There has been limited research undertaken in New Zealand that specifically relates to gifted and talented individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds and there could beseveral reasons for this. The lack of investigation in this area may reflect New Zealand’s fairly recent focus on the effects of increasing poverty rates. Another reason for a lack of research in this area, as mentioned earlier, might be the
difficulties associated with the identification of this group of learners. Traditional methods of identification tend to be ineffective with this group, and stereotypical attitudes may be one reason for this (Ministry of Education, 2012). Another reason, also outlined earlier, is that this group’s performance generally declines over the time they are at school in comparison to more advantaged students. If gifted and talented young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds are not identified early, their abilities may not be as evident, and finding research participants amongst this group may become more difficult.
Internationally, there is more research focused on gifted young people from low- income backgrounds, and many of these studies derive from the USA. An earlier section of this literature review made reference to the passing of the Jacob K. Javits
Gifted and Talented Students Education Act in 1988, which generated a wave of
research focused on the issues of underrepresentation amongst low-income and minority children. Following this, the report National Excellence: The Case for
Developing America’s Talent (Ross, 1993), expanded the definition of giftedness to
include the consideration of different cultural groups and socioeconomic levels. This acknowledgement, in combination with the funding of research projects, has further highlighted the issue of underrepresented populations in gifted programmes.
While the focus on identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations has increased in the USA, there are still claims that there is little research or knowledge about gifted individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Cross, 2003; Ford, 2007). This may be due to the fact that minority ethnic groups are overrepresented in low socioeconomic populations and these two variables have not really been
adequately differentiated in research in the USA (Baldwin, 2007; Borland, 2004; Hunsaker et al., 1995). Only recently have attempts been made to determine which differences can be attributed to either ethnicity or poverty, although Lee, Olszewski- Kubilius, and Peternel (2009) acknowledge that these factors are difficult to separate.
The lack of distinction between gifted individuals from minority ethnic groups and those from impoverished backgrounds contributes to the dearth of knowledge in this area. Complicating this is the high degree of overlap between ethnic minority and impoverished groups in society.
There are also limited empirical studies that have focused on personal and
environmental factors that contribute to or limit achievement amongst gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Much of the recent international research undertaken with this group has tended to focus on identification and selection procedures (e.g., Borland & Wright, 1994; Frasier et. al, 1995a; Hunsaker et.al, 1995; Van Tassel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002), assessment instruments and practices (e.g., Callahan, Tomlinson, Moon, Tomchin, & Plucker, 1995; Van Tassel- Baska & Stambaugh, 2006), and curriculum programmes and interventions (e.g., Baldwin, 1994; Burney & Cross, 2006; Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Peternel, 2010; Miller & Gentry, 2010; Swanson, 2006). The nature of this research has meant that there has been more consideration of the school context than other environments, such as the family and home environments (Hunsaker et. al, 1995). Olszewski- Kubilius (2007) suggests that there needs to be further qualitative studies undertaken that explore the processes that occur within and between the family, peer groups, and school settings.
This section provides an examination of key studies that have focused on the personal and environmental characteristics of gifted people living in poverty, and which have relevance to the present study. As noted earlier, the majority of these studies were undertaken in the United States, perhaps as a result of the increased emphasis on, and funding for, research on this particular population of gifted individuals.
An early study that specifically investigated the personal and environmental characteristics of gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds was undertaken by Edward Frierson (1965). Frierson’s aim was to examine
generalisations that had been made about gifted children and to increase
understandings about gifted children from both upper and lower socioeconomic backgrounds. With an interest in the effects of deprivation on the gifted child,
Frierson made reference to two notions about socioeconomic status and achievement. The first, consistent with traditional notions of intelligence, was the view that
heredity played more of a role in recognised giftedness than the environment. The second contended that low socioeconomic status generally led to underachievement.
Frierson (1965) compared groups of gifted (those scoring 125 or higher on an IQ test) and ‘average’ (those scoring between 85 and 115 on an IQ test) elementary school children from upper and lower status backgrounds using measures such as height and weight, personality traits, interests and activities, and creative thinking. His
definition of socioeconomic background as operationalised in the study included people not only living in the same area with the same living conditions, but also of the same ethnicity. The ethnicity of the participants in Frierson’s study was not identified in the outline of his research.
Frierson (1965) did not expect to find any significant differences between gifted children from upper and lower socioeconomic backgrounds on the measures he tested for and the results of his study indicated that this was true of the physical
measurements, height and weight. There were also no noteworthy differences with height and weight between gifted and average children. Interests and activities did differ between the participant groups, however, with gifted children from upper socioeconomic backgrounds inclined to read more and gifted children of lower socioeconomic backgrounds preferring competitive sports to a greater extent than the upper socioeconomic gifted group. Frierson also found that the gifted children from
wealthier backgrounds were more aware of their parents’ aspirations for them to move on to higher education. The gifted children of lower socioeconomic
backgrounds were not as aware of parental support and tended to dislike school more than their counterparts.
There were also distinct differences found in the activities and interests of both gifted and average children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in Frierson’s (1965) study. Gifted children from low socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to play musical instruments, aspired to higher status occupations, were more creative in their game playing, and again preferred competitive sports to a greater extent than the average children from low status backgrounds. They also tended to earn high grades in reading, unlike the average children who were inclined to dislike reading as an activity.
A personality test administered to all four participant groups showed some differences between children from upper and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, however Frierson (1965) did acknowledge that the authors of the personality test cautioned users about their interpretations. The test indicated that both gifted and average children from upper socioeconomic backgrounds tended to be more conscientious, more attentive to rules, and more persevering. As well, the tests showed evidence that these children were more self-controlled, more ambitious, and better able to control their emotions. Children in both the gifted and average lower socioeconomic groups were considered more likely to be demanding, attention seeking, overactive, and undependable. However, these tests also indicated that both gifted and average children from low socioeconomic backgrounds tended to be astute, realistic in their thinking, and less easygoing. While some of these findings may be consistent with other studies of gifted personalities, the reliability of this test could well be presumed to be more biased and perhaps less culturally ‘fair’ than tests designed in more recent times.
In terms of creative thinking, Frierson (1965) proposed that performance was
influenced by sociocultural factors. Five creative elements were tested for and these included fluency, flexibility, adequacy, originality, and elaboration. Frierson found that the gifted children from upper socioeconomic backgrounds performed higher on every measure than gifted children of low socioeconomic backgrounds. It is not known whether Frierson’s study considered other contextual aspects, such as family structure or educational experiences, and therefore it is unclear how other
environmental features may also have influenced creative thinking. Frierson reached two key conclusions from his research; first, that differences in socioeconomic status accounts for several differences between groups of gifted children, and second, that there are a number of differences between gifted children and average children regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds.
At around the same period as Frierson’s (1965) research, Davidson and Greenberg (1967) carried out a study as part of a contract with the Office of Education in the United States that explored the cognitive, affective, motivational, and physical characteristics of high achieving students from “deprived” backgrounds. This study contrasted 80 high achieving students with 80 low achievers across 10 schools in New York. All of the participants were 10 or 11 years of age and were in the same grade at school. The groups were divided equally by gender, and each of the 160 participants lived in low socioeconomic situations and was African American. Participants were selected on the basis of demonstrated academic performance in reading and mathematics. Davidson and Greenberg hypothesised that high achievers were superior to low achievers in cognitive functioning, physical condition, and general and emotional health. They also proposed that high achievers displayed greater motivation and effort in academic work, and had a more positive attitude towards authority figures. As well, high achievers were thought to be more positive about themselves.
Data were collected from a variety of sources. The participants in this study were given a range of psychological tests including IQ tests, object tests, oral language tests, and drawing tasks, amongst other measures. A physical examination of each child was conducted to test aspects such as blood pressure, pulse rates, abnormalities, posture, and nutrition. The students were also interviewed about their after school activities and interests, school subjects, academic goals and career aspirations, and family relationships. As well, a home visit was carried out to verify the participants’ social class and to observe the physical conditions of the home environment.
Interviews were conducted with parents of the participants and these included questions about aspirations for their children, family life, and parenting styles.
Consistent with what they expected to discover, Davidson and Greenberg (1967) found that the high achieving participants in their study had a more positive sense of self-competence than the low achievers, in academic qualities as well as social and personal characteristics. They assumed more responsibility for their own learning and strived to achieve. Teachers also perceived this group as having more desirable personal qualities, showing greater effort in their schoolwork and conforming more readily to behavioural expectations. The high achievers had better-developed cognitive skills, more intellectual interests, and were more reflective than the low achievers. These students also had fewer absences from school. The families of the high achieving students showed greater concern about their children’s education and were more aware about social issues. Their homes were orderly and structured and they tended to be better off financially, suggesting that even small differences in socioeconomic level could be associated with achievement at school.
There were also some similarities between these two groups. Both high and low achievers in this study showed sensitivity to their environments. They were similar in their levels of drive and aspirations, although the high achievers showed more
their future. High achievers also appeared to have better quality relationships with adults.
Davidson and Greenberg (1967) concluded that high achievers from low
socioeconomic backgrounds came with some initial advantages compared with low achievers (e.g., cognitive abilities and more stable home environments). They had better developed conceptual abilities and were more original and creative in their thinking. They also had stronger self-concepts and this was largely due to their teachers’ attitudes towards them. Teachers tended to show greater interest in conforming students and expectations were inclined to be lower for children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. These researchers found that while
socioeconomic level had some bearing on academic achievement, attributes of self in interaction with the school environment had more influence. They concluded that the development of self (defined in this study as personal, academic, social, and
nonintellectual competence) is closely linked with cognitive growth. Davidson and Greenberg acknowledged that, while the data from their study did not provide direct evidence of causal factors related to achievement, it did reflect complex relationships between gifted individuals, their home environments, and practices in their school settings.
In response to increasing interest in the role of parents in the educational achievement of minority students, Prom-Jackson, Johnson, and Wallace (1987) investigated the home environments of 767 low-income, academically talented minority youth. The participants of this study had earlier taken part in A Better Chance (ABC), an organisation that identifies academically talented children from low socioeconomic backgrounds as candidates for college preparatory secondary schools in America. In this study, participants were asked to retrospectively reflect on their earlier
(i.e., single parenting versus two parenting)interacted with other environmental factors to influence academic achievement.
The framework for this study was based on three specific aspects. First, these researchers considered that the interaction of home environmental factors should be studied rather than focusing on each of these variables in isolation. As well, the study should focus on the home environments of children who achieve to a high level despite circumstances that are generally assumed to lead to maladaptive outcomes. Finally, investigating the instilling of values and beliefs from families that determined success or failure in the school setting was considered to be important.
The method of data collection for this study was a survey that focused on elementary and high school experiences (including academic performance, career choice,
personal perceptions of their abilities, leadership and athletic skills, personality and attitudes), home environmental factors (including parents’ educational levels, parents’ occupational statuses, family size, and parental expectations and support), and
personality, attitudes, and perceptions about self (Prom-Jackson, Johnson, & Wallace, 1987). Personal characteristics were considered to interact with parenting styles and values as part of a reciprocal process that influenced academic performance.
While the emphasis of the study was on parent configuration, this was not found to be a significant influence on academic talent. What made more of a difference for this group of young people were the high aspirations and expectations that their parents had for them, despite their own low levels of education and the socioeconomic challenges they faced. The participants in this study reported that their parents, and particularly their mothers, were supportive of their interests and abilities, and encouraged them to develop a strong sense of self. In addition, these young people were reported to have very positive self-concepts, a strong internal locus of control,
and high levels of task orientation and perseverance. In the school context, many of these young people were apparently influenced by teachers who provided high quality teaching and positive learning environments.
Prom-Jackson, Johnson, and Wallace (1987) concluded that the participants’ positive personal characteristics and schooling experiences reinforced parents’ high
expectations for their children and attitudes towards education, which in turn influenced the participants’ academic achievement overall. These researchers
suggested that schools and educators needed to work with parents to provide positive experiences that could develop the character and improve the self-perceptions of young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. One explanation for these findings, and arguably a limitation of this study, is that this group of students had already been recognised for their academic giftedness, and therefore self-esteem and responses from others tended to be more positive. Consideration of a broader range of talent areas in this study, including those that are perhaps not as traditionally acknowledged in school settings (e.g., creative arts), might well have indicated different results. Children whose gifts are not readily acknowledged in the school setting may feel less positive about themselves, engage in less desirable behaviour, and elicit less positive responses from their teachers and parents.
The influence of family on the achievement of 15 gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds was also the focus of Van Tassel-Baska’s (1989) research. Using questionnaires and interviews to gather data, Van Tassel-Baska found that key influences in the development of her participants’ talents included the value their families placed on education and hard work, and the educational
opportunities provided by their school. The importance of family relationships was also highlighted in this study, with parents (particularly mothers) and extended family (particularly grandmothers) playing a pivotal role in terms of support for academic achievement. Van Tassel-Baska concluded that the families of high achieving
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds tended to encourage them and carefully monitor their progress. Parents held and communicated high expectations for their children and generally viewed the challenges associated with their
socioeconomic circumstances as motivators to succeed.
Personal attributes were also found to be significant for these gifted young people. Van Tassel-Baska (1989) found that motivation to achieve, independence, and skills for coping with the demands of school were common amongst this group. While these young people reported that they struggled with some of the challenges
associated with their personal circumstances, they typically reported having feelings of self-competence and a strong belief in self. Teachers who acknowledged and nurtured their talents were reported to be influential in their talent development and, in contrast to some other studies, this group of gifted young people indicated that their peers were largely supportive of their academic accomplishments.
Project Synergy ran over the course of six years, beginning in 1990 with the nontraditional identification of a cohort of approximately 15 potentially gifted kindergarten students from an elementary school in Harlem, New York City (Borland, 1994). The majority of students at this school came from low
socioeconomic backgrounds, with most students of African-American ethnicity, and around a quarter Hispanic. The neighbourhood within which this school was situated, and where many of these students lived, was characterised by violence and drug use. Most of these children would not have been identified as gifted using traditional methods. The aim of the project was to develop procedures for the identification of gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, to develop ways of working with these children, their families and their teachers to nurture potential, and to place them in the appropriate educational programmes (Borland et al., 2000).
Students attended additional weekend and summer classes with a diverse curriculum