Giftedness vs. Exposure

[Just1More]

Can someone help me sort this out?

I revisit these thoughts every now and then, but never really come to anything.  Maybe it doesn't matter.  Anyway, I understand that giftedness is not a child who has been force-fed facts, and then can recite it all at a young age.  But, yet, it seems that the knowledge of all these facts is what makes a child "gifted" when they are tested?

My dd (actually, all of my kids), can learn anything I put out there.  But, someone has to put it out there, right?  In some way, the child has to be exposed to the information before they can know it exists to learn.  The only thing holding dd back is my laziness in learning what she wants to know so that I can explain it to her.  (Like, chemistry). 

But, if I explain it to her, is she gifted? Or just a normal curious kid?

Or, dd2 (newly 2yo) speaks in long sentences about all sorts of stuff.  But, she has heard and been exposed to so much more because of my other children.  She talks about planets and meteors, and knows some basic addition.  But, I don't think she understands addition.  She just knows it? 

Thoughts?

[aishamama]

=)  This is always a very interesting question for which I have no idea the true answer. My guess based on only my experience is that gifted children have the ability to in some way process information at younger ages where their peers are not able to, even if exposed. They tend to keep this pace and are able to absorb and process information and create ideas as they continue to grow. I think a lot of moms on here have mentioned broadening the scope of learning versus exhausting all possible subject matter in one area. I like this concept - a lot.

I have this opinion because I'm looking my 3 year old who is smart and very much on target on milestone charts, maybe slightly above due to exposure, but my 5 year old was a whole other ball of wax so to speak. It doesn't mean that the 3 y/o will or won't turn out to be gifted but at this age for him, it's not easy to tell like it was for my 5 y/o. 

There's just something about a lot of them that is way beyond in many cases what seems even reasonable for a child to know at these younger ages. My 3 y/o has been exposed to things...but for those certain academic things, nothing clicked in him and he could care less. But, give him a screwdriver and he'll take apart almost anything and put it back together lol. So, let's see how he turns out.

But this is just my own experience ....so far, and it may not even hold a ml worth of truth ;) 

Just watch your daughter and nourish her however that may be. It didn't occur to me that my son was gifted until after 2. I was just proud of him, not in an arrogant way. I got a little busy with a newborn but he just picked up the ball and ran regardless and even in my lack of teaching. 

[waiting2bemommy]

I definitely think exposure plays a key role in how kids fare in school, and on tests and that sort of thing. But it doesn't make on iota of difference in their actual intelligence and their *capacity* to learn.

I don't know if you've ever watched The Wire, but there is s scene in there where a young boy probably  middle school age, kept complaining that he hated math class. He lived in an abandoned apt and sold drugs for the older kids. One of the big guys rattled off a complicated question in the language of drug sales (if you sold this guy this much and so and so was owed a cut and so and so forth) and the kid answered instantly, and correctly. Obviously, he was intelligent. But he would probably flunk a traditional SAT test because it wouldn't be in terms he related to.

I always think of that scene when I hear people say that kids from rough backgrounds aren't as likely to be smart. (And I know that's not what you're saying!) I think the intelligence, the potential, is either there or it's not. I mean, all kids have potential, but you get what I'm saying. The exposure is what determines how much of it gets tapped into.

I know a lot of really smart people who are who have been criminals (I know, that makes me sound bad!) they would not be successful at what they do or used to do without being pretty smart. They just were exposed to different knowledge, so they ended up channeling their abilities in that direction.

Does that make any sense? lol. I think of this a lot with my own ds. He is now trying to teach himself to read on his own, even though I'm often too busy to sit down with him. And all this time I thought it was me. haha.

[ollyoxenfree]

Originally Posted by Just1More 

  But, yet, it seems that the knowledge of all these facts is what makes a child "gifted" when they are tested?

There are tests that rely mostly on achievement to assess intelligence. That's a pretty narrow view, though. Intelligence is a lot more than information acquisition. Logic, reasoning, analytical ability, deduction, induction, extrapolation, pattern recognition, abstraction....all require more than just learning facts. Exposure to information isn't enough, if higher cognitive ability isn't also present. 

[KCMichigan]

Originally Posted by waiting2bemommy 

I definitely think exposure plays a key role in how kids fare in school, and on tests and that sort of thing. But it doesn't make on iota of difference in their actual intelligence and their *capacity* to learn.

I know there is someone on here that knows more about the actual nitty gritty details, but this is my take away.

IQ and knowledge are different.

IQ testing exposes kids to knew information, puzzles, and other 'new' information. They then are compared on how they learn, use, remember, apply, reason with, and connect those details. Other things are also tested- speed, vocabulary,etc that are influenced by exposure (such as knowledge of words to make an analogy). A child that knows how to compare and contrast items, may score a 'false' low if they do not know what the actual objects being compared are--but they are not lacking in the ability, rather in exposure. There are also checks and balances in IQ tests that go into a complicated formula to determine a final IQ score. But you can not 'study' for an IQ test. Then a child/person is compared to how other children that age do on the same test. The score is given in IQ- to put it simply. Most of the population have an IQ between 85 & 115. So a child could have a very high IQ and a low knowledge base. 

A child can have an average IQ and a high knowledge base.

IQ is actual cognitive ability (as best as we can measure it---different IQ tests can result in different numbers and IQ can vary: usually you are given a 'range' along with a firm number. The 'range' of numbers (say 120-130) is usually a 90% confidence rate that that persons IQ is between those numbers if they were given the same test again. The firm number is the number on that given day.

A high IQ does not always equal good grades or success. A child can have learning disabilities and still have a high IQ. A child can have a high IQ and do well in school or poorly. IQ has genetic and early brain development components.  They (they being researchers) think that early exposure and a supportive and vocabulary rich environment can boost a childs IQ to certain degree by making stronger and more neural connections (not the actual knowledge itself, but the exposure to varied environments and ideas). IQ scores of young children ( under 7) are a hot debate in most educational circles and often deemed unreliable/inaccurate ( for being both too high and too low) due to the developmental growth/communication/ ability to be tested accurately and the wide variance that a few different answers/timing can make on testing scores when children are very young. 

Achievement is how well academically a child does. It measures knowledge. Students that 'know' a lot often score high on achievement testing and do well in school. Achievement is also often rated by grade levels or percentiles. ( student is at a 3.4 reading level or a 3.1 math level-  or percentile 98% for age  or in the 65% in math skills, etc). With studying/practice/change of teaching style/exposure you can raise your achievement scores dramatically. Students with high achievement often have average, high average, or gifted IQs. 

A student with a large difference in IQ and achievement may have a learning disability. For example a student that has a 110 IQ-- but when  achievement testing in reading  and math and get scores of reading = 66 and math = 100. They would be seen as having a reading disability. There is a great gap (usually a 15pt or more spread or 1.5 to 2 standard deviations) between their ability levels and their actual achievement that causes them to have below average achievement.

That said--- with a 100 IQ a child will have somewhat scattered achievement scores naturally, but they all should fall 'around' their ability level. All of us have strengths/weaknesses in certain areas and IQ does not automatically mean you will achieve that level of academic success.

I have seen kids with 'low end' IQs do well academically and vice versa, kids with high IQs ( and no learning disabilities) do just OK at school.

Generally- IQ numbers of a child tend to stay the same and achievement scores raise as the child gets older and gains more knowledge.

A person has to have specialized training to administer and interpret  IQ testing (often an educational psychologist) Most teachers have some training to administer various achievement tests (depending on the test). As a former Special Education teacher I administered  A LOT of achievement testing- both traditional (running records, AR, DIBELS, etc) and specialized (KeyMath, Woodcock Johnston, etc). 

Different internal motivations, different interests, different learning styles, etc.

That said-- also kids with high visual learning styles do better in schools academically because schools are geared toward visual learners ( lots to read and visually copy/write, etc).  A child that is an auditory learner or kinesthetic learner may have a lot of knowledge and a average or high IQ and still struggle in school since their 'method' of learning does not fit with the way information is presented or taught.

Gifted kids also tend to have a lot more 'unequal'  development. Social skills may be age appropriate, but they are academically advanced. Physical skills may be advanced, but language skills are at or below expected for age, etc. Some gifted kids are 'globally' gifted and seem to accelerate ALL developmental skills ahead, but many many of them will develop in uneven patterns- sometimes even with alternating strengths and sometimes a strong acceleration/advancement in one area that always stays strong (math, reading, language, physical skills, etc).

Schools are doing more to reach ALL learning styles, but a lot plays into what you know, how you learn it, and how quickly/how you apply it.

* different schools often rely on DIFFERENT measurement tools to determine giftedness for 'educational programming'. Some areas require gifted level IQ (via group testing or individual), some go by achievement testing, others use both or a combination and/or alternative resources. There is not a federal mandate for Gifted Education. Some states do have mandatory gifted programming, others do not, some have explicit instructions on how gifted kids are taught and offer Gifted IEPs (GIEP), others have absolutely no support....so just keep that in mind depending on the area you are in when looking toward public schooling of your children*

Does that help? I have worked with a lot of kids (teacher), but it has been a while since I brushed up on on my IQ and achievement testing- some things have changed in recent years in the field of both psychological testing/evaluation (IQ) and achievement testing. I do find it fascinating though. =]

Edited by KCMichigan - 3/9/11 at 12:23pm

[VisionaryMom]

Schools measure proficiency in terms of achievement because that's what makes sense for the broadest spectrum. State & federal officials want to know if X percent of students know Y by 3rd grade. Those tests are about knowledge acquisition & retention (in theory). I separate that completely from my thoughts on my son. He's a kindergartener who recently tested in 2nd grade according to achievement. That's far, far below his ability to comprehend math problems. Just today I gave him some problem types he hadn't seen before. He worked the first one on paper and then did the rest in his head. That is his natural understanding of mathematical logic. It's just much harder to quantify in the kind of large-scale testing that schools need to use.

There are some charts that compare "smart" to "gifted." They tend to get at what you're asking, I think. The one specific example I recall is that "smart" children are inquisitive and ask questions with definitive answers while "gifted" children tend to extend their analysis to thoughtful, more open-ended questions. My son has a little girl in his class whose mother hot-houses. I knew in talking to her that she does. In the beginning of the year, she zoomed through the "100 sight words" list they had because Mom got that list early and drilled. Now, she's been dropped a reading group and isn't keeping up in math. For all of the work Mom has done to get her ahead, she's hit a wall. Mom can't *make* her gifted as much as she may want to do so.

I do agree, in general, though, that we do have an obligation to introduce our children to lots of information. We make a concerted effort to do so because like you, I wonder how you know what you want to know if you don't know it's out there?

[crunchy_mommy]

There is no real way to measure intelligence, so I think that's part of the problem. Theoretically, someone could have a high IQ without being gifted (more exposure, probably still very smart) and another person could be gifted but have a low IQ (not well exposed to test material). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that you can 'increase' your IQ simply by taking the test multiple times (so the testing methods and possibly the material become more familiar, which leads to better scores). Test scores tend to vary quite a bit across cultures, which is another indicator that they are not accurately measuring 'intelligence' but rather what we have come to accept as material that most intelligent people in our culture know...

In my experience, the average person (kid or adult) will be exposed to something and retain X% of the information (let's just say 50%). The more often they are exposed to it, and the more modalities they learn through, the more they retain... this is why an 'average' kid will listen to a lecture in class, take notes, go home and read the notes and corresponding books, do several worksheets, etc. and then study again right before the test. A 'smart' kid might retain 75% of the material, get through that process a little faster, need a little less repetition and spend less time studying, etc. A 'gifted' kid may only need to be exposed to the material once and retain 90-100% of it, may not need to study at all, and may hate taking notes and doing worksheets because it seems pointless and redundant to them. I also think that many 'gifted' kids will learn a lot about a few key areas, but not even bother trying to learn anything they aren't interested in... whereas many 'smart' kids will put the effort in no matter what the subject matter. (Obviously this differs from kid to kid, and my numbers are just an example!)

I don't really gauge whether my DS may be 'gifted' based on what he knows, what he can do, etc. It's more how he came to acquire that knowledge. It's the way he just KNEW how/where/when to use a screwdriver at 1yo, despite no one ever showing him or even using one in his presence (as far as I could recall!)... he knows things without ever being (intentionally) exposed to them... it's the way he makes connections between seemingly random things, and the way he takes in information in his environment that most kids and adults would not even notice, ask questions that most wouldn't think to ask... It's hard to explain because, since it's not about what he knows, it's hard to give examples lol.

[Casha'sMommy]

Originally Posted by KCMichigan 

I know there is someone on here that knows more about the actual nitty gritty details, but this is my take away.

IQ and knowledge are different.

IQ testing exposes kids to knew information, puzzles, and other 'new' information. They then are compared on how they learn, use, remember, apply, reason with, and connect those details. Other things are also tested- speed, vocabulary,etc that are influenced by exposure (such as knowledge of words to make an analogy). A child that knows how to compare and contrast items, may score a 'false' low if they do not know what the actual objects being compared are--but they are not lacking in the ability, rather in exposure. There are also checks and balances in IQ tests that go into a complicated formula to determine a final IQ score. But you can not 'study' for an IQ test. Then a child/person is compared to how other children that age do on the same test. The score is given in IQ- to put it simply. Most of the population have an IQ between 85 & 115. So a child could have a very high IQ and a low knowledge base. 

A child can have an average IQ and a high knowledge base.

IQ is actual cognitive ability (as best as we can measure it---different IQ tests can result in different numbers and IQ can vary: usually you are given a 'range' along with a firm number. The 'range' of numbers (say 120-130) is usually a 90% confidence rate that that persons IQ is between those numbers if they were given the same test again. The firm number is the number on that given day.

A high IQ does not always equal good grades or success. A child can have learning disabilities and still have a high IQ. A child can have a high IQ and do well in school or poorly. IQ has genetic and early brain development components.  They (they being researchers) think that early exposure and a supportive and vocabulary rich environment can boost a childs IQ to certain degree by making stronger and more neural connections (not the actual knowledge itself, but the exposure to varied environments and ideas). IQ scores of young children ( under 7) are a hot debate in most educational circles and often deemed unreliable/inaccurate ( for being both too high and too low) due to the developmental growth/communication/ ability to be tested accurately and the wide variance that a few different answers/timing can make on testing scores when children are very young. 

Achievement is how well academically a child does. It measures knowledge. Students that 'know' a lot often score high on achievement testing and do well in school. Achievement is also often rated by grade levels or percentiles. ( student is at a 3.4 reading level or a 3.1 math level-  or percentile 98% for age  or in the 65% in math skills, etc). With studying/practice/change of teaching style/exposure you can raise your achievement scores dramatically. Students with high achievement often have average, high average, or gifted IQs. 

A student with a large difference in IQ and achievement may have a learning disability. For example a student that has a 110 IQ-- but when  achievement testing in reading  and math and get scores of reading = 66 and math = 100. They would be seen as having a reading disability. There is a great gap (usually a 15pt or more spread or 1.5 to 2 standard deviations) between their ability levels and their actual achievement that causes them to have below average achievement.

That said--- with a 100 IQ a child will have somewhat scattered achievement scores naturally, but they all should fall 'around' their ability level. All of us have strengths/weaknesses in certain areas and IQ does not automatically mean you will achieve that level of academic success.

I have seen kids with 'low end' IQs do well academically and vice versa, kids with high IQs ( and no learning disabilities) do just OK at school.

Generally- IQ numbers of a child tend to stay the same and achievement scores raise as the child gets older and gains more knowledge.

A person has to have specialized training to administer and interpret  IQ testing (often an educational psychologist) Most teachers have some training to administer various achievement tests (depending on the test). As a former Special Education teacher I administered  A LOT of achievement testing- both traditional (running records, AR, DIBELS, etc) and specialized (KeyMath, Woodcock Johnston, etc). 

Different internal motivations, different interests, different learning styles, etc.

That said-- also kids with high visual learning styles do better in schools academically because schools are geared toward visual learners ( lots to read and visually copy/write, etc).  A child that is an auditory learner or kinesthetic learner may have a lot of knowledge and a average or high IQ and still struggle in school since their 'method' of learning does not fit with the way information is presented or taught.

Gifted kids also tend to have a lot more 'unequal'  development. Social skills may be age appropriate, but they are academically advanced. Physical skills may be advanced, but language skills are at or below expected for age, etc. Some gifted kids are 'globally' gifted and seem to accelerate ALL developmental skills ahead, but many many of them will develop in uneven patterns- sometimes even with alternating strengths and sometimes a strong acceleration/advancement in one area that always stays strong (math, reading, language, physical skills, etc).

Schools are doing more to reach ALL learning styles, but a lot plays into what you know, how you learn it, and how quickly/how you apply it.

* different schools often rely on DIFFERENT measurement tools to determine giftedness for 'educational programming'. Some areas require gifted level IQ (via group testing or individual), some go by achievement testing, others use both or a combination and/or alternative resources. There is not a federal mandate for Gifted Education. Some states do have mandatory gifted programming, others do not, some have explicit instructions on how gifted kids are taught and offer Gifted IEPs (GIEP), others have absolutely no support....so just keep that in mind depending on the area you are in when looking toward public schooling of your children*

Does that help? I have worked with a lot of kids (teacher), but it has been a while since I brushed up on on my IQ and achievement testing- some things have changed in recent years in the field of both psychological testing/evaluation (IQ) and achievement testing. I do find it fascinating though. =]

This is exactly what I wanted to say re: the difference between IQ and knowledge.

In my experience there's quite a difference between the two. DH has a high IQ while his father does not but holds a little information about a lot of things. FIL was a salesman and used that info to sound and look smarter and more knowledgeable to improve his career. They process things very differently and that's what a high IQ is, the way one processes information not how much they know about some things.

LO's up.

Would love to say more but gotta run.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 

There is no real way to measure intelligence, so I think that's part of the problem. Theoretically, someone could have a high IQ without being gifted (more exposure, probably still very smart) and another person could be gifted but have a low IQ (not well exposed to test material).

That's not really true. IQ tests evaluate how a person does on different types of tasks, including things they've never seen before. A well done IQ test takes a chunk of time and expertise. Some school districts use slightly different def.s of "gifted," but every single one I've seen was based on IQ.

For most kids, IQ testing is fairly straight forward. Our old school district used a screening test, not a complete IQ test for the gifted program, and for *most* kids it worked fine. If they had complete testing later, it usually matched right up. Some kids tested as gifted very young, and those kids usually had enriched home lives as well as high IQs. They rested a few years into school, and another batch of kids would show up as gifted who hadn't the first time. Those were the kids with high IQs but who lacked enriched home lives. A few years of school allowed their natural abilities to come forth. So applied to the OPer's question, kids like hers would be placed in the gifted program very quickly, but equally smart kids without such involved parents would end up there eventually.

For some kids, really sorting out what is going on with them is very complex. I have a DD who is both gifted and on the autism spectrum. Figuring out exactly how smart she is and in what areas was difficult. I researched who was the best person where we lived to do the testing, and then waited a year for an appointment. We did get good results.
 

IQ testing is an imperfect system, and people with autism tend to score lower for how smart they seem because autism impacts communication and the ability to comply with the test. We didn't know that my DD was "gifted" until she was 13, which is really late to id as gifted, but her special needs masked how bright she is.
 

[Freeman]

I've seen schools use achievement test scores for entry to gifted programs.

 

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

Some school districts use slightly different def.s of "gifted," but every single one I've seen was based on IQ.

[waiting2bemommy]

Originally Posted by Freeman 

I've seen schools use achievement test scores for entry to gifted programs.

 

Yes!!! A friend of mine has a very intelligent dd who is capable of learning at a muc higher and morecomplex level than what is presented in the traditional classroom. When she was about 4 I gave her a home made, hand made notebook of Spanish language phrases, worksheets and drills. She was THRILLED and she still reminds me about it. Very smart, very inquisitive. Yet, she didn't pass the gifted test for whatever reason. You can look t her, interact with her, and *know* there is something special about her. But she didn't score high enough on the gifted test (which was achievement based vs.IQ) so she continues in her regular class where she is bored and has become complacent about schoolwork. It's too easy for her, and since she got used to not being challenged early on, it created a struggle for her now that she is 11 and the workload has dramatically increased and she isn't used to having to really work at school.

[quaz]

There are many schools that do not use IQ tests.

IQ tests are administered individually. Many, many schools use group testing because it is cheaper. While something like Cogat can line up to IQ scores, it is not an IQ test.

Tammy

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

That's not really true. IQ tests evaluate how a person does on different types of tasks, including things they've never seen before. A well done IQ test takes a chunk of time and expertise. .

There is actually a lot of justified skepticism about the idea that there's something basic, called Intelligence, that can be measured accurately and independently of other variables. Even the very best IQ tests show considerable bias and low reproducability/reliability. Much of Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man" deals with this issue. The idea that there is this pure independent human variable called "intelligence" that good testing can tease apart from factors pertaining to achievement / exposure / cultural bias / etc. is not really borne out by the studies.

Miranda

[emmaegbert]

There are lots of problems with testing because exposure CAN change people's scores on tests (or in performing certain kinds of cognitive tasks, even ones that we think of as "logic" etc). And because the tests, and the testers, have strong cultural biases (which are absolutely reflective of being part of UMC, educated, etc). Also IQ tests were developed to test the kinds of reasoning and cognitive skills that are valued in school. so they don't even address other kinds of intelligence/brilliance. I am sure we all know people that are brilliant artists, athletes, musicians, etc but who might have struggled in school... or might not have tested as having high IQs (my DH is like this, really amazing visual recall, memory for detail, never gets lost, very talented artist and sculptor).

But, as others have said, IQ tests aren't supposed to focus on acquired knowledge, but rather on cognitive functioning.