Sistema de retroalimentación del desempeño

As evidenced by some of the studies reviewed earlier, there is agreement amongst many writers that gifted and talented individuals share distinct personality traits. For example, Terman’s (1925) study of eminent individuals claimed that, while these high achievers were “not free from faults” (p. 638), they were reported to be honest, trustworthy, and of high moral character. Parkyn’s (1948) investigation of New

Zealand gifted children reported that high intelligence is positively correlated with desirable qualities such as common sense, a desire to know and excel, and originality. However, while there does appear to be characteristics that are common amongst gifted and talented individuals, the participants in many of these studies do not necessarily represent a diverse range of gifted individuals. For the most part, researchers have tended to work with participants who are more easily identified as gifted rather than people who perhaps represent a more diverse population (such as underachievers or those deemed to be ‘at-risk’). In this case, it is perhaps not the distinct traits proposed by writers that are important, but how these traits come about, and what contributes to how these traits manifest.

As understandings and definitions of giftedness have become broader, these lists of characteristics have grown and there is now widespread recognition that gifted people are unique individuals rather than a homogenous group. Specific characteristics are more commonly being classified into broader categories by contemporary

researchers. Gardner’s (1983) multiple intelligences are an example of this,

proposing eight broad types of intelligence, under which more specific traits can be identified. The New Zealand Ministry of Education (2012) also distinguishes five broad categories of traits, including learning, creative-thinking, motivational, social leadership, and self-determination characteristics.

A number of researchers have cautioned against stringently assessing the personality traits of gifted individuals. Parkyn (1948) highlighted three key issues associated with determining common characteristics of the gifted. The first is concerned with the ‘halo effect’, where judgment of character can be influenced by a gifted young person’s already known abilities, or by their conformist natures. It can be argued that some teachers mistake ‘bright’ children, who do well at school, follow instructions, and are well-liked, for ‘gifted’ children. In their study of gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Davidson and Greenberg (1967) indicated that high

achievers were perceived by teachers to have more desirable personal qualities than low achieving gifted students. In this particular study, gifted high achievers were noted to conform to behavioural expectations and to show more effort in their schoolwork. The judgments made by these teachers might arguably reflect the halo effect. There are, however, many high achievers who are less compliant, tend to question authority, and show a lack of concern for pleasing their teachers, and this is reflected in gifted and talented literature that outlines the ‘flipside’ to the more positively perceived gifted personality (e.g., Davis et al., 2011).

Parkyn’s (1948) second issue suggests that limitations of the setting in which these characteristics are assessed might ‘mask’ the capabilities and characteristics of some gifted young people. For example, the resources available within the school setting might only cater for certain types of abilities, which means that those who have gifts in more divergent areas might never have the opportunity to demonstrate these. Simonton (2009) examined the development of creatively gifted individuals and takes the position that these people are often perceived as ‘quirky’ or ‘eccentric’, and are shown in various studies to be most at risk for mental illness. He suggested that, in some cases, psychopathology could be the cost of attaining greatness (Simonton, 1994). Neihart (1999), on the other hand, would suggest that gifted people

experience no more psychosocial difficulties than the general population, although her review of empirical literature indicated that creatively gifted writers and visual artists were more inclined towards mood disorders and suicides. The issue here is that behaviours that are seen to be ‘out of the norm’ can sometimes result in highly creative individuals’ gifts and talents being overlooked. According to Nettle (2001), however, the traits that generate psychopathology may be the very traits that underlie the heightened creativity valued by society. Fraser (2010) believes that when

traditional psychopathological behaviours are viewed in alternative ways, creatively gifted individuals can be supported to express themselves in ways that are better understood and more appreciated.

Parkyn’s final issue emphasises that traits that might be assessed as common to gifted individuals cannot necessarily be generalised across contexts. It is clear that

particular environments elicit different behaviours according to the features of those environments and the people who are present in these settings. For example, a gifted child may present in a particular way to his or her parents in a home environment that lacks stimulation, but quite differently amongst like-minded peers in the school context. Characteristics that may be common amongst gifted individuals might not always be obvious, or may be seen in some contexts and not others. Likewise, the opportunity to display characteristics that would indicate giftedness in particular settings is not necessarily afforded to young people from all backgrounds. This has particular implications for those students identified as less likely to be represented in gifted programmes in New Zealand schools, in particular gifted Māori students, young people from other minority cultures, students with learning difficulties, and gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Ministry of Education, 2012).

There are other complications that arise when attempting to ascribe particular traits to the gifted and talented. Moltzen (2011d) points out that widespread uncertainty over definitions of giftedness makes the identification of gifted characteristics complex. Others maintain that higher levels of giftedness increase the likelihood of social and emotional difficulties that may result in more negative characteristics being

manifested (e.g., Morelock & Feldman, 2003). Moltzen also cautions that

preconceived judgments of the characteristics of gifted individuals can result in the ‘pathologising’ of giftedness and this can influence the way these young people behave and how they are catered for. This may also extend to labels ascribed to gifted and talented young people, which, as pointed out previously, can have particular connotations.

In the same way, young people who come from low socioeconomic or challenging backgrounds can fall prey to preconceived judgments, particularly when compared with a more ‘socially acceptable’ group. Some of the studies reviewed in the previous chapter that compare gifted young people from low socioeconomic

backgrounds with their higher socioeconomic counterparts tend to portray those from less privileged backgrounds as having less desirable personal characteristics (e.g., Frierson, 1965), which reflects the middle-class bias of schools. Other studies indicate that socioeconomic difference appeared to have very little effect on the personal characteristics of gifted young people (e.g., Davidson & Greenberg, 1967). The differences indicated in these studies may reflect the environments these young people grew up in. For example, those from less advantaged neighbourhoods might present with ‘harder’ temperaments than those from more desirable neighbourhoods. However, those from the first group could well be more ‘streetwise’ than those from the second. These differences could also reflect variations in motivational factors for each group.

Studies in the previous chapter that focus only on gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds with no comparison group, tend to portray a more positive view of their personal characteristics. An explanation for this might lie in the sources of data. For example, in Prom-Jackson et al.’s (1987) study, data was predominantly obtained from the participants and their families, whose perspectives might differ somewhat from other potential sources such as educators or other outside professionals. Another explanation might be that, in the absence of a perhaps more conforming group to compare these participants with, the researchers were less likely to assume that their personal characteristics would be less desirable.

While the individuality of gifted and talented young people is increasingly

acknowledged, there is little doubt from the literature that there are some particular characteristics that seem to ‘fit’ with the gifted personality. For example,Winner

(1996) suggested that three characteristics are typical of gifted young people regardless of their field of talent. These are precocity (or advanced ability), an insistence on marching to their own drummer (learning at a faster rate and in a qualitatively different way to their peers), and a rage to master (high levels of motivation in their areas of ability or interest). Renzulli (1986) similarly proposed a three-ring approach to giftedness. This theory suggests that gifted and talented young people possess three traits (above average ability, task commitment, and creativity), which are applied to a performance area to produce high level functioning.

Piechowski (1991) maintains that gifted individuals are characterised by high levels of emotional sensitivity or ‘overexcitabilities’ that may manifest as behaviour that others may consider extreme. Piirto (2007) also includes overexcitabilities amongst the personality attributes of gifted individuals in her Pyramid of Talent Development. In this model, she proposes that traits such as imagination, intuition, perceptiveness, and persistence are among those common to gifted individuals.

As mentioned earlier, the gifted and talented literature makes it abundantly clear that the personal characteristics of gifted young people are not always viewed as positive (e.g., Davis et al., 2011). In fact, many of the characteristics that might be seen as common amongst gifted young people most certainly have a ‘flipside’. For example, perfectionism might propel the gifted individual to set realistic goals to produce work of an excellent standard (Flett & Hewitt, 2002). However, extreme perfectionism might be typically motivated by a fear of failure so strong that their sense of self- worth is dependent on how well they perform (Hess, 1994). Another example might be that academic superiority coupled with advanced language ability could well result in opinionated and nonconforming behaviour (Davis et al., 2011). Context is likely to make a difference to how these traits might manifest, and studies that focus on the broader ecological context may help to explain some of the differences in how personal characteristics of the gifted and talented are demonstrated.

One characteristic that does appear consistently in studies of the gifted and talented is drive. As noted, drive is described in a number of ways including a rage to master (Winner, 1996), task commitment (Renzulli, 1986), and persistence (Piirto, 2007). Other writers and researchers have used terms such as motivation (Gagné, 2010; Gottfried, Gottfried, & Guerin, 2006) and effort (Davis et al., 2011) to describe this attribute. Drive also features strongly in the studies of gifted young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds reviewed in the previous chapter. Those characteristics that featured most consistently throughout these studies were attributes closely linked to drive. The participants in these studies are noted as having high aspirations

(Borland et al., 2000; Morales, 2010), strong work ethics (Davidson & Greenberg, 1967; Morales, 2010), being perseverant (Morales, 2010; Prom-Jackson et al., 1987), striving to achieve (Davidson & Greenberg, 1967), and taking responsibility for their own learning (Davidson & Greenberg, 1967; Reis et al., 2005; Stewart & Porath, 1999; Van Tassel-Baska, 1989).

Murray (1938) provided one of the first empirical theories of motivation, and this was based on the idea that particular motives were basic to human functioning.

McClelland (1961) suggested that those individuals who were high in achievement motivation were striving to constantly better themselves and their achievements. Bandura (1977) put forth the idea of competence motivation, referring to a person’s belief in their own abilities to solve problems at hand. He proposed that this type of motivation was stimulated by both intrinsic and extrinsic reward. For example, the intrinsic reward for demonstrating competence might be a boost in self-esteem, whereas extrinsic rewards might include receiving praise and affirmation from a teacher.

The strong link between self-concept and motivation or drive is well established (e.g., Reis et al., 2005; Wigfield & Wagner, 2005) and this may explain why these two characteristics are often commonly cited together in research on the gifted. Maslow

(1968) purported that we all have an innate need to become competent and a desire to improve ourselves. Foote (1951) proposed that motivation is a consequence of identity and that, when self-concept decreases, action is halted. Zuo and Cramond (2001) suggested that motivation, perseverance, and drive are indicators of a strong sense of identity that keeps individuals focused on achieving established goals.

While drive features consistently in studies of gifted individuals, it is more difficult to ascertain where this motivation comes from. Embedded in many of the terms used by researchers to describe the driven nature of gifted individuals is an implication of deliberate effort on the part of the gifted young person. However, a number of

eminent individuals describe having an ‘inner drive’ which might suggest that there is something innate about their capacity to spend large amounts of time and energy on their areas of passion. Another notable point about these terms is that there are implications from both genetic and environmental influences. While there is

evidence of biological influences on personality, there is also considerable evidence to suggest that environmental aspects have an influence on how personal

characteristics are expressed (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Dweck, 2000).

According to Gottfried and Gottfried (2004), drive or motivation has been described in gifted literature as a “prerequisite for, component of, catalyst of, and even an outcome of giftedness” (p.121). However, these authors put forward the preliminary notion of motivation as an actual area of giftedness, and provide four key points of evidence from related research to support and provide a foundation for their conceptualisation. First, compared to their nongifted peers, gifted young people demonstrate significantly higher academic intrinsic motivation. Second, academic intrinsic motivation appears to have considerable continuity throughout childhood and adolescence, and these young people demonstrate superior persistence, attention, and enjoyment of learning. Finally, Gottfried and Gottfried believe that aspects of the environment such as recognition from teachers, parenting styles, and stimulating

home environments play a significant role in relation to academic intrinsic motivation.