Education ment of gifted children simply reflect more rapid and the Social Sciences? development, or is it qualitatively different from that of older children? For this purpose, we need We have for the most part opted for modest and not comparisons not only with chronological-age peers, terribly sophisticated research designs. Compared with GIFTED C HI l D Q u a RTER l y • F a l l 2 0 0 6 • v o l 5 0 N o 4 3 4 3 Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on March 4, 2011 R ep o rt c a rds o N the S T a te o F R ese a R c H in the F ie l D o F G ifted E D u c a ti o N studies in sister fields such as psychology and education, choir.