Educational Psychology Review,Vol.15,No.3,September2003(C 2003)
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children:
Toward a More Precise Understanding
of Emerging Differences in Intelligence
Hillary Hettinger Steiner1,2and Martha Carr1
To truly understand gifted performance,it is necessary to merge research on giftedness with current thinking in cognitive development and intelligence. This article presents traditional research on gifted children’s cognitive devel-opment then considers how the application of newer models and theories from the?eld of cognitive development can be combined with research on giftedness to change the way people think about gifted performance.First four factors that have often been associated with giftedness are discussed from the perspectives of cognitive developmental psychology and gifted education.Next,emphasis is placed on investigating the strategic development of gifted children.Speci?-cally,R.S.Siegler’s(Emerging Minds:The Process of Change in Children’s Thinking,Oxford University Press,New York,1996)model of strategy development is addressed in terms of what it may contribute to understanding gifted cognition.Finally,future lines of research using models from cognitive development and complex systems models of development are recommended. KEY WORDS:cognitive development;gifted education;intelligence;strategic ability. Kanevsky(1992)describes gifted children as“playful masters of the learn-ing game”(p.205).The extent to which they are better at the learning game and how they develop this excellence have been prominent subjects of re-search in gifted education for many years(Monks and Mason,1993;Shore, 1Department of Educational Psychology,Research and Measurement,University of Georgia, Athens,Georgia.Steiner is now at the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems,Florida State University,Tallahassee,Florida.
2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems,Florida State University,Stone Building,Tallahassee,FL32306-4453. E-mail:steiner@https://www.doczj.com/doc/8211526060.html,
215
1040-726X/03/0900-0215/0C 2003Plenum Publishing Corporation
216Hettinger and Carr 1986).Similarly,in developmental psychology,there is an interest in studying individual intellectual differences within the domain of cognitive develop-ment.The study of variation in performance among same-age children and within individual children has provided important information about cogni-tive developmental processes(Bjorklund,2000).Despite similar interests, however,the?elds of gifted education and cognitive development have had little communication.Traditionally these?elds have stood far apart,eliciting little discourse between researchers and sharing few ideas.Gifted education has not yet adopted newer methods and models from cognitive develop-ment,and little cognitive development research is conducted with gifted participants.
This lack of collaboration is surprising given the shared interest in the nature of intelligence.Both?elds have separately examined common factors believed to contribute to cognitive development and giftedness but have not integrated their?ndings.Furthermore,both?elds have developed models examining cognitive and intellectual https://www.doczj.com/doc/8211526060.html,plex,interactive the-ories of intellectual development like Sternberg’s(1985)triarchic theory and Ceci’s(1996)bioecological theory are altering the way researchers study and think about individual differences in intelligence.In addition,newer models of cognitive development,such as Siegler’s(1996)overlapping waves model of strategy development,are dramatically changing the conception of what develops and how.
The new models of intelligence have not been integrated with models of cognitive development.To truly understand gifted performance,it is nec-essary to merge research and theory on giftedness with current thinking in cognitive development.It is important to examine the construct of gifted-ness from a developmental perspective to learn more about the limits and capabilities of the human mind(Monks and Mason,1993).Studying indi-vidual differences in intelligence can provide a wealth of information about how the intellect develops in response to various innate and environmental factors.At a practical level,because cognitive development does not occur in a vacuum(Siegler,1998),society as a whole stands to bene?t from under-standing what components within and outside the child contribute to high performance.Understanding gifted children’s thinking may not only help to create better curriculum and assessment procedures for gifted children but for all children(Friedman and Shore,2000).
For the purposes of this review,the term“giftedness”is used to de-scribe an individual child’s intellectual,creative,and motivational ability to succeed in a traditional school setting(Ceci,1996;Sternberg,1985).Unfor-tunately,however,many studies of“giftedness”are still conducted with IQ as the sole determinant of giftedness,despite the fact that IQ-as-giftedness is an outdated and?awed concept(Ceci,1996).Others de?ne giftedness
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children217 based on achievement(for example,grades in school).Because of differing operational de?nitions in the studies reviewed here,the particular de?nition of giftedness used to classify participants is stated for each study reviewed.
An extensive review of the literature describing cognitive development in gifted children was conducted using the PsycInfo database.First,four areas of research conducted by cognitive developmental psychologists and gifted educators are discussed:speed of processing,knowledge base,metacogni-tion,and problem solving and strategic abilities.For each area,research on intelligence from both communities is presented and critiqued(see Table1 for a summary).Next,an example of the way in which giftedness can be ex-plored from a cognitive development perspective is discussed.Speci?cally, Siegler’s(1996)model of strategy development is presented as a means by which differences in cognitive development can be understood.Finally,fu-ture lines of research using complex systems models of intelligence,like that of Sternberg(1985)and Ceci(1996),are recommended.As Winner(2000) notes,“just as we know more about depression and fear than we do about happiness and courage,we also know far more about retardation and learn-ing problems than we do about giftedness”(p.159).In a sense,researchers have only begun to understand the cognitive and developmental differences that separate intellectually gifted children from their peers.
FACTORS RELATED TO GIFTED COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT In recent decades research in the gifted literature has shifted from a focus on who the gifted are to how the gifted think(Monks and Mason, 1993;Shore,1986),especially at the early stages of development(Robinson, 2000).From this research it is known that gifted learners differ from their average-ability peers in a number of ways.Gifted children(1)have a broader knowledge base and are more capable of using that knowledge to their ben-e?t,(2)prefer complex,challenging environments,(3)are quicker at solving problems but spend more time in the solution planning stage,(4)represent and categorize problems more ef?ciently,(5)have?nely tuned procedural knowledge,(6)are?exible in their strategies and problem solutions,and (7)are more sophisticated in their metacognition and self-regulation(Shore and Kanevsky,1993).
Although the research community has some knowledge of the develop-mental path cognition takes in gifted children,the body of research has signi?cant gaps.For example,the bulk of research on the development of giftedness is based on studies comparing same age groups of gifted to average children(Shore and Kanevsky,1993).Few longitudinal studies of gifted learners’cognitive development exist despite the impact longitudinal
218
Hettinger and Carr
T a b l e 1.S e l e c t e d E m p i r i c a l S t u d i e s o f F a c t o r s R e l a t e d t o G i f t e d C o g n i t i v e D e v e l o p m e n t
F a c t o r A u t h o r (s )
Y e a r
S a m p l e T a s k (s )D e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s R e s u l t s
S p e e d o f p r o c e s s i n g :s i m p l e
S p i e g e l a n d B r y a n t
1978C h i l d r e n a g e 10–12
T h r e e c o g n i t i v e t a s k s w i t h v a r y i n g l e v e l s o f c o m p l e x i t y ,L o r g e -T h o r n d i k e I Q T e s t ,S t a n f o r d A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t R e s p o n s e t i m e ,I Q s c o r e s ,a c h i e v e m e n t t e s t s c o r e s R T w a s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h I Q a n d a c h i e v e m e n t
D e t t e r m a n 1987D e c i s i o n t i m e N e t t e l b e c k 1987I n s p e c t i o n t i m e
V e r n o n 1987L a r s o n ,M e r r i t t ,a n d W i l l i a m s 1988M a l e a d u l t s a g e 17–34
A b a t t e r y o f r e a c t i o n t i m e a n d i n s p e c t i o n t i m e t a s k s ,A S V A
B i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t R e a c t i o n t i m e ,i n s p e c t i o n t i m e ,i n t e l l i g e n c e
T h e m o r e c o m p l e x t a s k s w e r e b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e
R o b e r t s ,B e h ,a n d S t a n k o v
1988A d o l e s c e n t s a n d a d u l t s a g e 15–46A c a r d -s o r t i n g t a s k u n d e r s i n g l e -a n d c o m p e t i n g -t a s k c o n d i t i o n s ,a n d R a v e n ’s P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s (R P M )M o v e m e n t t i m e ,d e c i s i o n t i m e ,R P M s c o r e s
R P M s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s p e e d o f p r o c e s s i n g ,d e p e n d i n g o n t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e t a s k
J e n s e n ,C o h n ,a n d C o h n 1989G i f t e d c h i l d r e n a n d t h e i r s i b l i n g s ,M e a n a g e 13A n e l e m e n t a r y c o g n i t i v e t a s k a n d R a v e n ’s P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s (R P M )R e a c t i o n t i m e ,R P M s c o r e s
M e a n r e a c t i o n t i m e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s c o r e s o n t h e R P M b o t h b e t w e e n a n d w i t h i n f a m i l i e s K r a n z l e r ,W h a n g ,a n d J e n s e n
1994G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 11–14
E l e m e n t a r y c o g n i t i v e t a s k s R e a c t i o n t i m e a n d m o v e m e n t t i m e
G i f t e d g r o u p o u t p e r f o r m e d n o n -g i f t e d g r o u p
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children
219
S p e e d o f p r o c e s s i n g :i n f e r r e d
M i l l e r ,S p r i d i g l i o z z i ,R y a n ,C a l l a n ,a n d M c L a u g h l i n
1980C h i l d r e n a t 1,15,27,39,51m o n t h s V i s u a l h a b i t u a t i o n t a s k s ,v a r i o u s c o g n i t i v e t a s k s
H a b i t u a t i o n ,s c o r e s o n c o g n i t i v e t a s k s I n d e x o f f a s t a n d s l o w h a b i t u a t o r s p r e d i c t e d c o g n i t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e a t 51m o n t h s F a g a n a n d M c G r a t h 1981
C h i l d r e n a t 4–7m o n t h s ,4,7y e a r s V i s u a l r e c o g n i t i o n m e m o r y t a s k s ,I Q t e s t P r e f e r e n c e f o r n o v e l t y ,I Q s c o r e s M o d e r a t e c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n p r e f e r e n c e f o r n o v e l t y a n d I Q L e w i s a n d B r o o k s -G u n n
1981
C h i l d r e n a t 3m o n t h s ,2y e a r s V i s u a l h a b i t u a t i o n a n d n o v e l t y t a s k s ,B a y l e y T e s t s o f I n f a n t
D e v e l o p m e n t ,o b j e c t p e r m a n e n c e t a s k s H a b i t u a t i o n ,n o v e l t y s c o r e s ,B a y l e y a n d o t h e r c o g n i t i v e s c o r e s P r e f e r e n c e f o r n o v e l t y m e a s u r e s w e r e b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r s t h a n h a b i t u a t i o n t a s k s o f l a t e r d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e C o h e n a n d P a r m a l e e
1983
P r e t e r m i n f a n t s a t b i r t h ,a g e 5S t a n f o r d -B i n e t ,v i s u a l a t t e n t i o n t a s k s I Q s c o r e s ,h a b i t u a t i o n s c o r e s H a b i t u a t i o n t a s k s p r e d i c t e d I Q S i g m a n ,C o h e n ,B e c k w i t h ,a n d P a r m a l e e 1986
P r e t e r m i n f a n t s a t b i r t h ,a g e 4W I S C -R ,?x a t i o n t i m e t a s k s I Q s c o r e s ,h a b i t u a t i o n s c o r e s C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n I Q a n d h a b i t u a t i o n
S l a t e r ,C o o p e r ,R o s e ,a n d M o r r i s o n 1989C h i l d r e n a t 6w e e k s ,8.5y e a r s I Q t e s t ,v i s u a l a t t e n t i o n t a s k s
L o o k i n g b e h a v i o r ,I Q
s c o r e s
L o o k i n g b e h a v i o r m o d e r a t e l y p r e d i c t e d I Q T h o m p s o n ,F a g a n ,a n d F u l k e r
1991C h i l d r e n a t 5,36
m o n t h s
P r e f e r e n c e f o r n o v e l t y t a s k s ,B a y l e y T e s t ,S t a n f o r d -B i n e t N o v e l t y s c o r e s ,t e s t s c o r e s N o v e l t y p r e f e r e n c e p r e d i c t e d I Q a n d s p e c i ?c c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s R o s e a n d F e l d m a n
1995P r e t e r m a n d f u l l -t e r m i n f a n t s a t 7m o n t h s ,1,11y e a r s T a s k s o f v i s u a l r e c o g n i t i o n m e m o r y ,s p e e d o f p r o c e s s i n g a n d I Q
P r e f e r e n c e f o r n o v e l t y s c o r e s ,I Q s c o r e s M o s t n o v e l t y m e a s u r e s w e r e r e l a t e d t o s p e e d o f p r o c e s s i n g ,s o m e t o I Q
220
Hettinger and Carr
T a b l e 1.C o n t i n u e d .
F a c t o r A u t h o r (s )Y e a r
S a m p l e T a s k (s )D e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s R e s u l t s
S p e e d o f p r o c e s s i n g :p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t i m e
D a v i d s o n a n d S t e r n b e r g
1984G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 9–11
I n s i g h t P r o b l e m s P r o b l e m -s o l v i n g t i m e G i f t e d g r o u p t o o k l o n g e r t o s o l v e p r o b l e m s
S h o r e a n d L a z a r
1996H i g h -v s .A v e r a g e -I Q ,a g e 12–13P a t t e r n r e c o g n i t i o n p r o b l e m s
E x e c u t i o n ,e x p l o r a t i o n ,a n d o v e r a l l p r o b l e m -s o l v i n g t i m e O v e r a l l p r o b l e m -s o l v i n g t i m e w a s d i f f e r e n t M e t a c o g n i t i o n K a n e v s k y
1990G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 4–8T o w e r o f H a n o i E v i d e n c e o f s t r a t e g y t r a n s f e r G i f t e d g r o u p o u t p e r f o r m e d n o n -g i f t e d g r o u p M o s s
1990H i g h -v s .a v e r a g e -I Q ,a g e 3–4
S e r i e s o f p u z z l e s c o m p l e t e d w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r s M o t h e r s ’s u g g e s t i o n s a n d i n s t r u c t i o n s M o t h e r s o f h i g h -I Q g r o u p g a v e m o r e m e t a c o g n i t i v e s u g g e s t i o n s D o v e r a n d S h o r e
1991G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 11
W a t e r -j a r p r o b l e m s F l e x i b i l i t y ,s p e e d ,m e t a c o g n i t i v e k n o w l e d g e T h r e e -w a y i n t e r a c t i o n a m o n g g i f t e d n e s s ,s p e e d ,a n d ?e x i b i l i t y ,w i t h m e t a c o g n i t i v e k n o w l e d g e a s t h e c r i t e r i o n T a r s h i s a n d S h o r e
1991H i g h -v s .a v e r a g e -I Q ,a g e 3–4P i a g e t i a n p e r s p e c t i v e -t a k i n g t a s k s E v i d e n c e o f r e c o g n i t i o n o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n ’s v i e w H i g h -I Q g r o u p o u t p e r f o r m e d a v e r a g e g r o u p S w a n s o n
1992H i g h -v s .a v e r a g e -I Q ,a g e 9–10W a t e r -j a r p r o b l e m s M e t a c o g n i t i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o r e H i g h e r I Q c h i l d r e n s c o r e d b e t t e r
A l l o n ,G u t k i n ,a n d
B r u n i n g
1994H i g h -a b i l i t y c h i l d r e n ,a g e 14
W I S C -R I Q t e s t ,m a z e s ,l o g i c a l ,a n d m e m o r y t a s k s
I Q ,m e t a c o g n i t i v e
s c o r e s N o s i g n i ?c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n m e t a c o g n i t i v e a n d I Q s c o r e s H a n n a h a n d S h o r e
1995G i f t e d v s .L D v s .g i f t e d /L D v s .a v e r a g e ,a g e 10–11,17–18
V a r i o u s m e t a c o g n i t i v e a s s e s s m e n t s ,r e a d i n g t a s k s E v i d e n c e o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e k n o w l e d g e ,s k i l l s ,e v a l u a t i o n
G i f t e d a n d G i f t e d /L D o u t p e r f o r m e d o t h e r g r o u p s
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children
221
S t r a t e g y u s e
D a v i d s o n a n d S t e r n b e r g
1984G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 9–11
I n s i g h t p r o b l e m s
S e l e c t i v e e n c o d i n g ,c o m b i n i n g ,a n d c o m p a r i s o n
G i f t e d g r o u p o u t p e r f o r m e d t h e n o n -g i f t e d g r o u p o n a l l m e a s u r e s S c r u g g s a n d M a s t r o p i e r i
1985G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 12–13
M e m o r y t a s k (r a n d o m w o r d p a i r s )E f f e c t i v e n e s s ,a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s ,c o m p l e x i t y ,a n d t r a n s f e r o f s t r a t e g i e s G i f t e d g r o u p o u t p e r f o r m e d t h e n o n -g i f t e d g r o u p o n a l l m e a s u r e s S c r u g g s a n d M a s t r o p i e r i
1988G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 10–11M e m o r y t a s k (g e o l o g y f a c t s )
T r a n s f e r o f s t r a t e g i e s
G i f t e d g r o u p o u t p e r f o r m e d t h e n o n -g i f t e d g r o u p M o n t a g u e
1991G i f t e d v s .g i f t e d /l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d ,a g e 13–16M a t h w o r d p r o b l e m s
Q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a c o n c e r n i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s ’m e t a c o g n i t i o n G i f t e d c h i l d r e n d e s c r i b e d a w i d e r v a r i e t y o f s t r a t e g i e s
J a u s o v e c
1991G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 17–18S c i e n t i ?c p r o b l e m s
F l e x i b i l i t y o f s t r a t e g i e s
G i f t e d g r o u p w a s m o r e ?e x i b l e i n s t r a t e g y u s e
F e r r e t t i a n d B u t t e r ?e l d
1992G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d v s .m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d ,a g e 7–11
B a l a n c e s c a l e p r o b l e m s
E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g o n m a i n t e n a n c e ,t r a n s f e r N o d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n g i f t e d a n d n o n -g i f t e d i n t r a n s f e r
A l e x a n d e r a n d S c h w a n e n ?u g e l
1994C h i l d r e n a g e 6–7
S o r t -r e c a l l t a s k ,P P V T -R ,M A T -S F I Q ,k n o w l e d g e ,m e t a c o g n i t i o n ,s t r a t e g y s c o r e s
K n o w l e d g e a n d m e t a c o g n i t i o n p l a y e d a m u c h l a r g e r r o l e t h a n i n t e l l i g e n c e i n s t r a t e g y u s e M u i r -B r o a d d u s
1995H i g h -v s .u n d e r -a c h i e v i n g g i f t e d ,h i g h -v s .u n d e r a c h i e v i n g n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 12–13A n a l o g y p r o b l e m s
I n t e l l i g e n c e ,a c h i e v e m e n t ,s u c c e s s o n p r o b l e m s I Q a n d a c h i e v e m e n t w e r e b o t h c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s u c c e s s o n p r o b l e m s
G a u l t n e y
1998G i f t e d v s .n o n -g i f t e d ,a g e 9–10
R e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n t a s k s
E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g o n s t r a t e g y u s e ,b e n e ?t G i f t e d g r o u p m o r e l i k e l y t o d e m o n s t r a t e a u t i l i z a t i o n d e ?c i e n c y b u t r e c o v e r f r o m i t q u i c k e r
222Hettinger and Carr research can make on our understanding of giftedness(Monks and Mason, 1993).Furthermore,few attempts have been made to reconcile the?ndings of research on gifted children with similar research in cognitive develop-ment.This is disconcerting because both?elds often investigate the same constructs with only minor tautological differences.
Speed of Processing Differences
Processing speed is highly correlated with intelligence(Deary,2000; Larson,Merritt,and Williams,1988)and appears prominently in Spearman’s (1927)early statistical concept of a general intelligence and in many mod-ern theorists’conceptions of giftedness(Sternberg,1990).Both lay people’s and experts’descriptions of gifted individuals nearly always include words like“quick thinker”and“fast learner,”and gifted children are often ex-pected to complete classroom assignments more quickly and ef?ciently than their peers(Sternberg,1985).Because speed of processing is one of the most common differences attributed to gifted individuals,scholars in both gifted education and cognitive development are interested in connecting it to intelligence.
In the gifted education literature,lists of characteristics of the gifted abound(see,for example,Clark,1997;Hagen,1980;Silverman,1997)and speed of processing is usually featured.Speed also plays a part in many theoretical de?nitions of giftedness(i.e.,Feldman,1982;Sternberg,1985; Tannenbaum,1992).In Sternberg’s triarchic theory,for example,intelligent persons respond to their environment by automatizing certain cognitive pro-cesses.This automatization is demonstrated in the ef?ciency with which the individual completes cognitive tasks.
In cognitive development,the connection between speed of process-ing and intelligence is also supported by major models and theories.Case’s (1985)theory,for example,suggests that individual differences as well as developmental differences in information processing ef?ciency impact cog-nitive performance by freeing up resources for other cognitive tasks.Case’s theory is similar to Sternberg’s in that superior speed allows the individual to do simple tasks quickly,leaving cognitive“space”for higher-level tasks.
Simple Speed of Processing Differences.Although the gifted education literature lacks empirical support for speed as a characteristic of giftedness, a wealth of empirical research from the cognitive development literature ex-ists connecting speed of processing to intelligence(Vernon,1987b).As noted above,IQ is often used as the sole measure of intelligence in these studies. Various measures of speed were found to correlate with IQ,including re-action time(Jensen,Cohn,and Cohn,1989;Vernon,1987a),response time
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children223 (Spiegel and Bryant,1978),and decision time(Detterman,1987).Deary and Stough(1996)and Nettelbeck(1987)also suggest that inspection time,or “speed of intake of information”(Deary and Stough,1996,p.601)plays a large part in individual differences in intelligence,accounting for as much as20%of intelligence-test variance.In these“simple”measures of speed (Deary,2000,p.279),gifted children and adults perform elementary cogni-tive tasks faster than age-matched control groups when confounding factors like knowledge base are controlled.For example,in inspection time tasks, participants may be shown two stimuli and asked to remember which of the two contained a longer line.Inspection time is expressed as the amount of time required for the participant to achieve a certain level of accuracy on this task(Deary and Stough,1996)
In many of these simple speed of processing studies,speed only corre-lates with IQ when a more complex task,such as a task where participants must keep track of multiple number counters,is used,suggesting perhaps that speed works together with other factors to contribute to intellectual dif-ferences(Kranzler,Whang,and Jensen,1994;Larson et al.,1988;Roberts, Beh,and Stankov,1988).One older study,however,found support that the intelligence-speed connection was irrelevant to the complexity of the task (Spiegel and Bryant,1978).In this earlier study,speed was highly corre-lated with both intelligence and achievement test scores across a range of experimental tasks.
Inferred Speed of Processing Differences.In addition to the line of re-search concerning explicit speed differences between gifted and nongifted individuals,a separate line of research concerning“inferred”(Deary,2000, p.279)speed differences has?ourished.These inferred speed studies,often conducted with infants,contend that measures of habituation and prefer-ence for novelty are to a large degree measures of speed of processing(e.g., Cohen and Parmalee,1983;Lewis and Brooks-Gunn,1981;McCall,1994; Miller,Spridigliozzi,Ryan,Callan,and McLaughlin,1980;Sigman,Cohen, Beckwith,and Parmalee,1986;Slater,Cooper,Rose,and Morrison,1989). Correlations between habituation or preference for novelty measures and tests of later intelligence suggest that these tasks measure the beginnings of the same cognitive processes assessed by IQ tests.Because measures of habituation and preference are useful in prediction,many researchers have recently promoted them as tools for identifying gifted infants and toddlers (Robinson,2000).
Empirical studies of infants’habituation to a stimulus are among those most widely used to predict later intelligence(Colombo,1993).In habitua-tion experiments,infants are shown a stimulus and measurements are taken of how long the infant continues to look at the stimulus before looking away (?xation duration).Repeated trials of this task yield information on the
224Hettinger and Carr rapidity with which the infant’s habituation to the stimulus decreases.The rank order of the measure of the infants’“memory”of a previously seen stimulus or their attention to an unchanging stimulus is then correlated with the rank order of intelligence tests in later childhood to assess stability.Those who are“short lookers”or“quick habituators”are more likely to be intel-ligent later in life.
Many of these habituation studies reveal high negative correlations be-tween habituation and later tests of intelligence(e.g.,Cohen and Parmelee, 1983;Lewis and Brooks-Gunn,1981;Miller et al.,1980;Sigman et al.,1986; Slater et al.,1989).In these habituation studies,infants who had a higher ?xation duration or rate of habituation tended to outperform those with a lower?xation duration or rate of habituation on childhood measures of intellectual ability.Correlations ranged from?.61(Slater,Cooper,Rose, and Morrison,1989)for comparison of?xation durations at six months to intelligence test scores at eight years,to?.29(Cohen and Parmelee,1983) for comparison of?xation durations at birth to scores on an intelligence test at age?ve.
Related to studies of habituation are studies of the predictive value of an infant’s preference for novelty.According to Colombo(1993),novelty stud-ies differ from habituation tasks because the former measure a“product”of learning(an infant’s response to a novel stimulus)rather than the“process”of learning(an infant becoming habituated to a stimulus).Preference for novelty is usually assessed by showing the infant two stimuli including one to which she has already become habituated.Infants are said to“prefer”the novel stimulus if they look at the novel stimulus more frequently than the old stimulus.Novelty measures are also correlated with later tests of intel-ligence(Fagan and McGrath,1981;Jacobs,2000;Rose and Feldman,1995; Thompson,Fagan,and Fulker,1991).
Problem Solving Time.In contrast to the simple and inferred speed of processing research from cognitive development,some of the research in the gifted education?eld shows that gifted children actually spend more time on certain parts of cognitive tasks(Davidson and Sternberg,1984;Shore and Lazar,1996).Shore and Lazar,for example,compared the problem-solving times of gifted and average-ability adolescents.They found that al-though gifted adolescents took less overall time to solve the complex pattern-recognition problems,they took more time during the problem exploration and planning stages.Davidson and Sternberg described similar results in their study of insight.The gifted children in their study took longer on higher-order word problems,perhaps because of their attention to detail and accuracy.Studies such as these do not necessary negate those from cog-nitive development but demonstrate the different ways speed is investigated in each?eld.
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children225 Based on the evidence from gifted education and cognitive develop-ment,speed of processing,especially in simple cognitive tasks,plays some part in determining individual differences in intelligence.Cohn,Carlson,and Jensen(1985)even suggested that increased speed of lower-order processes is almost exclusively responsible for the higher cognitive performance of gifted children.The cumulative effect of increased processing speed over time,they state,yields a greatly increased knowledge base,more sophisti-cated intellectual skills,and greater cognitive pro?ciency.
The importance of processing speed is evident in a number of theories of giftedness(e.g.,Sternberg’s triachic theory)but is less evident in more general theories of cognitive development.Research from both gifted and cognitive development supports the inclusion of speed of processing as a variable in cognitive development and the emergence of more expert perfor-mance.We recommend that researchers in cognitive development begin to include speed of processing in models of cognitive development.Processing speed is certainly not the only factor that leads to differences in intellectual ability.As noted in the studies of task complexity,processing speed is hard to isolate and its effects are confounded by other factors(Kranzler et al., 1994;Larson et al.,1988;Roberts et al.,1988).Hunt(1980)has suggested that factors such as knowledge base and strategic ability play a much larger role than speed in intelligence.Additionally,speed differences are prob-lematic because they can be alternatively interpreted as processing capacity differences by different researchers(Lohman,2000).
Knowledge Base
Like speed,knowledge is often associated with giftedness.According to Hagen(1980),breadth and depth of knowledge are two of the most impor-tant and obvious characteristics teachers and parents look for when identify-ing gifted children.General knowledge is also one of the primary attributes assessed on many intelligence tests.Cognitive development researchers have conducted most of the empirical studies of the effects of knowledge on per-formance,yet few have been conducted with gifted children.Instead,studies of knowledge often compare groups like poor and good readers matched for IQ(Bjorklund and Bernholtz,1986)and learning disabled and non-learning disabled children(Scott,Green?eld,and Sterental,1986).Despite this em-pirical oversight,knowledge plays a large part in some of the more contem-porary theories of intelligence.
As with speed of processing,both developmental and individual differ-ences in knowledge base exist and impact the way children think and learn. Simple quantitative differences in knowledge(i.e.,the amount of knowledge
226Hettinger and Carr one has)as well as the way knowledge is organized impact performance on many cognitive tasks,including memory,problem solving,and reading.Many studies suggest that speed of processing and knowledge base work together, with age differences in knowledge base stemming from age differences in the ef?ciency with which children process words and their relationships(see Bjorklund,1987,for a review of these studies).Older children have a more detailed knowledge base requiring less effort to access,which frees up mental resources for other cognitive tasks.
The same may be true for gifted children,although little research on gifted children’s knowledge has been done.Because gifted children are often cognitively similar to chronologically older children(Shore and Kanevsky, 1993),their more detailed knowledge base may afford them more thinking “space”to perform at a higher level than their peers.However,one study suggests that expert knowledge base is only slightly related to intelligence but plays a much larger role than IQ does in learning and memory performance. Schneider,Korkel,and Weinert(1989)studied German children who were classi?ed as either soccer experts or novices,and split them by achievement (based on intelligence tests and grades).The children were presented with a narrative about soccer and later asked to recall it.Memory performance was better in the expert children,and no differences in performance were found between the high and low achievers.
The knowledge base issue has not been well addressed by researchers in gifted education;it is still not understood why some children acquire knowledge more readily.Despite this,knowledge plays a large part in the theories of intelligence that“bridge the gap”between gifted education and cognitive development.Theorists like Stephen Ceci(1996),who take a de-velopmental approach to intelligence,place great importance on knowledge as a determinant of individual differences in intelligence.Ceci believes that innate differences in processing ability in?uence the type,amount,and or-ganization of knowledge that a given person acquires.These differences in knowledge reciprocally in?uence processing ef?ciency.
Expertise models of intelligence(Ericsson,2002;Keating,1990; Schneider,1993;Sternberg,1999;Sternberg,Grigorenko,and Ferrari,2002) take a somewhat different approach.Theorists from this perspective cite evidence from studies like the soccer expertise study described above to support their theory of giftedness-as-expertise.To these theorists,knowl-edge is an important part of intelligent performance and contributes to the development of expertise acquired through deliberate practice.
Gifted children differ from their average age-mates in the amount and quality of their knowledge.Researchers working with gifted pop-ulations,however,have not examined the development of knowledge base in gifted populations using the methods developed by researchers
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children227 examining expertise.Researchers do not know how gifted children might differentially use their superior knowledge base or how that knowledge bet-ter allows them to solve more complex problems.There is little work in either domain examining how knowledge changes and is changed with developing expertise.
Metacognition
Metacognition is a contributing factor to high performance among gifted students(e.g.,Alexander,Carr,and Schwanen?ugel,1995;Carr, Alexander,and Schwanen?ugel,1996;Crowley,Shrager,and Siegler,1997; Montague and Bos,1990;Shore,2000;Swanson,1992)and plays an im-portant part in many theorists’conceptions of intelligence(e.g.,Shore and Dover,1987;Sternberg,1985).Large metacognitive differences have been found between experts and novices(Chi,Glaser,and Rees,1982),and be-tween older and younger children(Garner and Alexander,1989).Metacog-nitive skills,or“metacomponents”as Sternberg(1985,1999)terms them, include skills like problem recognition,problem de?nition,problem repre-sentation,strategy formulation,resource allocation,monitoring of problem solving,and evaluation of problem solving(Sternberg,1999).
Research on metacognition in gifted children is conducted by those in both the gifted education and cognitive development?elds.In gifted edu-cation,research comparing the metacognitive skills of gifted and non-gifted participants has yielded mixed results.Metacognitive differences favoring the gifted were found in preschool-age children(e.g.,Kanevsky,1990,1992; Moss and Strayer,1990;Tarshis and Shore,1991),elementary school children (e.g.,Dover and Shore,1991;Shore,Koller,and Dover,1994),and adoles-cents(e.g.,Hannah,1989;Hannah and Shore,1995;Shore and Lazar,1996). Most of these studies showed gifted children using metacognitive strategies, such as developing problem solving plans and organizing their knowledge hierarchically,in ways similar to those of adults who were experts in the tasks (see Shore,2000,for a review).
However,in Shore,Koller,and Dover’s(1994)reanalysis of their earlier study of children’s performance on Einstellung water-jar problems(Dover and Shore,1991),where water is poured from several different jars to achieve a requested volume,gifted children actually made more errors than other children and failed to recognize those errors.In another contradicting study, Allon,Gutkin,and Bruning(1994)found virtually no relationship between ninth graders’WISC-R intelligence scores and their metacognitive abili-ties as measured by a series of questions following the completion of a set of dif?cult working memory tasks.The authors concluded that tests of
228Hettinger and Carr metacognition and IQ may measure unrelated aspects of cognition.The study used a small(N=38)and highly selective sample,so generalization is limited.
A similar conclusion,though,was reached by Swanson(1992)who in-vestigated the relationship between metacognition and intelligence using a water-jar combinatorial problem similar to the ones used in Dover and Shore’s(1991)study.Fourth and?fth graders of various IQ’s were given a metacognitive questionnaire immediately before solving the water-jar prob-lem.Results from the questionnaire and the problem-solving session indi-cated that higher-IQ children indeed performed better on both measures. Their advantages seemed related to their knowledge of strategies and effec-tive problem solving.However,among the high-IQ group,relatively weak correlations were found among problem solution,metacognition,creativity, and intelligence.Although the range of the scores in the high-IQ group was restricted,Swanson concluded that these factors do not seem dependent on one another.
Research from the cognitive development literature on metacognition in the gifted is similarly inconclusive.Alexander,Carr,and Schwanen?ugel (1995;Carr et al.,1996)reviewed the literature on metacognition in gifted children and concluded that although gifted children are better than non-gifted children at some aspects of metacognition,both groups are equally challenged by some aspects.Speci?cally,gifted children are more advanced in their declarative metacognitive knowledge of how certain external or internal variables(such as interference from noise or unrelated thoughts)affect one’s problem-solving abilities.However,gifted children have only a slight advantage over non-gifted children in other metacognitive areas such as cognitive monitoring.Perhaps,as Alexander et al.(1995) note,average intelligence may be all that is necessary for some aspects of metacognition.
Interestingly,some of the empirical support for the importance of metacognition in giftedness comes from the study of learning-disabled gifted students.Research on learning disabilities indicates that metacognitive de?cits are at least partially responsible for learning problems(Borkowski, Estrada,Milstead,and Hale,1989).When giftedness and learning disabili-ties occur in the same individual,however,giftedness often“prevails”and metacognitive performance is only slightly affected.Hannah and Shore (1995),for example,found that learning-disabled gifted children and ado-lescents outperformed their peers on many metacognitive tasks.Even when reading was involved,gifted students who had de?cits in reading still outper-formed the average,non-disabled students in metacognitive skill,strongly supporting the relationship between giftedness and metacognition.A qual-itative study by Montague(1991)described similar results:all three of the
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children229 gifted children in her study,two of whom were also learning-disabled,dis-played similar metacognitive abilities when solving math problems.
In conclusion,although many see metacognition as a central compo-nent of intelligence,empirical studies have yielded varied results.Why the discrepancy?First,many of the studies used older students and already well-learned strategies.For example,Borkowski and Peck(1986)suggested that the inability to?nd giftedness effects in studies where near transfer is the outcome variable is because instruction for the near transfer task is not chal-lenging enough for either the gifted or the average children.Future studies should examine the acquisition of more novel strategies with even younger populations than previously studied.
Other factors in children’s lives may in?uence their metacognitive abili-ties.Moely,Santulli,and Obach(1995)described several factors in the school environment such as teacher instruction and feedback that might contribute to a student’s metacognitive knowledge.Some families might also provide their children with metacognition instruction.For example,Moss(1990) found that gifted preschool children whose parents scaffolded their metacog-nitive skills during problem solving were more likely to develop mature metacognitive abilities.And Schraw(1998)noted that metacognition takes effort,an effort that may not be put forth if a child has low motivation or fails to attribute success to strategic self-regulation.More research is needed that takes into account these mediating factors concerning metacognition and giftedness.Finally,as previously noted,most studies of gifted children use IQ or achievement scores as the sole measure of giftedness,making it unclear whether metacognition is related to intelligence or IQ test perfor-mance(Carr et al.,1996).Research is needed that uses more contemporary de?nitions of intelligence to examine the development of novel cognitive strategies and metacognitive skills in gifted children.
New models of that better integrate metacognitive development with the development of domain speci?c expert knowledge and?uency might shed more light on the role of metacognition in gifted performance.Work on implicit metacognition examining changes in strategies and problem-solving skills without conscious awareness might be particularly useful when applied to gifted populations.Research on gifted children using the methodology and theory of researchers working on implicit metacognition(see Alexander, Carr,and Schwanen?ugel,1995)might be helpful in determining the role of metacognition in gifted performance.
Problem Solving and Strategic Abilities
Gifted children seem better able to choose and use the right strate-gies when faced with a novel problem situation than non-gifted children;
230Hettinger and Carr hence,interest in the differences in their strategic functioning has become a topic of inquiry.Studies exploring strategy use differences indicate that the gifted seem better able to acquire,produce,and use strategies to improve their learning(Coyle,Read,Gaultney,and Bjorklund,1999;Gaultney,1998; Gaultney,Bjorklund,and Goldstein,1996;Kanevsky,1990;Scruggs and Mastropieri,1988).In addition,their strategies appear more elaborate,com-plex,and appropriate for the problem being solved than those used by non-gifted students(Muir-Broaddus,1995;Scruggs and Mastropieri,1985).
Operational de?nitions of the word“strategy”vary from the traditional de?nition that emphasizes planning and intentionality,to more conserva-tive de?nitions emphasizing selectivity,to liberal de?nitions which include virtually all task-completion processes(Bjorklund and Harnishfeger,1990). Many researchers,however,agree with Siegler and Jenkins(1989)who de?ne strategies as goal-directed,“nonobligatory”(p.11)procedures that enable a person to solve a problem.The nonobligatory descriptor is included in their de?nition to distinguish strategies from more basic procedures where there is only one way to accomplish a goal.Therefore,by their de?nition,a strategy must be chosen by the problem solver from among several alternatives.
From an early age,gifted children appear more advanced than their peers in strategic ability(Robinson,2000).Hallmarks of a gifted problem-solver may include precocious reasoning abilities,greater understand-ing of the problem to be solved,and quickness in achieving a solution (Sternberg,1985).Previous studies of strategy acquisition and functioning in the gifted have focused on memory,mathematical,and logical problem-solving strategies and how they are spontaneously discovered or explicitly learned.These studies,conducted with a wide variety of age groups,usu-ally report advantages associated with giftedness(e.g,Coyle et al.,1999; Gaultney,1998;Gaultney et al.,1996;Jausovec,1991;Kanevsky,1990; Montague,1991;Muir-Broaddus,1995;Rogers,1986;Scruggs and Mastropieri,1985,1988).The gifted advantage,however,is not always de-tected in the early primary grades(e.g.,Perleth,1994)and may not hold true for independent strategy generation and near transfer(e.g.,Borkowski and Peck,1986;Ferretti and Butter?eld,1992;Harnishfeger and Bjorklund, 1990).
In studies of strategy knowledge,gifted children often exhibit more knowledge of problem-solving strategies than others(Carr et al.,1996; Jausovec,1991;Montague,1991).In Montague’s qualitative study of three gifted and three learning disabled/gifted middle school students,for exam-ple,the three gifted students described a much wider variety of strategies that could be used to solve complex mathematical word problems.This ad-vanced strategic knowledge is also evident in Jausovec’s study,where the gifted students knew many more strategies than their average-ability peers
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children231 knew.These strategies do not seem to come from instruction,as one of Montague’s participants remarked on the importance of developing strate-gies from scratch,noting that“we had to get the logic ourselves”(p.399).
The broader repertoire of strategies that gifted children possess may come from their keen ability to acquire new strategies.Scruggs and Mastropieri(1988)examined the memory strategies of48gifted and48non-gifted?fth and sixth grade students as they memorized a list of minerals and their corresponding hardness levels.Students were placed in four different groups:three strategy training groups varying in the amount and type of training,and one control group where no strategy training was given.Half of the students in each group were gifted and half were not gifted.Results indicated that gifted students and non-gifted students in the control group where no training was given were equally likely to generate useful strategies of their own.In the training groups,however,gifted students acquired the new strategies more quickly and easily and obtained greater bene?ts from their use.
Studies focusing on the type of strategies gifted children employ suggest that the gifted are more consistent,adaptive,and ef?cient in their strategy choices.Muir-Broaddus(1995)studied analogical problem solving in four groups of seventh and eighth graders—high-achieving gifted,underachiev-ing gifted,high-achieving non-gifted,and average-achieving non-gifted—and found that the high-achieving gifted students produced a greater num-ber of strategies and were more likely than the other three groups to use the most bene?cial ones to solve novel problems.In another study,Scruggs and Mastropieri(1985)studied the memory strategies of gifted and non-gifted seventh and eighth graders as they memorized random word pairs and found that the gifted group outperformed the non-gifted group in both the effec-tiveness and the appropriateness of their strategies.Their memory strategies were also more elaborate and complex than the strategies of the non-gifted group,indicating greater strategic sophistication.
Flexible thinking in problem solving is another quality often attributed to high intelligence(Shore,2000;Shore and Kanevsky,1993;Sternberg, 1981),and research on gifted children’s strategy use supports this notion. Jausovec(1991)studied scienti?c problem solving in17-and18-year-old gifted and non-gifted students and found that gifted students displayed much more?exibility in their strategy use than the average and poor-performing students.When faced with a problem set designed to provoke strategic rigid-ity,gifted students were less likely to continue using a familiar strategy on consecutive problems.Instead,they were more likely to analyze each prob-lem separately and select the most appropriate strategy from their repertoire.
Gifted children’s?exible and varied strategy use does not indicate an in-decisive and vacillating approach to problem solving,however.Coyle,Read,
232Hettinger and Carr Gaultney,and Bjorklund(1999)noted that once gifted students discover ap-propriate and useful strategies,they tend to consistently rely on them.In their study,nine-year-old gifted students demonstrated less variability in strategy use on a memory task than their non-gifted same-age peers,when controlling for number of strategies used.The researchers concluded that although gifted children may have a larger repertoire of strategies than their non-gifted peers,when gifted children approach a problem they have a bet-ter and quicker understanding of which strategies are appropriate for the situation and only select from their repertoire the strategies that have given them consistently good results in the past.
Davidson and Sternberg have suggested that gifted children outperform their peers in problem solving because of an increased propensity for insight. Although some researchers argue that insight in problem solving is more re-?ective of high motivation and persistence(e.g.,Weisberg,1988),Davidson and Sternberg consider it central to the construct of giftedness(Davidson and Sternberg,1984,1986;Sternberg and Davidson,1983,1995).According to Davidson and Sternberg(1984),advanced capacity for insight in problem solving can involve the ability to selectively encode important information while ignoring irrelevant information,selectively combine important infor-mation to yield a solution,or selectively compare a problem to previously learned material.
Empirical evidence has shown that gifted children outperform their non-gifted peers on each of the three insight components(Davidson and Sternberg,1984).For example,in an investigation of selective encoding, Davidson and Sternberg presented fourth-,?fth-,and sixth-grade gifted and non-gifted students with a series of insight problems,cueing half of each group about the relevant information needed to solve the problems and not cueing the others.Gifted children,unlike the nongifted children,performed equally well when cued and when not cued,suggesting that they already possessed the insight necessary to selectively encode.
One of these insightful processes,selective encoding,loosely re?ects ef?cient cognitive inhibition(Harnishfeger and Bjorklund,1994),a phe-nomenon that has recently been a focus in the?eld of cognitive development. Cognitive inhibition involves the active suppression of information that is irrelevant to the task at hand(Harnishfeger,1995).According to Davidson (1986),“an insight of selective encoding involves sorting out information that is relevant from information that is irrelevant for one’s purposes”(p.204). Both selective encoding and cognitive inhibition involve actively sorting out the relevant from the irrelevant,allowing the problem solver to focus only on information required for the solution.The connection between gifted-ness and cognitive inhibition is currently being investigated in a study com-paring gifted and average-ability children on a battery of inhibition tasks.
Cognitive Development in Gifted Children233 Preliminary results indicate that gifted children are better inhibitors (Hettinger,Kipp,and Goldman,2003).Because intelligence not only in-volves activating mental responses,but suppressing others from occurring, inhibition may prove a key component in individual differences in intelli-gence(Bjorklund and Kipp,2002).
Although many studies of strategic abilities in the gifted describe their high performance,the results of transfer studies are mixed.In short,the gifted appear similar to their non-gifted peers on near transfer tasks but more adept at far transfer tasks(see Carr et al.,1996,for a review of these studies).In studies of far transfer,where children must apply a learned strat-egy to a dissimilar problem,gifted children have the advantage over others. Kanevsky(1990)studied4-to8-year-olds as they attempted to apply the strategy learned in the Tower of Hanoi task to another task.She found that gifted children were more likely than non-gifted children to see the similari-ties in the two tasks and to use these similarities strategically.In Scruggs’and Mastropieri’s studies(Scruggs and Mastropieri,1988;Scruggs,Mastropieri, Jorgensen,and Monson,1986),gifted students also had an easier time trans-ferring the newly acquired strategies to novel situations,often with minimal or no prompting.Carr et al.(1996)suggest that far transfer tasks are dif?cult and require gifted children to apply their superior metacognitive knowledge, whereas near transfer tasks are simpler and may not rely on sophisticated metacognitive strategies for solution.
Interestingly,although gifted children’s strategic abilities are often su-perior,gifted children still experience the same problems other children have when they acquire new strategies(Gaultney,1998).During strategy acquisi-tion,for example,there is a time when using the new strategy may actually hinder the learner’s problem solving capability,a phenomenon known as a utilization de?ciency(Bjorklund and Coyle,1995;Miller and Seier,1994). Gaultney’s study showed that gifted children are not exempt from this phe-nomenon.In fact,gifted children were actually more likely than others to demonstrate a utilization de?ciency when learning a new strategy on a text recall task.Gaultney speculated that the gifted’s increased utilization de-?ciencies were due to their having“more to lose”(p.170).Because they started with better recall abilities,they were especially susceptible to a loss when they used an unfamiliar strategy.However,Gaultney also found that gifted children were able to move more quickly out of the utilization de?-ciency phase than their non-gifted counterparts because of their quick strat-egy automatization.
The strategic advantage gifted children often display may be medi-ated by the other factors associated with giftedness described previously. Alexander and Schwanen?ugel(1994)investigated the predictive value that intelligence,knowledge base,and metacognition had for young children’s
234Hettinger and Carr strategy regulation for a sort-recall task.They found that although intelli-gence seems to play a small role,knowledge base and metacognition play a much larger role.In short,children who were more familiar with the material under study and who had a more sophisticated understanding of strategy use were better at strategy regulation.Additionally,in a study of seventh graders’memory strategies(Gaultney,Bjorklund,and Goldstein,1996),researchers con?rmed that non-strategic factors such as speed of processing and knowl-edge base in?uenced the gifted children’s performance as much or more than their strategy use.Harnishfeger and Bjorklund(1990)described simi-lar results and suggested that gifted children’s superior non-strategic abilities often made strategies unnecessary.
In summary,although gifted children are strategically superior in many ways,including their strategy knowledge,strategy acquisition,?exibility,and appropriate use of strategies,their strategic abilities occasionally appear like those of their non-gifted peers.Gifted and non-gifted children experience similar dif?culties applying and bene?ting from new strategies during the utilization de?ciency phase,and transferring a learned strategy to similar problems.Factors such as knowledge base and metacognition,which are related to giftedness,impact strategic functioning.
Missing from the literature on problem solving in the gifted are overar-ching developmental models such as dynamic systems models of cognitive development or Siegler’s overlapping waves model of strategy use.It may be that more gifted children differ from average children,not in their ability to use strategies but in the timing of the development of these strategies.Gifted children may also more quickly evaluate and discard less ef?cient strategies for more ef?cient strategies.Little longitudinal research has been done on the development of strategies in gifted populations so researchers do not know whether developmental differences exist as a function of giftedness.
LEARNING FROM SIEGLER’S MODEL
Although research on children’s strategy use has shown differences in cognitive functioning between gifted and non-gifted learners,more research is needed to determine how the differences in functioning develop.Although studies have investigated attributes like speed,knowledge,metacognition, and strategy use,few have actually addressed how these processes develop in gifted children.Those that do take a disjointed approach by comparing two different groups of children rather than observing development within the same children.The same is true for many theories of intelligence;few (Ceci’s bioecological theory being one exception)actually describe the way intelligence develops.Furthermore,gifted education has yet to adopt some