Developing the Creative Leadership Training Program for Gifted and Talented Students in Hong Kong.

The development of gifted education in Hong Kong, and the rationale for leadership training for gifted and talented students are briefly described. The Creative Leadership Training Program for gifted and talented students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong incorporates the components of teaching leadership characteristics, teaching component leadership skills, and putting students into leadership roles in activities that emphasize creativity and a futuristic orientation. Based on the notion that leaders empower others to lead themselves, following training, students are supported to practice their skills in leadership, and transfer these knowledge and skills to their peers in their respective schools in school-based programs of peer tutoring and peer counseling. While favorable feedback regarding the training program has been received from participants, their experiences in practicing their leadership skills in school-based peer support programs have yet to be reviewed in future program evaluation studies.

Although there was a long tradition of valuing and nurturing special abilities in children in Chinese history, systematic design and development of gifted programs in Hong Kong have been relatively recent events (Chan, 1997). The earliest reported attempts were in the 1980s, and were mostly isolated enrichment activities for students in international schools. Particularly noteworthy at the time were programs and activities conducted by the Extended Learning Committee for students of the Hong Kong International School (Wu & Cho, 1993). Public awareness of the importance of organizing programs for gifted and talented students in mainstream schools came much later when a group of scholars, educators, and school principals gathered to form the Gifted Education Council in 1988, with the explicit aim to influence government policies in gifted education for Hong Kong students. In this regard, the Gifted Education Council submitted proposals to the Hong Kong Education Commission which in turn made recommendations to the Hong Kong Government on provisions to meet the special needs of gifted and less able students.

The 1990s witnessed an increased interest in the development of gifted education as the Hong Kong Education Commission (1990) introduced in its fourth report the first policy on gifted education. The Commission also adopted the 1972 US federal definition of giftedness in the Marland Report to the US Congress (see Davis & Rimm, 1998), and recognized demonstrated achievement and/or potential of children in intellectual, academic, creativity, leadership, art, and psychomotor activities in six domains. Subsequently, the Hong Kong Government focused on making provisions for intellectually and academically gifted students, and introduced school-based enrichment programs in 19 primary schools in a pilot scheme, supported by teacher training and curriculum resources from the Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Center. In view of the lack of instruments for the assessment of creativity and the identification of creatively gifted students, the Hong Kong Government commissioned university research teams to collect normative data on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, and to use the resulting Chinese version to identify creatively gifted students (Spinks, Ku-Yu, Shek, & Bacon-Shone, 1995). Meanwhile, there has also been increased interest in research studies on gifted education, notably on creativity, among educators in Hong Kong (e.g., Chan & Chan, 1997; Chan, Cheung, Lau, Wu, Kwong, & Li, in press; Rudowicz, Hui, & Ku-Yu, 1995).

Parallel to the burgeoning research on gifted education, there is a steady growth of extracurricular programming in talent development for students, and a corresponding growing demand for teacher training in the domain of gifted education. While special education or special needs education has long been included as a specialty area or a part of the curriculum in teacher training at the University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Institute of Education, the focus has primarily been on students with learning difficulties and mental handicap, although it is also recognized that there are disabled gifted students. In recent years, the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University have introduced courses on gifted education for teachers in their graduate training and extramural courses for parents of gifted children, respectively. Since the demand for formal training generally far exceeds what institutes of higher learning provide, less formal training seminars have been periodically organized for in-service teachers both by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Government Education Department.

Despite the general lack of preparation in training for teachers involved in gifted education, an increased number of programs for gifted and talented students have emerged in recent years. Pioneering programs are those school-based enrichment programs by the Hong Kong Government Education Department, the enrichment curriculum in the G. T. School run by the Gifted Education Council, and residential summer gifted programs organized independently by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Baptist University. However, these programs are primarily enrichment programs targeted for the academically and intellectually gifted students to enhance their learning, attainment and creativity. While it has been assumed that students talented in other areas such as arts, music and sports are adequately served by existing programs offered by the Jockey Club Ti-I College, the Music Office, and the Hong Kong Academy of Performing Arts (Hong Kong Education Commission, 1990), the development of leadership potential in gifted and talented students has rarely been addressed in gifted programming.

Leadership Training for Gifted and Talented Students in Hong Kong

As a global society, throughout its history Hong Kong has often faced tremendous challenges that highlight the crucial need for leadership. In 1997, with the transition from a British Colony to a Special Administrative Region of China, the need for strong political leadership has been keenly felt in the community. Similarly, leadership in other areas, especially in the economic domain, is also urgently required, as Hong Kong works to maintain its success and vitality against its economic rivals in Southeast Asia. Recognizing that students in today's schools may become tomorrow's leaders, educators in Hong Kong feel the great need for quality education and enhanced attainment in students. They feel it important to encourage and develop leadership in students, whether they consider leadership as a special form of giftedness as defined by the Hong Kong Education Commission (1990; see also Hong Kong Board of Education, 1996), or perceive that all students, including gifted and talented students, need to know the rudiments of leadership (Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991). Accordingly, educators in Hong Kong are now focusing on leadership training for gifted students, and have made leadership training one of the major goals of programs for the gifted and talented in Hong Kong.

The Creative Leadership Training Program at the Chinese University of Hong Kong

Although leadership as a construct is defined differently by different researchers, one finds lists of qualities or characteristics of leaders who display leadership rather than the construct itself (Davis & Rimm, 1998). Feldhusen (1994) stated that leaders are people who influence and have an impact on the lives of others either directly or indirectly (see also Gardner, 1995). Some leaders have powerful and good ideas that are considered valuable and are emulated and accepted. They create new theories, paradigms, art forms, political concepts, inventions, or commercial products. Other leaders have social and personal skills in working with people. They help individuals, small groups, and large assemblies articulate and pursue common goals or solve common problems. In real life, leaders may combine powerful ideas and a philosophy with great social leadership skills. While subscribing to the view that leaders make an impact on the lives of others, the notion that leadership includes an important aspect of helping others lead themselves is also advocated. This view corresponds to Sisk (1993) who suggests in her Interactive Creative Leadership Model that true leadership is actualized by individuals who assist others by empowering them to lead themselves. Effective leaders, therefore, lead themselves and others, and bring out the best in people by encouraging them to achieve what they think is possible. Based on this notion that leaders help others to lead themselves, the Programs for the Gifted and Talented at the Chinese University of Hong Kong develop the Creative Leadership Training Program (CLTP) for gifted students who will then be supported to take up leadership responsibilities in school activities and to train their peers to become leaders in their respective schools.

The CLTP incorporates the three crucial components of teaching leadership: characteristics, teaching leadership skills, and putting students into leadership roles in activities (Davis & Rimm, 1998). Teaching these components is based on the following rationale: while leadership characteristics may vary in importance for different leadership situations, it is believed that some characteristics may apply to all leaders (e.g., Plowman, 1981; Renzulli, Smith, White, & Callahan, 1976; Roets, 1997). Sisk (1993), for example, observed that leadership characteristics evolved around a vision to see things as they can be, a courage to take risks, an absorption in the creative act, and a talent recognition to include the realization and appreciation of one's ability to become a creative leader. It is further believed that when leadership characteristics are viewed as objectives or competencies for leadership training programs, teaching these to gifted students not only can help them understand characteristics of great leaders, but also motivate students to aspire to become leaders and acquire the associated skills through practice.

Teaching component leadership skills is another crucial part of the CLTP. These component skills include, but are not restricted to, goal setting, planning, problem solving, interpersonal communication, decision making, and conflict resolution (e.g., Magoon, 1981; Parker, 1989; Plowman, 1981; Richarson & Feldhusen, 1988; Roets, 1997; Sisk, 1993). It is believed that each of these component skills needs to be taught, and students have to integrate and apply these skills as they assume leadership roles in different contexts. Therefore, in the CLTP students are put into leadership roles in simulation exercises, providing the kind of realistic experiences for students to try out leadership behaviors learned from formal study, relating the experiences to themselves, and incorporating these experiences into their repertoires of leadership skills (e.g., Karnes & Chauvin, 1987; Magoon, 1981; Maker, 1982). It is also believed that, for generalization or transfer to other contexts to occur, component skills have to be practiced in the contexts of discussion, problem solving, and project activities.

Presently, the CLTP normally takes four four-hour sessions. Throughout the training, creativity, and creative thinking and problem solving are emphasized together with a futuristic orientation. Apart from the opportunities to assume leadership roles in training exercises, the practice of leadership skills extends beyond these sessions to school activities in the gifted students' own schools. Specifically, the four sessions cover teaching leadership characteristics and teaching leadership skills, and provide opportunities for students to assume leadership roles in simulation exercises.

Teaching leadership characteristics

Students first learn to define leadership and to acquaint themselves with role models of world leaders, and contemporary and historical Hong Kong and Chinese leaders. While differentiating that leaders can exert their influence directly on people or indirectly through ideas and accomplishment in specific domains, students are also made aware that leaders share common characteristics and attitudes. By assigning students to read biographies and information about leaders of their own choice, to examine the lives and works of these leaders, and to make a group presentation of one leader in a presentation session, students are motivated to aspire to be leaders and to acquire the associated skills of leadership.

Teaching leadership skills

Students are taught principles of group dynamics, team-building skills, interpersonal communication skills, planning, problem solving and decision making skills in small groups. Through these group exercises, students learn group dynamics, consensus-building, effective teamwork, conflict resolution, mediation and negotiation, and debate and discussion. They learn when to lead, when to follow, or when to move out of the way. For example, in the team-building exercise, a variety of component skills are integrated and utilized. Students are required to assemble as groups and introduce themselves describing their strengths, and electing a leader. Each group works on building an effective team, creatively naming the team, and establishing some common goals such as a mission statement, a slogan, and a team song. Then, members of the team introduce their members to other teams. Group presentation of world leaders also allows students to practice the skills of teamwork and public speaking.

Assuming leadership roles

Students take turns assuming leadership roles in the group exercises to integrate and to practice the component leadership skills in a supportive and nonthreatening environment among their peers. For example, in a simulation exercise, students are requested to take up a number of expert roles (e.g., psychologist, elite athlete, musician, astronaut, cartoonist, gifted student, parent, electrician, cook, biologist) to organize a future gifted program for students, or take up the roles of government high officials to run the government and to tackle current issues and anticipated issues in the year of 2010. Practicing leadership skills goes beyond the training sessions as students are supported in assuming leadership roles in their own schools in setting up peer support programs in peer tutoring and peer counseling. Through these school-based peer support programs, students are encouraged to practice and pass on their knowledge and skills in leadership to other students.

Saturday Creative Leadership Training Program for School Prefects: An Example

The CLTP has been conducted in a four-session format for four consecutive Saturdays in the spring of 1998 for secondary school prefects nominated by their schools as students with high potential to become leaders. A total of 46 secondary students (14 males and 32 females) aged 15 to 18 (Mean=16.02, SD=1.11) participated in the program. The four sessions were arranged as follows.

Session 1. Defining leader and leadership. Describing characteristics and traits of leaders. Exercises in forming teams and electing leaders, and learning from the characteristics of chosen world historical and contemporary leaders.

Session 2. Team building and communication skills. Exercises in building effective teams and creating leading characters in the 21st century.

Session 3. Planning, creative problem solving and decision making skills. Exercises in assuming leadership roles as experts or government officials in the 21st century.

Session 4. Interpersonal and presentation skills. Presentation of team project results by playing the role of a great leader and highlighting his or her critical life events. To assess the self-perception of leadership characteristics and abilities of students, students rated themselves on an inventory of 25 different leadership characteristics or abilities using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (least characteristic) to 5 (most characteristic) before and after the training program. Table 1 presents the ratings before and after the program and the paired t values for assessing the changes. It can be seen that higher ratings were obtained after the program, indicating that students perceived themselves to be more effective leaders after the program. The nonsignificant paired t values on two items also indicated that students did not consider themselves doing better in memorizing ability and ability in inspiring others. When multiple t-test comparisons are taken into consideration as in Table 1, students were found to report less significant changes in their sense of responsibility, ability in identifying resources, leading abilities, persuasive abilities, popularity, and cooperativeness. However, significant positive changes were perceived to occur on 17 characteristics, including self-confidence, self-assertiveness, courage, directing ability, and expressiveness.

Self-Ratings on Leadership Abilities or Characteristics Before and After the Creative Leadership Training Program (N=46)

                                         Time 1          Time 2
Characteristics                       Mean     SD     Mean     SD

  Self-confidence                     3.43    0.75    4.04    0.51
  Self-assertiveness                  3.39    0.68    4.04    0.51
  Courage                             3.22    0.81    3.98    0.68
  Accepting challenge                 3.27    0.78    3.87    0.69
  Enthusiasm                          3.78    0.76    4.24    0.57
  Persistence                         3.53    0.99    3.98    0.69

  Responsibility                      3.98    1.02    4.26    0.71
  Planning ability                    3.33    0.73    3.84    0.63
  Analytic ability                    3.39    0.65    3.85    0.70
  Judgment                            3.37    0.61    3.78    0.70
  Organizing ability                  3.24    0.79    3.78    0.63
  Ability in identifying resources    3.22    0.70    3.65    0.79
  Leading ability                     3.39    0.71    3.70    0.79
  Directing ability                   3.13    0.72    3.76    0.79
  Controlling ability                 3.07    0.77    3.65    0.82
  Adaptability                        3.15    0.67    3.70    0.63
  Expressiveness                      3.39    0.91    3.96    0.79
  Debating ability                    3.30    0.84    3.80    0.88
  Persuasive ability                  3.26    0.77    3.48    0.69
  Creativeness                        3.04    0.82    3.70    0.79
  Memorizing ability                  3.52    0.89    3.72    0.91
  Sociability                         3.43    0.75    4.00    0.67
  Popularity                          3.57    0.69    3.85    0.67
  Inspiring ability                   3.55    0.79    3.57    0.79
  Cooperativeness                     3.74    0.65    4.04    0.70

Characteristics                        t           df

  Self-confidence                     5.33(*)      45
  Self-assertiveness                  5.77(*)      45
  Courage                             5.74(*)      45
  Accepting challenge                 4.66(*)      44
  Enthusiasm                          3.71(*)      45
  Persistence                         3.95(*)      44

  Responsibility                      2.23      45
  Planning ability                    4.23(*)      45
  Analytic ability                    4.49(*)      45
  Judgment                            3.91(*)      45
  Organizing ability                  3.52(*)      45
  Ability in identifying resources    2.53         45
  Leading ability                     2.63         45
  Directing ability                   5.02(*)      45
  Controlling ability                 3.81(*)      45
  Adaptability                        4.41(*)      45
  Expressiveness                      5.11(*)      45
  Debating ability                    4.19(*)      45
  Persuasive ability                  2.12         45
  Creativeness                        4.18(*)      45
  Memorizing ability                  1.39         45
  Sociability                         4.75(*)      45
  Popularity                          2.46         45
  Inspiring ability                   0.14         43
  Cooperativeness                     2.38         45

Note. Ratings are made on a five-point scale (1 to 5) separately for 25 items. Higher ratings on an item indicate that the specific item is more characteristic of the respondent.

(*) p < .001 or p < .05 when the number of comparisons is taken into consideration in the Bonferroni procedure.

Table 2 summarizes the results of the evaluation of the Saturday Creative Leadership Training Program by participants. Students rated the extent to which they endorsed satisfaction of different aspects of the program on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In general, students' feedback was highly favorable. However, students' performance as leaders in school activities and in transferring knowledge and skills to their peers in their respective schools need to be further evaluated in future studies.

Student Satisfaction Ratings on Different Aspects of the Creative Leadership Training Program (n=44)

                                                           Standard
Program Aspect                                    Mean    Deviation

Session interesting                               4.05       0.71
Session inspiring                                 4.16       0.68
Session creative                                  3.91       0.88
Session arousing interest for further studies     3.80       0.79
Instruction pace appropriate                      3.89       0.95
Instruction clear                                 4.30       0.67
Instruction encourages participation              3.95       1.03
Instructor enthusiastic                           4.54       0.70
Overall satisfaction                              4.05       0.75
Recommendable to peers                            3.86       0.85

Note. Ratings are made on a five-point scale (1 to 5). Higher ratings

Future Development

The Chinese University CLTP is capable of providing secondary students a rich training opportunity to examine the lives of people who demonstrated leadership, to acquire the skills of leadership, and to assume leadership roles in group exercises and later in activities in their own schools. Feedback from student participants was generally favorable regarding the training, and students rated themselves to have more qualities, characteristics, or abilities related to leadership after the training. Informal meeting and interviews with participants further revealed that students learned the most from group exercises in which they assumed leadership roles in simulation, such as acting as leaders of government departments in Hong Kong. Thus, the experiential component appeared to be an important factor that accounted for the success of the CLTP. It is believed that by making the development of school-based peer support activities as a part of the program, students not only develop their own leadership but also help develop leadership in other students. However, presently, the school-based CLTP component has not been formally evaluated, as individual schools have organized different school activities, and have placed different demands on participants to lead in peer support programs. Future closer collaboration with and greater commitment from schools participating in the CLTP may help formalize the school-based component and its evaluation. At present, planning of modules dealing specifically with teaching peer tutoring and peer counseling skills is under way. These modules will be introduced as additional sessions to the present CLTP to increase the likelihood of success of the peer support programs to be established by program participants in their own schools.

REFERENCES

Chan, D. W. (1997). Development of gifted education in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 13, 32-40.

Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. K. (in press). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers' perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal.

Chan, D. W., Cheung, P. C., Lau, S., Wu, W. Y. H., Kwong, J. M. L., & Li, W. L. (in press). Assessing ideational fluency in primary students in Hong Kong using the Wallach-Kogan tests. Creativity Research Journal.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Leadership curriculum. In J. VanTassel-Baska, Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (pp. 347-365). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: Basic Books.

Hong Kong Board of Education (1996). Report of the Subcommittee on Special Education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Hong Kong Education Commission (1990). Education Commission Report No. 4. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Karnes, F. A., & Chauvin, J. C. (1987). Leadership skills development program: Leadership skills inventory and leadership skills' activities handbook. Buffalo, NY: DOK.

Magoon, R. A. (1981). A proposed model for leadership development. Roeper Review, 3, 7-9.

Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Parker, J. P. (1989). Instructional strategies for teaching the gifted. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Plowman, P. D. (1981). Training extraordinary leaders. Roeper Review, 3, 13-16.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., & Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Richardson, W. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). Leadership education: Developing skills for youth (2nd ed.). New York: Trillium Press.

Roets, L. F. (1997). Leadership: A skills training program (8th ed.). Des Moines, IA: Leadership Publishers, Inc.

Rudowicz, E., Hui, A., & Ku-Yu, H. (1995). Implicit theories of creativity in Hong Kong Chinese population. Unpublished manuscript.

Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Sisk, D. A. (1993). Leadership education for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 491-505). Oxford: Pergamon.

Spinks, J. A., Ku-Yu, S. Y., Shek, D. T. L., & Bacon-Shone, J. H. (1995). The Hong Kong Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Technical Report.

Wu, W., & Cho, S. (1993). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Asia (outside the mainland of China). In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 797-808). Oxford: Pergamon.

David W. Chan is Professor at the Department of Educational Psychology, and Program Supervisor of the Programs for the Gifted and Talented at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests include stress and coping, psychopathology and health, creativity and intelligence, and gifted education and talent development. He is chief editor of the Educational Research Journal and the Hong Kong Journal of Mental Health. The book he recently edited is Helping Students with Learning Difficulties.