In dealing with any group of school aged children in any given situation there will generally be a number who stick out from the group for a variety of reasons.  One of these groups of atypical children has the potential to be either an absolute joy to work with or a constant source of frustration for the adults around them.  These are the exceptionally bright or gifted children.  Most school teachers are aware of these children and generally prepared to handle them.  However, this is not always true in Christian education.  Therefore, a study of these children is in order, to help better prepare the reader for encountering them in sunday school and youth clubs.

            There is some discussion as to what exactly "gifted" means.  Some would limit it only to those brilliant individuals who can play the cello, recite Shakespeare and compose original pieces before they are five years old.  These types of children, while they do exist, are extremely rare.  To limit the definition of "gifted" to them alone would exclude an entire group who are outstanding among their peers, yet who may or may not be geniuses.  It is this second group on which this paper will focus.

            There are Two basic ways in which to approach the study of giftedness: retrospectively and longitudinally.  The first looks at adults of prominence or renown and then traces their biographies to find factors that would contribute to their achievement.  This was the form that the earliest systematic studies took.  Most notable among these early studies was the work of Sir Francis Galton (1869), who identified and studied great men in nine different fields and Catherine Cox (1926), who chose three hundred people noted for their achievement who were born after 1450 and eliminated "those whose intellectual achievement had not contributed to their success" (Papalia, pp. 453-4).  The second selects bright children early in life and then follows their development and activities into adulthood to see what kind of success they attain (Papalia, pp. 453 and 455).  From these different studies the picture emerged that there is more than one type of giftedness among children and adults alike, the different types of study revealing significantly different paths.  Most often these become apparent during the elementary school years, because it is during these years that the various differences between children become pronounced.  These differences are not just limited to scholastics areas; behaviour and attitude, for example, are also areas of concern for teachers that exhibit this spread.  However, for the purposes of this paper, the discussion will be limited more directly to mental capabilities.  Cook pointed out that among six-year-olds, "there is a four-year range in general intelligence.  By the time this group has reached the age of twelve (sixth grade level) the range will have increased to almost eight years" (McDonald, p.421) 

            The variety of ability among gifted children may range from high intellectual ability to special talent in a particular area to high creativity (Berger, p.420).  Because they are endowed in one or more of these areas, such children tend to become rapid learners, albeit not necessarily in all, or the same, areas.  One thing they seem to have in common "is the ability to absorb abstract concepts, to organize them more effectively, and to apply them more appropriately than does the average youngster" (Gallagher, p.19).  The differences, however, make it difficult to define or discover from standardized IQ test the exceptionally capable student (Biehler, p.746).  In 1925 Lewis Terman (Stanford University) and Melita Oden, in the beginning stages of their long-term study of the gifted (Sarafino, p.279), proposed an IQ of 140 as a cutoff for "gifted" children.  This was generally accepted until the 1960's when concerns over the validity of such tests as the Stanford-Binet in relation to divergent thinkers were raised (Biehler, p.746).  The troubling question that has sought to be answered is why the many people who are adept at manipulating abstract concepts never display the brilliance and creativity generally associated with giftedness (Papalia, p. 455).  The conclusion is that there are two very different types of thinkers.

            Some exceptionally bright children tend to impress teachers because they are easy to work with.  They respond to instructions as given and consistently give the answers teachers want to hear.  They are well behaved, ideal students, and often chosen by teachers as the most competent, although they tend not to be very innovative.  They do very well in school and generally do well in their chosen profession.  These children tend to be convergent thinkers (Biehler, p.746); that is, they respond in a typical, conventional manner (Biehler, p.196), using the information provided in a way that leads to a recognized best answer (Biehler, p.653).  These children tend to pick up memorized information, such as spelling words or multiplication tables very quickly and are good organizers. 

            The most extensive longitudinal study of gifted children (and the adults they become) was conducted by Terman and various associates over a period of nearly four decades (1921-1959).  In it, he followed the development of approximately fifteen-hundred school children capable of producing IQ scores of over 135 (Sarafino, p.279).  The primary method by which the children were chosen was by asking a number of teachers in California to identify the three brightest students in the class, the youngest child in the class, and the brightest student they had taught the previous year (Papalia, p.455)  These and other bright children Terman uncovered were asked to take a series of test designed to measure intelligence, scholastic achievement, character, personality and interests.  Not surprisingly, the majority of these individuals have been shown to display signs of being convergent thinkers.  As Victor and Mildred Goertzel would later comment, "The teacher's ability to choose the child in her class who subsequently scored highest on the Stanford-Binet intelligence test was less than chance" (Papalia, p.455).  In addition, these children were given physical examinations and their parents and teachers were interviewed.  Extensive case histories, including, personality profiles, were put together.  The children were found to be generally superior all around, as opposed to the popular stereotype that imagined such people as all brain and nothing else (Papalia, 456).

            Terman and his associated then tracked these youngsters into adulthood, testing them occasionally and continuing to collect biographical material up through middle age.  They found that these individuals remained notably superior in intellectual ability.  They were ten times more likely than the general population to graduate from college and three times more likely to be elected to an honourary society.  They tended to be healthier, and fewer became alcoholics, however, it is interesting to note that they showed no evidence of coping any better with daily hassles and stress than anyone else (Papalia, p.456).  The surprising thing in Terman's study, however, was that none of the children became great writers, musicians or artists.  In fact, although they were successful, few really excelled in any field.  Terman noted this trend part way through the study (1947), noting that he doubted that more than sixty would become nationally known, or that more than a dozen would achieve eminence (Papalia, p. 458).  It seemed his subjects, although terribly bright, lacked creativity.

            A contrasting group of children are those who show signs of real creativity.  They are generally divergent thinkers.  They look for many different answers to a problem.  Berger gives the example of asking children "What can you do with a brick?"  The standard answers will have to do with using the brick as a building material or a weapon.  The creative child will come up with imaginative answers, using the brick in many different areas.  They may suggest using it for a step-up, for an anchor, an exercise tool, a doorstop, grinding it up to make paint or fill an hour glass, etc. (p.420).  It is not just the number of answers that mark these children, but the variety of their answers.  Although some of Cox's case studies would undoubtedly have fit here, neither she nor Terman took this kind of thinking into account in their studies; not did Galton look specifically for creativity, since he was primarily interested in discovering if giftedness or prowess ran in families (Papalia, p.453).  Unfortunately these children are more likely to get into trouble at school because their answers seem out of place in a typical elementary classroom that emphasizes "right" answers and conformity (Berger, p.420), making it little wonder that they were overlooked in early studies.  Their responses are seen as "unorthodox or unsettling . . . and perhaps give the impression that they are uncooperative or disruptive" (Biehler, p. 746), and may acquire a reputation of having "wild and silly ideas"  Children who suggest different ways to do math problems or refuse to eat a school lunch because particular ingredients are not likely to endear themselves to their teachers (Berger, p.420). The worst offense of these children in many teachers' eyes is their tendency to daydream when they are supposed to memorizing things.  They are likely to become very productive in their chosen profession, "provided their spark of genius is not completely squelched in school" (Biehler, p. 747).

            In light of the existence of these radically different types of talented children, it is generally agreed today that there are "two related manifestations of giftedness in cognitive functioning: high intelligence and high creativity" (Lefrancois, p.409).  Although Terman had not tested for creativity, a study was done by Wallach and Kogan in 1965 that compared tests of creativity and tests of intelligence.  What they found was that children high in both areas were able to do well at school, but easily became bored.  Children low in both areas generally came to value social activities over academic pursuits.  Children high in intelligence, but low in creativity were likely to highly favour, to the point of addiction, scholastic achievement; and it is this group tends to be favoured by teachers.  However, the opposite group, those high in creativity, but low or average in intelligence, tend to have the worst time at school and often lose confidence in themselves because of their school experience (Berger, p. 420).  This has lead many educators and psychologist to believe that talented children need special encouragement and enrichment, especially in the early school years, in order to maintain equilibrium between their self-esteem, social skills and talents (Berger, p. 420).

            It is well known that a lot of potentially bright youngsters do not live up to their potential, and especially not "the achievement and success-oriented image [college degrees, higher incomes, occupational success] portrayed by Terman" (Sarafino, p.279).  These children are typically known as underachievers.  They tend to have four things in common: a lack of emotional support, a lack of intellectual stimulation, poor study skills and negative attitudes (Sarafino, p.279).  Therefore, some would go so far as to say that giftedness cannot possibly be accounted for by looking at measures of intellect and creativity alone.  Motivation, attitude and personality must also be taken into account (Lefrancois, p.410).  Following this theme, Hallahan and Kaufman in 1978 suggested that three criteria be combined in a definition of giftedness: ability, creativity and commitment; moreover for children to be so designated they must surpass eighty-five percent of their peers in all three areas and ninety-eight percent in at least one (Lefrancois, p.410).  These somewhat nebulous ideas of motivation, attitude and personality that Hallahan and Kaufman distill into "commitment" had been noted by Terman in the course of his study.  In 1947, the case histories of the one-hundred and fifty most successful and the one-hundred and fifty least successful in his study were compared.  They were found to differ most in "integration towards goals", "self-confidence", and "freedom from inferiority feelings" (Papalia, p.457).

            Interestingly enough, a study of famous people the world over done in 1962 by Victor and Mildred Goertzel found that sixty percent of them hated their school years, and many misbehaved, skipped class, or dropped out altogether.  The responses were comparable in every school type and culture (Berger, p.420).  In fact, in a study done in 1970 (Fleming and Fleming), the academic record of a thirteen-year-old boy was submitted to a prestigious New England prep school for consideration for admission.  All twelve members of the admissions committee voted against it.  They pointed to the boy's borderline and sometimes failing marks in every subject but English and teachers' designations of him as "lazy and rebellious".  It was then revealed to the board that the record was that of Winston Churchill (Papalia, p.453).  Most people in this country are somewhat aware of this concept, being familiar as they are with the stories of Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison and Pablo Picasso, as well as Churchill, all of whom did poorly in school.  The Goerzels' study would seem to indicated that the problem is more widespread than generally realized.

            All gifted children potentially may run into problems created by their talents, including trouble finding friends among their peer group who will accept their abilities (Berger, p.420).  Generally, such children have comparable social adjustment to other children their age, however, their actual relations will depend on a number of factors including, their own attitudes, the attitudes of others towards them, their behaviour and their verbal capacity (Williams, p.323).  They may end up being excluded from group activities either by teachers who see them as "problems" (Berger, p.420), or simply because other children feel inferior and either develop jealousy or fear or because they themselves are dissatisfied with the standards of their peers (Williams, p.323).  Even parents or teacher that mean well can escalate such problems by singling out such children within a group as being "special".  Despite studies to the contrary, such as Terman and Oden, 1959; Durr, 1960; Wallach and Kogan, 1965; and Goleman, 1980 which demonstrated that bright children also tend to have good health, superior moral attitudes and social adjustment (Sarafino, p.279), old myths that gifted children are physically weak, unpopular and social awkward still linger.  Therefore, it is important for adults to treat such children as integral parts of the group, class, or family while at the same time providing the extra opportunities and activities to enrich their studies and experience.

            There is always a temptation when dealing with exceptionally talented children to push them towards advanced work quickly.  This may not always be wise.  One must examine whether it is the good of the child or their own pride that is motivating such action.  Gifted children need "to experience the normal joys of childhood" (Williams, p.323).  This includes association with other children, being complemented on good job, freedom from overscheduling, and opportunities to pursue interests without being spotlighted.  As Williams words it, "His accomplishments should not be emphasized to the detriment of the other children in his family and in his classroom" (p. 324).  In addition, it must be remembered that not all talented students will use their gifts in the same ways (Biehler, p.747).

            However, the fact remains that rapid learners do need to be taught in special ways in order for them to make the most of their talents.  Biehler in his book discusses six suggested strategies for working with such children; 1) acceleration, 2) vertical and/or horizontal enrichment, 3) individual study projects, 4) supplementary reading and writing, 5) encouraging creative hobbies, and 6) tutoring or correspondence with a sponsor in a particular area of interest (p.747).  His purpose regards school education, however, an examination of these strategies is warranted here in order for the Christian educator to understand what these children experience at school and also perhaps be better prepared for dealing them in the sunday school classroom, or at camp.

            The first of these if fairly common.  When rapid learners live up to their name and learn everything in faster than their classmates, and a teacher does not have time to provide individual instruction or additional assignments, acceleration is often employed.  In elementary school and junior high this often means skipping a grade (p.747); in high school this may mean taking advanced class or college course while still in high school (p.748).  The advantage is that the student gets the kind of challenge he needs in his work.  The drawbacks are a) the teacher of the class the student is accelerated to may inherit gaps in the child's knowledge that will have to filled on top of regular class work, and b) some children will not do as well when separated from friends and same-age peers (p.747).  There are solutions to both problems, the easiest being not to accelerate a child.  Another option would be to provide classes for a month during the summer or for short periods during the week the term before the child is to be accelerated.  This works particularly well if there are two or more children of the same grade (and especially the same class) being accelerated at once and it also relieves some of the strain of the second problem, namely being separated from friends and peers.  For this reason, some school board make it a policy only to accelerate students during a given year (i.e. skipping fourth grade) and only to do it once (e.g. Etobicoke Board of Education).  Obviously in any case the child's maturity in nonintellectual areas must be taken into consideration (p.748).  There is really no parallel for this in a church setting, however, a decision must be made where to place this child when he had been accelerated at school.  Most often sunday schools are divided up by grade.  Therefore, does one leave the child in same sunday school class with his friends, or move him up to correspond with his new grade in school?  Again, the maturity and feelings of the child must be considered.  It helps, of course, that most churches have more than one grade in a given class.

            A second option would be to provide horizontal or vertical enrichment for the advanced child.  Horizontal enrichment is designated as additional material at the same level.  For example assigning additional math problems for practicing the operation being studied, or having brain teasers relating to the lesson on hand.  Vertical enrichment is more advanced material of the same type, which often means, reading ahead (p.478).  These two means of enrichment are easily adapted into a sunday school program.  There are, of course, problems associated with horizontal enrichment that the teacher must be aware of, foremost of which is the possibility of boring a child with repetition which can ruin the ability of the child to concentrate and also kill his motivation and interest (p.748).  Keeping the "extras" interesting and having related work on hand will avoid that problem (p.749).  The goal is to reward the quick learner, not punish him.  The problem with vertical enrichment is that when the rest of the group catches up, the rapid learner will have already done that work and won't hesitate to point it out (p.748).  In the sunday school situation, this has a way of happening even without any encouragement from the teacher!  Again here, having related work, perhaps a special area the rest of the class doesn't have time to cover in depth, on hand for the child will help immeasurably.  Another solution is to obtain materials from a different publisher so that "the next chapter" won't be exactly the same (p.749).  Another potential problem is that other students may be distracted by the activities of the gifted child.  Making the activities similar in format to the main work will help or else arranging the classroom so that the movement of this child will not be to disturbing will also help, as will having fun things on hand for all the children to do as they finish.

            A third option that Biehler suggests is giving bright children independent study projects, or learning contracts of their own.  These can be as varied as the children who benefit from them: doing an extra project on subject related to what is being studied in class (p.749); being the "research specialist" for the class, i.e. looking up extra information when the class had question the teacher cannot answer immediately; journaling assignments, etc.  The key, however, is to make the assignments as unobtrusive to the rest of class as possible, watching quick students having a great time is not conducive to the efforts of the average student (p.450).  This method is particularly effective, because as Biehler puts it, "If highly capable students are urged to really come to grips with a topic, seek out relationships, organized ideas, and apply them, they should gain maximum benefit from their learning efforts" (p.450).

            The next suggestion is an extension of the last one, namely, to encourage extra reading and writing.  This is one suggestion that really works well in the church setting.  Biehler's comments are very telling, "A common complaint about modern American education is that pupils don't do enough reading and writing.  At any grade level an excellent enrichment goal is to try to remedy relative illiteracy" (p.750).  This is very important in the church setting as well.  After all, we have historically been known as a "people of the Book", it is in our best interested and to the glory of God that we encourage Biblical literacy amoung our children.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

Berger, Kathleen Stassen.  The Developing Person.  New York:  Worth Publishers, Inc.  1980.

 

Biehler, Robert F.  Pyschology Applied to Teaching.  Boston:  Houghton Mifflin Company.  1978.

 

The Fund for the Advancement of Education.  They Went to College Early.  Evaluation Report Number 2.  1957.

 

Gallagher, James J.  Teaching the Gifted Child, second edition.  Boston:  Allyn and Bacon.  1975.

 

Helms, Donald B. and Turner, Jeffery S.  Exploring Child Behavior.  Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.  1976.

 

Lefrancois, Guy R.  Of Children.  Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth Publishing Company.  1980.

 

McDonald, Frederick J.  Educational Psychology.  Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.  1959.

 

National Education Association.  The Indentification and Education of the Academically Talented Student in the American Secondary School.  The Conference Report, February 1958.

 

Papalia, Diane E.  and Olds, Sally Wendkos.  A Child's World: Infancy through Adolescence.  New York:  McGraw-Hill Book Company.  1975.

 

Sandstrom, C.I.  The Psychology of Childhood and Adolescence.  Trans. by Albert Read.  Baltimore, MD:  Penguin Books.  1961.

 

Williams, Wolfgang Joyce.  Middle Childhood:  Behavior and Development.  New York:  Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.  1974.