Constructing a synthetic-analytic framework for precocious writing.

Introduction

Since the Marland Report (Marland, 1972), the range of behaviors demonstrated by gifted children has caused us to change and modify models of normal development across a variety of domains. However, researchers and educators have come to realize that it was inappropriate to view gifted behavior as merely an extension of normal behavior, because the behaviors of gifted children often involve qualitative and quantitative differences that cannot be properly captured or explained by models of typical behavior. As a result, researchers have been designing and modifying separate developmental models of gifted behaviors.

In a similar fashion, children who are highly precocious in specific domains provide us with excellent opportunities to reexamine and modify developmental models of giftedness. The literature on precocious behavior is predominated by precocity in closed-symbol systems such as mathematics and music. Far fewer instances of precocity exist within nonclosed systems such as literary production and verbal intelligence (Czikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1986). While precocity before age 6 is rare, precocious writing is rarer, and writing precocity at 5 years is truly exceptional. Therefore, precocious child writers provide us with rare opportunities to gain explicit insights into their abilities and development, thus helping us create or modify developmental models.

In previous works (A. L. Edmunds & G. A. Edmunds, 2005; A. L. Edmunds & Noel, 2003), we have detailed the complex and sophisticated writing of a highly precocious child. Geoffrey (pseudonym) started his prolific output at age 5, and at 10.5 years continues to write copiously, both at home and in school. From a developmental perspective, it is not enough to say that Geoffrey performs as older children do, for they do not perform as he does. What he does, cognitively and metacognitively, is qualitatively more like the thinking of older bright children than that of his literacy age-equals. Given his extraordinary abilities, we want to know whether there are similarities and/or differences in type, form and/or degrees of performance between his work and existing models. Furthermore, because Geoffey's precocity is an exceptional case among exceptional cases, we question whether current conceptualizations and models are adequate. We are also interested in the transformations and transitions that occur throughout his psychological and intellectual development. These changes are especially important in helping us to understand the applicability of current developmental models and conceptualizations of precocity and giftedness (Siegler & Crowley, 1991). For example, how do these changes compare to those of other children and/or to other children who are precocious in other specific domains? Furthermore, would these comparisons be appropriate?

Thus far, our attempts to fathom answers to these questions have resulted in several modifications to current conceptions of giftedness. First, we provided a comprehensive argument that precocity be the preferred term to describe these children because it celebrates precociousness as an age-relative standard without the expectation of the continued exponential trajectory inferred by the term prodigy (Edmunds & Noel, 2003). Second, we suggested two significant modifications to the writing element of Jackson's (2000) Model of the Development of Giftedness, an age-relative depiction of emerging precocious behaviors. We were able to show that the age range for emerging literary precocity should be revised downward to include at least 5-year-olds, and we demonstrated that a third route for emerging literary precocity needed to be included. Our third route depicts the developmental progression of high abstract visual reasoning interacting with high verbal intelligence. More importantly, however, we also demonstrated that this route, combined with Jackson's original two routes of literary precocity, provided a more comprehensive description of the congregation of influences that produce precocious literary works in young children (A. L. Edmunds & Noel, 2003). Third, similar to evidence presented by others, we demonstrated that precocious children need both propitious home environments and supportive and understanding school atmospheres to enable their abilities. We argued that while intellectually stimulating programs are necessary for precocious children to develop, they are more likely to thrive if the people responsible for their well-being carefully acknowledge how the emotional sensitivities of precocious children can positively or negatively affect their performance (A. L. Edmunds & G. A. Edmunds, 2005; A. L. Edmunds & Noel).

One of our next steps was to examine Geoffrey's work according to current writing analysis frameworks so that we could accurately gauge his writing and establish its place with in the larger context of children's writing. This comparative approach is similar to the method employed in our previous examinations of precocious writing. The data examined for this analysis entails all of Geoffrey's writing produced when he was 5- and 6-years-old. This amounts to approximately 3,700 pages of writing, which although in mostly storybook form, also includes writing in the form of letters to friends, mathematical and scientific charts, several portrayals of information in comic and advertisement modes, book chapters, a program for a party, a magazine, a newspaper, and a letter to Stephen Hawking. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how and why applied analysis-of-writing schema need to be adjusted to capture fully the essence of what is contained in the sophisticated writings of a precocious writer.

Searching for an Appropriate Analysis Framework

An examination of the literature on gifted, talented, and precocious children revealed that little analytical work had been done on the quality of the writing of young gifted children (Piirto, 1992). The literature contains general descriptions of the writings of these children, but they are without specific schemes of analysis. This is not surprising, given that very few child writers have been documented. An explanation for the lack of both precocious child writers and frameworks by which their work could be analyzed can be found in Feldman's (1986) assertions that "the field itself has few organized supports of strategies for instruction in the craft" and that "children normally lack the kind of experience, insight, and understanding that writers are expected to convey in their works" (p. 44).

Based on the writing analysis criteria of Flower and Hayes (1984), Herrmann (1987), Noel (1989), and Pringle and Freedman (1985), an initial three-stage analytical framework was devised to examine Geoffrey's writing. The first stage analyzed the complexity of sentence and paragraphing structures as well as the appropriate use of conventions (Noel, 1989). The second examined not only Geoffrey's degree of mastery of the mechanics of writing, but also the degree to which he incorporated what he was reading and learning into his written work. The third stage involved the use of a three-level hierarchical model to describe the degree of children's assimilations of concepts: (a) The lowest level samples contain indicators of the simplest levels of assimilation; (b) middle-level samples contain generalizations; and (c) the highest level samples contain connected arguments, justified assertions, or evaluative statements.

Although using this three-stage analytical scheme to examine Geoffrey's work seemed logical, it was not entirely beneficial because it was a framework that focused on errors and deficits, while Geoffrey's work was very nearly error-free. Furthermore, any errors that he made were not the result of his struggle to understand and to use the conventions of writing, but rather they occurred because he was so absorbed in his subject or purpose that he simply did not attend to them. His errors were certainly not the result of a lack of understanding, either conceptually or in application. We also found that many of the adult-like qualities (explained later) that made Geoffrey's writing superior were not being captured. Therefore, although we feel that this analytical scheme would be an effective indicator of typical students' growth in writing and learning, vital characteristics of Geoffrey's precocious writing--especially his considerable quality and impressive control--were falling through the analytical floorboards.

Therefore, we turned to Piirto's (1992) analytical framework for examining the writing of "gifted" children. As one can easily see from the list of characteristics of children who write as adults do, this framework emphasizes what is "included," thereby examining what children know and can do, rather than what they do not know and do not do when writing. Piirto's list of characteristics was derived from examinations of the elements found in gifted children's prose and poetry writings: (a) use of paradox, (b) use of parallel structure, (c) use of rhythm, (d) use of visual imagery, (e) melodic combinations, (f) unusual use of figures of speech [e.g., alliteration, personification, and assonance], (g) confidence with reversal structure, (h) unusual adjectives and adverbs, (i) a feeling of movement, (j) uncanny wisdom, (k) sophisticated syntax with punctuation marks [hyphens, parentheses, and semicolons], (1) prose lyricism, (m) display of a "natural ear" for language, (n) sense of humor, (o) a "philosophical or moral" bent, and (p) a willingness to "play with words".

At first glance, Piirto's framework seemed suitable for our purposes, but upon closer examination and after several attempts to analyze numerous writing samples, we found that this framework still did not completely capture the essential elements that distinctly separated Geoffrey's work from that of other gifted children and gave it its adult-like quality. It was a classic case of the analytical framework simply not being encompassing enough for the sophisticated behavior being examined.

A Synthetic Mode for Analysis Purposes

Synthetic-analytic frameworks consider psychological constructs as two modes of the same process (Takahashi & Overton, 2005). In the case of creating a synthetic-analytic framework to analyze writing, the analytic mode breaks writing down into its elementary qualities and compares them on a part-to-part basis to examine specific knowledge content. In most instances, the procedural values of writing and how these differ are the focus of inquiry or analysis. Piirto's writing analysis framework fits into this category; however, to establish the synthetic mode, a writing analysis framework must be able to identify the holistic and integrated elements of writing that are not captured by the analytic mode. In these instances, writing becomes examined in terms of overarching themes and tones and other highly expressive forms. Not only are these elements required to capture the expressive qualities of writing, but using the synthetic mode in a combinatorial approach with the analytic mode is in keeping with the dialectical nature of the mind whereby cognitive structures and processes, such as writing, move toward states of increased integration.

In this section, we use exemplars from Geoffrey's voluminous collection to outline eight higher order writing elements that comprise the synthetic mode. These elements are not unique to the selected writing examples; rather, they are representative of devices that recur consciously and persistently throughout the entire data set. Based on the evidence, these elements need to be considered if we are to properly analyze the works of similarly precocious writers. Within Geoffrey's narrative writing, we identified (a) writing with voice, (b) writing with purpose, and (c) writing for a specific audience. Within his expository writing, we identified (a) purpose and genre, (b) stylistic dissonance, (c) organization, (d) imagination, and (e) wisdom. The authors acknowledge that there is considerable overlap between and among these elements and that many children, gifted or not, use some or all of these elements when writing. It is obvious however, that they do not use them in the many and varied combinations that Geoffrey utilizes. Because of space considerations, only portions of some examples are provided. Where needed, more complete examples are included.

Writing with Voice

Appendix A illustrates Geoffrey's strong voice. His sentence structures, organization of plot, and his purposefully chosen diction all help to give the piece a distinct tone. To say that this is unusual in the writing of a child who has just turned 5 is certainly an understatement. Yet, nowhere in all of the previously examined schemes of analysis was there an opportunity for this element to be captured, let alone discussed.

Geoffrey's use of emphasis through bolded and capital letters as well as through the use of punctuation helps us feel as though we are listening in on this conversation between the characters he created. His use of distinctive voices for each of the two characters is reflective of the degree of power each holds in the relationship. In addition, the choice of language (i.e., "deep, rich") that Geoffrey uses in describing the voice of the character 'Geoffrey Superhuman McNinja' helps the reader to identify the hero and to distinguish him from the threatening Billy Melville. The characters are also distinguished by their diction. For example, Geoffrey's cooperative and innocent "O.K." is contrasted with Melville's order, "Come ... Let me test your superpowers." There is no question that Geoffrey understands the power of voice in storytelling.

Writing for a Specific Purpose

One of the most remarkable qualities that Geoffrey possesses is his ability to focus on a specific purpose for his writing. These purposes are generated by him and are often the byproducts of his reading or his life experiences; they do not occur because of someone else's direction. He deliberately attempts specific genres for reasons that he often can articulate, but this intentionality was not being captured by our original scheme. Consider Appendix B for an example of writing for a specific purpose. Geoffrey's didactic purpose is clear. He structures this lecture-like piece using a logical sequence: First, he briefly summarizes the fictitious history of blackholes in "toonicland" (a geographic location that exists only in his imagination), and then he builds on this foundational knowledge with a discussion of MGVVs and spin. He signals this shift by beginning a second paragraph and by starting it with "Now." He is careful to do all he can to keep his audience with him. Whenever he is concerned that the audience may be confused, he attempts to clarify by inserting additional information: e.g., "(meaning 'got to do with black holes')." His purpose in this piece is to teach, and he uses organizational structures, clarifications, specific language choices (e.g., "Now"), and explanations of acronyms in an attempt to teach successfully. It is important to acknowledge this intentionality in order to appreciate how Geoffrey manipulated grammatical conventions, language, and syntactical structures for his own purposes.

Writing for Specific Audiences

Similar to Geoffrey's strict attention to his specific purpose for a written piece, several of his earliest pieces indicate his clear intention to write for specific audiences. Example A (5 years and 1.5 months) was deliberately written for his brother, who was barely more than a toddler at the time, while Example B (5 years and 3 months) was clearly written for babies. The contrasts between these pieces point to an intentionality that is uncommon for such a young writer.

Example A is 754 words in length and was written as a 30-page illustrated book. Geoffrey had received several books for Christmas, but his brother had received none. Geoffrey perceived this as an injustice and took it upon himself to write a book for his brother. The syntax, story line, voice, and diction are all deliberately simple. The printing is very adult-like: The letters are neatly written; the well-controlled capitals are of consistent size; and the printing is unusually small for a 5-year-old. The illustrations are in many bright colors, and the text is often written over the illustrations.

There is evidence of Geoffrey s clear awareness of audience and there are deliberate attempts at order and organization. For example, page 11 has different chunks of text numbered with lines drawn around them to guide the reader. As well, the illustrations support the text on the same page. The point of the book and story is that each page moves the action forward.

The punctuation throughout the work is inconsistent. Some questions and sentences are not appropriately punctuated, while others, often immediately adjacent, are done correctly. For example, on page 3 he writes, "DO YOU WANT TO GO AN ADVENTURE" and then "WHAT ADVENTURE?" This same sort of inconsistency in the use of periods is evident on page 2 where he writes, "THEY DECIDED TO GO TO PIKACHU'S HOUSE TO ASK PIKACHU IF HE WANTED TO GO ON THE ADVENTURE" (the only text written on the page) and then on page 3 he writes, "tickboy LOOKED INTO PIKACHU'S DOOR." However, apostrophe usage is consistently used correctly as in "PIKACHU'S" throughout the story and in the use of contractions; for example "DIDN'T" on page 1.

There is also evidence of onomatopoeia. On page 5, he writes "THUD" within the illustration. Most words are spelled accurately. The errors made may have been a result of his haste to get his ideas on paper. For example, on page 1 he writes "THING" for "thinking and 'WANDED' for "WANTED". However, it may be that these are not truly spelling errors in the sense that the child does not know how to spell these words. It is more likely, given the number of words that are spelled correctly and the difficulty of the words which he has managed to spell correctly (e.g., "TROUBLE" and "BOTTOM," p. 7; "CAPTURING," p. 17; 'LIGHTNING" and "AFRAID," p. 26; and "EXCITED," p. 27), that these errors are the result of his quickly jotting down his story and then not proofreading it, and is therefore similar to Pringle and Freedman's (1985) statements about the errors in student writing.

When we compared this to Example B, we found a very different kind of writing that Geoffrey says was "written for babies." The language in this piece is much more simplistic. The sentence length, word choice, and simplicity of syntax are eerily consistent with those of baby books. In addition, the drama of the story is incorporated through the use of explanations, punctuation marks and ellipses, and his repetition of syntax mimics the style of published books for babies. Unlike Example A, very little is written on each page. Most pages only have a single, modest illustration and very few words, such as "I'm not Pickachu!" Geoffrey also makes use of rhyme, nonsense words and exclamation, as one might expect in a book for babies. For example, "Mewtwo! i'm not Pickachu!" ("Mew" being a combination of 'me' and the 'mew' sound kittens make; two being a combination of the number two and 'too').

Purposes and Genres

Geoffrey's writing also includes many didactic pieces, most of which attempt to guide the reader through theories that he is developing. Although his writing is usually very serious in tone and subject, there are numerous other pieces that are distinctly tongue-in-cheek. An example of this range can be seen in the following 2 samples. In the first, Geoffrey presents a draft titled "Dark Matter Equation" in which he teaches an equation that "shows the nature of dark matter." Although this equation is fictitious, it is presented in a most serious manner, and the step-by-step approach in which it is written, as well as the author's choice to speak directly to the reader, conveys the writer's clear didactic intention.

Dark Matter Equation

"What's all the wonder about dark matter for? I guess i haven't taught you this equation yet. It's F=db. In it, F stands for falaforce, d stands for deblic, and b stands for bibiber."

By contrast, in his playful examination of underwear put into atypical service, he creates playful labels for his nine underwear uses and accompanies each of them with sketches. Labels such as: UNIVERSE-SHEET OF OPEN UNDERWEAR, UNIVERSE STRING OF OPEN UNDERWEAR, ONE SINGLE UNDERWEAR, TWO UNDERWEAR JOIN, TWO UNDERWEAR SEPARATE, and UNDERWEAR TRANSFORMATION. The mischievous and playful tone in this work is echoed in his drawings and in the naughtiness of the subject. He reveals his sense of humor while cloaking the piece as a scientific lab report or learning log that is reminiscent of Thomas Edison's journal of experiments, sketches, and scientific notes (which he had read about).

Similarly, the program that Geoffrey wrote for a planned party is another indicator of his range of genres. The program includes the details of his imaginary "ANNUEL PHYSICS PARTY" scheduled for "7th Jan/Feb" in which he offers a guest list that includes "Physicist Soloman Grundy, Albert Einstein, Josephine Laser, and a living-in-house physicist [Geoffrey]." The program also outlines song titles (e.g., "Hark, the scientific angels sing," "Gloria, in excelsis physica," and "Physics we have heard on high") as part of the program. Finally, he outlines (see Appendix C) the main part of the program (note the old usage of the title word). The items that he lists are almost intimidating and they definitely reflect his serious scientific interests. Yet, his inclusion of "suppertime" and "absolute playtime" remind us that he is indeed just a young child with child-like things on his mind.

Stylistic Dissonance

Much of Geoffrey's writing has a youthful, imaginative quality, but many pieces have an air of sophistication and a rather academic voice. Within such mature writing, though, are gentle reminders of the author's tender age. There are unexpected errors in spelling and conventions; "unexpected" because they are embedded in texts rich with ideas and lots of precise, adult language. One example of this "stylistic dissonance" (Herrmann, 1987) is in his letter to Stephen Hawking (see Appendix D). The reverse side of the letter continues with "I am 6 years old." and includes a self-portrait. The letter reflects Geoffrey's serious approach to his own "work," as he refers to it, He explains the shift in the theoretical work that he has been doing, and he offers a brief explanation to clarify the difference between two of the theories on which he has been working. The tone of the letter is very serious and the language is quite advanced. As well, it is sophisticated in its sentence structure and punctuation, and in this letter Geoffrey suggests a connection between his work and that of Hawking. Among the very few reminders that this is in fact a letter by a 6-year-old, is the large and unsteady handwriting. The first person pronoun written as a small "i" is conscious choice on Geoffrey's part; he readily explained that because he often prints using all upper case letters, he deliberately distinguishes the first person pronoun "i" by printing it in lower case. Such careful thought is typical of Geoffrey's approach.

Organization

Geoffrey's work suggests that he considers the structure of a piece before he begins. Often his writing is ambitious: In lieu of writing a simple story, he begins a book; rather than write a piece for a publication, he designs and creates an entire magazine; instead of producing a newspaper article, he creates a sample newspaper. These works often begin with organizational cues such as "Part I" or "Chapter 1" or with the title in large letters stylistically placed across the page.

Geoffrey also understands that different pieces of writing have different organizational requirements. In his magazine of 24 densely printed pages, for instance, the words are not only written in columns, but also the text is chunked, written in columns, and labeled to identify the main point of each section, for example: INTRODUCTION, IT'S SPEED, ALL ABOUT ZIPS, and BUYING ADVICE (see Appendix E). The sentences are carefully controlled, as is the information that is conveyed. Written with an authoritative voice, the piece contains impressive syntax resulting from introductory phrases followed by appropriate punctuation. The writer speaks directly to the reader and offers key information to the prospective consumer of the product discussed.

Similarly, Geoffrey's newspaper is organized as a conventional newspaper; however, this piece is interesting in that he begins it as a very conventional letter to "Gloria (pseudonym)," but then quickly and deliberately changes genres:

DEAR,

GLORIA, HELLO.

I HAVE LOTS OF NEWS ABOUT MANY THINGS TODAY.

THIS TIME MY PAGES WILL BE LIKE A NEWSPAPER.

Starting with the very next sentence, he writes the rest of the piece as a series of articles for a newspaper. There are small chunks of text preceded by short headings in bold lettering. The topic titles are varied, including: EINSTEIN, SCIENCE, PHYSICS, PHILOSOPHY, DOG TRAINING, MY THINKING AND IMAGINATION, POKEMON TRAINING, and KIDS' ELECTION. Moreover, in keeping with newspaper format, Geoffrey deliberately writes short information-packed sentences that he organizes into columns.

In the same manner, Geoffrey's use of advanced organizational strategies is seen throughout his work as he guides the reader through each piece. An example is an excerpt from a work titled "BZZT FOR DUMMIES" under the subheading of "Mechanics" (see Appendix F).

He offers his ideas and comments one carefully constructed sentence at a time, as though concerned that the reader might misunderstand or become confused.

Imagination

Geoffrey's writing also suggests that he enjoys carefully articulating concepts and ideas, especially those that are of his own imagination or those that are extensions of challengingly complex theories. He is often "working on" theories related to physics and repeatedly refers to himself as a scientist. His work contains many concrete details and is often complex (see Appendix G). The sophisticated syntax (Piirto, 1992) seen in this example is one of the signatures of Geoffrey's scientific and didactic writing.

During this same time period, Geoffrey produced another piece that is astounding because of its contrast to Appendix G. A popular read-aloud book is Corduroy by Don Freeman (1976). The original story is a favorite among most first graders, and Michele Landsberg (1986) described it as "a much-loved, optimistic, and tender picture book about how a little black girl and a department store teddy bear find each other" (p. 198). Having been introduced to Corduroy, Geoffrey now writes his own version, "CORDUROY BEAR AND THE PARTICLE ACCELERATED MYSTERY." This excerpt is distinctly different from the original (see Appendix H). One of the ways in which this piece differs from the rest of Geoffrey's collection is that it lacks his usual control over sentence structure and syntax. Through interviews with his parents we determined that this piece of writing was assigned at school rather than selected by Geoffrey and that he had little interest in writing about Corduroy the bear. Nevertheless, as he is wont to do, he quickly incorporated his real interest of physics into the story.

Wisdom

Defining wisdom is not a simple matter. Although there are many variations on how the term is denotatively defined (see Sternberg & Jordan, 2005 for comprehensive details), each refers to a person's ability "to see" and "to know" that is beyond the scope of others. While age is typically a requirement for wisdom, "wise beyond their years" has often described many precocious children. This usually occurs when they demonstrate unusually perceptive, intuitive, or insightful behaviors wherein they put together real-world ideas that are complex, sophisticated, and meaningful.

Geoffrey is consumed by challenging subjects such as physics and mathematics. Realizing that the scientific world is constantly changing and evolving, he creates formulae to explain phenomena and develops theories about matter, energy, the speed of light, and the universe. To be able to grasp these ideas and understand them well enough to extrapolate from them to create new, even if imaginary, concepts and theories, portrays wisdom beyond his years. He is, after all, only 6. When asked about these concepts, he stated that somehow he "just sees how they work" and "likes how they go together." However, what ultimately sets his creations apart is that they are not frivolous, fanciful, or lacking the context or understanding that one often finds with the imaginative creations of young children. While his theories and formulae are probably not accurate nor defensible, they display his uncanny ability to understand the purpose behind the ideas or concepts that he encounters. It is his ability to "see" and understand and then to manipulate ideas that makes him a wise person and thus, makes his creations plausible.

A Synthetic-Analytic Framework to Analyze Precocious Writing

If a conceptual model or analytical framework is to represent or describe gifted behaviors accurately, then it must be able to account for the full range of those behaviors. Previously, we demonstrated that Jackson's (2000) age-based Model of the Development of Giftedness required modifications to accommodate the cognitive/intellective abilities of a precocious writer and a younger age (age 5) at which precocious writing may emerge (A. L. Edmunds & Noel, 2003).

To analyze this child's writing specifically, our challenge was twofold: (a) to develop a scheme of analysis that would capture the elements that we knew to be of special importance; and (b) to find a way to articulate what we intuitively recognized as extraordinary writing. Therefore, based on our analyses, a synthetic-analytic framework for analyzing precocious writing is proposed. It includes Piirto's (1992) characteristics framework as the analytic mode and the following eight descriptors as the synthetic mode within narrative writing: (a) writing with voice, (b) writing with purpose, and (c) writing for a specific audience; and within expository writing: (a) purpose and genre, (b) stylistic dissonance, (c) organization, (d) imagination, and (e) wisdom.

There is clear evidence that Geoffrey plays with language and that he experiments with combinations of words. The songs in his party program suggest that he has a "natural ear" for language. He also creates words to fit the ideas or "theories" that he describes, as his scientific and didactic pieces demonstrate. His writer's voice is clear and he assumes these stances in his writing and guides the reader through his theories and scientific explanations. All of Geoffrey's work reveals a clear and consistent awareness of purpose and audience. His choice of language shifts as he demonstrates his ability to write for a variety of age groups, for different purposes, and in a variety of genres. In some pieces his awareness of audience is clearly conveyed through the vocabulary and syntax that he chooses. In other pieces he speaks directly to the reader, pulling the audience into his narrative. Much of Geoffrey's writing is done on specific themes or "theories" and he uses writing to consider these ideas and to report on his growing knowledge. He explores ideas through his writing, focusing on specific topics often for weeks or months until his interest is captured by a new topic or idea. In his writing Geoffrey creates imaginary worlds, language, and problems to be solved.

But, in this particular case, writing is not only seen to be an externally expressive mechanism. Geoffrey's work strongly suggests that he uses writing (i.e., language) as a tool for learning, as described by Vygotsky (1978), and that he also uses it to examine, in a very intentional manner, his own thinking. Some themes, such as the exploration of fictional scientific theories, continued over months. Amidst this scientific writing, his age-6 data included more than 67 pages of drawings of people from Medieval times. They are carefully drawn and colored, suggesting the intensity with which Geoffrey works. His passion for a topic is all-consuming until his questions are answered and he is satisfied with his new-found knowledge. He writes copious amounts during these intensely focused periods, and he often integrates his present focus into whatever writing and reading he encounters.

No analysis framework will ever completely capture the essence of precocious writing like Geoffrey's. The same can be said about the expertise that goes into lots of excellent writing. Nonetheless, the analysis framework that we have suggested here will now provide educators and researchers with an opportunity to analyze and describe precocious writing more accurately.

Appendix A

Writing Sample: Writing with Voice

HIS NAME WAS GEOFFREY SUPERMAN MCNINJA. A LARGE FLASH APPREARED AROUND HIS FINGER AND HE BROKE THE WIRES. A LARGE BEAM THAT HAD SHOT OUT FROM THE FLASH HAD STRUCK THE WIRES. IT LOOKED A LOT LIKE A LASER BEAM BUT IT WAS NOT. IT WAS A Z-RAY. "WHERE AM I? WHAT AM I? WHO AM I?" HIS DEEP, RICH, VOICE ASKED. "YOU ARE GEOFFREY SUPERHUMAN MCNINJA, YOU ARE IN MY LABORATORY, AND YOU ARE A HUMAN." BILLY MELVILLE REPLIED. "HUMAN? A LABORATORY ?" GEOFFREY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HUMAN OR LABORATORY MEANT OR WHAT THEY WERE. "AND, BY THE WAY," SAID GEOFFREY, "WHO ARE YOU?" "I AM BILLY MELVILLE, "SAID BILLY MELVILLE. "BILLY WHAT-VILLE?" ASKED GEOFFREY. "BILLY MELVILLE! SAID BILLY MELVILLE. "O.K." SAID GEOFFREY. "COME," SAID MELVILLE, "LET ME TEST YOUR SUPERPOWERS".

Appendix B

Writing Sample: Writing with Purpose

In canada, black holes are a very recent discovery. In toonicland, they are a very old discovery. In toonicland, black holes were discovered by Josephine Laser and Albert Newton. Black holes are not holes in the ground that are black. They are gravity fields left from stars that collapsed during a supernova. These gravity fields strangely suck things in with such a suck that not even light can escape.

Now we will talk about blackholic (meaning "got to do with black holes") MGVVs ("mega-giga-voltron-volts"). MGVVs were included in the most complicated toonigen GUT, which was concerning LGM1/2, a spin 100 source, in which LGM was short for "little green men". The MGVVs came in when, during an experiment, the LGM turned from spin 100 to spin?. But when voltrons turn to MGVVs, they do not stay voltrons, they turn to anti-voltronic antiquarks (also known as AAEs in which AAE is short for "anti-anti-electron"). How this happened (I mean how the MGVV turned the LGM from spin 100 to spin?) was that the LGM was made up of voltrons. As voltrons move, they get higher and higher voltage. When it is thousands of voltrons stuck together, the voltage increases quicker. It (the LGM) was left there for an hour and it turned into an MGVV and since AAE are spin 1K, it became spin 1/2.

Appendix C

Writing Sample: Range of Genres

PROGRAMME

1. Meeting of graduate physics students at university and high-school

2. Solomon Grundy's "absolute meeting", the conference for his theory of absolute atoms

3. theoretic time

4. theoretic meeting

5. experimental mathematic time

6. experimental time

7. mathematic time

8. SMART ON THE START game time

9. suppertime

10. Highschool theoretic meeting (continued)

11. University theoretic meeting (continued)

12. Soloman Grundy's absolute meeting (continued)

13. absolute playtime

Appendix D

Writing Sample: Stylistic Dissonance

Dear Stephen Hawking,

I am doing cosmology like you. I used to be working on thread theory, which I thought would become a complete unified theory, and now i am doing refinements on the inflationary universe model.

Note: Thread theory is different from string theory.

From: Geoffrey

Appendix E

Writing Sample: Organization

ZiPS INTRODUCTION: ZiPS ARE LIKE SQUARE CD's. ZiP-DRIVES ARE SLOTS THAT YOU PUT ZiPS iN.

STML STUFF-ZiPS OF OS 9 ARE THE MOST POWERFUL KIND.

iT'S SPEED ZiPS ARE NOT SPEED-DEMONS. AT THEIR FASTEST SPEED OF 5GB iS SLOW COMPARED TO THE YAMAHA SLOO DM83....

BUYING ADVICE AND PRICE ZiPS ARE NOT VERY EXPENSIVE NOW. AT A PRICE OF $55, THEY ARE VERY CHEAP. ORDER THEM AT WWW.MAC.3 iPS WINDOWS. COM, OR CALL 1-800-6402.

Appendix F

Writing Sample: Advanced Organization

The first BZZT one should learn is BZZT mechanics. There are many equations in it, including E=bc100, Dx6=vt8, and G1-G2xNm3km-1x1+hg-100. In the world, there are many different states, which emit "radiation" who's code is ~~~~~~ (he purposefully uses 6 continuous squiggles). Thee are also "mirrors" who's code is ~~~~~~~~ (8 squiggles) +3606. These are not real mirrors. A real mirror would have code of ~~~ (3 squiggles) -3606. They are in the shape of lenses (concave and convex.) There is also a neutral (neither concave nor convex.) And they all do different things.

Appendix G

Writing Sample: Complexity and Detail

I AM DOING A LOT OF READING AND WRITING ABOUT PHYSICS. I ALSO ACTUALLY MADE A FIRST FORMULA, E=SP, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY THE FASTEST TYPE OF ELECTRICITY IS SO FAST. E=SP IS SHORT FOR ENERGY=SPEED OF LIGHT PULSES. OF COURSE, IT IS PART OF MY THEORY OF GENERAL REULITY (RE-UE-LI-TY). I HAVE ALSO BEGUN A STUDY OF ALBERT EINSTEIN'S MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE = MC2, WHICH IS SHORT FOR ENERGY=MASS X THE SQUARE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Appendix H

Writing Sample: Imaginative Transformation

Part One

One day, when Lisa's birthday party was a Mad Scientist birthday party, Lisa said she would help him find it. It was no where to be seen in the lab. It could'nt be found in the house. Where could it be? When it was over, [Geoffrey], the edutaining scientist, had to go home to accelerate protons and neutrons. They drove him home, but as soon as they were about to say goodbye, they noticed the particle accelerator had disappeared.

Manuscript submitted July 7, 2005.

Revision accepted October 7, 2005.

REFERENCES

Czikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1986). Culture, time and the development of talent. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, pp. 264-284. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Edmunds, A. L., & Edmunds, G. A. (2005). Sensitivity: A double-edged sword for the pre-adolescent and adolescent gifted child. Roeper Review, 27, 69-77.

Edmunds A. L., & Noel, K. (2003). The child writer prodigy: An exceptional case among exceptional cases. Roeper Review, 25, 185-194.

Feldman, D. H. (with Goldsmith, L. T.). (1986). Nature's gambit." Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books.

Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. In R. L. Graves (Ed.), Rhetoric and Composition: A sourcebook for teachers and writers (pp. 269-282). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

Freeman, D. (1976). Corduroy. New York: Viking, Penguin Books.

Herrmann, A. W. (1987, July). The paradoxes of stylistic dissonance: Case study of a gifted/basic writer. Paper presented at the Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Jackson, N. E. (2000). Strategies for modeling the development of giftedness in children. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition & development (pp. 27-54). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Landsberg, M. (1986). Michele Landsberg's guide to children's books. Markham: Penguin Books Canada.

Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Vol. 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Noel, K. (1989). A study of basic writing skills: The objectives, programme implementation and effectiveness of the writing programmes of secondary I and II English teachers in small schools. Unpublished master's thesis, Bishop's University, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada.

Piirto, J. (1992). The existence of writing prodigy: Children with extraordinary writing talent. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings of the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on talent development (pp. 387-388). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

Pringle, I., & Freedman, A. (1985). A comparative study of writing abilities in two modes at the Grade 5, 8, and 12 levels. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Ministry of Education.

Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist 46, 606-620.

Sternberg, R. J., & Jordan, J. (2005). A handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Takahashi, M., & Overton, W. F. (2005). Cultural foundations of wisdom: An integrated developmental approach. In R. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), A handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 32-40). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kathryn Noel is an Assistant Professor of language arts and learning at Nipissing University, Ontario, Canada. Her research interests include children's writing development, the use of writing to learn across the curriculum, and effective teaching practices. E-mail: [e-mail]

Alan L. Edmunds is Associate Professor of special education and educational psychology at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. His specific research interests include precocity in gifted children, programming for profoundly gifted children, and cognitive and behavioral interventions for students with learning disabilities. E-mail: [e-mail]