Education of the gifted and talented

575 Pages·6.359 MB·English

by  Davis, Gary A

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

G
i
f
t
e
d

a
n
d

T
a
l
e
n
t
e
d

D
a
v
i
s

e
t

a
l
.

Education of the Gifted and Talented

6
ISBN 978-1-29202-192-8
Gary A. Davis Sylvia B. Rimm
e
Del Siegle
Sixth Edition
9 781292 021928
Education of the Gifted and Talented
Gary A. Davis Sylvia B. Rimm
Del Siegle
Sixth Edition
ISBN 10: 1-292-02192-6
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-02192-8
Pearson Education Limited
Edinburgh Gate
Harlow
Essex CM20 2JE
England and Associated Companies throughout the world
Visit us on the World Wide Web at: www.pearsoned.co.uk
© Pearson Education Limited 2014
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the
prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark
in this text does not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such
trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affi liation with or endorsement of this
book by such owners.
ISBN 10: 1-292-02192-6
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-02192-8
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Printed in the United States of America
1112222233592470247921577735317157
P E A R S O N C U S T O M L I B R AR Y
Table of Contents
1. Gifted Education: Matching Instruction with Needs
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 1
2. Characteristics of Gifted Students
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 31
3. Identifying Gifted and Talented Students
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 55
4. Program Planning
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 97
5. Acceleration
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 125
6. Grouping, Differentiation, and Enrichment
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 147
7. Curriculum Models
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 177
8. Creativity I: The Creative Person, Creative Process, and Creative Dramatics
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 207
9. Creativity II: Teaching for Creative Growth
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 223
10. Teaching Thinking Skills
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 245
11. Leadership, Affective Learning, and Character Education
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 273
12. Underachievement: Identification and Reversal
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 291
13. Cultural Diversity and Economic Disadvantage: The Invisible Gifted
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 327
I
334445568258041531577
14. Gifted Children with Disabilities
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 361
15. The Cultural Underachievement of Females
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 385
16. Parenting the Gifted Child
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 423
17. Understanding and Counseling Gifted Students
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 451
18. Program Evaluation
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 485
References
Gary A. Davis/Sylvia B. Rimm/Del Siegle 507
Index 547
II
Gifted Education
Matching Instruction
with Needs
SuperStock
Proper training does not consist in “pushing”the child on [too]
rapidly ...nor does it consist in “holding him back”and compelling
him to become a drifter and wastrel oftime.The most rational
policy ...is to provide extra work for the bright,in line with their
intellectual interests....A good plan is to combine this enrichment
with a moderate degree ofrapid progress through school.
LETAHOLLINGWORTH(1929,P.375)
The mismatch between gifted youth and the curriculum they are
forced to study most ofthe time is nothing short ofan American
tragedy.The human waste in terms ofboth student and faculty
time is inestimable,and this waste can be found in both rich
schools and poor,and even in schools that have well established
programs for the gifted.
JOSEPHRENZULLI(1991,PP.75–76)
Tens ofthousands ofgifted and talented children and adolescents are sitting in their class-
rooms—their abilities unrecognized,their needs unmet.Some are bored,patiently waiting
for peers to learn skills and concepts that they had mastered one or two years earlier.Some
find school intolerable,feigning illness or creating other excuses to avoid the trivia.Many develop
poor study habits from the slow pace and lack ofchallenge.Some feel pressured to hide their keen
talents and skills from uninterested and unsympathetic peers.Some give up on school entirely,
dropping out as soon as they are legally able.Some educators call it a “quiet crisis”(Renzulli &
Park,2002;Ross,1993,1997).
Other gifted students tolerate school,but satisfy their intellectual,creative,and artistic needs
outside the formal system.The lucky ones have parents who will sponsor their dance or music
lessons,microscopes and telescopes,art supplies,frequent trips to the libraries and museums,and
From Chapter 1 ofEducation ofthe Gifted and Talented,6/e.Gary A.Davis.Sylvia B.Rimm.Del Siegle.
Copyright © 2011 by Pearson Education.All rights reserved.
1
Gifted Education
home computers.The less fortunate ones make do as recognize alternative learning styles,thinking styles,
best they can,silently paying a price for a predica- and patterns of abilities and coordinate instruction
ment they may not understand and that others with these.Programs need to be expanded and eval-
choose to ignore.That price is lost academic growth; uated.And to remove the sounds of silence,every-
lost creative potential;and,sometimes,lost enthusi- one—parents,teachers,administrators,and others—
asm for educational success, eventual professional must be educated.
achievement,and substantial contributions to society. Currently,some criticisms ofgifted education
Some educators—and many parents of non- include a strong spark of conscience-rending truth.
gifted students—are not swayed by the proposition In fact,White,middle-income,and Asian students
that unrecognized and unsupported talent is wasted tend to be overrepresented in gifted and talented
talent.A common reaction is,“Those kids will make it (G/T) programs, whereas African American,
on their own,”or “Give the extra help to kids who Hispanic,and low-income students are underrepre-
really need it!” The argument is that providing sented.The problem is drawing strong attention to
special services for highly able or talented students is identification strategies,with a move toward multi-
“elitist”—giving to the “haves” and ignoring the ple and culturally fair identification criteria
“have-nots”—and,therefore,unfair and undemocratic. (Chapter 3); to broadened conceptions of intelli-
Other criticisms refer to the costs ofadditional teach- gence and giftedness (later in Chapter 1); and even
ers and other resources,and to the idea that pullout to G/T program evaluation (Chapter 18) in the
programs or special classes remove good role models sense ofassessing effects on students notin the pro-
from the regular classroom.Many teachers feel that gram,other teachers,administrators,and the larger
students should adjust to the curriculum,rather than community (Borland,2003).
the other way around (Coleman & Cross,2000). Our “love–hate”relationship with gifted edu-
Naming the problem “sounds of silence,” cation has been noted by Gallagher (1997, 2003),
Sternberg (1996) itemized dismal ways in which Colangelo and Davis (2003),and others.We admire
society reacts to the needs of the gifted.Specifically, and applaud the individual who rises from a humble
federal funding is almost absent.There are no laws to background to high educational and career success.
protect the rights ofthe gifted,in contrast with many At the same time,as a nation we are committed to
laws protecting minorities and women.As Sternberg equality.
noted,gifted programs tend to be the last installed The educational pendulum swings back and
and the first to be axed.Disgruntled parents register forth between strong concern for excellence and a
their gifted children in private schools.Grade infla- zeal for equity; that is,between helping bright and
tion and pass–fail courses reward minimal work, creative students develop their capabilities and real-
leading gifted students to become listless and bored. ize their potential contributions to society,and help-
Sternberg reiterated some reasons behind the ing below-average and troubled students reach mini-
sounds ofsilence.Some see the programs as “welfare mum academic standards (more on No Child Left
for the rich.”Average children are the majority,and Behind (NCLB) later in this chapter).Although in-
their parents prefer not to support other parents’ terest in the gifted has mushroomed worldwide since
“pointy-headed”bright children.Besides,don’t gifted the mid-1970s,the pendulum is swinging forcefully
children possess great potential without special sup- back to equity.Programs for the gifted are being ter-
port? Some critics of gifted programs believe that minated because they are not “politically correct,”
gifted students are inherently selfish and that parents because ofbudget cutting,because ofthe lack ofsup-
of the gifted at PTA meetings are “the loudest and portive teachers and administrators, and because
least deserving.” gifted education is not mandated by the particular
Sternberg stressed the importance of altering state (Purcell,1995).
our attitudes and our behavior.Gifted children are Especially,the antitracking/antiability grouping
indeed our most valuable natural resource.We must movement and the No Child Left Behind legislation
recognize multiple forms of giftedness. We must have inflicted damage on G/T programs and on gifted
2
Gifted Education
children themselves.On the other hand,the Science- and cultivate their talents,but also teachers involved
Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) legis- with gifted students,who learn to stimulate creative,
lation,including the America Competes Act,holds artistic,and scientific thinking and to help students
hope for a small upswing ofthe pendulum,as do grant understand themselves,develop good self-concepts,
awards for critical foreign-language instruction. and value education and career accomplishments.In
America’s need to compete around the globe has short,teachers of the gifted become better teachers,
sometimes fueled educational initiatives favorable to and their skills benefit “regular” students as well.
gifted education. Society also reaps a profit.It is today’s gifted and tal-
Of course,America and the world need both ented students who will become tomorrow’s political
equity and excellence. Many students need special leaders,medical researchers,artists,writers,innova-
help. The rights of slower learners, students with tive engineers,and business entrepreneurs.Indeed,it
physical or psychological disabilities,and students is difficult to comprehend a proposal that this essen-
with language and cultural differences are vehemently tial talent be left to fend for itself—ifit can—instead
defended,and they should be.However,a good argu- of being valued, identified, and cultivated. U.S.
ment can be made that gifted students also have schools lag far behind other nations in tests of
rights and that these rights are often ignored.Just as science and math achievement (Mervis, 2007).
with other exceptional students,students with gifts Tomorrow’s promise is in today’s schools, and it
and talents also deserve an education commensurate must not be ignored.
with their capabilities.It is unfair to them to ignore,
or worse,to prevent the development oftheir special
skills and abilities and to depress their educational as- HISTORY OF GIFTEDNESS
pirations and eventual career achievements. Our AND GIFTED EDUCATION
democratic system promises each person—regardless
Giftedness Over the Centuries
of racial, cultural, or economic background and
regardless of sex or condition that is disabling—the Whether a person is judged “gifted”depends upon
opportunity to develop as an individual as far as that the values of the culture.General academic skills or
person’s talents and motivation will permit. This talents in more specific aesthetic, scientific, eco-
guarantee seems to promise that opportunities and nomic,or athletic areas have not always been judged
training will be provided to help gifted and talented as desirable “gifts.”
students realize their innate potential. In ancient Sparta,for example,military skills
To those who argue that gifted students will were so exclusively valued that all boys,beginning at
“make it on their own,”sensible replies are that (a) they age 7,received schooling and training in the arts of
should not be held back and required to succeed in combat and warfare.Babies with physical defects,or
spite ofa frustrating educational system,and (b) some who otherwise were of questionable value, were
do not make it on their own.Rimm (2003b),for exam- flung offa cliff(Meyer,1965).
ple,cited research showing that 10% to 20% of high In Athens,social position and gender deter-
school dropouts are in the tested gifted range.Almost mined opportunities.Upper-class free Greeks sent
invariably, gifted dropouts are underachievers— their boys to private schools that taught reading,
talented students who are unguided,uncounseled,and writing,arithmetic,history,literature,the arts,and
unchallenged (Renzulli & Park,2002; Rimm,2003, physical fitness.Sophists were hired to teach young
2008c;Whitmore,1980).The widely cited A Nation at men mathematics,logic,rhetoric,politics,grammar,
Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in general culture,and “disputation.”Apparently,only
Education (1983) reported that “over halfthe popula- Plato’s Academy charged no fees and selected both
tion ofgifted students do not match their tested ability young men and women on the basis of intelligence
with comparable achievement in school.” and physical stamina,not social class.
It is not only the gifted students themselves Roman education emphasized architecture,
who benefit from specific programs that recognize engineering,law,and administration.Both boys and
3
Gifted Education
girls attended first-level (elementary) schools,and on academic achievement and the ability to pay the
some girls attended second-level (grammar) schools, fees (Newland,1976).
but higher education was restricted to boys.Rome With compulsory attendance laws,schooling
valued mother and family,however,and some gifted became available to all,but special services for gifted
women emerged who greatly affected Roman society, children were sparse (Abraham,1976; Greenlaw &
most notably Cornelia,Roman matron and mother McIntosh,1988; Heck,1953;Witty,1967,1971).A
ofstatesmen Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus. few bright spots were as follows:
Early China,beginning with the Tang Dynasty
• In 1870 St.Louis,Missouri,initiated tracking,
in A.D.618,valued gifted children and youth,sending
which allowed some students to accelerate
child prodigies to the imperial court, where their
through the first eight grades in fewer than
gifts were both recognized and cultivated.Chinese
8 years.
leaders anticipated several principles ofmodern G/T
• In 1884 Woburn,Massachusetts,created the
education.They accepted a multiple-talent concept
“Double Tillage Plan,” a form of grade-
of giftedness, valuing literary ability, leadership,
skipping in which bright children attended the
imagination,and originality,and such intellectual
first semester of first grade,then switched di-
and perceptual abilities as reading speed,memory,
rectly into the second semester ofsecond grade.
reasoning,and perceptual sensitivity (Tsuin-chen,
• In 1886 schools in Elizabeth,New Jersey,began
1961). They also recognized (a) apparently pre-
a multiple-tracking system that permitted
cocious youths who grow up to be average adults,
gifted learners to progress at a faster pace.
(b) seemingly average youths whose gifts emerge later,
• In 1891 Cambridge, Massachusetts, schools
and (c) true child prodigies,whose gifts and talents
developed a “double-track”plan;also,special
are apparent throughout their lives.An important
tutors taught students capable of even more
point,attributed to Confucius about 500 B.C.,is that
highly accelerated work.
the Chinese recognized that education should be
• Around 1900 some “rapid progress” classes
available to all children,but all children should be
appeared that telescoped three years ofschool-
educated differently according to their abilities.
work into two.
In Japan, birth again determined opportu-
• In 1901 Worcester,Massachusetts,opened the
nities.During the Tokugawa Society period,1604–1868
first special school for gifted children.
(Anderson,1975),Samurai children received train-
• In 1916 “opportunity classes”(special classes)
ing in Confucian classics,martial arts,history,com-
were created for gifted children in Los Angeles,
position, calligraphy, moral values, and etiquette.
California,and Cincinnati,Ohio.
Commoners, conveniently, were taught loyalty,
• By about 1920 approximately two-thirds ofall
obedience,humility,and diligence.A few scholars
larger cities had created some type ofprogram
established private academies for intellectually gifted
for gifted students;for example,special classes
children,both Samurai and common.
were begun in 1919 in Urbana,Illinois,and in
Aesthetics influenced Renaissance Europe,
1922 in Manhattan,New York,and Cleveland,
which valued and produced remarkable art,architec-
Ohio.
ture,and literature.Strong governments sought out
and rewarded the creatively gifted—for example, In the 1920s and into the 1930s, interest in
Michelangelo,Da Vinci,Boccaccio,Bernini,and Dante. gifted education dwindled,apparently for two good
reasons.Dean Worcester referred to the 1920s as “the
age of the common man”and “the age of medioc-
Giftedness in America
rity,”a time when “the idea was to have everybody
In early America,concern for the education ofgifted just as near alike as they could be”(Getzels, 1977,
and talented children was not great. Some gifted pp. 263–264). Administrators had no interest in
youth were accommodated in the sense that atten- helping any student achieve beyond the standard;the
dance at secondary school and college was based both focus was on equity.The second reason was the Great
4
Gifted Education
Depression,which reduced most people’s concern to keen senses—persons who could more easily detect
mere survival.Providing special opportunities for food sources or sense approaching danger.Therefore,
gifted children was low on the totem pole. he concluded that one’s sensory ability—that is,
intelligence—is due to natural selection and heredity.
Giftedness in Europe The hereditary basis ofintelligence seemed to be con-
firmed by his observations—reported in his most
In contrast with the United States,tracking and abil-
famous book, Hereditary Genius (Galton, 1869)—
ity grouping (streaming) have not been as con-
that distinguished persons seemed to come from
tentious in Europe (Passow,1997).On the surface,
succeeding generations of distinguished families.
not much was said about “the gifted.”However,the
Galton initially overlooked the fact that members of
structure of the European national school systems
distinguished,aristocratic families also traditionally
was openly geared to identifying and educating the
inherit a superior environment,wealth,privilege,and
most intellectually able.Ability grouping,particu-
opportunity—incidentals that make it easier to be-
larly, has been a traditional way to identify able
come distinguished.
learners and channel their education.
Galton’s emphasis on the high heritability of
In England,as distinct from the rest ofEurope,
intelligence is shared by many leading intelligence
the strong class consciousness that has pervaded
researchers (e.g.,Gottfredson,1997a,2003;Herrnstein
British society,which includes resentment of inher-
& Murray,1994;Jensen,1969;Jensen & Miele,2002;
ited (unearned) wealth and titles,led to an egalitar-
Plomin,DeFries,McClearn,& McGuffin,2001).
ian reluctance to spend scarce educational funds to
help gifted students, who seemed already advan-
taged.Not until the late 1990s did gifted education Roots of Modern Intelligence Tests:
gain momentum in England (Gross,2003). Alfred Binet
Modern intelligence tests have their roots in France
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY in the 1890s.Alfred Binet,aided by T.Simon,was
OF GIFTED EDUCATION hired by government officials in Paris to devise a test
to identify which (dull) children would not benefit
Recent history underlying today’s strong interest in
from regular classes,and therefore,should be placed
gifted education begins with capsule stories of the
in special classes to receive special training. Even
contributions of Francis Galton,Alfred Binet,Lewis
then,someone had perceptively noticed that teach-
Terman,and Leta Hollingworth,followed by the im-
ers’judgments ofstudent ability sometimes were bi-
pact of Russia’s Sputnik,a look at the gifted move-
ased by such traits as docility,neatness,and social
ment in America and worldwide,and at gifted edu-
skills.Some children were placed in schools for the
cation in the 21st century.
mentally challenged because they were too quiet,
were too aggressive,or had problems with speech,
Hereditary Genius: Sir Francis Galton
hearing,or vision.A direct test of intelligence was
The English scientist Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911), badly needed.
a younger cousin ofCharles Darwin,is credited with Binet tried a number of tests that failed. It
the earliest significant research and writing devoted seemed that normal students and dull students were
to intelligence testing.Galton believed that intelli- not particularly different in (a) hand-squeezing
gence was related to the keenness ofone’s senses—for strength,(b) hand speed in moving 50 cm (almost 20
example,vision,audition,smell,touch,and reaction inches),(c) the amount of pressure on the forehead
time.His efforts to measure intelligence,therefore, that causes pain,(d) detecting differences in hand-
involved such tests as those of visual and auditory held weights,or (e) reaction time to sounds or in
acuity,tactile sensitivity,and reaction time.Impressed naming colors.When he measured the ability to pay
by cousin Charles’s Origin of the Species, Galton attention,memory,judgment,reasoning,and com-
reasoned that evolution would favor persons with prehension, he began to obtain results. The tests
5