GIFTED CHILDREN

An Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent.

Pp
Volume 3 Number 1 Summer 2009

Contents From the Editor

Letter from the Editor
Michael S. Matthews............... 1
Can Empathy for Gifted
Students be Nurtured in
Teachers?
Kristen R. Stephens ................. 2
Teachers’ Ability to Identify
Divergent Thinking in Their
Students
Vicky Morgan, Nancy Latham,
and Rena Shifflet ..................... 6
An Inward Look: A Review of
David Lohman’s 2006
Monograph, Identifying
Academically Talented Minority
Students
Scott Peters............................ 10
Important Updates from SIG
Program Chair
Betsy McCoach ..................... 11
Author Notes ............................ 11
Upcoming Meetings and
Conferences............................... 11
AERA Research on Giftedness
and Talent
Newly Elected Officers ........... 12
Michael S. Matthews, Ph.D., UNC Charlotte
Welcome to the first issue of Volume 3 of Gifted Children, the electronic journal of the
AERA Special Interest Group, Research on Giftedness and Talent. With this issue I
am pleased to continue during 2009 the tradition established that began with the
editorial leadership of Jonathan Plucker, and continued under the thoughtful
guidance of Dona Matthews.
This year following tradition, I plan to produce two issues of Gifted Children. This
will include this issue in summer 2009 and a second issue planned for fall 2009, after
which I will pass along the mantle to a new editor for 2010. Because we chose the
first three editors back when the e-journal was first conceptualized, we have not yet
selected an editor to succeed me. If you are reading this and are interested in this
opportunity, please email me a paragraph expressing your qualifications, and I will
bring nominations to the SIG executive committee for discussion at our next face-to-
face meeting.
Gifted Children was established to provide the field with concise and up-to-date
reports of research in progress in gifted education and related fields. In the area of
empirical studies, in this issue I am pleased to be able to share two interesting
papers related to teachers of the gifted. Because teacher education is what many of
us in gifted education do, I believe studies in this area are vital in informing our
efforts to improve the education our K-12 students receive.
Kristen Stephens has provided a preliminary report detailing efforts to nurture
empathy for gifted learners among teachers in the AIG licensure program at Duke
University. Her study uses multiple methods, and I found it particularly engaging
how she was able to use drawings to identify changes in teachers’ affect.

Working Committees .............. 12

Authors Vicky Morgan, Nancy Latham, and Rena Shifflet offer a report that informs
the ongoing question of how teachers perceive creativity among their students. Their
findings suggest that teachers’ ratings of their students’ divergent thinking abilities
were less accurate for students who had strengths in this area, yet more accurate for
students who did not score as highly in divergent thinking.
(continued on page 9)

The path of least resistance and least trouble is a mental rut already made. It requires troublesome work to
undertake the alternation of old beliefs. Self-conceit often regards it as a sign of weakness to admit that a
belief to which we have once committed ourselves is wrong. We get so identified with an idea that it is
literally a “pet” notion and we rise to its defense and stop our eyes and ears to anything different.
- John Dewey

AERA Special Interest Groups Web Site: http://www.aeragifted.org/

Can Empathy for Gifted Students be Nurtured in Teachers?
Kristen R. Stephens, Ph.D., Duke University
Ask anyone who is vested in ensuring that gifted students
receive appropriate educational programming and services,
and it is likely he or she has heard derogatory comments
about this population from those who hold differing
perspectives. Such comments often include:
• Gifted students will do just fine on their own.
• Gifted programs are elitist and give participating
students an unfair advantage.
• Gifted students need to be grouped with other
students, so they can learn how to get along with
others.
• Gifted students are know-it-alls who think they are
better than everyone else.
• Gifted students are bookworms with poor social skills.
• All children are gifted.
Such biases and negative stereotyping become deeply rooted
and are often perpetuated by those who are uninformed
about the characteristics and needs of gifted students.
Copenhaver and McIntyre (1992) found that teachers not
experienced in gifted education hold more negative views of
gifted students than those who were experienced gifted
education teachers. Others have concluded that teachers have
more positive attitudes towards gifted students when they are
exposed to coursework or professional development
experiences pertaining to gifted education (Davis & Rimm,
1985; Orenstein, 1984; Weiner & O’Shea, 1963). One
implication of these findings is the need to design
comprehensive teacher preparation and professional
development programs that help “convert negative
Table 1. Personal & Professional Characteristics of Effective Teachers of the Gifted Cited in the Literature
Bishop, 1968
Characteristic
Superior Intelligence; Knowledgeable 9 9
Greater Literary and Cultural Interests 9
Higher Achievement Orientation 9 9
Stimulating and Imaginative 9 9
Student-Centered Teaching Style; Facilitative 9 9
Enthusiasm for Subject Matter 9 9
Preference for Teaching the Gifted 9
Flexible
Self-Confident
Consideration for Individual Differences
Empathetic
Love of Learning
Curiosity
High Energy
Accepting and Open
Strong Communication Skills
Good Sense of Humor
Gifted Children
impressions of potentially gifted and talented students into a
more appropriate understanding of such characteristics”
(Heath, 1997, p. 22).
One avenue that has been explored in the literature to raise
awareness of the characteristics and educational needs of
gifted students is the use of effective public relations
strategies (Besnoy, 2005; Karnes, Lewis, & Stephens, 1999;
Troxclair & Karnes, 1997). While such efforts are promising in
building community support for gifted programs and
services, a more comprehensive and ongoing approach is
needed to reverse the existing biases and negative attitudes
held by the teachers who provide educational services to
gifted students.
The characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted have been
examined by many researchers over the past 40+ years
(Bishop, 1968; Chan, 2001; Freehill, 1974; Hansford, 1985;
Maddux, Samples-Lachman & Cummings, 1985; Mills, 2003;
Newland, 1962; Renzulli, 1992; Torrance & Myers, 1970;
Wendel & Heiser, 1989; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989). While
there seems to be a general consensus regarding the personal
and professional characteristics of successful teachers of the
gifted (see Table 1), this research has typically focused on the
identification of those teacher characteristics that seem to
benefit gifted students in the classroom. Little research exists
that examines how these identified characteristics might
actually be cultivated through teacher education and
professional development.
Whitlock & DuCette,
Maddux , Samples-
Torrance & Myers,
Wendel & Heiser,
Cummings, 1985
Hansford, 1985
Newland, 1962
Renzulli, 1992
Freehill, 1974
Lachman, &
Chan, 2001
Mills, 2003
1970
1989
1989
9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9
9
9
9 9 9
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9 9 9
9
9 9 9
Volume 3 Summer 2009 Page 2
 For the past three years, Duke University has offered an
academically and intellectually gifted (AIG) add-on licensure
program for teachers employed by area school systems. A
feature of this licensure program is the use of the Duke Talent
Identification Program’s (Duke TIP’s) summer and academic
year programs for gifted students as sites for field-based
training for teachers. These field experiences allow teachers to
observe, in critical mass, a group of highly gifted students in
an educational context. University coursework (12 semester
hours), self-report survey instruments, and ongoing reflection
are also integral parts of Duke’s AIG licensure program.
Review of pre- and post-assessment data from participating
teachers is currently underway, and preliminary results seem
to note a change in teachers’ perceptions of gifted students as
they become more informed regarding the characteristics and
educational needs of these students and as they engage in
field experiences with highly gifted students.
Method
Thirty-eight elementary and middle school teachers enrolled
in the Duke AIG licensure program were given a pre-
assessment survey during their first class meeting. The items
on the survey asked teachers to:
1. define giftedness,
2. describe the academic characteristics of a gifted learner,
3. describe the social and emotional characteristics of a
gifted learner, and
4. draw a picture of a gifted learner.
An identical post-assessment was administered one year later
during the final class meeting. These assessments were then
assigned a unique numerical identifier so pre- and post-
assessments for each participant could be linked while
ensuring teacher anonymity.
In addition to the survey, daily written reflections were
required of teachers during the field experiences with highly
gifted learners. Teachers were given a series of writing
prompts to consider. For example:
Figure 1. Pre-assessment Teacher A
Gifted Children Volume 3 Summer 2009
1. What are your initial thoughts regarding the academic
and social-emotional characteristics of the students in
your Duke TIP class? What did you observe that
supported your current beliefs about the nature and
needs of gifted students? What did you observe that
challenged your previous perceptions of gifted and
talented students? Discuss and incorporate specific
examples that you observed today that support your
thoughts.
2. Reflect on a particular student in your Duke TIP class.
Write about what you have learned about him or her
over the course of the three weeks. How do the
characteristics he or she exhibits—academically,
socially, and emotionally—compare or contrast with
what you learned through your AIG coursework?
Think about your role as a teacher, in what ways has it
been transformed as a result of this experience?
Preliminary Results
While it is apparent that teachers demonstrate growth in their
overall knowledge of giftedness and increased awareness of
those characteristics often associated with gifted students,
their drawings of gifted students also reveal increased
empathy for and understanding of such students. Figures 1–6
are a sampling of the teacher’s drawings from the pre- and
post-assessment.
Both drawings from Teacher A (Figures 1 and 2) seem to
address academic and emotional issues experienced by gifted
learners, with the pre-assessment drawing (Figure 1) focusing
on those characteristics of perfectionism that might often be
associated with gifted youth. In addition, the overall
emphasis in Figure 1 seems to be achievement motivation.
Figure 2 is a more simple drawing, but the addition of the
heart and the question, “What will they think of me?” further
humanizes the gifted learner. The motivation and goal
orientation of the gifted learner in Figure 2 moves towards
making connections with others and finding his or her “place”
in the world.
Figure 2. Post-assessment Teacher A
Page 3
 Teacher B transitioned from an apparent elitist perception of across all groups of people regardless of gender, ethnicity,
the gifted learner (i.e., one whom “the light of God” shines race, or social status (Figure 4).
upon; see Figure 3) to a view that gifted students can be found

Figure 5. Pre-assessment Teacher C Figure 4. Post-assessment Teacher B

Though a love of learning and reading seems to be obscure interests. The post-assessment drawing depicts
represented in both drawings from Teacher C, the pre- one who is well-rounded and genuinely loves learning
assessment drawing depicts the stereotypical gifted and thus conveys a more positive representation of a
learner (i.e., male with glasses) with narrowly defined, gifted learner.

Figure 5. Pre-assessment Teacher C Figure 6. Post-assessment Teacher C

Gifted Children Volume 3 Summer 2009 Page 4

 Teachers’ written reflections also provide data to support
that the field experience with highly gifted learners served
as a catalyst to foster empathy among participating
teachers for gifted learners. The following excerpts from
teachers’ final journal entries illustrate this point.
…I kept thinking that there was something wistful
about Ryan,1 something that weighed heavily on him,
something that keeps him from really enjoying this time
in his life. It seemed to me that Ryan has a pretty good
sense of who he is and what he likes, but is living in a
world where he can’t allow himself to just let go and be
who he is – not like he can at TIP. These three weeks are
the highlight of his year. Something is so wrong about
that, not just for Ryan, but for so many of these
students.
…She knew that she was in the top of her class, but her
eyes teared up when she told me about a recent game
played in her 8th grade class. She explained that the
students in the class were supposed to walk around the
room and write something nice on another person’s
back. She talked about various acceptable attributes such
as being a good friend or a sympathetic person. She then
exclaimed that the only attribute noted by her classmates
about her was that she was smart. She said that this was
stupid. She thought that being smart was a pathetic
response to the task at hand. It hurt her feelings that no
one had anything thing else to say about her as a person.
This clearly affected Sara and it suddenly made me feel
sorry for her. I could understand how she felt. Her
intellectual giftedness was all that was noted by her
peers, yet she felt that there were many more interesting
personality traits about her worth noting. I wondered if
other gifted kids have had similar experiences. I’m sure
they have.
Summary
This research is in the preliminary stages and is ongoing.
While teachers’ knowledge and understanding of gifted
learners is enhanced through coursework in the field,
actual opportunities to observe and engage with a class of
highly gifted learners seem to solidify these
understandings and may foster empathy toward the
experiences of gifted learners. ™

1 Student names have been changed for confidentiality

References
Besnoy, K. (2005). Using public relations strategies to advocate for gifted programming in your school. Gifted Child Today, 28(1), 32-37.
Bishop, W. (1968). Successful teachers of the gifted. Exceptional Children, 34(5), 317-325.
Chan, D. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong teacher perspective. Roeper Review, 23(4), 197-
202.
Copenhaver, R., & McIntyre, D. (1992). Teachers’ perceptions of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14(3), 151-53.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Freehill, M. (1974). Intelligence, empathy and methodologic bias about teaching the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18(4), 247-8.
Hansford, S. J. (1985). What it takes to be a G/T teacher. Gifted Child Monthly, 15-17.
Heath, W. (1997). What are the most effective characteristics of teachers of the gifted? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411665).
Karnes, F., Lewis, J., & Stephens, K. (1999). Parents and teachers working together for advocacy through public relations. Gifted Child Today
Magazine, 22(1), 14-18.
Maddux, C. D., Samples-Lachman, I. & Cummings, R. (1985). Preferences of gifted students for selected teacher characteristics. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 29(4), 160-63.
Mills, C. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 47(4), 272-281.
Newland, E. T. (1962). Some observations on essential qualifications of teachers of the mentally superior. Exceptional Children, 29, 111-14.
Orenstein, A. (1984, June). What organizational characteristics are important in planning, implementing, and maintaining programs for the
gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(3), 99-105.
Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity in young people. In F. J. Mönks & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children: Talent for the future (pp.51 -72). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van
Gorcum.
Torrance, E. P., & Myers, R. E. (1970). Creative teaching and learning. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Troxclair, D., & Karnes, F. (1997). Public relations: Advocating for gifted students. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 20(3), 38-41, n50.
Weiner, J., & O’Shea, H. (1963). Attitudes of university faculty, administrators, teachers, supervisors, and university students toward the gifted.
Exceptional Children, 30(4), 163-165.
Wendel, R., & Heiser, S. (1989). Effective instructional characteristics of teachers of junior high school gifted students. Roeper Review, 11(3), 151-
53.
Whitlock, M., & DuCette, J. (1989). Outstanding and average teachers of the gifted: a comparative study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 15-21.

Gifted Children Volume 3 Summer 2009 Page 5

Teachers’ Ability to Identify Divergent Thinking in Their Students
Vicky Morgan, Nancy Latham, and Rena Shifflet
Illinois State University
Introduction
Educators would agree that the primary role of schools is to
teach students knowledge in various content areas and
processes related to that content. What sometimes is not
openly acknowledged is the role of schools in educating
students so they can survive well in society. Even with the
emphasis in our society on individuality, there are accepted
behaviors that the majority of people see as “normal” and
necessary for the successful continuation of society. Behaviors
outside of the norm are often viewed as abnormal, or at least
undesirable. Schools support and reinforce expected, accepted
behaviors in their students. Classroom management strategies
are based on this premise, but even more subtle is the
expectation of “normal” behaviors in the everyday social
interactions among students.
Given these expected, accepted behaviors, how do educators
view student behavior that may not be considered the norm?
While it is natural for teachers to initially guide a student back
to those “accepted behaviors,” which suggests that something
in the student needs to be fixed, is it possible that student
behavior that is unusual is simply that….unusual? Unusual or
original thoughts and behaviors may be valuable in that, if
nurtured constructively, they can result in creative
approaches such as unique solutions to problems. The very
fact that these behaviors are unusual, or divergent, means
they are often misinterpreted as problem behaviors and are
treated under the realm of classroom management. While
many unusual behaviors are just that (problem behaviors),
educators owe it to their students to at least consider the idea
that these behaviors may be the result of divergent thinking.
For our purposes here, divergent thinking is defined as a
thought, behavior, or product that is unusual in that it is
different from what a student’s peers may think, do, or
produce. While a talent may certainly include elements of
unusual behavior (i.e., a particular dance interpretation), these
kinds of abilities are not the focus of this study.
There has been some acknowledgment of the need for
honoring the individuality of thinking at different age levels
of students. For example, the Association of Childhood
Education International (ACEI) spoke to this issue in a
position paper outlining the importance of creative thought in
a child’s life (Jalongo, 2003). Similarly, in the area of middle
school, Turning Points 2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000) specifies
efforts to “ensure success for every student” regardless of
their individual needs and strengths (p. 30). However, most
teacher education programs do not emphasize or even
recognize the topic of divergent thinking. As a result, teacher
candidates are unprepared to identify and address the unique
perspectives and behaviors of divergent thinkers. There are
examples of educating teacher candidates about other
individual differences among future students such as the
Gifted Children Volume 3 Summer 2009
emphasis on diversity, whether that diversity focuses on
learning styles, socio-economic status, language differences,
etc. But the specific topic of divergent thinking is not a part of
teacher candidates’ preparation, much less how to provide
effective instruction in this area.
It is crucial that if we are indeed serious about meeting needs
of individual students, along with differing abilities, learning
styles, cultural expectations, motivation levels, and numerous
other descriptors of individuality, educators must also
acknowledge and facilitate the divergent thinking ability
some students bring to the classroom. The obvious
implication here is that teachers know which students in their
classes are divergent thinkers. But do they? They are taught to
identify strengths and weaknesses in students’ content areas,
or even those expected, accepted school behaviors, but can
they identify the divergent thinkers? Knowing who they are
is, of course, a crucial first step to providing effective
instruction for them. Because schools do not often administer
tests of creative thinking, identification of students is left to
the teachers and their ability to identify these students. The
focus of this study was whether teachers could indeed
correctly identify those students in their classes who were
divergent thinkers. The study included the following three
questions:
1. Can early childhood and middle school teachers
accurately identify students in their classes who are
divergent thinkers?
2. Is a teacher’s own level of divergent thinking related to
how accurately he or she identifies students’
creativity?
3. Are there differences between early childhood and
middle school teachers’ abilities to accurately identify
students who are divergent thinkers?
Participants
Subjects included 127 preschoolers, kindergarteners, and 1st
graders; 153 6th, 7th, and 8th graders; and 29 teachers (14 early
childhood teachers and 15 middle school teachers). A brief
discussion was held with participating teachers on the
definition of divergent/creative thinking so that students who
displayed musical, artistic, or similar talents were not
assumed to be divergent thinkers. The emphasis was on
students who tended to think of ideas that their peers did not.
Data
Teachers were asked to rate participating students on a Likert
scale of one to five (five being high) indicating how divergent
these students were in their thinking, based on the teachers’
interactions with students in the classroom. A written
reminder of the previously-discussed definition of divergent
Page 6
 thinking appeared at the top of the scale. Teacher ratings were
completed first in order to avoid potential interference in their
pre-existing concepts of divergent thinking.
After the students were rated, early childhood students were
given the test of creative thinking titled Thinking Creatively
in Action and Movement (TCAM; Torrance, 1981) and middle
school students were given the Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking, Figural Form A (TTCT; Torrance, 1966). All teachers
were then given the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults
(ATTA; Goff & Torrance, 2002). Results from these tests are
given in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Information on Student and Teacher Scores

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Early childhood students (TCAM)

48.00 154.00 98.98 19.27
n = 127

Middle school students (TTCT)

44.00 130.00 105.21 14.94
n = 153

All teachers (ATTA)

57 86 71.17 8.94
n = 29

Early childhood teachers (ATTA)

59 82 71.43 7.90
n = 14

Middle school teachers (ATTA)

57 86 70.37 10.12
n = 15

closer a teacher’s rating was to the student’s score, the better

Ratings from the Likert scale and scores from the students’
standardized Torrance tests produced the accuracy scores.
These scores were determined by comparing the teacher’s
rating of a student on the Likert scale and the student’s score
on the standardized test that had been converted to a five-
point scale. This conversion was accomplished by taking the
range of student scores and dividing them into five equal-
width intervals and placing scores within those intervals. The
the accuracy score. A teacher rating that was a perfect match
to the student score was given an accuracy score of 5, a rating
that was 1 point off (e.g., a teacher rating of 3, a student score
of 4 or 2) was given a score of 4, with this pattern continuing
to an accuracy score of 1, indicating a teacher rating that was 4
off the student score. Teacher ratings and accuracy scores are
given in Table 2.

Table 2. Teachers’ Ratings and Accuracy Scores

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

All teacher ratings

1.0 5.0 3.34 .91
n = 280

Early childhood teachers’ ratings

1.0 5.0 3.4 .86
n = 127

Middle school teachers’ ratings

1.0 5.0 3.3 .95
n = 153

Early childhood teachers’ accuracy scores

0.0 4.0 1.12 .89
n = 127

Middle school teachers’ accuracy scores

0.0 4.0 1.46 .96
n = 153

Analysis and Findings
To explore the first question of whether early childhood and
middle school teachers can accurately identify divergent
thinkers, correlations were performed between the teacher
ratings and the students’ actual test scores, and the teachers’
accuracy scores and the students’ actual test scores. Results
indicated no significant relationship between the teacher
ratings and the student test scores, but a significant inverse
relationship (r278 = -.325, p = .000) between the teacher
accuracy scores and the student test scores. No correlation
between teacher ratings and student test scores indicates that

Gifted Children Volume 3 Summer 2009 Page 7

it is not the case that, for example, students who scored higher
on their tests were also rated higher by their teachers.
However, the significant inverse correlation between teachers’
accuracy scores and student test scores indicates that teachers’
accuracy scores go down as student test scores go up, and the
accuracy scores go up as student test scores go down. In other
words, a teacher would be more accurate in his/her rating for
a student with a lower test score than for a student with a
higher test score. These results were true for the separate
groups of early childhood participants (r125 = -.261, p = .003)
and middle school participants (r151 = -.220, p = .006), as well
as for the two groups combined.
The second question asked whether a teacher’s own level of
divergent thinking was related to their accuracy in identifying
students who were divergent thinkers. In this case there was
no significant correlation between teacher divergent test
scores and their accuracy scores. This indicates that a teacher’s
own level of divergent thinking as indicated on the ATTA is
not related to how accurately they identified a student’s level
of divergent thinking. Again, these results were true for the
separate groups of participants and middle school
participants, and for the two groups combined.
The third question focused on whether there were any
differences in the accuracy scores between the early childhood
teachers and the middle school teachers. A t-test was first
performed on the ATTA scores of the two groups of teachers
to ensure the two groups were similar in their levels of
divergent thinking. Results indicated there was no significant
difference between the two groups on the ATTA. A t-test was
then performed to ascertain whether there were differences in
the accuracy scores of the two groups. Results indicated there
was no significant difference in how accurately early
childhood teachers identified the divergent thinkers in their
classes, as compared to middle school teachers.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether
early childhood and middle school teachers could identify
students in their classes who were divergent thinkers. It was
also of interest to see if those teachers’ own level of creative
thinking was associated with this ability to identify students
or if there were any differences between the two groups of
teachers.
No relationships were found 1) between teachers’ ratings of
their students (indicating how divergent they believed they
were) and the students’ actual test scores, and 2) between
teachers’ own divergent test scores and how accurately they
identified divergent students. In addition, there were no
differences between early childhood and middle school
teachers on the accuracy scores that indicated their ability to
identify divergent thinkers in their classrooms.
However, it was found that there was a significant inverse
correlation between teachers’ accuracy scores and the student
test scores. This was true whether the early childhood and
middle school teachers were examined separately or if the
groups were combined. Because the correlation coefficient
was negative, it suggests that higher student test scores are
Gifted Children Volume 3 Summer 2009
associated with lower accuracy scores on the part of the
teacher, and inversely, lower student test scores are associated
with higher accuracy scores. The higher the student scored on
the standardized test of divergent thinking, the less likely the
teacher was to be able to accurately identify that student as a
highly divergent student. But the lower the student scored on
the exam, the more likely it was the teacher was accurate in
his/her identification of the student as a less-divergent
student.
Even though a significant inverse correlation was found
between student scores and teacher accuracy scores, a fairly
small amount of variance was accounted for. However, these
findings still suggest two possible explanations that may
serve to inform teacher preparation programs as well as drive
future research directions. It is possible that teachers are not
well versed in the characteristics of divergent thinking and
thus are not able to identify those characteristics when present
in a highly divergent student. It may be that teachers
recognize behaviors that result from divergent thinking to be
more in the realm of a behavior problem or at the very least a
classroom management issue. Given the fact that teacher
preparation programs do not include divergent thinking as a
characteristic to be considered when planning and
implementing instruction, or even as a general topic, it is not
surprising that teachers do not have enough information or
expertise to approach highly divergent students in a way that
best meets their needs.
The findings may also suggest that students, even those who
are younger, exhibit those expected, accepted behaviors in the
classroom—those behaviors they have learned are the
desirable ones, at least according to the adults in their lives.
Those behaviors most probably include some degree of
conformity. Students may be behaving within perceived
limits even though they may possess high divergent thinking
ability as indicated by the standardized test. In this case,
teachers cannot identify students who are highly divergent
simply because students are not exhibiting their divergent
tendencies through the normal course of the school day.
Each of these possible conclusions has its own implications,
neither of which should be taken lightly by educators. If it is
true that teachers have not received information or practice
during their teacher training to adequately identify (or
instruct) students who have a unique learner characteristic, in
this case divergent thinking, that suggests an omission in
teacher education programs. Especially in this era of
accountability, any omission in the education of teacher
candidates cannot be ignored. If it is the case that divergent
students have learned to conform within the confines of
school expectations, the implications are different. While
operating according to those expected, accepted behaviors
(whether in school or in society at large) has advantages for
people in their interactions with others, the question becomes
whether teachers provide opportunities for their highly
divergent thinkers within the confines of the expected
behavior.
There is a high likelihood the two conclusions are related. It
may be true that since teachers are not trained in the area of
divergent thinking, they may actually discourage it. If
Page 8
 divergent thinking behavior is not encouraged or even tendencies. Whatever the cause, the result is the same. We risk
acknowledged, students may be compliant to the expected, losing our solvers of the unique problems of tomorrow by
accepted behaviors and choose to suppress their divergent what is mislabeled or suppressed today. ™

References

Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2002). The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Jalongo, M. (2003). The child’s right to creative thought and expression: A position paper of the Association for Childhood Education International.
Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.acei.org/creativepp.htm
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement (TCAM). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

(From the Editor – continued from page 1)

This issue also features a review of an important work in our field. Scott Peters, who very recently received his Ph.D. from Purdue
(congratulations Scott!), has contributed a review of David Lohman’s (2006) monograph on the topic of identifying minority
students. Scott says he thinks every GT researcher should read the monograph, and I agree; promoting a widespread understanding
of the nuts and bolts of how our identification processes work will be vital to the future of our field.
Please be sure to submit your proposals by AERA’s new deadline of July 15, now only a few days away!
Finally, please consider submitting a brief report about your current research-in-progress for our fall issue of Gifted Children.
Reports should be approximately 1,500 to 2,500 words in length, although I’m willing to consider manuscripts of other lengths. I
also would be interested in reviews of important new books or other works that are relevant to gifted education. I look forward to
receiving submissions by August 31, 2009 via email to michael.matthews@uncc.edu.

Michael S. Matthews, Ph.D.

Editor

Gifted Children Volume 3 Summer 2009 Page 9

An Inward Look: A Review of David Lohman’s 2006 Monograph Entitled Identifying Academically
Talented Minority Students
Book Review

Review by: Scott Peters, University of Wisconsin at Whitewater

Topics related to the identification and education of
underrepresented students have become more and more
common in the scholarly literature over the last several years.
In addition, the monographs Overlooked Gems (VanTassel-
Baska & Stambaugh, 2008) as well as the Achievement Trap
(Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007) have both devoted
substantial time and effort to describing the plight of gifted
and talented students from low-income families. In addition
to students from low-income families, those from Hispanic,
African American, and Native American backgrounds are
also under-nominated and under-represented in programs for
the gifted and talented (Yoon & Gentry, 2009). This issue of
students from certain income and racial/ethnic groups being
disproportionately represented in gifted and talented
programs is one of the greatest challenges facing the field.
Despite a great deal of effort being devoted to the topic, few
manuscripts have devoted as much detail and practical
applications toward solving the problem as a 2006
monograph by David Lohman entitled Identifying Academically
Talented Minority Students. In this monograph, Lohman
addresses many topics with regard to underrepresentation.
Although this review cannot reproduce the information
provided in the 58-page monograph, one point in particular is
worth discussing in detail.
One of Lohman’s chief arguments is that a major barrier to
proportional identification is that large-scale standardized
tests, even when used and used correctly, often involve
national norm comparisons. He explains that such
comparisons might be useful for establishing how well a
student or a school is performing compared to the rest of the
country, but such a comparison is less useful in making
classroom or program placement decisions since the
individual school of interest is unlikely to emulate the same
characteristics of the tests’ normative sample. Put more
simply, Lohman (2006) gave the example of the 5% of
American schools whose average achievement test score is
around 95% when compared to the rest of the nation. In this
setting, national norms do very little in telling an educator
which students are in need of special services. However,
when students in schools are compared to each other,
educators are better suited to make decisions about
instructional placement. In this case, the gifted and talented
classes might involve only students in the top .5% when
compared to national norms, but in the top 25% of the local
school population. Lohman’s argument is thus that the more
specific the norm group used for comparison, the better. This
is true for groupings such as income, race/ethnicity, as well as
school or grade-level groups. The use of narrowly defined
comparison groups allows educators to see which students
are achieving or have the potential to achieve given similar
background and circumstances.
Lohman’s (2006) monograph is not a simple read, but instead
involves an incredibly in-depth discussion of why the field of
gifted and talented education is having such trouble reaching
proportional representation and how we can proceed toward
such a goal in a more productive fashion. He also provides
multiple examples of how several common cures (e.g.,
nonverbal tests) have failed to solve the problem. No other
scholarly piece has looked so honestly at the field while at the
same time offering practical suggestions for improvement,
such as the combining of multiple measures in a multiple-
pathways format to allow for the most accurate identification
(and example datasets are provided). The Lohman
monograph is a well-written and well-conceived piece that
should be read by every person concerned with the education
of gifted and talented students. ™

References

Lohman, D. F. (2006). Identifying academically talented minority students (Research Monograph RM05216). Storrs, CT: The National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/
VanTassel-Baska, J. L., & Stambaugh, T. S. (Eds). (2008). Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners.
Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & Diiulio, J. J. (2007). The achievement trap. Washington, DC: The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
Yoon, S., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian
American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 121-136.

Gifted Children Volume 3 Summer 2009 Page 10

 Important Updates from the SIG Program Chair

The AERA Online Submission System is now open and
receiving proposals for the 2010 Annual Meeting. Please note
that the deadline for submission of proposals is MUCH
earlier this year. The deadline is July 15, 2009. When you
choose your preferred session formats, be aware that AERA
will be cutting the number of paper sessions and increasing
the number of poster and roundtable sessions available.
Therefore, it will be to your benefit to select more than one
session format option.
In addition, AERA has changed the format of the review
process for the 2010 annual meeting. Beginning this year
each division and SIG will establish Review Panels to review
proposals for the Annual Meeting. The reviews will be
carried out from August 10-September 15.
The full description of the new review process is available on
the AERA website:
http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals
/Educational_Researcher/3804/298-299_05EDR09.pdf
Thanks so much, and feel free to contact me via email
(betsy.mccoach@uconn.edu) with any questions.

Author Notes

Teachers’ Ability to Identify Divergent Thinking in Their Students

Drs. Vicky Morgan, Nancy Latham, and Rena Shifflet are in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Illinois State
University in Normal, IL. Address: Curriculum and Instruction-5330, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-5330. Emails:
vlmorgan@ilstu.edu; nilatha@ilstu.edu; rashiff@ilstu.edu

Can Empathy for Gifted Students be Nurtured in Teachers?

Dr. Kristen R. Stephens is Assistant Professor of the Practice with the Program in Education at Duke University in Durham, NC.
Address: Program in Education, Duke University, Box 90739, 213 W. Duke Bldg., Durham, NC 27708. Email:
kstephen@duke.edu

An Inward look: A review of David Lohman’s 2006 monograph entitled Identifying Academically Talented Minority Students
Dr. Scott Peters is Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations at the University of Wisconsin – Whitewater. Address:
Department of Educational Foundations, Winther Hall 6035, 800 W. Main St., Whitewater, WI 53190. Email: peterss@uww.edu

Upcoming Meetings and Conferences

AERA 2010 Annual Meeting Friday, April 30 – Tuesday, May 4

“Understanding Complex Ecologies in a changing World” Denver, Colorado

NAGC Annual Conference Thursday November 5 – Sunday November 8

St. Louis, Missouri

SENG Conference: SENG/Florida Association for the Gifted Summit Friday July 17 - Sunday July 19
Orlando, Florida

Gifted Children Volume 3 Summer 2009 Page 11

 AERA SIG
Research on Giftedness and Talent
Officers

Chair
Karen Rogers
kbrogers@stthomas.edu (June 2008-June 2010)

Chair Elect
Marcia Gentry
mgentry@purdue.edu (June 2008-June 2010)

Secretary
Cheryll M. Adams
cadams@bsu.edu (June 2008-June 2010)

Treasurer
Robbie McHardy
rmchar@lsu.edu (June 2009-June 2011)

Program Chair
Betsy McCoach
betsy.mccoach@uconn.edu (June 2009 – June 2010)

Assistant Program Chair

Scott Peters
peterss@uww.edu (June 2009 – June 2010)

Members-at-Large
Jill Adelson
jill.adelson@uconn.edu (June 2009-June 2011)
Jonathan A. Plucker
jplucker@indiana.edu (June 2009-2011)
Catherine Little
catherine.little@uconn.edu (June 2006-June 2010)
David Yun Dai
ddai@uamail.albany.edu (June 2008-June 2010)

Student Representative
Kristina Ayers Paul
kayerspaul@gmail.com (June 2008-June 2010)

Newsletter Editor
Angela Housand
housanda@uncw.edu (June 2009-June 2011)

GIFTED CHILDREN
An Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent.

AERA Special Interest Groups Web Site: http://www.aeragifted.org/