From the Editor’s Desk

Welcome to Volume 38, Issue 2 of the Roeper Review. Here, our contributing authors explore a critical thinking program in a Chinese context, the dynamics of overexcitability in the arts and athletics, some additional nuances in the always difficult process of identifying giftedness and talent, and some systemic–contextual influences

on the development of mathematical ability. We also include interesting interviews with a prominent champion of the gifted and with domain-specific experts who discover and develop “lost prizes.”

In their article, “Effects of a Critical Thinking Skills Program on the Learning Motivation of Primary School Students,” Weiping Hu, Xiaojuan Jia, Jonathan Plucker, and Xinxin Shan described the results of an investigation into the effectiveness of the Learn to Think program on learning motivation. If a program can strengthen motivation and thinking proficiency simultaneously, it represents a significant advantage in the education of the gifted. This analysis illustrated the ways in which these dual goals are pursued in Chinese contexts. The results are informative for our field.

Our field needs to engage in more interdisciplinary analyses and generate more idea cross-fertilization in collaboration with investigators in fields outside our own. Paula Thomson and Victoria Jaque help us achieve some of this by drawing our attention to helpful insights from fields in which they work including sports psychology and kinesiology. Their article, “Overexcitability: A Psychological Comparison Between Dancers, Opera Singers, and Athletes,” shows how the overexcitability dimension of Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration applies to talent development in the arts and athletics. Their work extends our understanding of the psychological dynamics of particular forms of talent development.

The issue of identification for gifted programming often attracts new inquiries. In their article, “Using Curriculum-Based Measures for Identifying Gifted Learners,” Mark McGowan, Timothy Runge, and Jason Pedersen present the results of an investigation focusing on oral reading proficiency, particularly oral reading fluency, as one indicator of achievement and ability. In their analyses, they explore the utility of response to intervention and developmental conceptions of giftedness. Their work adds more nuance to the difficult identification puzzle in our field.

Christos Dimitriadis investigated the in-class dynamics of mathematics education in his article, “Nurturing Mathematical Promise in a Regular Elementary Classroom: Exploring the Role of the Teacher and Classroom Environment.” Carrying out the exploration in a British setting, he clarified challenges and difficulties that gifted students of mathematics and their teachers grapple with in classrooms encompassing diverse needs and ability levels. His analysis sheds additional light on the connections between giftedness and STEM education that have been drawing more attention in recent years.

A popular feature in each issue of our journal is the interview with a pioneer or leader in the field. These interviews go beneath the surface to explore the thought processes and crystallizing experiences that make the work of each prominent scholar unique and valuable. In this issue, we are fortunate to extract insights from Jim Delisle, a giant in the field who has served as a champion of underserved gifted young people while working innovatively at multiple levels of the system, from one-on-one mentorships, to teaching in the K–12 system, to university work, and to national and international leadership initiatives. You will learn much from his wise words.

Our other interview is the next in the new “Ask the Expert” series. In recognition of vibrant work on domain-specific expertise, in both gifted education and creative studies, this feature provides insights about complex work in the words of the experts themselves. The interview in this issue is with Kari McCluskey and Chris McCluskey, educator-counselors who do extremely difficult and immensely rewarding work to help deprived, troubled young people turn their lives around. I often use the term “invisible ghostly gifted” to represent very intelligent, creative individuals who struggle for survival in the bottom layers of highly stratified societies. Another, likely better, metaphor—Lost Prizes—is the name of a very impressive, successful Canadian initiative aimed at helping impoverished, troubled, sometimes incarcerated young people to discover their talents and develop aspirations (see McCluskey, Baker, & McCluskey, 2005; McCluskey, Baker, O’Hagan, & Treffinger, 1995; Van Bockern, 2012). Kari and Chris are key players in this initiative. Their talents and commitment to the cause are extraordinary. So are the insights they provide in this interview titled, “Discovering Talents and Ethical Strengths in Lost Prizes.”

Steve Coxon, our book review editor, provides two interesting reviews of informative books in this issue. First, Steve Haberlin reviews Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined (authored by Scott Barry Kaufman). After that, DeLynn Stoneburner analyzes From STEM to STEAM: Using Brain-Compatible Strategies to Integrate the Arts (authored by Thomas Pilecki and David A. Sousa).

Finally, to encourage interdisciplinary thinking in each issue of the journal, I present insights from “foreign” disciplines. These insights are intended to help us cross disciplinary borders so we can explore phenomena that won’t remain confined within our own field. These interdisciplinary explorations take the form of very brief summaries of work done in the social sciences, the humanities, and the natural sciences. Here is the selected insight for this issue:

COLLAPSING CIVILIZATION?

Here we extended our vision out into the terrain of multiple academic disciplines and professional fields while also looking backward and forward into the past and the future. Two recent book projects involved many of the leading thinkers in creative studies, gifted education, and a few from general education in analyses of the extent to which 21st-century globalization is impacting the nature and development of creative intelligence (Ambrose & Sternberg, 2016a; 2016b). The participants in these projects reacted to a large-scale interdisciplinary analysis of globalization from their areas of expertise. The analysis included some exploration of gigantic problems and opportunities brought forth by globalization. “Macroproblems” are international because they cannot be solved from within the borders of a single nation no matter how powerful. They are interdisciplinary because they cannot be solved from within the borders of a single academic discipline or professional field. They are long term because they took decades or even centuries to emerge and strengthen. Examples of macroproblems include climate change, the erosion of democracy in developed nations, looming resource shortages, and increasingly severe inequality around the world. “Macro-opportunities” are developments that might enable us to experience unprecedented life enrichment for billions around the world. Examples include the strengthening of international scientific networking and the growing power of new technologies (e.g., nanotechnology, biotechnology).

Part of the interdisciplinary analysis for the globalization projects included discussions of the potential for societal collapse sometime in the 21st century. Researchers and theorists from multiple academic disciplines have argued that 21st-century conditions (i.e., macroproblems) are generating the distinct possibility that societies around the world, and possibly the globalized civilization itself, will collapse sometime in this century, as occurred with prior civilizations such as those of the Romans, the Mayans of Central America, the Mauryan and Gupta Empires of ancient India, and the Khmer of Southeast Asia. Prominent thinkers making arguments about the possibility of massive, widespread, societal collapse include political scientists Thomas Homer-Dixon and Leslie Paul Thiele; historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway; geographer Jared Diamond; sociologist William Robinson; physicist Michael Nielsen; geo-ecologist Wolfgang Lucht; anthropologist Joseph Tainter; environmental scientists Vaclav Smil and David Orr; archaeologist Harvey Weiss and geoscientist Raymond Bradley; philosopher Bruce Edmonds; business-management scholar Jorgen Randers; systems scientist Safa Motesharrei, political scientist Jorge Rivas, and environmental scientist Eugenia Kalnay; and biologists Paul and Ann Ehrlich (see Ambrose, 2016 for details). As we have learned from historical accounts, the collapse of a civilization usually brings with it economic implosion, widespread eruptions of warfare and genocide, and other disasters.

Questions arise about connections with giftedness and gifted education. Do gifted education programs provide bright young people with the socioeconomic, cultural, and political–ideological awareness necessary for understanding today’s macroproblems? How many of the economic and political leaders who create, sustain, or ignore macroproblems went through gifted programs when they were in K–12 school systems? The 21st-century globalization projects made us aware of the need for expanding and extending the vision of the gifted and talented beyond their own personal interests and career aspirations. They need additional awareness of the rapidly evolving globalized context that envelops them and shapes their life prospects individually and collectively.

Thanks to the reviewers who refine and strengthen the literature in our field and to the insightful researchers and theorists who publish their work in our journal. If you plan to contribute an article to the Roeper Review, see our author guidelines on our website: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=0278-3193&linktype=44