PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA PINTAR · PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA PINTAR definitions began with the...

CONTENT

Page

Proceedings from PERMATA PINTAR

Nurturing Great Potentials: Celebrating Individual Differences 26

Professor Françoys Gagné

Nature vs Nurture: Giftedness, Talent, Environment and Culture 46

Professor Dr. Dawood Al-Hidabi

Multiple Intelligence in Talent Development

Dr. Noor Aishah Rosli 53

Associate Professor Dr. Maria Salih 61

Planning Differentiated Teaching and Learning 71

Professor Dr. Carol June Maker

26

PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA PINTAR

PLENARY:

NURTURING GREAT POTENTIALS: CELEBRATING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

FRANÇOYS GAGNÉ, PH.D.

PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY (RETIRED),

UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL, CANADA

It is both an honour and a pleasure to have been invited to keynote at the PERMATA

international conference dedicated to the development of children ‘beyond tomorrow’. As the

main theme of my keynote, I will discuss a subject very dear to my heart, namely the range of

individual differences in gifts and talents, its denial by educational systems around the world,

and its impact on talent development. Since keynotes offer food for thought, and I am a

French-speaking Canadian from the province of Quebec, I decided to structure this

presentation as a French meal. Here is the menu: A short survey of my talent development

theory, the DMGT will serve as ‘amuse-gueules’, or appetizers. Then, in the first main course,

the ‘entrée’, I will explore the full range of individual differences in academic achievement. The

second main course, ‘le plat de résistance’, will survey, as its name aptly suggests, various

forms of administrative resistance to these individual differences. Finally, as dessert, I will

propose an educational framework that aims to maximize the talents of our most promising

students. I wish you ‘Bon appétit’ as we attack the first course.

Les amuse-gueule: Overview of the DMGT

I cannot imagine offering a keynote without mentioning, even briefly, the theoretical framework

that I introduced over thirty years ago, and developed systematically over the next three

decades. It is called the Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talent, or DMGT. Since it is

now well known internationally and appears as a chapter in most recently published gifted

education handbooks (e.g., Balchin, Hymer & Matthews, 2008; Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, in

press; Cross & Cross, 2009; Kaufman, 2011; Macfarlane & Stambaugh, 2007; Renzulli et al,

2008; Shavinina, 2009), I will answer two brief questions: (a) What are the core principles of

the DMGT, and (b) what are its main components.

Gifts and talents differentiated

How did the DMGT come into being? When I entered the field of gifted education in the late

1970s, I soon noticed a major conceptual and terminological ambiguity. It concerned the use

of the two key labels in the field: giftedness and talent. Almost everyone was using them as

synonyms, although the label ‘gifted’ was vastly more popular than the label talent. Most

27


definitions began with the expression “the gifted and talented are …”. What surprized me most

was that scholars and professionals never specified in what way the gifted differed from the

talented. As you might have noticed, dictionaries define giftedness as ‘talent’, and vice versa.

I even asked Google Translate about Malay usage. I put in ‘gifted’ and I got ‘berbakat’, then

wrote ‘talented’ and got ‘berbakat’ again!

I also observed that these two labels referred indifferently to two very different concepts: either

high potentialities or high achievements. For all of us, potential and achievement are very

different things. When we affirm, that education should allow each child to realize his

potentialities, we are clearly separating the idea of potential from the idea of realization. And

what does the concept of underachievement mean? Is it not simply the acknowledgement of

a significant gap between (high) potential and (low) achievement? Again, we see that a clear

distinction between potential and performance, or aptitude and achievement is crucial to

properly understand the concept of underachievement. The problem I found was that

everyone—educators, scholars, teachers—was using the labels gifted or talented to represent

sometimes the concept of potential and at other times the concept of achievement.

It seemed logical to me that a proper pairing between labels and concepts would foster

conceptual clarity. Giftedness would designate high potentialities or aptitudes, whereas talent

would refer to outstanding achievements or performances. Giftedness would imply natural

abilities with significant genetic underpinnings, as opposed to systematic learning and effort

in the case of talents. IQ tests would serve as measures for intellectual giftedness, and exams

or achievement tests for academic achievement. That conceptual and terminological

differentiation became the core of the DMGT. To this core principle I added three important

theoretical ideas. First, I defined human potentialities as natural abilities with significant

biological underpinnings, whereas talents were defined as systematically developed abilities

that required long-term learning and practice to become full-fledged talents. Second, since

both belonged to the broader category of abilities, I also stated that we should consider gifts

as the building materials for talents. Finally, these two ideas led to a simple definition of talent

development: it is the progressive transformation of gifts, the natural abilities, into talents, the

systematically developed high competencies (knowledge and skills). This theoretical

framework requires some intellectual effort, since you have to put aside well-anchored

language ambiguities. But, if you really want to promote conceptual clarity, you need to make

that intellectual effort.

28


Overview of the five components

The second question targets the structure of the DMGT. It first appeared as a very coarse

model (Gagné, 1985); it evolved progressively over the next three decades to achieve its

current figural representation. The current diagram clearly shows the transformation of high

natural abilities (gifts at left) into high competencies (talents at right) through a complex

developmental process (bottom, centre). Hundreds of fields of talent exist, as many as there

are occupational areas; they are grouped into 9 major categories. For this keynote, I will focus

on the top category: academic disciplines. Also, natural abilities come in many varieties; I have

grouped them into 6 major categories that I call domains. With respect to academic

achievement, the main causal domain is intellectual or cognitive abilities; thousands of studies

have shown that the predictive power of IQ scores varies between 0.70 and 0.40 in general

K-12 education (Macintosh, 2011). They predict academic achievement much better than any

other causal influence, except of course current or past academic performance. Again,

research shows that correlations between academic achievement measures over time cluster

around 0.70 and 0.80 (Gagné, 2015a). Some elements within the D component at the bottom

also play a significant causal role in the emergence of academic talent, especially the level of

attention and concentration in the classroom, as well as the amount of study at home.

The DMGT diagram introduces two other major components of talent. The first one is called

intrapersonal catalysts, and includes stable physical and mental traits (e.g., health, looks,

temperament, personality), as well as goal management processes, especially those related

to goal identification (e.g., interests, values, motives) and to goal attainment (e.g.,

perseverance, resilience, and will power). The second group is called environmental catalysts.

It has three main targets: a socio-economic dimension (e.g., educational policies, funding,

family SES), a psychological dimension (e.g. family dynamics, teacher behaviour, peer

influences), and an educational dimension (e.g., special enrichment resources). Here is a

summary of the main sources that can affect the level of academic achievement.

All these influences vary in intensity from one person to the next; and the individual differences

in each one of these causal influences will contribute through very complex interactions to

produce a certain level of academic achievement. If the level is high enough, it will be called

‘academic talent’. In the DMGT, the minimum threshold has been set at 10%, of course the

top ten per cent! One last comment: keep in mind that every school achievement score,

whether low, average, or high, reflects the direct influence of each of these potential causal

influences: natural abilities, developmental processes, personal qualities and motivations, as

well as a diversity of environmental influences. This is why measures of school achievement

29


are such good predictors of future achievement, which makes them the number one criterion

in selection procedures for talent development programs.

[Add that they explain ID in pace of learning or educational progress]

This is all the time I reserved to survey the DMGT. Recall that the French term ‘amuse-gueule’

means appetizers. There shouldn’t be too many of them; I don’t want you to get stuffed too

early, because we still have a full meal in front of us. So, if you want to discover more about

the DMGT, just Google my name, and it will lead you to my web site! So, let’s move on to the

first main course: l’entrée.

L’entrée: The (underestimated) range of individual differences in achievement

L’entrée aims to explore the range of individual differences in academic achievement at

different grade levels. This will be done in two successive steps.

First step: the ITBS data

For the first step, I will use a very large database I analysed some years ago, (Gagné, 2005);

it belongs to a very popular U.S. achievement test: the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS).

Because of our very strict time limits, I will give you the strictly essential information on the

data I used; that information should be sufficient for you to understand the statistical data I will

present. If you want to know more, the source document is available on my web site. The

database is the end-of-year norm data for students in grades 1 to 9 on the short Survey Battery

of the ITBS; it is composed of three 30-minutes subtests: Language, Reading, Math. The

norms for each grade level are based on a national representative sample of 20,000 students.

Yes, 20 thousand for each grade level! Among the various norms offered by ITBS

administrators, I chose the Developmental Standard Scores (SS), which is designed to track

student progress from grade to grade. Imagine that the raw achievement scores of 170,000

students from grades 1 to 9 are normalized on a common scale. That scale appears at the top

of this slide; it has a minimum of 110 representing the lowest performance of a Grade 1

student, and a maximum of 370 representing the highest score obtained by a Grade 9 student.

The slide shows the score distributions for three grade levels: Grade 1, Grade 5, and Grade

9. You can see at the bottom values for the total range, and the top 10% and bottom 10%

markers.

The special quality of that scale is that any SS score means that all students who obtain it

have reached the same level of mastery of the basic curriculum, whatever their actual grad

30


level. For example, look at the value 180 on the SS scale; the bar charts at the bottom indicate

that it corresponds to a Centile 95 for Grade 1 students, a Centile 10 for Grade 5 students,

and a Centile 2 for Grade 9 students. In other words, that SS score of 180 identifies high

achieving first graders, low achieving fifth graders, and very low achieving ninth graders.

Believe it or not, there are even some Grade 9 students who obtain SS scores equivalent to

an average Grade 1 student! Each of these curves represents a static image of school

achievement in three grade levels at some point in time. They are like group achievement

selfies!

Static images are interesting, but do not tell the whole story. Because developmental

phenomena extend over long periods, a longitudinal outlook offers unique information,

especially the impact of individual differences in learning speed. These individual differences

demonstrate a fundamental law of physics: Speed multiplied by Time equals Distance. Said

differently, as time goes by, the fastest learners distance themselves more and more from the

slowest. For example, at the start of a marathon, all runners form a compact group spread

over just a few hundred meters; at the end, up to 3 or 4 hours separate the winner from the

slowest participants. Similarly, students who enter Grade 1 do not differ too much in terms of

their knowledge; but individual differences will grow progressively as they move through each

successive year of school.

This dynamic phenomenon has been labelled (see Lohman, 1999) the “fan spread effect”. The

figure describes a learning situation, with years of study on the horizontal axis (abscissa) and

curriculum mastery (also in years) on the vertical axis (ordinate). The diagonal in the centre of

the figure shows the pace of the average learner, mastering year after year the curriculum

planned for that year. After 8 years, he is an average student in Grade 8, which gives him a

pace of progress of 1.0. The lines below the diagonal identify slow learners, with the slowest

one having mastered the Grade 4 curriculum after 8 years of study; it gives him a learning

pace of 0.5. Fast learners appear above the diagonal, with the fastest one showing a pace of

2.0, representing a mastery of the Grade 8 curriculum after just 4 years of study. This figure

shows that the fastest learners progress four times faster than the slowest ones. It is like a

cyclist going at 25 k/h who is passed by a car going at 100 k/h! Do we observe in reality such

large individual differences in academic progress?

Let me bring back our three curves and point out a few observations. First, each curve shows

a normal distribution, as we would expect from individual differences in pace of progress.

Second, as expected in any learning environment, knowledge grows regularly over time, as

31


shown by the increasing grade level averages, from 150 in Grade 1, to 215 in Grade 5, and

260 in Grade 9. Third, the range of scores increases substantially over time, from about 90

units in Grade 1, to 170 units in Grade 5, almost twice as much as in Grade 1, and finally to

no less than 220 units in Grade 9. That is the fan spread effect. As the cohorts of students

learn more and more year after year, individual students progress at very different paces, thus

producing the increasing ranges we observe in the figure. Some of the slowest Grade 5

students have scores equivalent to an average first grader, around 150, which makes them 4

years behind; others have scores equivalent to the top 10% in Grade 9. All three curves

illustrate mastery ratios of at least 4:1. Even if we exclude the extremes in Grade 5, the top

and bottom 10%, the middle 80% cover achievements that range from average third graders

(186 units) to average Grade 8 students (250 units). That is a span of 5 grades, without even

counting the more extreme students. As a final observation, notice that the Grade 5 average

is closer to the Grade 9 average (45 units) than to the Grade 1 average (65 units). Because

the SS scale has been built as equal interval scale, we can assume that U.S. students learn

less during the second half of the period covered than during the first half; the amount of new

knowledge decreases over time.

The ITBS data illustrate what the famous psychometrician Arthur Jensen called the First Law

of Individual Differences. It states: “in achievements that do not have a low performance

ceiling, instruction that succeeds in raising the group mean (the rightward movement of the

means) also increases the variance among individuals (the significant widening of the curves)

(Jensen, 1991, p. 178). They also confirm the large diversity of achievements at each grade

level, even as early as the end of Grade 1. The students in each grade cohort all share the

same classrooms although their mastery of the basic curriculum varies from well below grade

level to well above. Here is an example taken from the Grade 5 data (the yellow curve). I asked

myself: “How many Grade 5 students achieve at least as well as an average Grade 6 student

on the ITBS Survey Battery?” The answer is an enormous 33%. That’s a lot of students who

are not learning much new materials in their grade. And 20% of these students achieve as

well as average Grade 7 students; 10% got scores at least equivalent to average Grade 8

students, and almost 5% equalled average Grade 9 ITBS results. That percentage

corresponds to at least one student in each classroom on average. In short, the ITBS data

confirm that learning pace ratios of 4:1 are easy to find, just by looking at standardized

achievement test results.

32


Second step: Talent searches in high school

Do the ITBS data illustrate the full range of academic achievements? Is it possible to find

academic prodigies in schools as we do in music, chess, sports, and other fields? Once in a

while we read stories about very young students who have reached exceptionally high levels

of mastery in one or more subject matters. I have in mind two of them. The first one is a young

9-year-old boy I met some years ago, who had completed the high school math curriculum,

and was being tutored in college level algebra; the second one is a 5-year-old boy who has

mastered the curriculum of our 6-year elementary school system before even entering school!

So, there is no doubt that prodigious students exist. But do we have any idea of their

prevalence? How many are there, sitting in our classrooms, many of them unnoticed? One

program in the U.S. offers a partial answer to that question: it is called the “Talent search”.

It is a well-known fact that grade level achievement tests disadvantage talented students

because there are not enough difficult questions to discriminate among these fast learners.

We see only small differences because they all belong to the top 5% where differences are

minimal in terms of items missed. This phenomenon is called ‘a ceiling effect’: high achievers

all bunch up in the top 5% group with almost equal scores because of insufficient difficulty.

Could it be that these very talented students are not as similar as they appear? Is it possible

that if we offered them a real challenge we would discover that some of them have been

outrageously undervalued, that we could discover a normal curve distribution among them?

This is exactly what the late Julian Stanley, one of the foremost scholars in gifted education,

believed when he created the Talent Search (Lupkowski-Shoplik et al, 2003). The basic idea

was simple: recreate hidden individual differences in achievement by using more advanced

tests to increase the level of difficulty. What is, in a nutshell, a Talent Search? First, you invite

7th and 8th grade students, not everyone of course, but those who achieve in the top 5% of

their grade cohort either in language or mathematics. Second, you challenge them with the

Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), now called SAT Reasoning Test, an ability test designed

to assess the competencies (knowledge and skills) of college-bound 12th graders, that is those

who wish to pursue a college education. In fact, that test (or its ACT equivalent) is a

compulsory component of their admission documents to any university. It has two versions,

one for language (the SAT-V) and one for math (the SAT-M). The scores range from 200 to

800, with a normalized average fixed at 500.

33


Here are some of the results obtained by these young students. No less than half of these

talented 8th Grade boys, four years younger than the HS Seniors they were emulating, reached

or exceeded the normalized mean of 533 for the SAT-M; and a fair number of them had scores

above 700, enough to be accepted at an Ivy League university. The 8th grade girls did about

as well, with almost 60% of them at least reaching the 498 mean for the SAT-M. And the

scores for the 7th graders are also very impressive, with between 22% and 32% of them

equating or beating the 12th grade norms. What is most impressive in all these cases is that

they had not yet ‘officially’ studied the high school language and math curricula for the grades

9 to 12! Those few who break the 700 barriers on either the SAT-V or SAT-M should be

considered akin to prodigies in other fields, not least because they accumulated that

knowledge and skills strictly by themselves.

We have just seen a few examples of the huge variability of individual differences in the top

half of academic achievements. The ITBS data have illustrated how large the variance

remains, even within the top 10% achievers, and the talent search data reveal an almost

incredible ‘crème de la crème’ hidden within the top 5% achievers in middle school, students

who have not yet begun to officially study the high school math and language curriculum.

These data reveal that the fan spread can extend beyond the 4: 1 ratio to more extreme

situations. There are some slow learners who sit in Grade 8 but have barely mastered the

Grade 2 curriculum, giving them a learning pace of 0.25); and there are some exceptionally

fast learners who can move ahead at breakneck speed, suggesting a learning pace of 4:1.

This last slide illustrates a more realistic range of existing learning pace differences when we

take into account the whole population of students; the ratio becomes 16:1, a gap of

approximately 16 years of curriculum mastery between the few Grade 8 students who have

not moved beyond the Grade 1curriculum and the few Grade 8 students who obtain 700+

scores on the SAT! I might be exaggerating a little bit, but not that much.

Here is my next question: do we observe a similar range of differences in terms of

administrative progress, namely the variability of grade levels? This question brings us to the

second main course on our menu: le plat de résistance. It is very aptly named because we will

examine various forms of systemic resistance to individual differences among students.

Le plat de résistance: Education’s ostrich attitude toward individual differences

If educational systems around the world applied their own mission statements, we should

observe a similar range of grade levels within a cohort of same age students. What are these

34


mission statements? Most school systems have taken inspiration from the well-known

Convention on the rights of the child, adopted by the United Nations in October 1989. Article

29 begins as follows: “State Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their

fullest potential” (United Nations, 1989). The mission statements of most states, provinces, or

school districts include a paraphrase of this statement; they all promise to do their utmost to

maximally develop the potentialities of each child placed under their educational responsibility.

To what extent do educational systems follow up on this promise with respect to their talented

students? Do they do more in their policies and practices than pay lip service to their students’

individual differences? Do they act like ostriches by putting their heads in the stand instead of

facing their students’ large individual differences in achievement?

The age/grade lockstep

The first clear sign of education’s lip service approach to individual differences is the military

like approach to grade placement. It manifests itself in two distinct ways: how kids enter

school, and how they move through grade levels. In most school systems, administrators

determine the right to enter school with an age criterion instead of a readiness criterion. It’s so

much simpler than having to determine the children’s aptitude to begin the school curriculum.

So, if you have reached a certain age by a certain date, you are allowed to begin whatever

your level of readiness; one day too late, and you have to wait a full year! What does the

research say? Dozens of studies (see Gagnier, 1999) have shown that the level of cognitive

development, as measured by IQ or school readiness tests, predicts academic achievement

in the first grades of elementary school much better than students’ chronological age. The

correlation between chronological age and academic achievement among first graders ranges

between .10 and .25 (Gagné & Gagnier, 2004), whereas the predictive power increases to .50

or more when using school readiness tests (Jensen, 1980). In terms of explained variance

(r2), the difference between the two predictors corresponds to a 5:1 ratio at least!

That administrative approach to grade placement then continues all the way through

elementary school and high school with a standard, almost universal policy: students move

ahead at the same pace. If you’re 8, you’re in Grade 3; if you’re 12, you’re in Grade 7. Julian

Stanley called that administrative policy the ‘age/grade lockstep’ (Stanley, 1979). What is the

extent of that measure? Is it as universal as I have said? To illustrate the administrative spread

of students between grade levels, I will use data from my home province: Quebec. But I would

bet my shirt that we would observe similar results anywhere else. Three groups are shown

according to their age at the beginning of the school year. In Quebec, a rule requires children

35


who enter Preschool to reach their 5th birthday by the end of September, which is the first

month of the school year. They advance to Grade 1 the next year. You can see that most six

year olds are indeed in Grade 1, in fact 98% of them. Just a few have been retained in

Preschool, about 1% of the 74 thousand students; a similar number have accelerated to Grade

2, thanks to a local policy allowing Early Entrance to School. To all purposes, the fan spread

does not exist; but let’s not ask too much for Grade 1 students.

Two years later, apart from a few dozen very fast learners and a somewhat larger number of

very slow learners, 92% of 8 year olds are in Grade 3, and virtually all of them are grouped

within a year of the target group. Keep in mind that most of the students who are one grade

ahead achieved that acceleration through the Early Entrance to School program; grade

skipping remains almost totally unheard of. Note that slow learners exceed fast learners by a

ratio of 4:1. In other words, the small degree of flexibility in the lockstep system advantages

almost exclusively these slower learners. Finally, three years later, in the last year of our

elementary program, we find again almost 90% of all eleven-year-old students in their

expected grade. The fan spread has technically grown to cover six grade levels, but 98% of

these students still occupy just three grade levels. Note again that out of level students are on

the slow side by a ratio of 5:1. In other words, while a few slow learners can fall behind

substantially, fast learners cannot move ahead at a similar pace.

Another barrier: lack of challenge

We have just seen that accelerative measures are extremely rare in school districts. In spite

of hundreds of studies confirming their very positive impact in the vast majority of cases,

teachers, administrators, and even parents strongly resist proposing them to students. It

brought my colleague James Borland—among many others! —to express the following

comment.

“Acceleration is one of the most curious phenomena in the field of education.

I can think of no other issue in which there is such a gulf between what

research has revealed and what most practitioners believe. The research on

acceleration is so uniformly positive, the benefits of appropriate acceleration

so unequivocal, that it is difficult to see how an educator could oppose it”

(Borland, 1989, p. 185). Yet, most oppose it, and have been doing so for

decades!

If talented students are not allowed to progress at their own pace, are there at least other

measures to nurture their accelerated learning pace? For example, do they at least receive

36


proper enrichment in their regular classroom? According to a series of studies, the answer is

‘No’, emphatically ‘No’. First, a major survey of classroom practices by the NRCGT

(Archambault et al, 1993), involving a representative U.S. sample of 3500 teachers in grades

3 and 4, revealed that these teachers introduced ‘some’ enrichment at best once a week, and

that most of it targeted the whole group, so that talented students rarely benefited from any

specific enrichment. The authors concluded:

“The results of this survey paint a disturbing picture of the types of

instructional services gifted students receive in regular classrooms across the

United States. It is clear from the results that teachers in regular third and

fourth grade classrooms make only minor modifications in the curriculum and

their instruction to meet the needs of gifted students” (p. 5)

That seminal study was replicated three times, in the U.S. and Australia, with similar results

(Robinson, 1998; Westberg & Daoust, 2003; Whitton, 1997). But there is more. First, recurrent

evidence from varied sources indicate that educational reforms in North America have reduced

the density of the K-12 curriculum, a phenomenon commonly labelled ‘dumbing down’ (Gatto,

2010; Iserbyt, 2011; Reis et al, 1993). Detailed longitudinal comparisons of classroom

materials revealed that concepts formerly taught in a given grade were ‘upgraded’ by one or

two grades, thus producing a slower acquisition of basic academic knowledge. Could it be that

the desire of educational professionals to minimize the percentage of failures or drop outs, in

other words to ensure that there was ‘no child left behind’, played a major role in these

transformations?

Second, even homogeneous grouping of academically talented students rarely leads to

appropriate curricular enrichment. According to James Kulik, who published extensively on

the subject of ability grouping, such groupings did not produce the expected improvements in

achievement, “because the XYZ programs [a form of tracking with a top 20%, middle 60%,

and bottom 20% separation] did not provide a differentiated curriculum for the stratified

classes” (p. 272). He added: “Administrators of school that are considering reorganization

should keep in mind that little will be gained by instituting XYZ grouping without curricular

differentiation” (2003, p. 273).

In conclusion, most academically talented students, those high achievers in the top 10% of

their grade level, are mostly left to themselves to enrich their daily lives in school. Should we

blame teachers for that state of affairs? Certainly not; they have enough pressures to ‘save’

37


slow learners and adapt to other students with all kinds of special needs that we can

understand them when they point out: “Anyway, they achieve very well, and they will continue

to do so even without any help from me.”

Le dessert: Celebrating individual differences with a ‘real’ ATD program

We have now reached the last course, le dessert, my favourite part of a meal. I borrowed the

recipe for today’s dessert from an article I published last year in an important Asian journal,

the Asia-Pacific Education Review (Gagné, 2015a). Because of time constraints, it will be of

course a summary of the original; so, don’t worry, your dessert won’t be too fattening!

If we could overcome the multiple resistances that keep guiding our school administrators,

what would a real talent development program look like? Its ideology would celebrate

individual differences, acknowledging the central role of individual differences and their

longitudinal expression through the fan spread, and building the educational system around

it. Elliot Eisner, an educational philosopher in the U.S. did just that. Here are a few of his

thoughts:

"The kind of schools we need would not hold as an ideal that all students get

to the same destinations at the same time. They would embrace the idea that

good schools increase the variance in student performance and at the same

time escalate the mean. (…) Individuals come into the world with different

aptitudes, and, over the course of their lives, they develop different interests

and proclivities. (…) In an ideal approach to educational practice, each

youngster would learn at an ideal rate. (…) Over time, the cumulative gap

between students would grow. Students would travel at their own optimal

rates, and some would go faster than others in different areas of work..”

(Eisner, 2002, p. 580)

Keeping in mind that thought-provoking ideological celebration of individual differences, how

would it affect talent development? Recall that I proposed as part of the amuse-gueule a very

simple definition of talent development, namely the progressive transformation of outstanding

natural abilities (the gifts) into remarkable competencies (the talents), with the constant

influence of two large groups of catalysts, intrapersonal and environmental. Here is a more

formal one that focuses on the students who decide to actively pursue a specific academic

talent:

38


Academic talent development (ATD) is the systematic pursuit by academic

talentees of personal long-term excellence goals within a structured program of

learning activities anchored in a constantly challenging academic curriculum.

The neologism talentee identifies any individual actively involved in a talent development

process or program; the expression ‘academic talentee’ fits the specific learning context of

ATD programs much better than the ubiquitous—and overused— ‘gifted student’ label. Seven

(7) constituent elements ensue from the above ATD definition; they highlight the ‘best’

practices that proper ATD programs should implement: (1) An enriched K-12 curriculum; (2)

Systematic daily enrichment; (3) Full-time ability grouping; (4) Customized/accelerated pacing;

(5) Personal excellence goals; (6) Highly selective access; (7) Early interventions. Together

with the definition, they summarize the essence of an ATD program inspired by the DMGT.

The first characteristic deserves its first rank without hesitation: it is really the keystone of any

true ATD program. I have argued repeatedly for the rehabilitation of the concept of enrichment,

for the simple reason that it best describes the type of differentiation specifically appropriate

for fast learners. For them, the regular curriculum and more specifically the slow instructional

pace imposed by slow learners feel exactly like the stop-and-go pace that car drivers face

during rush hour! Enrichment brings back the unblocked highway needed by fast learners. I

described some years ago, (Gagné, 2007) four different types of enrichment, called the four

‘Ds’ of enrichment: Density, Difficulty, Depth, and Diversity. That particular sequence reflects

a decreasing order of relevance, thus giving priority to enrichment in Density. Also, called

curriculum condensation or compacting (Reis, Burns, & Renzulli, 1992), it serves as the

pedagogical core of the enriched curriculum. ATD specialists should prioritize it over other

forms of enrichment because it offers the most relevant response to giftedness’ trademark,

namely ease/speed in learning. Moreover, the school time ‘liberated’ through faster mastery

of subject matter units creates learning space for additional enrichment.

A fast learning pace is not an occasional characteristic; it is always present. Consequently, an

enriched curriculum must propose intellectual challenges on a daily basis. Vygotsky’s (1978)

concept of ‘zone or proximal development’ aptly conveys the need to maintain students’ pace

at the cutting edge of their learning capacity, neither too slow to force them to idle regularly

nor too fast to create feelings of helplessness.

How can we best deliver daily enrichment to talentees, if not by grouping them with a single

specially trained teacher? Yet, this administratively sensible solution, especially its ‘full-time’

variety, touches a very sensitive subject, probably even more sensitive in our field than the

39


subject of academic acceleration. Yet, opposition to the full-time grouping of talentees remains

hard to understand in view of both the research evidence on the positive academic impacts of

grouping (Kulik, 2003; Rogers & Span, 1993), and the accumulated evidence I mentioned

earlier on the almost total lack of any enrichment activities in regular classrooms. At all levels

of the K-12 educational system teachers give priority to students with learning difficulties who

stand at the other end of the achievement continuum. Moreover, the curriculum of most pre-

service teacher training programs offer very few courses on the appropriate means to answer

the educational needs of gifted students (Croft, 2003). In that context, proper enrichment

becomes literally a “mission impossible!” That inescapable conclusion leads directly to the

generalization of full-time grouping as the only effective way to create appropriate classroom

conditions for sustained daily enrichment; by grouping thirty or so students around a single

teacher, it also provides a very efficient use of very limited specialized resources.

Grouping talentees to offer an enriched curriculum does not mean that all individual

differences in learning pace have disappeared; we have seen through the ITBS and talent

search data the large gap in knowledge and skills between mildly talented students and their

exceptionally talented peers (Gagné, 2005; Lupkowski-Shoplik, Benbow, Assouline, & Brody,

2003). Consequently, those who progress significantly faster than peer talentees should be

allowed if they so desire to move ahead at an accelerated pace. Four qualifiers (excellence,

personal, challenging, long-term) describe the educational goals that talentees would be

invited to set for themselves, with only the first two appearing in the above subtitle. Excellence

goals must be understood normatively, which means in relationship with the expected

achievements of learning peers. The adjective challenging means that these personal

excellence goals should incite talentees to leave the security offered by their high natural

abilities and accept to test their learning limits, not only in cognitive terms, but also with respect

to their motivation and volition. The fourth qualifier, long-term, refers to a goal-setting process

that looks ahead far beyond a few weeks or months, trying to encompass at least a full

segment (e.g., elementary, middle school, high school) of the K-12 educational trajectory.

The sixth constituent element follows directly from the first two defining characteristics: an

enriched curriculum offered on a daily basis. We should not reduce the level of intellectual

challenge placed in an enriched curriculum to accommodate a larger proportion of students.

Excellence commands high selectiveness. Academic talent development requires not only

outstanding learning abilities on the part of the talentees, but also, as with any other

developmental program, demonstrated probability of future success. What best predicts future

success? It is past success of course, as we have seen earlier. More than giftedness, talent

should be the first selection criterion to access a true ATD program. Recall that measures of

40


academic achievement encompass the combined influence of natural abilities, personality

characteristics and motivations, time and effort investment, as well as positive environmental

influences.

By definition, precocious learning abilities appear, well precociously! And they can be

observed at a very early age, for instance with appropriate measures of school readiness. I

have already discussed the subject of early entrance to school

Conclusion

Yet, most school systems maintain chronological age as the almost unique admission

criterion, no doubt for administrative simplicity. In the meantime, the vast majority of

precocious learners stay in preschool or cannot skip to Grade 1; they lose a full year of

progress, impatiently waiting to confront a more challenging curriculum. It is a very sad state

of affairs that although early entrance provisions have never become popular, research

evidence has shown their numerous benefits. After examining all 68 evaluative studies of early

entrance, Rogers (1991) concluded that it constitutes a very desirable initiative for the vast

majority of children. Summarizing the results of their own evaluation of the socio-affective

impact of early entrance to kindergarten in Quebec, Gagné and Gagnier (2004) argued that a

small but significant percentage of unsuccessful cases of early entrance to school could

explain, at least in part, the continuing resistance of many educators and parents toward that

practice. In summary, this seventh constituent element strongly recommends that school

administrators make this initial service the cornerstone of their school district's talent

development program.

As limited as it may be, this sample of existing programs demonstrates that the DMGT’s ATD

model can be implemented in our field. On the other hand, their small number, especially their

almost total absence in elementary and middle schools, suggests that extensive dissemination

lies far in the future. The specter of elitism hangs constantly over our heads (Benbow &

Stanley, 1996); the low priority in schools of talented students’ educational needs remains a

serious obstacle to increased public investment; the ambivalent attitudes of many teachers

and administrators have deep roots; resistance towards the two main administrative provisions

needed to fully implement the ATD model, namely full-time grouping and acceleration, will not

disappear easily. Changes in terminology will also happen very slowly; the ‘gifted’ label is too

deeply embedded in our professional lexicon to expect a rapid increase in use for the terms

‘talented’ or ‘talentee.’ In summary, just as students do with regard to their educational goals,

we should split our ultimate trajectory into a coordinated series of more modest intermediate

41


goals; at the same time, if we believe in the ATD model, we must maintain constant pressure

on educational authorities and the school community. As stated in my 11th commandment

(Gagné, 2008): “Thou shalt advocate …unremittingly!” (p. 237).

I wish you a wonderful afternoon and a fruitful conference, hoping that this keynote will

contribute to it. Thank you for your kind attention.

References

Archambault, F. X. Jr., Westberg, K. L., Browns, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C.L., &

Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national

survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center of the Gifted and

Talented.

Balchin, T., Hymer B., & Matthews D. J. (Eds.). (2009). The Routledge international

companion to gifted education. London, UK: Routledge.

Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers

College Press. (1, 2, 37, 39, 53, 54)

Callahan, C. M., & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (in press). Fundamentals of gifted education (2nd ed.)

New York: Routledge.

Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo, and G. A. Davis

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.) (558-571). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (54)

Cross, T. L., Riedl Cross, J. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts

and talents. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan, xx, 576-583. (50)

Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions.

42


Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.

Gagné, F. (2005). From noncompetence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of

academic achievement within and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 139-153.

Gagné, F. (2015a). Academic talent development programs: A best practices model. Asia-

Pacific Education Review, 16, 281-295. DOI: 10.1007/s12564-015-9366-9.

Gagné, F. (2015). From genes to talent: A DMGT/CMTD perspective. Revista de Educación,

#368, pp. 12-37. DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-297.

Gagné, F., & Gagnier, N. (2004). The socio-affective and academic impact of early entrance

to school. Roeper Review, 26, 128-138. (54).

Gagné, F. & McPherson, G. E. (2016). Musical prodigiousness: Analyzing its complex origins

from a CMTD perspective. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.). Musical prodigies (pp. 3-114). Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Gagnier, N. (1999). L’adaptation socio-affective et scolaire des élèves admis à une entrée

précoce au préscolaire [The socio-affective and academic adjustment of students admitted

early in kindergarten]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Montreal, QC: Département de

psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal. (54).

Gatto, J. T. (2010). Weapons of mass instruction: A schoolteacher’s journey through the dark

world of compulsory schooling. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Gingras, C. (2013). OM: Autour d’un génial pianiste de 13 ans. [Around a genius 13-year-old

pianist]. (Downloaded February 9, 2014, from: http://www.lapresse.ca/arts/musique/musique-

classique/201311/28/01-4715557-om-autour-dun-genial-pianiste-de-13-ans.php)

http://www.lapresse.ca/arts/musique/musique-classique/201311/28/01-4715557-om-autour-dun-genial-pianiste-de-13-ans.php

http://www.lapresse.ca/arts/musique/musique-classique/201311/28/01-4715557-om-autour-dun-genial-pianiste-de-13-ans.php

43


Iserbyt, C. T. (2011). The deliberate dumbing down of America (revised & abridged ed.).

Ravenna, OH: Conscience Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. (48, 49, 54, 57).

Jensen, A. R. (1991). Spearman’s g and the problem of educational equality. Oxford Review

of Education, 17, 169-187. (50).

Kaufman, S. B. (2013). The complexity of greatness: Beyond talent or practice. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Kulik, J. A. (2003). Grouping and tracking. In N. Colangelo, and G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook

of gifted education (3rd ed.) (pp. 268-281). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (54).

Lohman, D. F. (1999). Minding our p’s and q’s: On finding relationships between learning and

intelligence. In Ackerman, P. L., Kyllonen, P. C., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.), Learning and

individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants, 55-76. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association. (50)

Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L. E. (2003). Talent

searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed), 204-218. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (50, 54).

MacFarlane, B., & Stambaugh, T. (Eds.). (2009). Leading change in gifted education: The

festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Macintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and human intelligence (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

44


Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate practice and

performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: a meta-analysis.

Psychological Science, 1-11. doi: 10.1177/0956797614535810.

Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide

to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative

Learning Press. (2)

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulilowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H.,

Rogers, J. B., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January?

The curriculum compacting study. Storrs: The National Research Center of the Gifted and

Talented, University of Connecticut.

Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., McMillen, K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (2009). Systems

and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center,

CT: Creative Learning Press.

Robinson, G. J. (1998). Classroom practices with high achieving students: A national survey

of middle school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut,

Storrs.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). A best evidence synthesis of the research on types of accelerative

programs for gifted students. (Volumes 1 & 2). Dissertation Abstracts International, no.

9122206. U.M.I. Dissertation Information Service. (54)

Rogers, K. B., & Span, P. (1993). Ability grouping with gifted and talented students: Research

and guidelines. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of

research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 585-592). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

45


Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.) (2009). International handbook on giftedness. Dordrecht, Netherlands:

Springer.United Nations Convention on the rights of the child (1989). Downloaded on May 23

2016 from: http://www.humanium.org/en/convention/text/

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (45)

Westberg, K. L., & Daoust, M. E. (2003). The Results of the Replication of the Classroom

Practices Survey Replication in Two States. NRC/GT Newsletter, Fall 2003.

Whitton, D. (1997). Regular classroom practices with gifted students in grades 3 and 4 in New

South Wales, Australia. Gifted Education International, 12, 34-38.

http://www.humanium.org/en/convention/text/

46


SYMPOSIA:

NATURE VS NURTURE; GIFTEDNESS, TALENT, ENVIRONMENT AND

CULTURE

PROFESSOR DR. DAWOOD AL-HIDABI

Abstract:

An attempt was made to discuss the conceptualization of giftedness in the past and the main

shifts in the current research regarding heredity vs. environment debate. The effect of culture

on the definition of giftedness and talent were also referred to and finally a reference was

made to Muslims’ culture and talent development. At the end, several recommendations were

provided.

Keywords: giftedness and talent, heredity vs. environment, Muslim culture.

Giftedness, Talent, Environment and Culture

Early psychologists in the western world such as Galton argued that intelligence is inherited

and claimed that there is no effect for the environment (Sligman, 2002) . Hence, Intellectual

abilities were given more attention by researchers than any other aspects. More psychological,

political and economic research at later times shifted the emphasis for more focus on

environment and educational opportunities to develop talents. This didn’t mean that heredity

was neglected, but rather shifted the emphasis to the personal and environmental factors.

In the late twentieth century, also a variety of conceptualizations of giftedness were offered by

hundreds of researchers. Giftedness as a social construct has become a concept of different

meanings for different people, ideologists, theorists, philosophers and cultures. Now a day’s

giftedness is perceived as a dynamic concept and can be developed through the different

stages of development and contexts according to the different educational opportunities and

programs. Giftedness has acquired a new dimension. It moves from a general attribute to a

more domain-specific where it was found that the schools today cannot develop all types of

talents. School has become to focus more on the academic talents. The society also was

found to contribute to giftedness in the sense that each country values and recognize certain

traits and talents which serve its population. As a result, different giftedness theories and

models have different emphasis, but mostly give attention to the importance of integrating both

the innate potentials to educational opportunities at home, school and outside the school

47


activities and programs (Subotnik, R.F; Oszewska-Kubilius; Worrell, F.C, 2011; Page, 2006;

Gagne, 2004; Mathews, 2006)

It is observed in the past that recognized research of giftedness is what published in English

and mostly in western journals. It is reported that 80% of giftedness research was published

by USA researchers alone. Researchers in the west were mainly the pioneers in investigating

these areas. Researchers in the rest of the world maybe didn’t give the right attention to

giftedness and their concern might be recent. Recent research has shown that different

cultures have different meanings and conceptualizing to giftedness. This should lead us to

reconsider the concept according to the different contexts (wong, 2013; Bevan-Brown, 2005;

AL-Hidabi & AL-Jaji, 2012)

The debate between heredity and environment now a day is not of a conflict, but of an

integration. Twins and adopted studies debated in the last several decades the contribution of

both genetics and environment and came to no final consensus regarding this matter

(Freeman, 2002; Feldhusen, 2002).

The most challenging task we are facing is the process of developing talents which end in

outcomes and products leading to benefit for societies. These benefits are valued and

recognized talent by societies and cultures. Further point to be made is that most world

cultures will have of course shared and common grounds which is related either to the natural

world such as talents related to the academic abilities or agreed on some elements of human

nature.

Any social science concepts are undoubtedly will have cultural and value judgments which

might be a source of differences among researches. World researchers on giftedness are

required to cooperate very closely to understand each other and develop a generic model of

giftedness to be sensitive to cultural differences. Many concepts relevant to giftedness and

talent such as motivation, self-esteem and leadership have cultural elements impeded in them.

Careful considerations particularly when developing educational programs are to be taken

seriously. The more we go for the specific and applications, cultural sensitivity should be taken

care of. The more we talk about environmental factors for the gifted and talented, the more

specific and culturally relevant issues become apparent. Environmental factors for the talented

reflect the family, the educational systems, social values and others. All of these are related

to each specific culture. The debate on the conceptualization of giftedness and talent as well

as on heredity and environment will continue to exist. The way forward is that world

educationists ought to learn from each other and work together to share Knowledge and

Practices (Persson, 2012).

48


Let me share with you the understanding of what it would be inferred from one culture that is

the Muslim literature relevant to our discussion. First, human beings are created to be

responsible for their actions including Talent development.

Children education in the light of Muslim culture is the responsibility of their families, then it

moves on to the collective responsibility of the society. Also, it is understood that every human

being has innate potentials of varying degrees and levels (Alwan, 1992). Families and society

are responsible for developing these potentials in the light of society’s benefits and needs to

prosper and develop. Fulfilling the children abilities and aptitudes in the light of society

development is the roadmap for their talents development. However, it could be understood

in the Muslim culture that children personalities are perceived as having different dimensions

or components. They are the intellectual abilities, emotions, spiritual and morals, and actions

(performances) (Alkylani, 1990). In a recent study (Al-Hidabi & AL-Jaji, 2012) conducted in

Yemen, it was found that gifted and talented students at high school and the university were

developed by their relative’s non-government organizations supported by private sectors who

think that it’s their responsibility to support those talented to benefit their societies in their

future.

In fact, most of them were sponsored to study later on for graduate studies. Talented were

identified by specialized in NGO and were given educational opportunities outside the school

programs and later sponsored to pursue their graduate studies.

Families and educational system are encouraged to develop a balanced and holistic

personalities of children. Children are also encouraged to think creatively and endeavor to

serve their society based on their talent. By doing so, they are serving their families and

themselves as well. Individual fulfillment is achieved in the light of benefiting society and

humanity. The Muslim scholars proposed five main areas of performances where talents can

be categorized under them. All efforts of talent should lead to achieve the following main goals

for society and Humanity (Bin A'shoor, 2004):

1. To develop productive minds. Programs should help and facilitate to develop thinking

which lead to benefit their society and humanity in terms of products and benefits in

general.

2. To ensure human beings’ security, health and the protection of the sanctity of life.

3. To develop the economy, welfare and quality of life for society and contribute to human

prosperity.

4. To protect the family as the basic unit of society and its harmony.

5. To help society to internalize religious beliefs, spirituals, values and commitment to

religious freedom.

49


As we could see that in Muslim culture collective benefits are given a priority to individuals

and as a result, talents’ development is required to be guided towards that end.

Individual Expected Role

Areas of Performances (Talents) and Goals to Achieve

Recommendations

Society

Economy

Minds

SecurityReligion

Family

Humanity

Society

Family

Individual

50


With reference to the brief discussion of heredity vs. environment as well as the cultural

effect on giftedness, several recommendations might be of help to further improve for

better understanding of the concept of giftedness as well as help in facilitating a better

collaboration between world researchers and practitioners on giftedness. Some of these

recommendations are as follows:

1. Since it is impossible to reach global consensus on the definition of giftedness, it is

recommended to collaborate closely in order to understand each other cultures’ effects

on giftedness and work together to develop a more generic global model for talent

development characterized by flexibility and sensitivity to the different cultures.

2. Encourage world culture to give more attention to talent research and share knowledge

with other world researchers.

3. Encourage the publication of talent research in each country own language and

organize international conferences to present research reviews conducted in different

languages for sharing knowledge and practices.

4. Broaden the scope and areas of talents inside and outside the school to encompass

more specific talents which benefit societies and cater for unrecognized talents.

5. Create more awareness among education practitioners and families on talent

development and building their capacities on more of hands on and practical

applications to guide their practices.

6. More research is needed on environment and culture in relation to giftedness and

talent mainly with regards to eastern cultures.

7. It is also recommended to investigate the impact of research and programs of

giftedness and talent on societies and humanity benefits.

References

AL-Hidabi, D. A., & AL-Jaji, R. M. (2012). Creativity in the Change square, Sana'a (in

Arabic). The Second Scientific Symbsium for Gifted and Talented Students. Sana'a -

Yemen.

Al-Hidabi, D. A., & AL-Jaji, R. M. (2012). The Motivating Enviroment for Innovation with a

Yameni Talented Group (in Arabic). The 9th Scientific Conference of Gifted and Talented

Students, 97-132.

Alkylani, M. A. (1990). Muslim Personality Components (in Arabic). Qater: Kitab Alummah.

51


Alwan, A. N. (1992). Children Education in Islam (in Arabic). Dar Alsalam Publication.

Bevan-Brown. (2005). Providing a culturelly responsive environment for gifted Maori.

International Education Journal, 6(2), 150-155.

Bin A'shoor, M. A. (2004). Islamic Sharie'aa goals (in Arabic). Ministry of Endowment.

Feldhusen, J. (2002). Giftedness, Talent, Experties and Creative a Cheaivment. In R.

Sternberg, & J. Davidson , Conceptions of Giftedness.

Freeman, J. (2002). Permission to be gifted. In R. Sternberg, & J. Davidson, Conceptions of

Giftednss.

Gagne, F. (2004). A Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent. High Ability Studies,

15(2), 119-147.

Mathews, D. (2006). Refinments, Bridges and themes in our concepted Foundations.

Roeper Review, 282, 64-69.

Page, A. (2006). Weaving Education threads weaving education practice. Kairaranga,

7(2),11-15.

Persson, R. (2012). Cultural Variation and Dominance in a Globalised Knowledge-Economy:

Towards a Culture-Sensitive Research Paradigm in the Science of Giftedness. Gifted and

Talented International, 27(1), 15-48.

Sligman. (2002). Good breading. Natural Review, 54(1), 53-54.

Subotnik, R.F; Oszewska-Kubilius; Worrell, F.C. (2011). Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted

Education A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science. Psychological

Science in the Public Interset, 12(1), 3-54.

52


Wong, M. (2013). Finding the lost treasure: a litruture review of defining and identifying gifted

and talented children in early childhood setting in Aotearoa New Zealand. School of

Education e-Journal, 1.

53


SYMPOSIA:

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT;

(HOW TO MEASURE MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES)

DR. NOOR AISHAH ROSLI

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA

[email protected]

What is Multiple Intelligences (MI)?

Multiple Intelligences was proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983. Howard Earl Gardner was

born on July 11, 1943 in Scraton, Pennsylvania, United States of America. He is an American

developmental psychologist from Harvard University. As a founder of Theory of Multiple

Intelligences, Gardner defines intelligence as "the capacity to solve problems or to fashion

products that are valued in one or more cultural setting" (Gardner, 2006, 1993, 1983; Gardner

& Hatch, 1989). Gardner argues that there is both a biological and cultural basis for the multiple

intelligences. Neurobiological research indicates that learning is an outcome of the

modifications in the synaptic connections between cells (Gardner, 1983, 2006). Primary

elements of different types of learning are found in particular areas of the brain where

corresponding transformations have occurred. Thus, various types of learning results in

synaptic connections in different areas of the brain. In other words, our brain will react

positively to any activities that we do such as dancing, reading, calculating, and so on – where

all of this are consider various intelligence ability.

In addition to biology, Gardner (2006) argues that culture also plays an imperative role in the

development of multiple intelligences. In term of culture value on multiple intelligences, all

societies value different types of intelligences. The cultural value placed upon the ability to

perform certain tasks by providing support and encouragement to become skilled in those

areas. Thus, while particular intelligences might be highly evolved in many people of one

culture, those same intelligences might not be as developed in the individuals of another.

Everybody is unique and they will have tendency towards some of the multiple intelligences

areas and less tendency on some of the other areas.

Multiple intelligence theory derived from observations that some individuals might perform

poorly on traditional intelligence tests but excel in the arts or some other field. In certain

patients with brain damage it was observed that only certain cognitive functions were impaired

mailto:[email protected]

54


or damaged. This led Gardner to believe that if certain parts of the brain controlled certain

cognitive functions then evidence for multiple intelligences seemed to exist. In developing his

theory of multiple intelligences, Gardner felt he was expanding the theories of pervious

psychologists and researchers who he felt "all ignored biology; all failed to come to grips with

the higher levels of creativity; and all were insensitive to the range of roles highlighted in

human society" (Paik 2003). Thus, Gardner developed a theory of multiple intelligences that

takes such factors into account.

In Gardner's eight-intelligence theory each type of intelligence describes a different type of

cognitive ability or functioning. For example, the "linguistic" intelligence represents certain

sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, and meanings of words and the function of language. "Bodily"

intelligence refers to a natural ability to control one's body and to handle objects well.

Gardner’s types of MI may help one to recognize his/her ability and skill. Some researchers

relate Gardner’s theory with specific future career or task (Martin, 1995; Paik, 2003). For

example, the first type of intelligence might lead one to become a novelist or sports writer,

while the second kind might lead one to become an athlete. One can see how Gardner's theory

of multiple intelligences encompasses a wider variety of factors and a broader array of human

differences. Also, the theory may help parents to have plan for their children based on the

children’s interest and skill.

Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences provides a theoretical foundation for recognizing

the different abilities and talents of children. This theory acknowledges that while all children

may not be verbally or mathematically gifted, children may have an expertise in other areas,

such as music, spatial relations, or interpersonal knowledge. Approaching and assessing

learning in this manner allows a wider range of children to successfully participate in any

community activities and also classroom learning (Martin, 1995).

Types of Multiple Intelligences?

In the first edition of his MI theory, thirty years ago, Gardner (1983) adopted a very

individualistic point of view in exploring various intelligences (Gardner 2006). In a newer

edition of MI theory, however, Gardner (1993) places more emphasis on the cultural and

contextual factors involved in the development of the seven intelligences. Gardner retained

the original seven intelligences, but acknowledged the possibility of adding new intelligences

to the list. For example, he has worked on an eighth intelligence; by adding the intelligence of

the naturalist – to be included in his list of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1995).

The theory states that all seven intelligences are needed to productively function in society

(Gardner, 2006, 1997, 1995). Thus, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences implies that educators

55


and parents should recognize and teach to a broader range of talents and skills among

children.

Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human

potential in children and adults (Brualdi, 1996; Gardner, 2006, 1997, 1993). These

intelligences are:

1. Verbal-linguistic intelligence is the ability of well-developing verbal skills and sensitivity

to the sounds, meanings and rhythms of words. This area also refers to an individual's

ability to analyse information and produce work that involves oral and written language,

such as speeches, books, and emails. In addition, Verbal-linguistic intelligence area

involves a mastery of language where includes the ability to effectively manipulate

language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically. In other words, people who show

tendency in this area are known as "word smart."

2. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence consist of the ability to detect numerical patterns,

reason deductively and think conceptually, abstractly, and logically. Develop in this

area is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking. In addition,

person who well develop in this area may show is able to develop equations and

proofs, make calculations, and solve abstract problems. People who show tendency

in this area are known as "number/reasoning smart."

3. Visual-Spatial Intelligence consists of the capacity to think in images and pictures,

ability to manipulate, create mental images in order to solve problems, and visualize

accurately and abstractly. This intelligence is not limited to visual domains, because

according to Gardner spatial intelligence is also formed in blind children. Visual-spatial

intelligence allows people to comprehend maps and other types of graphical

information. People who show tendency in this area are known as "picture smart."

4. Musical Intelligence encompasses the capability to recognize and compose musical

pitches, tones, and rhythms. In addition to that, musical intelligence enables individuals

to produce and make meaning of different types of sound. People who show tendency

in this area are known as "melodious smart."

5. Bodily-Kinaesthetic Intelligence is the ability to use one's mental abilities to coordinate

one's own bodily movements and to handle objects skilfully. This intelligence

emphasize that mental and physical activity are related. Furthermore, bodily-

56


kinaesthetic intelligence entails using one's own body to create products or solve

problems. People who show tendency in this area are known as "body smart."

6. Interpersonal intelligence focus on the ability to understand and discern the feelings

and intentions of others. This area also reflects an ability to recognize and understand

other people's moods, desires, motivations, and intentions. People who show tendency

in this area are known as "people smart."

7. Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to understand one's own feelings and

motivations. In addition, Intrapersonal intelligence is the capacity to be self-aware and

in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs and thinking processes). People who show

tendency in this area are known as "self-smart."

8. Naturalist intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns in nature and classify objects,

the mastery of taxonomy, sensitivity to other features of the natural world, and an

understanding of different species. In other words, this area assesses one’s ability to

recognize and categorize plants, animals and other objects in nature). People who

show tendency in this area are known as "nature smart."

The Process to Discover Child’s Special Talent

Everyone is born possessing the seven intelligences. Nevertheless, all children will come into

the classroom with different sets of developed intelligences. This means that each child will

have his own unique set of intellectual strengths and weaknesses. Another implication is that

teachers should structure the presentation of material in a style which engages most or all of

the intelligences. For example, when teaching about animals in the jungle, a teacher can show

children forest map, animal characters, animal songs, organize a role play about animals in

the jungle, and have the children read a book about animal and its habitat. This kind of

presentation not only excites children about learning, but it also allows a teacher to reinforce

the same material in a variety of ways. By activating a wide assortment of intelligences,

teaching in this manner can facilitate a deeper understanding of the subject material (David,

1992).

57


It is especially important to gather ongoing information about children strengths and

challenges as well as their developing interests and activities they dislike. Providing different

contexts for children and engaging a variety of their senses (David, 1992). For example,

parents or teachers may encourage children to learn through gardening activities, attending

music or ballet classes. By providing opportunity to the children to learn and explore new

things, their multiple intelligences skill will develop based on the experience that they receive

(Hattie, 2011).

In the same line, parents or teachers are encourage to provide children with multiple ways to

demonstrate knowledge and skills. This is important to ensure children receive appropriate

activities and effectively engage on that activities. These strategies may provide parents and

teachers to more understand the children’s ability and talent (Darling-Hammond, 2010). By

giving attention about specific activities to the children as well as understand their specific

strengths, needs, and areas for growth, the level of multiple intelligence may be increase

(Tomlinson, 2014).

Assessing Multiple Intelligences among Children

Assessment should reflect the diversity of intelligences and learning styles among children.

The Multiple Intelligence theory suggested that teachers or parents can evaluate the child

progress in an inclusive and meaningful way. One of the way to assess children’s multiple

intelligence is by using the wide range of assessment tools to measure child’s skills and

abilities.

Multiple Intelligence theory brings about an awareness of many assessment strategies to

assess children’ skills and abilities. Standford (2003) suggested some multiple intelligences

areas can be measured using several assessment alternatives including logs and journals,

graphic organizers, observational checklists, video samples, rubrics, miscue analyses, and

portfolios. Such alternative forms of assessment offer students the potential to demonstrate

learning content in a variety of ways. An example is a math lesson or unit in which the teacher

assesses cooperative groups (interpersonal intelligence), hands-on manipulative

(bodily/kinaesthetic intelligence), or reflection logs (intrapersonal intelligence) (Standford,

2003).

58


Shearer’s (2009) review, based on data from 22 countries, shows many different context-

specific ways of assessing multiple intelligences, for example, with structured interviews or

self-report as well as using significant others as informants. The current tool was developed

by Tirri, Nokelainen, and Komulainen (2013) to measures the multiple intelligences and moral

sensitivities based on the Multiple Intelligences theory of Howard Gardner (1983, 1993). These

MI tools were self-assessment that can be used in educational settings.

The method of assessment mentioned above are some of non-standardize test to evaluate

some of multiple intelligences areas. There are other standardize tests can be used to assess

multiple intelligences of the children. The table below are the standardize and non-standardize

instruments to assess multiple intelligences.

Standardize and non-Standardize Test to evaluate Multiple Intelligences

Intelligences Area Standardize Test Non-Standardize Test

Verbal-Linguistic

Intelligence

- Wechsler

Intelligence

Scale for

Children (WISC)

- The Wechsler

Preschool and

Primary Scale of

Intelligence

(WPPSI)

- The Stanford–

Binet

Intelligence

Scales

- Oral Presentation

Logical

Mathematical

Intelligence

- Wechsler

Intelligence

Scale for

Children (WISC)

- The Wechsler

Preschool and

Primary Scale of

- Perform a mental

mathematical

calculation

- Analyse how a

computer works

- Create a process

59


Intelligence

(WPPSI)

- The Stanford–

Binet

Intelligence

Scales

Spatial-Visual

Intelligence

- Wechsler

Intelligence

Scale for

Children (WISC)

- The Wechsler

Preschool and

Primary Scale of

Intelligence

(WPPSI)

-

- The Stanford–

Binet

Intelligence

Scales

- Design activities such

as landscape

- Design a building/

Legos activities

Bodily-Kinaesthetic

Intelligence

-

- Demonstrate sport

activities

- Demonstrate body

balancing - ride

horse/bicycle/dancing

Musical Intelligence

-

- Competition

- Level of achievement

through test

performance

Interpersonal

Intelligence

-

- Emotion/feeling/mood

activities

- Presentation

- Interview

60


Intrapersonal

Intelligence

-

- Personal and

community activities

- Presentation

- Interview

Naturalist

Intelligence

-

- Observation

- Presentation

According to Moran and Gardner (2006), multiple intelligences can interact through

interference, compensation or catalysis. Interference means that weakness in one multiple

intelligence area may hinder the actualization of full potential on another intelligence area. For

example, a musically gifted student with weak self-regulatory (intrapersonal) abilities may

have difficulties learning piano compositions because she cannot concentrate during practice.

By contrast, through compensation strong intelligence areas may support the weaker ones.

We all know that some popular contemporary music artists are better at writing music than

they are at writing lyrics – and vice versa. Catalysis is the third form of interaction where one

intelligence amplifies the expression of another. In this case, a child may use his bodily-

kinaesthetic intelligence to play the drumset (bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence catalyses both

musical and logical-mathematical intelligences). These different interaction types indicate that

multiple intelligences should neither be assessed solely in a linear fashion nor without

considering the effect of context. For example, a child who receives low grades at school for

sports (bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence) may be a top ice hockey player outside school hours

in a local team as she is interested in only one aspect of that school curriculum area (Moran

and Gardner, 2006).

New assessments should not focus on whether or not children can acquire knowledge but on

whether or not they can acquire the disposition to use skills and strategies appropriately.

Assessments that move beyond measuring knowledge and skills and begin measuring the

disposition of using the knowledge/skills will better meet the needs of learners.

As the conclusion, Gardner’s focus on human potential lies in the fact that people have a

unique blend of capabilities and skills (intelligences). This model can be used to understand

one overall personality, preferences and strengths.

61


SYMPOSIA:

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT;

(TEACHING AND LEARNING MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES FOR TALENT

DEVELOPMENT)

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR. MARIA SALIH

UNIVERSITI PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS

TANJONG MALIM, PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN, MALAYSIA

Abstract

The theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) proposed by Gardner (1983) states that, there are

multiple types of human intelligence, each representing different ways of processing

information to know the world around. These eight intelligences are verbal/linguistic,

logical/mathematical, musical/rhythmic, body-kinesthetic, visual/spatial, interpersonal,

intrapersonal, and naturalist. The strength of these intelligences or profile of intelligences differ

from one individual to another in the way they are invoked and combined to carry out different

tasks, to solve diverse problems and to progress in various domains. This paper will discuss

the eight intelligences and the characteristics it encompasses that lend itself to the

development and enhancement of a particular talent or profession. Examples of specific ways

for educators to incorporate the intelligences into their daily lesson planning for practical use in

the classroom will also be suggested based on Nolen’s (2003) research and the author’s

teaching experiences. This is to allow each child to learn and develop all the intelligences and

be talented in the intelligence associated to their strengths. Some findings related to research

on the teachings of multiple intelligences (Campbell, 1999 & Maria, 2010) and its effect on the

development of student talent will be discussed.

1.0 Introduction

The characteristics of each of the multiple intelligences will be discussed in terms of the skills,

the ability and the possible talent or career path taken as described by Gardner (1983) in his

book Frames of Mind: Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

1.1 Verbal/Linguistic intelligence involves the mastery of language. This intelligence

includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and

language as a means to remember information. People with verbal intelligence tend to

62


think in words and have highly developed auditory skills. They are frequently reading or

writing. Verbal students are often great storytellers and joke tellers. Their ability to manipulate

language lends them to fields such as teaching, journalism, writing, law, and translation.

Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that Gardner (1983) sees as having

high linguistic intelligence.

1.2 Musical intelligence makes use of sound to the greatest extent possible. It

encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms.

Thus, musical intelligence involves skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of

musical patterns. Those with musical intelligence have a firm understanding of pitch, rhythm,

and timbre. Through music, they are able to convey their emotions. Often, this intelligence is

discovered at an early age. The individual differences between those with

musical intelligence and those without are apparent from the day a child learns to sing. These

students are usually able to read music, critique performances, and to use musical-critical

categories.

1.3 Logical/mathematical intelligence consists of the ability to carry out mathematical

operations, analyze problems logically, detect patterns, reason deductively, and investigate

issues scientifically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical

thinking. Nevertheless, mathematicians and scientists show some major differences despite

the same logical intelligence. The mathematician is interested in the abstract,

while the scientist attempts to explain the physical reality. Mathematicians feel it is most

important to recognize patterns wherever they may be, but the scientist is more concerned

with explaining the physical universe. The characteristics of logical/mathematical intelligence

often show up in early life.

1.4 Visual/Spatial intelligence involves the potential to recognize and use the patterns of

wide space and more confined areas. Spatial intelligence gives a person the ability to

manipulate and create mental images in order to solve problems. Spatial thinkers

"perceive the visual world accurately, to perform transformations and modifications upon one's

initial perceptions, and to be able to re-create aspects of one's initial perceptions, even in

the absence of relevant physical stimuli" (Gardner, 1983, p. 173). Spatial intelligence can lend

itself to the ability of visual perception, while lacking in the ability to draw, imagine, or

transform or vice versa. Spatial intelligence empowers hunters and travelers giving them

better accuracy and less of a chance of getting lost. A navigator or guide possesses a great

deal of this intelligence, as does an architect or lighting designer. People with

spatial intelligence often like playing chess, a lot of colour, and to imagine the world differently.

63


Painting and sculpting often rely on spatial thinking. An artist's style often depends on their

ability to visualize and create from a blank canvas.

1.5 Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails the potential of using one’s whole body or

parts of the body ability to understand the world and to solve problems. It is the ability to use

mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements in very expressive skilled ways for a distinct

purpose. People with bodily-kinesthetic intelligence have very fine motor skills of the fingers

and hands and control of their gross motor movements and are good at performing arts. Some

exceptional athletes are graceful, powerful, fast, and accurate, and they can use these abilities

to develop precise timing to better their game. These abilities lead people into professions

such as surgeons, sculptors, carpenters, plumbers, athletes, dancers, and mimes.

1.6 Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the

intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It consists of the ability to understand,

perceive and discriminate between people's moods, feelings, motives, and intelligences.

Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counselors all need a well-

developed interpersonal intelligence. Those with interpersonal intelligences are often

found in professions such as teaching, politics, religious leaders such as Gandhi or Martin

Luther King Junior, salesmen, skilled parents, therapists, or counselors.

1.7 Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate

one’s feelings, fears and motivations. In Gardner’s view, it involves having an effective working

model of ourselves, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives. People with

intrapersonal intelligence are usually imaginative, original, patient, disciplined, motivated, and

have a great deal of self-respect.

1.8 Naturalist or environmental intelligence is the ability to understand nature's

symbols, to respect the delicate balance that lets us continue to live. They have a genuine

appreciation of the aspects of nature and how they intertwine. They put the future of the world

first and are concerned about how man could be destroying or disrupting our planet for future

generations. People with naturalistic intelligence often show expertise in the recognition and

classification of plants and animals. A child who is exceptionally good at sorting and classifying

rocks, insects, shells, or dinosaurs is another example of a naturalist. George Washington

Carver, Rachel Carson, and Charles Darwin are often considered to have had

naturalist intelligence.

64


2.0 How can Multiple Intelligences be taught to develop and enhance talents?

Teaching and learning is more fun and productive when classroom activities and materials

better match students' profile of intelligences. Some tips to help teachers create lesson plans

and activities that can support students’ learning and to enhance the development of their

talent in the specific intelligence they excel are as follows:

2.1 Teachers can help verbal/linguistic intelligence learners to progress by using

language that the student can relate to and fully comprehend (Nolen, 2003). If used correctly,

language can provide a bridge between the material and the learner. Having children write,

read, and give oral reports about an element in their own lives such as sports, television, or

popular bands develop their linguistic intelligence.

2.2 Teachers can also foster musical intelligence by introducing "formal musical analysis

and representation" (Gardner, 1983, p. 111). Music can act as a way of capturing feelings, of

knowing and understanding feelings, which is an important part of educating children. Another

importance of musical intelligence is that it can be tied to other intelligences. For example, it

can be related to logical-mathematical intelligence in that music also contains ratio and

regularity, as well as mathematical patterns.

2.3 Logical-mathematical intelligence can be developed in children by teaching math

using manipulatives such as marbles, seeds or ice cream sticks (Maria, 2010). Children will

first explore this intelligence by ordering and re-ordering the objects. Later, they are able to do

math in their heads without the use of these manipulative. As this intelligence grows, they are

able to follow long chains of reasoning very skillfully. Another advantage is that they are able

to calculate very quickly.

2.4 Children with visual/spatial intelligence are best taught using pictures or

photographs. It is often a good assessment to have them draw their ideas. These students

also benefit from films, overheads, diagrams, and other such visuals (Nolen, 2003; Maria,

2010). As opposed to logical-mathematical, spatial deals much more with the concrete world.

It deals with what we can see and feel.

2.5 Teaching children with bodily-kinesthetic intelligence can be optimized

through the use of manipulative and physical movement. These children like to touch

65


things in order to learn and they usually cannot sit still for long. They enjoy keeping their hands

busy; therefore, different learning tools should be brought into the classroom to accommodate

these students (Maria, 2010). These students may seem fidgety during much of the class.

Simply giving them something to keep in their hands might solve this problem. "Executive

toys" such as gizmo can keep their hands busy and has been found to increase student’s

creativity and productivity significantly (Nolen, 2003).

2.6 The interpersonal intelligence can be fostered through having students work

together. The learning and the use of a culture's symbol system leads to development of

interpersonal intelligence. Much of the personal intelligences is basic and does not require

much from others. Observation and experience are the most appropriate tools to further

these intelligences.

2.7 Much of the development of intrapersonal intelligence depends on how the student

wishes to use it. It can be aided through imagination exercises. These students can see what

needs to be done in their minds, and then will make it happen (Maria, 2010). In everyday class,

children with intrapersonal characteristics need to be praised frequently. They could be given

long-term projects with various stages that need to be checked before moving onto the next.

This will help the student strengthen their abilities of patience and procedure (Nolen, 2003).

2.8 Naturalist/environment intelligence children often benefit from learning outdoors.

Teachers can accommodate for them by planning activities such as: observing nature, labeling

and mounting specimens from nature, noticing changes in the environment, sorting articles

from nature, using binoculars or telescopes to study nature, nature hikes or field trips in nature,

caring for pets, and so forth. These activities allow the student to have a hands-on experience

with what they are most comfortable with doing (Nolen, 2003; Maria, 2010).

3.0 How can Multiple Intelligences be implemented in the classroom?

The multimodal teaching and learning approach of conducting MI in the classroom as

recommended by Campbell (1991) and being conducted in most of our classroom nowadays

is through learning centres or MI learning stations (Maria, 2010) dedicated to each of the eight

intelligences. Campbell (1991) uses a thematic curriculum where the learning centres provide

seven different ways for the students to learn the subject matter. As in Maria’s (2010) research,

66


any topic in the curriculum can use the MI learning stations. Each lesson starts with a brief

lecture and discussion explaining one aspect of the current theme/topic and then the students

will start to work at the respective centres. A timer is used to set the time of work allocated for

each centre so that the students are able to rotate to all the 8 different centres/stations.

3.1 What kinds of learning activities take place at each learning centre/MI station?

In this approach, all students learn a particular theme/topic in seven different ways. They build

models, dance, make collaborative decisions, create songs, solve deductive reasoning

problems, read, write, and illustrate all in one school day. Some specific examples of activities

that can be conducted at each centre/MI station are shown in table 1.

Table 1 Examples of Activities Conducted at Each Intelligence Centre

Learning Centre Type of Intelligence Activities conducted

Personal Work

Intrapersonal

Students explore the present area of study

through research, reflection or individual

projects

Working Together

Interpersonal

Develop cooperative learning skills by

solving problems, answer questions, create

learning games, brainstorm ideas and

discuss the day’s topic collaboratively

Music

Musical

Compose and sing songs about the subject

matter, make their own instruments and

learn in rhythmical ways

Art

Visual/Spatial

Explore a subject using diverse art media,

manipulees, puzzles, charts and pictures.

Building

Bodily-kinaesthetic

Build models, dramatise events, and dance

in ways that relate to the content of the day’s

subject matter.

67


Reading

Verbal/Linguistic

Read, write and learn in many traditional

modes. Analyse and organise information in

written mode.

Math and Science

Logics/Mathematical

Work with maths games, manipulatives,

mathematical concepts, science

experiments, deductive reasoning and

problem solving.

Nature

Naturalist/

Environmental

observe nature, label and mount specimens

from nature, noticing changes in

the environment, sorting articles from

nature, using binoculars or telescopes to

study nature, nature hikes or field

trips in nature, caring for pets, and so forth.

(Campbell, 1991).

A few minutes are set aside for groups and individual students to share their work from the

centres/Mi stations. Much of the remainder of the day is spent with students working on

independent projects, either individually or in small groups where they apply the diverse skills

developed at the centres/MI stations or they further enhance their strength in a specific

intelligence which they have demonstrated.

3.2 What are some of the results of the multimodal teaching and learning

approach?

Campbell (1991) conducted an action research project in the classroom during one school

year to assess the effects of this multimodal learning approach. The data was collected using

a daily teacher’s journal, a Classroom Climate Survey, a Student Assessment Inventory of

work at the seven centres, and a Centre Group Survey. A similar research was conducted by

(Maria, 2010) with student teachers at a teaching university for one semester using about the

same instruments with slight adaptation (Maria, 2010). The combined findings obtained from

both research are as follows:

68


i. The students/student teachers became skilled at developing their own projects,

gathering the necessary resources and materials, and making well-planned

presentations of all kinds.

ii. Students previously identified as having serious behaviour problems in Campbell’s

(1991) research showed rapid improvement during the first six weeks of school. By

mid-year, they were making important contributions to their groups. By year’s end, they

had assumed positive leadership roles which had not formerly been evident. As in

Maria’s (2010) research, there were no disciplinary problems identified among the

student teachers.

iii. All students/student teachers developed and applied new skills in their

learning. Initially, most students/student teachers described only one centre/MI station

as their ‘favourite’ and where they felt confident. By mid-year/mid semester, most of

them identified three to four favourite centres/MI stations. By the end of the

year/semester, every student identified at least five centres/MI stations which were

favourites and at which they felt skilled. By then, they were all making multimodal

presentations of independent projects including songs, skits, visuals, poems, games,

surveys, puzzles, and group participation activities.

iv. The students/student teachers’ cooperative learning skills improved greatly. Since

much of the centre work was collaborative, students became highly skilled at listening,

helping each other, sharing leadership in different activities, accommodating group

changes, and introducing new classmates to the program. They learned not only to

respect each other, but also to appreciate and call upon the unique gifts and abilities

of their classmates.

v. The students/student teachers’ academic achievement were above average in almost

all areas. Retention was high on a classroom year-end test of all areas studied during

the year. Similarly for the student teachers at the semester end examination in almost

all courses taken. It was also found that the methods for recalling information were

predominantly musical, visual and kinesthetic, indicating the influence of working

through the different intelligences. Students/student teachers who had previously been

unsuccessful in school/program became high achievers in new areas.

In summary, it is clear that students/student teachers’ learning improved. Many

students/student teachers said they enjoyed school/university life for the first time. The daily

work at the seven centres profoundly influences their ability to make informative, entertaining,

multimodal presentations of their studies. As the year progressed, new skills emerged where

some students/student teachers discovered musical, artistic, literary, mathematical and other

new-found capacities and abilities. Others became skilled leaders. In addition, self-confidence

69


and motivation increased significantly. Finally, students/student teachers developed

responsibility, self-reliance and independence as they took an active role in shaping their own

individual learning experiences.

3.3 What is the teacher’s role in the multimodal teaching and learning approach?

The teacher’s role also transforms in this multimodal approach whereby they developed skills

different from those that they developed by lecturing in front of a class. Firstly, they need to

observe the students from seven different perspectives. In planning the centres/MI stations,

they are pushing the students from behind rather than pulling them from in front. Also, the

teachers are working with the students, rather than working for them. The teacher explores,

discover, and learn together with the students and by doing this they find satisfaction in their

enthusiasm for learning and independence. Most importantly, while planning for a diversity of

activities, the teacher has become more creative and multimodal in their own thinking and

learning. They can feel growth and development within themselves as they now comfortably

write and sing songs, learn to draw and paint.

3.4 Why is the multimodal teaching and learning approach successful?

The academic and behavioural success of the multimodal teaching and learning approach is

twofold. Firstly, every student has an opportunity to specialize and excel in at least one area.

Every student was able to find an area of specialty and success upon implementation of this

approach. Secondly, each student learns the subject matter in a variety of different ways,

thereby multiplying chances of successfully understanding and retaining the information.

Through this approach, many student’s intellectual needs are met by constantly being

challenged and frequently exercising their creativity. At the same time, their emotional needs

are met by working closely with others. They develop diverse strengths, and they understand

themselves better as individuals.

4.0 Conclusion

As can be observed, the multimodal teaching and learning approach emphasises

upon learning rather than teaching. The students’ interests and developmental needs dictate

the direction of the teaching. Such an approach adapts to students, rather than expecting

students to adapt to it. From Campbell’s (1991) and my own (Maria, 2010) classroom

experiences, we believe that teaching and learning through the multiple intelligences help

solve many common school/institutional problems and optimizes the learning experience for

the students and teachers alike. It also helps develop and enhance students’ talent in their

70


respective intelligences to some extend with continuous and consistent practice of the

multimodal approach.

References

Campbell, B. (1991). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. The Learning Revolution, In

Context, ic27. Retrieved on 22/5/16 from http://www.context.org/iclib/ic27/campbell/

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic

Books, Inc.

Maria, S. (2010). Teaching Multiple Intelligences to Pre-Service Teachers in a Teaching

University. Unpublished project report. Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Perak, Malaysia.

Nolen, J. L. (2003). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Education. Vol.124, No. 1, pg.

115.

71


WORKSHOP:

PLANNING DIFFERENTIATED TEACHING AND LEARNING;

USING REAL ENGAGEMENT IN ACTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

*PROFESSOR DR. CAROL JUNE MAKER PhD, Litt.D.

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, TUCSON, ARIZONA, USA

Abstract

Planning differentiated teaching and learning includes designing ways to differentiate the

content students are expected to learn, the processes teachers use and expect students to

use, the products developed to demonstrate learning, and the environment in which students

learn. An evidence-based teaching model, Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving

[REAPS] provides a practical structure for teachers to use as they plan ways to help all

students reach the highest levels of which they are capable. In contrast to the usual methods

in which teachers plan instruction to meet the needs of average students and then differentiate

for those above and below this average, a more effective approach is to plan instruction at the

highest levels and then provide the support and scaffolding students need to reach as high as

they can. Many students will surprise their teachers! Principles and examples are provided in

this paper to help teachers plan for their learners’ growth and advancement.

* Dr. C. June Maker is professor in the special education program, University of Arizona,

Tucson, USA. She is an internationally known writer, researcher, and keynote speaker. She

is passionate about her work in developing performance-based assessments of creative

problem solving and creating educational programs to enhance creative problem solving in

students at all levels of education. The website for her project, DISCOVER, is

www.discover.arizona.edu, and email address is [email protected].

1. Philosophy

Many experts and practitioners agree that when planning for teaching and learning, four

dimensions must be considered: content, what is taught; processes, how content is delivered

and processes students are expected to use; products, what students are expected to create

to demonstrate their learning; and learning environment, the setting in which students learn

(Maker & Schiever, 2010; Tomlinson, 2013). To ensure that all learners, regardless of their

levels or types of abilities can realize their highest potentials, I believe that educators need to

http://www.discover.arizona.edu/

mailto:[email protected]

72


plan for the highest levels, and then (a) make needed adjustments, (b) provide scaffolding, (c)

model successful performance, (d) encourage students to challenge their limits, and (d)

provide alternatives and emotional support when students fail. This approach is different from

what normally happens in a classroom; many teachers direct and pace instruction for average

learners, and then modify experiences and assignments for those who are above or below

average.

2. Engaging Students in Actively Solving Real Problems

Many methods exist for differentiating learning; many are difficult to learn and impossible to

implement in classrooms with more than 15 students. My colleagues and I have experimented

with a teaching model we believe can be implemented by any teacher in any setting; and is

an effective way to plan instruction at the highest levels in all four dimensions of teaching and

learning (Maker & Zimmerman, 2008; Maker, et al, 2015). Real Engagement in Active Problem

Solving [REAPS] resulted from synthesis of three evidence-based teaching and learning

models, all of which share the goal of developing creative problem solving; an essential skill

for all in this 21st Century of global change and challenge. The essence of the model is that

teachers examine the curriculum they are expected to teach (content, processes, products)

and choose problems from the local area that are real to the students and developmentally

appropriate for their ages and emotional maturity. Students work in small groups, large groups,

and individually to solve the problem from a variety of perspectives, and the teacher leads

them through a step-by-step problem solving process, providing encouragement, scaffolding,

and assistance as needed, both for groups and individuals within groups. Throughout this

process, students acquire new information; apply existing and new information; create new

ideas and solutions; evaluate their solutions and their performance; and communicate their

ideas to others, both formally and informally. The teacher arranges a learning environment

that is flexible, contains as many resources as possible, open to new ideas, and permits

movement in and outside the classroom as needed and possible given the ages and skills of

the students.

I will use REAPS as an example of one way to plan differentiated teaching and learning to

enable all students to reach the highest levels of which they are capable. The examples are

taken from real classrooms in a multicultural, K-6 public school in Australia.

73


3. Content Differentiation

The first dimension of the curriculum is content, or what is taught. It also is where educators

begin to plan instruction. Content can be taught at a variety of levels, beginning at the lowest

with facts or phenomena, proceeding to concepts (groups of facts or phenomena), going up

to principles (relationships between and among concepts), going further up to theories

(relationships between and among principles within and across academic disciplines), and

finally, at the highest-level macro concepts. Macro concepts are interdisciplinary ideas found

in many disciplines: change, systems, interdependence, sustainability, harmony, force/motion,

patterns. Gifted students are capable of understanding macro concepts, and in fact, need to

understand them because high-level ideas can help them organize, remember, and see

relationships that go beyond specific situations. Students with average abilities can

understand macro concepts, but may need a variety of examples to enable them to understand

and apply concepts. Students with below average abilities can understand data, phenomena,

and concepts that are being taught, regardless of whether they see the same complexities

and relationships that are understood by able learners.

Because many curriculum plans do not include macro concepts, educators may need to

collaborate to select macro concepts they believe are themes throughout the curriculum they

are expected to teach. At our experimental school in Australia, teachers and leaders have

selected macro concepts to guide their teaching across grade levels: culture and identity,

heritage and tradition, design and systems, interrelationships and sustainability, change and

functionality. All content they are required to teach can be connected to these macro concepts;

and all skills they are expected to teach can be integrated with the content. For example,

systems are found in living things (life science), in governmental agencies (history), in

mechanical things (physical science), and in math; students can learn research skills as they

plan experiments, can learn and practice writing skills as they write results of their experiments

or write letters to persuade legislators to save an endangered species that is losing its habitat

because of inadequate protections.

After identifying macro concepts, the next step in planning is to organize the theories,

principles, concepts, and data around these concepts. This includes examining the content of

the appropriate disciplines and deciding on a local problem that would be an appropriate

vehicle for learning the content and practicing the skills expected of students at that level. In

all grade 4 classrooms at the school in Australia, two of the macro concepts that guided

74


selection of content were interrelationships and sustainability. The teachers chose a real and

continuing problem related to development on land considered sacred by the Aboriginal

people, and wrote a “case study” to serve as a focus for problem solving:

A development company has proposed a new tourist resort with a range of facilities

and recreational activities in Goowoola, a pristine, old-growth rainforest.

What will be the impact on the ecosystems of Goowoola Rainforest?

Should it be approved or denied?

Is there a compromise compatible with the long-term goal of protecting

this rainforest?

The main academic content areas were history, geography, science, and government.

Concepts within science disciplines included life science concepts of ecosystems,

characteristics of living things, and the impact of loss of habitat on plants and animals and

physical science concepts of building and design; while social studies concepts included the

history of the area and of the country, laws and rights of people living in the area, and the

economics of development and preservation.

This example illustrates four principles of content differentiation: abstractness, complexity,

variety, and organization for learning value. The emphasis is on macro concepts of

interrelationships and sustainability, the problem is complex and includes content from a

variety of disciplines, some of the content is very different from that normally included in the

curriculum and above the level often considered at this grade (economics), and the content is

organized around interdisciplinary, abstract ideas.

To increase complexity, teachers created stakeholder groups, and students participated in

one of the groups: Tourism Centre Development Association, Indigenous Council, Residents

Association, and Green Environmental Agency. Including stakeholder groups also ensured

integration of the other two content differentiation principles: study of people and study of

methods. When making decisions about solutions to the problem from the perspective of the

development agency or the environmental agency, for instance, students can be encouraged

to research the methods used in other areas, countries, or regions to build sustainable resorts

or to protect the environment from excessive development. Students participating in the

indigenous council stakeholder group and the residents group can be encouraged to study the

75


lives of influential people and apply what they have learned to the development of solutions

that might be acceptable to other stakeholders or to those who must make the final decision

about building the tourist resort.

4. Process Differentiation

The principles for differentiating the processes used by students and teachers include higher

levels of thinking, open-endedness, discovery, evidence of reasoning, freedom of choice,

group interaction, pacing, and variety. When solving the problem posed in the case study,

students are led through a step-by-step process. All the principles for differentiation are

inherent in the process or can be easily incorporated. Not only can the process be used in the

context of solving a real-life problem in a classroom, but it can be used in any situation students

encounter, so it has long-term benefits to them: Thinking Actively in a Social Context [TASC],

a model developed by Belle Wallace while working in Natal with Zulu tribes; and now used all

over the world (Wallace, 2008; Wallace, et al, 2004). When developing TASC, Wallace and

Adams tested it in classrooms and other environments, asking for feedback from learners and

teachers. The result is a practical approach in the form of a wheel with definite steps that are

followed sequentially, but can be repeated as needed.

The first step is to gather and organize information related to the problem. The teacher can

pretest students to determine what they already know, to avoid re-teaching unnecessary

content, and can make certain students have knowledge and understandings they need to

develop viable solutions. Pacing is incorporated because teachers can introduce only the

information needed rather than following the textbook or teacher’s guide. During this step, the

teacher usually introduces stakeholder groups so students gather information to help

understand the perspectives of their groups. The introduction of stakeholder groups also can

be a vehicle for pacing because students can be encouraged to join a group because it fits

their learning needs or levels. Variety is incorporated because different processes are learned

as students begin to understand different perspectives. If they choose a perspective, freedom

of choice is incorporated. During this step, the teacher can provide direct instruction, but also

needs to give students opportunities to work independently as individuals or as a group to

gather information they believe is important. The principle of discovery is incorporated as

students are discovering new information and making new connections.

Next, students identify the task. Students are in their stakeholder groups to identify the

problem from this perspective and think about the possible roles this group would assume in

76


real life. For example, in the Goowoola Resort problem, the environmental agency has goals

and perspectives different from those of the tourism development association; and also, has

different resources. By the end of the step, students generate an open-ended, focused

question that is a guide for generating alternatives in the next step. Now, the teacher has

included open-endedness, and can incorporate evidence of reasoning by asking each group

to explain why their question was selected.

After students have a question to guide their thinking, they generate as many different ideas

as possible for solving the problem. This is the highest level of thinking, creativity, as identified

in the new Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002). Enforcing the rules of brainstorming

(quantity, not quality; no evaluation; no elaboration; wild ideas are accepted, and hitchhiking

is encouraged) can be the task of a student in each group; the teacher also can monitor. After

all students’ ideas are listed, they can gather and organize new information they may have

missed or forgotten.

When students have generated a sufficient number of possibilities, they decide which solution

is best. This step includes two parts: generating a list of criteria and applying the criteria.

Teachers may give some criteria for all groups to use, to ensure they are learning the skills

and content in the syllabus; but if students choose some of their own criteria, the principle of

freedom of choice is incorporated.

When decisions have been made, the students implement their solutions. If actual

implementation is not possible, they can design plans. Making 3-D models of solutions is an

excellent way to incorporate varied abilities and encourage students to think about ways to

make their solutions practical and usable. For example, in one of class in Australia, students

designed structures that would-be cyclone and earthquake-proof to demonstrate their

solutions to a problem in the Solomon Islands. Students also can gather and organize more

ideas or more details about their ideas. At this step, students are applying their knowledge,

another high-level thinking skill.

Evaluating their implementation of solutions is the next step, and students can return to the

criteria used to decide and/or add new criteria related to either their final product or their

group’s methods for working together. When they have spent, sufficient time evaluating and

77


making needed changes, they are ready to communicate their solutions to an audience. This

is a step in which teachers can incorporate writing and technology skills as well as public

speaking. When students must provide evidence to support their solutions or their perspective

of the problem, teachers can assist them in developing charts and graphs to supplement

verbal descriptions.

Finally, students reflect on their experience, using their metacognitive skills to think of what

they learned about the content, what they learned about the problem-solving process, and

what they learned about their own participation in the group. Both individual and group

reflections are appropriate, and sharing these with the large group can be beneficial.

Across all steps, the principle of group interaction is an essential component, and teachers

have many opportunities to encourage groups to capitalize on the strengths of all students in

the group. Teachers need to intervene when necessary to help students assign responsibilities

appropriate for the types and levels of abilities of the students in the group. For example, a

student with low verbal skills might be encouraged to draw diagrams or pictures of the solution,

while those with high technology skills might be encouraged to work on a PowerPoint

presentation, and those with interest and ability in verbal expression might be responsible for

writing the text of a presentation. All students should be involved at all steps.

5. Product Differentiation

The principles for product differentiation are naturally incorporated into this problem-solving

process: addressed to real problems, communicated to real audiences, transformations rather

than repetitions of information, varied, using formats that are self-selected, and appropriately

evaluated. The real problem was selected, and was the focus of the learning process; it also

will be the focus for the product. At the communication step, students can present to their own

classmates, their parents, other classes at the same or other grade levels, or to community

audiences. In the example of the Goowoola Rainforest, students could also write letters to the

governmental agencies involved in the decision-making; they can write to the tourism

department or the environmental agencies responsible for maintaining rainforests in the

country. In addition, they could also request a hearing by any of these agencies, and present

their solutions to those real audiences. All of these decisions can be made on the basis of the

maturation of the students and their passion for their solutions.

78


As students follow the TASC process, the teacher monitors and encourages them to think

deeply about their solutions so they are transformations rather than repetitions of information

and ideas they have found. In a presentation, I observed, as a solution to the problem of

excessive plastic in the ocean, students proposed recycling. In general, this would not be a

transformation because recycling is a common solution. However, this group created an

innovative way to encourage recycling: recycling bins around the city that would take in plastic

and dispense coins to reward those who deposited recyclable containers. These bins also

used solar energy to make the plastic into cubes that were transported to manufacturers who

made them into other products. Incentives were given to the manufacturers who used this

recycled plastic.

Variety in products is a result of having different stakeholder groups, but also needs to be part

of the teacher’s monitoring process. Make sure students are thinking differently, and are

collecting information from a variety of valid sources to help them develop varied solutions and

varied ways to communicate their results to audiences: charts, graphs, models, diagrams,

speeches, PowerPoint presentations, and movies. If students also choose the format(s) they

use to communicate results, the principle of self-selected formats is incorporated.

Finally, appropriate evaluation is incorporated easily because at the decide step, the teacher

helped them develop appropriate criteria for evaluating ideas and solutions. Students also can

develop additional criteria for evaluating the ways they communicate to audiences. Most

importantly, criteria for evaluation are not kept secret from the students. They know the

standards they are working toward.

6. Learning Environment Differentiation

Finally, to support students, teachers must arrange the learning environment so that it

facilitates rather than inhibits their learning. Important dimensions of the learning environment

can be seen as being on continua that range from restricted to unrestricted, and should be

carefully considered in light of the school policies, the ages and developmental levels of the

students, and the resources available in and outside the classroom.

For REAPS to be an effective way to differentiate learning for all students, the learning

environment must be arranged so that it permits maximum student involvement; in other

79


words, it is learner-centered. For example, students need to be able to access resources they

need in and outside the classroom. If computers or other devices such as audio and video

recorders are not available in the classroom, students need to be permitted to go to a computer

laboratory or to the library to access and use them. They also need to have access to a variety

of print and construction materials. If experiments need to be conducted outside, students

should be permitted to go outside with the proper supervision.

Most importantly, the teacher must be open to new ideas and new ways of thinking; and must

show acceptance and respect as he or she interacts with students. Groupings need to be

flexible and varied. If students are having trouble working together and cannot resolve the

problems with teacher support, changes are necessary. A variety of groupings also is

important, and can be easily incorporated. For instance, students can do most of their work in

stakeholder groups, but re-group for certain tasks: those who are working on PowerPoint

presentations can work together to learn and practice their skills, and those who are working

on data or information gathering from certain sources can work together. Large groups are

helpful for sharing progress as students move through the TASC steps. Pairs, triads, and

individuals working alone can complete tasks as needed.

7. Evidence of Success

Several studies of REAPS as a method of differentiation are currently in progress, and three

have been published. In the first study, Zimmerman and colleagues (Zimmerman, et al, 2008)

found that students who had been involved in a classroom where REAPS was the way of

differentiating the science curriculum made significant progress in their understanding of the

complexities and interrelationships of science concepts. Another evaluation of that program

was by the students (Gomez-Arizaga, et al, 2016). Twenty-four students were interviewed and

asked to draw themselves in their science class. In the interviews, students’ answers showed

their understanding of science concepts and processes such as experiments; 96% described

their science experiences using words such as “fun” that showed their enjoyment. They also

described the experiences as being challenging. The activities enjoyed most were those that

involved hands-on building, constructing, and experimenting; the ones they enjoyed the least

were those involving writing in their science journals. Most of their drawings (81.25%) depicted

a student-centered classroom.

In a study in the school in Australia, Wu and colleagues (Wu, Pease, & Maker, 2015) also

interviewed students and found similar results. The students, grades 1 through 6, described

80


accurately the processes they used, enjoyed and learned from the experiences, liked the

collaboration with other students except when others did not cooperate or fulfill their

responsibilities, and appreciated that they were solving real-world problems. Most of their

drawings depicted a classroom arranged as a laboratory (45%) and most included symbols of

science knowledge (58%). None of the students drew the teacher’s desk at the front of the

classroom or the students’ desks in rows looking at the front of the room.

These are promising results, and I sincerely hope that other educators will become interested

in this promising new model, and can see its value as a way to differentiate learning. Together

with students and each other, we can truly build learning buildings with floors and no ceilings

so students can reach for the stars!

References

Gomez-Arizaga, M., Bahar, K.A., Maker, C.J., Zimmerman, R.H., & Pease, R. (2016). How

does science learning occur in the classroom? Students’ perceptions of science instruction

during implementation of the REAPS model. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics and Science

Education, 12(2), 1-24.

Krathwohl, R. D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,

41(4), 212-218.

Maker, C. J. & Schiever, S. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for

gifted learners. (3rd Ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Maker, C. J., Zimmerman, R., Alhusaini, A., & Pease, R. (2015). Real engagement in active

problem solving (REAPS): An evidence-based model that meets content, process, product,

and learning environment principles recommended for gifted students. APEX: The New

Zealand Journal of Gifted Education. 19(1).

Maker, C. J. & Zimmerman, R.H. (2008). Problem Solving in a Complex World: Integrating

DISCOVER, TASC, and PBL in a Teacher Education Project. Gifted Education International.

24(2/3), 160-178.

81


Tomlinson, C.A. (2013). Differentiated instruction. In Callahan, C. M., & Plucker, J. (Eds.)

Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. (pp. 197-210)

Sourcebooks, Inc.

Wallace, B. (2008). The early seedbed of the growth of TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social

Context. Gifted Education International, 24(2-3), 139-155. doi:

10.1177/026142940802400303

Wallace, B., Maker, J., Cave, D., & Chandler, S. (2004). Thinking skills and problem-solving:

An Inclusive approach: a practical guide for teachers in primary schools. London: David Fulton

Publishers.

Wu, I-C., Pease, R., & Maker, C.J. (2015). Students’ perceptions of Real Engagement in

Active Problem Solving. Gifted and Talented International. 30(1-2), 106-121.

Zimmerman, R.H., Maker, C. J., Gomez-Arizaga, M.P., & Pease, R. (2011). The use of

concept maps in facilitating problem solving in earth science. Gifted Educational International,

27(3). 274-287.

PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA PINTAR · PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA PINTAR definitions began with the...

Documents

Transcript of PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA PINTAR · PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA PINTAR definitions began with the...