Gifted education involves several procedures such as testing, identification and tracking students to challenge their potential to the fullest. Initially, students take several tests including tests of intelligence, creativity, and motivation and must perform well enough to get into a gifted program. Following this testing, they have a label that they and others know quite well, gifted. Frequently, this means grouping them separately from their non-gifted peers. Accordingly, they follow a different curriculum, and attend different programs that are not available to others. Also, some practices that often occur when teaching or interacting with gifted students, such as a teacher’s or parent’s praise, convey direct and hidden messages. These messages, in essence, consistently remind them of how superior they are. Ultimately, they are taught to enjoy their superiority with a minimal or no clue about being virtuous. Most educators pay a great attention to increase their self-esteem while they were indifferent for the possibility of arrogance and conceit. Nevertheless, the “privilege” of being in the top 5 or smaller percent dramatically shapes the identity of the gifted individual from early ages. With the self–esteem enhancement movements in 80’s, the importance of humility as a significant virtue has been ignored among educators. They mostly perceived lack of self-esteem as a big problem whereas lack of humility was rather acceptable. However, potential of the gifted individuals, like any other person, deserves a more gracious treatment that regards them as human beings rather than better human resources for the nation and economy.

Corollary to the deficits in educators’ approaches to the gifted individuals, their emotional and moral development have been omitted. When one searches the studies on the development of positive moral characteristics of the gifted, such as, humility, there is almost no study on those issues. Humility in itself is a crucial virtue for several reasons. First, humility allows gifted individuals to recognize that they cannot control everything in every situation. Their superior abilities compared to their peers become a huge burden because others and their own expectations about themselves are mostly quite high. Failures and unexpected academic performance are less tolerable for the gifted. Crucially, humble gifted individuals can successfully handle challenging situations because their moral development valuing humility functions as a buffer zone and make them more resilient against challenges of life. People can have a more realistic view of themselves as long as they are well aware of their real inadequacies.

Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) pointed to the positive role of humility on competition in the organizations. They argued that fear of failure impedes people from taking initiative and humility helps people to reduce their fear of failure with the premise that people with no experience of failure are unlikely to try again. Secondly, humility helps gifted individuals to have a better and more realistic understanding about one’s self. Humble gifted people can realize their own weaknesses. This is also important for the gifted because very few people criticize them while many others praise their ability. In such a social climate, a true understanding of oneself is not an easy task. Thirdly, humble people can empathize with others easily. Gifted individuals mostly have concerns for others and have a keen moral sensitivity. However, feeling of superiority can hurt their healthy relationships with others; thus, other people become less likely to enjoy being together with them. Humble people have an increased valuation of others without a decrease in their valuation of themselves (Means & Wilson, 1990), and, thus, the need for humility is even more important for the gifted individuals.

Humility represents a major dilemma of gifted education: Although several procedures, facilities and resources are developed and implemented for the gifted, they inherently trigger a grandiosity effect. As a result of that, usual practices in the gifted education seem to nurture a less realistic view of self which is not less dangerous than the lack of self-esteem. Unfortunately, educators tend to ignore the presence of the dilemma and insist on particular practices without pondering upon the potential damages. What kinds of precautions can be taken to raise humble gifted individuals? What other messages should be given to them? Among many possible methods to overcome this problem, the following recommendations can be taken into consideration in educational and psychological practices.

1. Giftedness as a responsibility

Conceptualization of the giftedness needs fine-tuning. Traditional perspectives that seek the differences between gifted and non-gifted individuals have created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Gifted individuals have been marginalized and alienated. So-called unrealistic perception of giftedness has led to a perception of “superiority” over others. Remarkably, giftedness, as a concept, implies being the one who was awarded with some qualities which other people do not have. The concept also implies the passivity of the gifted because he was given, not necessarily because he deserves it. Corollary to this, gifted individuals should be taught about the responsibilities along with the gifts. Unlike the current practices, educators should emphasize the individual and social responsibilities corresponding to giftedness.

Individual responsibilities of the gifted individuals are related to the importance of realizing their personal strengths and skills and investing for their potential appropriately. In educational context, many gifted students tend to take the classes easy and pay attention to other “more interesting” things. They tend to make no effort beyond what the classes require, and their potential is not challenged. Individual responsibility defined as fulfillment of one’s own potential should replace externally defined responsibilities which are neither challenging nor motivating for the gifted.

Social responsibilities are critical for the gifted individuals because their potential can lead to both positive and negative changes at the societal level. Many scientific innovations facilitating our lives today are the gifted minds’ contributions to human beings. On the other hand, they could have devoted their potential to harmful innovations, too. The gifted individuals, therefore, are those who can build the civilizations with all advanced systems of technology, transportation and communication, and destroy them with mass destruction weapons, such as atom bombs. Employing the strengths and capacities to the benefit of human beings should be set as a basic goal for the gifted individuals.

2. Importance of effort over ability

Overemphasis on abilities and consideration of abilities as fixed traits tend to block gifted individuals. If people think that they possess a superior capacity and this is more or less stable, they may have difficulty in making for their goals. They often compromise their high ability with less effort that may result in underachievement and dropouts. The importance of effort and struggle over ability and performance should be integrated to the educational system.

Valuation of effort can be achieved through differentiating the curriculum for the gifted students. For example, the research indicate that easy learning materials and having a better standing in the class with respect to school achievement lead to ability attributions while mental effort and task commitment induce effort attributions (Dweck, 2006, Nicholls, 1978; Schunk, 1994). That means students tend to attribute the achievements to their abilities in easy tasks while they tend to attribute their performance in hard tasks to their hard work. Preparing the curriculum at an appropriate level of difficulty, by which students can be challenged but still can comprehend the content with some effort, should be a major task for the educators. In this way, the frame of reference for the gifted becomes the degree to which they struggle toward their goals rather than the gifts, capacities and strengths they possess.

3. Learning goals instead of performance goals

Goal setting is a crucial aspect of the education of the gifted people. Goal setting is influenced by the way educators assess student performances. There has been a tendency to evaluate school performance through objective, psychometric measures. Even though those measures are more reliable, the information gained from those measures are restricted, comparing the gifted with their counterparts instead of indicating the level at which the gifted fulfill their potential. Learning goals which can be set through individual projects should be the focus of evaluation rather than performance goals which tend to reduce the evaluation to the numbers. Learning goals also seem to be safer for the gifted since it focuses on the discovery of strategies that lead to desired outcomes whereas performance goals tend to have deleterious effects as people are preoccupied with the end result. Therefore, a third task for the educators is to preserve the gifted students from the detrimental effects of mechanical measurement of the performance. In this way, students have criterion set at their own pace for their success rather than external criteria set by others.

The above suggestions, which can be the basic steps of the fundamental changes in the system, can be further enumerated. The dilemma with the gifted education mentioned above is institutionally induced; therefore, the solutions should be addressed at the institutional level. By virtue of those changes in the educational settings, the programs for gifted education can become more individual-based and less mechanical, ultimately caring more about the critical human virtues such as humility. The political developments helped the gifted education programs to blossom, but it brought some side-effects. Educators must see those gaps and generate solutions that care about the gifted individuals.

References

• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
• Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.
• Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attribution in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 75-99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Vera, D. & Rodriguez-Lopez, A. 2004. Strategic virtues: Humility as a source of competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 4: 393-408.

According to the British writer Raymond Williams, culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in English. It has many definitions but here is the crux to remember: Culture is the way of life of a given society. Our culture is what we are as a group; it is learnt from birth and is passed down from one generation to another.¹

Culture is to the person as water is to the fish. It influences the way we perceive the world, tells us how to behave, and tells scholars how to think about the causes of behavior. It even shapes the moods and opinions of public about what to eat, what to wear, what to think is right or wrong, and much more. However, people are generally unaware of their cultural conditioning and do not realize that the way they recognize the world is not necessarily same as the way other groups do.²

An array of traditions, norms and values observed in a society raise its cultural character which distinguish societies from one another. These cultural variations influence the course of communications, may cause (the escalation of) conflict when it leads to miscommunication or misinterpretation, and can be problematic in cross-cultural encounters when one acts as if differences did not exist.³ The deeper one interacts with a different cultural group, the more he/she understands its the norms and priorities. This awareness of the ways cultures operate in communication and conflict will yield to the ability to respond effectively to these differences and prevent misunderstandings in intercultural settings.

One can list many dimensions or their sublevels that cause variations both between and within cultures. Below, we will discuss some major aspects along which cultures vary. Although it seems that there are no direct linkages between each topic, it is interesting to see how they actually relate to one another.

Senses of Self:

From the outside, a tree grown in California would probably look just like a tree grown in Japan. However, the growth of each tree is largely dependent on the soil that roots of the trees have to interact with in order to grow. The strength of the roots is also dependent on the environment the tree is exposed to, from sunshine to thunderstorms. Imagine the values of a particular culture represented as the roots of a tree. These roots (values) are the source of strength needed by the tree to survive in the surrounding environment (society). Of course, we don’t really see the roots, but we are constantly exposed to the tree nevertheless. The type of fertilizer and water fed to the tree contributes significantly to the growth of it. In addition, you can not transplant a tree into other soil unless you prepare the roots for the new soil.

The roots of each tree may have a different form, much like the cultures they represent. The Japanese roots are twisted together because they may have rockier soil and need the combined strength of the roots to support the tree during rough weather. The American roots, however, are individual, separate, straight, and deep, responding to their soil condition. ⁴

Societies that value individual uniqueness and self-determination are referred to as individualistic cultures in which people make up their own mind and show initiative independently. In this way of life, people deem themselves as the masters of their lives which they think they can control by themselves. On the contrary, cultures in which people identify themselves with groups are categorized as collectivistic societies. These societies consider many external parameters outside one’s control that affect the course of their lives, and there is more emphasis on the role of destiny in daily life. Many of the Asian cultures are collectivist, while Anglo cultures tend to be individualist.

A “self-determining” individual tries to preserve his/her image and interests by taking a competitive stance in interpersonal encounters. However, for those in collectivistic cultures, direct confrontation may reflect poorly on the group or disturb overall harmony; then open criticisms of others are generally avoided. When there is conflict, a third party is utilized for resolution. Since no direct confrontation takes place, potential damage to the relationships is minimized.

The value placed on individual freedom in individualist societies leads to the idea that everybody is equal regardless of age, social status, or authority, which calls for a tendency to be informal when addressing one another. In the US, for instance, superiors and subordinates often interact socially as equals, and an outsider typically cannot tell them apart. However, collectivistic societies place more value on seniority and hierarchy and, therefore, are more formal. They also put more emphasis on the role of power/status: Is the boss, a) always right because he is the boss, or b) only when he gets it right?

Someone devoted to freewill and someone with a more philosophical orientation may face miscommunication. The first would expect immediate action and responsibility and, failing to see it, may conclude that the latter is lagging, hindering, or dishonest. The second person would expect respect for the natural order of things and, failing to see it, may conclude that the former is pushy or impolite.

Communication styles:

Japanese can find Westerners to be offensively blunt. Westerners can find Japanese to be secretive, devious and bafflingly unforthcoming with information. French can feel that Germans insult their intelligence by explaining the obvious, while Germans can feel that French managers provide no direction. ⁵

In some cultures, people presume ample commonality of understanding and attitude in their counterparts hence they feel that it is unnecessary to be “over-explicit”; information is communicated in indirect ways embedded in the existing context or internalized in the person per se. Whereas in other cultures, information is part of, and conveyed through, the verbal content of the communication; things are made explicit, and there is considerable dependence on what is actually said. The first types of cultures are known as high-context, and the latter low-context respectively. Due to the significance of social information networks, collectivistic cultures tend to be high context.

Since the focus is the message itself rather than the context, low context cultures are open to communication errors when they assume more shared knowledge than there actually is. This direct approach may help to avoid communication errors when used properly (in a good timing and context). However, communicators may fail to “feel the emotional state” of the other party, or may hurt feelings while trying to be “direct.”

Though, low context cultures expect thorough explanations, high context cultures take them as redundant discussions on details, and even somewhat hesitate to make mistakes with too much talk. These cultures are more cautious about the potential implications of the message delivered. Silence and other indirect/non-confrontational methods are frequently applied and patience is promoted for the sake of overall harmony. On one side, silence is viewed as a communication breakdown, whereas on the other it is utilized as an actual communication component at times.

Perception of time:

I was once told that one of the South American groups in the U.S. used to send to different invitations for the same occasion. One was truly showing the ceremony time, yet the other was for an hour before the actual kickoff. The first was for the American friends and the latter one was for their own community to offset possible delays.

Time is beyond what a clock reads: “There are two blessings in which most people are in great loss: Good health and free time.” ⁶ In addition to being a major blessing, it is one of the most central differences that separate cultures and cultural ways of doing things.

In the West, time has a present focus moving toward the future at an acknowledged swiftness. Events are explained via specific causes, and there is an appropriate time and place for everything. This notion of time is actually a product of the Industrial Revolution which requires certain tasks to be achieved at a predetermined hour. Concentration is on one event at a time, schedules and deadlines take priority, and interruptions are not very welcome, which ultimately seals people off from one another, as limited time allows some people in and leaves some others out.

In Western cultures, time is considered as a limited reserve which is continually being used up. It’s like having a bathtub full of water that is running down the drain, and can never be replaced. It has to be used as it runs down the drain or it is wasted.⁵ Time is perceived quantitatively; it is measured and almost tangible. Many expressions such as Boucicault’s following words highlight its importance and urge its awareness in these societies: “Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them.” “Time is money” is a household expression, and people often talk about “saving,” “spending,” “wasting,” “finding,” or “losing” time. Time orders life and priorities: “I don’t have time to do that.” Since time is prioritized, so is accomplishing a task as quickly as possible; thus taking risks are expected to bring the future closer.

As time is limited, punctuality becomes a desirable quality and wasting someone’s time is regarded as an insult. Lest communication takes more time, individual-oriented cultures promote direct and competitive communication, whereas group-oriented cultures prefer indirect and harmonious approaches to communicate and avoid direct confrontation. Individualistic cultures may view this communication avoidance as passive, unwilling, or even ignorant. On the other hand, collectivistic cultures may view the direct approach to communication as being rude.

In the East, time is circular, spiral, even repetitive, and has unlimited continuity; in old agricultural societies which depend on the months/seasons of the year, it renews itself annually (traditional Chinese calendar has a period of 12 years). Other unrelated events or mystical reasons may be used to explain a given event, “as time is viewed an unfolding of stories already written, or a play in which much of the set is invisible.” ³ This idea of time also goes along with fate and destiny, and is connected to other people as well as periods of history. People may handle many things at once in this approach. A manager’s office in such a culture typically has an open door, a ringing phone and a meeting all going on at the same time. Within all these intermingling events, punctuality is nice, but not essential.

In Eastern cultures, time is more plentiful and people tend to be more patient. It is quite acceptable to make people wait all day, and then tell them to come back later. Time-abundant cultures tend to rely on trust to do business, whereas time-limited cultures don’t have time to develop trust and have other mechanisms to substitute trust (such as judiciary mechanisms).⁵ This time pressure may also account for segmented relationships in Anglo cultures, while time-abundant societies tend to establish lifetime relationships. Furthermore, societies that have a more flexible sense of time are more comfortable with uncertainties and accommodate changes in verbal plans, whereas time-limited cultures prefer everything to be expressed in written details and abide by these binding plans.

In one viewpoint, past and future are both present in this stretching time that loops back and forth. In the other, time starts with the very current instant and extends into the future. In a negotiation setting of parties with these two different notions of time, one of the parties may take time to provide extensive information regarding their stories and their relationships to the issue; weaving themes, feelings, ideas, and experiences together as they remember the past and project the future. When it is the other party’s chance to speak, they may promptly project flow charts showing processes for decision-making and speak about their intentions for entering the negotiation process right away. Neither side would feel satisfied with this meeting, but everyone would feel that they were not “on the same page.” ³

Therefore, as people from different cultural backgrounds work together, they should ask questions about their values and needs, and how these may affect their progress. Both cultures would be comfortable with meeting face to face in a mediation setting to frankly discuss differences of any sort.

Figure 1, serves as a summary of the dimensions we have mentioned so far. While the generalizations listed do not apply uniformly to all cultures, they will help convey a pattern:

Figure 1. Comparison of various cultural dimensions

Most North European and North American cultures fall into Group A.

Most Latin American, Asian, South European, and some African cultures overall fall into Group B.

Each of the variables discussed here shows only a glimpse of various dimensions across cultures, which do not apply to all individuals within a culture. One should not generalize by ignoring individual differences; e.g., “he is like that because he is Asian – all Asians are nonverbal.” An individual’s behavior may well vary depending on the situation, individual personality, mood, etc. as well. Cultural differences discussed here are general guidelines and there will always be exceptions. Anyone is unique in a sense and must be approached accordingly. It is important to remember this uniqueness at times of negotiations or unease, and not rush to make decisions before clearly understanding the situation. Keep in mind that different cultures see the world through diverse filtering lenses; there may not be a disagreement but just a different interpretation of what is going on.

As a result of globalization, the world is becoming smaller and people of various cultures are able to communicate freely. Ideas and perspectives can span across cultures through different forms of media like the television, the newspapers and the Internet; thus, cultures are blending more and more every day, which makes dialogue and mutual understanding essential. Only by learning about, respecting, and celebrating these differences, we can build mutuality and co-operative relationships, rather than breeding enmities.

Osman Senkaya has a Master’s Degree in Nonprofit Leadership.

Notes

¹ http://www.celt.iastate.edu/international/culture-extras/CultureResources.pdf

² Kim, Min-Sun. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.

³ LeBaron, Michelle. “Cross-Cultural Communication.” http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cross-cultural_communication

⁴ Elashmawi, Farid, and Philip R. Harris. 1993. Multicultural Management: New Skills for Global Success. 3rd ed.: Gulf Publishing Company.

⁵ “Differences in Cultures.” http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/cultural.htm

⁶ Sahih Bukhari: Vol. 8, Book 76, Number 421.

⁷ Foster, Dean A. 1992. Bargaining Across Borders: How to negotiate business successfully anywhere in the world: McGraw-Hill.

Although, there is a lack of theoretical and philosophical background to understand the homeschooling movement I would like to use some philosophy of

teaching theories to understand and analyze counter-culture and controversies in Mitchell L. Stevens’ book. The author tries to offer a broad understanding in the North Eastern American states in the homeschooling movement. The author focuses to answer why the homeschooling families walked away from one of the most central institutions of modern life and what do those families think about conventional schools. Stevens continues by saying that We inherit traditions of meaning that help define what we think and lend words to what we fell. I wanted to learn about the intellectual traditions from which home schooling had grown (Stevens, 2001, p.15). When I reviewed the book I wanted to discover what kind of inherited tradition and mentality he found or didn’t find in the book while I was writing this paper. The author’s perspective about the homeschooling movement seems to be more narrative and insightful than theoretical and philosophical, which a sociological study is supposed to rely on.

On the cover of the book Stevens talks about the great successes of home schooled children, their making headlines by winning national spelling bees and excelling at elite universities, but he does not extend the argument far enough. He does not talk about the experiences of these children, their feelings and ideas about being home schooled, or the structure of their educational curriculum. Although he mentions some studies about those children by saying that home schooled children are academically successful and remarkably well socialized he does not explain how and why homeschooling brings these results. This shows that Stevens is more concerned with the adult movement in homeschooling than with how it will affect the children’s world contrary to the title of the book.

While the book states that the vast majority of homeschooling parents were conservative Christian or evangelical Protestant there are some exceptions to that which make the movement harder to understand. These exceptions include families who are atheist, gay or single parent rather than all conservative Christian. I see a shift toward theories based on a postmodern approach because many parents have become skeptical about other types of modern schooling. Homeschooling families place great emphasis on their children’ showing initiative and being physically and psychologically healthy. For homeschooling families’ modernism does not have a capacity to fulfill the needs of young children because there is so much influence of commercial culture, including overly sexualized and secularized materials. While homeschooling families unmask the secular political ideology in regular public schooling, they come with their hidden agenda (religious or non-secular education) unlike in postmodernism. This is because postmodernism gives great emphasis on individual intention. Hlebowitsh says that postmodernists stress the value of individual initiative, the recognition of human intention, the unmasking of political ideology in knowledge, the taming of social control mechanism in the school, and the general idea that society is marked by conflicting interests of class, gender, and culture (Hlebowitsh, 2001, p. 119). Postmodernism is skeptical to see things as all good and perfect, but homeschooling families are pretty sure what they want out of home schooling. According to many homeschooling families, in this modern world individuals are not conscious about God and the importance of family ties, especially mother and child/children, are uniquely important. Consequently, the movement in the book seems to be not so new and very similar to early colonial New England School tradition in terms of its being exclusive and based on Bible lesson plans. In chapter three, entitled Natural Mothers and Godly Women, Stevens recalls Dame schooling that is based on women educators (widowed or unmarried) in the New England early colonial era. These women did not necessarily train to be a teacher but taught to read the Bible and lessons based on its Scriptures, which is very similar to the homeschooling movement today. Stevens book fails to do this, or describe some other types of historical ties behind the movement. I wonder if he intents to make this connection on page 15 by using the term inherit tradition in the homeschooling movement.

In the Homeschooling Journal, Debra Strayer (Stevens, 2001, p.66) says that:

As teaching parents, we are presented with a huge array of educationally important things to serve our children. Many things are considered essential, such as phonics and math. Many are deemed very important, such as writing and science, with our study of the Bible as the central diet. As we consider the many things our children simply must have, we tend to eliminate those things that are cumbersome and difficult to schedule

In this quote Strayer expresses the feelings of many homeschooling families by saying that other types of schooling are more heavily weighted on unnecessary courses and scheduling than core subjects’ courses. The homeschooling families like to eliminate those things from their children’s learning experience. While they make these arguments on the surface they tend to be subject-centered rather than child-centered. This is similar to one of the conservative philosophies of teaching theory, which is essentialism. In this type of teaching philosophy learning is primarily based on the transmission and protection of common core cultural knowledge. This common culture relies on the values of Western civilization and the ideal learning experience is strictly based on academic discipline. While those statements translate the homeschooling movement, the author does not tend to make any type of historical or philosophical connection to interpret and understand the movement. Because these parents do not count on their children’s ideas and feelings, they ignore the real view of their children and they only think of molding them into the shape that they want them to be. Thus, parents, not the children, have the authority to make the choices and offer selections.

According to Rousseau, who is the father of the child-centered approach, children are best educated in a free environment and schools tend to destroy the natural learning process. Having an educational agenda undermines the individual’s natural and spontaneous learning process. As is seen in this statement, what Rousseau proposed with child-centeredness was totally different than what homeschooling families intend to do. I think the author needs another term instead of child centered at page 88. I believe those children are successful because of subject or discipline centeredness of homeschooling movement but not because of the child-centeredness of the movement.

Although I find Stevens book very enlightening, I see some gaps in terms of its theoretical and philosophical background. The author perceives homeschooling as a new social movement, but the question about what type of new social movement stays unclear and/or unanswered. I also realize this gap comes from the nature of the homeschooling movement. Even though, I try to understand Stevens’ book based on some teaching theories, it is hard to frame the movement because of a wide range of homeschooling families’ backgrounds and their expectations from the movement. Stevens’ book offers a very insightful approach to understanding homeschooling families. One of the strongest sides of his book is its vast range of homeschooling designs and the richness of his survey sample distributions. In terms of his methodology, this increases the accuracy of the information he provides through surveying. This shows that the author reached out to many homeschooling families and learned a lot about their world. Finally, I find Stevens successful in his ability to reflect his experiences insightfully with homeschooling families behind the movement.

References

• Hlebowitsh, Peter S., (2001). Foundations of American education (3 ed.). Wadsworth T. Thomson Learning. Belmont, CA
• Stevens, Mitchell L., (2001). Kingdom of children: Culture and controversy in the homeschooling movement. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey