Eternal Questions of Gifted Education from the Aspect of University Teachers

Year 2018, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 43 - 67, 30.03.2018

János Szabó György Révész

Abstract

Almost every man has different conception about the meaning of talent. The
situation is similarly complicated among the professionals: Talent has so many
definitions that it needs to create different categories to organize them. Hence
“talent” has no official unified definition, characteristics of talent gives a knotty
question even to the professionals who care with the investigation of talent, not
only for laymen. Is it coded into our genes? Is it a privilege just for some persons?
Could it be measured objectively? Such and similar questions (seven) were
integrated into the questionnaire of this research. The main goal was to explore
the opinion of the university-teachers (N=273) who have experience about the
cooperation with talented students. After a general investigation, I have compared
the attitudes among different science-areas. After that, I have compared it with a
miscellaneous (in the aspect of the science-area) control group which consisted
from German professors (N=48). 3Due to the ANOVA-results, we can conclude
that there was concordance among the scientists of the different areas about the
eternal dilemmas: In the cases of six questions from the seven, there was no
significant difference among the groups (science-areas). The only exception was
the question about the appearing-time of the talent (early or late?).

Keywords

talent-notion, academic-talent, characteristics of giftedness, scientists’ attitude

References

• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
• Anderson, M. (1998). Intelligencia és fejlődés. Egy kognitív elmélet. Budapest: Kulturtrade Kiadó.
• Baer, J. (2011). Domains of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Second Edition. (pp. 404-408). San Diego: Academic Press.
• Baer, J. & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.
• Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78,1-20
• Davidson, J. E. (2009). Contemporary Models of Giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina (Eds.), International Handbook on Giftedness. (pp 83-97). Springer: Dordrecht.
• Dávid, I. (2011). Tehetségazonosítás. In L. Balogh (Eds.), A tehetség felismerése és fejlesztése. (pp. 53-70). Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem.
• Detterman, D. K. & Daniel, M. H. (1989). Correlations of mental tests with each other and with cognitive variables are highest for low IQ groups. Intelligence, 13(4), 349−359.
• Eiduson, B. (1963). Scientists: Their psychological world. Journal of Chemical Education, 40(3), 171.
• Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Feist, G. J. (2011). Psychology of Science as a New Subdiscipline in Psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(5), 330–334.
• Feldman, D. H. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In J. H. Borland (Eds.), Rethinking gifted education. (pp 9-33). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Gagné, F. (1991). Toward a Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 65-80). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
• Gyarmathy, É. (2002). IQ és tehetség. Pszichológiai Szemle Könyvtára, 5, 127-154.
• Harden, K. P., Turkheimer, E., & Loehlin, J. C. (2007). Genotype by environment interaction in adolescents' cognitive aptitude. Behavior Genetics, 37( 2), 273−283.
• Harmatiné, O. T., Pataky N. & K-Nagy E. (2014). A kétszeresen kivételes tanulók tehetséggondozása. Budapest: Magyar Tehetségsegítő Szervezetek Szövetsége.
• Nagy, N. & Tóbi, I. (2014). A PSAT tehetségkutatási kérdőívének eredményei. In Sz. G. Harsányi, K. D. Korsósné, N. Nagy, A. Szatmári, & I. Tóbi (Eds.), Kutató kerestetik (pp. 11-66). Budapest: Pro Scientia Aranyérmesek Társasága.
• Hua, O., Shore, B. M. & Makarova, E. (2014). Inquiry-based instruction within a community of practice for gifted – ADHD college students. Gifted Education International,30 (1), 74– 86.
• Kaufmann, J. C. & Begetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.
• Lyons, M. J., York, T. P., Franz, C. E., Grant, M. D., Eaves, L. J. & Jacoson, K. C. (2009). Genes determine stability and the environment determines change in cognitive ability during 35 years of adulthood. Psychological Science, 20 (9), 1146−1152.
• Mönks, F. J. (1992). Development of gifted children: The issue of identification and programming. In F. Mönks, & W. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future (pp. 191-202). Assen/Maastricht: van Gorcum.
• Mönks, F. J. & Mason, E. J. (1997). A fejlődéselméletek és a tehetség. In: L. Balogh, M. Polonkai., L. Tóth (Eds.) Tehetség és fejlesztőprogramok. (pp. 7–24) Debrecen: Magyar Tehetséggondozó Társaság –KLTE Pedagógiai-Pszichológiai Tanszék.
• Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J. & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51 (2), 77–101
• Pléh, Cs. (1997). Hozzájárulhatnak-e az empirikus pszichológiai kutatások a nyelvgondolkodás viszony filozófiai problémájának megoldásához? Magyar Filozófiai Szemle, 3- 4, 439-540.
• Plucker, J. A. & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. R. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity From Potential to Realization. (pp. 153–168). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Ranschburg, J. (1988). A tehetséges tanulók speciális képzésének elméleti és gyakorlati kérdései. Pszichológia, 8(1), 61–84
• Raymond, C. L., Benbow, C. P. (1986). Gender differences in mathematics: A function of parental support and student sex typing? Developmental Psychology, 22 (6), 808-819.
• Renzulli, J. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: a developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg, J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness. (pp. 53-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Roe, A. (1965). Changes in scientific activities with age. Science, 150, 313-318.
• Roe, A. (1983). Early background of eminent scientists. In R. S. Albert (Eds.), Genius and eminence: The social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement. (pp. 170- 181). Oxford: Pergamon.
• Root-Bernstein, R. & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: the link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. R. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity From Potential to Realization. (pp. 127–152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Roznowsky, M. & Hong, S. (2000). Further Look at Youth Intellectual Giftedness and Its Correlates: Values, Interests, Performance, and Behavior. Intelligence, 28 (2), 87-113.
• Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. R. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity From Potential to Realization. (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Scarr, S. & McCartney, K. (1984). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype–environment effects. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry & Child Development, 98−118.
• Sekowski, A. & Lubianka, B. (2014). Education of gifted students – an axiological perspective. Gifted Education International, 30(1), 58–73.
• Shavinina, L. V. & Ferrari, M. (2004). Extracognitive facets of developing high ability: introduction to some important issues. In L. V. Shavinina, & M. Ferrari, (Eds.), Beyond Knowledge: Extracognitive Aspects of Developing High Ability. (pp 3–14) Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Teaching scientific thinking to gifted children. Roeper Review, 4, 4-6. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Assessment of gifted students for identification purposes: New techniques for a new millennium. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 327–336.
• Sternberg, R. J. (2012). The Assessment of Creativity: An Investment-Based Approach. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 3–12.
• Stumpf, H. (1995). Scientific Creativity: A Short Overview. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 225–241.
• Szabó J. (2014). Felsőoktatási tehetségtérkép a kreativitás és a motiváció tekintetében. In I. Koncz & I. Szova (Eds.), Hiteles(ebb) tudományos prezentációk. (pp. 122-130). Budapest: Professzorok az Európai Magyarországért Egyesület, Budapest.
• Tekin, M. & Tasgin, Ö. (2009). Analysis of the creativity level of the gifted students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,1, 1088–1092.
• Thomson, L. A. & Oehlert, J. (2010). The etiology of giftedness. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 298–307.
• Thorndike, E. L., Bergman, E. O., Cobb, M. V. & Woodyard, E. (1927). The measurement of intelligence. New York: Columbia University.
• Tóth, L. (2000). Pszichológia a tanításban. Debrecen: Pedellus Kiadó.
• Viding, E. & Larsson, H. (2010). Genetics of child and adolescent psychopathy. In R. T. Salekin & D. R. Lynam (Eds.), Handbook of Child and Adolescent Psychopathy (pp. 113-134). New York: Guildford Press.
• Wallace, B. (1983). Teaching the very able child. London: Ward Lock Educational.
• Wilson, R. S. (1983). The Louisville Twin Study: Developmental synchronies in behavior. Child Development, 54(2), 298−316.
• Wolfensberger, M. (2015). Talent development in European higher education. Heidelberg: SpringerOpen.