The Journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

Recommendations

Info

�� Abstract Dimitrios Zbainos; and Anastasia Kyritsi This article presents one of the few recent attempts to investigate aspects of motivation of Greek gifted students. This effort is particularly challenging since gifted education in Greece is a nonexistent concept, and any study of Greek gifted students has to overcome obstacles related to definition, location and identification of gifted students. The present study investigated the motivation of 10 Greek talented students who had won national and international competitions in different fields of talent. The method of investigation was qualitative through interviews. Their narrations demonstrated that their occupation with what would later become their talents, started either by chance, or by a member of the family who distinguished some ability and operated as their mentor. In the process all participants described mastery goal orientation motivating their actions, until they started participating in competitions, where performance orientation operated additionally to their existing mastery orientation. In general, their behavior was directed by approach motivation, while avoidance motivation did not seem to be present at all. Keywords: Gifted motivation; Greek education; qualitative analysis. Introduction The first step for researching gifted students is to define giftedness. However, understanding and universally defining giftedness (as any other controversial issue) seems rather unattainable. For some giftedness is a “chimera” (Borland, 2005), or an arbitrary notion with relatively limited practical use in society and schooling (Hertzog, 2009). However, people have always believed that some individuals are more “able” than others, and thus, implicit theories of giftedness have been formed. Sternberg and his colleagues (Sternberg, 1993; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2011; Sternberg & Zhang, 1995) studied implicit theories of giftedness and proposed that giftedness can be better understood using five criteria, which they called the “pentagonal theory for the identification of the gifted.” According to this theory, in order to be characterized as gifted, a person should meet five criteria: a) the excellence criterion, which states that the individual is superior in some dimension or set of dimensions relative to peers; b) the rarity criterion states that to be labeled as gifted, an individual must possess a high level of an attribute that is rare relative to peers; c) the productivity criterion states that the dimension(s) along which the individual is evaluated as superior must lead to, or potentially lead to, productivity (doing something); d) the demonstrability criterion states that the superiority of the individual on the dimension(s) that determine giftedness must be demonstrable through one or more tests that are valid assessments; and e) the value criterion states that for a person to be labeled as gifted, the person must show superior performance in one or more dimensions that is valued by his or her society. Besides the identification criteria, there is a plethora of theories concerned with the nature of giftedness. Numerous attempts have been made to categorize them under their common characteristics (Davidson, 2009; Davidson & Downing, 2000; Sternberg, et al., 2011). Sternberg et al. (2011) divided the theories concerning giftedness into three major groups: The first includes the no conception theories such as the one proposed by Borland (Borland, 2003, 2005). The second includes the traditional intelligence theories which base giftedness on IQ scores, according to which intelligence is considered to be genetically set, relatively stable overtime, and IQ tests are seen as the best means for its measurement (Carroll, 1996, 2005; Jensen, 1998). The third category considers intelligence, and thus giftedness, as an aptitude that goes beyond IQ; it consists of more dimensions, and is regarded more as a cultivation of expertise (a developing ability), than the mere expression of naturally inherited characteristics. For instance, Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983, 1993) and Sternberg’s theory of successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1985, 1988, 2002) are examples of such conceptions of intelligence. Gifted and Talented International – 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011. 131
The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children On the grounds of the latter group of theories, a number of models for understanding and educating the gifted have been proposed, which have stressed, among other factors, the role of motivation in the manifestation of giftedness and in the education of the gifted. For example, Sternberg (2005) has placed intrinsic and extrinsic motivation at the centre of his model of the development of abilities into competencies, and competencies into expertise. Renzulli (Reis & Renzulli, 2010; Renzulli, 1978, 2002; Renzulli & Reis, 2010) regarded motivation (task commitment) as a component of giftedness, partially overlapping with the other two components of the model, namely, above average ability, and creativity. Francois Gagné viewed motivation and volition (needs, interests, passions, values, resource allocation, adaptive strategies and effort) as catalysts for the transformation of gifts into talents according to his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné, 2004, 2005, 2009). The Munich Model of Giftedness (Heller, Perleth, & Lim, 2005; Perleth, Sierwald, & Heller, 1993) considered achievement motivation as a non cognitive personality characteristic which operates as one of the mediators between person-related talents and the performance areas of expertise. Feldhusen (Feldhusen, 2005; Feldhusen & Hoover, 1986) has also stressed the importance of motivation, self concept, and achievement goals for the nurturance and development of gifted students’ capabilities. Gottfried and colleagues (A. E. Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004, 2009; A. W. Gottfried, Cook, Gottfried, & Morris, 2005) described motivation not simply as a construct related to giftedness, but they further proposed a conceptualization of motivation as an area of giftedness in and of itself. The area of student motivation has attracted the attention of theorists and researchers for a long time and thus the body of research is enormous. Here, only a brief presentation of the literature will take place, in order to be discussed in relation to the findings of the present study. Pintrich & De Groot (1990) categorized student motivation under a model that proposes that there are three motivational components which are linked to student learning: an expectancy component, a value component and an affective component. In this article, only the first two components are going to be discussed, due to the attention they have received by the literature concerned with gifted motivation. The expectancy component of student motivation includes students’ beliefs about their ability to perform a task. Constructs such as self-esteem, locus of control, outcome expectations, even self concept are included in this component. The predominant construct, however, of this component is self-efficacy, which is concerned with people’s beliefs in their capability to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997). According to Bandura (2006), perceived self-efficacy should be distinguished from other similar constructs (Schunk & Pajares, 2005), although the distinction between self-efficacy and self concept is relatively subtle (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003). In a review of the literature regarding academic self-efficacy, Klassen & Usher (2010) concluded that students’ beliefs about their academic capabilities powerfully predict a wide range of academic behaviors, and that self-efficacy beliefs are related to the effort students will expend on an academic task or activity, their perseverance in confronting obstacles, and their resilience in the face of adverse situations. In gifted motivation, it has been demonstrated that IQ and other cognitive measures contribute to higher self perception of abilities and self-efficacy of students (Pajares, 1996). Consequently, gifted students have been found to exhibit higher self-efficacy in verbal and math self-efficacy and to feel more challenged, compared with their non gifted peers (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Lavirée, 1993; Pajares, 1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990) while non gifted students tended to overestimate their confidence in their abilities compared with gifted students (Ewers & Wood, 1993; Pajares, 1996). The value component includes students’ goals and beliefs about the importance and interest of the task. This component encompasses several related constructs concerning goal achievement that have extensively been studied in the past forty years, after behaviorist approaches to motivation were proven to be insufficient to fully explain human motivation. In the early 70’s the concept of intrinsic motivation was introduced; since then it has been developed into a comprehensive theory of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b). The achievement goal construct was introduced by Dweck and her colleagues (Diener & Dweck, 1980; Dweck & Elliott, 1983) in an effort to explain why children of equal ability responded differently to failure: Some appeared helpless while, others, displayed an adaptive, mastery response pattern. Dweck and Leggett (1988) described two types of goals in volitional behavior: performance goals, in which the purpose of behavior is to demonstrate one’s competence (or avoid demonstrating one’s incompetence), and learning goals, in which the purpose of behavior is to develop one’s competence and task mastery. Nicholls (1984) described achievement motivation under the terms ego involvement and task involvement. Ego 132 Gifted and Talented International – 26(1), August, 2011; and 26(2), December, 2011.
Page 1 and 2:
��
Page 3 and 4:
The World Council for Gifted and Ta
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Book Reviews The World Council for
Page 9 and 10:
Examining Opinions and Challenging
Page 11 and 12:
Finally, many thanks go to Kevin La
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Name Full-time Gifted Class Gail* A
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
About the Authors The World Council
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Table 4: The results of the (2x2) t
Page 31 and 32:
About the Author The World Council
Page 33 and 34:
undertaking the unit, with many com
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 1: Pre & post scores for ite
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
(1 st , 3 rd & 4 th were negatively
Page 45 and 46:
Conclusions The World Council for G
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
egulated and possible with almost n
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
About the Authors The World Council
Page 65 and 66:
This article argues that competitio
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82: The World Council for Gifted and Ta
Page 83 and 84: inborn. In the case of Vietnam, ano
Page 87 and 88: the exam. This implied that success
Page 91 and 92: Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). S
Page 99 and 100: About the Authors The World Council
Page 101 and 102: What is measurement invariance and
Page 109 and 110: Conclusions The World Council for G
Page 113 and 114: learning strategies employed and le
Page 119 and 120: students have little choice in the
Page 121 and 122: Appendix 1 Interview schedule Quest
Page 123 and 124: sufficiently address their individu
Page 131: The World Council for Gifted and Ta
Page 143 and 144: About the Authors The World Council
Page 159 and 160: Conclusions The World Council for G
Page 177 and 178: Statistics The World Council for Gi
show all

The Journal of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?