If gifted/learning disabled students have wisdom, they have all things!

Roeper Review, Summer, 2007 by Jin-young Kim, Young-gun Ko

Gifted/learning disabled (G/LD) students have superior talent in certain areas but at the same time have difficulties in a particular academic area such as reading, mathematics, or written expression (Baum, 2004). It is very difficult to make a differential diagnosis of G/LD (Brody & Mills, 1997). One of the primary difficulties in differential diagnosis of G/LD is the masking effect (Brody & Mills, 2004). Masking refers to the phenomenon that the giftedness of G/LD individuals covers up their learning disabilities (LD), while at the same time the LD lowers their IQ scores, often preventing the detection of giftedness (Silverman, 1989).

G/LD and Masking

The masking effect of G/LD may affect intelligence and creativity, the common components of giftedness among theoretical models of giftedness (see Gagne, 1993; Renzulli, 1986; Richert, 1991; Sternberg, 2003a; Tannenbaum, 1983; Winner, 2000). Advocates of the masking concept (Fox & Brody, 1983; Silverman, 1989; Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983; Waldron & Saphire, 1990) argue that G/LD students' intelligence test scores may be higher than LD students' scores but lower than those of gifted students, because LD tends to depress their full-scale IQs (FSIQs). Even though small studies (Abelman, 1995; LaFrance, 1997) have reported no significant difference in FSIQs between gifted students and G/LD students, Nielsen's (2002) relatively large-scale study yielded a supportive result for the masking concept.

Longitudinal studies have identified considerable stability of IQs in LD students from childhood to adulthood (Spreen, 1987). Although no longitudinal study has reported IQs from G/LD student subjects, they are expected to display a similar pattern to the scores of LD students.

Empirical studies have shown that the masking effect may exert a negative influence on creativity. In comparison studies on the creativity of G/LD, gifted, and LD students in grades 4 through 6 (Baum, 1985; Saurenman & Michael, 1980), the scores of the creativity scales showed the following order: gifted > G/LD > LD. In Saurenman and Michael's study, G/LD scored higher than LD on the Divergent Production of Figural Classes (DFC) of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). However, the results of Baum's study, using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and the Williams Scale, were somewhat different: G/LD students scored higher than LD students on verbal originality and teacher perception of creativity, but scored lower than gifted students on figural, divergent thinking, and teacher perception of creativity.

In studies that administered the TTCT to older subjects, such as seventh and eighth graders, the difference in originality was maintained between G/LD and LD students but not between G/LD and gifted students (LaFrance, 1995, 1997; Woodrum & Savage, 1994). These results demonstrate that G/LD students show lower levels of performance in creativity than gifted students until sixth grade, but do not show any significant difference in creative ability in higher grades.

G/LD and Wisdom

Among the theoretical models that include intelligence and creativity as components of giftedness, Sternberg's (2003a, 2003b) Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized (WICS) model is unique. It includes wisdom, "a stage of thought beyond Piagetian formal operations" (Sternberg, 1998, p. 350), as a component of giftedness, whereas other models deal with factors related to Piagetian formal operations only.

According to Sternberg (2003a, 2003b), wisdom, intelligence, and creativity are conceptually similar but distinct components of giftedness. Sternberg (1985, 1990, 2003b) has reported a series of studies investigating implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. These implicit theories may provide useful information regarding what significance people impose on these concepts and how they use them (Sternberg, 2003b).

Sternberg (1985, 1990, 2003b) has had experts and lay persons from various fields in the United States evaluate the characteristics of the three concepts. Results show that the correlations between wisdom and intelligence range from .42 to .78 and the correlations between wisdom and creativity range from -.24 to .48. These results demonstrate people's belief that wisdom is conceptually closer to intelligence than to creativity. Nevertheless, wisdom seems to be conceptually distinct from intelligence as well as from creativity. His factor analysis results reveal that intelligence and creativity are motivated by intrapersonal goals, whereas wisdom is motivated by a desire for the common good. In this context, Sternberg (1998) defines wisdom as the successful use of intelligence and creativity in actualizing the common good "(a) through a balance among multiple intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests, and (b) in order to achieve a balance among responses to environmental contexts [through] adaptation to existing environmental contexts, shaping of existing environmental contexts, and selecting of new environmental contexts" (p. 353).

According to Sternberg (2003a, 2003b), the principal goal of intelligence and creativity is to maximize self-interest, but the principal goal of wisdom is to maximize both self-interest and the public interest. Thus, evil geniuses may be intelligent and creative, but they cannot be wise. Sternberg's WICS model does not suggest that achievements motivated by intrapersonal goals are worthless. Instead, it emphasizes that intelligence and creativity are necessary but not sufficient conditions for mature life (Sternberg, 2003b). Sternberg (2003b) cites Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as examples where "failures in balancing intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests can have devastating effects" (p. 154).