Critical Review

A Critique of Ellen Winner's "The Origins and Ends of Giftedness"
By Emilie Canino

Abstract
In this critical review of Ellen Winner's article "The Origins and Ends of Giftedness," I will mainly be critiquing some of the discussion points and other characteristics of the paper while using other academic articles on giftedness for comparison and support. For the basis of most of my arguments, and perhaps, in order to write a fair review, I took the difference in the original publication year (2000) and the date of this review into account, for there has undoubtedly been much more research done in the area in that amount of time. All of the articles I will be referencing were published prior to the publication date of the article, all no more than three years older but one, which I will identify later in the paper. Lastly, I will very briefly discuss the implications, directions it has taken since, and important future research directions.








Rationale:
Many people would not question the importance of research in childhood development, and for good reason. The simplest reason being they will eventually integrate into society and a greater understanding of development will help, at least in part, with preparing them for the transition. Since one of the most influential aspects of development is education, either at home or in schools, providing the appropriate resources to children would help optimize their future potential. However, that has proven to not be so simple. With differences in children's abilities, ranging from developmentally disabled/learning disabled, to the gifted and prodigious, it is no surprise that children may not always receive the environments and support they need. There has been vast research done on the two previously mentioned extremities, but in the late 1990's, Ellen Winner felt that research on the intellectually disabled population was more prevalent and evolved than research on giftedness (Winner, 2000).
"The Origins and Ends of Giftedness" was written in order to discuss five issues about giftedness. Those topics being:
The origins of giftedness
The intrinsic motivation of gifted children
Emotional and social differences that isolate them
Presentation of evidence for uneven cognitive profiles
Childhood giftedness and its relationship with adulthood "domain creativity".

While I am not going to directly critique each and every discussion point, aspects from my arguments will likely overlap, conceptually, with facets of her topics. I will be focusing on:
Origins and definitions
Motivation and achievement
Big-C concerns
I will not only use evidence from other articles to identify problems with certain claims that were made, but I will also compare strengths of those papers to magnify some of the weaknesses that, I felt, were present in her's.

1. Origins and definitions:
While reading articles related to this topic, I couldn't help but notice all the variations of the definition of "giftedness." In one review of empirically based articles on giftedness, the authors essentially start with identifying this phenomenon and its implications. Since theories interpret the data of which is has relevance, results explained by one theory of giftedness cannot be compared to findings from another study that uses a different theory or definition. However, researchers of this field of psychology often use results from previous studies in conjunction with their own work to help understand correlations (Ziegler, 2000).
This complicates Winner's article because not only did she fail to provide how she defined "giftedness," for the purpose of that paper and even her frequently referenced previous works, but she used results found in many different studies, most of which likely used operational definitions of "giftedness" for the purpose of their study. What first could be considered her definition appears in the first paragraph, where she stated that "gifted children and prodigies display near-adult level skills and interests" and "they may turn everyday experiences into mathematical problems to play with" (Winner, 2000). That is an extremely behaviorally based illustration of exceptionally talented children considering that she later presents evidence for innate talent in gifted children as a critique for views that stipulate that giftedness is the result of deliberate practice. Consequently, she mentions that a "'rage to master' characterizes children we have traditionally labeled as gifted: children with high IQs who excel in school," it was still vague and did not include the "innate talent" aspect she seems to believe (Winner,2000).

2. Motivation and achievement
Since the author supports a nativist view of giftedness, it is no surprise that she describes a gifted child's motivation to achieve mastery in their domain as being intrinsic, and does not really offer more information on the association. However, the development of intrinsic motivation was previously conceptualized as being associated with, and important to, the development of giftedness by the authors of one longitudinal study published in 1996 (Gottfried, 1996). In fact, Winner references their work that was published in 1994 in the paper and neglects to mention the idea of the relationship between intrinsic motivation and giftedness. While the concept of intrinsic motivation was not dismissed in Gottfried & Gottfried's later paper, I feel that the entire section "Motivational aspects of Giftedness" would have been stronger if that association was mentioned. Instead, she suggests that parents and school risk muzzling a gifted child's drive when they, "try to force single-minded, driven children to be well-rounded" by "having the children spend time on more 'normal' activities" which leads to "curtailing activity in the children's domain of giftedness" (Winner, 2000).
Her concern for the motivation of gifted children is reasonable, motivation or perhaps what Lewis Terman referred to as "persistence in the accomplishment of ends" in one conclusion, which identified that it was one-in-four personality factors that were "extremely important determiners of achievement." But that was not the only conclusion reached after following-up and studying his initial subject pool for 30 years, he also found that, "all-around emotional and social adjustment" and "drive to achieve" were the biggest differences between the group of participants that became the most successful and those who were the least successful (Renzulli, 1978). I found this important to mention because Winner also references Terman's work quite heavily in the section on gifted children's social and emotional lives. However, she neglected to mention his finding on adjustment and achievement. Instead, she focused on comparing the emotional and social lives of "gifted" children to those of "ordinary" children (Winner, 2000).
While underachievement of gifted children seems to be a major concern of Ellen Winner's, as well as other psychologists, the concept of underachievement is often vaguely defined. This lack of a more precise definition of gifted underachievement negatively impacts the development of potential interventions (Reis, 2000). Ellen Winner does not provide any kind of concise definition of what she would view as underachievement, nevertheless she infers that the "potent messages" of a gifted child's "peer culture to avoid work and be like everyone else" could lure them into a realm where they would never be able to reach their high potential (Winner, 2000).

3. Big-C Concerns
Winner identifies "domain-altering innovation" (which she refers to as big-C creativity) as the highest point of achievement for childhood giftedness and that most gifted children and prodigies do not become adult creators (Winner, 2000). Although she provides four reasons for this, the majority are somewhat problematic. The first reason she stated, which she labeled as inevitable, was that "there is simply not enough room at the top for all prodigies to become creators." That claim makes it seem like she believes that only gifted children are capable of becoming adult creators.
The second inevitable reason, which has been supported by other studies, is that "the skill of being a prodigy is not the same as the skill of being a big-C creator." When she names some of the characteristics of a "big-C creator," there is some overlap. For instance, she describes adult innovators as being "restless," "dissatisfied with the status quo," and "independent" and emphasized will as a critical facet. She also used some of those exact words and similar ones to describe gifted children earlier in the paper. When discussing the "deep intrinsic motivation" gifted children have to master their domain, she describes them as having manic energy levels and an obsessive interest, both qualities that are similar to or related to being restless and having will. She also referenced a study that focused on teenagers who were gifted in music, athletics, and the visual arts and their tendency to be "highly-driven", "independent thinkers", and "nonconforming (Winner, 2000)." Again, all of those adjectives were essentially used to characterize adult creators. Perhaps for the intent of that reason, it would have been useful to briefly explain why despite similar qualities, some prodigies fail to eventually change a domain.
In one article on creativity and expertise, the author suggested that factors that differentiated simply acquiring domain-specific expertise and actually making creative contributions were having broader interests and being versatile. The concept of versatility being associated with innovation contradicts Winner's case for nurturing single-mindedness, but it provided a better explanation for the difference in skill between prodigies and creators. It also follows another explanation presented that was by Keith Simonton, determining the amount of originality that will optimize success is more difficult than efficiently executing a well-learned task. Some original ideas can be too abstract that they are seen as incomprehensible. Because of the nature of creative innovation, a trial-and-error process is often necessary to achieve success. While this process might be familiar to those who relentlessly developed a domain skill, the type of feedback differs. Creators must consider the environmental factors when receiving feedback on their work, such as general lack of consensus and temporal stability (Simonton, 1999).
One "noninevitable" reason she proposed directly contradicts an earlier claim made stating that parents fear "too often" that they are pushing their children too hard.

4. Structure and Approach
Structurally, this paper was poorly organized, especially when you compare it to articles that sought to raise questions and discuss issues in the same field. One article, which she criticized for dismissing innate talent, was organized in a more cohesive manner. It had; an introduction that included the operational definition of talent that was used for the intent of that paper, and sections for, the concept of talent in other researchers explanations, evidence that supports and contradicts innate talent, and alternative factors that contribute to the phenomena, finishing with a summary and the conclusion (Howe, 1998).
Her approach, while very strong, was perhaps too much so considering the lack of sufficient support. Many claims she made were often stated in a "matter of fact" way when supporting her arguments and almost seemed oversimplified. Meanwhile, she provided more information than was necessary on when the study of giftedness first began with Lewis Terman, which was mentioned about halfway through the paper, and had little importance to her argument. A paper I felt did a better job with discussion issues with giftedness research was Francoys Gagné's "My Convictions About the Nature of Abilities, Gifts, and Talents." Not only did he structure his statements in a sequential manner, but he did so for the purpose of merely inviting other professionals to analyze their own beliefs. Even though his statements flowed in that manner, he still managed to form arguments and support them logically, while acknowledging the complex nature of the topic (Gagne, 1999).


Implications and Future directions
I believe Ellen Winner's intentions for the paper were good, just poorly executed. Improvement of academic resources is a critical issue for all children, exceptionally able or not. I felt her article placed an importance on supporting gifted children over "ordinary" children, and at times even gave off an elitist undertone when talking about prodigious children. There has been plenty of research done on this population since the publication of Winner's article. Aspects of learning disabilities and giftedness have been explored, such as ADHD in the context of a high IQ and the concept of twice exceptional learners (Antshel, 2008; Reis, 2014). There has also been very recent research on childhood giftedness and adolescent agency (Mudrak, 2015).
With the seemly drastic increase in children diagnosed with ADHD, further research on learning disabilities with or without the aspect of giftedness is crucial. Children who are considered; gifted, learning disabled, and developmentally disabled, may require different environments in order to maximize motivation and performance. However, as I mentioned before, the academic environment for "ordinary" students should not be held as a less important matter. Lastly, considering what has been mentioned in regards to the discrepancy between childhood giftedness and adulthood innovation, a stronger focus on adolescence and the affiliated psychological and environmental complexities should be further examined.














REFERENCES

Gagné, Françoys., My convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts, and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. Winter 1999, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p109-136.

Simonton, K., Creative Development as Acquired Expertise: Theoretical Issues and an Empirical Test. Developmental Review. Volume 20, Issue 2, June 2000, Pages 283–318.

Gottfried, A.E., Gottfried, A.W., A Longitudinal Study of Academic Intrinsic Motivation in Intellectually Gifted Children: Childhood Through Early Adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly Fall 1996 vol. 40no. 4 179-183.

Renzulli, J., What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition. The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Nov., 1978), pp. 180-184, 261.

Howe, M.J.A, Davidson, J.W.,Sloboda, J.A., Innate talents: Reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1998) 21, 399–442.

Reis, S.M., Baum, S.M., Burke, E., An Operational Definition of Twice-Exceptional Learners: Implications and Applications. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2014, Vol. 58(3) 217­–230.

Albert Ziegler & Thomas Raul (2000) Myth and Reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 113-136.

Reis, S.M., McCoach, D.B., the underachievement of gifted students: what do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly 2000, Vol 44 no. 3

Antshel, K.M., Attention -Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder In The Context Of A High Intellectual Quotient/Giftedness. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 14: 293 – 299 (2008)

Mudrak, J., Zabrodska, K., Childhood Giftedness, Adolescent Agency:A Systemic Multiple-Case Study. Gifted Child Quarterly 2015, Vol. 59(1) 55­–70