Gifted-child pedagogy: meaningful chimera? (Point/Counterpoint).

In a free ranging discussion with the editorial board of Roeper Review about topics emerging in our field, I mentioned the phrase gifted-child pedagogy. The editor asked me to write a commentary on the subject.

"Gifted-child pedagogy" (GCP) is an intriguing phrase. Two of my enduring interests--gifted children and pedagogy--are combined. The positioning of the words indicates that "gifted child" modifies "pedagogy" so the phrase denotes a relationship. Graphically, I picture a Venn diagram in which "gifted child" forms one circle containing data on those persons, "pedagogy" forms the other containing information on teaching, and at some point the circles intersect, creating a third space locating both--gifted-child pedagogy. Membership in the joined space may be called gifted-child pedagogy or something else, like teaching the gifted child. Does the presence of this space justify the use of the phrase, gifted-child pedagogy? Does GCP exist?

What Can GCP Mean?

Users of the term would seem to be to promoting the idea that some kinds of teaching work better with gifted children than with other kinds of students and that teachers of children who are gifted and talented should possess those skills, methods, and ideas. That is a position that many in the field, including myself, have expressed (Coleman & Cross, 2001). The goal of designating a body of practice as GCP is worthy, but is it warranted?

I have tried to locate the first time the term was used. My first encounter was in a piece that was published in the Journal for the Education of the Gifted (Reis, Gentry, & Maxwell, 1998.) The phrase, gifted-child pedagogy, is connected to another phrase, pedagogy for gifted children, which appeared three years earlier under the title, Extending Pedagogy of Gifted Education (Reis, Gentry, & Park, 1995). Note the relationship between pedagogy and education; child is not mentioned directly. Somehow since that time the words have been reordered into gifted education pedagogy, and then into gifted-child pedagogy. Are the meanings of the phrases equivalent?

It is certainly reasonable and desirable to want to have pedagogy that is best for children who are gifted, but evidence that demonstrates the value of a specialized pedagogy would be better. The strongest evidence for GCP would be research that shows that the use of a particular teaching procedure or method promotes learning in children who are gifted and does not have such an advantage with those who do not fit the categorization. If the teaching method, or whatever, does not have a differential effect then is it appropriate to make the claim that is implied by the phrase? Scant evidence meets that standard. Sternberg, Torff, and Grigorenko (1998) offer some evidence that applies to different kinds of intelligence. Perhaps we should say intelligent child pedagogy?

Of course, evidence that administrative or programmatic changes benefit children who are gifted is related to the idea of gifted-child pedagogy. The strongest evidence is for acceleration, with less convincing evidence for enrichment (Rogers, 2001; Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991). Mixing these features within programs also shows success. These administrative or programmatic features would not meet the definition of teaching in most instances. However, acceleration and enrichment can also be applied to the education of individual children who are gifted. Most evidence is anecdotal. Unfortunately, that body of evidence does not compare children who are gifted with those who are not. So, that evidence is insufficient at this time to say more than that individual children can benefit from acceleration and enrichment.

Another way to make the case for gifted-child pedagogy is to argue that children who are gifted differ from their peers in some qualitative way (Morelock, 1996) such as learning, thinking, and feeling, and thus imply that those differences should be the basis for a different kind of teaching, perhaps a gifted-child pedagogy. Proponents of the different-kind-of-kid position have a double burden. First they must demonstrate the presence of a meaningful difference, and second, supply evidence that shows that children who are selected on their terms profit when teachers use that knowledge with a particular methodology. I would welcome research that demonstrated that position as evidence.

Is the Criterion Too High?

Should we use another criterion? Whatever the standard that might emerge, it would have to make reference to children who received our special treatment and those who did not. I would like to hear discussion on this point.

Is it possible to have the criterion and still have methods that work better with children who are gifted? Yes, that is what we have right now (Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991). We can have a high criterion, and we can maintain that there are techniques that work with most children and work better with children who are gifted without using the phrase gifted-child pedagogy. I prefer this situation because it keeps the standard consistent. It also suggests that gifted children learn like other children, that the methods can benefit some children who are not gifted, and some procedures help children who are gifted learn faster and deeper than they would on their own. That meaning seems closer to the case when the phrase pedagogy for gifted education was introduced.

Consequences of Adopting a GCP Model

If our field adopts the idea of GCP, where might it take us? Are there unintended consequences to the position and associated practices that will in the long run diminish our field and cause us to lose more in the future? Use of GCP moves us in four wrong ways.

A research agenda is created that searches for the child's characteristics and the teacher skills that will work together to maximize learning. If only teachers of the gifted possessed this special set of skills, then gifted children and gifted education would flourish. Such a search has not worked in special education for children who are learning disabled, developmentally delayed, or cognitively delayed. Why would it work for us? Furthermore, GCP sets up the idea that method and child characteristics are independent of considerations of content. The development of appropriate curriculum gets second billing in this search for the perfect method. Children are expected to learn complex bodies of information and skills. It is unlikely that a single method or set of methods will make this happen. It oversimplifies learning and ignores the complexity of learning within a domain.

Third, GCP moves us toward a kind of catch-22. If gifted children are not benefiting from teaching that uses special methods, then they are not gifted. If children do benefit without their teachers knowing special methods, then the students must be gifted and their teachers must have special skills. The circularity is apparent.

Fourth, the use of the term creates a chimera. Using the term does not make GCP real, but continued use of the term can create a faux reality that GCP exists and teachers who do not have this particular pedagogy are missing something really special. In fact, it suggests they cannot help gifted children unless they have the magic method. Madison Avenue invents terms to create a need (market) for a product by convincing the consumer that they need something that will help them attain some objective or goal or feeling. The examples in cosmetics, automobiles, health-care are obvious. No one winds up being healthier, prettier, faster, or whatever, but someone profits. Is that what we want our field to become? By using GCP, I think we are in danger of creating that kind of superficial world that distances special teachers and gifted children, special teachers and general education teachers, and general teachers and typical children.

Final Words

Evidence is available that demonstrates teachers possess many skills, and some of those help some children some of the time. As a field, we want to make sure the teacher has those skills available. That is not the same as saying there is a gifted-child pedagogy. I am for professional standards. Therefore, I recommend not using the term in the future until the standard I have described is met.

REFERENCES

Coleman, L., & Cross, T. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Morelock, M. (1996). The nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19, 4-12.

Reis, S., Gentry, M., & Maxwell, L. (1998). The application of enrichment cluster to teachers' classroom practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21 (3), 310-334.

Reis, S. M., Gentry, M., & Park, S. (1995). Extending the pedagogy of gifted education to all students (Research Monograph No. 95118). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Rogers, K. B. (2001). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Shore, B., Cornell, D., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 1-11.

Laurence J. Coleman, Ph.D. holds the Daso-Herb Chair in Gifted Studies at the University of Toledo. He presently serves as editor of Journal for the Education of the Gifted. E-mail: [e-mail]