Although numerous studies have compared cognitive and motivational characteristics between gifted versus nongifted students, research comparing those characteristics among different types of gifted students has not kept up with the theoretical development that saw a transition from unidimensional to multidimensional conceptualizations of giftedness. This study compares cognitive and motivational characteristics of high school students who are academically gifted in math, creatively talented in math, and nongifted. Whereas no differences were found among the three groups in their beliefs about ability, most of the other characteristics examined in the study distinguished the three groups. Academically gifted female students reported expending more effort than did academically gifted male students. Creatively talented males put forth more effort than academically gifted males, and the creatively talented in general used more cognitive strategies than the academically gifted. Overall, students who were either academically gifted or creatively talented in mathematics perceived that they were self-efficacious in general, used cognitive strategies, perceived their math ability and math self-efficacy to be high, and valued learning math more so than their nongifted age peers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
3.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Chen, L. K. S. (1996). Motivational orientations and metacognitive abilities of intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 184-194.
5.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Florence, KY: Psychology Press.
6.
Fehrenbach, C. R. (1991). Gifted/average readers: Do they use the same reading strategies?Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 125-127.
7.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Dai, D. Y. (1997). Gifted students’ attitudes and perceptions of the gifted label, special programs, and peer relations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 15-20.
8.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.
9.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: BasicBooks
10.
Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 179-183.
11.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293.
12.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Harrison, A. W., Rainer, R. K., Jr., Hochwarter, W. A., & Thompson, K. R. (1997). Testing the self-efficacy-performance-linkage of social-cognitive theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 79-88.
14.
Holland, J. L. (1961). Creative and academic performance among talented adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 136-147.
15.
Holland, J. L., & Austin, A. W. (1962). The prediction of the academic, artistic, scientific, and social achievement of undergraduates of superior scholastic aptitude. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 132-143.
16.
Holland, J. L., & Nicholas, R. C. (1964). Prediction of academic and extracurricular achievement in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 55-65.
17.
Holland, J. L., & Richards, J. M., Jr. (1965). Academic and nonacademic accomplishment: Correlated or uncorrelated?Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 165-174.
18.
Hong, E. (2001). Self-assessment questionnaire. Unpublished document, College of Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
19.
Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (1996). The structure of giftedness: The domain of literature as an exemplar. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 31-40.
20.
Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Whiston, S. C. (1993). Leisure activities in adolescents as a predictor of occupational choice in young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Career Development, 19, 221-229.
21.
Hong, E., & O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (2001). Construct validation of a trait self-regulation model. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 186-194.
22.
Hong, E., Whiston, S. C., & Milgram, R. M. (1993). Leisure activities in career guidance for gifted and talented adolescents: A validation study of the Tel-Aviv Activities Inventory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 65-68.
23.
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588-599.
24.
Hsueh, W. (1997). A cross-cultural comparison of gifted children’s theories of intelligence, goal orientations, and response to challenge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
25.
Junge, M. E., & Dretzke, B. J. (1995). Mathematical self-efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 22-28.
26.
Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1995). Motivational patterns related to gifted students’ learning of mathematics, science, and English: An examination of gender differences. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 284-297.
27.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education, 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Government Documents, Y4.L 11/2: G36)
28.
Mertler, C., & Vannatta, R. (2001). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Los Angeles: Pyrczak.
29.
Milgram, R. M. (Ed.). (1989). Teaching gifted and talented learners in regular classrooms. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
30.
Milgram, R. M. (1991). Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors, and parents. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31.
Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (2001). Activities and accomplishment inventory. Unpublished document, School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and College of Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
32.
Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 568-572.
33.
Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (1993). Middle school students’ mathematical problem solving: An analysis of think-aloud protocols. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 19-32.
34.
Olson, C. L. (1979). Practical considerations in choosing a MANOVA test statistic: A rejoinder to Stevens. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1350-1352.
35.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Baker, E. L., Ni, Y., Jacoby, A., & Swigger, K. M. (1994). Human benchmarking for the evaluation of expert systems. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. & E. L. Baker (Eds.), Technology assessment in software applications (pp. 13-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Herl, H. E. (1998, April). Reliability and validity of a trait measure of self-regulation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
37.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
38.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 427-444.
39.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
40.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
41.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Risemberg, R., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1992). Self-regulated learning in gifted students. Roeper Review, 15, 98-101.
43.
Schunk, D. H. (1987, September). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.
44.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
45.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 75-99). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
46.
Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy: Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin: Forschung an der Freien Universitat Berlin.
47.
Shih, S., & Alexander, J. M. (2000). Interacting effects of goal setting and self- or other-referenced feedback on children’s development of self-efficacy and cognitive skill within the Taiwanese classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 536-543.
48.
Shore, B. M., & Carey, S. M. (1984). Verbal ability and spatial task. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 59, 255-259.
49.
Shore, B. M., & Dover, A. C. (1987). Metacognition, intelligence, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 37-39.
50.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children’s beliefs about intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 397-407.
52.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Olivárez, Jr., A., Candler-Lotven, A. C., Walsh, S., Gray, A., & Irons, T. (1994). A comparison of learning and study strategies of gifted and average-ability junior high students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 143-160.
53.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
54.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
55.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child at mid-life: Thirty-five years follow-up of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
56.
Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 153-156.
57.
Vallerand, Gagné, F., Senécal, C., & Pelletier, L. G. (1994). A comparison of the school intrinsic motivation and perceived competence of gifted and regular students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 172-175.
58.
Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented student: A validation of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
59.
Wegner, M., Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1993). Generalized self-efficacy. In Measurement of perceived self-efficacy: Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research (R. Schwarzer, Trans.). Berlin: Forschung an der Freien Universitat Berlin.
60.
Weiner, B. (1994). Ability versus effort revisited: The moral determinants of achievement evaluation and achievement as a moral system. Educational Psychologist, 29, 163-172.
61.
Yager, R. E. (1989). Teaching science to gifted science students. In R. M. Milgram (Ed.), Teaching gifted and talented learners in regular classrooms (pp. 223-248). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
62.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use.
