gifted ejournal v3n2

Upload: aeragifted

Post on 30-May-2018




0 download

Embed Size (px)


  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because

    they want to do it. Dwight Eisenhower

    Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009From the EditorMichael S. Matthews, Ph.D., UNC CharlotteWelcome to the second issue of Volume 3 of Gifted Children, the electronic journal ofthe AERA Special Interest Group, newly renamed by popular vote from Research on

    Giftedness and Talent to Research on Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent.As I mentioned in the previous issue, Gifted Children was established to providescholarly reports of research in progress to our SIG members working in giftededucation and related fields. In this issue I am pleased to be able to share twointeresting papers and a book review, which together illustrate the broad scope ofthe shared interests of our SIG members.

    Continuing the teacher education theme of our previous issue, this issues firstarticle, by Matthew Makel, investigates implicit beliefs about general ability amongpre-service teachers. This is followed by a book review by Pamela Shue, whoexamines the newly released second edition of Differentiating for the Young Child:Teaching Strategies across the Content Areas, PreK-3, by Smutny and Von Fremd. Thisis followed by our second feature article, by Lori Flint, who examines how thequalitative method known as life-story research can be used to generate a greaterunderstanding of the complex issue of academic underachievement among giftedlearners.

    Following this issue, my intent is to pass along the editors mantle in accordancewith the two-issue editorship tradition established by prior editors Jonathan Pluckerand Dona Matthews. While we already have drawn some nibbles of attention, therestill is time for other SIG members to express interest in this exciting opportunity toserve the SIG. As with our SIG elections, its a positive sign for the wholeorganization when we have multiple volunteers from whom to choose for a position.Also, unlike many other publications, the e-journal editors duties do not requireskills with typesetting in Microsoft Publisher! If you are reading this and are

    interested in being considered as the next editor of Gifted Children, please email me aparagraph no later than January 10, 2010, expressing your qualifications, and I willbring this information to the SIG executive committee in early spring so that adecision can be made.

    AERA Special Interest Groups Web Site:

    ContentsIntroductionMichael Matthews .................... 1

    Implicit Beliefs of Future

    Teachers about GeneralAbilityMatthew Makel ........................ 2

    Book ReviewDifferentiating for the YoungChild: Teaching Strategiesacross the Content Areas,

    PreK-3Reviewer: Pamela Shue .......... 5

    Using Life-Story Research inGifted Education

    Lori Flint .................................... 6

    Author Notes .......................... 13

    Officers .................................... 14

    Working Committees ........... 14

    GIFTED CHILDRENAn Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent.

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    Researchers are beginning to show increased interest in takinga more developmental view of giftedness (e.g., Horowitz,Subotnik, & Matthews, 2009; Papierno, Ceci, Makel, &Williams, 2005; Sternberg, 2001). However, it is not just theconceptualization of researchers that matters; implicit beliefsmatter as well (e.g., Sternberg, 1985). In fact, the researchconducted by Carol Dweck and her colleagues over the past30 years on implicit beliefs may be an untapped resource forbetter understanding how students perceive giftedness andhow implicit beliefs of parents, teachers, and policymakersmay influence their actions concerning gifted children.

    In her research (e.g., Dweck, 2006), Dweck groups people ashaving either fixed or malleable beliefs. A person whobelieves that ability is fixed thinks that ability does not (andcannot) change. On the other hand, someone who believesability is malleable believes a persons ability can changedepending on situational factors such as the environment andmotivation. Further, Dweck has found that a persons beliefsabout the nature of ability influences the types of goals theyset for themselves (e.g., Dweck, 1986). People who believeability is fixed typically set performance goals that emphasizeattaining positive judgments or avoiding negative judgments(e.g., validating that I am gifted). People who believe ability ismalleable set learning goals that emphasize increasedcompetence (e.g., seeking to increase comprehension andunderstanding of poetry). Much of the field of attributionliterature has investigated whether having certain goalorientations leads to different patterns of behavior.

    One relevant example of such research investigated whetherbeing praised for intelligence (performance goalreinforcement) or being praised for effort (learning goalreinforcement) led to differing performance. Mueller andDweck (1998) found that praise for intelligence negativelyinfluenced students subsequent achievement. Additionally,students who were praised for their intelligence later reportedthat they cared more about performance goals, whereasstudents who had been praised for their effort cared moreabout learning goals. Moreover, students who had beenpraised for intelligence were more likely to considerintelligence a fixed trait than children who had been praisedfor effort. These results suggest that ones environment can

    play a large role in how ability and performance areconceptualized. Moreover, in interviews, Dweck has statedthat she believes the term giftedness automatically implies afixed view (Hopkins, 2000; Plucker, 2007).

    With these results in mind, fostering an environment thatsupports malleable views of ability may seem obviousbecause they are implicitly tied to learning goals andpersistence despite challenge. Nevertheless, Mueller andDweck (1996, as cited in Mueller & Dweck, 1998) found that85% of parents polled said that they believed that praising achilds ability was necessary for making the child feel smart.

    This suggests that parents are likely to praise results and notnecessarily effort.

    With environmental factors playing such a large role inshaping how children view the nature of ability, knowing thebeliefs of teachers is important. The current study comparedthe implicit beliefs of college undergraduates in training tobecome teachers with college undergraduates who were nottraining to become teachers, to assess whether schools ofeducation were effectively assimilating the work on implicitbeliefs into their curricula. If curricula were effective inencouraging malleable implicit beliefs of future teachers, onewould expect that future teachers would be more likely tobelieve that ability is malleable than their undergraduatepeers not studying to become teachers.



    As part of a larger study on implicit beliefs, 238undergraduates from a large public university in the Midwestparticipated in this study. Nine classes were visited; seven ina school of education (EDUC; n =92) and two in a differentcollege on the same campus (OTHR; n =146). Participantsreported their major to ensure that education students takingan elective were not part of the comparison group. Studentswere told that if they chose to participate, their name wouldbe entered in a raffle with a 1 in 50 chance at winning $50cash.

    MaterialsBaseline measures of implicit beliefs of ability (fixed vs.malleable) were gathered via the same 3-item series ofquestions used by Dweck and her colleagues. These itemswere:

    1. You have a certain amount of general ability and youreally cant do much to change it.

    2. Your general ability is something about you that youcant change very much.

    3. You can learn new things, but you cant really changeyour basic general ability.

    These items were used because previous research has shown

    that they have high internal reliability (alphas ranging from.94 to .98) as well as high test-retest reliability (r = .8) over atwo week period (for a detailed discussion of thepsychometrics of these measures, see Hong, Chiu, Dweck,Lin, & Wan, 1999). Participants with a mean response of 3.0 orlower are identified as having fixed beliefs, whereas thosewith a mean response greater than 4.0 are labeled as havingmalleable beliefs of general ability. Participants with a meanresponse between 3.0 and 4.0 are typically eliminated fromanalysis because they do not have a clear baseline implicittheory of belief (Chiu et al., 1997).

    Implicit Beliefs of Future Teachers about General AbilityMatthew C. Makel, PhDDuke University Talent Identification Program

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 2

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2



    A chi-square analysis did not show a significant difference,2(2) = 2.987, p = .225, between the implicit beliefs ofeducation and non-education students (see Table 1).


    Previous research has shown that both implicit beliefs andenvironmental factors play a role in shaping studentdevelopment. The current study compared the implicit beliefs

    of college undergraduates planning to be teachers with thosewho did not plan to become teachers. Results suggest thatfuture teachers are not more likely to believe that generalability is malleable than other college undergraduates.

    If we wish to

    foster the belief that ability is malleable and that students canimprove through hard work, then learning environmentsneed to be shaped appropriately. One factor of the learningenvironment we have greater control over is teacher behavior.Previous research has shown that teacher behaviors caninfluence student beliefs and behaviors. However, the currentresearch shows that the future teachers in this sample are nomore likely to believe that ability is malleable than othercollege undergraduates. This suggests that the collegecurriculum is either not emphasizing (enough) the importanceof implicit beliefs, or perhaps that there may be a criticalperiod during which implicit beliefs can change (i.e., collegeundergraduates already may be set in their ways).

    Previous researchers have found variation in implicit beliefsacross constructs and age-groups. As shown in Table 2, theproportion of students with fixed beliefs varies both acrossconstructs as well as within a particular construct acrossdifferent ages. Because of this variation, to better understandthe relationship between implicit beliefs about giftedness andperformance in gifted programs, future research shouldinvestigate implicit beliefs about other constructs (e.g.,giftedness, talent, creativity) of both teachers and studentsacross several age-groups.

    The findings and perspectives addressed in this paper presentseveral potential avenues of interest for the gifted field. Forexample, knowing students implicit beliefs about ability mayhelp explain (or predict) how students respond to being putinto a gifted program. Students who struggle in giftedprograms may do so because of their beliefs and the goalsthey set. Similarly, as shown by Mueller and Dweck (1998),

    Table 2

    Beliefs across Constructs._________________________________________________________________________________Construct Percent Percent PercentSample Source Fixed Incremental Middle

    _________________________________________________________________________________General Ability current study

    Total 27% 56% 17%OTHR 27% 53% 20%EDUC 26% 62% 12%

    General Ability Chiu et al. (1997)Undergrads Study 1 37.5% 37.5% 25%

    Study 2 42% 22% 36%

    Intelligence Mangels et al. 37% 50% 13%(2006)


    Benenson &K Dweck (1986)


    1st 20%2nd 10%4th 25%

    Intelligence a Bempechat &K London(1991)


    1st 64%2nd 36%3rd 44%4th 37%5th 52%

    _________________________________________________________________________________Note. Some exact rates were not reported and were estimated from Tables.a

    Data were collected via interview and were coded dichotomously with no middle category.

    Table 1

    Group means._________________________________________________

    Total OTHR ED

    Fixed 64 (.27) 40 (.27) 24 (.26)Malleable 134 (.56) 77 (.53) 57 (.62)Middle 40 (.17) 29 (.20) 11 (.12)Total 238 146 92

    _________________________________________________Note. The number represents the actual number of people that metthat criterion. In the parentheses is the proportion of the sample thatmet that criterion.

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 3

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    praising effort instead of success may help assuage some ofthese difficulties. With 38% of education students reportingthat ability may not be malleable, the current study suggeststhat teacher training programs have substantial room toimprove the effectiveness with which they communicateclassroom applications of research findings. With ability beingsuch a prominent component of gifted identification andprogramming, greater understanding of teacher and studentimplicit beliefs about the nature of ability can help revealimproved classroom practices.


    Because data were not collected prior to the participantsbeginning college, it is unknown whether education studentsstarted college believing that ability is a fixed trait, or whether

    the college curricula has actually swayed their beliefs. Thisscenario is possible, but seems unlikely. If anything, onewould assume that people who believe ability is fixed wouldbe less likely to go into education, not more likely.


    The current study measured the implicit beliefs of collegeundergraduates about general ability (is it fixed or malleable).Results indicated that future teachers were not more likely tobelieve that ability is malleable than undergraduates notplanning on becoming teachers. This suggests that schools ofeducation may want to explore alternative ways ofapproaching this topic in their curricula. Although the data donot specifically address giftedness, they do address issues thatare becoming increasingly prominent in this field.

    ReferencesBempechat, J., & London, P. (1991). Childrens conceptions of ability in major domains: An interview and experimental study. Child

    Study Journal, 21(1), 11-37.

    Benenson, J. F., & Dweck, C. S. (1986). The development of trait explanations and self-evaluations in the academic and social domains.Child Development, 57(5), 1179-1187.

    Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality.Journal of Personality and Social

    Psychology, 42, 1631.

    Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.

    Dweck, C. S. (2006).Mindset. New York: Random House.

    Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Childrens thinking about traits: Implications for judgments of the self and others. ChildDevelopment, 69(2) 391-403.

    Hopkins, G. (2000). How can teachers develop students motivation and success? Retrieved September 19, 2009, from

    Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 77, 588599.

    Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (Eds.) (2009). The development of giftedness and talent across the life span. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

    Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? Asocial cognitive neuroscience model. SCAN, 1, 75-86.

    Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1996, April). Implicit theories of intelligence: Relation of parental beliefs to childrens expectations. Postersession presented at Head Starts Third National Research Conference, Washington, DC.

    Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine childrens motivation and performance. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 75, 3352.

    Papierno, P. B., Ceci. S. J., Makel, M. C., & Williams, W. M. (2005). The nature and nurture of talent: A bioecological perspective on theontogeny of exceptional abilities.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28 , 312-332.

    Plucker, J. A. (Ed.). (2007). Human intelligence: Historical influences, current controversies, teaching resources. Retrieved September 20, 2009,from

    Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607-627.

    Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Giftedness as developing expertise: A theory of the interface between high abilities and achievement. High Ability

    Studies, 12, 159-179.

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 4

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    For the second edition of Differentiating for the Young Child, theauthors maintained their focus to help primary teachersrespond to the diverse needs of primary students. However,they offer additional information to address the concerns ofteachers who find differentiating instruction challenging andfeel overwhelmed with getting started on such an approach.Although this edition is quite comprehensive, I wasdisappointed to find a lack of pre-k examples in this book.The title is a bit deceiving when the examples provided areonly for kindergarten through 3rd grade. Yes, pre-k teacherscan use the ideas in the books for instructing students, butwhen opening the book I was disappointed to learn that thebook uses pre-k in the title but provides little specific contentfor that population of students.

    The books chapters are clearly focused and organized andbuild the readers knowledge as they progress from onechapter to another. Each chapter was quite comprehensiveand the readers would benefit from a careful exploration ofthe information in the order in which it is presented.Although not a difficult read, it will most likely be time-consuming and I wonder whether the abundance ofinformation will overwhelm a teacher.

    In the first chapter, the authors use the metaphor the journeyto describe the teaching and learning process. The learning

    journey as they describe it contains five steps, which can be

    found on page 10. These steps include: (1) Know your traveler(children and teachers), (2) Determine the destination (goalsand objectives), (3) Identify proof or evidence that thedestination has been reached, (4) Plan the journey, and (5)Reassess and adjust according to new needs and changes. Thefirst chapter provides an explanation of these steps in depth,as well as quality examples of each step in the context of aclassroom. Towards the end of the chapter, additionalinformation on the environment, resources, materials, andadaptations are provided for teachers to use to support thediverse needs of their students.

    The assessment process for young children is discussed in

    chapter 2. This component of the book addresses the need forquality assessments that examine the individual childsabilities. It reminds the reader of the importance of thecontribution that quality assessments make to theinstructional process. Here again, the authors break down theprocedure to assess young students in a differentiatedclassroom into five manageable sections and explain each indetail. The authors remind us that we need to understand theWhy?, What?, Who?, When?, and How? of the assessmentprocess and that each piece is equally informative to supportthe student and enhance the journey. Many examples are

    offered throughout the chapter that demonstrate the impact ofgood assessment measures on learning and teaching.

    Often teachers are taught great strategies for learning butclassroom management is neglected. Chapter 3 examinesthese two important componentsmanageability andstrategiesand what these especially mean for differentiationof instruction. The first half of the chapter speaks to classroommanagement, because without it, chaos ensues anddifferentiated learning does not occur. The second half isdedicated to strategies for individual learning needs ofstudents. The strategies discussed offer teachers an in-depthlist of ideas and suggestions for the types of strategies to use,

    the pace and level of the students, and the groupings that canbe created in the classroom. It is important that the reader notoverlook the importance of this chapter, since it sets the stagefor successful implementation of the various subjects that areindividually discussed in chapters 4-8.

    The final section of the book addresses the subject areas. Abrief chapter 4 discusses the value of the arts in theclassroom and how art can be infused in all subject areas.Chapters 5-8 look at differentiated instruction as it applies toLanguage Arts, Social Studies, Science, and Mathematics.Each chapter is structured the same; it begins by looking atwhat is referred to as the big picture which includes thegoals of each subject. It then applies the five step plan

    (discussed in chapter 1) and provides examples of each stepfor the particular subject. This section is full of informationand offers many examples from the classroom. After athorough explanation of the steps, the authors includeexamples of other teaching and learning activities that havebeen used in the classroom setting. The end of each chapterprovides a list of web sites that can offer ideas, lessons, andother resources to support the teacher in the instructionalprocess.

    I found the book to be loaded with well chosen examples andnicely designed strategies and steps for new teachers to begindifferentiating instruction or for experienced teachers to

    refresh their practice. Although individuals new to thisprocess may be overwhelmed by this plethora of information,the authors organization, step-by-step procedures, and reallife classroom examples should be useful for any primarygrade teacher. Where the book fell short was its lack of pre-kexamples and resources. The book title should say K-3rdgrade, and pre-k should be removed.

    Differentiating for the Young Child: Teaching S trategies across the C ontent Areas,PreK-3 , second edition, by Joan Franklin Smutny & S. E. Von Fremd.Reviewed by Pamela L. Shue

    Book Review

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 5

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    Using Life-Story Research in Gifted Education

    That old saw, the more things change the more they stay thesame, is never truer than when applied to the topic ofunderachieving bright children. Nothing seems to bothereducators and parents more than a child who appears fullycapable of producing top-notch work, yet does not.

    For nearly a century, parents, educators, and psychologistshave been acutely aware of a group of students whoseacademic performance does not correlate with their ability.Examine any discussion in the gifted literature regarding the

    need for additional research, and the subject ofunderachievement by high-ability students is present(National Research Center on Gifted and Talented [NRC/GT],2009; Niehart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; Robinson, 2006;Schober, Reimann, & Wagner, 2004). Though giftedunderachievement may seem like an obvious construct, thereis nothing obvious about it; researchers, educators, andlaypeople continue to disagree about the definitions of bothgiftedness and underachievement, as well as how each shouldbe measured (Coleman, 2004; Reis & McCoach, 2000).

    However one measures it, giftedness has a connection withhigh potential. That high potential may manifest itselfthrough identification of high ability as measured bystandardized mental ability and/or achievement tests, or byindividual psychological/educational examination, self-identification (based upon an awareness of differences inability to understand people, ideas or content knowledge withgreater ease than peers), or peer nomination. Or, it could bereflected in exceptional creative products, performances, orleadership activities. It could also show in high grades,inclusion in special educational programming for giftedstudents, grade acceleration, early-admission into school,early college enrollment/dual enrollment in college and highschool, and/or inclusion in accelerated classes. No matterhow we specifically define giftedness, we often recognize itwhen we see it, just as we can often tell when an individual isnot achieving to his or her ability. As far back as 1955, Gowan

    called underachievement one of the greatest social wastes ofour culture (p. 247). Twenty years later, he revisited thetopic, stating that research into gifted children had turned updry hole after dry hole, in investigating underachievement(Gowan, 1977).

    Since that time, progress has been made; the hole is no longerdry, but neither has it produced a deep and reliable well ofinformation with which to make consistently soundeducational decisions. And, though hundreds of experts havewritten thousands of pages on underachievement in all itsaspects (Beasley, 1957; Bricklin & Bricklin, 1967; DeLisle &

    Berger, 1990; Dowdall, 1982; Fehrenbach, 1993; Frasier, et al.,1958; Gallagher, 1994; Hbert, 1991, 1999; Matthews & McBee,2007; Rimm, 1987, 1988; Van Tassel-Baska, 2005; Whiting,2009; Whitmore, 1980, 1986) and underachievement of giftedstudents specifically, just one study to date (Peterson, 2001)has sought information from adults who were themselvesunderachievers. To date, there exists no in-depth or large-scale study investigating those individuals who havemanaged to reverse their underachievement without benefitof formal interventions and then emerge as self-fulfilledadults. Studying these people, really listening to what theyhave to say via their personal narratives, inductivelyanalyzed, offers us the opportunity to learn from theirexperiences and obtain the insiders views onunderachievement.

    The single most commonly encountered definition ofunderachievement was that of Whitmore, who referred tostudents who demonstrate exceptionally high capacity foracademic achievement and are not performing satisfactorilyfor their levels on daily academic tasks and achievementtests (1980). Olenchak (1999) offered a more inclusivedefinition, stating that, underachievement among giftedstudents, like giftedness and underachievement separately, isnot a clearly defined construct (p. 294), and that ourdefinitions of underachievement need to include more thanstudents academic work because, regardless of its context,underachievement eventually produces the same [negative]outcomes for gifted young people who experience it (p.293).

    Underachievement, like giftedness itself, can be identifiedthrough personal anecdotes, school records, test scores, worksamples, and grades (Baum, Renzulli & Hbert, 1995; Peterson& Colangelo, 1996). Fehrenbach (1993) looked for,established, self-defeating patterns of behavior, while Ford(1997) relied on psychometric definitions, qualitative, and/orsubjective measures. No matter how you define or identifyunderachievement, one thing is clear: the failure of many ofour most able students to reach their potential remains one ofthe most perplexing, challenging problems in education

    today, and how to teach and motivate high potential studentsto perform to their level of ability a major problem in todayseducational community.

    A New Lens for Understanding Underachieving GiftedStudents

    As a parent, educator, researcher, and problem solver whohas practiced her craft in the educational community withstudents from preschool through graduate school, I canknowledgably state that despite repeated efforts, few of us

    Using Life-Story Research in Gifted EducationLori J. Flint, East Carolina University


    In this article I discuss a promising approach to the problem of gifted underachievement, the research tradition of

    life story, and I examine the nature of constructed narratives and explain the narrative methods used to conduct this

    study. I include portions of one constructed narrative to illustrate the narrative product of life story research.

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 6

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    have found keys that consistently unlock achievementmotivation in students.

    If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again andexpecting different results(Anonymous), could one of theprimary obstacles to solving this underachievement puzzlebe related to how we have traditionally approached theconundrum, i.e., that something must be wrong with thestudent if s/he is not living up to his or her potential? Whatchanges if we approach things from a different perspective,through a different educational lens?

    When we begin to examine underachievement throughseveral different lenses (family/parenting;intrapersonal/psychological; andschool/teaching/curriculum) we uncover some startlingrevelations. In this article I discuss a promising approach tothe problem of gifted underachievementthe researchtradition of life storyand I examine the nature ofconstructed narratives and explain the narrative methodsused to conduct this study. I include portions of oneconstructed narrative to illustrate the narrative product of life-story research. Data analysis, including that done throughqualitative data analysis software, findings, and discussionare the focus of another paper, which will include portions of

    a second constructed life story.Research questions

    Though life story research is by its very nature dynamic, withquestions evolving throughout a study, I began this studywith two main (sets of) questions: The first question examineshow it was that some gifted individuals (who significantlyunderachieved while students) were able to eventuallyovercome their problems and become high achieving adultcitizens? Related to that question are these: What factor(s) dothey perceive as being critical to their success? Was theresome particular moment when they suddenly decided tochange? Did they change, or did factors outside themselveschange? Do they attribute their current self-fulfilled state to

    their own hard work, or to others interventions?

    The second question is: to what do they attribute their formerachievement problems? Other, related questions are: Werethere particular environmental, intrapersonal, or societalfactors they felt caused the problem(s)? Why do they feelinterventions aimed at reversing the underachievementfailed? If they had the opportunity to go back and be studentsagain, would they? If they were able to control all externaland internal factors, would they do anything differently? Dothese individuals wish they had become achievers at anearlier age, or do they perceive benefits from theirexperiences, no matter how negative?

    The research methodologyOver a period of about ten years, I have collected orsupervised the collection of life stories of nearly 80 men andwomen who formerly underachieved, but who now considerthemselves successful adults. An initial pilot study includedone male and one female participant, and my dissertationincluded four individuals who clearly met my parameters.Since then, I have added 70 additional cases to the aggregateddata, using the same methodology.

    Each participants story is an individual case study as well asa part of the cross-case analysis, lending greater reliability and

    perhaps generalizability to the findings (Merriam, 1988),because patterns that emerge through the study of individuallife stories or case studies can help strengthen the internalvalidity of research. Purposive sampling was used to choosefour prospective participants, representative of intensitysamples (Patton, 2002) of chronic underachievers (those whounderachieved over a multi-year period), since they were myprimary area of interest (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Intensitysamples, or those that are neither extreme cases of thephenomenon under study nor marginal ones, are, instead,intense exemplars from which we can learn. Because theliterature has shown differences in the experiences ofunderachievement between males and females, there wasequal representation of both sexes.

    A wide-ranging network of friends and acquaintancespermitted use of a variation of what LeComte and Preissle(1993) call networking sampling, and Patton (2002, p.194)refers to as snowball sampling, to recruit participants. Thepurest form of network sampling, or snowball sampling,involves identifying one person who fits the requirements ofthe study, then having them identify someone else whopossesses the desired characteristics, repeatedly until thedesired sample size is attained. Simple and elegant, theresearcher contacts her network, which then spreads the news

    through their contacts, resulting in an ever-increasingcollection of potential participants from which to choose.

    Defining gifted and successful adult

    Because of the nature of this study, it seemed logical that ifpeople were underachievers as children or youth theyrequired some time to reverse their underachievement, aswell as time to develop expertise in their area of success. Sinceit generally requires at least ten years to become expert in afield (Bloom, 1985), this meant study participants had to be atleast approximately 30 years old. Since educationalprogramming designed specifically for gifted students is arelatively recent phenomenon, I chose a ceiling age of 60

    years. Historical indicators of giftedness mentioned earliergrade acceleration, early admission, dual enrollment incollege, and special classeswere included as well. Sincegiftedness is a difficult to define and often controversial topic,for the purpose of this study a participant was consideredgifted if at least three of the following criteria were met:formal identification of high-ability as measured bystandardized mental ability and/or achievement tests,individual psychological/educational examination, self-identification (based upon an awareness of differences inability to understand people, ideas or content knowledge withgreater ease than peers), high grades, inclusion in specialeducational programming for gifted students, gradeacceleration, early-admission into school, early college

    enrollment/dual enrollment in college and high school,demonstrated creative ability, awards for exceptionalcreativity or academic performance, and/or inclusion inaccelerated classes.

    In addition to identifying the potential participant as gifted, Ialso had to ascertain whether he or she considered himself orherself to be a successful adult. Success is a personally definedconstruct. For the purpose of this study, I examined thecriterion of success by asking potential participants threequestions: are you personally capable and fulfilled? Have youattained competence in your chosen discipline? Do you feel

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    self fulfilled? Affirmative answers to these questions,combined with appropriate responses to the previousquestions allowed us to proceed to the next level, aninvitation to participate in the study. Participants also eachidentified a pseudonym by which to be known in the studydata. To gather the life story, each participant completed alengthy questionnaire that examined familial, school, andintrapersonal factors, and also participated in a lengthy life-story interview with a researcher.

    The value of life story and narrative

    Life histories have been collected for centuries, evolving fromoral history and other ethnographic approaches to datacollection. The use of life stories, for serious academic studyis considered to have begun in psychology with Freuds 1910psychoanalytic interpretation of individual case studies(Atkinson, 1998, p.3). After Freud, life stories were usedthroughout the 1930s, 40s and 50s by psychologists andresearchers such as Erikson, though not frequently until aboutthe 1980s. Since that time, the contemporary use of life-storyresearch as a type of narrative inquiry has increased, mainlyin the disciplines of sociology, education, and health care, andhas become a growing element in the narrative study of lives(Cohler, 1988; Gergen & Gergen, 1993; Josselson & Lieblich,

    1993). Atkinson (1998) called the subjective narrative of thelife story the quintessential way to help the researchercomprehend the phenomenon under study from the insiderspoint of view. Bertraux (1981) saw the life-story narrative asproviding not only that point of view, but also a constructedview of the social reality existing outside the story, asexplained by the narrative.

    Collecting, examining, then comparing life stories gatheredfrom participants with shared experience (cross-case analysis)also provides the researcher insight into how particular socialfactors, events, and political forces may have contributed totheir experiences as related to particular phenomena (Stewart,1994). This allows the words of people who lived the

    underachievement experience to inform us about how we canbetter help certain gifted students become achievers.

    Transforming and therapeutic are commonly applied wordswhen mentioning narrative, even when therapy is not anintended result. Most people have experienced a time whenthe simple unburdening of a story became a cathartic event.Others have experienced the crystallizing moment during thetelling of a story when suddenly all becomes clear.Conversely, many of us have experienced the heavy weight ofa story left untold; secrets left unshared. Duhl stated,

    Stories are like jazz. They have different meanings todifferent people. They allow for interaction, forsurprise, and for finding new and alternative ways to

    cope. At different times, when repeated, they havenew meanings. Stories permit each of us to learn at ourown pace (1999, p.542).

    Narrative inquiry makes it possible for a person to tell his orher story in the manner in which he or she wishes to tell it to anon-judgmental listener. This is important because sometimespeoples stories are either not allowed voice at all, or are notof their own creation, or both, but are instead foisted on themby someone more powerful than they. This silencing (Lister,1982) often lies at the center of problems, includingachievement problems, plaguing people. Whether silencing is

    actual physical violence; a family environment steeped insecretiveness; social isolation related to the way we live inmodern societies; or attached to issues of authority such asthose found in schools (Lister, 1982; McLeod, 1996), the effectis the same: people are prevented from telling their storiesand from gaining the associated therapeutic effects ofnarrative.

    Constructed narratives

    Each recorded interview took from 1 to 3 hours to complete.Following the interviews, verbatim transcriptions wereperformed. The next step involved the transformation oftranscripts into narratives, stories by which each individuallocated themselves, their giftedness, underachievement, andsubsequent successes in their worlds. In this process, theresearcher does not choose what to preserve and what todiscard; everything was retained. Choices were only madeabout the organization of the narratives; in what order shouldthe raw interview material that initially had a stream-ofconsciousness quality be finally presented?

    There are many types and levels of meaning in narratives. Thewords a person chooses to speak have meanings, the placewhere we begin and end our stories has meanings, pausesand small vocalizations have meanings. The things we choosenot to say have meanings. The challenge, then, was to find away to maintain the integrity of each persons story, whilecreating a narrative flow. By moving chunks of thetranscriptions around, using each participants words exactlyas spoken, I created a story that read well. Because meaningresides in both words and experiences, some chunks weregrouped together by words, others by meaning. The flow ofthe narratives is loosely chronological, from earliestremembrances to the present.

    When people answer open-ended questions, they do notusually do so in a linear fashion, though the degree ofdirectness varies from person to person. Instead, we tell smallstories to illustrate points in the greater narrative; we digress,

    circling the issue, repeating various points throughout theentirety of a conversation or interview. Sometimes we juststop, and then resume, without ever having answered thequestion. Left as raw transcripts these narratives are difficultto follow, the structure of the narrative often interfering withour ability to discern meaning. By constructing thesenarratives into stories, each has a beginning, middle, and end.Each contains a problem or problems, some explicitly stated,some only implicitly. Each narrative has its own cast ofcharacters, concurrent plots, and a happy ending of sorts. Theconstruction of each narrative took at least as long as the initialinterview had, though some took much longer. Constructionwas carefully performed to respectfully preserve each

    speakers intent. Creating story flow without the insertion oftransition sentences was challenging. Long pauses, laughs, orany other notable instances were bracketed within the text.Words or phrases emphasized by the individual were placedin bold print. An ellipsis was used to indicate smallconversational pauses, breaks, in the conversation. Interviewerquestions were not included in the text.

    Keeping narratives in their owners hands

    Because this is life-story research, there was another step inmy research process: presenting the collected data to studyparticipants and having them check for accuracy (Hones,

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 8

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    1998; Nye, 1997), otherwise known as member checking.Participants own these, their stories, and thus have the rightto edit their own words and ensure accurate representation ofthemselves. Member checking was originally to have takenplace in a follow-up interview, but for both participant andresearcher convenience, was instead done by email. Once Ihad transcribed the taped interviews and written abiographical piece derived from the initial telephone calls andlife-story questionnaire, I emailed this document to eachparticipant, asking him or her to check for veracity andaccuracy, and inviting them to change what they felt neededto change. Though this was a potentially risky undertaking,one where participants could choose to heavily edit workalready carefully done, it was a step crucial to the process ofnarrative analysis. Why?

    Data collected and subsequent writings were not only basedupon the participants stories, they were the participantsstories. When interviews were transcribed, they weretranscribed verbatim, with the exception of researcherquestions, when possible, and the usual ums, ahs, and youknows deleted to improve narrative flow. Participantscompleted their questionnaires, told their stories, made theirown interpretations of what was occurring, and why, thenhad the opportunity to examine their interview transcriptions

    and what I wrote by means of member checks. Memberchecks were completed during the finalization of myconstruction of the narratives, and the last changes werereceived after I had finished all the narrative construction.Though momentarily exasperated, I did the right thing, andnever even opened the email before assuring the participantthat I would honor any changes she wished to make. Thestory was her story. Though I was the one asking questionsand searching for narrative spaces in the stories, I was merelythe sounding board, the conduit through which their storiesand their interpretations of those stories traveled, sometimesfor the first time. Knowing What to leave in and what toleave out: choosing to be sensitive to individuals who allowed

    me to enter into their stories and lives (deMarrais, 1998,p.151) was one of my greatest challenges in the writing up ofthis information, so I handled it by returning the power toedit to the rightful owners.

    Limitations of the method

    My studies to date have indicated a high degree ofconsistency among the initial two, then four, then 76 stories,with more similarities than differences between them. Itstands to reason that when this many people with entirelydifferent experiences of giftedness, representing both sexesand with a 20-year spread in age tell stories of such similarity,they must be of some merit. These stories, purposefullyselected, cannot be generalized to all gifted children and

    adults, but may be considered trustworthy enough to teachimportant lessons. Each individuals narrative had a highdegree of internal consistency between the interview material,questionnaire data, and follow-up questions and answers;their stories did not change according to what they thought Iwanted to hear, nor were they scripted, pat responses. Asmentioned earlier, analyses are ongoing and specific findingswill be the subject of future papers.

    To illustrate the potential of this research genre, below Ipresent a few brief snippets from one participants life-storyinterview. Casey, a 31-year-old male former underachieving

    gifted student (now successful attorney) is the topic of aconstructed narrative that fills 31 double-spaced pages. Whileinteresting to read, for the sake of brevity I have includedexcerpts only.

    Excerpts from Caseys life-story

    I still remember it was in second grade, Miss Cliftonand Miss Morris. Miss Clifton told me to take a test. Iasked her what for, and she said something to theeffect of we just want to see how well you do, orsomething. It was a test, so I took it, and all of asudden, the next semester, so I must have taken it inthe fall, and so it was the next semester they took thestudents, they got divided up differently. Never said aword about anything. The next thing I knew I was in adifferent group of kids. When I was in the third grade,they identified it was gifted. Yeah, I got told I wasgifted from the time I was in third grade until the timeI graduated from high school. Once you put that labelon therebeing GT was tough, what they did though,was they put you in classes with the advanced kids.

    Both the GT and the advanced students were smart,but not the same, but they worked hard. They weresmart, but on a certain level, I like to put it, mycomputer worked a little faster. Theyre the ones whoanswered all 50 of the homework problems andshowed their work. And I said, man, what theyd dothat for? Didnt you figure it out after ten problems?They had that need, and the teacher told them to do it,so they did it, but those people are what we call incollege, beat the bull in college. So, they frustratedme on one sense because on some of them I, I know Ican do these faster than you can, but they played thegame and I was like, why are you playing the game,you can go so much farther, stop playing their game,play my game. Do it like I do it and we can convincethem to change the system. [laugh] I was, like, how

    do I manipulate the system to benefit me? That wasthe nature of the idea. But there were these peoplewho were playing the game, and I thought, youremessing me up! As I reflect back on that, I recognizewhat was going on and I wish I had been one of them.I almost wish I had just been that advanced studentwho had played by the rules and attempted to workwithin the system.

    I was a band nerd. I have friends that were band nerdswho, the mere concept of that sent them into afrenzyI think everyone needs a groupI think I seethat in any extracurricular. But whether youre in anyathletics or whatever else, you always fit in

    somewhere in your group. I think the students thatdont have anything to belong to that are more of aproblem probably have less timenot less time

    just more of a problem. I think thats what probablysaved me in high school, because if I hadnt been inband, or tried to participate in extracurriculars [pause]I dont know what would have happened. Because if Iwas left to my own devices, you know, go to school, gohome, do nothing. I probably would have made afascinating criminal at some point.

    That self-confidence led me to probably make choicesand determinations. in. math homework was a

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 9

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    great one. I hated math homework. I hated mathhomework because they give you fifty problems, andthey are dealing with the same concept. After I didabout ten of them, Im like, this is the same thingsowhat if you change the numbersokso I get adifferent answer, but its the same concept. It reallycame out in Algebra, Geometry, Algebra II. thosewere the three absolute worstI was like, this wasretardedoh, I hated showing my work! 3 X=15; x is 5.Go to town; were done. I dont need to show youdivide by three on each side and give you youranswer. Having married a teacher, I understand whythey do it now, but I guess that was part of myunderachievement was that Id go to the teacher andsay, I can do that; test me on it, and they would, andId take a test and Id do fine. My grades were notreflective of knowledge or anything else. They werereflective of that the system said were gonna put moreemphasis on homework, because I think because thestupid people are still stuck in your class with you,and they need all the practice and everything theygetthey need the cheap, easy grades. I was like, justgive me my grade on my tests. I think a lot of theteachers were just really frustrated with me when they

    saw how good I could do on the testsI dontremember which of the teachers it was who said, whydont you just do your homework, and I was, like,because its boring.

    I was in Aldine. They had gifted and talented andadvanced. AP classes were just starting to be offeredaround then. I remember in my senior year I had thechoice between taking AP English or gifted andtalented, and I realized somethings wrong with thissystem. I mean, Im GT what the hells with this APcrap? At the time I thought that by taking AP English Iwasnt going to be with the same kids Id always beenwith. I think there were fourteen of us. We were pretty

    much in the same classes together. There were a groupor 4 or 5 of us who came out of elementary that wentto junior high. In junior high the group expanded byabout 2 or 3, and by high school, because there weremore junior highs, we expanded up to about 14. Wewere the same groups of kids from 9th grade to 12thgrade.

    I think that at some level, you almost have to be a littlebit gifted to understand another gifted person. I thinkthe best teachers I hadI dont know whether theywere gifted or not, but they at least had the ability tounderstand who I was, and I think that, as I talkthrough this and understand more, maybe they were,

    so they understood some of what I was going through.And some of those, who were, for lack of a betterword, regular teachers, theyd gone up and beensmart, but they werent at that next level. Those are theones that I ran roughshod over and just bullied. Yeah,teachers who teach gifted kids need to be gifted. Mywife was telling me about a teacher in her schoolwhos teaching the gifted students, and shes teachinga course, where shes not teaching the math part of itbecause she doesnt like math. When I hear stories likethat, I tell my wife, God help me if anyone ever put meon the school board or put me in charge of the school,

    because Id tear the place upside down. Id probablyalienate the kids who really need the help because ofthe way I think. Kids like me, Id take all of them outand stick them in their own classroom. One of thethings I hear through the grapevine is that for thegifted and advanced students, if youre not making anA or a B, you make a C, were taking you out of theprogram. So if I make a C in a gifted and talented class,so Im an average GT kid. One of the things theyreteaching is about As, Bs, Cs, Ds. A is excellent, B isgood, C is average, D is below average, F is failing. Soif I make a C that means Im an average gifted andtalented student; what the hells wrong with that? Thatstill makes me smarter than half the other kids! Theyhadnt started that; those discussions started in highschool. I couldnt believe it, I said, Youre going totake me out of the GT program if I dont make an A ora B. Thats the most stupid thing I can think of! Imean. I wasnt making the grade I was makingbecause of. whatever. Okay, so if I made a C, it wasan average of everything else we were doing. Itprobably means I only did average work, but not whatI was capable of, if I even did it. So thats one concept Ihear about that that I think if youve identified a

    child as gifted and he has all the factors, whatever youwant to define those factors as, dont punish the kid ifhe doesnt make the grades, because chances are if hesnot making the grades, in my opinion, its because theteacher sucks. And I can see why those teachers wouldtake offense at those comments, because they think,well, Im not a bad teacher. Well, maybe you are, butnot for some kids. Oh, hell no; not all teachers are goodfor all kids!

    Parting thoughts

    Research conducted in the life story tradition yields a plethoraof detailed information, and this is evident even beforeanalysis of the data has been completed. Narratives exemplify

    the phenomenon under study, yielding stories that holdreaders interest and contain pathos, humor, anger, and thefull range of human emotions and experiences. Triangulationresults in additional material to be added. Reporting of resultsshould logically include both the narratives and the findingsresulting from their analysis, but this poses a problem forpublication. Most journals have limitations on length ofarticles, yet qualitative research of this nature yields bushelsof data.

    In the case of my initial dissertation study, Stories of Success:Self-Interventions of Gifted Underachievers (Flint, 2002),conversations with several journal editors at that timeindicated it might be wise to include selected portions of the

    study in separate articles, rather than attempt to cover thework in one lengthy paper. Life-story research is becomingmore common in helping us understand facets of the humanexperience. While the length of these qualitative studies hastraditionally been a drawback, researchers, authors, editors,and publishers, particularly online, are beginning to findways to preserve the integrity of the research by publishingentire studies instead of excerpts. Several journals, books,research centers, and publishers focus exclusively on life storycollection and dissemination. These include Jossellson andLieblichs Narrative Study of Lives series, available through

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 1

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    SAGE Publications, and Atkinsons Center for the Study ofLives, among others.

    Each narrative constructed from a participants life storycontains a wealth of firsthand information about the lived

    experience of one person who chronically underachieved.Each also teaches us valuable lessons about how to helppeople move toward happier, more productive, and fulfilledlives.

    ReferencesAtkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Atkinson, R. (1995). The gift of stories. Westport, CT: Bergen & Garvey.

    Barthes, R. (1974). Introduction to the structural analysis of the narrative. Paper at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, Universityof Birmingham.

    Beasley, J. (1957). Underachievement : A review of the literature. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Teaching gifted students (pp. 239-257). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

    Bertraux, D. (1981). Biography and society. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballentine.

    Borman, K. M., LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1986). Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesn't work.AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 30(1), 43-57.

    Bricklin, B., & Bricklin., P. (1967). Bright child, poor grades. NY: Delacourt Press.

    Butler, R. (1963). The life review: An interpretation of reminiscence in the aged. Psychiatry, 26, 65-67.

    Ceglowski, D. (2000). Research as relationship. Qualitative Inquiry, 6(1), 88-103.

    Cohler, B. (1988). The human studies and life history. Social Service Review, 62(4), 552-575.

    Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Christensen, P., & Maxey, J. (1993). A comparison of gifted underachievers and gifted high achievers. GiftedChild Quarterly, 37(4), 155-160.

    Coleman, L. (2004). Is consensus on a definition in the field possible, desirable, necessary? Roeper Review, 27(1), 10-11.

    DeLisle, J., & Berger, S. L. (1990). Underachieving gifted students. (Digest E478). Washington, DC: ERIC.

    deMarrais, K.P.B. (1998). Inside stories. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Dowdall, C. B., & Colangelo, N. (1982). Underachieving gifted students: Review & implications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(4), 179-184.

    Duhl, L.J. (1999). Confessions of a psychotherapist. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 63(4), p.538-547.

    Eaves, Y.D., & Kahn, D.L. (2000). Coming to terms with perceived danger: A researchers narrative.Journal of Holistic Nursing, 18(1), 27-45.

    Fehrenbach, C. R. (1993). Underachieving gifted students: interventions that work. Roeper Review, 16, 88-90.

    Flick, U. (1998).An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.

    Flint, L.J. (2002). Stories of success: Self-interventions of gifted underachievers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia,Athens.

    Frasier, A., Passow, A. H., & Goldberg, M.L. (1958). Curriculum research: Study of underachieving gifted. Educational Leadership, 16(121-125).

    Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher., S.A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

    Gergen, K.J., & Gergen, M.M. (1988). Narrative and self as relationship.Advances in Experimental Psychology, 21-17-56.

    Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research (pp.105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Hbert, T. P. (1991). Meeting the affective needs of bright boys through bibliotherapy. Roeper Review, 13(4), 207-213.

    Hbert, T. P. (1999). Culturally diverse high-achieving students in an urban high school. Urban Education, 34(4), 428-478.

    Holstein, J.A., & Gubrium, J.F. ( 1995 ). The active interview. (Qualitative Research Methods Series, Vol. 37). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGEPublications.

    Hones, D. (1998). Known in part: The transformational power of narrative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 225-249.

    Josselson R., & Lieblich, A. (Eds.). (1993). The narrative study of lives: Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Lamb, G.S., & Huttlinger, K. (1989). Reflexivity in nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 11, 765-772.

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 11

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    Langness, L.L., & Frank, G. (1981). Lives: An anthropological approach to biography. California: Chandler & Sharp.

    Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Lister, E.D. (1982). Forced silence: A neglected dimension of trauma.American Journal of Psychology, 139, 872-876.

    Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Matthews, M. S., & McBee, M. T. (2007). School factors and the underachievement of gifted students in a talent search summer program.Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 167-181. DOI: 110.1177/0016986207299473.

    Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 7226, 50-53.

    McLeod, J. (1996). The emerging narrative approach to counseling and psychotherapy. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 24(2),173-185.

    Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Morse, J. M. (1999). Myth #93: Reliability and validity are not relevant to qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 9(6), 717-719.

    National Research Center on Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT). (2009). What works in gifted education. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from

    Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know?Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

    Nye, E.F. (1997). Writing as healing. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(4), 439-453.

    Peck, E., & Secker, J. (1999). Quality criteria for qualitative research: Does context make a difference? Qualitative Health Research. 9(4),552-559.

    Peshkin, A. (1988). Understanding complexity: A gift of qualitative inquiry.Anthropology and Educational Quarterly, 19 , 416-424.

    Peterson, J. S. ( 2001). Successful adults who were once adolescent underachievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(4), 236-50.

    Rimm, S. (2008). Underachievement syndrome: A psychological defensive pattern. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children:Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 139-160). New York: Springer.

    Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Pope C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Analysing qualitative data. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 7227, 114-117.

    Putney, L.G., Green, J.L., Dixon, C.L., & Kelly, G.J. (1999). Evolution of qualitative research: Looking beyond defense to possibilities.Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 368-378.

    Reissman, C.K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Ricoeur, P. (1983). Time and narrative. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Rimm, S.B. ( 1987 ). Why bright children underachieve: The pressures they feel. Gifted Child Today ,10, 30-36.Rimm, S.B. , & Lowe, B. ( 1988 ). Family environments of underachieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 353-359.

    Robinson, N. (2006). A report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 342-345.

    Schober, B., Reimann, R., & Wagner, P. (2004). Is research on gender-specific underachievement in gifted girls an obsolete topic? Newfindings on an often discussed issue. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 43-62. doi:10.1080/1359813042000225339.

    Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-479.

    Stewart, A.J. (1994). The womens movement and womens lives: Linking individual development and social events. In A. Lieblich & R.Josselson (Eds.), The narrative study of lives: Volume 2, pp. 230-250. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Sword, W. (1999). Accounting for presence of self: Reflections on doing qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9(2), 270-279.

    VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory IntoPractice, 44(3), 211-217.

    Weiss, R.S. (1994). Learning from strangers. New York: The Free Press.

    White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. London: W.W.Norton & Co.

    Whiting, G. (2009). Gifted Black males: Understanding and decreasing barriers to achievement and identity. Roeper Review, 31(4), 224-233.

    Whitmore, J. R. (1980a). Giftedness, conflict and underachievement. Boston, MA : Allyn & Bacon.

    Whitmore, J. R., & Maker, C.J. (1980b). Intellectual giftedness in disabled persons. Denver: Aspen Press.

    Whitmore, J. R. (1986). Understanding a lack of motivation to excel. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 66-69.

    Witherell, C., &. Noddings, N. (Eds.) . (1991). Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 1

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


    Dr. Lori Flint is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum & Instruction at East Carolina University. Teachingboth graduate and undergraduate students, she holds her doctorate from The University of Georgia in Educational

    Psychology/Gifted & Creative Education, and Master of Education from Ashland University in Talent Development. Dr. Flintserves on the boards of several national and local organizations related to improving schools and student experiences in them.

    An active advocate for children at the local, state, and national levels, she has experience teaching and parenting gifted andcreative children and adults, understanding their needs from birth through adulthood. Research interests include those related

    to increasing student achievement and motivation, especially through the specific teaching of skills needed for school and real-life survival; gender; social and emotional areas; and individual differences such as gifted students with learning disabilities.Correspondence may be addressed to: Lori J. Flint, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Speight 119, College of Education,

    East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858. Email:[email protected]

    Dr. Matthew Makel is a Gifted Education Research Specialist for the Duke University Talent Identification Program. Hereceived his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Indiana University, his M.A. in Developmental Psychology from CornellUniversity, and his B.A. in Psychology from Duke University. His research interests include measuring the effects of the giftedidentification process on student beliefs and behaviors as well as understanding how a persons implicit beliefs about

    giftedness or creativity influence their performance. Correspondence may be addressed to: Matthew C. Makel, Duke UniversityTalent Identification Program, 1121 West Main Street, Durham, NC 27701. Email: [email protected]

    Dr. Pam Shue completed her doctoral studies at Temple University in Philadelphia. After her studies she accepted a position asa research associate at the Family, Infant, and Preschool Program and then became a principal of a charter school. Currentlyshe is an assistant professor in the department of Special Education and Child Development at the University of NorthCarolina at Charlotte. Her interests and research involve early childhood educational practices, literacy development with

    English and non-English language learners, preschool policy, and inclusion practices. Correspondence may be addressed to:Pamela L. Shue, Department of Special Education and Child Development, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223. Email:[email protected]

    Author Notes

    Gifted Children Volume 3 Number 2 Winter 2009 Page 1

  • 8/14/2019 Gifted eJournal V3N2


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

    AERA Special Interest Groups Web Site:

    AERA SIGResearch on Giftedness and TalentOfficersChair

    Karen Rogers

    [email protected] (June 2008-June 2010)

    Chair ElectMarcia Gentry

    [email protected] (June 2008-June 2010)

    SecretaryCheryll M. Adams

    [email protected] (June 2008-June 2010)

    TreasurerRobbie McHardy

    [email protected] (June 2009-June 2011)

    Program ChairBetsy McCoach

    [email protected] (June 2009 June 2010)

    Assistant Program ChairScott Peters

    pete[email protected] (June 2009-June 2010 and thenbecome chair 2010-2011)

    Members-at-LargeJill Adelson

    [email protected] (June 2009-June 2011)Jonathan A. Plucker

    [email protected] (June 2009-2011)Catherine Little

    [email protected] (June 2006-June 2010)David Yun Dai

    dd[email protected] (June 2008-June 2010)Student Representative

    Kristina Ayers [email protected] (June 2008-June 2010)

    Newsletter EditorAngela Housand

    [email protected] (June 2009-June 2011)

    Gifted Children e-Journal EditorMichael S. Matthews

    [email protected] (2009)

    AERA SIGResearch on Giftedness and TalentWorking CommitteesAwards Committee

    Rena Subotnik

    [email protected] Frank Worrell

    [email protected] Tieso

    [email protected] Rogers

    [email protected] Matthews

    [email protected] Housand

    [email protected]