Sociocultural concept of high ability and heart-mind epistemology in Confucian societies

Abstract

This theoretical paper begins with a reflection on the dominant conceptions of ‘high ability’, based on psychometrics, and examines claims that the ethos of a particular cultural heritage is essential to what ‘high ability’ signifies. The article semantically distinguishes ‘giftedness’ from ‘ability’, using research on Confucian heritage culture with its thick and thin dimensions. ‘Giftedness’ here means an inherited quality or endowment. ‘Ability’, on the other hand, signifies an active process open to nurture through education and – what could account for the main contribution of this paper – the role played by an ‘epistemology of heart-mind’ in Confucian heritage. The article argues that this epistemology of heart-mind constitutes a generational collective programming of mind. Such a definition could lead to a sociocultural conception of intelligence and giftedness open to development, adding a new perspective to the conceptualisation of giftedness and high ability.

Keywords:

• High ability
• sociocultural concept
• Confucian heritage
• epistemology of heart-mind

Acknowledgements

I thank the three anonymous reviewers for their very useful feedback on the earlier scripts for this article, and the editors for their patience through the long process of revision. A special acknowledgement goes to David Sorrell and Ryan Anderton for their valuable observations. This research was sponsored by the Committee on Research and Development of the Hong Kong Institute of Education [RG 30/2015-2016R].

Notes

1. Controversies have hinged around the issue of grouping and its necessity/effectiveness, particularly heated in the fields of educational administration and policy. The debates peaked in the United States in the 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement, which coincided with reactions led by British educators against the already widespread streaming practices perceived as a form of segregation (Ref. Ireson & Hallam, 1999; Kelly, 1975, 1978; Sands & Kerry, 1982). The problem remains unsolved today, for example, the ability grouping practice in the United States (Rotherham, 2013) in the backdrop of nationwide reverberation of racial-ethnic quota system for college admissions (Biskupic, 2013; Espenshade & Chung, 2005; Espenshade, Radford, & Chung, 2009). There are two possible explanations to this phenomenon. First, as long as ability grouping is measured with grade point average or standards tests, there will be a clash between a meritocratic and a racially egalitarian educational system. Second, the act of setting bar for high ability is a political act inextricably linked to grouping and priority access to education. Thus, gifted-talented education is often considered to be at odds with inclusive education systems (Smith, 2006) or mixed ability teaching (Kelly, 1975, 1978; Sands & Kerry, 1982).

2. ‘The average effect size is d = .40. This average summarizes the typical effect of all possible influences in education and should be used as the benchmark to judge effects in education’ (Hattie, 2009, p. 16).