talent talks issues2

8/9/2019 Talent Talks Issues2

1/19

Page 1

FROM THE EDITORSThe first issue was very well received by mem-

bers of IRATDE and we thank everyone for

their kind words and encouragement. The sec-

ond issue of Talent Talks has been a pleasure

to put together. This issue reports on the re-

cent symposium on giftedness and creativity at

King Faisal University in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Ara-

bia. We also bring you an update of research

trends in the study of giftedness, focusing on the years 2008

to early 2010. In the Spotlight on Talent, we learn about DevilSticks and the German virtuoso Markus Furtner. For this inter-

view we thank the team offive interviewers from University of

Munich.

In Talent News, we bring you an article describing ex-

cellence from the Russian perspective. Marina Fidelmans report

provides an overview of the domains of talent development and

their research in understanding excellence. Marold Reutlingers

report in Student News brings to us an innovative application

of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness in understanding the re-

lationship between learning environment and academic achieve-ment. Marolds brief report highlights the idea that the learning

environment is a subjective concept and that different learning

environments contribute in different ways to academic achieve-

ment.

Talent Talks belongs to the members

of IRATDE. Please support Talent Talks by

contributing items of interest and by letting

your colleagues know about us. We welcome

submissions in all areas, including short pro-

files of researchers, concise research findings

and discussions of recently published and in-

teresting research. We particularly welcome

contributions of students research, including undergraduate

and doctoral studies. If you wish to advertise a forthcoming

course, workshop or conference, please also let us know. Please

contact us by email ([email protected]). We would also like

to sincerely thank Mr. Jan Gube, our talented and efficient re-

search assistant for his work.

Best wishes,

Sivanes Phillipson1 PhD and Shane N. Phillipson2 PhD1Hong Kong Baptist University2The Hong Kong Institute of Education

Hong Kong

FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Welcome to the second edition of ournewsletter. The members of IRATDEhave been quite active and there are sig-nificant events to report since the last edi-tion of Talent Talks. At the top of thelist is the recent Scientific Symposium ofGiftedness and Creativity, which was heldto great success at King Faisal Universityon May 31st through June 2nd in Al-Ah-

sa, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Thetitle of the Symposium was Nurturing Giftedness StartsEarly and it explored the themes of the importance of theearly identification and nurturing of gifted children (moredetails about the symposium are available in the IRATDEreport available on our website). Similarly, reflecting thetruly international nature of our organization, the first inter-national conference of the IRATDE was held from October30th through November 2nd in Xian China and was enti-tled International Conference on the Cultivation and Edu-cation of Creativity and Innovation. This period has also

witnessed a rapid increase in membership in IRATDE, with215 members representing 48 countries. In addition, the newissue of our journal Talent Development and Excellence(available from our homepage) is now available.

I would also like to take this opportunity to encour-age members to be more involved in IRATDE activities these are momentous times for our organization and wewelcome all members participation and involvement. Lastly,I would like to thank the editors of Talent Talks, Prof. ShaneN. Phillipson, and Dr. Sivanes Phillipson, as well as the Ed-itors-in-Chief of the IRATDE Journal Prof. Albert Zieglerand Prof. Jiannong Shi for their tireless efforts in helping tospread the message and vision of IRATDE.

Abdullah M. AljughaimanIRATDE President

The official newsletter of The International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence (IRATDE)

Issue 2 - July 2010

TALENTTalks

Sivanes PhillipsonProf.Abdullah M.Aljughaiman

Shane Phillipson

a s ontent

RATDE Report pp 2-4 Research Briefs pp 5-10

onference Corner p 10 Spotlight on Talent pp 11-12

alent News pp 13-16 Student News pp 17-19


2/19

Page 2

IRATDE REPORTThe Scientific Symposium of Giftedness & Creativity

"Nurturing Giftedness Starts Early"

Prof. Abdullah Aljughaiman

Director of the National Research Center for Giftedness and Creativity, King Faisal University and President of IRATDEIntroduction

The city of Al-Ahsa in the Kingdomof Saudi Arabia played host to atruly groundbreaking event on May 31through June 2, 2010. The ScientificSymposium of Giftedness and Creativ-ity, sponsored jointly by the NationalResearch Center for Giftedness andCreativity at King Faisal University, TheInternational Research Association for

Talent Development and Excellence(IRATDE), and the Al-Ahsa SchoolDistrict, brought together experts inthe field of Gifted Education to ex-plore the theme of the symposium:"Nurturing Giftedness Starts Early".

Key Themes & Objectives:

In keeping with the main theme of thesymposium, Nurturing GiftednessStarts Early, the activities of the sym-

posium focused on four core areas inthe field of Gifted Education:

1) Nurturing giftedness amongchildren in pre-school and early ele-mentary grades.2) Identification of giftednessamong children in pre-school and early

The themes of the symposium wereclosely related to and supportive of thesymposium objectives:

1) Bringing about awareness ofpre-school and early elementary giftededucation programs among all partiesconcerned with the development ofchildren; including academicians, edu-cators, counselors, and parents.2) Investigation of practices for

the identification of gifted children inpre-school and early elementary grades.3) Introduction of novel models

elementary grades.3) Presentation of pre-schooland early elementary gifted educationprograms.4) Presentation of teacher edu-cation programs for educators of thegifted.

Prof. Albert Ziegler conducts a workshop entitled Fostering Students Motivation on the campus ofKing Faisal University as part of the Scientific Symposium of Giftedness and Creativity.

Female attendees at the Scientific Symposium of Giftedness & Creativity enjoy a presentation at theIntercontinental Hotel, Al-Ahsa Saudi Arabia, May 31 - June 2, 2010.

Prof. Abdullah Aljughaiman addresses the attend-ees at the Intercontinental Hotel.


3/19

Page 3

from international and Arabic arenasfor pre-school and early elementarygrades.4) Exchange of experiences be-tween regional and international spe-cialists in the pre-school and early el-ementary stages.

Participants

The Scientific Symposium of Gifted-ness and Creativity was fortunate to beable to provide attendees with expertisegathered from a broad range of inter-

national leaders in the field of GiftedEducation and research. 260 attendeesbenefitted from the range of knowl-edge and mastery from 23 presenters,representing 9 countries, including ourkeynote speakers:

Prof. Albert Ziegler Institute ofPsychology and Education, UlmUniversity, Germany, SecretaryGeneral of IRATDE

Prof. Heidrun Stoeger Chair forSchool Research Development andEvaluation, Regensburg Univer-sity, Germany, Vice President ofIRATDE

Prof. Jiannong Shi Director ofthe Division of Developmen-tal and Educational Psychology,Director of the Research Center

for Supernormal Children at theInstitute of Psychology, ChineseAcademy of Sciences, Peoples Re-public of China, and Treasurer of

IRATDE

Prof. Nansook Park Professorof Psychology at the University ofMichigan, USA

Prof. Abdullah Aljughaiman

Conference Chair, Director of theNational Research Center for Gift-edness and Creativity at King FaisalUniversity, President of IRATDE

Symposium Activities

Activities at the symposium included

practical workshops given by keynotespeakers as well as scientific sessionsincluding lectures and the presenta-tion of scientific papers related to thekey themes of the symposium. Twentythree papers were presented covering abroad range of research topics related

to the symposium themes. In addition,the creative projects of some of thegifted students of the Al-Ahsa schooldistrict were on exhibition throughoutthe symposium. Workshops were heldat the King Faisal University campusand included the following topics:

Prof. Albert Ziegler and Prof. AbdullahAljughaiman discuss events in the workshop enti-

tled Fostering Students Motivation

Prof. Albert Ziegler, Dr. Ali Jassam and Prof. Jiannong Shi engage in a scholarly discussion in the pro-ceedings of the Scientific Symposium of Giftedness and Creativity.

Prof. Heidrun Stoeger during an evening visit to the historic Ibrahim Palace (located in downtown Hofuf)as part of the tourist activities of the symposium, June 1 2010, Hofuf, Saudi Arabia.


4/19

Page 4

Attendees pose for a picture at the conclusion of the workshop entitled Fostering Students Motivation on the campus of King Faisal University as partof the Scientific Symposium of Giftedness and Creativity held in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia, May 31-July 2, 2010.

Fostering Student MotivationProf. Albert Ziegler

The ENTER Model: Identifyingand Nurturing Pre-School GiftedStudents

Prof. Heidrun Stoeger

Social Activities

Attendees to the Scientific Symposium

were treated to the myriad recreationaland historical opportunities that Al-Ahsa offers its guests. Chartered busesdelivered participants to the unique lo-calities of the region, including:- Gara Mountain and Caves- Pottery and Handcrafts Market- Al-Okair Beach

- Ibrahim Historical Palace- Al-Ahsa Historical Museum

Participants commented ontheir amazement and enjoyment infinding such a rich combination of so-cial, historical and distinctive culturalexperiences in Al-Ahsa.

Conclusion

The Scientific Symposium on Gifted-ness and Creativity achieved the objec-tives of bringing together internationalexperts in the field of Gifted Educa-tion and research to push forward thediscussion of the key themes of thesymposium the importance of earlyidentification and nurturing of gifted

children. In addition, the symposiumserved to increase awareness aboutthese key themes and to point towardsimportant directions for future practiceand research in gifted education.

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank RamiShebab and Sameera Lag for provid-ing the journalist photos, and Matthew

Berki for the photo captions.

Female attendees of the symposium enjoy an excur-sion to Gara Mountain, overlooking the Al-Ahsaoasis the largest sweet water oasis in the Arabian

Peninsula, June 1 2010.

Attendees enjoy the cool refuge provided by the caves of Mount Gara as part of the tourist activities of theScientific Symposium of Giftedness and Creativity in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia May 31-July 2, 2010.


5/19

Page 5

ESEARCH BRIEFRecent trends in the study of giftedness

Cristina Oarga Bettina Harder Heidrun Stoeger, & Albert Ziegler1University of Munich, Germany, 2Ulm University, Germany, 3University of Regensburg, Germany

The objective of this contributionis the identification of the maintrends in recent giftedness research. Tothis end all articles published betweenthe beginning of 2008 and February2010 in four influential scholarly jour-nals solely dedicated to giftedness re-search (Gifted Child Quarterly, High Ability Studies, Roeper Review, and Talent Development & Excellence)

were analyzed. We will start with a shortoverview of some basic characteristicsof research conducted in this area andthen discuss the most interestingfind-ings. This selection is, of course, highlysubjective and reflects our own researchinterests.

The articles

All in all, 187 publications were ana-lyzed. Interestingly, the number ofempirical and non-empirical studies isnearly equal with 90 empirical and 97non-empirical studies.

Only three of the empiricalstudies were based on a longitudinaldesign. Within educational sciences

such a low rate usually indicates thata research branch was underfinanced.Among the 90 empirical studies, the 70using quantitative research designs sig-nificantly outnumber the 20 based onqualitative approaches. The methodsof the qualitative studies usually fo-cused on groups, case studies, or semi-

structured interviews.

The most frequent methodsused for the identification of giftedstudy participants are, in descendingorder:

Intelligence tests (e.g., Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale(WAIS) and Children Intelligence Scale

(WISC), Stanford Binet Test, RavensProgressive Matrices Test),

Ability/achievement tests (e.g.,SAT, Add Health Picture Vocabulary Test, Cognitive Ability Test, GiftedRating Scales, Clarks Drawing AbilitiesTest),

Figure 1. The most frequently researched topics in the examined 187 studies (total numbers reported)

Number of researched topics in themes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Identification

Twice exceptional

Motivation

Program evaluation

Development theories

Cultural aspects

Others

ResearchTo

pics

Number of Studies


6/19

Page 6

i. grade point average,ii. teachers nomination,iii. parent recommendation,iv. essays, v. portfolios.

Only a minority of the studies com-bined multiple methods of identifica-tion.

Overview of topics

While the topics investigated are char-acterized by high diversity, some recur-rent themes can nevertheless be noted.Figure 1 illustrates the most commonresearch topics.

The studies mainly focused on

identification procedures (validation ofdifferent tests), motivation (self-con-cept, self-efficacy, coping with stress),development theories related to gifted-ness, the link between psychologicaldisorders / disabilities and giftedness(twice-exceptional students), evalua-tion of programs, and cultural aspects.For almost all of these variables, theauthors usually investigated whetherthere were differences between gifted

and average children. Numerous stud-ies did, however, focus exclusively ongifted children by analyzing in depththeir personality or cognitive character-istics.

Selected findings

a) Identification of gifted students

One frequent topic was the identifica-tion of gifted students. Studies usuallyfocused on the reliability and validity of

procedures and tests. The authors of-ten referred to general ability tests, butthey also employed specific ones (of,for example, drawing abilities or verbalabilities). Most of the studies were em-pirical, but some were literature reviewsconcerned with different identificationprocedures.

An interesting screening pro-cedure used in the studies was theGifted Rating Scale (GRS), which was validated for preschoolers (Pfeiffer &Petscher, 2008) and for school childrenbetween the ages of 9 and 13 (Pfeiffer,

Petscher, & Kumtepe, 2008). With re-gard to the preschool form, the authorspointed out that two factors in particu-lar, the early identification of giftedpreschool children and the timely pro-vision of an appropriate educational in-tervention, increased the probability offuture extraordinary achievement. Thatwas why it was critical to use a compre-hensive method in assessing the poten-tial of preschool children. An impor-tant aspect of the screening method forpreschool children was that it has beenshown to be effective independentlyof the cutoff score used to demarcateintellectual giftedness (115, 120, 125,or 130). The scales for school childrentouched upon very similar topics. Both

forms included scales for:

- Intellectual ability (verbal andnon-verbal mental skills);- Academic ability (the ability todeal with early childhood curriculummaterial);- Creativity (the ability to pro-duce original thoughts or products);- Artistic talent (in the field ofdrawing, theatre, music) and;

- Motivation (refers to childsdrive persistence and desire to suc-ceed).

In addition, the school formalso included a leadership scale whichmeasured the students ability to mo-tivate others toward a common goal.In a cross-validation study the authorscould not find any differences regard-ing gender, race, or age. However, in a

study by Li, Pfeiffer, Petscher, Kumpt-epe, & Mo (2008) using a Chinese version of the GRS-S, the sample ofChinese elementary and middle-schoolstudents showed gender and age differ-ences. Most interestingly, Chinese girlswere rated higher than Chinese boys onall of the scales.

Besides taking a close lookat the procedures used to assess onespotential in general, several articlesfocused on specific abilities. For ex-ample, the scores on the ImpossibleFigures Task (IFT-14), the Mental Ro-

tation Test, and self ratings on the Ar-tistic Characteristics Rating Scale werefound to differentiate amongfine artsstudents, architecture students, and stu-dents from arts faculty (Chan, 2008).

Several studies examined theidentification of giftedness by meas-urements of fluid reasoning ability vianonverbal tests. One of the widely as-sumed strengths of such measurementsis that they can be used for assessingthe ability of students who are not flu-ent speakers of the test instructors lan-guage (Lohman, Korb, & Lakin, 2008).Frequently used tests were, for exam-ple, the Raven Standard ProgressiveMatrices (Raven), the Naglieri Non-

verbal Ability Test (NNAT), and theCognitive Abilities Test (CogAT). Twostudies arrived at important conclu-sions (Carman & Taylor, 2010; Lohm-an et al., 2008). First, it was investigatedwhether the nonverbal reasoning testsleveled the field for English LanguageLearner (ELL) children. Yet ELL chil-dren scored eight to ten points lowerthan non-ELL children on the threeaforementioned non-verbal tests. Sec-

ondly, Carman and Taylor (2010) inves-tigated whether socioeconomic status(SES) had a significant effect on per-formance on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) and arrived atresults similar to those of Lohman etal. (2008). Indeed, the nonverbal testsdid not level the field for all students;on the contrary, in this study studentsfrom average to high SES families weretwice as likely to be identified as gifted

than those from low SES families. Onecan thus conclude that nonverbal testsdesigned to identify gifted and talentedchildren should be applied with greatcaution in the case of children fromfamilies of low SES or who are non-native speakers. The studies authorsrecommended avoiding the use of onlyone such test at any point in the screen-ing process and suggested employingmultiple identification methods.

Several contributions offeredsignificant conceptual analyses on thetopic of identification. Callahan (2009)


7/19

Page 7

thoroughly discusses the myth thatthere must be winners and losers inthe identification procedure. She pointsout that state policies usually regard thelabeling process of gifted children asbeing more important than the devel-opment of an appropriate curriculum. And, as a consequence, this attitudeencourages the aforementioned mythby unduly stressing the conviction thatgifted students are elite students andthus implying that other students mustin turn be losers. As there are fewerprograms targeting minorities, second-language, and low-income students,gifted students within these groups areoften not identified.

b) Motivation Another issue which has been thesubject of recurrent empirical inves-tigation is motivation with a focus onself-concept, self-efficacy, passion, andperfectionism. For example, Schickand Phillipson (2009) emphasized theimportance of self-efficacy and per-sonal identity. They came to the con-clusion that these variables were moreimportant than general intelligence for

the prediction of learning motivation.Moreover, self-efficacy has been shownto directly influence scientific inquiryskills; it even has a greater impact thanself-regulatory strategies (Yoon, 2009).

Hoogeveen, Hell, and Verho-even (2009) examined the self-conceptof accelerated and non-accelerated stu-dents. While accelerated students pos-sessed a more positive social self-con-

cept, they achieved a lower social statusamong peers than their non-acceleratedcounterparts and were considered to beless cooperative. Clearly, this finding isextremely important for gifted educa-tion.

The validity and reliability ofboth Marshs Self-Description Ques-tionnaire III and Harters Self-Percep-tions Profile for College Students wasalso investigated (Rinn & Cunningham,2008; Rudasill & Callahan, 2008). In afurther study, the validity of HartersSelf-Perceptions Profile for Children

and Adolescents was analyzed (Rudasill& Callahan, 2008). Both investigationsprovide evidence indicating the high re-liability and validity of the self-conceptquestionnaires and thus support theiruse for high-ability students.

Preckel, Goetz, Pekrun, andKleine (2008) examined gender dif-ferences in the areas of self-concept,interest, and motivation. The authorsfound that girls scored lower in theseareas while gender differences weremore pronounced in high-ability thanin average-ability students.

The issue of ability and effortattribution and its connection to inter-

ests was judged by research literaturedealing with motivation to be of the ut-most importance. The study by Siegle,Rubenstein, Pollard, and Romey (2010),for example, showed a positive rela-tionship between students interest in atalent domain and their assessment oftheir skill in that domain. The strong-est relationships tend to exist in non-academic areas. This result is consistent with the findings of a study by Fre-

dricks, Alfeld, and Eccles (2010), whichhighlighted that males put considerablymore emphasis on ability, while femalesindicated that personal effort is moreimportant for high performance, afinding also supported by the study ofTang and Neber (2008).

Concepts such as positiveand negative perfectionism were ana-lyzed in some studies as well. A five-

dimensional model for perfectionismevaluation includes constructs of per-sonal standards, parental expectations,parental criticism, concern over mis-takes and doubts, and organization.The results indicated that the negativeperfectionists had high scores on allfi ve dimensions, whereas the positiveperfectionists scored high on standardsand organization, and low on parentalcriticism and concern over mistakesand doubts (Chan, 2009). In anotherstudy, Chan (2008) showed that giftedstudents were more willing to embracepositive perfectionism, and that learn-

ing and social goal orientations emergedas significant predictors of positiveperfectionism, whereas performanceand avoidance goal were more relevantfor negative perfectionism.

c) Twice-exceptional students

Another common topic in research lit-erature is that of gifted students withpsychological disorders/disabilities,a group for whom the term twice-ex-ceptional students has been suggested.Hannah and Shore (2008) comparedmeta-cognitive strategies for problem-solving in gifted vs. learning-disabledand gifted students. Twice-exceptionalstudents used meta-cognitive strategiessimilarly but they demonstrated a lack

of confidence in their own knowledgewhen confronted with inconsistent in-formation.

Assouline, Nicpon, and Doo-bay (2009) compared two profoundlygifted girls, one with autism spectrumdisorder (ASD) and the other one with-out ASD. In terms of academic andcognitive functioning, these profoundlygifted girls were almost indistinguish-

able on the Wechsler Intelligence Scalefor Children (WISC-IV) and on the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Bat-tery. To distinguish a gifted child withsocial difficulties from one with a disa-bility, additional measures and in-depthanalysis would be more useful. Thenecessity of a more comprehensive ap-proach to identifying twice-exceptionalstudents is also supported by Assouline,Nicpon, and Whiteman (2010).

A comprehensive neuron-de-velopmental framework for the analysisand understanding of twice-exception-al children is suggested by Gilger andHynd (2008). They argued that deficitsand strengths may originate from oneand the same atypical brain develop-ment mechanism and that, therefore,symptoms of twice exceptionalityshould be viewed in a holistic but mul-tifaceted manner.

d) Program Evaluation

In their study of data provided by six


8/19

Page 8

major talent search centers, Lee, Mat-thews, and Olszewski-Kubilius (2008)found disproportionally higher repre-sentations of Caucasian children andparticipants with higher socioeconomicbackgrounds. Some other studies ex-amined programs targeting minoritystudents in particular. Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Peternel (2009), for in-stance, described the EXCITE projectthat focused on math and science. Theauthors found several positive effectsof the EXCITE project, for exampleon students persistence and aspira-tions. Another program was that ofthe Leonardo Laboratory (Newman etal., 2009) which targets underachiev-ers with visual-spatial gifts. It consists

of ten workshops that invite studentsto complete experimental projects bybuilding models in the areas of arts,architecture, engineering, and science.The results of this study showed thatalthough the students in the programdid not demonstrate statistically sig-nificant gains in academic skills, theydid show gains in self-efficacy and im-provements in organizational skills.

Duan, Shi, and Zhou (2010)demonstrated positive effects of ac-celerated programs. They investigateddevelopmental changes in processingspeed, finding that the reaction time ofgifted children who had received accel-erated education in gifted programs wassignificantly faster than that of childrenwho had received standard education atevery age. The importance of advancedplacement is also supported by Burney

(2010) and Gavin, Casa, Adelson, Car-roll, and Sheffield (2009). The latterresearch group found that the develop-ment of specific mathematics curricu-lum units, which were challenging andengaging with a focus on importantmathematics concepts and which en-couraged students to think and act likepracticing mathematicians, contributedto students mathematics achievement.

Although parents of giftedchildren reported great satisfaction with advanced placement (Noble,Childers, & Vaughan, 2008), student

reports showed rather mixed results. Ina qualitative study by Hertberg-Davisand Callahan (2008), evidence present-ed showed that students believed thatadvanced placement (AP) and Inter-national Baccalaureate (IB) programsprovide a greater level of academicchallenge and more favorable learningenvironments than other existing high-school courses. However, the curricu-lum and instruction within AP and IBcourses were not perceived as fittingthe needs of all learners, particularlynot of those from traditionally under-served populations. Still, when askedto choose between academic successand social lives, students enrolled ininternational baccalaureate programs

were quite optimistic that they couldmaintain both high levels of academicsuccess and healthy social lives (Foust,Hertberg-Davis, & Callahan, 2008).

e) Models of development

Various contributions are concerned with models of development applica-ble to studying giftedness. One theoryapplied quite often, however mostly innon-empirical studies, is the positive

disintegration theory of Dabrowski(Ackerman, 2009; Jackson & Moyle,2009; Laycraft, 2009; Mrz, 2009; Pi-irto, Montgomery, & May, 2008; Rinn,Mendaglio, Rudasill, & McQueen,2010). According to Dabrowski, posi-tive disintegration is mental develop-ment described by the process of tran-sition from lower to higher levels ofmental life and is stimulated by tension,inner conflict, struggle, anxiety, and de-

spair.

Another model employed in various studies is Zieglers ActiotopeModel of Giftedness (Ziegler, 2005). This model conceptualizes the devel-opment of giftedness as a complex se-ries of interactions between a personsaction repertoire, his or her subjectiveaction space, goals, and environment.Phillipson and Sun (2009) did researchon this model. Their publication repre-sents a major step in giftedness researchas it was the first work to propose andlay the foundation for computer simu-

lation of a giftedness model.

f) Cultural aspects

Various contributions aim at raisingawareness about cultural factors thatplay an important role in processessuch as identification, acculturation,and academic advancement. Whit-ing (2009), for example, highlightedthe achievement barriers that giftedblack males are facing. These barriersare identity and self-perception, peer-pressure, social injustices, beliefs aboutachievement, and notions of masculin-ity. Similar results were found in thestudy by Yoon and Gentry (2009). Theyemphasized the under-representationof ethnic groups like American Indi-

ans, Alaska Natives, Hispanics, and Af-rican Americans.ReferencesAckerman, C.M. (2009). The essential elements

of Dabrowskis theory of positive disinte-gration and how they are connected. RoeperReview, 3, 8195.

Assouline, S.G., Nicpon, M.F., & Doobay, A.(2009). Profoundly gifted girls and autismspectrum disorder: A psychometric casestudy comparison. Gifted Child Quarterly,

53, 89105.

Assouline, S.G., Nicpon, M.F., & Whiteman, C.(2010). Cognitive and psychosocial charac-teristics of gifted students with written lan-guage disability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54,102115.

Burney, V.H. (2010). High achievement onadvanced placement exams: The relation-ship of school-level contextual factors toperformance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54,116126.

Callahan, C.M. (2009). Myth 3: A family ofidentification myths Your sample must bethe same as the population. There is a sil-ver bullet in identification. There must bewinners and losers in identification andprogramming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53,239241.

Carman, C.A., & Taylor, D.K. (2010). Socio-economic status effects on using the NaglieriNonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to identifythe gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly,54, 7584.

Chan, D.W. (2008). Assessing visual-spatial tal-ents: The use of the impossible figures taskwith Chinese students in Hong Kong. HighAbility Studies, 19, 173187.


9/19

Page 9

Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 137156.

Li, H., Pfeiffer, S.I., Petscher, Y., Kumptepe,A., & Mo, G. (2008). Validation of the Gift-ed Rating Scales-School Form in China.Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 160169.

Lohman, D.F., Korb, K.A., & Lakin, J.M.

(2008). Identifying academically giftedEnglish-language learners using nonverbaltests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT,and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52,275296.

Mrz, A. (2009). Theory of positive disinte-gration as a basis for research on assistingdevelopment. Roeper Review, 31, 96102.

Newman, T.M., Brown, W., Hart, L., Macomb-er, D., Doyle, N., Kornilov, S.A., Jarvin, L.,Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2009).

The Leonardo Laboratory: Developing tar-

geted programs for academic underachiev-ers with visual-spatial gifts. Talent Develop-ment & Excellence, 1, 6778.

Noble, K.D., Childers, S.A., & Vaughan, R.C.(2008). A place to be celebrated and un-derstood; the impact of early university en-trance from parents points of view. GiftedChild Quarterly, 53, 188202.

Pfeiffer, S.I., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Identifyingyoung gifted children using the Gifted Rat-ing Scales-Preschool/Kindergarten Form.Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 1929.

Pfeiffer, S.I., Petscher, Y., & Kumtepe, A.(2008). The Gifted Rating Scales-SchoolForm: A validation study based on age, gen-der, and race. Roeper Review, 30, 140146.

Phillipson, S.N., & Sun, R. (2009). Modelingmathematical Actiotopes: The potentialrole of CLARION. Talent Development &Excellence, 1, 2743.

Piirto, J., Montgomery, D., & May, J. (2008). Acomparison of Dabrowskis overexcitabili-

ties by gender for American and Koreanhigh school gifted students. High AbilityStudies, 19, 141153.

Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine M.(2008). Gender differences in gifted andaverage-ability students. Comparing girlsand boys achievement, self-concept, inter-est, and motivation in mathematics. GiftedChild Quarterly, 52, 146159.

Rinn, A.N., & Cunningham, L.G. (2008). Usingself-concept instruments with high-abilitycollege students: Reliability and validity evi-

dence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 232242.

Rinn, A.N., Mendaglio, S., Rudasill, K.M., &McQueen, K.S. (2010). Examining the re-lationship between the overexcitabilities

Chan, D.W. (2009). Dimensionality and typologyof perfectionism: The use of the Frost Mul-tidimensional Perfectionism Scale with Chi-nese gifted students in Hong Kong. GiftedChild Quarterly, 53, 174187.

Duan, X., Shi, J., & Zhou, D. (2010). Develop-mental changes in processing speed: Influ-

ence of accelerated education for gifted chil-dren. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 8591.he

Foust, R.C., Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan,C.M. (2008). Having it all at sleeps ex-pense: The forced choice of participants inadvanced placement courses and Interna-tional Baccalaureate programs. Roeper Re-view, 30, 121129.

Fredricks, J.A, Alfeld, C., & Eccles, J. (2010). De-veloping and fostering passion in academicand non-academic domains. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 54, 1830.

Gavin, M.K., Casa, T.M., Adelson, J.L., CarrollS.R., & Sheffield L.J. (2009). The impact ofadvanced curriculum on the achievement ofmathematically promising elementary stu-dents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 188202.

Gilger, J.W., & Hynd, G.W. (2008). Neurode- velopmental variation as a framework forthinking about the twice exceptional. RoeperReview, 30, 214228.

Hannah, C.L., & Shore, B.M. (2008). Twice-exceptional students use of metacognitiveskills on a comprehension monitoring task.Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 318.

Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C.M. (2008). Anarrow escape; gifted students perceptionsof advanced placement and InternationalBaccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quar-terly, 52, 199216.

Hoogeveen, L., Hell, J.G., & Verhoeven, L.(2009). Self-concept and social status of ac-celerated and nonaccelerated students in thefirst 2 years of secondary school in the Neth-

erlands. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 5067.

Jackson, P.S., & Moyle, V.F. (2009). With Dab-rowski in mind: Reinstating the outliers insupport of full-spectrum development.Roeper Review, 31, 150160.

Laycraft, K. (2009). Positive maladjustment as atransition from chaos to order. Roeper Re-view, 31, 113122.

Lee, S.-Y., Matthews, M.S., & Olszewski-Ku-bilius, P. (2008). A national picture of talentsearch and talent search educational pro-

grams. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 5569.

Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Peternel,G. (2009). Follow-up with students after 6;years of participation in project EXCITE.

and self-concepts of gifted adolescents viamultivariate cluster analysis. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 54, 317.

Rudasill, K.M., & Callahan, C.M. (2008). Psy-chometric characteristics of the HarterSelf-Perception Profiles for Adolescentsand Children for use with gifted popula-

tions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 7086.

Schick, H., & Phillipson, S.N. (2009). Learningmotivation and performance excellence inadolescents with high intellectual potential:

What really matters? High Ability Studies,20, 1537.

Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L.D., Pollard, E., &Romey, E. (2010). Exploring the relation-ship of college freshmen honors studentseffort and ability attribution, interest, andimplicit theory of intelligence with per-ceived ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54,

92101.

Tang, M., & Neber, H. (2008). Motivationand self-regulated science learning in high-achieving students: Differences related tonation, gender, and grade-level. High Abil-ity Studies, 19, 103111.

Whiting, G. (2009). Gifted black males: Un-derstanding and decreasing barriers toachievement and identity. Roeper Review,31, 224233.

Yoon, C.-H. (2009). Self-regulated learningand instructional factors in the scientific in-quiry of scientifically gifted Korean middleschool students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53,203216.

Yoon, S.Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial andethnic representation in gifted programs:Current status of and implications for gift-ed Asian American students. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 53, 121136.

Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model ofgiftedness. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411-434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.


10/19

Page 10

Who is Bettina Harder?

Bettina Harder- Institute of Education, Educational Psychology, Ulm University, GermanyBettina Harder holds a Master degree in psychology from the University of Wuerzburg (Germany).Her research interests include critical factors in the development of expertise, diagnosis and nurtur-ing of gifts, development of pupils English ability. As a research scholar Bettina currently conductsa longitudinal study comparing the effects of special classes vs. regular classes for gifted children atsecondary school level.

Who is Heidrun Stoeger?

Heidrun Stoeger, PhD, is a Full Professor for Education at Regensburg University, Germany. She holdsthe chair for School Research, School Development, and Evaluation. She has published books, chap-

ters and articles in the fields of talent development, educational psychology and education. She is alsoEditor-in-Chief of the Journal High Ability Studies and member of the editorial board of the GermanJournal of Talent Development. Her main interests in the field of talent development and excellenceare underachievement, teacher trainings, the Actiotope Model of Giftedness, learning and motivationaltraining programs.

Who is Albert Ziegler?

Albert Ziegler, PhD, is a Full Professor for Psychology at the University of Ulm, Germany. He is thehead of Educational Psychology at the Institute of Educational Sciences. He has published approx.250 books, chapters and articles in the fields of talent development, excellence, educational psychologyand cognitive psychology. He is also Founding Director of the State-wide Counseling and ResearchCentre for the Gifted. His main interests in the field of talent development and excellence are the

development of exceptional performances, the Actiotope Model of Giftedness and motivational train-ing programs.

Who is Cristina Oarg?

Cristina Oarg is pursuing a masters degree in Psychology of Excellence in Business and Educationat the Ludwig Maximillian University (LMU) of Munich. She is also an intern at the LMU Center forLeadership and People Management. Having specialized in organizational and educational psychology,she has actively participated in various conferences and trainings in commercial, medical and educationsectors across Germany, Romania and Italy.

CONFERENCE CORNER11th Asia Pacific Conference of Giftedness

A Message from the Chair

On behalf of the Australian Associa-tion for the Education of the Giftedand Talented (AAEGT), we look for-ward to welcoming you to Sydney, Aus-tralia for the 11th Asia Pacific Confer-ence on Giftedness.

The theme of our conferenceis Thinking Smart: Effective Partner-ships for Talent Development, whichsignals our belief that we all need to work collaboratively to ensure thatgifted students are provided with thebest possible education. It is an impor-tant time for gifted education interna-tionally and we have secured dynamic

gifted educators from across the globeto stimulate and challenge our thinking.It will be a great opportunity to hearnew ideas and to renew connections

with old friends and colleagues fromthe Asia-Pacific rim and beyond. Aus-tralian educators, too, are keen to sharetheir practices in gifted education withour international colleagues.

The AAEGT is committedto raising the profile of gifted educa-tion through the promotion of pro-fessional knowledge and skills, policydevelopment and advocacy, researchand scholarship, and the disseminationof information. Hosting the Asia Pa-cific Conference in 2010 is part of thatcommitment. The Asia Pacific Federa-tion is affiliated with the World Councilfor Gifted and Talented Children and

holds its biennial conference in evenyears while the World Council holds itsbiennial conference in odd years. Thisprovides members from the Asia Pa-

cific rim an opportunity every year togather together, to share ideas, and re-new enthusiasm for meeting the needsof gifted children, their families, andtheir teachers. We invite you to join usfor an engaging and thought-provokingconference in 2010.

Wilma Vialle, PhDChair, 11th Asia Pacific Conference onGiftedness


11/19

Page 11

SPOTLIGHT ON TALENTSometimes the absence of other talents or skills helps you focus on one talent

Steffen Beiten, Albulena Grajcevci, Hannelore Govela Palau, Deborah Schnabel, Lorena Shalari

Ludwig Maximillian University of Munich, Germany

Markus Furtner is the reigningworld champion in juggling withdevil sticks. For this reason, AlbulenaGrajcevci, Deborah Schnabel, Han-nelore Govela Palau, Lorena Shalariand Steffen Beiten met him in Munich

(Germany) to ask him about his exper-tise, practice and creativity.

A. Bio

1. When did you begin to practice the devil

sticks and why?

I started to play with the devilsticks in 1996 at the age of 15. Mybrother introduced me to juggling.He was quite good, which motivat-ed me and raised my interest intothis field. In the beginning, I trieddifferent forms of juggling, butthe devil sticks attracted me most.It was sometimes frustrating topractice, because initially I did notsucceed, but I could not let it go soI kept on improving until I finallymastered it.

B. Deliberate Practice

2. How many hours per day do you practice?

Usually, I practice intensively 1-2

hours per day, six days a week. Inaddition to the pure practice, I alsothink a lot about things related tothe devil sticks and also talk with

other people about it. This helpsme to keep focusing on my moti-vation.

3. Do you have a coach or somebody that

helps you in becoming better?

I do not have a professional coach,but friends often give me ideas andtips for new tricks. Especially mybrother, who knows my abilitiesvery well, has had a lot of creative

ideas for tricks, that seemed to beimpossible in the past, but af-ter 14 years of practice I am ableto master them and go even fur-ther for more challenging ones.Moreover, one of my best friendsis the world champion of juggling.He has good ideas as well and wealso push each other, which is veryimportant to me. Finally, the au-diences feedback is also kind of

coaching for me.

4. Do you use certain strategies to practice?

Something very important to me isto have fun while practicing, so Ican continue to improve and alsokeep my focus (e.g. if I plan to doone trick 15 times successfully, I donot stop until I succeed). Practic-ing with other people is helpful aswell, thus I can see what they dobetter and get feedback for me toimprove.

5. What is your future plan in terms of

practicing the devil sticks?

I want to keep practicing and es-tablish my own show. Anotherproject is to create my own Sticks(e.g. sticks with light and other ide-as for clubs). I think there is alwayssomething new.

C. Life6. What are you doing besides performing

and practicing the devil sticks?

I finished Mathematics at the Uni-

versity a year and half ago and Ialso do some mathematics coach-ing for younger students and takelanguage courses as well. Rightnow, I am organizing the European Juggling Convention 2011, which will take place in Munich withmore than 5000 people from allover the world. I do a lot of sports(e.g. triathlon); I just like the varietyto do different things.

D. Howard Gardner: Multiple In-

telligence (Body-Kinesthetic)

7. Do your skills with the devil sticks help

you in any way with your studies?

One skill that is definitively impor-tant for both, studying and playingthe devil sticks, is concentration.I do not really know the relationbetween them, but an importantthing for both is to experiment and

try out new things. Juggling canalso function as a relaxing activityif you study a lot, because you usethe brain in a different way. Inter-estingly, you can find a lot of math-ematicians, engineers or physiciansin the juggling community. Maybean explanation for that could bethat we like being good in what wedo: a good scientist or a good jug-gler.

8. Do you practice devil sticks while you do

other things?

I normally do not do other activi-ties while playing the devil sticks.But I think, once you feel safe or

Markus Furtner - A devil stick virtuoso, tak-en in a studio in Vienna 2009


12/19

Page 12

good enough with what you do,you can start thinking or doingsomething else when you practice.

9. Do you have one dominant hand (left/

right handed)?

I am slightly more right-handedthan left-handed. Since you needboth hands for juggling, it is anadvantage to have no big disparitybetween the skills of your hands.Unfortunately, I do not know ifthis is common within jugglers.

E. Creativity

10. Do you have a unique approach, which

sets you apart from others who practice

the devil sticks?

No, I do not think so. I just con-centrate on it a lot and try to dosome unusual tricks. Sometimesthe absence of other talents orskills helps you focus on one talent.Maybe this is also the case for me.

11. How do you come up with new tricks?

Watch others? Being creative?

There are a lot of ways to come up with new tricks. Often, even with

mistakes or misunderstandings, Idevelop new tricks; when I do notsucceed to do something, I comeup with a mutation of a trick. Also, seeing other devil stickersand listening to their suggestionshelps me to invent new tricks.

F. Unique ability/practice

12. Would you think other individuals could

reach similar levels of performance with

the devil stick? Why?

Definitely yes, they can. But thereare some requirements that needto be fulfilled such as patience,motivation, luck and support fromyour relatives and friends. But fornew players it will be hard, becausethey may follow my example whileI continue improving and develop-ing new tricks.

G. Parenting/nurturing talent/

Support13. Did you and do you have support from

your family, peers etc, or do you have to

encounter obstacles?

Of course, my brother always sup-ports me and encourages me if Iencounter obstacles. In my youth,my parents gave me a lot of free-dom to do what I wanted, so they

neither pushed me to master thedevil sticks nor discouraged me.

H. Mastery or performance ap-

proach

14. Are there certain things that motivate you

to become better?

People that care about the devilsticks and my audience always keepme motivated.

Thank you very much!

To get an impression of MarkusFurtner juggling his devil sticks,go to http://www.youtube.com/user/MarkusFurtner#p/u/2/gKjb-3Zuh0XA.

He also has his own website that isworth browsing:http://www.markus-furtner.de/

Team members of the Devil Stick interview from left to right, Albuene Grajcevci,Lorena Shalari, Steffen Beiten, Hannelore Palau and Deborah Schnabel at the Psy-

chology BuildingLudwig Maximillian University of Munich.

Marcos Furtnero - the new stage character ofMarcus in his Mexico-Latino dance performance,

Vienna, Austria, June 2010.(Photo courtesy of Mark Probst)

Behind the scenes: Furtner performing propellerthrow in a shower pattern Tokyo, Japan, 2006

Stage competition at the IJA Festival 2007,Winston Salem, NC, USA


13/19

Page 13

TALENT NEWSExcellence from the Russian point of view

Marina Fidelman

State University of Ulm, Germany

Following the collapse of com-munism, Russia has found a neweconomic and social strength. This ar-ticle explores one of the most fascinat-ing countries in the world. Russia hasprogressed through three stages sincethe beginning of the 1990s. The firststage involved dismantling the previ-ous economic system. It brought withit upheavals to individuals way of life

as well as serious political and socialclashes, and was thus a very difficulttime for Russias society. The secondstage involved clearing the aftermath

of the dismantling of the former edi-fice. At the same time, the countrysought to take control of the mostdangerous tendencies in economic andpolitical life. Unfortunately some de-

cisions taken in those years were notlong-term in nature. But, for the mostpart, the federal authorities were react-ing to the serious warnings expressed.

Russia has only recently reached thethird stage and has been attempting toaccomplish more rapid developmentand reach high ambitious national tar-gets. The state is attaining the necessarypractical knowledge and instruments inorder to reach its long-term goals.

Russian Science and Technology

Russian science and technology are well

known because of the countrys historyof achievements in these fields. Theseinclude: the invention of radio by A.Popov; the creation of the Periodical

table of elements by D. Mendeleev; theformulation of the principles of the in-terplanetary space flights on multistagerockets by K. Tsiolkovskiy; achieve-ments of the Russian space program

led by S. Korolev, which incorporatedthe first unmanned space flight ofSputnik and the first manned spaceflight of Yu Gagarin; the pioneering

contributions to the theory of super-conductors and superfluids of Vitaly L.Ginzburg; the invention of the laser byN. Basov & Yu Prokhorov; and manyother discoveries. Russia is proud of itsmore than 20 Nobel laureates in medi-cine, literature, chemistry, physics, andeconomics as well as peace prize win-ners. There are around 4000 organiza-tions in Russia engaged in research and

development with approximately onemillion personnel. Half of those peo-ple are doing scientific research. It iscoordinated by the Ministry of Indus-

try, Science and Technologies, wherestrategy and basic priorities of researchand development are being articulat-ed. Fundamental scientific research isconcentrated in the Russian Academy

of Sciences, which now compriseshundreds of institutes specializing inall major scientific disciplines such asmathematics, physics, chemistry, biol-

Map of Russia


14/19

Page 14

ogy, astronomy, Earth sciences, and soon. The applied science and technologyis mainly undertaken in Institutions andDesign Bureaus belonging to differentRussian Ministers. They are involved inresearch and development in nuclear

energy (Ministry of Atomic Energy),space exploration (Russian Aviationand Space Agency), defense (Minis-try of Defense), telecommunications(Ministry of Communications) and soon.

Russian Academy of Sciences

The Russian Academy of Sciencesis the community of the top rankingRussian scientists and is the principalcoordinating body for basic research

in the natural and social sciences, tech-nology and production in Russia. It iscomposed of more than 350 researchinstitutions. Outstanding Russian sci-entists are elected to the Academy, where membership is of three types:academicians, corresponding members,and foreign members. The Academy isalso engaged in post-graduate trainingof students and in publicizing scientificachievements and knowledge. It main-

tains close links with many internation-al scientific institutions and works to-gether with foreign academies as well.

Without doubt, the Russiantradition of fostering its brilliant mindsis world-renowned and highly appre-ciated. The launching of the satellite,Sputnik, in 1957 drew attention to theRussian education model. More than10 nations including the USA have es-

tablished the Russian system of special-ized boarding schools for highly-able

children in mathematics and physics(Donoghue, Karp, & Vogeli, 2000).Meanwhile Russian definitions and ap-

proaches to the development of out-standing abilities can be portrayed asvery distinct from Western approaches.For various reasons, the Russian psy-chological and pedagogical sciences de-veloped their own exceptional theoreti-cal and methodological models. As faras Russian psychologists are concerned,certain Russian concepts need to beobserved.

Giftedness in Russian psychology This section will outline the classicRussian concepts of giftedness that were expounded from the 1940s tothe present time. First, the constructof intelligence has stimulated some vivid discussions in Russian psychol-ogy, with many researchers contradict-ing each other. In particular, the defi-nition of intelligence within the rangeof general abilities conceptions has

been heavily debated. Initially, the con-cept of intelligence in Russia was seenas general abilities or general gifted-ness. For many Russian psychologists,excellent performance is regarded asa key criterion for giftedness. A fa-mous Russian psychologist B. Teplov(Moscow) referred to this criterion todefine ability, giftedness and tal-ent as well. The author included, asa definition of outstanding abilities,three distinctive points: First of all,abilities are some individual-typologicalfeatures that differentiate one humanbeing from another one secondly,

abilities are unlikely to consist of the whole set of the individual-typoloicalcharacteristics but once of those which

are exclusively involved in producingan excellent performance thirdly,abilities solely should not be simplymeant in terms of an individual knowl-edge base acquired (1941, pp. 22-23).Further, it was expressly stated that thecrucial point for analysis is the combi-nation of general abilities and specialabilities for excellent performance.Thus special abilities and general abilityare tightly interwoven though they have

their specific nature and measurementrepresentations.

A renowned Russian psychol-ogist, S. Rubinstein (1973), proposedthat excellence in work and learning de-pends on causal-consequential relationscomprehension, discovering the mostdecisive traits of objects observed, per-sistence, and goal striving. This is be-lieved to characterize the general ability,

which is unlikely to lead to success ina particular domain without the clusterof special abilities added. Concomi-tantly, the special abilities cluster aloneis unable to provide high performancein any area of endeavor. A Leningrad(Saint Petersburg) psychologist, B.Ananiev (1977), suggested that generalability derives from the general devel-opment of an individual whereas thespecial abilities genesis is consequentlyengendered by the special developmentof that individual. He documented thatthe hierarchy of general and specialabilities changes drastically throughout

Sputnik 1 - The first earth-orbiting sattellitelaunched by the Soviet Union.

MiG 29 - A Russian-developedfighter plane to counter Americanfighter jets.


15/19

Page 15

the lifespan, but developing graduallyto the dominance of special abilities.

A prominent author who con-ducted longitudinal studies of gifted-ness, N. Leites (1984, Moscow), alsomakes a distinction among these abili-ties pointing to rather general andrather special abilities: qualities of

mind or memory qualities are likelyto belong to the rather general abili-ties and may be widely used in manydomains but are not sufficient for be-coming an expert in a domain. It is onlya combination of both types of abili-ties that lead to excellent performance.There needs to be a synergy of generaland special abilities in order to perfectlyfulfill a task. Nevertheless, the authoravoids postulating a clear definition of

giftedness.

Renowned for his research ondifferential psychology and psycho-physiology, W. Merlin (1990, Perm) hasregarded an individual way of solvingproblems in productive activity as adistinctive marker of giftedness. Thephenomenon can then be treated as amental structure, which involves the in-teraction of executive and searching ac-

tivities so that their combination couldbe regulated by compensatory mecha-nisms as needed.

Traditionally, Russian educa-tional psychology and developmentalpsychology postulated that environ-mental conditions need to be man-aged carefully in order to promoteintellectual strength and vitality. Many

empirical studies have demonstrateda leading role for special training andoriginal educative programs that nur-tured high abilities (see, for example,Z. Kalmykova, 1981; A. Zak, 1984; N.Menchynskaya, 1989). I. Yakimanskaya(1980) makes the point that an impor-tant condition for developing intel-ligence through learning is an acquisi-tion of major learning skills. Throughattempting to modify the self-learningsystem, a child reaches a meaningful

self-developed intellectual upsurge.Experimental studies conducted by D.Elkonin (1989) and V. Davydov (1990)illustrated that content (contemplatingtheories, investigative activities) andconditions (independent work) of theproposed curriculum significantly in-fluence a childs intellectual develop-ment whereas learning difficulties arecaused by inappropriate programs andineffective teaching methods.

In summary, the followingstatements have represented the basicapproaches that are commonly accept-ed.

Abilities develop over the courseof a lifetime and depend on dis-tinctive marks of anatomy andphysiology of brain and nervoussystem (prerequisite);

Excellent performance andachievement require a combinationof certain abilities;

High achievement within a domaincan result from a wide range ofability combinations; and,

A relative weakness of one abilitycan be compensated by anotherability.

A number of unusual conceptsof intellectual giftedness are currently

fluctuating in the Russian psychologi-cal landscape (see, for example, Uy.Gilbuch et al., 1990; M. Kholodnaya,1993; V. Shadrikov, 2000). In particu-lar I. Jeltova and E. Grigorenko (2005)have proposed an integrated model of

giftedness that embraces the diverse works of a number of Russian psy-chologists. Their model comprises ex-isting Russian psychological research, widens extant conceptualizations andproposes directions for future research.The proposed model considers gifted-ness in dialectical terms, i.e. acceptingthe coexistence and tension betweengenetic and environmental factors con-tributing to the formation of a talent,thus treating giftedness as a result of

dynamic person-environment interac-tions. In general, the model is basedon two meaningful constituents, par-ticularly the notion of qualitative dif-ferences between processes (e.g. cogni-tive, genetic, motivational factors) andproducts (performance or behaviorsin any given domain) entail giftednessand the notion of congruence (inter-nal a compatibility between superiorperformance and other variables and

external environmental demands) as well. The personal, internal level in-cludes with it cognitive processes (e.g.memory, imagination), personality fac-tors (motivation, self-regulation) anddevelopmental characteristics. The

An evening view of Cathedral of VasylyiBlazhennyi at the Red Square, Moscow.

Alexander S. Popov - one of the pioneers of radio

receivers.


16/19

Page 16

environmental, external level encom-passes culture, societal expectationsand standards, educational opportuni-ties. Finally, it is proposed that internaland external congruence could be nec-essary conditions which enhance theresilience of gifted individuals. The au-

thors state that only resilient giftedchildren grow to become gifted adults(2005, p.173).

Specific research in the fieldof giftedness is increasingly beingpublished at Russian universities, col-leges and research institutes, and dis-seminated at international conferences.Russian scientific culture is prominentdue to its passion for excellence and na-

tional pride in its high-achievers. Rus-sian tradition in searching for talentsis nowadays considerably influencedby Western psychology (L. Dorfman,2000). This can be seen, for instance, ina range of collaborations with foreignscientists, institutions and organisationsincluding the IRATDE.

ReferencesAnaniev, B. G. (1977). O problemakh sovremen-

nogo chelovekoznaniya. (Towards current

knowledge of a human.). Moscow: Nauka.

Davydov, V.V. (1990). Teoriya razvivayutschegoobucheniya. (Theory of developing educa-tion.). Moscow: Pedagogika.

Donoghue, E.F., Karp, A., & Vogeli, B.R. (2000).Russian schools for mathematically and sci-entifically talented: Can the vision surviveunchanged? Roeper Review, 22, 121-128.

Dorfman, L. Ya. (2000). Research on gifted chil-dren in Russia: A Chronicle of theoreticaland empirical development. Roeper Review,22,123-152.

Elkonin, D.B. (1989). Psykhologiya obutch-eniya mladshikh shkolnikov. (Educationalpsychology of elementary school children.).Izbrannye psykhologicheskie trudy. Moscow:Pedagogika.

Gilbuch, Yu. Z., Garnez, O. N., & Korobko, S.L. (1990). Phenomen umstvennoi odarion-nosri. (Phonomenon of intellectual gifted-ness.). Voprosy psykhologii, 4, pp.147-155.

Kalmykova, Z.I. (1981). Produktivnoe myshle-nie kak osnova obuchaemosti. (Productivethinking as a base for ability to learn.). Mos-cow: Pedagogika.

Kholodnaya, M.A. (1993). Psykhologitcheskiemechanismy intellektualnoi odarennosti.(Psychological mechanisms of intellectualgiftedness.). Voprosy Psikhologii, 1, 32-39.

Leites, N.S. (1984). Sposobnosti i odarionnost v detskie gody. (Abilities and giftedness inchildhood.). Moscow: Znanie.

Menchinskaya, N. A. (1989). Problemy ucheniai umstvennogo razvitiaya shkolnika. (Prob-lems of learning and a schoolars thinkingdevelopment.). Izbrannye psykhologicheskietrudy. Moscow: Pedagogika.

Merlin, V.S. (1990). Struktura lichnocti: charak-ter, sposobnosti, samosoznanie.(Structure ofpersonality: character, abilities, self-consios-ness.). Perm: PGPU.

Jeltova, I. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2005). Contribu-tions of Russian psychology conceptions on

giftedness. In Robert J. Sternberg, & Janet E.Davidson (Eds.). Systematic approaches togiftedness (second edition), ( pp.171- 186).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubinstein, S.L. (1973). Chelovek i mir. (A hu-man and the world.). Problemy obtscheipsykhologii. Moscow: Pedagogika.

Shadrikov, V.D. (2000). Ot sposobnostey prirod-nych k duchovnym sposobnostayam. (Frominhereted abilities to mental abilities.). Ap-plied Psychology, 1, 1-15.

Teplov, B.M. (1941). Sposobnosti i odarennost.(Abilities and giftedness.). Uchenye zapiskiGNII psykhologii: Volum 2. Leningrad:GNIIpsykhologii.

Yakimanskaya, I. S. (1980). Razvitie prostranst- vennogo myshleniya shkolnikov. (Develop-ment of spatial thinking in scholars). Mos-cow: Prosvetschenie.

Zak, A.Z. (1984). Razvitie teoreticheskogo my-shleniaya u mladshich shkolnikov. (Develop-ment of theoretical thinking in elementary

school children.). Moscow: Nauka.

Who is Marina Fidelman?

Marina I. Fidelman received her Ph.D.in developmental psychology and psy-chology of education from Psycho-logical Institute of Russian Academyof Education, in 1994 (laboratory ofPsychology of Giftedness led by Prof. Aleksey M. Matiushkin). From 1997-2008, she was an Associate Professor at

Perm State Pedagogical University, De-partment of Psychology, and concur-rently ran the Research Department of

Psychological Service of the Perm mu-nicipal school with profound learningof foreign languages. The Departmentwas responsible for research on gifted-ness within normal school settings.

In 1993, she was awarded(in collaboration with Prof. VictoriaS. Yurkevich) the Grant of RussianFoundation for Human Research fora project entitled Identification andPrognosis of Giftedness.

Her scientific interests includecreativity fostering, motivation, person-ality and identification of the gifted aswell.

Dr. Fidelman has published a

number of articles, handbooks for stu-dents and papers for international con-ferences. She has taken part in diverseinternational events dedicated to thegiftedness exploration.

In 2009, she received the Sti-pend of Otto Benecke Foundation(Germany) for foreign academics withoutstanding scientific profile.

Starting from this year, she iscontinuing on with her scientific workin collaboration with Professor AlbertZiegler at the University of Ulm (Ger-many). She has recentlyfinished articlesthat view retrospectively both Russiancreativity studies and Russian top pri-ority research on high abilities. She isalso involved in a cross-cultural studyundertaken in the university.


17/19

Page 17

STUDENT NEWSThe Impact of Sociotopes on School Achievement

Marold Reutlinger

University of Ulm, Institute of Psychology and Education

Introduction

It is commonly understood thatgiftedness and talent cannot be de-scribed by one concept: Hence, it isimportant to develop multi-factorialmodels of giftedness. A number ofmulti-factorial models have been developed to explain giftedness by add-ing different factors (cf. Ziegler, 2008).The models are based on several ideas:

Firstly, there are several factors that re-late to giftedness. Secondly, it was un-derstood that it is possible to reach thelevel of excellence in different domains(i.e. music, sport, mathematics). Foreach domain, special skills are required.Thirdly, boundary conditions of gifted-ness have been integrated in the modelswhere, in particular, the learning envi-ronment seems to play an importantrole. Some well known models include The Multifactorial Model of Gifted-

ness (Mnks, 1992), interaction modelssuch as the Munich Model of Gifted-ness (Heller, Perletz & Lim, 2005), andsystem theoretic models such as the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (Zie-gler, 2005).

Describing the learning environment with a system theoreticalmodel offers the advantage of relat-ing it to several models of giftedness.

A possible system would include Soci-otopes. The origins of Sociotopes arerooted within the area of social stud-ies. Sozio is Latin for pertaining to thecommunity and topos is Greek forplace. It is reasonable to use Sociotopesto understand the characteristics of thelearning environment.

Egli (1999), for example, de-fines Sociotopes in terms of a living

space for a group. Within the Soci-otope exists a close coherence betweenthe living place (flat, house, neighbor-hood) and the stimulatory community

where it could be denoted as a we/here/now-constellation (Egli, J., 1999;translated into English by the author).

With the notion of constella-tion, it is possible to describe the en-vironment of an individual within theborders of a group. For further con-templation, there should be a subdivi-sion focused on the ecological model

of Bronfenbrenner (1979). Rothe(2006) describes a possible subdivisionin four levels. The subdivision contains:

Regional factors (residential area,social sphere, relationship to thedistant sphere (teachers, peers, etc.)and to the extended sphere (neigh-bors, friends, etc.), access to com-munity factors, communication in-frastructure);

Socio-economic milieu (e.g. livingsituation, school situation);

Relationships within the family (e.g.parents-child-relationship, siblings-relationship, etc.);

And the individual-system (moti-vation, potential of capabilities, de-velopment of norms, potential ofbehavior, etc.);

A first transfer of Sociotopesfrom the social studies to psychologycould be found in a study in Bargel,Gloy, Heinke, Presch und Walter(1973). The authors related several mo-dal environment types to Sociotopesand applied them to describe the envi-ronment of pre-school children. Withthe description of the specific environ-ment, they wanted to examine the rel-

evance of it to the infant development.Furthermore it was used to clarify thelocation in question for educational es-tablishments.

The environmental descriptionwas expanded in Trundewinde (1982)for an empirical longitudinal sectionstudy with 9 11 year-old children.Trundewinde thoroughly examined thedimension of intellectual and thematicachievement stimulation, the achieve-ment forced by the parents as well asthe success and disappointment expe-rience influence on the motivation of

children. A further development in Zie-gler (2008) used Sociotopes to describethe chance to reach the level of excel-lence in a domain. For this purpose theenvironment of an individual shouldbe diversified through the partitioningof Sociotopes. It should distinguishbetween Sociotopes which afford, sup-port or avert the learning progress. Sev-en types of Sociotopes were suggestedin Ziegler (2008), including:

Thematic Sociotope: The commu-nication of a domain is sanctionedas positive. The positive reputationof a domain increases its esteem.Consequently it is possible to de-velop norms and goals.

Infrastructural Sociotope: If thisSociotope is available, its possibleto do or develop an action. If thisSociotope is not available (e.g. no

mountain for skiing), it is difficultor even impossible to reach thelevel of excellence.

Learning Sociotope: This Soci-otope is constructed to enable alearning progress.

Profession Sociotope: The achieve-ment in a domain receives a posi-tive feedback but it is not possible

to increase the knowledge in thedomain (e.g. concert of a musi-cian).


18/19

Page 18

Antagonistic Sociotope: A learning

progress in a domain is sanctionednegative.

Competing Sociotope: In this So-ciotope, it is impossible to learnin the domain (e.g. discotheque orcinema by learning for school).

Zieglers (2008) hypothesis is that giftedpersons tend to favor aiding Sociotopesmore often and Sociotopes which are

prejudicial to the learning progress lessoften. It should be possible to directlytest Zieglers hypothesis by examiningthe Sociotopes of students togetherwith their performance at school.

Aim of study

The relationship between type of Soci-otope and school performance can betested by evaluating the different situ-ations in which primary-aged studentsfi

nd themselves during the day. Thehypothesis is that the number of situ-ations students perceive as learning So-ciotopes correlates with good perform-

ance at school.

The participants in this re-search were asked to fill out an evalua-tion of Sociotopes form. In this form,students reviewed the different situ-ations in regards to their learning. Asan example the following situations arementioned:

- On the weekend with my parents

- At common meals - On the way home from school - Conversations with friends and ac-

quaintance - In television broadcasts I like to

watch

For each of these situationsthe pupils should choose one of thefollowing estimations:

- In this situation, school matters areoften a topic- In this situation, it is important

to have a good performance at

school.

- In this situation, I have a good pos-sibility to study for school.

- In this situation, there exists a pos-sibility to study for school.

- In this situation, I prefer doing oth-er things than studying for school.

Student responses enable theresearcher to distinguish between the-matic, competing and learning Soci-otopes. Furthermore, the students were

asked to report their grades in German,Mathematics and their first foreign lan-guage. The mean score of these markswas used as the indicator of perform-ance at school. Note that school gradesare reported using a range of 1-6, witha score of 1 better than a score of 6. The means were used as the basis todivide the pupils into five different per-formance groups at school level. Thechi-square test differences between the

different performance groups wereanalyzed according to the Sociotopes.Moreover, the differences betweenboys and girls were also analyzed with

Figure 1. Average school grades of girls and boys in different age-groups on a scale where 1=excellent, 6= poor)

Grades of the age groups of girls and boys

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

55.5

6

1992 1993 1994 1995

Year of birth

Averageschoolgrade

girls

boys


19/19

chi-square tests.

Results

It was found that the overall mean per-formance of girls was 3.08 comparedto a score of 2.64 for boys, meaningthat the mean performance for girls was worse than for boys. However,across the school life span the perform-ance fluctuated (F(3)=2,709 p

talent talks issues2

Documents