Advertisement

Perspectives on Gifted Education in the Third Millennium

  • Kurt A. HellerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter reexamines perspectives on gifted education in the third millennium. Different sources of information enrich our knowledge regarding the individual needs and effects of the promotion of giftedness or talent. Relevant sources include the psychometric (status) vs. cognitive (process) paradigms, the descriptive vs. explanatory approaches, and prospective (status diagnostic) vs. retrospective (e.g., expertise) research paradigms. Giftedness or talent research (US-preferred terms) is known as high ability (European-preferred term) research. According to Julian Stanley, we know more about the “whats” than we do about the “whys”. This statement summarizes the status quo of our understanding of giftedness or talent, high ability or expertise, etc. This ascertainment leads to a challenge of gifted education in the 3rd millennium. Gifted education and related concepts shall explain the claim in details.

For the past decades, we have believed that East Asian students including those from China and Japan were less expressive and creative. Recently creativity education and research have given a priority in East and Southeast Asian societies. The move complements insufficient spaces of learning in these societies for creative imagination and innovation as they have been focusing on academic excellence in the forms of international competitive assessments and national examinations. There are many aspects in learning that affects creativity of students and teachers and that influence school excellence.

Keywords

Nobel Prize Winner Gifted Child Talent Development Discovery Learning Stem Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The content of this chapter was read at the ABB-Symposium “Gifted education international” (chaired by Ai-Girl Tan) at the University of Erfurt (Germany) on September 30, 2011, in conjunction of Kurt A. Heller’s 80th birthday celebration.

References

  1. Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).Google Scholar
  2. Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J. J. (1999). The autonomous learner model: Optimizing ability. Greeley, CO: ALPS Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. B. (1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 45–67). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. R., & Kyriakides, M. L. (2011). Applying the Munich dynamic ability-achievement model. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 283–302). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, J. R., Tirri, K., Ruohotie, P., & Walberg, H. (Eds.). (2004). Cross-cultural research: Basic issues, dilemmas and strategies. Hämeenlinna, Finland: Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  7. Cho, S., Lin, C.-Y., & Hwang, D. (2011). Predictive relationships among variables on Math talent development based on the Munich dynamic ability achievement model. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 268–282). Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, S., Moon, J. H., & Park, J. O. (Eds.). (1996). Creativity for the 21st century. Selected proceedings of the third Asia- Pacific conference on giftedness. Seoul: The Korean Society for the Gifted.Google Scholar
  9. Colangelo, N., & Davis, D. A. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  10. Hernández de Hahn, E. L. (2002). Cross- cultural studies in gifted education. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., rev. repr., pp. 549–561). Oxford/Amsterdam: Pergamon Press//Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  11. Dresel, M. (2011). Motivation and self-regulation while learning with hypermedia: Results from a thinking aloud protocol study with Wikipedia. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 180–201). Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
  12. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational process affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fiebig, J. N. (2011). Gifted girls: Education and career. Where will their education and career path take them? In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 116–124). Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
  15. Freeman, J. (2002). Families: The essential context for gifts and talents. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., rev. repr., pp. 573–585). Oxford: Pergamon Press//Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  16. Freeman, J. (2011). Gender and excellence. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 125–141). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  17. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Hany, E. A., & Heller, K. A. (2010). The development of problem solving capacities in the domain of technics. In K. A. Heller (Ed.), Munich studies of giftedness (pp. 93–108). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  19. Heller, K.A. (1991). The nature and development of giftedness: A longitudinal study. European Journal for High Ability, 2, 174–188. Repr. Heller (2010, pp. 175–188).Google Scholar
  20. Heller, K. A. (Ed.). (1992). Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (2. Aufl. 2001). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  21. Heller, K. A. (2000). Psychology excellence program. World Gifted, 19, 8.Google Scholar
  22. Heller, K. A. (Guest Ed.). (2002). Program evaluation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3) (Special section), 187–241.Google Scholar
  23. Heller, K. A. (1999). Individual (learning and motivational) needs versus instructional conditions of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 9, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heller, K. A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychology Science, 46, 302–323.Google Scholar
  25. Heller, K. A. (2007). High ability and creativity: Conceptual and developmental perspectives. In A.-G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity. A handbook for teachers (pp. 47–64). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heller, K. A. (2009). Gifted education from the German perspective. In T. Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 61–67). London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  27. Heller, K. A. (Ed.). (2010). Munich studies of giftedness. Berlin/London: LIT.Google Scholar
  28. Heller, K. A. (2011). Foreword. In A.-G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity. An Asian-Euro-African perspective (pp. XIII–XIV). Singapore: Research Publishing Services.Google Scholar
  29. Heller, K. A., & Hany, E. A. (1986). Identification, development, and achievement analysis of talented and gifted children in West Germany. In K. A. Heller & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Identifying and nurturing the gifted. An international perspective (pp. 67–82). Toronto, ON: Huber.Google Scholar
  30. Heller, K. A., & Lengfelder, A. (2006). Evaluation study of the International Academic Olympiads three decades of cross-cultural and gender findings from North-American, European and East-Asian Olympians. In H. Helfrich, M. Zillekens, & E. Hölter (Eds.), Culture and development in Japan and Germany (pp. 155–175). Münster, Germany: Daedalus.Google Scholar
  31. Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2007). Münchner Hochbegabungstestbatterie (MHBT). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  32. Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2008). The Munich High Ability Test Battery (MHBT): A multidimensional, multimethod approach. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 173–188.Google Scholar
  33. Heller, K. A., & Viek, P. (2000). Support for university students: Individual and social factors. In C. F. M. van Lieshout & G. Heymans (Eds.), Developing talents across the life-span (pp. 299–321). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  34. Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and the natural sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (2010). Gifted females: A cross-cultural survey. In K. A. Heller (Ed.), Munich studies of giftedness (pp. 543–548). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  36. Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heller, K. A., Reimann, R., & Senfter, A. (2005). Hochbegabung im Grundschulalter. Münster, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  38. Heller, K. A., Rindermann, H., & Reimann, R. (2010). A state-wide acceleration program at the German gymnasium. In K. A. Heller (Ed.), Munich studies of giftedness (pp. 477–487). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  39. Heller, K. A., von Bistram, A., & Collier, A. (2010). The enrichment program “Hector seminar”: A longitudinal evaluation study in MINT (STE§M). In K. A. Heller (Ed.), Munich studies of giftedness (pp. 433–454). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  40. Heller, K. A., Hany, E. A., Perleth, C., & Sierwald, W. (2010). The Munich longitudinal study of giftedness. In K. A. Heller (Ed.), Munich studies of giftedness (pp. 13–40). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  41. Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.).(2002). Handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., rev. repr.). Oxford/Amsterdam: Pergamon Press//Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  42. Mönks, F. J., Heller, K. A., & Passow, A. H. (2002). The study of giftedness: Reflections on where we are and where we are going. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. F. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., rev. repr., pp. 839–863). Oxford: Pergamon Press//Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  43. Neber, H. (1999). Entdeckendes lernen. In C. Perleth & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 227–235). Bern, Switzerland: Huber Publ.Google Scholar
  44. Neber, H., & Heller, K. A. (2002). Evaluation of a Summer-school program for highly gifted secondary-school students: The German pupils academy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perleth, C. (2001). Follow-up-Untersuchungen zur Münchner Hochbegabungsstudie. In K. A. Heller (Ed.), Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (2nd ed., pp. 357–446). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  46. Plomin, R. (1994). Genetics and experience. The interplay between nature and nurture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Rindermann, H. (2011). Results in the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) as indicators of the intellectual classes’ cognitive-ability level. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 303–321). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  48. Scarr, S. (1997). Behavior genetic and socialization theories of intelligence. Truce and reconciliation. In R. J. Sternberg & A. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence. heredity and environment (pp. 3–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Schneider, W. (1993). Acquiring expertise: Determinants of exceptional performance. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 311–324). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Schneider, W. (2002). Giftedness, expertise, and (exceptional) performance: A developmental perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., rev. repr., pp. 165–177). Oxford: Pergamon Press/Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  51. Shi, J. (2011). Putting your ideas into practice. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 322–329). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  52. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Stoeger, H. (2007). Berufskarrieren begabter Frauen. In K. A. Heller & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Begabt sein in Deutschland (pp. 265–290). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  54. Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1993). Longitudinal studies of giftedness: Investigation the fulfillment of promise. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 149–160). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  55. Subotnik, R. F., & Steiner, C. L. (1993). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science: A longitudinal study of 1983 Westinghouse science talent search winners. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 52–76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  56. Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (Eds.). (1994). Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  57. Subotnik, R. F. & Arnold, K. D. (2000). Addressing the most challenging questions in gifted education and psychology. A role best suited to longitudinal research. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 243–251). Oxford: Pergamon Press/Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  58. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Subotnik, R. F., Edmiston, A., Lee, G. S., Almaradode, K., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Exploring intensive educational experiences for adolescents talented in science. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 142–157). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  60. Tan, A.-G. (Ed.). (2007). Creativity: A handbook for teachers. Hackensack, NJ/London/Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  61. Tan, A.-G. (2011a). Constructive creativity for developing excellence. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 60–75). Berlin, Germany/London: LIT.Google Scholar
  62. Tan, A.-G. (Ed.). (2011b). Creativity. An Asian-Euro-African perspective. Singapore: Research Publishing Services.Google Scholar
  63. Tang, M. (2011). Psychological studies of inventive creativity among children and adolescents: The concept, a literature review, and a report of an empirical study. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 245–258). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  64. Thompson, L. A. & Plomin, R. (2002). Genetic tools for exploring individual differences in intelligence. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., rev. repr., pp. 157–164). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  65. Ziegler, A. (2011). The Hector Seminar: A beacon for high-school talent development in STEM school subjects. In A. Ziegler & C. Perleth (Eds.), Excellence (pp. 47–59). Berlin, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
  66. Ziegler, A., & Perleth, C. (Eds.). (2011). Excellence: Essays in honour of Kurt A. Heller. Berlin, Germany/London: LIT.Google Scholar
  67. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zuckerman, H. (1992). The scientific elite: Nobel Laureates’ mutual influences. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence (2nd ed., pp. 157–169). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLudwig Maximilians University (LMU)MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations