Roeper Review. 30:61-67. 2008Copyright © The Roeper InstituteISSN; 0278-3193 print/194O-865X onlineDOI: 10.1080/02783190701836478

RoutledgeTaylor £• Francis Croup

\i

Vision With Action: Developing Sensitivity to SocietalConcems in Gifted Youth

Alice W. Terry, Jann E. Bohnenberger, Joseph S. Renzulli, Bonnie Cramond, and Dorothy Sisk

At the 2006 National Associatioti of Gifted Children Cotiference. a pane] presentationaddressed the importance of providing gifted children with oppotlunities to take positivesocial action through service-learning; this article is a result of that discussion. The FuttireProblem Solving Program (among others) has a community problem-solving component tohelp instill the habits of responding to community needs in socially constructive ways. A ser-vice-learning project conducted by secondary gifted students is discussed. The highest levelof service-learning is an effective curriculum for gifted studetits that exposes them to commu-nity problems and encourages them to solve those problems ct^atively. Through service-leaming, gifted youth have opportunities to expand their global awareness, practice skills ofpositive action, and make real their vision of a better future.

"Vision without action is merely a dream. Action withoutvision just passes time. Vision with action can change theworld" (J. Barker as cited in Christensen, 1993). InNovember 2006. at a forum at the National Association forGifted Children Conference entitled "Vision with Action:Developing Sensitivity to Societal Concerns in GiftedYouth," the authors addressed the importance of sensitiz-ing gifted youth to world problems and enabling them touse their talents in socially constructive ways. The follow-ing is an overview of the essential ideas presented in thatforum by each contributor.

GIFTEDNESS AND CREATIVITY FOR THECOMMON GOOD (JOSEPH RENZULU)

What causes some people to use their intellectual, motiva-tional, and creative assets in ways that make a positive dif-ference in the world, while others with similar traits becomeinvolved in more self-serving enterprises? Perhaps an evenmore important question is. What causes some people tomobilize their interpersonal, political, ethical, and moral livesin ways that place human concems and the common goodabove materialism, ego enhancement, and self-indulgence?What makes a Nelson Mandela, a Rachel Carson, a MotherTeresa?

Received 4 January 2007; accepted 9 April 2007.Address corresp>.»ndence to Alice W. Teny, Kennesaw State University,

1000 Chastaiti Road, Kennesaw, GA 30144. E-mail: aterry@kennesaw.edu

Although a plethora of folk wisdom, research litera-ture, and biographical and anecdotal accounts exist aboutcreativity and giftedness. we are still unable to answerthese fundamental questions about persons who havedevoted their lives to improving the human condition.There has been endless speculation about the neces.saryingredients for giftedness and creative productivity; buteven though the.se theories have called attention toimportant components and conditions for high-levelaccomplishment, they have failed to explaiti how theconfluence of desirable traits results in the commitmentto making the lives of all people more personally reward-ing, environmentally safe, peaceful, and politically free.Understanding how these positive human attributesdevelop is especially important because it will help usdirect the educational and environmental experiences weprovide for the potentially gifted and talented young peo-ple who will shape both the values and the actions of thefuture (Renzulli. 2002).

What people think and decide to do drives some of soci-ety's best ideas and achievements. If we want positive lead-ers, then giftedness will have to be redefined in ways thattake the co-cognitive components of giftedness, such asthose identified by Operation Houndstooth—optimism,courage, romance with a topic, sensitivity to human con-cerns, physical/mental energy, and vision/sense of des-tiny—into account (see Figure 1). The strategies that areused to develop giftedness in young people should give asmuch attention to the co-cognitive conditions of develop-ment as we currently give to cognitive development. Byincluding the co-cognitive components, the definition of

62 A. W. TERRY ET AL.

OPERATION HOUNDSTOOTH

OPTIMISM

•hope•positive feelings from hard work

SENSITIVITY TO HUMANCONCERNS

•Insight•empathy

COURAGE

•Psychological/Intellectualindepondoncc

•moral conviction

PHYSICAUMENTAL ENERGY

•charisma-curiosity

ROMANCE WITH A TOPIC ORDISCIPLINE

•absorption•passion

ITl

VISION/SENSE OF - ^ , >DESTINY

•sense of power to change things•sense of direction•pursuit of goals

WISDOMSATISFYING LIFESTYLE

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

ts OpraHHW t loundaiulht-warctiCctUvi unitwlliThxIanilT

kttmrih. Rachel !• S>unu. AKii<Ánl)

FIGURE 1

giftednes.s is expanded. Such an expanded definition willhelp us understand the unique contributions of those whohave used their talents to make the world a hetter place(Renzulli. 2002).

Il is important to provide young people with a systematicapproach for (a) examining their individual abilities, inter-ests, and learning styles and (b) exploring areas of potentialinvolvement based on their existing or developing interests.In addition, they need opportunities, resources, and encour-agement for firsthand, investigative or creative experienceswithin their chosen areas of interest. The leaming and per-sonal growth resulting from these authentic experiencesconnects directly to the type of work the students carry out.,especially when the primary purpose of that work has animpact on one or more intended audiences (Renzulli. 2002).Service-1 earning initiatives such as the community prob-lem-solving component of the Future Problem Solving Pro-gram (FPSPI; 2007) help to encourage the growth of many

of the co-cognitive factors while instilling the habit ofresponding to community needs in socially constructive ways.

FUTURE PROBLEM-SOLVING (BONNIECRAMOND)

Reflecting on past endeavors to predict the future, weshould he able to see that people have been largely unsuc-cessful at doing so, In 1981. R. Buckminster Fuller recalledthat during his childhood at the turn ofthe century, peoplecould not begin to conceive of automobiles, electrons, travelto the moon, or even air wars as reality (Huddle. 1984).How could they possibly prepare their children for the pos-sibilities and problems such innovations brought? How canwe prepare our children for their future? FPSPI is one wayto help students think about the future and learn methods forsolving problems for which there are no existing solutions.

VISION WITH ACTION 63

Gifted children can be very sensitive, and some of themworry about events they feel are beyond their control(Lovecky, 1997; Mendaglio, 2003; Silventian, 1994). Byequipping them with a means to address those concerns, wehelp them learn to choose their battles and work on theimportant problems systematically (Future Problem SolvingProgram International, 2007).

Because of concern about students" abilities to deal withchallenges in the future and, more basically, about their lackof interest in the future, Paul Torrance and his wife Pansycreated FPSP (Torrance. 1974. 1978: Torrance & Torrance,1978). They adapted the structure of the Osborn-ParnesCreative Problem Solving Model (Osborn, 1953; Parnés.1967) by adding research and emphasis on problems ofthefuture. Thus, they intended to prepare future leaders with ameans for creative, productive thinking, and societal aware-ness. Torranee's desire was to teach students the creativeproblem-solving process in order to give them the skills andabilities necessary to establish themselves as positive deci-sion makers and future leaders (Torrance, 1974, 1978).

Community problem-solving (FPSPI, 2007), the service-learning component of FPSP, challenges students to applytheir problem-solving skills to actual problems in their com-munity and empowers them to take hands-on action thatmakes a positive difference for those involved. An impor-tant difference between this component and the other com-ponents of FPSP is that the students identify problems intheir own communities and actually implement the actionplan, Because the action plans must be much more detailed,and the students must carry them out. there is typically alonger work period for the problem, extending for 1 year ormore (Bohenberger & Terry, 2002; Terry & Bohnenberger.1995). Teaching students to use their creativity to deal withsocietal problems prepares them to be good citizens for theworld of today and tomorrow.

SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE (DOROTHY SISK)

After considerable reflection and research, which in scienceis represented by the new physics, neurobiology and neuro-science, geology, sacred geometry, and cymatics, and inpsychology is represented in ancient wisdom and Easternmysticism, and the living stories or "path-finding" accountsof individuals making phenomenal change in the lives andminds of other people. Sisk and Torranee (2001) reportedthat there is an important human capacity that has remainedunaddressed—namely, spiritual intelligence.

Spiritual intelligence (SQ) can be described as a deepself-awareness in which one becomes more aware of thedimensions of self, not simply as a body, but as a mind-body and spirit (Sisk & Torrance, 2001). People who usetheir SQ want to feel connected, feel a sense of community,be free of restrictions, experience inner freedom, and live alife of meaning. Core values of SQ include: connectedness.

compassion, responsibility, balance, unity, and service.Students with SQ have a sen.sitivity to societal concerns andsocial problems, which can be strengthened hy service-learning.

One service-learning project conducted by 100 second-ary gifted students focused on environmental improvement.The students were participants in a 3-week residential lead-ership program, and they wanted to make a positive differ-ence in their community. After considerable discussion,they decided to improve the grounds of their local schools.They formed teams to carry out the project—one team can-vassed and secured trees from local gardens and supplystores, and another team obtained permission and blessingby the school district for their undertaking.

The students planted 150 trees in 11 schools. The mayorand the local school superintendent attended the first treeplanting. The students expressed that they experienced con-nectedness to their community and affirmation of their abilityto make a difference as a result of their tree-planting project.

One of the students shared a newspaper article about alocal retirement home in which a retiree remarked ihal he fellold and wished he could spend time with young people. Thestudents decided to spend a Sunday afternoon on a secondservice-leaming project in which they shared their class musi-cal production with the retirees. The highlight of this projectwas the one-on-one interaction in which the students justtalked with the retirees. On the bus ride back to the university,one student shared how much he had leamed from the retireesand remarked that they had led such full lives. He added thatmany of them have been able to make a difference.

The students engaged in several process discussions toreflect on their service-learning projects, and they journaledtheir reactions. Reading from his journal, one student sharedthe following:

According to Martin Luther King, Jr.. 'Visions are necessaryto give us goals and objectives." Our goal was to make theschool grounds look more beautiful, and we outlined wherethe irees would go. and wilh ihe 'old lolks' our goal was toentertain, and see them smile and have fun. Martin LulherKing. Jr., also said, 'But goals and objectives without com-milment and action seldom bring results.' And we had both.

These examples of service-learning projects demonstratethe importance of planting the seeds of vision with actioti inthe minds of gifted students and provide ways to developtheir societal awareness and desire to make a differencewith commitment and results.

SERVICE-LEARNING (ALICE W. TERRY ANDJANN BOHNENBERGER)

Service-learning is an innovative teaching method, whichintegrates community service with academic study to enrich

64 A. W. TERRY ET AL.

Developmental \Considerations iforlt^ec&m—

ages 9-11

Developmental Service-Learning

Learning Arrows: directional arrows signifying the degree of learning-increasing as it moves toward the pinnacleService Circtes: illustrate the extent of direct service to the comraunlly by the studemSide Arrows: symbolize the flow of interaction between the communia and the schoolThermometer: a cominuum depicting the degree of the combined service and learning experience

Levels ofReflectinn

BradlertLcvel3

Synthesis

inalysisGonummityExploration

« m i

Levels ofCognition

Piaget's Stage 4:Finnal

Bfaom's Tanmny'.

Piaget's Stage 4:

Analysis

Piaget's Stage 3:Conmle

Bbom's Taaaomy:Application

Piaget's Stage 3;

Bloom's Taioniny:Kaowledge &

Comprehensfon

DevelopmentalConsiderationsfor Cognition—

ages 9-11

Piagel's Stage 3:

Piaget's Stage 3:

Application

Piagel'sStage 3:

Bbcm'sTaxanniy:

Knowledge &Comprehenston

Community-Service: Interaction betweenschool and community goes one way—from theschool to community. Community-Serviceinvolves a high degree of service to thecommunity with a lesser degree of teaming.

eiWtBoimmbciier.J.

Comm u n itv- Ex ploratio n : Interaction betweenthe school and community can go in eitherdirection—students go out into the communityor elements of the community eome into theschool. Community-Exploration does notnecessarily involve direct service to thecommunity although it may involve a highdegree of learning.

-

Commun itv-Action: Interaction between theschool and community flows in boöi directionsproducing greater impact in the community andgreater empowerment in the students.Com m unity-Action involves the highest degreeof service, which can have far-reachingoutcomes in the community and the highestdegree of learning.

FIGURE 2

learning, lo teach civic responsibility, and to strengthen com-munities (Fiske, 2002). It can provide teachers of the giftedwith the vehicle to engage their students in meaningful learn-ing that appeals to their idealism and their need to make theworld a better place. Judith A. Ramaley, assistant director ofthe National Science Foundation's Directorate for Educationand Human Resources, expressed the importance of engagingstudents in real-world, service-learning experiences this way:

If we want our students to lead creative, productive lives, wemust give them opportunities lu leani in ways that have conse-quences for others, as well as for them.selves. I know of no bet-ter way to invoke the many facets of cognitive development,moral reasoning, and social responsibility than to engage stu-dents in service-learning opportunities. At its best, a service-learning experience can be transformative (Fiske, p. 58).

Schools need not only design and implement learningopportunities for gifted student within the classroom but

also need to identify learning resources and opportunities inthe community that are integrated with those of the class-room. Service-learning can offer such opportunities forgifted students. There are three levels of service-learning:community service, community exploration, and commu-nity action (see Figure 2). The highest level of service-learning, community action, can be an effective curriculumfor gifted students, which exposes them to community prob-lems and encourages them to solve those problems in a cre-ative, socially constructive manner. This type of high-quality service-learning not only requires that studentsbecome aware of a need in the community and provide aservice, but also that they become so involved and commit-ted to the need area that they go beyond just supplying a ser-vice. Students analyze the situation, generate new ideas, andwork as a team to implement a difference-making plan ofaction. In the process., the students develop complex prob-lem-solving skills and advanced communication skills;they also develop the ability to connect knowledge across

VISION WITH ACTION 65

disciplines and the perseverance to overcome obstacles(Terry & Bohnenberger. 2004), Community action service-learning provides strong affective and process componentsthat complement cognitive components and are effective insensitizing gifted students to community needs as well asincorporating inlerdisciptinary study (Terry & Bohnenberger,2007).

By sensitizing youth to be concerned about problems intheir communities, Passow ( 1989) hoped they would devotethemselves to developing their specialized talents to makingcontributions toward solving the serious problems facingtheir communities and the world. Service-learning putsproblem solving to work in the real world for gifted youth,and students themselves are often surprised by how effec-tive they can be and how much help their community needs.After becoming involved in a .service-learning project thatresearched local, historical monuments, Aaron, a seventh-grade gifted student noted,

I thought a community would be fine by itself and then aftergetting into this, it's like, I didn't realize how much it reallyneeds....Our history is there. If our monuments aren't beingpreserved, they'rejust going to eventually rot away, and thisisapartof our history. (Teny, 2001, p. 153)

Teachers of the gifted can facilitate high-quality service-learning experiences for their students by employing theBest-Practice Model for Community Action (see Figure 3),

FIGURE 3 Community-action service-leaming best-practice modeL

which incorporates the cognitive apprenticeship model, thecreative problem-solving process, well-organized and coop-erative learning groups, reflection, and celebration (Terry &Bohnenberger, 2003). The cognitive apprenticeship model(Brown. Collins, & Duguid. 1989) includes four elementsthat lead to learning: scaffolding, modeling, coaching, andfading. This model leads students from dependence to inde-pendence in learning. The Osborn-Parnes model of creativeproblem solving (Osborn, 1963; Parnés, 1967) provides ser-vice-learning participants with logical steps to follow fromtheir initial investigation of community needs to the imple-mentation of their action plan. Cooperative-learning strate-gies are key to successful student-run service learning.Through cooperative leaming, leaming lakes place betweenstudents through interaction with one another. In service-leaming, reflection is viewed as the framework aroundwhich the students process and synthesize the informationand ideas they have gleaned during their service-learningactivities (Alliance for Service Leaming in EducationRefonTi, 1993). Celebration in service-learning is the use ofmultiple methods to acknowledge, celébrale, and furthervalidate students" service work (Toole, 1998). A heightenedlevel of celebration witb more positive outcomes occurswhen students are given the opportunity to demonstratetheir accomplishments to interested others, such as present-ing their project to evaluators and student participants fromaround the world at the annual Community ProblemSolving Fair (Bohnenberger & Terry, 2002),

The components of this best-practice model (see Figure 3)are interwoven and flow together synchronously. Creativeproblem-solving, an importani element of this model, isessential in developing cognition in gifted students as tbeyuse the process to address the type of messy, ill-definedproblems that occur in the real world but are not usuallyfound in tbeir textbooks. The community action model pro-vides a blueprint for advanced levels of service-leamingthat encourage creative productivity, promote the develop-ment of a reciprocal relationship between tbe students andtbe community, and enhance the students' sense of respon-sibility to self and community. Through community actionservice-leaming, gifted youth have the opportunity toexpand their societal awareness, practice the skills of posi-tive action, and make their vision of a better future a reality(Terry & Bohnenberger, 2(X)3).

CONCLUSION

Should we teach gifted youth to use their intellectual, moti-vational, and creative assets in ways that make a positivedifference in the world? Our answer to that question is aresounding, "Yes!" We acknowledge service-leaming as anavenue toward helping gifted children achieve that goal, andwe strongly endorse the FPSPI's community problem-solving component. This service-leaming program provides

66 A. W.TERRY ET AL.

guidance and support that helps students leam how to takepositive action in their community. As more gifted youthare given opportunities to show how vision with action canchange the world, perhaps the old African proverb "It takesa village to raise a child" will be supplanted by a new prov-erb. "It takes a child to raise up a village" (Terry, 2003).

REFERENCES

Alliance for Service Leaming in Education Reform. (1993). Standards ofquality and excellence for .school-based service learning. Washington,DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Bohnenberger. J. E.. & Terry A. W. (2002). Commtinity probletn solvingworks for middle level students. Middle School Journal. 34(\). 5-12.

Brown. J. S., Collins. A.. & Duguid. P. (1989). Situated cognition and theculture of ¡earning. Educational Re.searcher, 18. 32-42.

Christensen. R. (Producer). (1993). The power of vision |MotÍon picture].United States: ChartHouse Intematiotial. (Available from Star ThrowerDistrihulion Corporation, 26 East Exchange Street, Suite 6(K), St. Paul,MN 55101)

Fiske, E. B. (2002). Leaming in deed: Tlw power of senjice-leaming forAtnerican .schools. National Commission oti Service-Le;iming. RetrievedDecember 24. 2006. from hltp://www.wkkf.org/pubs/PhilV».)!/Pub3fiS0.pdf

Future Problem Solving Program International. (2007). Retrieved January29, 2007. from littp://www. fpsp.org

Huddle. N. (1984). Surviving: The best game on Earth. Tel Aviv, Israel:Schocken.

Lovecky. D. V. (1997). Identity developmetit in gifted children: Moral seti-sitivity. Roeper Review. 20. 90-94.

Mendaglio. S. (2(K)3). Heightened multifaceted sensitivity of gifted stu-dents: Implications for counseling. Journal of Secondary Gifted Educa-tion. 14. 72-82.

Osborn. A. F. (\95'i). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner.Osbom, A. F. (1963). Creative itnagination (3rd ed.). New York: Scribner.

Pames, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribner.Passow, A. H. (1989). Edticating gifted personsi who are caring and con-

cerned. Gifted Education ¡ntermitional, 6(1), 5-7.Renzulli. J. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include

co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan. 84,33-58.

Silverman, L. K. ( 1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and theevolmon of society. Roeper Review, 17, 110-116.

Sisk, D. A., & Torrance, E. P. (2001). Spiritual intelligence: Developinghigher consciousness. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education FoundationPress.

Terry, A. W. (2001). A case study of communily action service leaming onyoung, gifted adolescents and their community (Doctoral dissertation.University of Georgia, 2(X>0). Dissertation Abstracts International,6J(()8), 3058.

Terry. A. W. (2(X)3). Effects of service leaming on young, gified adoles-cents and their community. Gifted Child Quarterly. 47. 295-308.

Terry. A. W., & Bohnenberger, J. B. (1995). ABLE Program: ACT-l-onplan book. Knoxville. TN: The ABLE Program.

Terry. A. W.. & Bohnenberger. J. E. (2003). .Service learning: Fostering acycle of caring in our gifted youth. The Jourtial of Secondary GiftedEducatioti ¡5, 23-32.

Terry, A. W.. & Bohnenberger. J. E. (2W)4). Blueprint for incorporatingservice teaming: A basic developmental, K-12 service leaming typol-ogy. ./oMmrt/o/EiyííTff/ííiií/fí/wcíífíf)«. 27. 15-31.

Terry, A. W.. & Bohnenberger, J. E. (2(H)7). Sen-ice-learning...by degrees:How adolescents can make a difference in the real world. Portsmouth.NH: Heinemann.

Toóle. P. (Ed.). (1998). Essential elements of service-leaming. St. Paul,MN: National Youth Leadership Council.

Torrance. E. P. (1974). Ways gifted children can study the future. GiftedChild Quarterly. /S, 65-71.

Torrance, E. P. (1978). Giftedness in solving future problems. Journal ofCreative Behavior. 12, 75-86.

Torrance, E. P.. & Torrance, J. P. (1978). Developing creativity instruc-tional material;, according to the Os burn-Pames Creative Problem Solv-ing Model. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly. .Î. 80-90.

AUTHOR BIOS

Dr. Alice W. Terry, a 2004-2005 John Glenn Scholar in Service-Learning, is associate professor of social studieseducation in the Department of Secondary and Middle Grades Education at Kennesaw State University. Kennesaw,Georgia. She spent over 20 years teaching gifted studetits in K-12 public schools in Georgia and has facilitated tiianyoutstanding service-leaming projects, including some that were featured in Readers Digest. Parade Magazine, TeenMagazine, and USA Today, as well as on The Donahue Show. She has coauthored books and articles on service-leaming. E-mail: aterry@kennesaw.edu

Jann Bohnenberger is executive director of the Action Based Learning in Education Program. The ABLEProgram, LLC. an educational consulting company, which promotes the growth of school-based service-learn-ing and assists community-based organizations and faith-based initiatives in implementing service-learning innontraditional settings. Bohnenberger previously worked as the international coordinator of the Future ProblemSolving Program's community problem-solving component, creating curriculum materials, guidelines, andtraining programs; she also served as CmPS conference coordinator. She conducts training workshops through-out the United States and has coauthored books and articles designed to increase youth involvement in positivecommunity action. In January 2007, Heinemann published her most recent book. Service-Learning...byDegrees: How Adolescents Can Make a Difference in the Real World, which was written with eoauthor Alice

. E-mail; ablejb@charter.net

VISION WITH ACTION 67

Dr. Joseph Renzulli is the University of Connecticut Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor; DtK-tor of Laws.Hotioris Causa. McGill University: the Raymond and Lynn Neag Professor of Gifted Education and Talent Develop-ment; and director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Connecticut. Hehas publi.shed numerous articles and books. E-mail: joseph.renzulli@uconn.edu

Dr. Bonnie Craniimd is professor and the director of the Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Development inthe Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology at the University of Georgia. She is a mem-ber of the board of directors of the National Association for Gifted Children, former editor of the Jottrnal ofSecoml-itry Gifted Ediucition. on the review board for several other journals, a lomier schoolteacher, and a survivor ofparenting two gifted and creative people. An ititemational and national speaker, she has published numerous articlesand a book on creativity research, and she teaches classes on giftedness and creativity. She is particularly interestedin the identification and nurturance of creativity, especially among students considered at risk because of their differ-ent way of thinking, such as those misdiagnosed with ADHD, those with emotional problems, or those who drop out.E-mail: bcramond@uga.edu

Dr. Dorothy Sisk is the C. W. andDorothy Anne Conn Professor ofGifted Education and executive director ofthe Centerfor Gifted Education at Lamar University. She has developed a graduate program in gifted education and has publishednumemus articles on gifted education and authored and coauthored several books. E-.mail: siskda@my.Iamar.edu