|
Permission to
be gifted:
how conceptions of giftedness can change lives By Joan Freeman School of Lifelong
Learning and Education, Middlesex University, London, UK A
cross-cultural view picks up a wide variety of international templates
for the identification and education of the gifted and talented, which
are sometimes entirely opposing. The
wider view can demonstrate unrecognised stereotyping and expectations,
and illustrate the often serious effects of social influences on
opportunities for the development of high-level potential and its
promotion throughout life. Although
cultural nuances are complex and their dynamics difficult to define, it
is clear that excellence can come from widely differing special
educational provision, or from no special educational provision at all. Whatever
the cultural conceptions of giftedness, they are influential in their
actualisation, in the acceptability of both the individual and the
abilities, i.e. who may be gifted and who may not, and which abilities
may be considered as gifts and which may not. Even
in the same town, for instance, a child in a competitive-entry school
may be seen as of only modest ability, though could be admired as
gifted in a non-selective school. But
how each individual reacts to their classification as gifted is also
dependent on personality and home support. This
was highlighted by a 37 year-old woman in Freeman’s British 30-year
study of gifted and non-gifted children, who told of the distress the
label “gifted” had caused her, largely because of her unsupporting low
socio-economic background (Freeman, 2001). She
felt she could never live up to the expectations of the image, as she
saw it, and had felt a failure until she had children: they did not
know about the label, she said, and loved her for herself. Selecting
for giftedness depends on what is being looked for in the first place,
whether it is tested academic excellence for formal education,
innovation for business, solving paper-and-pencil puzzles for an IQ
club, gaining entry to a summer program for the gifted and talented or
competitive athletics for one’s country. Choice
as gifted without testing could be affected by, for example, the
interaction between the personalities of everyone concerned, what the
children look and behave like, the agreed definition of giftedness, or
even the percentages of ethnic representation demanded by educational
authorities. Parental
choice is beset by cultural stereotypes, usually meaning that two boys
are chosen for every girl; a strangely stable gender proportion found
all over the world, from Britain to China (Freeman, 2003). Choice by
age-peers is affected by fashion, stereotypes and popularity
(Gagné, 1995). How
teachers perceive and thus identify the gifted has been seen to vary
considerably between different cultures. For example, estimations of
the percentages of gifted children taken from more than 400 secondary
teachers in Germany along with 400 in the USA were compared with those
of 159 teachers in Indonesia (Dahme, 1996). The
German teachers recognised 3.5% of children as gifted, the Americans
6.4% and the Indonesians 17.4%. Yet even within the USA, percentages of
the child population identified as gifted by teachers vary between 5%
and 10% across the states (OERI, 1993). It is
to be expected that the definitions and special facilities provided by
educational authorities would have some effect on teachers’ estimations
of how many children are capable of taking them up. But
teachers have been found to judge the highly able reliably, in that
they will continue to pick the same kind of children (Hany, 1993). In
Germany, Hany (1995) found teachers biased in their judgements, in that
they would choose pupils who were most like their expectations, and did
not fully consider the basis of comparisons or non-obvious
characteristics. Creativity
was not usually seen as an aspect of giftedness, and emotionally, the
gifted were often expected to be playful, arrogant, uncontrolled and
even disturbed. The
teachers often kept a mental image of a gifted pupil who would have
exceptionally good logical reasoning, quick comprehension and
intellectual curiosity – in combination with good school grades.
Individual gifted pupils were often vividly remembered by teachers, who
would use those characteristics to identify others. If
children are chosen subjectively by teachers and parents, even if the
choices are further refined by tests, the selection will be different
from those chosen entirely by tests. The
barriers are potently effective by undermining
children’s developing sense of self-worth and thus their courage to
devote themselves to an outcome which may not be acceptable (Dweck,
1999). Subotnik
put it succinctly: “in order to be gifted, that is, to be exceptional,
as one matures, one needs to be increasingly active in one’s own
development.” (Subotnik, 2003, p.15). An
unacceptable goal need not only be e.g. criminal, but, could be, for
example, a boy with fine-art aspirations in a rough family.
Satisfaction with a moderate performance, apparently suitable for one’s
perceived place in life, does not bring excellence. The
major obstructions to the realisation of gifted potential are
socio-educational, and they exist everywhere in the world in different
forms. They can be summed up in just three powerful and overlapping,
aspects; 1) morality, 2) gender and 3) emotion. Cognitive-developmental
morality measures, such as the
stages promoted by Piaget (1948) or Kohlberg (1984) in his tests of
moral development, correlate positively with high IQ scores and
high-level educational achievement (Freeman, 2002a). Yet an
overview of international research by the Italians, Pagnin &
Adreani (2000), could not find any recognisable relationship between
high cognitive ability and actual behaviour, but state rather that it
is a basis for “coming to a justified agreement … shared by those
concerned.” (p.481). The
American, Rothman (1992) pointed out that "IQ explains but little in
the development of moral reasoning" (p.330). It is as though the
intellectually gifted know what is expected as answers on the tests and
are able to perform the necessary intellectual acrobatics to score
highly, but may not choose to abide by the answers they write down. Yet in
some societies, such as those which are strong adherents of Islam,
received morality is itself a form of giftedness and gifted cognitive
ability may be seen as largely irrelevant. In
Muslim Malaysia, for example, success in education is specifically
outlined in government policy as “a belief in God and high moral
standards” (Adimin, 2002. P. 26), and in many such countries
unquestioning submissiveness to the Koran and priestly edicts is seen
as the true gift. As
there is an estimated 1.3 billion Muslims, one sixth of the world’s
population, conceptions of giftedness are clearly varied and must be
recognised. Yet
many top-ranking Nazis were intellectually gifted and beautifully
cultured, which did not stop them from behaving immorally (Zilmer,
Harrower, Rizler & Archer, 1995). Because
of this implicit association, youngsters with high IQ scores can
anticipate entry to leadership courses (at least in the USA). From
earliest childhood, the gifted leader is supposed to show enthusiasm,
easy communication, problem-solving skills, humour, self-control and
conscientiousness, as well as very high intelligence (Sisk, 2001). But
of course, the students are not being offered leadership tutoring per
se, but leadership within the received moral structure. But in
spite of some strong beliefs of a relationship between morality and
giftedness – positive or negative - the only evidence lies in paper and
pencil morality tests, an association based on the shared Western,
largely Protestant, morality the tests tap. Although
in real life there is no measured evidence of a relationship between
morality and gifts in either children or adults, those who are able to
respond in the way of the dominant morality are more likely to be
chosen as gifted. There
are often special allowances, though, for highly creative people, such
as Pablo Picasso or Ernest Hemmingway, who fit the model of the wild
“Bohemian” artist.  [Part 1 of 4] Continued in Part 2~ ~ ~
Articles: high ability - gifted/talented Intensity / sensitivity resources : articles sites books Introversion /
shyness. ~ ~ ~
|
~ ~ ~ |