What Is A Gifted Brain?: Understanding Intelligence Have We Found The Genes For Intelligence?

CHAPTER 1
What Is a Gifted Brain?
Ask 50 people what is meant by giftedness and you will likely get 50 different definitions. And that becomes
a major problem when deciding who is gifted. Nonetheless, some common elements will emerge from most
of the descriptions. These might include describing a person’s aptitude in a specific subject area or a talent
in the visual or performing arts, or in sports. Also mentioned might be creativity, inventiveness, or just plain
“intelligent in everything.” Descriptions of giftedness also
vary from one culture to another. For example, in a culture
From one perspective, giftedness is what people
with no formal schooling, a skilled hunter might be the in a society perceive to be higher or lower on
gifted one. Gifted abilities are also more likely to emerge some culturally embedded scale.
when the individual’s talents coincide with what is valued
by the culture. Chess prodigies, for example, appear in
cultures where such talent is valued and nurtured. So it can be said that giftedness is what others in a society
perceive to be higher or lower on some culturally embedded scale.
Even researchers in gifted education have a difficult time agreeing on what giftedness means. But they
do agree on one thing: Giftedness derives from a well above average level of intelligence in one or more
observable behaviors. So before we can understand what makes a person gifted, we have to take a closer look
at what modern research has discovered about intelligence.
UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENCE
Have We Found the Genes for Intelligence?
An obvious starting point in the search to understand intelligence is our genes. Impressive advances in
methods for scanning our genetic makeup have inspired scientists to hunt for the specific gene or genes that
can be linked to native intelligence. Imaging technologies that probe the workings of the brain are also
valuable tools in this search because they may reveal the brain components that account for the differences
in intelligence among individuals. The environment also plays an important role because some genes express
their traits only when provoked by environmental influences.
Researchers often use studies of identical twins raised together and apart to explore whether certain traits
are the result of genetics or the environment. Results of twin studies conducted over the past two decades
have convinced some scientists that genes play a crucial role in intelligence but they do not act alone. So far,
the hunt for specific genes related to intelligence has been disappointing. Comparing the DNA of highly
intelligent people with each other and with the DNA of people with low and average intelligence can reveal
9
10———How the Gifted Brain Learns
patterns, called markers, which help identify neighboring genes. But tests have so far shown that these genes
account for only a small variation in intelligence (Plomin & DeFries, 1998).
Gene Effects in Poor Children: Another factor is the discovery of expressive genes—those which
express their traits when provoked by the environment. The same gene can have different effects in different
environments. The environment seems to have a particularly powerful influence on genes related to
intelligence in poor children. Eric Turkheimer and his colleagues at the University of Virginia analyzed the
test scores of more than 300 sets of twins aged 7 years (Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D’Onofrio, &
Gottesman, 2003). The study included a high portion of twins from racial minorities and impoverished
families. Remarkably, the researchers found that the strength of the genes effect depended on the
socioeconomic status of the family (as measured in part by family income and education level of the
parents). About 60 percent of the variance in IQ could be accounted for by genes in the children from affluent
families. But for children from impoverished families, genes accounted for almost none.
A similar study was conducted four years later. Here the researchers looked at how 839 sets of twins
scored on the Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test in 1962, when most of them were 17 years old. Once again,
genes played only a small role in the variance of scores
among poor children, but played a far stronger role in the
The environment of poverty may exert powerful
variance of scores among affluent children (Harden,
forces that suppress the genes associated with
differences in intelligence from expressing Turkheimer, & Loehlin, 2007).
themselves. What is going on here? The researchers suggest that
an impoverished environment includes powerful forces
that shape intelligence from the womb through school and
beyond, thereby suppressing the genes associated with differences in intelligence from expressing
themselves. On the other hand, in children growing up in the relative stability of affluent families, gene-
based differences are more likely to emerge (Zimmer, 2008). For example, if a child in an affluent home
shows an interest in science, the parent is likely to get the child a book on science and a science kit. So
reading about science and experimenting will make this child different from one in an impoverished home
whose interest in science will likely go unnoticed or unfulfilled. The results from both of these studies ought
to raise concerns over how much schools and communities are doing to address the plight of children in
impoverished homes. Although there is some evidence that gene variations play a role in intelligence, their
effect is small. The prevailing theory now is that there are many genes, each with a small effect, that together
produce the full range of variation in intelligence. And their effects can be moderated by the environment.
But finding those genes may take a long time. One thing seems certain: Genetic research demonstrates that
intelligence levels can be inherited, but the idea that we are born with a few genes that set forever how
intelligent a person is going to be is flawed (Zimmer, 2008). Furthermore, the debate over nature (genes)
versus nurture (environment) is drawing to a close. Nature and nurture work together.
Is Brain Structure Related to Intelligence?

Another avenue of research has looked at changes in brain structure among individuals of different
intelligence. Neuroscientists have long thought that intelligence is related to some aspects of brain structure.
However, the way certain parts of the brain develop over time may be a much better predictor. Shaw and his
colleagues (2006) have analyzed scans of developing brains. To control for individual variation, the
researchers followed more than 300 children, ages 5 to 19, as they grew up over a period of 10 years. Most
children were scanned two or more times, generally at two-year intervals. The scans were separated into three
groups based on IQ test scores: superior (121–145), high (109–120), and average (83–108).
What Is a Gifted Brain?———11
Shaw et al.’s (2006) attention was focused

on the development of the cortex, a thin layer Frontal Parietal
Lobe Lobe
on the surface of the brain where most
sophisticated information processing occurs.
Prefrontal Occipital
This part of the brain continues to grow and Cortex
Lobe
change in structure until about the age of 22 to
24 years. In all children, the cortex gets thicker Temporal
Lobe Cerebellum
as neurons grow and produce branches called
dendrites. Then a pruning process begins to
trim away underused dendrites and neurons. As
a result, the cortex gets thinner and the brain Figure 1.1 The major areas of the brain.
becomes more efficient in the teen years.
The researchers discovered that the Changes in Thickness of Cortex
thickening and thinning processes varied
among children with different levels of
intelligence. Variations were particularly Thickness of Cortex
noticeable in the prefrontal cortex. This is
the seat of abstract reasoning, planning,
and decision-making, located just behind the
forehead (Figure 1.1). The seven-year-olds in
the superior group started out with a thinner
cortex that thickened rapidly until age 11 or 12 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
before thinning. But in the same-age group Age in Years
of average intelligence, the cortex started out Superior High Average

thicker but peaked by age 8, followed by
gradual thinning. Those in the high Figure 1.2 Changes in the thickness of the brain’s cortex between
intelligence group had a similar trajectory to the ages of 7 and 19 in individuals of superior, high, and average
intelligence.
the average group but with a thicker cortex
Source: Adapted from Shaw et al., 2006.
(Figure 1.2). Although the cortex thinned out
for all groups, the superior group showed the
greatest rate of change. Children with average intelligence had a similar pattern but the changes were slower.
In Shaw et al.’s (2006) words, “The most agile minds had the most agile cortex” (p. 678).
Implications: So what does it mean? The findings suggest that IQ is related—at least in part—to how the
cortex matures. Perhaps the prolonged thickening process of the prefrontal cortex in children with superior
IQ reflects an extended critical period for the development of high-level cognitive circuits. Thus, intelligence
is not related so much to the size of the cortex, but to the dynamics of how it develops.
No one is sure what underlies the changes in cortical thickness. One theory is that the rapid thickening
and thinning seen in the superior IQ group may indicate greater neural plasticity—the changes that occur in
the brain as a result of experience. Having a high degree of neural plasticity may enable individuals to adapt
better to the demands of their environment and may also be an indication of possessing a superior IQ
(Garlick, 2002).
Richard Haier and his colleagues (2004) found a similar pattern in studies of adult brains. They gave IQ
tests to 47 volunteers. The IQ scores, which ranged from 90 to 155, were then correlated with brain scans that
look at volume of matter at different brain regions. People with high intelligence scores tended to have certain
regions of the cortex that were larger than average (Haier, Jung, Yeo, Head, & Alkire, 2004). Furthermore, these
regions were not limited to the frontal lobe where most scientists have long
identified as the seat of intelligence. Rather, other brain regions located in the
parietal lobe were also involved. Figure 1.3 shows a front view of the brain.
The shaded areas represent those regions in the frontal and parietal lobes
where larger mass correlated with higher intelligence. Shaw et al. (2006)
suspect that some of the patterns will turn out to be the result of environmental
influences, especially since neuron development is occurring at a rapid pace
during the teenage and early adult years. But nature also plays a role. Studies
show these brain regions to be the same size in identical twins, indicating that
Figure 1.3 This front view of the
brain shows the regions that some genes are also responsible for some of the differences in intelligence.
researchers believe are strongly There are important implications here. If further research supports
associated with intelligence. They the theory that the environment is a principal factor affecting early cortical
include the frontal and parietal lobes.
development, then we need to re-examine closely what schools do in the
Source: Adapted from Haier et al., 2004. primary and intermediate grades. We must assess whether the learning
environment is truly challenging and creative for all students. Of course, this
should be the goal of all schools regardless, but the research
implies that school experiences for this age group may have
If further research finds the environment to be a
a significant impact on an individual’s eventual level of
principal factor affecting cortical development,
intelligence. That bears repeating: What happens in
then we need to re-examine primary and
classrooms may actually raise or lower a student’s IQ—
intermediate grade schooling.
maybe even the teacher’s!
Where in the Brain Is Intelligence Located?

One of the long-standing mysteries of science: Where in the brain lies intelligence? As mentioned
earlier, scientists for a long time thought that the seat of intelligence lay in the frontal lobe (Figure 1.1). But
in the study of adult brain structure mentioned earlier (Haier et al., 2004), the scans showed that intelligence
was correlated with greater volumes of gray matter (cortex) in regions of the frontal and parietal lobes
(Figure 1.3). These findings prompted Haier et al. to review other similar studies to determine whether there
was any consistency among the areas correlated to intelligence.
The Parieto-Frontal Integration (P-FIT) Theory: After reviewing 37 imaging studies related to
intelligence, including their own, Haier and Rex Jung of the University of New Mexico claimed to have
identified a brain network related to intelligence (Jung & Haier, 2007). They found surprising consistency
among the studies they reviewed even though the studies represented a variety of research approaches. It
seems the brain areas related to intelligence are the same areas related to attention and memory as well as
to more complex functions, such as language and sensory processing. This integration of cognitive functions
suggests that intelligence levels might be based on how efficiently the frontal-parietal networks process
information (Figure 1.3).
Information moves throughout the brain in the white matter located just below the cortex’s gray matter.
Think of the white matter as the wiring that connects distant areas of the brain to one another. Jung and Haier
(2007) found that individuals with high intelligence tend to have tracts of white matter that are more organized
than other individuals. High intelligence requires processing power and speed. The larger cortical areas
provide it the processing power while the well-organized
One theory suggests that high intelligence white matter gives it the speed. In this model individual
requires a lot of processing power and speed. differences in intelligence depend, in part, upon individual
differences in specific areas of the brain and in the
connections between them. Of course, one person may have higher processing power but lower speed, another
the opposite, and others all the combinations in between. So you may have two people of equal intelligence,
but their brains are arriving at that behavior in different ways. The model, dubbed the Parieto-Frontal
Integration (P-FIT) Theory of Intelligence, provides a framework for future research.
THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE AND GIFTEDNESS

Are you intelligent? Are you gifted? How do you know? Compared to whom? How could you tell if someone
is more intelligent than you? And what about your students or your own children? How can you spot the
highly intelligent or gifted ones? These sensitive questions have plagued researchers and educators for a long
time. Yet to this day we still have no universally accepted definitions or measures of intelligence and
giftedness. But many theories abound. What follows is a brief overview of why our understanding of
giftedness went beyond IQ tests as well as some of the more predominant theories of what constitutes
intelligent and gifted behavior.
Limited Value of IQ Tests

In the 1950s, researchers and psychologists described giftedness mainly in terms of intelligence: high
IQ was the same as gifted. Creativity and motivation were soon added as other characteristics of gifted
performers. Consequently, as the push in schools for special programs for gifted students got underway, IQ
tests became the primary screening vehicle for program selection. But IQ tests had their own problems. They
assessed analytical and verbal skills but failed to measure practical knowledge and creativity, components
critical to problem solving and success in life. Some psychologists complained that because many IQ test
items had a cultural and socioeconomic bias, students from minority or poor families were destined to get
lower scores. It eventually became apparent that IQ tests were not a satisfactory measure of giftedness and
that people could be gifted in different ways, such as in academic areas, sports, performing arts, or in
business ventures. As early as 1951, researchers realized that IQ tests did not measure these capabilities
(Lally & LaBrant, 1951).
Very few people are gifted in all areas. Paradoxically, some people can be gifted in some aspects of
learning while displaying learning disorders in others (see Chapter 4). Clearly, relying on only one
quantitative criterion (the IQ score) and maybe two qualitative criteria (creativity and motivation) was not
adequate in the process of describing the collective and varied characteristics of gifted and talented people.
More expansive theories of giftedness were needed.
Renzulli’s Definition of Giftedness

In an effort to challenge the notion that giftedness meant demonstrating high performance in nearly all
areas of intellectual and artistic pursuit, Joseph Renzulli (1978) proposed his own definition. He suggested
that giftedness resulted from the interaction of the following three traits:
• General abilities (processing information, integrating experiences, and abstract thinking) or

specific abilities (the capacity to acquire knowledge and to perform in an activity) that were above
average
• Commitment to task (perseverance, hard work, endurance, perceptiveness, self-confidence, and a
special fascination with a specific subject)
• Creativity (flexibility, fluency, originality of thought, sensitivity to stimulations, openness to
experiences, and a willingness to take risks)
He named this the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Figure 1.4). A few years later, he distinguished
the following two types of gifted performance (Renzulli, 1986):
• Schoolhouse giftedness, which is characterized by the ease of acquiring knowledge and taking tests
as demonstrated through high grades and high test scores. It is the type most often used for selecting
students into special programs for the gifted.
• Creative-productive giftedness, which involves creating new products and ideas designed to have an
impact on a specific audience or field.
Renzulli’s position was that creative-productive giftedness was often overlooked in schools that relied
primarily on traditional tests of aptitude, intelligence, and achievement. His work stimulated school districts
to include more opportunities for creative expression in their programs for gifted students.
Brain Research Support for Renzulli’s Model:

Most of the traits that comprise the Renzulli model are
behaviors not easily associated with any specific brain
Above- region. The complex qualities included in general
Creativity
Average
Ability abilities, such as processing information, integrating
experiences, and abstract thinking, all require input from
Gifted the frontal lobe, parts of the emotional system (called the
Behavior limbic area), and other regions as well. Commitment to
task is often rooted in intrinsic motivation (the desire to do
something because one enjoys doing it). Brain studies do
confirm that motivated subjects rely heavily on elements
Task
in the limbic area to sustain interest and maintain
Commitment attention. Creativity shows more promise. Recent imaging
studies suggest that certain brain areas are highly activated
when an individual is involved in creative work. Creativity
is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
Figure 1.4 Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness.
In this model, gifted behavior results from the interaction of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
above-average abilities, creativity, and task commitment.
Source: Renzulli, 1978. During the 1980s, psychologists unleashed new
and different models to describe intelligence. Harvard
researcher Howard Gardner (1983) published a significant book suggesting that intelligence is not a unitary
concept, that humans possess at least seven intelligences, and that an individual is predisposed to developing
each of the intelligences to different levels of competence. The seven intelligences are bodily-kinesthetic,
logical/mathematical, musical/rhythmic, verbal/linguistic, visual/spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.
(A few years later he added the naturalist intelligence, and most recently he proposed the spiritualist and
emotionalist intelligences.) Figure 1.5 takes a closer look at eight of the intelligences and some of their
relevant behaviors as described and revised by Gardner (1993). The diagram does not include the spiritualist
and emotionalist because there has not been sufficient time to study and explore their characteristics and
educational implications.
For Gardner, the intelligences represented ways of processing information and of thinking. He also
suggested that the intelligences are the product of the interaction between genetic predisposition and the
environment, a sort of nature-nurture combination that is not a question of either–or, but both–and. He
selected an intelligence if it met the following eight criteria:
• Potential isolation by brain damage

• Existence of savants, prodigies, and other exceptional individuals
• An identifiable core operation or set of core operations
• A distinctive developmental history, along with a definable set of expert “end-state” performances
• An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility
• Support from experimental psychological tasks
• Support from psychometric findings
• Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system
According to Gardner, the intelligences are not the same as thinking style, which tends to remain consistent
and independent of the type of information being processed. Rather, individuals at any given time use
those intelligences that will allow them to solve specific
problems, generate new problems, or create products or In Gardner’s schema, giftedness can be defined as
services of value to their particular culture. As the an individual being exceptionally competent in
information and tasks change, other intelligences are called one or more of the intelligences.
into action. One of Gardner’s legacies is the oft-quoted
Interpersonal:
People smart!
Intrapersonal: Interacts with others, Naturalist:
Self smart! empathizes, Nature smart!
Focuses inward socializes, mediates Aware of,
on feeling and conflicts. understands, and
dreams; follows appreciates
instincts; meditative environment; sees
and reflective. the big picture.
Bodily/Kinesthetic: Logical/Mathematical:
Body smart! Number smart!
Enjoys physical Multiple Enjoys mathematics,
activities, crafts, Intelligences reasoning, logic,
and hands-on and problem solving;
investigations. well-organized.
Spatial: Linguistic:
Picture smart! Word smart!
Creates mental Enjoys speaking,
images; enjoys Musical: writing, poems,
charts, puzzles, and Music smart! plays, manipulating
visualization tasks. Enjoys picking up language.
sounds and
melodies; notices
and uses rhythm.
Figure 1.5 The eight intelligences describe the different types of competencies that we all possess in varying degrees and
that we use in our daily lives.
Source: Adapted from Gardner, 1993.
aphorism, “Ask not how smart is the child, but how is the child smart?” Nevertheless, in this schema, giftedness
can be defined as a individual being exceptionally competent in one or more of Gardner’s intelligences.
In the 20-plus years since Howard Gardner proposed his theory of multiple intelligences, educators have
been developing activities to apply his ideas to classroom practice.
Brain Research Support for Gardner’s Model: You may be surprised to learn that there is little physical
evidence from neuroscience to support Gardner’s theory. About the best neuroscientists can say is that scanning
studies show that different parts of the brain are used to perform certain tasks associated with Gardner’s
intelligences. For example, language processing is largely devoted to the left frontal lobe, while many visual-
spatial operations are generally located in the right parietal lobe. Creating and processing music involves the
temporal lobes, and running and dancing are controlled mainly by the motor cortex and cerebellum (Figure 1.1).
Some theorists suggest that Gardner’s model is simply a taxonomy of intellectual pursuits based on judgments
that lack scientific support and ignore the notion and contribution of general intelligence (White & Breen, 1998).
Of course, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to indicate different degrees and types of intelligences,
as any veteran teacher will confirm. We encounter, for example, the star athlete (high bodily-kinesthetic)
who can hardly write a complete sentence (low linguistic), or the mathematics whiz (high logical-
mathematical) who rarely communicates with classmates (low interpersonal). Classroom observations and
studies have shown that more students are likely to be motivated and succeed in classes where teachers use
a variety of activities designed to appeal to students whose strengths lie in one or more of the intelligences
described by Gardner (Shearer, 2004). However, it is important to remember that these intelligences describe
the different types of competencies that we all possess in varying degrees and that we use in our daily lives.
Using Multiple Intelligences Theory With the Gifted

Multiple intelligences (MI) theory has been used in school systems all over the world to promote all sorts
of curricular and instructional changes. Several curricular programs are almost exclusively based on MI. In his
writings, Gardner (1983) has suggested that traditional measures for identifying gifted students rely too heavily
on IQ tests that focus on linguistic and logical/mathematical skills. Consequently, schools are increasingly
resorting to MI as an alternative means of identifying gifted students. However, the problem with this approach
is deciding how to develop instruments that can measure
each of the intelligences with reliability and validity.
Educators need to be wary of the fad-like nature
Although MI may be theoretically useful in identify-
of some of the MI programs and recognize that,
without further research support, they cannot ing gifted and talented children, especially those from
depend on MI as a panacea for gifted education. culturally diverse backgrounds, more empirical data are
needed to help develop reliable measures for the
identification process. Educators need to be wary of the
fad-like nature of some of the MI programs and recognize that, without further research support, they cannot
depend on MI as a panacea for gifted education.
Gardner himself has decried some of the misinterpretations and confusion surrounding his theory,
including among educators of the gifted. He maintains that too many educators still hold that someone who
is gifted scholastically will be very good at other things. It is this unitary notion of intelligence that his theory
was designed to demolish, and yet after 20 years it still persists (Henshon, 2006).
Whether scientists will eventually discover the underlying neurological networks that comprise different
intelligences remains to be seen. In the meantime, Gardner’s theory can still be beneficial because it reminds
teachers that students have different strengths and weaknesses, different interests, and that they learn in
different ways. By using Gardner’s ideas, teachers are likely to address the needs of a wider range of
students, including the gifted.
Sternberg’s Theories
The Triarchic Theory: Two years after Gardner’s
work appeared, Robert Sternberg (1985) at Yale Analyzer
proposed a theory that distinguishes three types
of intelligence: analytical, creative, and practical.
People with analytical intelligence (the analyzers)
have abilities in analyzing, critiquing, and Analytic Analytic
Creator Practitioner
evaluating. Those who are creatively intelligent (the
creators) are particularly good at discovering, Consummate
inventing, and creating. By contrast, the practically Balancer
intelligent (the practitioners) excel at applying,
Creative
utilizing, and implementing. In this model, Creator Practitioner Practitioner
intelligence is defined by these three types of
behavior, and giftedness results from the ability to
perform the skills in one or more of these areas with
exceptional accuracy and efficiency. According
to Sternberg, various combinations of these three Figure 1.6 In Sternberg’s model, the combination of the three
areas produce different patterns of giftedness types of intelligence produce different patterns of giftedness.
(Figure 1.6). This concept was tested in several Source: Sternberg, 1985.
studies conducted by Sternberg and his colleagues.
Students were assessed for their memory as well as their analytical, creative, and practical achievement. The
results showed that those students who were taught in ways that best matched their achievement patterns
outperformed those whose method of instruction was not a good fit for their pattern of abilities (Sternberg,
Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, & Grigorenko, 1996; Sternberg et al., 2000).
The Pentagonal Implicit Theory of Giftedness: Ten years Excellence

later, Sternberg and Zhang (1995) introduced another theory to
describe giftedness. Their goal was to capture in one model most
people’s intuitions about what makes a person gifted (Figure 1.7).
The result stated that a gifted person is one who meets the following Value Rarity
Pentagonal
five criteria: Implicit Theory
of Giftedness
• Excellence. The individual is superior in some dimension or set

of dimensions relative to peers. The term “relative to peers” is
important because that is the group against whom one is being
judged. For example, a musical performance that would be Demonstrability Productivity
extraordinary for a 10-year-old taking weekly music lessons, Figure 1.7 A model showing the five criteria
Sternberg notes, might be quite ordinary for another 10-year- comprising Sternberg and Zhang’s Implicit
old who has been trained at a conservatory since age 4. Theory of Giftedness.
• Rarity. The individual possesses a skill or attribute that is Source: Sternberg & Zhang, 1995.
rare among peers. This criterion supplements the excellence
criterion because a person may demonstrate high aptitude in a particular skill. But if that aptitude is
not judged to be rare, then the person is not viewed as gifted. For instance, suppose we gave a difficult
chemistry test to a group of high school seniors in an advanced chemistry class. Even if they all got
perfect or near-perfect scores, we could not say they all were gifted.
• Productivity. The individual must produce something in the area of giftedness. It is not sufficient in
this model to just get a high score on an intelligence test. The individual must be able to do something
so that potential can be translated into productive work.
• Demonstrability. The skill or aptitude of giftedness must be demonstrable through one or more valid
assessments.
• Value. The individual shows superior performance in a dimension that is valued by that person’s
society.
Sternberg and Zhang’s theory helps provide a basis for understanding why we call some people gifted
and others not. They caution, however, that although this theory can be helpful in identifying gifted
individuals, it should be used in conjunction with other generally accepted assessment measures.
The Theory of Successful Intelligence: In 1997, Sternberg introduced his Theory of Successful
Intelligence, which involves using one’s intelligence to achieve the goals one sets for oneself in life, within
a specific social and cultural context (Sternberg, 1997).
Successful intelligence involves recognizing one’s
Successfully intelligent people recognize their strengths
strengths and making the most of them while and make the most of them while they recognize their
recognizing one’s weaknesses and finding ways to weaknesses and find ways to correct or compensate for
correct them. them. Both are important. Although students need to learn
to correct aspects of their performance in which they are
underperforming, they also must recognize that they
probably will never be superb at all kinds of performance. It is intelligent to find ways around weaknesses,
such as seeking help from others and giving it in return.
Sternberg explains that successfully intelligent people adapt, shape, and select their environment. For
example, a teacher may adapt to the expectations of her principal by teaching in a way she believes the
principal will support. Through shaping, individuals change the environment to fit them. In this example, the
teacher may try to persuade the principal to support her new way of teaching even though it is different from
what the principal has endorsed in the past. An alternative is selection, where individuals find a new
environment. Here, the teacher may seek to transfer to another school if she is unable to convince the
principal that her way of teaching is valid and will result in benefits for the students. In essence, successful
intelligence is a direct extension of Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory because these individuals accomplish their
goals by finding a balance in their use of analytical, creative, and practical abilities (Sternberg, 1999).
Successful Intelligence in the Classroom. Teaching and assessment should provide a balanced use of
the triarchic components of analytical, creative, and practical thinking. In this approach, teachers help
students capitalize on their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. Class work and assessments are
largely centered around activities that require analysis, creativity, and application. This variety reaches
more of the students’ patterns of abilities so they are likely to be intrinsically motivated to succeed in their
work. Sternberg suggests that teaching for successful intelligence improves student performance for the
following reasons:
• It encourages deeper and more elaborative memory encoding than traditional teaching, so students
learn and remember material in a way that enhances retrieval at test time.
• It encourages more diverse forms of encoding material, so there are more retrieval pathways to the
material and a greater likelihood of recall.
• It enables students to capitalize on strengths and compensate for weaknesses.
• It is more motivating to both teachers and students.
Studies by Sternberg and others demonstrated that students taught and assessed with this approach,
across many subject areas, performed better on assessments than students taught and assessed in
conventional ways (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). See specific suggestions on how teachers can use
Successful Intelligence in their classrooms in the Applications section at the end of this chapter.
Brain Research Support for Sternberg’s Theories: Sternberg’s theories are also based on complex
psychological traits, such as excellence and productivity, which most likely require contributions from many
brain areas. To date, no brain studies have isolated the brain regions that appear to be specifically responsible
for any of the traits in Sternberg’s model. But that admission does not lessen the value of what Sternberg
proposes. Although neuroscience has made some remarkable discoveries in recent years, it is still in its
infancy. In the meantime, case studies and controlled research projects may still provide evidence that
theoretical models, such as Sternberg’s and others, when properly implemented, can result in improved
student and teacher performance. In the meantime, Sternberg’s triarchic model continues to influence
decisions regarding instructional approaches that enhance giftedness.
Gagné’s View of Giftedness and Talent

For many years in gifted education, the terms “gifted” and “talented” were often used interchangeably,
and attempts to differentiate them were only moderately successful. Indeed, some researchers saw no real
difference between the two. In the 1980s, Francoys Gagné (1985) of the University of Quebec at Montreal
proposed a comprehensive model that made a distinction between the components of giftedness and the
nature of talent (Figure 1.8).
Gagné (2003) differentiates between giftedness and talent, proposing that giftedness represents innate
abilities in multiple domains, while talent is a skill in a single domain that has been systematically
developed. The innate abilities fall into four aptitude domains: intellectual, creative, socioaffective, and
sensorimotor. These aptitudes have a genetic basis and can be readily observed in the tasks that children
perform in school.
Talents in this model emerge from a developmental process that transforms aptitudes into the skills that are
characteristic of a particular field of human activity or performance. Figure 1.8 shows the many talent fields
relevant to school-age youth. The model proposes that abilities
and aptitudes are the raw constituents of talent. Some students with well above average natural
In other words, talent implies the presence of well above abilities do not translate these gifts into talents,
average natural abilities. One cannot be talented without as evidenced by academic underachievement in
having gifts. However, according to Gagné (2003), the reverse intellectually gifted students.
is not true. Some students with well above average natural
abilities do not translate these gifts into talents, as evidenced by
academic underachievement in intellectually gifted students. You may have encountered some of these students,
although many go through school unidentified. We will have an in-depth discussion of them in Chapter 3.
Translating Aptitude to Talent: Gagné (2003) explains that the process of developing talent occurs when
the child or adolescent engages in systematic learning, training, and practicing. The higher the level of
talent sought, the more intensive these three activities will be. This process is helped or hindered by the
action of two types of catalysts, intrapersonal and environmental. Intrapersonal catalysts include motivation
and volition, which play an important role in initiating the process of talent development, guiding it, and
sustaining it through obstacles, boredom, and occasional failure. Temperament and adaptive strategies also
contribute significantly to support and stimulate, or slow down and even block, talent development.
CATALYSTS
GIFTEDNESS = top 10% INTRAPERSONAL

Natural Abilities Physical/Mental Characteristics: TALENT = top 10%
(Aptitude domains) (appearance, handicaps, health) Systematically
(temperament, personality traits, Developed Skills
INTELLECTUAL well-being) (Fields relevant to school–age
(reasoning, judgment, verbal, SELF - MANAGEMENT: youth)
spatial, memory, metacognition) Awareness of Self/Others
(strengths/weaknesses, emotions) ACADEMICS
CREATIVE Motivation/Volition (language, science,
(inventiveness, imagination, (needs, interests, intrinic motives, humanities, etc.)
originality, retrieval fluency) values) ARTS
(resource allocation, adaptive (visual, drama, music, etc.)
SOCIOAFFECTIVE
strategies, effort) BUSINESS
(perceptiveness, tact,
(sales, entrepreneurship,
empathy, leadership,
management, etc.)
persuasion)
20
DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS LEISURE
SENSORIMOTOR
Informal/Formal Learning and Practicing (chess, video games, puzzles, etc.)
(sensory input, strength,
SOCIAL ACTION
endurance, reflexes,
(media, public office, etc.)
coordination)
ENVIRONMENTAL SPORTS
Milieu: physical, cultural, social, familial, etc. (individual and team)
Persons: parents, teachers, peers, TECHNOLOGY
mentors, etc. (trades and crafts, electronics,
CHANCE
Provisions: programs, activities, computers, etc.)
services, etc.
Events: encounters, awards, accidents, etc.
Figure 1.8 Gagné’s differentiated model defines giftedness as innate abilities in multiple domains and talent as a systematically developed skill in a single domain.
Source: Adapted from Gagné, 2003.
Environmental catalysts exert their influence in various contexts. Many different persons, including
parents, teachers, siblings, and peers, may exert positive or negative influences on the process of talent
development. Gifted education programs within or outside the school belong to the category of provisions
because they are a more systematic form of intervention to promote talent development. Finally, significant
events, such as the death of a parent, winning an award, or suffering a major accident, can significantly
influence the course of talent development.
Chance is a causal factor that affects the influence of other elements in the model, as for example, the
chance of being born in a particular family, or the chance of the school in which the child is enrolled deciding
to develop a program for gifted and talented students. Chance is also a major causal factor in determining
genetic inheritance. According to Gagné, the power of chance should not be ignored or given too much
weight when assessing one’s potential talents (Gagné & Schader, 2006).
Practical Applications of Gagné’s Model: Gagné believes that the model is most useful in
differentiating giftedness from talent. He maintains that the persistent lack of differentiation has resulted in
gifted and talented programs that focus mainly on the academically gifted and provide little or no support
for highly talented students. He also suggests that, when properly interpreted, the model suggests the steps
that schools and school districts should take to appropriately identify and serve gifted and talented students.
See more about Gagné’s specific suggestions in Chapter 8.
Brain Research Support for Gagné’s Model: Studies in behavioral and cognitive psychology over the
past few decades have shown that many of the components associated with Gagné’s model contribute to
student success in the gifted domains as well as in the various fields of talent (Bouchard & Shepard, 1994;
Carroll, 1993; Fingelkurts & Fingelkurts, 2003; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000), and are some of the
studies that support components of the model. In neuroscience, however, a few studies using scanning
technology have looked at how the brain responds when playing challenging games, getting motivated,
solving logical and creative problems, and processing sensory input. But it will be a long while before
studies in neuroscience can shed some light on how the many components of this model interact to reveal
intellectual gifts and how they translate into talents.
Other Theoretical Models

The models we have just examined are among those that are cited most in the literature on gifted
education. At least a dozen other models exist, many with common elements running through them. A full
discussion of the other models goes beyond the scope of this book, but here is a brief explanation of two
more recent models along with the Internet sites where readers can find additional information.
The Munich Model of Giftedness: This model was developed in Germany in the 1980s by Kurt Heller,
Christopher Perleth, and Ernst Hany as part of the Munich longitudinal study of giftedness. It is based on
the following four interdependent dimensions (Heller, 2004):
• Talent factors (predictors of giftedness): intellectual abilities, creative abilities, social competence,
practical intelligence, artistic abilities, musicality, and psycho-motor skills
• Non-cognitive personality characteristics (moderators of giftedness): coping with stress,
achievement motivation, learning and working strategies, test anxiety, and control expectations
• Environmental conditions (moderators of giftedness): family learning environment, family

climate, quality of instruction, classroom climate, and critical life events
• Performance areas (criteria for giftedness): athletics and sports, art (music, painting), computer
science, languages, mathematics, natural sciences, social relationships, and technology
A number of similar components can be found in the Munich and Gagné models. However, researchers
with the Munich model have developed a series of instruments to measure the components of each of the
four dimensions in students.
For more information on the details of the Munich Model of Giftedness, visit the following Web site:
www.pabst-publishers.de/psychology-science/3-2004/05.pdf.
The Actiotope Model of Giftedness: In this highly complex and dynamic model, developed by Albert
Ziegler, gifts and talent are not personal attributes, but attributions made by scientists. These are based on
our assumption that a person is in the position to carry out specific actions in the future. According to
Ziegler, gifted behavior is displayed when a person has a wish to do something, the ability to do it, and
the awareness that it can be done. Furthermore, the environment must consider this behavior as gifted.
Giftedness is a characteristic that changes over time within an environmental context and is the result of
various interactions between the individual and the environment (Ziegler, 2005).
CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTEDNESS
Are the Gifted More Excitable?
Are gifted children more sensitive to touch and smell? Do they appear more impulsive? Are they more
emotional? Do their imaginations run wild? For a long time, parents and teachers observed certain
personality characteristics that were more noticeable in highly gifted children compared to their peers. The
work of Polish psychiatrist and psychologist Kazimierz
Overexcitabilities are innate characteristics that Dabrowski (1902–1980) provides a useful framework for
reveal a heightened response to stimuli. They are understanding these characteristics. Dabrowski worked in
found more frequently in gifted individuals than Europe with genius and depravity during the pre–World
in the general population. War II years. After observing how highly gifted people
reacted under stress, he developed the notion of
overexcitabilities, as part of his larger Theory of Positive Disintegration. Dabrowski observed that innate
abilities combined with overexcitability predicted an individual’s potential for higher level development. Not
all gifted people have overexcitabilities, he noted, but there are more gifted people with overexcitabilities
than in the general population (Dabrowski, 1964).
Dabrowski’s work was introduced to gifted education by his colleague Michael Piechowski in 1979
(Colangelo & Zaffran, 1979). The notion of overexcitabilities has gained popularity in recent years,
especially among researchers who look at the social and emotional areas of giftedness. Some researchers
also see overexcitabilities as a means for identifying gifted students that is different from the usual
standardized tests.
Overexcitabilities: Overexcitabilities (OE) are innate characteristics that reveal a heightened ability to
respond to stimuli due to increase sensitivity of the neurons. They are expressed through increased
sensitivity, awareness, and intensity, and have an impact on an individual’s quality of experiences. Dabrowski
identified the five areas of intensity: psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional.
A person may possess one or more of these. Here is a brief description of each of the overexcitabilities
(Lind, 2001).
• Psychomotor overexcitability: This is a heightened excitability of the neuromuscular system that

results in movement for its own sake, surplus of energy demonstrated by rapid speech, enthusiasm,
and intense physical activity. When tense, these individuals may talk compulsively, act impulsively,
misbehave, display nervous habits (such as tics, nail-biting), show intense drive, and be highly
competitive. Although they derive joy from their activity, others may find them overwhelming. At home
and at school, these children seem to be constantly on the go and never still. As a result, they have the
potential of being misdiagnosed as having attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
• Sensual overexcitability: This is expressed as a heightened and more expansive experience
of sensual pleasure or displeasure emanating from sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. These
individuals have an early and increased appreciation of aesthetic pleasures such as music, language,
and art. They may also feel overstimulated or uncomfortable with sensory input. When emotionally
tense, some may overeat, go on shopping sprees, or seek the center of attention, while others may
withdraw from stimulation. As children, they may find clothing tags, classroom noise, or cafeteria
smells so distracting that schoolwork becomes secondary. These children may also become deeply
absorbed in a particular piece of art or music to the exclusion of the outside world.
• Intellectual overexcitability: This is demonstrated by a need to seek understanding and truth, to gain
knowledge, and to analyze and synthesize. These individuals have incredibly active minds, are
intensely curious, avid readers, and keen observers. They are able to concentrate, engage in prolonged
intellectual activities, and can be tenacious problem solvers. The enjoy elaborate planning, love
thinking about thinking, and have excellent visual recall. They may focus on moral thinking, which
often translates into strong concerns about moral and ethical issues, such as fairness on the
playground, lack of respect for children, or even being concerned about the homeless, AIDS, or war.
Sometimes, they appear impatient with others who cannot sustain their intellectual pace. They may
be so excited about an idea that they interrupt the class at inappropriate times.
• Imaginational overexcitability: This reflects a heightened imagination with rich association of
images and impressions, frequent use of metaphor, facility for invention and fantasy, and detailed
visualization. These children often mix truth with fiction, and they escape boredom by creating their
own private worlds with imaginary companions and dramatizations. They have difficulty paying
attention in a classroom focused on teaching a rigid academic curriculum. In that case, they may write
stories or draw instead of doing assigned work or participating in class discussions. A novel idea may
send them off on an imaginative tangent and distract them from their classroom tasks.
• Emotional overexcitability: This is often the first OE to be noticed by parents. It is reflected
in intense feelings, extremes of complex emotions, identification with others’ feelings, and strong
affective expression. It may also include physical responses, such as stomachaches, blushing, or
concern with death and depression. These individuals have a remarkable capacity for compassionate
and empathetic relationships and demonstrate strong emotional attachments to people, places, and
things. They are acutely aware of their own feelings, of their own growth and change, and often carry
on inner dialogs and practice self-judgment. Their concern for others, their focus on relationships, and
the intensity of their feelings may interfere with everyday tasks like homework or household chores.
Research Studies on Overexcitabilities: A summary of the results of numerous studies conducted

over the last two decades supported the application of OEs to gifted persons, especially in the imaginational,
intellectual, and emotional OEs (Mendaglio & Tillier, 2006). A recent study of nearly 500 elementary and
middle school students found that the OEs showed greater application to gifted students than their typical
peers. The results also noted that (1) the power of the application was stronger among elementary students
than among middle school students and (2) was stronger in all gifted females than gifted males in every OE
except intellectual (Tieso, 2007). A study in Turkey of more than 700 students found the OE scores of highly
intelligent, motivated, creative, and leader students in some OE areas were significantly greater than those
of their typical peers. No gender differences are found in regard to OEs (Yakmaci-Guzel & Akarsu, 2006).
As of this writing, there have been no studies using brain imaging technologies that looked specifically at
the nature of Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities.
Implications for Schools: Dabrowski’s ideas and subsequent studies can help schools in at least the
following two ways:
• Valid questionnaires based on the five OEs can be useful tools beyond traditional intelligence tests to
identify gifted students. One such questionnaire was developed in 1999 and has shown consistent
validity. The instrument is known as the Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two, or OEQ-II, and is
available at www.gifteddevelopment.net (Falk, Lind, Miller, Piechowski, & Silverman, 1999).
• By describing the nature of the OEs, teachers and parents gain a better understanding of how to work
with highly gifted students who display these OEs. Some strategies are suggested in the Applications
section at the end of this chapter.
For more information on the details of the Dabrowski and his work, visit the following Web site:
www.positivedisintegration.com.
Thinking About Thinking

Some of the research on the characteristics of giftedness has focused on cognition and metacognition.
In these studies, researchers observed how students identified as gifted thought through a given problem or
situation (cognition), and how they reflected on their thinking throughout the problem-solving experience
(metacognition).
Cognitive Strategies: Not surprisingly, the studies on cognitive strategies showed that gifted students
acquired information and solved problems faster, better, or at earlier stages than other students, even in the
primary grades (Cho & Ahn, 2003; Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007). Some studies showed that higher
IQ individuals had more efficient memories, more information-processing strategies, larger and more
elaborately organized knowledge bases, and a better ability to solve mathematical problems by employing
their own symbolic encoding (Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998).
Sternberg has also investigated how different thinking styles in gifted students affect their academic
performance (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997). The study found that there were no differences in thinking
styles among groups of students at different ability levels, and that certain thinking styles contributed
significantly to prediction of academic performance. For example, the style that involved analyzing, grading,
or comparing things had the highest predictive value. Further, this contribution was independent of the type
of instruction the students were given. One other finding of interest was that the gifted students performed
best on assessment procedures that closely matched their thinking style. (This last finding corroborates the
results of decades of earlier research on different types of student learning styles.) Other studies have found
similar results (Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2006; Zhang & Sternberg, 2006).
Metacognitive Strategies: Research studies in metacognition (i.e., thinking about one’s own thinking)
have focused around three aspects:
• What do students know about thinking strategies?

• Can they use the strategies?
• Can they monitor their own cognitive processing?
Compared to other students, the studies showed that gifted students knew more about metacognitive
strategies and could use them more easily in new contexts. The first edition of this book noted that several
studies in the 1990s found that gifted students did not use a greater variety of metacognitive strategies than
other students, nor did they monitor their strategies any more than the other students (Alexander, Carr, &
Schwanenflugel, 1995). However, more recent studies have found that high performing elementary and
secondary school students with strong metacognitive skills were aware of them and knew how to use them
to successfully complete academic tasks (Coutinho, 2008; Steiner, 2006).
Neuroscientists—or more specifically, cognitive neuroscientists—also think about thinking. In recent
years, they have explored what differences in the structure and functions of the gifted brain may allow it to
achieve remarkable levels of performance. These researchers use many tools in their investigations. They
include imaging technologies, such as PET scans and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
as well as electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG). The techniques reveal
similarities and differences in the function of high-performing brains compared with the brains of students
showing no signs of the same kinds of giftedness. One area of particular interest is determining whether
there is any difference in how information flows in gifted brains as compared to typical brains.
The Cerebral Hemispheres

Since the work of Roger Sperry in the 1960s, neuroscientists have accepted the notion that the two
cerebral hemispheres are not mirror images of each other. That is, they differ structurally, biochemically, and
functionally (Sousa, 2006). In most people, for example, the right frontal lobe protrudes over, and is wider
than, the left frontal lobe. The left occipital lobe (at the back of the brain) protrudes over, and is wider than,
the right occipital lobe. The neurotransmitter norepinephrine is more prevalent in the right hemisphere, while
dopamine is more prevalent in the left hemisphere. Estrogen receptors are more prevalent in the right
hemisphere than in the left hemisphere.
As for brain functions, more evidence is accumulating that the brain has a much greater degree of
specialization than was previously thought. Even so, because of advancements in neuroimaging, the earlier
idea that the brain is a set of modular units carrying out specific tasks has yielded to a new model, which
holds that moving across the brain’s surface results in a gradual transition from one cognitive function to
another. Goldberg (2001) refers to this as the “gradiential” view of brain organization. This view does not
discard the notion that particular areas of the brain perform specific functions. Rather, it uses recent evidence
from neurological studies to suggest a pattern of organization whereby the boundaries between the specific
areas are fluid, not fixed. The ability of certain areas of the brain to perform unique functions is known as
lateralization or specialization (Sousa, 2006).
The left hemisphere monitors the areas for speech. It understands the literal interpretation of words, and
recognizes words, letters, and numbers written as words. It is analytical, evaluates factual material in a
rational way, and detects time and sequence. It also performs simple arithmetic computations. Arousing
attention to deal with outside stimuli is another specialty of the left hemisphere. The right hemisphere
gathers information more from images than from words, and looks for patterns. It interprets language
through context—body language, emotional content, and tone of voice—rather than through literal
meanings. It specializes in spatial perception; recognizes places, faces, and objects; and focuses on relational
and mathematical operations, such as geometry and trigonometry (Gazzaniga, Ivry, & Mangun, 2002).
Specialization and Learning: The two hemispheres of the brain communicate with each other through
a tight bundle of about 200 million nerve cells called the corpus callosum. Researchers have been
particularly interested in how the specialized functions of each hemisphere affect new learning, and the
degree to which they communicate with each other during that process. Early theories held that new learning
occurs in the hemisphere mainly responsible for the functions associated with that learning. Thus, the left
hemisphere would be largely involved in spoken language acquisition and sequential procedures, and the
right side would support the learning of visual images and spatial relationships. These theories were based
mainly on the results of tests done with patients who had damage to specific areas of the brain.
More recent research, however, lends credence to an alternative explanation. Goldberg (2001), for
example, proposes that hemispheric specialization may center around the differences between novelty and
routine. Closer examination of brain-damaged patients shows that those with severe right hemisphere
problems experience difficulty in facing new learning situations, but can perform routine, practiced tasks
(e.g., language) normally. Conversely, patients with severe left hemisphere damage can create new drawings
and think abstractly, but have difficulty with routine operations.
Goldberg’s notion gives us a different way of looking at how the brain learns (Figure 1.9). It suggests
that upon encountering a novel situation for which the individual has no coping strategy, the right
hemisphere is primarily involved and attempts to deal with the situation (Chong et al., 2008). With repeated
exposure to similar situations, coping strategies eventually emerge and learning occurs because it results in
a change of behavior. In time, and after sufficient repetition, the responses become routine and shift via the
corpus callosum to the left hemisphere. The amount
of time and the number of situational exposures
needed to accomplish this right-to-left hemisphere
Novelty
transition vary widely from one person to the next.
Right Routine
But it may be that one component of giftedness is the
ability of that person’s brain to make the transition in
Left less time and with fewer exposures than average.
Studies using neuroimaging provide evidence
to support Goldberg’s theory. In one major study,
researchers used PET scans to measure the changes in
brain flow patterns when subjects were asked to learn
various types of information. Changes in blood flow
levels indicate the degree of neural activation. When
the information was novel, regions in the right temporal
lobe were highly activated. After the information
had been presented several times to the subjects, activity
in the right temporal lobe decreased dramatically
(Figure 1.10). In both instances, however, the level of
Figure 1.9 With repeated exposures, novel experiences
become routine, and their main cortical processing areas activation in the left temporal lobe remained constant
shift from the right hemisphere to the left hemisphere. (Martin, Wiggs, & Weisberg, 1997).
Similar results were reported from other studies

One component of giftedness may be the brain’s
involving a variety of learning tasks, such as recognizing
ability to make the transition from novelty to routine
faces and symbols (Cycowisz & Friedman, 2007; Henson, in less time and with fewer exposures than average.
Shallice, & Dolan, 2000; Speer & Curran, 2007), learning
a complex motor skill (Shadmehr & Holcomb, 1997; Vogt NOVEL PRACTICED
et al., 2007), and learning and relearning different systems
of rules (Berns, Cohen, & Mintun, 1997). The same shifts
were detected no matter what type of information was
presented to the subjects. In other words, says Goldberg, the
association of the right hemisphere with novelty and the left
hemisphere with routine appears to be independent of the
nature of the information being learned. L R L R
Figure 1.10 In this representation of PET scans,
the white areas show the changes in regional blood
The Prefrontal Cortex flow for novel and practiced tasks. The images reveal
areas of high activation in the left and right temporal
Cognitive thought and related activities are located in the lobes for novel tasks, but only in the left temporal lobe
foremost part of the frontal lobes, called the prefrontal cortex. for practiced tasks.
This area comprises about 29 percent of the total cortex and is Source: Martin et al., 1997.
interconnected to every distinct functional region (Figure 1.1).
Often called the executive control area, the prefrontal cortex is
embedded in a rich network of neural pathways so that it can Back
Reception
coordinate and integrate the functions of all areas. Like the
Integration
conductor of an orchestra, the prefrontal cortex blends
individual inputs from various regions of the brain into a Interpretation
comprehensive and comprehendible whole. Its interpretations

ultimately define personality, and its decision-making abilities
Front
determine how successfully an individual copes with each day.
To accomplish this task, the prefrontal cortex must
converge the inputs from within an individual with those
from the outside world. The brain’s organization facilitates
this process. As shown in Figure 1.11, sensory signals from
the outside environment pass along the sensory nerves to Figure 1.11 Stimuli from the outside world are
received toward the rear of the brain, integrated in the
the control center—called the thalamus—and are routed to center, and interpreted by the frontal lobes. Gifted
other areas toward the back of the brain (reception). These individuals may be able to do this faster and with
inputs are then directed to specific sites in the parietal and greater accuracy than typical individuals.
temporal lobes, as well as in the limbic areas, for further analysis (integration). Finally, the frontal lobes
combine this input with information from the individual’s memory (interpretation) to determine what
subsequent action, if any, should be taken (Bruguier, Preuschoff, Quartz, & Bossaerts, 2008).
The prefrontal cortex also seems to be strongly interested in task novelty. Several imaging studies show
that when processing new information, cerebral blood flow levels in the frontal lobes reached their highest
levels. But when the subject became familiar with the task,
frontal lobe involvement—as measured by blood flow—
Gifted individuals may be able to carry out the
dropped significantly (Goldberg, 2001; Habib, McIntosh,
reception, integration, and interpretation
Wheeler, & Tulving, 2003). If a somewhat different task
processes with greater speed and accuracy than
was introduced, frontal lobe activation picked up once typical individuals.
again. We noted before that the right hemisphere was more
associated with novelty than the left. These findings infer that the frontal lobes are more closely aligned with
the right hemisphere when dealing with novel learning situations. One can speculate, once again, that gifted
individuals may be able to carry out the reception, integration, and interpretation processes with greater
speed and accuracy than typical individuals.
Decision Making
The prefrontal cortex faces many decisions in the course of a day. Some involve simple concrete
problems, such as the following:
“What is my doctor’s telephone number?”
“How much money is left in my savings account?”
“When is my nephew’s birthday?”
Each question is clear and the situations require searching for a single, indisputable answer. This process
is called veridical decision making, or finding the single, true answer.
I may be faced with other questions as well:
“Am I sick enough to see the doctor or should I wait a few days?”
“Should I use some of my savings to buy stocks or bonds?”
“What gift should I get for my nephew’s birthday?”
These questions are ambiguous and have no
Veridical decision making gets us through the day. intrinsically unique answer. I will choose the answer for
Adaptive decision making gets us through life. a variety of reasons. My decision to see the doctor might
depend on whether my body temperature rises or falls.
Buying stocks or bonds might depend on where I think the stock market may be headed in the next year. In
any event, my brain is engaging in adaptive decision making, that is, I adapt the decision on the basis of
context and my priorities at the moment. At another time and place, my decision might be different.
No one doubts that finely tuned veridical decision-making skills are valuable in certain technical
occupations. But, life in general is fraught with ambiguities, and most critical decisions—personal and
occupational—often require choosing from among equally valid options. Deciding among ambiguities is one
of the most important functions of the prefrontal cortex. Studies show that (1) different parts of the brain are
engaged, depending on the type of decision-making employed (Johnson et al., 2005); (2) individuals with
damage to the prefrontal cortex have difficulty dealing with adaptive decision making, while damage to
other parts of the brain does not seem to affect this process (Goldberg, 2001); and (3) drug addiction affects
adaptive decision making much more than veridical decision making (Verdejo-García, Vilar-López, Pérez-
García, Podell, & Goldberg, 2006).
To be successful, we need to be competent in both types of skills. Veridical decisions help us get through
the day: What time do I need to be at work and when is my first appointment? How much gasoline is in the
car? Who’s picking up the kids after practice? Adaptive decisions, on the other hand, get us through life: Is
this the person I should marry? Is this the right job for me? When should we start a family?
Neural Efficiency: When the frontal lobes gain more experience at making adaptive decisions and solving
complex problems, the neuron pathways responsible for these processes should become more efficient and
thus require less effort. Indeed, this concept—known as neural efficiency—has long been part of most
theoretical models of the gifted brain. The idea is that gifted brains can perform tasks more quickly and
accurately because they contain networks comprising neurons working together in vast arrays and with such
efficiency that they require less cerebral energy than unorganized networks. One way to measure the level
of brain activity is to monitor the pattern of waves produced by the brain’s electrical activity.
Obtaining experimental evidence to support this idea requires using EEG technology to measure the
activity of the brain while it was performing different functions. One study of chess players of various
levels of intelligence and expertise showed that superior and brighter chess players performed better and
with greater neural efficiency than less intelligent and lower expertise players (Grabner, Neubauer, &
Stern, 2006).
EEG and fMRI Studies: When using the EEG to detect brain functioning, two wave patterns are
of particular interest: alpha waves (8–13 cycles per second) and beta waves (14–60 cycles per second).
Neurobiologists theorize that alpha activity is the result of neurons firing together (in synchrony) and
resting together—an indication of neural pathway efficiency. Thus, alpha activity produces high
voltage, rhythmic, and sinusoidal patterns. The higher the amplitude of the alpha wave (called alpha
power), the more efficiently the neurons are firing, resulting in
less mental effort.
Beta waves, on the other hand, result from the activity of neurons
that are doing different things at different times (asynchrony),
producing a low voltage, irregular pattern (Figure 1.12). Beatty (2001)
offers the analogy of a marching band. When the band members are Alpha
marching in synchrony, their footsteps are a loud beat with silence
Voltage
between the steps (alpha waves). But as the band members disperse
after the march, one hears the constant sound of many steps at random Beta
intervals (beta waves).
Norbert Jausovec (2000) used EEG to study the differences in
brain activity during problem solving in about 50 young adults Figure 1.12 Typical activity patterns of
who were separated into four groups based on their intelligence alpha and beta brain wave activity.
(average or high) and creativity (average or high). On the basis of their
scores on various assessment measures, Jausovec placed them into the categories of intelligent, gifted,
creative, and average (Figure 1.13). He then measured their alpha wave activity as they were solving closed
problems (those requiring convergent and logical thinking) and creative problems (those requiring more
adaptive decision making). His findings were threefold:
• Alpha wave activity showed that high IQ individuals (gifted and

intelligent) used less mental effort than the average IQ individuals
(creative and average) when solving closed problems.
High
Creative Gifted
• Alpha wave activity showed that high creative individuals
(creative and gifted) used less mental effort than average
creative individuals (intelligent and average) when engaged in
Creativity
creative problem solving.

Average
• Creative individuals showed more cooperation among brain Average Intelligent

areas than did gifted ones, who showed greater decoupling
(disconnecting from each other) of brain areas when solving
ill-defined problems.
Average High
These results first suggest that when individuals are solving Intelligence
problems in their area of strength, less mental effort is needed so the
Figure 1.13 Jausovec’s system for
alpha power is high, an indication of neural efficiency. Second, the classifying subjects for the EEG study based
results appear to support the concept that creativity and intelligence are on levels of creativity and intelligence.
different abilities that involve different areas of the cortex

Frontal Parietal while solving closed or creative problems. This finding
2
Lobe Lobe
enhances the position of those who urge that creativity be
1
4
considered as a separate measure of giftedness.
3 Jausovec continued his EEG studies and found that
individuals of average to low intelligence expend more
Temporal neural energy—thus, have less neural efficiency—than
Lobe
high intelligence individuals when solving problems
involving working memory (Jausovec & Jausovec, 2004).
Recently, researchers measured brain activity during
creative thinking in two studies employing different
Figure 1.14 Areas 1 and 2 show the brain regions with
high alpha wave activity during the generation of creative technologies, EEG and fMRI. In both studies, participants
ideas to solve a problem, as measured by EEG. Areas 3 worked on tasks that required generating creative ideas. The
and 4 show regions that are highly activated while EEG was used to determine which brain regions produced
performing a task, as measured by fMRI.
synchronized alpha waves when the individual was generating
Source: Fink et al., 2009.
creative ideas to solve a problem, essentially adaptive decision
making. The fMRI was used to identify brain areas that were
Creativity and intelligence are different abilities highly activated when the individual was completing a task, an
that involve different areas of the brain while activity more associated with veridical decision making.
solving problems. The EEG study revealed that the generation of original
ideas was associated with synchronized alpha wave pattern
in the frontal lobe and with a widespread pattern over the parietal regions, as shown in areas 1 and 2 in
Figure 1.14. When solving tasks, the fMRI study revealed strong activation in frontal regions of the left
hemisphere, and task-specific effects in the parietotemporal brain areas, areas 3 and 4 (Fink et al., 2009).
These results further strengthen the notion that the brain recruits different regions when confronted with
veridical and adaptive decision making.
Implications for Schools: Far too frequently, what is taught in schools emphasizes veridical, rather than
adaptive, decision making. Most course work—and the resulting tests—ask students to search for the unique
answers to concrete and unambiguous questions. Some students adapt to this strategy quickly and excel at
veridical decision making. As a result, their test scores are high, and they may even be considered gifted.
However, when faced with ambiguous problems, they often vacillate and become indecisive. Seldom do
schools offer students consistent opportunities to develop adaptive decision-making skills. Instead, these are
acquired individually, through trial and error.
With such emphasis on veridical decision making in schools, one wonders what happens to students who
favor adaptive decision making. Do they get bored easily and act out or become withdrawn? Do they get
frustrated if teachers insist they find only the unique answer? Are there areas in the curriculum where they
can excel with their adaptive skills? Is it possible that those students who prefer adaptive decision making
will seem different from the rest of the class? Is it also possible that a high aptitude in adaptive decision
making is a characteristic of the gifted brain?
Given the appropriate adjustments in curriculum, most students can be taught to improve their adaptive
decision-making skills. This process involves helping students to make connections and to discover relationships
between the new learning and what they already know. One
Is it possible that a high aptitude in adaptive valuable strategy for accomplishing this is the frequent use of
decision making is a characteristic of the gifted elaborative rehearsal. See the Applications section at the end
brain? of this chapter for suggestions on how to use elaborative
rehearsal to enhance adaptive decision-making skills.
SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTEDNESS

Social Characteristics
Despite stories that often circulate in schools about gifted students being loners, surveys indicate that
preadolescent and adolescent gifted students were at least as popular as other students their age, and most
gifted students felt good about themselves and their
relationships with peers. However, highly gifted students Highly gifted adolescents use a variety of coping
had more difficulty with peer relationships and often strategies when interacting with their peers,
developed coping strategies to deal with such circumstances. ranging from denying their giftedness to
Several researchers have found that the most frequent helping others.
coping strategies used by highly gifted students were hiding
their giftedness, denying their giftedness, conforming to peer expectations, valuing peer acceptance,
minimizing the importance of popularity, using humor, and helping others (Rudasill, Foust, & Callahan,
2007; Swiatek, 1995, 2001).
The research studies revealed gender and age differences in selecting the coping strategies as shown in
Table 1.1. Males tended to use humor to laugh off perceptions of their giftedness while females were more
likely to use prosocial behavior in the form of helping others. Males were also more apt to minimize the
importance of popularity while females preferred to deny their giftedness in order to fit into their preferred
social circles. As for age differences, younger students tended to use conformity as a major coping strategy
while older students were more apt to minimize popularity or deny and hide their giftedness. It should be
noted that the gender and age differences found in these studies were not large, so caution should be used in
interpreting the results. Nonetheless, one implication from these findings is that females seem to be using
coping strategies to hide their aptitude rather than embracing it (Foust & Booker, 2007).
Some studies have also found a significant relationship between gifted students’ self-concept and the
coping strategies they chose. Those students who used positive strategies, such as helping others, also tended
to have a higher self-concept. Conversely, gifted students who opted for more negative strategies, such as
denying giftedness, had a lower self-concept. In other words, those students who have a more positive view
of themselves select more positive coping strategies. This finding has implications for those who work with
highly gifted students. There is research evidence that educators can change gifted students’ views of
Table 1.1 Gender and Age Differences in Selecting Social Coping Strategies
Males Females
Using humor Helping others
Gender Minimizing the importance of popularity Denying giftedness
Valuing peer acceptance
Conformity
Younger Older
Conformity Helping others

Age Minimizing the importance of popularity Minimizing the importance of popularity
Denying giftedness
Hiding giftedness
Source: Foust & Booker, 2007.

themselves (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2004). This suggests that by improving gifted students’ self-concepts, we
may be able to help them select those coping strategies that enhance their academic achievement and
contribute to a positive social adjustment.
Emotional Characteristics
Earlier in this chapter we discussed the notion of overexcitabilities in gifted children. One of these is
emotional overexcitability, which is more evident in younger children. Apart from this characteristic, numerous
studies in recent years on the emotional, personality, and motivational characteristics of gifted students have
yielded similar results. In general, the studies showed that, when compared to average students, gifted students
• Were at least as well or somewhat better adjusted

• Possessed more personality traits considered to be favorable
• Displayed personality traits similar to older students
• Had lower levels of anxiety about school
• Scored higher on measures of self-concept
• Displayed higher levels of intrinsic motivation and autonomy, especially for reading, thinking, and
solitude
Some gender and age differences have been noted. For example, gifted high school girls had
significantly less self-confidence, more perfectionism, and more discouragement than younger gifted girls.
Gifted high school boys, however, felt less discouragement than younger boys, and there were no age
differences in self-confidence and perfectionism. High school girls scored higher on discouragement than
high school boys (Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams, 2008; Robinson and Clinkenbeard, 1998).
Although the studies present a useful profile, it is important to remember that some groups of gifted
students will look quite different. For example, gifted students who are underachievers, and those whose
talents are very far from the norm, are more likely to have difficulty fitting in socially and emotionally with
their peers (see Chapter 7).
Asynchronous Development: One of the more puzzling observations with gifted children is how they
can talk and act like an adult in one instance, and a few minutes later, throw a screaming fit because it is
time to go to bed. This phenomenon may very well be due to asynchronous development. In typical children,
intellectual, physical, and emotional development progresses at about the same rate. We can describe this
development as synchronized. An average three-year-old has the intellectual and physical abilities as well as
the emotional maturity of most other three-year-olds. However, in gifted children, the development of those
areas is often not synchronized (or asynchronous) in that they do not progress at the same rate. For example,
the developmental profile of three different gifted three-year-old children could look like this:
Child A Child B Child C

Intellectual ability: Age 6 Intellectual ability: Age 7 Intellectual ability: Age 6
Physical ability: Age 3 Physical ability: Age 3 Physical ability: Age 4
Emotional maturity: Age 2 Emotional maturity: Age 4 Emotional maturity: Age 3
Any other combination of the three developmental areas is possible, although intellectual ability is
always advanced. The higher a child’s IQ, the more asynchronous the development is likely to be. The
advanced intellectual development of gifted children can lead teachers and parents to also expect more
advanced behavior from these children. A six-year-old who can discuss global warming like a 10-year-old
is often also expected to behave like a 10-year-old. When the child acts like a six-year-old instead, adults see
that as immature behavior. Gifted children who are years ahead of their same-age peers are not always years
ahead emotionally or socially. Advanced intellectual ability simply does not enable a gifted child to manage
emotions any better than any other child.
As these children develop into adolescents, the asynchrony of the developmental areas may increase in
some and diminish in others. An increase in asynchrony may produce difficulties, especially if emotional
development lags while intellectual development leaps ahead. This imbalance could cause the adolescent to
get anxious, frustrated, upset, overly sensitive, and self-critical (Alsop, 2003). These emotional needs should
be addressed by parents, teachers, and counselors so that these gifted students can understand and deal with
their developmental stages.
IMPACT OF PRAISE ON GIFTED STUDENTS

Gifted children should be commended for their good grades and high test scores. With restrained praise,
gifted students are likely to attribute failure in a task to lack of effort rather than lack of ability (Assouline,
Colangelo, Ihrig, & Forstadt, 2006). However, research seems to indicate that excessively complimenting
children for their intelligence and academic performance may lead them to believe that good test scores and
high grades are more important than learning and mastering something new (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Six
studies of 412 fifth-graders compared the goals and achievement behaviors of children praised for
intelligence with those praised for effort and hard work under conditions of failure as well as success.
Through their studies, the psychologists demonstrated that commending children for their intelligence after
good performance might backfire by making them highly performance-oriented and thus extremely
vulnerable to the effects of subsequent setbacks. In contrast, children who are commended for their effort
concentrate on learning goals and strategies for achievement.
The researchers also observed that children who were commended for their ability when they were
successful learned to believe that intelligence is a fixed trait that cannot be developed or improved. The
children who were explicitly commended after their successes were the ones who blamed poor performances
on their own lack of intelligence. They had a fixed mind-set
about their abilities. However, when children praised for
Studies show that children who are praised for
their hard work performed poorly, they blamed their lack of
their intelligence learn to value performance,
success on poor effort and demonstrated a clear deter- while children praised for their effort and hard
mination to learn strategies that would enhance subsequent work value opportunities to learn.
performances. They had a growth mind-set. Similar studies
have demonstrated that children who are praised for their
intelligence learn to value performance, while children praised for their effort and hard work value learning
opportunities. Virtually all of the findings were similar not only for boys and girls but also among children
from several different ethnic groups in rural and urban communities.
One important study monitored 373 students for two years during their transition to junior high school
(Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). At the beginning of seventh grade, the students were asked
whether they agreed or disagreed with a statement that said their intelligence is something very basic and
cannot be really changed. Students with a growth mind-set believed that the more hard work you put into
something, the better you became at it. Fixed mind-set students, however, were concerned about looking
smart, and believed that hard work at something was a sign of low ability. These different mind-sets had an
impact on academic performance. At the start of the seventh grade, the mathematics scores for both mind-
set groups were similar. But as the work became more difficult, the growth mind-set students showed greater
persistence and the gap in the mathematics grades over two years continued to widen, as shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Mathematics Grades of Growth and Fixed Mind-Sets
Fall 7th Grade Spring 7th Grade Fall 8th Grade Spring 8th Grade
Growth mind-set 73.0 74.0 74.9 75.8
Fixed mind-set 71.1 71.0 70.8 70.7
Source: Blackwell et al. (2007).
These findings may also explain why bright young girls who do well in grade school often perform
poorly in upper grades. In their desire to bolster young girls’ confidence in their abilities, educators have
praised them for their intelligence, which, these studies have shown, could have an undesired impact on their
subsequent motivation and performance.
Labeling children as gifted or talented too soon may also have a negative impact on them. Such labeling
may cause the children to become overly concerned with justifying that label and less concerned with
meeting challenges that enhance their learning and mastery skills. They may begin to believe that academic
setbacks indicate that they do not deserve to be labeled as gifted. Gifted and talented programs should
emphasize how to meet challenges, apply effort, and search for new learning strategies. Furthermore, when
students succeed, attention and approval should be directed at their effort and hard work rather than for the
final product or their ability. In summary, researchers in this area stress that praise may undermine, enhance,
or have no effect on children’s intrinsic motivation. Praise is particularly motivating when it encourages solid
performance, promotes autonomy, enhances competence without an over-reliance on “innate intelligence,”
and conveys standards and expectations that are attainable (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002).
APPLICATIONS
USING SUCCESSFUL INTELLIGENCE IN THE CLASSROOM
Teaching for successful intelligence is a method for helping students learn in a way that matches their
patterns of ability. Based on Robert Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, the approach involves
teaching in a way that balances learning for analytical, creative, and practical thinking. These methods help
all students, including the gifted, reach their full potential. Here are some examples across the school
curriculum suggested by Sternberg and Grigorenko (2004).
Teaching analytically: analyze, critique, judge, compare/contrast, evaluate, assess
• Analyze the development of the character of Fagan in Oliver Twist. (Literature)

• Critique the design of the experiment (just reviewed in class) showing that certain minerals improve
plant growth while others do not. (Biology)
• Judge the artistic merits of Andy Warhol’s op-art, discussing its strengths and weaknesses as fine art.
(Art)
• Compare and contrast the American Revolution to the French Revolution, showing ways in which
they were similar and different. (History)
• Evaluate the validity of the following solution to a mathematical problem, and discuss weaknesses in
the solution, if there are any. (Mathematics)
• Assess the strategy used by the winning player in the tennis match you just watched, focusing on the
techniques that were used to defeat the opponent. (Physical Education)
Teaching creatively: create, invent, discover, imagine if, suppose that, predict
• Create an alternative ending to Romeo and Juliet that shows a different way that things might have
turned out for the main characters. (Literature)
• Invent a dialogue between an American tourist in Madrid and a Spanish police officer he encounters
on the street from whom he is asking directions on how to get to the Prado museum. (Spanish)
• Discover the underlying principle that determines whether solutions will be acidic, basic, or neutral.
(Chemistry)
• Imagine if the population of India continues to increase at its current rate over the next 15 years. What
demands would that increase make on India’s government? (Political Science)
• Suppose that you were to design a new musical instrument for a symphony orchestra. What would it
look like and why? (Music)
• Predict changes that are likely to occur in the vocabulary and grammar of spoken French in the areas
near the U.S.-Quebec Province border over the next 50 years as a result of continuous interaction
between English and French speakers. (Languages/Linguistics)
Teach practically: apply, use, put into practice, implement, employ, render practical
• Apply the formula for computing compound interest to a problem that people are likely to face when
planning for retirement. (Economics, Mathematics)
• Use your knowledge of Chinese to greet a new acquaintance in Beijing. (Chinese)

• Put into practice what you have learned about teamwork in basketball to make a classroom team
project succeed. (Physical Education, Athletics)
• Implement a business plan you have written in a simulated business environment. (Business)
• Employ Ohm’s Law to determine the voltage in this circuit. (Physics)
• Render practical the proposed design for a new building that is aesthetically inconsistent with the
surrounding buildings, all of which are at least 100 years old. (Architecture)
It is not necessary to teach each curriculum topic in the three ways. Rather, the teacher alternates
teaching styles so that the variety of student learning styles are addressed.
From a Teacher's Desk: An Elementary Example

Ways for Students to Demonstrate Various Intelligences:
Analytically
• Allow students self-assessment opportunities with expectations from a rubric or criteria chart to practice
evaluation based on various modes of criteria. See next page for an example of a rubric.
Creatively
• Challenge students to predict the effects of an experiment, the solution in a story, or the consecutive trends
of the economy. To add a component of creative thinking, prompt students to list many, varied outcomes
and possibilities. Examples of specific prompts:
“What many, varied, and unusual changes, or transformations, can you think of that might occur in the
character throughout the story? Prove why some are purposeful and lead to another. Make a written list of
your ideas.”
“What are other many, varied, and unusual examples of weather patterns that could follow this natural
disaster? Make a written list of your ideas.”
Practically
• Teach students to apply a learned skill or concept to a new content area or topic to enhance depth and
promote transfer. For instance, after practicing how to change fractions to decimals, such as ¼ = 0.25, apply
the skill to money for real-world application by relating the word form to the pictorial and decimal forms:
1/4 = one quarter of a dollar = $0.25 =

Name: ___________________________ Topic: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________
Independent Study Project/Presentation Rubric
4 3 2 1
Knowledge Conveys insightful Shares basic facts and Lacks clarity Unfinished or does not
information that helps information include meaningful
others learn information
Accuracy The information is Some information is No references are There is evidence of

cited from reliable questionable or not cited plagiarism - copying
sources clearly cited others’ words & ideas
Creativity Display/ presentation Display/ presentation Display/ Display/ presentation

demonstrates great demonstrates some presentation does not demonstrate
unique thought and imaginative thought demonstrates little any thought and/or
effort and effort thought and/or effort
effort
Communication Terms and facts are Some terms and facts Few terms and facts Little or no terms and
defined, exemplified, are defined, are defined, facts are defined,
and explained exemplified, and exemplified, and exemplified, or
adequately so that explained so that explained explained
audience understands audience understands
My overall score: _______

APPLICATIONS
SOME STRATEGIES FOR WORKING
WITH STUDENTS WHO EXHIBIT OVEREXCITABILITIES
It is often quite difficult and demanding to work and live with overexcitable individuals. Their behaviors may
seem unexplainable, frequently incomprehensible, and often bizarre. Here are some strategies suggested
by Lind (2001) that may help teachers and parents who work and live with students who demonstrate
overexcitabilities. The first set are general strategies that are applicable regardless of which OEs are present.
General Strategies
• Discuss the concept of overexcitability. Share the descriptions of OEs with the family, class, or
counseling group, as appropriate. Ask individuals if they see themselves with some of the
characteristics. Point out that being overexcitable is understood and accepted.
• Focus on the positives. Discuss the positives of each OE when you first introduce the concept, and
continue to point out these merits. Benefits include being energetic, enthusiastic, sensual, aesthetic,
curious, loyal, tenacious, moral, metacognitive, creative, metaphorical, dramatic, poetic,
compassionate, empathetic, and self-aware.
• Cherish and celebrate diversity. To some degree, the pursuit of educational and societal equity has
diminished the celebration of diversity and individual differences. Highly gifted individuals, because
of their uniqueness, may succumb to the public belief that they are not OK. When discussing OEs, it
is essential that individuals realize that overexcitability is just one more description of who they are,
such as being tall, or Asian, or left-handed. Since OEs are inborn traits, they cannot be unlearned.
Therefore, we must accept our overexcitable selves, children, and friends. This acceptance provides
validation and helps to free people from feelings of strangeness and isolation.
• Use and teach clear verbal and nonverbal communication skills. All people need to be listened to
and responded to with respect. Overexcitable people need understanding and patience to a greater
degree because they are experiencing the world with greater intensity and need to be able to share
their intensity and feelings to thrive. Good communication skills are useful on several levels, from
improving the chances of getting what you want, to nurturing and facilitating growth in others. The
outcomes will include less stress, greater self-acceptance, greater understanding from and about
others, and less daily friction at home, school, work, or anywhere else.
When teaching communication skills, be sure to include verbal-listening, responding,
questioning, telephoning, and problem solving. Nonverbal skills should include the use of time,
interpersonal distance and touch, gestures and postures, facial expressions, tone of voice, and style of
dress. Verbal and nonverbal strategies improve interpersonal communication and provide the skills
individuals need to fit in when they wish to, to change the system if necessary, and to treat others with
caring and respect.
• Teach stress management as early as possible. Everyone deals regularly with stress. But
overexcitable individuals have increased stress reactions because of their increased sensitivity and
reaction to external input. It is important to (1) learn to identify your stress symptoms: headache,
backache, pencil tapping, pacing, etc.; (2) develop strategies for coping with stress: talk about your
feelings, do relaxation exercises, change your diet, exercise, meditate, ask for help, develop
organizational and time management skills; and (3) develop strategies to prevent stress: make time for
fun, practice tolerance of your own and others’ imperfections, and develop a group of people who will
help, advise, and humor you.
• Create a comforting environment whenever possible. Intense people need to know how to make
their environment more comfortable in order to create places for retreat or safety. For example, they
need to find places where they can work or think without distraction, listen to music, look at a lovely
picture, carry a comforting item, move while working, or wear clothing that does not scratch or cling.
Learning to select one’s environment to meet one’s needs takes experimentation and cooperation from
others, but the outcome will be a greater sense of well being and improved productivity.
• Help to raise awareness of one’s behaviors and their impact on others. Overexcitable people are
often insensitive and unaware of how their behaviors affect others. They may assume that everyone will
just understand why they interrupt to share an important idea, or tune out when creating a short story in
their head during dinner. It is important to teach children and adults to be responsible for their behaviors,
to become more aware of how their behaviors affect others, and to understand that their needs are not
more important than those of others. The key is to realize that you can show children and adults how
they are perceived, you can teach them strategies to fit in, but they must choose to change.
• Remember the joy. When people discuss overexcitability, the examples and concerns are often
mostly negative. Remember that being overexcitable also brings with it great joy, astonishment,
beauty, compassion, and creativity. Perhaps the most important thing is to acknowledge and relish the
uniqueness of an overexcitable child or adult.
Here are some strategies that are targeted to each overexcitability.
Psychomotor Strategies
• Allow enough time for physical or verbal activity, before, during, and after normal daily and school
activities. These individuals love and need to be in motion. Build activity and movement into their
daily routines.
• Ensure that the physical or verbal activities are acceptable and not distracting to those around them.
This may take some planning, but the project should be fun and beneficial to all.
• Provide time for spontaneity and open-ended activities.
Sensual Strategies
• Whenever possible, create an environment that limits offensive stimuli (for example, loud noises,
strong odors, or visual overload) and provides comfort.
• Provide appropriate opportunities for being noticed by giving unexpected attention, or facilita-
ting creative and dramatic productions that have an audience. These individuals literally feel the
recognition that comes from being the center of attention.
• Provide time for them to dwell in the delight of the sensual and to create a soothing environment.
Intellectual Strategies
• Show how to find the answers to questions. This respects and encourages the individual’s desire to
analyze, synthesize, and seek understanding.
• Provide or suggest ways for those interested in moral and ethical issues to act upon their concerns,
such as collecting blankets for the homeless or writing to soldiers in Iraq. This enables them to feel
that they can contribute, in even a small way, to solving community or worldwide problems.
• If individuals are critical or too outspoken to others, help them to see how their intent may be
perceived as cruel or disrespectful. For example, saying “that is a dumb idea” may not be well
received, even if the idea is truly dumb.
Imaginational Strategies
• Imaginational people may confuse reality and fiction because their memories and new ideas become
blended in their mind. Help individuals to differentiate between their imagination and the real world
by asking them to write down or draw the factual account before they embellish it.
• Help people use their imagination to function in the real world and promote learning and productivity.
For example, instead of the conventional school organized notebook, ask the students to create their
own system for organizing their work.
Emotional Strategies
• Accept all feelings, regardless of intensity. For people who are not highly emotional, this may seem
particularly unusual. They may feel that those high in Emotional OE are just being melodramatic or
seeking attention. But if we accept their emotional intensity as an innate trait and help them work
through any problems that might result, we will facilitate their healthy growth and adjustment.
• Teach individuals to anticipate physical and emotional responses and to prepare for them.
Emotionally intense people often are not aware when they are becoming so overwrought that they may
lose control or may have physical responses to their emotions. Help them to identify the physical
warning signs of their emotional stress such as a headache, sweaty palms, or stomachache. By
knowing the warning signs and acting on them early, individuals will be better able to cope with
emotional situations and not lose control.
From a Teacher's Desk: An Elementary Example

I had the challenging pleasure of two “twice exceptional” students in my class one year who evidenced several
different kinds of overexcitability. Although they were both autistic and gifted, they were very different in their
mannerisms. One student, Nathan, demonstrated sensual and imaginational overexcitability, while the other,
Jamie, possessed psychomotor and intellectual overexcitability characteristics. Their varied intensities promised
and delivered a year without a boring day!
In order to give the students an opportunity to evidence special abilities, one day I had the class play a
PowerPoint Jeopardy game to review parts of speech. Jamie declared, “This is the best day ever!” Everyone
wanted to be on his team because I set the scene with the facts that he regularly viewed the television show and
had an excellent memory. He was quivering with enthusiasm at the prospect and desired to present the
introductory part of the “show,” which he recited verbatim. His team did end up earning the most points and
more importantly, he had the chance to be a social leader and demonstrate his intellect at the same time.
Some students are simply dissonant with the routines and rules of standard school structure. As Nathan
resisted compliancy and preferred to be in his imaginative world, drawing all day, I struggled to challenge him.
Creative humor and exaggeration would get his attention and connect with him on a personal level, but
wouldn’t always produce results. Our “aha!” breakthrough moment was when I utilized independent study
through technology. The Web site I found merged his interests and my expectations—he could research and
explore his fascinations while also meeting standards. That day he changed from the stubborn underachiever
who would hardly complete a sentence to a scholar that needed multiple pages to write down all of his ideas.
That year taught me some valuable ways to deal with overexcitability:
• Meet exaggeration with exaggeration

• Find humor in each intense situation
• Allow opportunity for intensities to be shown (get excited with and for them)
• Use specific phrases as the teacher and demonstrate for other students (e.g., “When you interrupt like
that, it hurts my feelings because I feel disrespected and I lose my train of thought . . .” or “When you
tap like that it distracts me and I can’t concentrate” and “You see that child crying, with tears running
down the face? That means they are sad and they need my help first-thing.”
• Patience, patience, patience
Overexcited students can be exhausting one day and revitalizing another day. Basically, if you give them
attention and patience, they will repay you with positive reinforcement and revelations.
APPLICATIONS
IMPROVING ADAPTIVE DECISION MAKING
THROUGH ELABORATIVE REHEARSAL
Rehearsal refers to the learner’s reprocessing of new information in an attempt to determine sense and
meaning. It occurs in two forms. Some information items have value only if they are remembered exactly as
presented, such as the letters and sequence of the alphabet, spelling, poetry, telephone numbers, notes and
lyrics of a song, and the multiplication tables. This is called rote rehearsal. Sense and meaning are
established quickly, and the likelihood of long-term retention is high. Most of us can recall poems, songs,
and telephone numbers that we learned many years ago.
More complex concepts require the learner to make connections and to form associations and other
relationships in order to establish sense and meaning. Thus, the information will need to be reprocessed
several times as new links are found. This is called elaborative rehearsal. The more senses that are used in
this elaborative rehearsal, the more reliable the associations. Thus, when visual, auditory, and kinesthetic
activities assist the learner during rehearsal, the probability of long-term storage rises dramatically. That is
why it is important for students to talk about what they are learning while they are learning it, and to have
visual models as well.
Elaborative rehearsal can also develop adaptive decision-making skills because students will have more
opportunities to make new connections and to see relationships that would otherwise not be possible through
rote rehearsal.
Rehearsal is teacher-initiated and teacher-directed. Much of what students practice in schools is rote
rehearsal, which is essentially veridical decision making. Recognizing the value of elaborative rehearsal as
a necessary ingredient for retention of learning, teachers should consider the following strategies when
designing and presenting their lessons:
Elaborative Rehearsal Strategies

• Paraphrasing. Students orally restate ideas in their own words, which then become familiar cues for
later storage. Using the auditory modality helps the learner attach sense, making retention more likely.
For example:
After studying about the Declaration of Independence one could say: “This was a document that
listed the many reasons why the American colonies should no longer recognize the British king
as their ruler, and why they should become self-governing states.”
• Selecting and Note Taking. Students review texts, illustrations, and lectures, deciding which portions
are critical and important. They make these decisions on the basis of criteria from the teacher, authors,
or other students. Students then paraphrase the idea and write it into their notes. Adding the
kinesthetic exercise of writing furthers retention.
• Predicting. After studying a section of content, the students predict the material to follow or what
questions the teacher might ask about that content. Prediction keeps students focused on the new
content, adds interest, and helps them apply prior learnings to new situations, thus aiding retention.
Some examples:
Having read to a certain point in a fable, predict its moral.
Predict how the earth’s continued growth in population may affect the future.
Having read the first three acts of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, predict a believable ending to
the story based on what you already know.
• Questioning. After studying content, students generate questions about the content. To be effective,
the questions should range from lower-level thinking of recall, comprehension, and application to
higher-level thinking of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. When designing questions of varying
complexity, students engage in deeper cognitive processing, clarify concepts, predict meaning and
associations, and examine options—all contributors to retention and to improving adaptive decision-
making skills. Some examples:
What would be another way to solve this arithmetic problem?
What are some things I was wondering about when this was happening in the story?
How might the USA be different today if the Confederate states had won the Civil War?
What are the arguments for and against genetic engineering? Which side would you support and
why?
• Summarizing. Students reflect on and summarize in their heads the important material or skills
learned in the lesson. They can then share their summary with a partner or with the class. This is often
the last and critical stage, in which students can attach sense and meaning to the new learning and
thereby increase the likelihood that they will remember it. Here is a useful format to consider:
What did I learn today about . . .?
What did I already know that ties in to what I learned today?
How can what I learned today help me in the future?

What Is A Gifted Brain?: Understanding Intelligence Have We Found The Genes For Intelligence?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is A Gifted Brain?: Understanding Intelligence Have We Found The Genes For Intelligence?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is A Gifted Brain?: Understanding Intelligence Have We Found The Genes For Intelligence?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1

What Is a Gifted Brain?

Is Brain Structure Related to Intelligence?

Shaw et al.’s (2006) attention was focused

before thinning. But in the same-age group Age in Years

of average intelligence, the cortex started out Superior High Average

Where in the Brain Is Intelligence Located?

THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE AND GIFTEDNESS

Limited Value of IQ Tests

Renzulli’s Definition of Giftedness

• General abilities (processing information, integrating experiences, and abstract thinking) or

Brain Research Support for Renzulli’s Model:

• Potential isolation by brain damage

Using Multiple Intelligences Theory With the Gifted

The Pentagonal Implicit Theory of Giftedness: Ten years Excellence

• Excellence. The individual is superior in some dimension or set

Gagné’s View of Giftedness and Talent

GIFTEDNESS = top 10% INTRAPERSONAL

Other Theoretical Models

• Environmental conditions (moderators of giftedness): family learning environment, family

• Psychomotor overexcitability: This is a heightened excitability of the neuromuscular system that

Research Studies on Overexcitabilities: A summary of the results of numerous studies conducted

Thinking About Thinking

• What do students know about thinking strategies?

The Cerebral Hemispheres

Similar results were reported from other studies

comprehensive and comprehendible whole. Its interpretations

• Alpha wave activity showed that high IQ individuals (gifted and

creative problem solving.

• Creative individuals showed more cooperation among brain Average Intelligent

different abilities that involve different areas of the cortex

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTEDNESS

Conformity Helping others

Source: Foust & Booker, 2007.

• Were at least as well or somewhat better adjusted

Child A Child B Child C

IMPACT OF PRAISE ON GIFTED STUDENTS

Table 1.2 Mathematics Grades of Growth and Fixed Mind-Sets

Growth mind-set 73.0 74.0 74.9 75.8

Fixed mind-set 71.1 71.0 70.8 70.7

Source: Blackwell et al. (2007).

Teaching analytically: analyze, critique, judge, compare/contrast, evaluate, assess

• Analyze the development of the character of Fagan in Oliver Twist. (Literature)

• Use your knowledge of Chinese to greet a new acquaintance in Beijing. (Chinese)

From a Teacher's Desk: An Elementary Example

1/4 = one quarter of a dollar = $0.25 =

Name: ___________________________ Topic: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________

Independent Study Project/Presentation Rubric

Accuracy The information is Some information is No references are There is evidence of

Creativity Display/ presentation Display/ presentation Display/ Display/ presentation

My overall score: _______

Here are some strategies that are targeted to each overexcitability.

From a Teacher's Desk: An Elementary Example

• Meet exaggeration with exaggeration

Elaborative Rehearsal Strategies

You might also like

Name: _ Topic: _______ Date: