Competence and Responsibility Tie Third European Conference of Tie European Council for High Abi l i ty hdd in Munich (Germany), October 11-14, 1992

Vdume 2 Pnceedings of the Conference

Ecited by Kirt A . Heller und Ernst A . Hany

Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Seattle • Toronto • Göttingen • Bern

0 o . r r

3 o y-0. 3

L i b r a r y of Congress Ca ta l og ing - in -Pub l i ca t i on Da ta is available v ia the Library of Congress Marc Database under the L C Ca ta l o g C a r d N u m b e r 92-36 870

Na t i ona l L i b r a r y of C a n a d a Ca ta l o gu ing i n Pub l i c a t i on D a t a European Counc i l for H igh Ab i l i t y . European Conference (3rd: 1992: Mun ich , Germany) Competence and responsibil ity: the third European Conference of the European C o u n c i l for H igh Ab i l i t y held in M u n i c h (Germany), October 11-14. 1992 Includes bibl iographical references and index. Partial contents: v. 2. Proceedings of the Conference / edited by Kurt A . Hel ler & Ernst A . Hany. I S B N 0-88937-126-1 (v. 2) 1. Gifted children - Education - Congresses. 2. Talented students - Education - Congresses. I. Heller, Kurt , 1931- . I I . Hany, Ernst, A . , 1958- . III. Tit le.

LC3992 . E87 1992 371.95 C92-095365-4

I S B N 3-8017-0707-5 " 1 2— Hogrefe-Verlag G m b H & Co . K G , Göttingen • Bern • Toronto • Seattle

I S B N 0-88937-126-1 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Seattle • Toronto • Göttingen Bern

©Copyr ight 1994 by Hogrefe & Huber Publishers U S A : P.O. B o T 2 T 8 7 , K i rk land , W A 98083-2487, Phone (206) 820-1500, Fax (206) 823-8324 C A N A D A : 12 Bruce Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M 4 P 2S3, Phone (416) 482-6339 S W I T Z E R L A N D : Länggass-Straße 76, C H - 3 0 0 0 Bern 9, Phone (031) 300-4500, Fax (031) 300-4590 G E R M A N Y : Rohnsweg 25, D-37085 Göttingen, Phone (0551) 49609-0, Fax (0551) 49609-88.

N o part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval System, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, micro f i lming, recording or otherwise, without the written permission from the publisher.

Printed and bound by Konrad Tr i l tsch, Würzburg

Printed in Germany

Foreword Vo lume 2 of "Competence and Responsibi l i ty" contains the Proceedings of the 3rd European

Conference conducted by the European Counc i l for H i g h Abi l i ty (ECHA ) , wh i ch was held in Mun i ch , Germany, in October 1 9 9 2 . Th is Conference was intended to provide a state-of-the-art overview of the European research o n giftedness and creativity and of attempts to provide differential education to the highly able. The Organization of the symposia and Workshops allowed a substantial exchange of ideas and practical approaches f rom both sides of the former " i ron curtain", and encouraged discussions and mutual Stimulation of European scholars and practitioners and individuals of other continents w h o shared their valuable experiences with the other participants of the Conference.

A t the time when we chose "Competence and Responsibil ity" for being the motto of this Conference, we were not aware that the same words were used by a Company of chemical industries i n their newspaper advertisments. This is not the place to discuss any subconscious effects of advertisment campaigns; instead, we would like to point to the fact that education, politics, and industry are more and more taking a Systems view on global issues. If one speaks of competence, this first assumes a set of tasks wh ich requires the competence focused, and second makes a comparison between subjects of different levels of competence. The concept of responsibility expands this perspective of interactive relationships by referring to global values wh i ch are accepted by all partners who interact in a System of competences and demands. Based o n these premises, first the education of the gifted is conceptualized as a task every society has to fulfill in order to secure both the individual's right of appropriate education and its o w n progress and second, this education has to a im at developing the gifted s attitude of being responsible for their nurturing society's well-being, i . e. of being obliged to attempting to solve the urgent problems of their decade. The Mun i ch Conference looked at this System of mutual responsibility from a psychological and educational perspective. The development of young people 's talents and adults' skills by means of education provided by family and school , of psychological treatment, or of the careful design of the work environment, and by means of selecting individuals who fit best to the leaming and work ing settings available were the topics dealt w i th in most contributions.

More than 4 0 0 scholars and practitioners from 31 different countries throughout the world (90% from Europe , 5 % from Nor th Amer i ca/Canada , 5 % from the Asia-Pacif ic area) partici-pated i n this Conference. Approx imate ly 2 5 % of the over 2 0 0 contributions are incorporated into this book. The abstracts of all 2 0 0 contributions are included in volume 1 wh ich was edited by E . A . H a n y and K. A . Hel ler in 1 9 9 2 , and published by Hogrefe & Huber , Seattle ( ISBN 3 - 8 0 1 7 - 0 6 8 4 - 2 / I S B N 0-88937-111-3 ) .

Unfortunately, we were not able to include here many other interesting papers due to lack of space and for financial reasons. In addit ion to volume 2, a G e r m a n report o n the Workshop "Behinderung und Begabungsentfaltung" (Handicap and Development of Giftedness) has been published under the same title by the "Stiftung zur Förderung körperbehinderter Hochbegabter", Vaduz/Liechtenste in (1993) - I S B N 3 -908-506-07 -7 ; see the last contribution to the section 6 (Special Groups) in this volume.

The ma in criteria in realizing the necessary selection for volume 2 were a truly European and international representation of recent research topics in the field of gifted education and - of course - the quality of the contributions. Finally, we intended to focus not only research problems and outcomes but also their applicability to practice and policy. The editors thank all contributors for their confidence in us and for (generally) submitting the manuscripts o n time.

The content ranges from opening speeches to keynote addresses (including commentaries), sympos ia , Workshops, audio Visual and poster presentations. The selected papers are classified into the following categories or subject areas:

VI

(1) O p e n i n g S p e e c h e s , compris ing of an official declaration of the Federal Government of Ge rmany concern ing their politics of nurturing the gifted, and of the introduetory posit ion paper of the chairman of the Conference.

(2) A b i l i t y a n d A c h i e v e m e n t , focusing mainly o n intraindividual differences of talents and skills wh ich provide the basis of differential education.

(3) C r e a t i v i t y a n d I n n o v a t i o n , w i th contributions mostly issuing recent theoretical develop-ments either of cogni tve or of organizational processes wh i ch constitute creative Innova­t ion .

(4) D e v e l o p m e n t o f G i f t e d n e s s a n d T a l e n t , particularly f rom a life-long perspective, wi th contributions using methodological approaches as different as case studies and long-term longitudinal studies on representative samples.

(5) G e n d e r I s s u e s , emphasizing empirically proven relationships between attitudinal and motivational sex differences and thematically corresponding differences in achievement.

(6) S p e c i a l G r o u p s , the contributions of wh ich demonstrate the regrettable fact that many talents are wasted by internal or external handicapping condit ions.

(7) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d P s y c h o l o g i c a l M e a s u r e m e n t P r o b l e m s , compr is ing of contributions wh ich reach f rom basic overviews to recent developments of new tests and procedures for identification.

(8) G i f t e d E d u c a t i o n a n d P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n , focusing primari ly o n comprehensive reviews of educational models or o n special methodological procedures of evaluation.

(9) T e a c h e r s of t h e G i f t e d , describing characteristics of more versus less experienced teachers wh ich are of substantial influence to the education of the gifted.

(10) P o l i c y a n d A d v o c a c y in G i f t e d E d u c a t i o n , joining both contributions wh i ch represent the opinions held by political institutions of Germany and papers wh i ch add a broader national or international perspective o n efforts of systematically nurturing the gifted.

In order to complete the proof-reading and because some papers f rom contributors who are not native Engl ish Speakers had to be rewritten, we had to cope with standardizing the English as well as wi th t ime and budgetary problems. Hence we are now pleased to present the Proceedings of the 3rd E C H A Conference, 1 9 9 2 , for a greater audience. W e want to express our thanks to all colleagues and co-workers who assisted us in the editing work. He id i Röder, Edeltraud Schauer, and Mon ika Wersing typed several manuscripts, Cat r in Her ter and Kerstin Osterrieder checked the file transfers on the Computers. Co l l een S. Browder assisted in the translation into Eng l i sh , and Beate Karbaumer re-drew most of the figures and gave most manuscripts their f inal layout.

Finally, our thanks go to The Federal Ministry of Education and Science in B o n n , and the D o n o r Assoc iat ion for the Promot ion of Science in Germany (Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft) through "Bi ldung und Begabung e. V . " (Private Assoc iat ion "Educat ion and Talent") i n B o n n for their grants. Th is support enabled us to publish volume 1 (Abstracts) and volume 2 (Proceedings). A n d we are grateful that the Hogrefe & Huber Publishers made it possible to publish this book in the tried and tested way. O u r hope is that the Proceedings will contribute to the progress of gifted education in Europe and around the wor ld .

Mun i ch , January, 1 9 9 4

K u r t A . H e l l e r

E r n s t A . H a n y

Table of Contents

Foreword V

I. OPENING S P E E C H E S T

Federal support programs for gifted and talented young people in Germany: Concepts and initiatives 3

R a i n e r O r t l e b

Responsibil ity in research o n high ability 7

K u r t A . H e l l e r

II. ABILITY A N D ACHIEVEMENT 13

Individual differences in talent 15

H a n s g e o r g B a r t e n w e r f e r

Commentary on "Individual differences in talent" 2 5

E d w a r d N e c k a

Report from the Symposium "Structures and processes in intellectual achievement" 27

A n d r z e j S e k o w s k i

T h e role of preferences of cognitive styles and intelligence in different kinds of achievement 3 4

A n d r z e j S e k o w s k i

Intelligence - creativity relaüonship: A r e creative motivation and need for achievement influencing it? 4 0

K a t y a S t o y c h e u a

Strategy use and metamemory in gifted and average primary school children 4 6

C h r i s t o p h P e r l e t h

III. CREATIVITY A N D INNOVATION 5 3 ~

Recent trends in creativity research and theory 5 5

K l a u s K . U r b a n

Gifted people and novel tasks 6 8

E d w a r d N e c k a

Log ica l and creative thinking in adolescents 81

O r n e l l a D e n t i c i A n d r e a n i

Subject 's semantic orientation and creative thinking 9 4

M a r i a T r i f o n o v a

Vffl

Persona l and situational determinants of innovation 101

L u t z v o n R o s e n s t i e l

Innovation processes in self-organizing and self-reproducing social Systems 106

H e l m u t K a s p e r

Commun i ca t i on rather than inspiration and Perspiration? 112

H e i n z S c h u l e r

IV. D E V E L O P M E N T O F GIFTEDNESS A N D T A L E N T 117~

Deve lopment of high ability 119

B r i g i t t e R o l l e t t

Deve lopment of giftedness in a life-span perspective 136

F r a n z J . Mönks a n d C h r i s t i a n e S p i e l

Giftedness f rom early chi ldhood to early adolescence: A pilot study 141

C h r i s t i a n e S p i e l a n d U l r i k e S i r s c h

A follow-up study about creative thinking abilities of students 147

A y s e n u r Y o n t a r

F r o m the every-day world and the musical way of life of highly talented young instrumentalists 153

H a n s Günther B a s t i a n

Early educative influences o n later outcomes: T h e Te rman data revisited 164

H e r b e r t J . W a l b e r g , G u o x i o n g Z h a n g , E i l e e n P. H a l l e r , T i m o t h y A . S a r e s , W i n i f r e d E . S t a r i h a , T r u d y W a l l a c e , a n d S u s i e F . Z e i s e r

V. G E N D E R ISSUES 179"

A n asset or a liability? Vo ices of gifted w o m e n 181

J a n i c e A . L e r o u x

TIP studies of gender differences in talented adolescents 190

D a v i d G o l d s t e i n a n d V i c k i B . S t o c k i n g

Gender differences among talented adolescents 204

L i n d a E . B r o d y , L i n d a B . B a r n e t t , a n d C a r o l J . M i l l s

VI. SPECIAL G R O U P S 2 l T

Gifted differently cultured underachievers in Israel 213

N a v a B u t l e r - P o r

Underfunct ioning: The problems of dyslexics and their remediation 224

D i a n e M o n t g o m e r y

T h e problems of highly able chi ldren with an unbalanced intelligence structure 237

M a r i a H e r s k o v i t s

IX

Disability and the development of giftedness 2 4 7

E r n s t A . H a n y

VII. IDENTIFICATION A N D P S Y C H O L O G I C A L M E A S U R E M E N T P R O B L E M S 2 5 1

Identification of the gifted 2 5 3

I v a n K o r e n

Commentary o n "Identification of the gifted" 2 7 0

H a r a l d W a g n e r

The Workshop "Identification of gifted students": Summariz ing paper 2 7 4

Günter T r o s t a n d I n g e m a r W e d m a n

A multi-step selection process for the high-ability chi ldren 2 8 0

N a i l $ a h i n a n d E k r e m D u z e n

Subskills of spatial ability and their relationships to success in accelerated mathematics courses 2 8 6

H e i n r i c h S t u m p f

The D A N T E Test 2 9 8

H e r m a n n Rüppell

Science Process Skills Tests and Log ica l Th ink ing Test for identifying the scientifically gifted in Ko r ea 3 0 2

S e o k e e C h o

Identification of mathematically gifted students 3 1 0

Z u z a n a Tomälkovä

Vffl. GIFTED EDUCATION A N D P R O G R A M E V A L U A T I O N 3 1 7 ~

The promot ion of high ability and talent through education and Instruction 3 1 9

D i a n e M o n t g o m e r y

Commentary o n "The promot ion of high ability and talent through education and instruction" 3 3 6

H e i n z N e b e r

Th ink ing in the head and in the world 3 3 8

J o a n F r e e m a n

Evaluating an accelerated mathematics program: A centre of inquiry approach 3 5 1

M i c h a e l C. P y r y t a n d R o n M o r o z

Evaluating programs for the gifted: Insights resulting from an international Workshop 3 5 5

E r n s t A . H a n y

X

IX. T E A C H E R S O F T H E GIFTED 3 6 0

Compar ing G T trained and G T untrained teachers 3 6 1

J a n B . H a n s e n a n d J o h n F . F e l d h u s e n

The "gifted ch i ld " stereotype among university students and elementary s choo l

Educat ion pol icy concept of the govemment of T h e Federal Republ ic of Germany o n the promot ion of giftedness 3 7 9

E r n s t A u g u s t B l a n k e

The promot ion of highly gifted pupils 3 8 3

G e o r g A . K n a u s s

Types of giftedness promot ion in Baden-Württemberg 3 8 6

P e t e r P a u l y

Nurturance i n Bavar ia 3 8 9

E d u a r d Pütterich

Support for gifted pupils in Saxony 3 9 2

H a n s W i l h e l m B e r e n b r u c h

Commentary o n the Symposium "Educational pol icy conceptions o n nurtur ing high giftedness" 3 9 7

A . H a r r y P a s s o w

Identification of gifted university students for scholarships in Germany 4 0 0

Günter T r o s t

H i g h achievement and underachievement in a cross-national context 4 0 7

L o r r a i n e W i l g o s h

Growing up gifted and talented in Ta iwan 4 1 2

teachers

N a i l $ a h i n a n d E k r e m D u z e n

3 6 7

X. POL ICY A N D A D V O C A C Y IN GIFTED EDUCATION 3 7 7

W u - T i e n W u

Information o n the Th i rd E C H A Conference

Authors ' addresses

4 2 2

4 2 3

Responsibil ity in research on high ability

Kurt A . Heller I n s t i t u t e of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y of M u n i c h , M u n i c h , G e r m a n y

The title of this keynote can be interpreted in several ways. I can only emphasize a few here.

( 1 ) C o n t r i b u t i o n s f r o m r e s e a r c h o n g i f t e d n e s s t o t h e i m p r o v e m e n t of p r a c t i c a ] r e q u i s i t e s i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d n u r t u r a n c e of g i f t e d c h i l d r e n a n d a d o l e s c e n t s .

F r o m a n educational psychological point of view, the role of nurturance of the gifted is primari ly i n d i v i d u a l d e v e l o p m e n t s u p p o r t . This implies at least the fol lowing: a) "Giftedness" as a multifactorial concept, b) personality development is an interactive process, c) nurturance of the gifted as a function of optimizing individual (personality) and social developmental aspects. Th is is tangential to the social and educational policy of equal opportunity.

O n a): Independent of whether "giftedness" is considered psychometrically as a predisposit ion toward outstanding achievements in various areas or cognitively as more or less domain-specific expertise, new theories favor multidimensional models of giftedness (cf. Gardner , 1 9 8 5 ; Hel ler, 1 9 8 6 ; H a n y & Hel ler, 1 9 9 1 ; Mönks, 1992) . Theory-guided diagnostic and nurturance concepts thus call for differentiated approaches wh ich are not represented by one-sided IQ-fixings or so-called cut-off models (Mönks & Hel ler , 1994). The practical identification of gifted children and adolescents frequently l imps behind the state of the art recognitions from research on the gifted.

O n b): Giftedness first manifests itself as a relatively non-specific individual achievement Potential whose development interacts with the social leaming environment f rom the very beginning. Th is indicates interaction with educational and socialization variables. This interac-t ion process should be viewed as a mutual influencing of children's behaviors and parental upbringing practices. The hereditary background is then important i n the development of giftedness mostly for the individual selection and employment of the leaming opportunities presented by the social environment (cf. Scarr & McCar tney , 1 9 8 3 ; Weinert , 1992). Early indicators of giftedness even suggest that during the first few month and years of life particular activities develop wh ich are expressed in curiosity and exploratory behaviors. These can be interpreted as influencing the socialization agents. Attempts to provoke socialization conditions adequate for giftedness and thus to actively influence the leaming environment to satisfy basic cognitive and social-emotional needs are apparently characteristic of the behavior of very gifted children (cf. Friedrich & Lehwald , 1992) . A n important educational task for parents and teachers or other relevant socialization agents stems f rom this. The demand for early identifi­cation and nurturance of gifted children and adolescents is thus founded o n the responsibility for providing appropriate leaming environments.

O n c ) : The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany and that of most the individual states guarantees the individual's right to equal opportunity. This is frequently - knowingly or unintentionally - incorrectly interpreted and used as an argument against educational programs for the gifted by its critics.

"Wi th a view to the demand for equality of educational opportunity a ... dual nuancing of the equality term is necessary. O n the one hand, equality in the sense of Art icle 3 of the Constitution, means that every young person must have all educational paths open. There is no objective

8 Kur t A . Hel ler

reason (e. g. race, rel igion, social Status, sex) for excepting someone f rom a particular educational path. O n the other hand, the social State clause of the Constitution (Art. 2 0 , Paragraph 1 in connect ion with Art . 2 , paragraph 1 and Art . 3) states that a dynamic component is contained in the term of equality, such that each individual's own Situation should be considered" (cited according to Gauger, 1 9 9 2 , p. 25).

The indiv iduals right to equal education opportunities thus Stands face to face wi th the social responsibility for offering an adequate spectrum of specific programs. T h e degree to wh ich the individual youth takes advantage of these offerings cannot be determined by the State, but is determined by individual interests, abilities, educational goals, etc. Th is is not to say that the State should not insist o n an obligatory basic education for everyone. Therefore, the decision for making use of educational opportunities lies with the individual him-/herself. In addition, there are many instances where personality development is interfered wi th through less adequate socialization conditions, deficient l eaming environments or individual handicaps. The school 's task here and possible educational psychological counsel ing is to maximize the educational equality. Th is Obligation results f rom the equality rights principle whereby the social components of equal opportunity should be discussed. Th is includes all youth, the gifted and not only those wi th leaming and physical disabilities.

The realization of the constitutional right to equal opportunity, i . e. the transformation of needs into educational activities, includes questions central to appl ied research in giftedness. In addition to leaming and ability psychological aspects, gifted diagnostical, instructional psycho­logical, educational and social psychological or support-didactical problems are relevant.

( 2 ) R e s e a r c h o n g i f t e d n e s s i n c l u d e s n o t o n l y t e c h n o l o g i c a l o r p r a c t i c a l q u e s t i o n s , b u t a l s o n e c e s s i t a t e s basis s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h a p p r o a c h e s .

Scientific history has often shown the efficiency of applied research is greatly influenced by basic theoretical and experimental research. This basis rule also holds true for research on giftedness and for the practice of nurturing the gifted, including diagnosis, counsel ing, and intervention. O n e could name, for example, innovative approaches f rom more recent cognitive psychology or expertise research in the expert-novice paradigm (for current Information, see also Gruber & Mand l , 1 9 9 2 ; Schneider, 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 3 ; Shore & Kanewsk i , 1 9 9 3 ; Perleth e t a l . , 1 9 9 3 or contributions from C h o , Freeman, and/or Sekowski , in this volume). Th is produced important drives wi thin applied research o n problem solving as well as in instructional questions, such as we find in research on leaming and thought processes specific to the gifted, memory strategies, metacognitive competencies, cop ing styles, etc.

Addi t ional topics, more related to basic scientific questions are based o n longitudinal analyses (e. g. description and explanation) of development processes in the gifted. This includes social-cultural contexts wh ich promote or inhibit development (cf. Mönks & Sp ie l , this volume). In addit ion, (semi-)experimental studies with the function of causal analyses, for example, for explaining of sex differences in various dimensions of giftedness (competence) and/or achieve­ment areas (performance), especially in math, sciences, and technology (cf. B rody and Goldstein & Stocking, this volume). Scientific recognitions contribute not only to answering general or differential psychological questions. The explanatory knowledge acquired leads to the devel­opment of the knowledge for changes necessary in practical nurturance of the gifted, e. g. in counsel ing and intervention, in education and Instruction.

( 3 ) I m p o r t a n t a d v a n c e s in k n o w l e d g e a b o u t d e u e l o p m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s of g i f t e d c h i l d r e n a n d a d o l e s c e n t s c a n a l s o b e e x p e c t e d f r o m c r o s s - c u l t u r a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n r e s e a r c h . T h i s has t h u s f a r b e e n s o m e w h a t n e g l e c t e d in t h e r e s e a r c h of t h e g i f t e d , d e s p i t e Us m e t h o d o l o g i c a l a d v a n t a g e s .

The reason for relatively few cross-cultural studies that can be referred to as more than international cooperations but meet scientific methodology requirements is the enormous cost

Responsibil ity in research on high ability 9

but also specific methological problems which frequently confound the work and financial load. I wil l report more o n this later. O n e expects cross-cultural research approaches within giftedness to bring about an increase in knowledge with regard to various cultural influences on individual developmental and educational processes (cf. Eckensberger & Krewer , 1990) . This goal should be met by a specific research strategy. Th is means that cross-cultural psychology should be defined by research methods and not by the object research (Petzold, 1992) . Three types of compar ison are relevant: a) cross-national, b) cross-cultural, and c) cross-societal. In the context of our research problem, the second, cross-cultural studies are of interest; with regard to the cross-national view cf. Wi lgosh (this volume). Culturally caused behavioral differences in individual development should be indentified through the systematic compar ison of psychology variables or results obtained in different cultural conditions. Equivalent or non-cultural measurement instruments must be employed. Th is is a major problem of cross-cul­tural research. O n the basis of such research designs, universality assumptions can be examined in relevant development, educational, leaming or instructional areas. Th is is a funetion of cross-cultural psychology wh ich was already emphasized by Wi lhe lm Wundt in his psychology of different cultures at the t u m of the Century. Thus, the so-called erfc (from phonetic) approach Starts w i th a universality hypothesis of human behavior. In contrast, the so-called emi'c (from phonemic) approach looks at cultural socialization influences within certain cultures (cultural-relativity hypothesis). Accordingly cultural-specific and valid measurement wh i ch must also be culture free instruments make it difficult to actual make cultural comparisons. Therefore, newer ecopsychological models (e. g. Berry, 1980) attempts to integrate coneepts f rom "emic" and "ct ic" (cf. Petzold, 1 9 9 2 , p. 31 l f . ) .

Cross-cultural studies can provide new recognitions about social-cultural development and nurturance conditions of the gifted solely from their change perspective. Th is could lead to greater variety in the support program ideas. Not only a practical use but also tolerance toward foreign cultures is increased (cf. Butler-Por, this volume). The meeting of international ideas and cultures can also be supported by international Conferences such as this E C H A Conference. A l though the exchange of information and ideas is central here, the informal contacts should not be dismissed in their peace making role. If the partieipants of E C H A feel reached by this Statement, then an important goal of E C H A has been achieved.

Before I go o n to a comparative overview of the contents of the program, one last research pol icy responsibility should be mentioned.

( 4 ) A s l o n g as research is supported by State or private/public f o u n d a t i o n s and is directly or indirectly a p u b l i c service, a mutual responsibility grows b e t w e e n the society and the research C o m m u n i t y .

Without wanting to question the freedom of research - i . e . the responsible selection of topics and methods by the researchers themselves - the simultaneous responsibility of the society toward society by the direct or indirect funding of research must be emphasized. Th is stipulation also holds true for the research of giftedness, wh ich otherwise is in danger of isolation (and not only f rom the mainstream of the scientific Community). O n the other hand, qualified researchers in this field have the same rights as other sicentists, to demand appropriate work conditions where one can consider scientifically desirable questions from the field of basic research and also f rom the practice of giftedness nurturance. It can be taken as a positive sign that the scientific and public op in ion about the uses and rights of research on giftedness is playing an increasing role - albeit small in compar ison with other topics - in the consciousness of those responsible. Perhaps this international Conference in Europe can increase the initiative here and elsewhere - for the good of the Coming generation and to improve the future of all mankind.

( 5 ) A c o n t e n t analysis of the topics here at the third E C H A Conference in c o m p a r i s o n with the p r e v i o u s nine W C G T world Conference p r o c e e d i n g s and the m o s t important

10 Kur t A . Hel ler

J o u r n a l s in t h e f i e l d of g i f t e d n e s s r e s e a r c h p o i n t s t o i m p o r t a n t t r e n d s in t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h s c e n e . T h i s c o u l d b e i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e c o n t i n u a l d e v e l o p m e n t of r e s e a r c h o n t h e g i f t e d a t t h e E u r o p e a n l e v e l .

First, here are analysis results f rom the Conference proceedings of the previous nine world Conferences of the Wor ld Conference for Gifted and Talented Ch i ldren (WCGT ) . A total of 4 0 8 Conference presentations have been published from 1 9 7 5 to 1 9 9 2 . Th is corresponds to a publication percentage of about 1 5 % . Approx imate ly 4 0 % were f rom practice, 2 0 % each in the areas of theoretical and empir ical reports (on applied research), 1 5 % o n gifted programs and support of the gifted. On l y 5 % (in the last three years) discussed the topic of basis research (Heller & Menacher , 1992) . This picture reflects the analyses of relevant Journals (Pyryt, 1 9 8 8 ; Rogers, 1 9 8 9 ; Carter & Swanson, 1990) . He re , too, the majority of the practice-oriented applied research is employ ing generally simple Statistical methods. On l y about 2 5 % of the studies reported can be considered as hypothesis oriented. More demanding Statistical methods such as path analyses or Cluster analyses are rarely found here and are probably published in Journals (cf. Pyryt, 1988) .

The need to catch up in theoretically guided experimental and quasi-experimental research on giftedness is emphasized indirectly in the Classification of psychological subdiseiplines taking part. The percentage of general psychologists taking part is negligible (median of about 5%), whereas educational psychologists make up about 7 0 % and clearly dominate.

A more recent content analysis (Heller, 1993) of (English-language) Journals w i th the majority of publications o n the gifted from the last 10 years (Gifted Ch i ld Quarterly, Roeper Review, Journa l for the Educat ion of the Gifted, and Gifted Educat ion International) provided the following picture: The topics "Gifted Educat ion" and "Programs and Nurtur ing" are most strongly represented in all four Journals analyzed with percentages between 3 0 and 6 0 . Top ics such as "Characteristics of the Gifted and Talented" are more frequently found in the Journa l for the Educat ion of the Gifted (39%) and in the Gifted Ch i ld Quarterly (28%) versus the Roeper Review (21.5%) and Gifted Educat ion International (19%). "Socia l Context " has its strongest repre-sentation in the Gifted Ch i ld Quarterly with 1 3 % , "Identification" with 7 . 5 % each in the Gifted Ch i ld Quarterly and the Journa l for the Educat ion of the Gifted. The rates of " L eaming und Percept ion" and "Development" are astonishingly low in all four Journals. Solely the category "Definitions and Concepts of Giftedness and Talent" had higher percentages in the Gifted Chi ld Quarterly (27%) and the Journa l for the Educat ion of the Gifted (16%). These results generally conf irm those reported by Rogers (1989) and Carter and Swanson (1990) who , in part, included different Journals.

What picture is presented by the contributions to the Third E C H A Conference? Ninety percent of the 4 0 0 Conference partieipants come from Europe and 1 0 % from overseas. O f the non-Europeans, 5 % are from Nor th Amer i ca and Canada and 5 % from As i a . A f r i ca , Australia and New Zealand are not represented. The G e r m a n partieipants are, as expected, the leading group with 3 5 % . A considerable number of visitors come from the former communist states of Europe . Together they make up nearly a third. Fol lowing Germany (35%), Hungary , Poland and the C S F R are represented with 9 % . The former states of the U S S R follow wi th 7%. With that the Th i rd E C H A Conference contributes significantly to the European Unif icat ion. The changes wh i ch were already becoming apparent two years ago at the Second E C H A C o n ­ference (1990) in Budapest seem to continue in a positive manner despite current conflicts within Europe . C o n c e m i n g this our Conference has already passed the first hurdle. The main topics of this Conference and those of the preeeeding world congresses o n h igh ability are relatively similar. The question of identification, however, with 1 4 % , ist dealt wi th twice as frequently as at the other nine world congresses (with an average of 7%).

Responsibility in research o n high ability 11

There is a lack of support and practical experience conceming the education of the gifted including Information about giftedness in former communist states of Europe . W i th regard to definition problems and theoretical bases of support for the gifted there is a growing interest. In contrast to this, in Western Europe there is a dominant tendency to establish private and political initiatives for support programs for the gifted. This might be a positive sign. O r does a low percentage (2%) of future oriented topics at this Conference mean that it is necessary to be sceptical concerning the planning concepts? I hope not. W i th regard to actual analysis results, we know that scientific disciplines and subdisciplines of psychology and education are con-firmed. The vast area of research into high ability seems to be dominated by educational psychology and related subjects. A s an educational psychologist, I do not regret this although a higher scale of interdisciplinary work could exert a positive influence. Th is demand also concems the relationship between practical and basis research. "Pragmatic nuture and educa­tion of the gifted o n an unsure scientific basis" - to employ Franz Weinert 's sober description (Waldmann & Weinert , 1 9 9 0 , p. 184) - wil l provoke further discussions.

References Berry, J . W. (1980). Ecological analyses for cross-cultural psychology. In N. Warren (Ed.), S t u d i e s in

C r o s s - C u l t u r a l P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 2 (pp. 157-189). New York: Academic Press. Carter, K. R., & Swanson, H . L. (1990). A n Analysis of the Most Frequently Cited Gifted Journal Articles

Since the Marland Report: Implications for Researchers. Gifted C h i l d Q u a r t e r l y , 3 4 , 116-123. Eckensberger, L. H . , & Krewer, B. (1990). Kulturuergleich und Ökopsychologie. In L. Kruse, C. F.

Graumann, & E.-D. Lantermann (Eds.), Ökologische P s y c h o l o g i e (pp. 66-75). München: Psycho­logie Verlags Union.

Friedrich, G , & Lehwald, G. (1992). Frühindikatoren geistiger Emtwicklung im sprachlichen Bereich. In E. A . Hany & H . Nickel (Eds.), B e g a b u n g und H o c h b e g a b u n g (pp. 77-93). Bern: Huber.

Gardner, H . (1985). F r a m e s of m i n d . T h e t h e o r y of m u l t i p l e i n t e l l i g e n c e s . New York: Basic Books. Gauger, J . -D . (Ed.). (1992). Vorträge und Beiträge der P o l i t i s c h e n A k a d e m i e der K o n r a d - A d e n a u e r -

S t i f t u n g , Heft 2 2 . Bonn: Köllen. Gruber, H . , & Mandl, H . (1992). Begabung und Expertise. In E. A . Hany & H . Nickel (Hrsg.), B e g a b u n g

und H o c h b e g a b u n g (pp. 59-73). Bern: Huber. Hany, E. A . , & Heller, K. A . (1991). Gegenwärtiger Stand der Hochbegabungsforschung. Zeitschrift

für E n t w i c k l u n g s p s y c h o l o g i e und Pädagogische P s y c h o l o g i e , 2 8 , 241-249. Hany, E. A . , & Nickel, H . (1992). Positionen und Probleme der Begabungsforschung. In E. A . Hany &

H . Nickel (Eds.), B e g a b u n g und H o c h b e g a b u n g (pp. 1-14). Bern: Huber. Heller, K. A . (1986). Psychologische Probleme der Hochbegabungsforschung. Z e i t s c h r i f t für E n t w i c k ­

l u n g s p s y c h o l o g i e und Pädagogische P s y c h o l o g i e , 1 8 , 335-361. Heller, K. A. , & Menacher, P. (1992). State of the Art of Research on Giftedness and Talent in the

Proceedings of the W C G T Conferences since 1975. In F. J . Mönks & W. A . M . Peters (Eds.), T a l e n t f o r t h e F u t u r e : S o c i a l and P e r s o n a l i t y D e v e l o p m e n t of Gifted C h i l d r e n (pp. 138-148). Assen: Van Gore um.

Heller, K. A . (1993). International Trends and Issues of Research on Giftedness. In W. T. Wu, C. C. Kuo, & J . Steeves (Eds.), P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e S e c o n d A s i a n C o n f e r e n c e o n Giftedness: G r o w i n g up gifted and t a l e n t e d (pp. 93-110). Taipai, Taiwan: N T N U .

Mönks, F. J . (1992). Ein interaktionales Modell der Hochbegabung. In E. A . Hany & H . Nickel (Eds.), B e g a b u n g und H o c h b e g a b u n g (pp. 17-22). Bern: Huber.

Mönks, F. J . , & Heller, K. A . (1994). Identification and Programming. In M . C. Wang (Ed.), E d u c a t i o n of C h i l d r e n with S p e c i a l N e e d s . I n t e r n a t i o n a l E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n , V o l . 5 (2nd ed., pp. 2725-2732). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Perleth, C. , & Schauer, S. (1992). Content Analysis of the Papers of the 3rd E C H A Conference. E C H A C o n f e r e n c e N e w s l e t t e r , n o . 1, October 11, 1992.

Perleth, C , Lehwald, G , & Browder, C. S. (1993). Indicators of high ability in young children. In K. A . Heller, F. J . Mönks, & A . H . Passow (Eds.), I n t e r n a t i o n a l H a n d b o o k of Research and D e v e l o p m e n t of Giftedness and T a l e n t (pp. 283-310). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

12 Kurt A . Hel ler

Petzold, M . (1992). Kulturvergleichende Sozialisationsforschung. P s y c h o l o g i e in E r z i e h u n g und Un­t e r r i c h t , 3 9 , 301-314.

Pyryt, M . C. (1986). T h e Gifted C h i l d Q u a r t e r l y A s D a t a b a s e . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children in Orlando, FL , Nov. 1988.

Rogers, K. B. (1989). A Content Analysis of the Literature on Giftedness. J o u r n a l f o r the E d u c a t i o n of t h e Gifted, 1 3 , 78-88.

Scan*, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype-environment effect. C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 5 4 , 424-435.

Schneider, W. (1992). Erwerb von Expertise: Zur Relevanz kognitiver und nichtkognitiver Vorausset­zungen. In E. A . Hany & H . Nickel (Eds.), B e g a b u n g und H o c h b e g a b u n g (pp. 105-122). Bern: Huber.

Schneider, W. (1993). Acquiring expertise: determinants of exceptional Performance. In K. A . Heller, F. J . Mönks, & A . H . Passow (Eds.), I n t e r n a t i o n a l H a n d b o o k of Research a n d D e v e l o p m e n t of Giftedness a n d T a l e n t (pp. 311-324). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Shore, B . M . , & Kanevsky, L S . (1993). Thinking processes: being and becoming gifted. In K. A . Heller, F. J . Mönks, & A . H . Passow (Eds.), I n t e r n a t i o n a l H a n d b o o k of R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t of Giftedness a n d T a l e n t (pp. 133-147). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Waldmann, M . , & Weinert, F. E. (1980), I n t e l l i g e n z und D e n k e n . P e r s p e k t i v e n der H o c h b e g a b u n g s ­f o r s c h u n g . Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Weinert, F. E. (1992). Wird man zum Hochbegabten geboren, entwickelt man sich dahin oder wird man dazu gemacht? In E. A . Hany & H . Nickel (Eds.), B e g a b u n g und H o c h b e g a b u n g (pp. 197-203). Bern: Huber.