Giftedness and Related Terms

While on a mission to decipher the meaning of giftedness, it was deemed worthwhile to consider the various surrounding terminologies that in some way or another might help to understand what giftedness is and possibly what it is not. These labels are often used either as synonyms and therefore used interchangeably or carry with them a specific notion related to giftedness which is important to analyse.

Idiot savants or the savant syndrome was first coined by the British physician John Langdon Haydon Down who used it to describe a person who has extraordinary skills in a very specialised area, but who is nevertheless intellectually disabled. A high IQ is not absolutely necessary for performance in a certain domain to be of an excellent level. In fact, savants are said to have an IQ of between 40 to 70. Typically, the skills occur in music, art, calendar calculation, mechanics or visual spatial skills. Whatever the skill, it is always linked to a memory of a habit of a procedural type, very narrow but deep. Treffert (2009) states that savants first imitate, then improvise and then create.

Child prodigies are argued to be a distinct form of giftedness. Contrary to the idea of great general ability, the prodigious child tends to have a narrower, specialised and domain-specific form of giftedness. Feldman (1993) argues that these children are evidence of the multiple nature of giftedness and expression of talent within specific domains. Prodigies refer to children who perform an activity which is highly uncommon for their age and that have received extensive training in the field. Normally, these children are identified at pre-school age and are able to come up with products before the age of 10. It is important to highlight that prodigiousness in childhood does not always predict eminence in adulthood. This might even shed more importance to the role played by the environmental factor in giftedness in either aiding or hindering the

28

path towards excellence. As Pereira (1998) questions, would Mozart have been able to manifest his talent if his father had not been a musician or if he hadn’t had a piano at home? Moreover, the fact that there exist savants and prodigies in a particular domain is taken to be a critical criterion for the existence of an intelligence which is very much in line with Howard Gardner's (1983) important work on multiple intelligences. As various researchers have expressed, prodigiousness is the careful intertwining of various overlapping factors.

The word genius was thoroughly defined by Francis Galton and therefore strongly linked to genetics. According to the British researcher, there is a 1/1000000 probability of this happening (Galton, 1869). Later this term was applied to individuals who demonstrated an IQ above 180; nowadays, however, it is used to refer to those that display intellectual capability, creative productivity, originality associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge and are also a positive influence in their given field (Pereira, 1998).

When using the term precocious, timing plays a vital role. A child is considered precocious when he/she displays exceptionality at an unexpected early age. As verified in the literature presented, gifted children may show signs of precocious behaviour in language for example and yet not necessarily display giftedness as an adult. Although there is still relative debate around the issue, cognitive maturation of a human being is said to fluctuate considerably before the age of 13 (Castelló, 2005). Prieto and Costa (2000) go on further to say that precocity is an unreliable indicator of giftedness and that caution must be taken when predicting giftedness, as complexity is achieved with time; environmental factors also require the element of time to impact giftedness.

It is evident that giftedness and talent are fluid concepts and will be defined differently in different contexts and cultures. Gagné brings our attention to the usage of both gifted and talented as interchangeable in scientific literature, in particular American literature. In the past, researchers such as Robeck (1968) have considered a hierarchical difference in terms of IQ, assuming talented to be those that score between 130 and 145 and scores between 145 to 160 to be considered gifted. Gagné (1985) highlights that both encompass entirely separate ideas. Gagné differentiated both as above-average competence in human ability and the other as above-average performance in a particular field. There is an association made to giftedness as being innate and talent being related to the expression of these “gifts”. As referred to in the

29

developmental models section above, Gagné distinguishes between potential and performance, implying that one may be gifted and various catalysts such as motivation, personal, educational and other variables determine the development of this potential into exceptional performance. Gagné argues that it is possible to be gifted and yet not talented as in the case of underachievers. As predicted by Pereira (1998), it seems that the current scientific community often prefer to use gifted and talented contrary to gifted which is traditionally associated to a high IQ and fits more adequately to the more multi-dimensional view of giftedness. Although preferences may prevail, both terms will be used interchangeably in this thesis. In Portuguese literature it seems that both

‘sobredotação’ and ‘crianças com altas capacidades’ are used. Whilst the former can be said to be loosely translated to giftedness, the latter corresponds to children of high ability. Future studies could attempt to understand if both terms carry with them different connotations.

These terms coexist, sometimes harmoniously and other times less satisfactorily.

It is also evident that the concept of giftedness has changed over time from simpler models placing sole emphasis on giftedness and relying on IQ as a means of identifying giftedness to more complex models that emphasise general/specific abilities, creativity and influence of personality and environmental factors and the usage of multi-dimension measurements. As a result, these models and theories have been applied as frameworks by different educational agents in different countries to identify and cater for gifted students. The lack of consensus in a satisfactory definition led Gagné to claim that the concept of giftedness is made more difficult to defend as “it is defined too loosely while being measured too restrictively” (Gagné, 1995, p.104).

Despite extensive efforts to broaden the definition and assessment of giftedness, it must be said that IQ scores still remain a standard way for admission to specialised programs for the gifted and talented today (Colangelo & Davis, 2003). The problem lies not only in the conceptualisation of the gifted but also a need to analyse and refine batteries of tests and ensuring their validity in specific populations. An overview of the identification procedures of the gifted will be discussed in the next section.

30 I. 1.8. Identification

In practice, IQ is still the most powerful criteria for the identification of the gifted; an IQ of 130 or above will determine in many places whether a student can be accepted into a special educational programme.

Assessment has two main purposes: eligibility program development and monitoring progress. More specifically, identification of the gifted has become more challenging today than in earlier times due to the acceptance of the multi-dimensionality of the concept. Certainly, at the start of the gifted education initiative, there is inherent trouble in attaining consensus regarding identification processes.

As common sense would imply, the earlier the identification, the sooner the possibility of intervention to enhance pupils potential. Silverman (1992) states that gifted children can be identified at the age of three although the most appropriate age is between five and eight years old. After age nine, children may reach the limits of the test and socializing may conceal their abilities. However, other authors such Melo and Almeida (2007) warn us that the earlier the identification, the less precise it can be.

Authors emphasise that it is only at the age of 12-13 that neurological maturation stabilises (Castelló, 2005; Melo & Almeida, 2007). Moreover, identification in the early years may not help understand truly whether the child is prodigious, precocious or gifted. Bahia and Oliveira (2013) defend the need for an early identification, yet highlight that this is not essential in order to label the child but useful in that it allows to nurture students appropriately. Their position underpins the idea that giftedness should be viewed as more of an emerging process than a product.

The lack of consensus in identification procedures reflects the lack in the definition of giftedness. Hence, multiple assessments are necessary. Passow (1981) defends the need of a range of techniques and procedures and instruments to identify gifted and talented children to differentiate their educational experiences. Moreover, in this manner reliability of such identification can also be increased.

According to Brown, Avery, and VanTassel-Baska (2003), no one sole test score should warrant or prevent student eligibility for services. The decision of a student’s eligibility must encompass a multi-disciplinary team involving both a certified school psychologist and the parents of the child. According to these authors, this should result in about 4% of the total student population being identified as gifted.

31

In any case, both objective and subjective procedure assessments are required.

Giftedness can be identified through observations, rating scales, checklists and standardised tests. However, some procedures are frequently recommended. These include measures of intelligence tests, achievement tests, measures of reasoning, creativity and/or problem solving.