Giftedness Creativity and Learning Style
What are the relationships among giftedness, creativity, and style? The task of responding to this question is formidable, given the challenge of defining each of these major constructs. In this article, we summarize the key findings of more than 25 studies and published reviews and examine ways in which the conceptual and operational complexity of the constructs have complicated or illuminated our understanding of the problem. We describe implications and challenges for theory, practice, and future research. To understand the relationships among giftedness and talent development, creativity, and style, we must first consider the definitions of each of those complex constructs. Giftedness. The terms gifted, giftedness, or gifted student have been defined in many and varied ways, and there has been little theoretical or operational consensus in the literature spanning more than five decades of inquiry. Many traditional definitions of the terms have focused on gifted in relation to intelligence and, often, more specifically, to IQ scores. Many approaches to defining intelligence now emphasize the multi faceted, complex nature of human abilities or talents (e.g. Gardner, 1983, Sternberg, 1990; Taylor, 1986) In reviewing research on giftedness and learning style, we found that many studies used a narrow, traditional IQ score driven definition (sometimes using individual IQ, other times group IQ scores) Other studies reported using a definition of giftedness based primarily on standardized achievement test scores and, yet, others relied entirely on a school district's characterization of students as "gifted," often without any actual documentation of what indicators or criteria had actually been used by the schools. Clearly, the absence of conceptual or operational clarity about the term creates considerable difficulty in comparing or interpreting the results of correlations with learning style data. Creativity. The construct of creativity has also received increased attention as an essential component of high level performance and productivity. Today, some view creativity as an essential dimension of giftedness (e.g. Dunn, Dunn, Treffinger, 1992; Renzulli, 1978) As with giftedness, creativity is a complex and multi dimensional construct (e.g. Rhodes, 1961, Treffinger, Young, Selby, Shepardson, 2002) Treffinger et al. (2002) reviewed over 100 sources that describe creativity characteristics. After identifying and synthesizing characteristics and indicators for which there was broad agreement in the literature, we divided them into four sets: generating ideas, digging deeper into ideas, openness and courage to explore ideas, and listening to one's inner voice. Characteristics in the Generating Ideas set described individuals who are open to and exhibit strengths in fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, and metaphorical thinking. Digging Deeper into Ideas involved analyzing, synthesizing, reorganizing or redefining, evaluating, seeing relationships, having a desire to resolve ambiguity or to bring order to disorder, and preferring or understanding complexity. The characteristics associated with Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas included problem sensitivity, aesthetic sensitivity and interests, curiosity, sense of humor, playfulness, the capacity for fantasy or imagiTeffinger and Selby Giftedness, Creativity, and Learning Style 50 Reaching Gifted and Talented Children: Global Initiatives nation, risk taking, tolerance for ambiguity, tenacity, openness and/or sensitivity to feelings and emotions, adaptability, intuition, a willingness to grow and change, resistance to accepting authoritarian assertions without examination, and the ability to integrate dichotomies. Last, Listening to One's "Inner Voice" involved an awareness of one's own creativeness, persistence, a need for autonomy, self direction, self discipline, tendency to be task oriented, independence of thought, non conformity, a need time for reflection and introspection, intense concentration and absorption in the work, energy, a willingness to work hard, and an appreciation and capacity for thinking and work. Traditionally, many researchers focused on creativity as personality and studied the traits or characteristics of highly creative people (e.g. MacKinnon, 1978) emphasizing their level of creativity (e.g. "How creative are you?" however, through the past three decades, theory and research have increasingly turned to the question of one's personal creative style (focusing on the question, "How are you creative?" Style. Theory and research also offer multiple conceptions of style. To illustrate ways in which concepts and models of style vary, consider two examples: the Dunn and Dunn learning style model (Dunn Dunn, 1992, 1993) and recent work on problem solving style (Selby, Treffinger, Isaksen, Lauer, 2004; Treffinger, Selby, Isaksen, Crumel, 2007) The Dunns (1992, 1993) define learning style as the way in which each learner begins to concentrate on, process, absorb, and retain new and difficult information. They propose that the interaction of these elements occurs differently in each individual. Their model of style includes physiological (auditory, visual, tactile, and kinesthetic perceptual preferences; food or liquid intake, and mobility needs) sociological (learning alone, with a partner, as part of a small group or team, with peers, with an authoritative or collegial adult, or in a combination of ways) emotional (motivation, persistence, responsibility, conformity, and need for internal or external structure) and environmental (sound, light, temperature, and seating design) elements. They also consider indicators of global or analytic cognitive/psychological processing inclinations and impulsive versus reflective inclinations. The VIEW problem solving style model defines style as "consistent individual differences in the ways people prefer to plan and carry out generating and focusing activities in order to gain clarity, produce ideas, and prepare for action" (Treffinger, Selby, Isaksen, Crumel, 2007) This model proposes three specific dimensions of problem solving style, with two principal styles in each dimension: Orientation to Change: the person's perceived preferences in two general styles for managing change and solving problems creatively: the Explorer (who prefers high risk, high novelty solutions and may feel constrained by external structure and authority) and the Developer (who prefers low risk, practical solutions and is enabled by the guidance of structure and authority) Manner of Processing: the person's preference for working externally (i.e. with other people early and throughout the process) or internally (i.e. thinking and working alone before sharing ideas with others) when managing change and solving problems. Ways of Deciding: the primary or initial emphasis the individual gives to people (i.e. maintaining harmony and interpersonal relationships) or to tasks (i.e. emphasizing logical, rational, and appropriate choices) when making decisions during problem solving or when managing change. Exploring the Relationships What are the relationships among giftedness, creativity, and style, and what are their implications for theory, research, and practice in gifted education? In this paper, we focus on four principal themes: Style influences personal creativity characteristics and expanding conceptions of giftedness. Style influences how people learn and use a variety of creativity tools and methods to express and expand their strengths and talents, as well as their problemsolving performance. Giftedness, Creativity, and Learning Style Treffinger and Selby Reaching Gifted and Talented Children: Global Initiatives 51 Style influences teamwork skills. Creativity and style contribute positively to meaningful instructional differentiation for talent development. Research suggests that there are significant relationships among personal style, creativity, and giftedness (including traditional psychometric views of giftedness and contemporary, broader perspectives on gifts and talents) and creativity. Selby and Treffinger (2003) for example, reviewed many studies of giftedness based on the Dunn and Dunn approach. We found that students identified as gifted (generally defined in traditional psychometric ways) differed from non identified students in terms of their preferred style of learning as assessed by the Dunns' Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) (Dunn, Dunn, Price, 1996) Certain style preferences appeared consistently in studies of learning style preferences among high ability, high achieving students. Dunn (1998) Dunn and Griggs (1985) Dunn, Griggs, Milgram and Price (1997 98) and Griggs and Dunn (1984) concluded that a greater percentage of students identified as gifted (compared with students not so identified) preferred quiet, low structure, bright light, and learning alone, unless the others learning with them are similarly achieving peers. Gifted students also preferred formal, rather than informal, settings and learning in many ways when learning new and difficult material. Dunn (1998) reviewed many studies with high ability students and described those students as perceptually strong, more persistent, more flexible, and internally controlled. There have been mixed results in relation to other learning style variables. Dunn (1998) Dunn, Griggs, Milgram, and Price (1997 98) Dunn and Price (1980) Griggs (1984) and Yong and McIntyre (1992) reported that gifted students preferred formal design, while Paskewitz (1985) supported the opposite conclusion. Coleman (1988) Honigsfeld (2000) Nations Miller (1993) Paskewitz (1985) and Pederson (1984) found a preference for mobility, while Ricca (1984) did not. There have also been mixed findings relating to sound, light, time of day, auditory and visual preferences, and temperature. The mixed and inconsistent findings