RESEARCH PAPER
Creative attitude in a group of youths gifted in the domain of science subjects
1
Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
Submission date: 2016-03-11
Final revision date: 2016-03-24
Acceptance date: 2016-03-30
Online publication date: 2016-05-05
Publication date: 2016-06-30
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2016;4(2):97-105
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background
We attempted to assess whether students identified by their teachers as gifted in the domain of science are characterised by significantly higher levels of intelligence and creativity than other students. We investigated the features of their personalities that are indicators of their exhibited creative or reproductive attitude in the cognitive and the motivational domains. As a consequence, criteria will be developed for identifying gifted students.
Participants and procedure
Ninety-seven students, aged 13-17, took part in the study. The students were previously identified by their teachers as gifted. Levels of intellectual functioning were assessed using a battery of tests for diagnosing intelligence (APIS-P) and Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM). Creativity was estimated using the Test for Creative Thinking – Drawing Production (TCT-DP), and creative attitude was assessed using the KANH questionnaire.
Results
Analysis of the results revealed that students nominated by their teachers scored significantly higher than their peers in general intelligence and creativity tests. Moreover, they were characterised by a more frequent choice of heuristic behaviours in the cognitive domain and nonconformity in the motivational domain. Additionally, there was a statistical trend a general creative attitude among the nominated students.
Conclusions
We found that gifted students scored high on general intelligence and creativity tests. Consistency between the teachers’ nominations and our results indicates that the criteria for identifying gifted students are appropriate. Moreover, instructing teachers about a creative attitude helped them to also identify gifted students with higher levels of nonconformity and who create their own heuristics for behaviour. These characteristics are valuable for innovative activity, which is what programmes for gifted students try to encourage.
We attempted to assess whether students identified by their teachers as gifted in the domain of science are characterised by significantly higher levels of intelligence and creativity than other students. We investigated the features of their personalities that are indicators of their exhibited creative or reproductive attitude in the cognitive and the motivational domains. As a consequence, criteria will be developed for identifying gifted students.
Participants and procedure
Ninety-seven students, aged 13-17, took part in the study. The students were previously identified by their teachers as gifted. Levels of intellectual functioning were assessed using a battery of tests for diagnosing intelligence (APIS-P) and Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM). Creativity was estimated using the Test for Creative Thinking – Drawing Production (TCT-DP), and creative attitude was assessed using the KANH questionnaire.
Results
Analysis of the results revealed that students nominated by their teachers scored significantly higher than their peers in general intelligence and creativity tests. Moreover, they were characterised by a more frequent choice of heuristic behaviours in the cognitive domain and nonconformity in the motivational domain. Additionally, there was a statistical trend a general creative attitude among the nominated students.
Conclusions
We found that gifted students scored high on general intelligence and creativity tests. Consistency between the teachers’ nominations and our results indicates that the criteria for identifying gifted students are appropriate. Moreover, instructing teachers about a creative attitude helped them to also identify gifted students with higher levels of nonconformity and who create their own heuristics for behaviour. These characteristics are valuable for innovative activity, which is what programmes for gifted students try to encourage.
REFERENCES (74)
2.
Bernacka, R. E., & Misiuda-Kolejko, E. (2008). Uczniowie zdolni nonkonformistyczni i konformistyczni a ich obraz siebie [Conforming and nonconforming gifted students and their self-image]. In W. Limont, J. Cieślikowska, & J. Dreszer (eds.), Zdolności. Talent. Twórczość [Giftedness. Talent. Creativity] (pp. 163–177). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK.
3.
Bernacka, R. E. (2008). Konformizm i nonkonformizm jako osobowościowy mechanizm asekurujący osiągnięcia ucznia uzdolnionego [Conformism and nonconformism as personality mechanisms safeguarding the achievements of a gifted student]. In J. Łaszczyk & M. Jabłonkowska (eds.), Uczeń zdolny wyzwaniem dla współczesnej edukacji [The gifted student as a challenge for present-day education] (pp. 15–22). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalnej.
4.
Bicknell, B. (2009). Who are the Mathematically Gifted? Student, Parent and Teacher Perspectives. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 13, 63–73.
5.
Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2013). Status of middle school gifted programs. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved from: http://www.nagc.org/resources-... resources-university- professionals.
6.
Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. N. (2005). Model-Eliciting Activities as a Tool to Develop and Identify Creatively Gifted Mathematicians. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 37–47.
7.
Cieślikowska, J. (2008). Miejsce nauczyciela w systemie edukacji uczniów zdolnych – na podstawie koncepcji i praktycznych rozwiązań Josepha Renzulliego [The place of the teacher in the system of education of gifted students – based on the conceptions and practical solutions of Joseph Renzuelli]. In W. Limont, J. Cieślikowska, & J. Dreszer (eds.), Zdolności. Talent. Twórczość [Giftedness. Talent. Creativity] (pp. 27–38). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK.
8.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Przepływ. Jak poprawić sobie jakość życia. Psychologia optymalnego do-.
9.
świadczenia [Flow. How to increase your quality of life. The psychology of optimal experience]. Warszawa: Studio EMKA.
10.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter (pp. 32–33). Malibu, CA: Getty Publications.
13.
kształcących [Exceptionally intelligent secondary school students with inadequate academic achievements]. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 5, 227–246.
14.
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Inteligence, 35, 13–21.
15.
Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2000). Characteristics of young gifted children. Educating Young Children, 6, 41–42.
16.
Dyrda, B. (2000). Syndrom Nieadekwatnych Osiągnięć jako niepowodzenie szkolne uczniów zdolnych. Diagnoza i terapia [Inadequate Achievements Syndrome as school failure of gifted students. Diagnosis and therapy]. Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
17.
Foryś, M. (2014). Metody diagnozowania uczniów [Methods of diagnosing students]. In M. Czarnocka, M. Foryś, & K. Truś (eds.). Rozpoznać, wspierać, rozwijać [Recognise, support, develop] (pp. 8–14). Warszawa: ORE.
18.
Freeman, J. (2010). Gifted Lives. What happenes when gifted children grow up. London: Routledge.
19.
Freiman, V. (2006). Problems to discover and to boost mathematical talent in early grades: a challenging situations approach. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 3, 51–75.
20.
Gajda, A. (2015). Osiągnięcia szkolne i kreatywność – w poszukiwaniu przyczyn zróżnicowania relacji [School achievements and creativity – in search of the causes of the variability in this relationship]. Teraźniejszość – Człowiek – Edukacja, 18, 55–78.
21.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basics Books.
22.
Gardner, H. (2002). Inteligencje wielorakie. Teoria w praktyce [Multiple intelligences. A theory in practice]. Poznań: Media Rodzina.
23.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects. The Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New York: Plenum Press.
24.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Cook, C. R., & Morris, P. E. (2005). Educational characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 172–186.
25.
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Threshold hypothesis: Fact or Artifact? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 25–33.
26.
Guilford, J. P. (1978). Natura inteligencji człowieka [The nature of human intelligence]. Warszawa: PWN.
27.
Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. Pfeiffer (ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 71–91). New York, NY: Plenum.
28.
Ledzińska, M. (2010). Przeszkody w rozwoju zdolności – refleksja psychologa [Barriers to the development of talents – a psychologist’s reflection]. In W. Limont, J. Dreszer, & J. Cieślikowska (eds.), Osobowościowe i środowiskowe uwarunkowania rozwoju ucznia zdolnego [Personality and the environmental conditions of a gifted student’s development] (pp. 51–66). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK.
29.
Lewis, G. (1998). Jak wychować utalentowane dziecko [How to raise a gifted child]. Poznań: Rebis.
30.
Limont, W. (2012). Uczeń zdolny. Jak go rozpoznać i jak z nim pracować [Gifted students. How to recognise and work with them]. Sopot: GWP.
31.
Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333–360. DOI: 10.4219/jeg-2005-341.
32.
Maslow, A. H. (1983). Postawa twórcza [Creative attitude]. Nowiny Psychologiczne, 8–9, 58–71.
33.
Matczak, A., Jaworowska, A., Ciechanowska, A., Stańczak, J., & Zalewska, E. (2005). Bateria Testów APIS-P(R). Podręcznik [The APIS-P(R) Battery of Tests. A Handbook]. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.
34.
Matczak, A., Jaworowska, A., & Stańczak, J. (2000). Rysunkowy Test Twórczego Myślenia TCT-DP. Podręcznik [The Test for Creative Thinking – Drawing Production TCT-DP. A Handbook]. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.
35.
Matrič, M., & Duh, M. (2015). Creativity Among Gifted and Non-Gifted Students. The New Educational Review, 40, 247–259.
36.
McBee, M. S., Peters, S. J., & Waterman, C. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 69–89.
37.
Miller, R. (1990). Discovering Mathematical Talent. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED32148....
38.
Morgan, V., Latham, N., & Shifflet, R. (2009). Teachers’ Ability to Identify Divergent Thinking in Their Students. Gifted Children, 3, 5–9.
39.
Mönks, F. J. (1990). Poradnictwo i wspieranie szczególnie zdolnych uczniów [Counselling and supporting especially gifted students]. Lublin: Annales UMCS.
40.
Mönks, F. J. (2008). Identification and education of the gifted learner. In J. Łaszczyk & M. Jabłonowska (eds.). Uczeń zdolny wyzwaniem dla współczesnej edukacji [Gifted Student as a Challenge for Contemporary Education] (pp. 79–85). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalnej.
41.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creativepeople: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.
42.
Nęcka, E. (2002). Psychologia twórczości [The psychology of creativity]. Gdańsk: GWP.
43.
Nęcka, E. (2003). Inteligencja: geneza – struktura – funkcje [Intelligence: genesis-structure-functions]. Gdańsk: GWP.
44.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Current perspectives on the identification and assessment of gifted students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 3–9. DOI: 10.1177/0734282911428192.
45.
Popek, S. (2001). Człowiek jako jednostka twórcza [Humans as creative entities]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
46.
Popek, S. (2008). Kwestionariusz Twórczego Zachowania KANH [The KANH questionnaire of creative behaviour]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
47.
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152–170. DOI: 10.1177/001698620004400302.
48.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.
49.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 246–280). New York: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reiss, S. M. (2000). The schoolwide enrichment model. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks,.
51.
R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 367–382). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
52.
Rimm S. (2000). Dlaczego zdolne dzieci nie radzą sobie w szkole [Why gifted students do not perform at school]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Moderski i S-ka.
53.
Rinn, A., & Plucker, J. (2004). We recruit them, but then what? The educational and psychological experiences of academically talented undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 54–67.
54.
Rinn, A. N. (2012). Implications for addressing the psychosocial needs of gifted individuals: A response to Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (2011). Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 206–209. DOI: 10.1177/0016986212456076.
55.
Saha, B. (2012). Creativity in relation to socio-economic status in secondary school students. West Bengal, Indian Journal of Applied Research, 2, 60–61.
56.
Saricam, H., & Ogurlu, U. (2015). Metacognitive awareness and math anxiety in gifted students. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 10, 338–348.
57.
Sękowski, A. E. (2013). Inteligencja, twórczość, mądrość a wybitne zdolności [Intelligence, creativity, wisdom and exceptional talents]. In A. E. Sękowski (ed.). Psychologia zdolności. Współczesne kierunki badań [The psychology of giftedness. Directions of current research] (pp. 173–192). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
58.
Siekańska, M., & Sękowski, A. (2008). Job Satisfaction and Temperament Structure of Gifted People. Mensa Research Journal, 39, 34–40.
59.
Siekańska, M. (2013). Koncepcje zdolności a identyfikacja uczniów zdolnych [Conceptions of giftedness and identifying talented students]. In A. E. Sękowski (ed.), Psychologia zdolności. Współczesne kierunki badań [The Psychology of giftedness. Directions of current research] (pp. 115–124). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
60.
Sokol, A., Gozdek, A., & Figurska, I. (2015). The importance of teacher leadership in shaping the creative attitudes of students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1976–1982.
61.
Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. (eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Strzałecki, A. (2003). Psychologia twórczości. Między tradycją a ponowoczesnością [The psychology of creativity. Between tradition and post-modernism]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego.
63.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54. DOI: 10.1177/1529100611418056.
64.
Szymanski, T., & Shaff, T. (2013). Teacher Perspectives Regarding Gifted Diverse Students. Gifted Children, 6, Article 1. Available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/gif....
65.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 45–59). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
66.
Tokarz, A., & Słabosz, A. (2001). Cechy uczniów preferowane przez nauczycieli jako wymiar aktywności twórczej w szkole. Cz. II. Uczeń idealny i twórczy w preferencjach badanych nauczycieli. [Features of students that are preferred by teachers as a dimension of creative activity at school. Part II. The perfect and the creative student in the preferences of studied teachers]. Edukacja. Studia. Badania. Innowacje, 3, 36–18.
67.
Tokarz, A. (2005). Procesy motywacyjne a dyspozycje do wybitnych osiągnięć w kontekście rozwoju. [Motivational processes and predispositions towards excellent school achievements in the context of development]. In W. Limont, & A. Cieślikowska (eds.), Wybrane zagadnienia edukacji.
68.
uczniów zdolnych, Tom II. Uczeń – Nauczyciel – Edukacja [Selected Issues of Gifted Students Education, Vol. II. Student - Teacher - Education] (pp. 35–59). Kraków: Impuls.
69.
Tortop, H. S. (2015). A comparison of gifted and non-gifted students’ self-regulation skills for science learning. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 3, 42–57.
70.
Turska, D. (ed.). Twórczość w teorii i praktyce [Creativity in theory and in practice]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
71.
Tyszkowa, M. (1990). Aktywność i działalność dzieci i młodzieży [Activity of children and youths]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
72.
Wieczerkowski, W., Cropley, A. J., & Prado, T. M. (2000). Nurturing talents/gifts in mathematics. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 413–425). Oxford: Elsevier Sciences Ltd.
73.
Worrell, F. C., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2012). Important issues, some rhetoric, and a few straw men: A response to comments on “rethinking giftedness and gifted education”. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 224–231. DOI: 10.1177/0016986212456080.
74.
Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness: A meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 3–22). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
| eISSN: | 2353-561X |
| ISSN: | 2353-4192 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
