C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H
Cognitive and Motivational Characteristics
of Adolescents Gifted in Mathematics:
Comparisons Among Students
With Different Types of Giftedness
Eunsook Hong
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
ABSTRACT
Although numerous studies have compared cogni-
tive and motivational characteristics between gifted
versus nongifted students, research comparing those
characteristics among different types of gifted stu-
dents has not kept up with the theoretical develop-
ment that saw a transition from unidimensional to
multidimensional conceptualizations of giftedness.
This study compares cognitive and motivational
characteristics of high school students who are aca-
demically gifted in math, creatively talented in math,
and nongifted. Whereas no differences were found
among the three groups in their beliefs about ability,
most of the other characteristics examined in the
study distinguished the three groups. Academically
gifted female students reported expending more
effort than did academically gifted male students.
Creatively talented males put forth more effort than
academically gifted males, and the creatively talented
in general used more cognitive strategies than the
academically gifted. Overall, students who were
either academically gifted or creatively talented in
mathematics perceived that they were self-effica-
cious in general, used cognitive strategies, perceived
their math ability and math self-efficacy to be high,
and valued learning math more so than their
nongifted age peers.
The transition from unidimensional (Terman,
1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959) to multidimension-
al conceptualizations of giftedness (e.g., Gardner, 1983,
1999; Guilford, 1956, 1967; Marland, 1972; Milgram,
1989, 1991; Renzulli, 1986; Sternberg & Davidson,
1986; Torrance, 1984) has had a significant impact on
G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
Yvette Aqui
the field of gifted education. With the transition, gifted
education has shifted its emphasis from identifying
youngsters with high intellectual ability to discovering a
wide variety of specific talents in young people in its
efforts to provide special educational opportunities to
the gifted.
PUTTING THE RESEARCH
TO USE
Adolescents academically gifted, creatively talented,
and nongifted in the mathematics area were different
in many of the cognitive and motivational character-
istics examined in this study. The findings point to
the need for differentiation among types of gifted-
ness when conducting research and in education.
Research on giftedness should indicate the type of
giftedness that will be examined, ref lecting the mul-
tidimensional conceptualization of giftedness. For
example, intellectually gifted, academically gifted, or
creatively talented, as well as the domain of interest,
should be clearly defined in the study. Educators
should recognize various types of giftedness when
identifying students for gifted programs and use
knowledge of differences in cognitive and motiva-
tional characteristics among these students when
assisting them. Some empirical findings defy com-
mon assumptions. For example, beliefs about ability
were not different among students in the three
groups examined; gender differences were manifest-
ed in a different manner in different categories of
giftedness; and some cognitive characteristics were
evident in only one gifted category. Thus, under-
standing gifted students can be problematic under
assumptions not examined empirically.
NO 3 191
C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H
In an effort to provide empirical evidence for a mul-
tidimensional conceptualization of giftedness, Hong and
Milgram (1996) distinguished four different types of gift-
edness: general intellectual ability, academic ability, gen-
eral creativity, and specific creative talent. A sample of
students in seventh through ninth grade with a wide
range of abilities and talents was used in their study. The
underlying rationale for the selection of such a sample
was that a student might be gifted in one category, but
not gifted in the others, thus requiring a sample with a
wider range of abilities not limited to high intellectual
ability as a baseline requirement for sample selection.
Among the models tested in their study, the proposed
four-factor giftedness model best fit the data. Their study
examined the domain of literature for the academic abil-
ity and the creative talent categories. Their findings
demonstrated that creative talent in literature measured
by out-of-school accomplishment in literature had a low
correlation with general intelligence and a low to moder-
ate correlation with academic ability in literature.
Other studies that have examined the relationship
among different types of giftedness suggest similar con-
clusions. Yager (1989), for example, contended that high
achievement in scientific subjects, overall intellectual
ability, and excellence in science are not necessarily relat-
ed to one another. Milgram and Milgram (1976) argued
that creative talent measured by creative accomplishment
was not related to academic achievement measured by
school grades. Wallach and Wing (1969) implied from
their findings that students who will succeed at creative
writing, science, painting, or some other endeavor can-
not be predicted by grades or test scores alone and that
nonacademic accomplishments should be examined and
credited when searching for talented students.
Although the previous research by Hong and
Milgram (1996) provided the conceptual clarification of
diverse abilities and talents in the literature domain,
whether the distinction of the constructs can be found in
other domains needs to be examined. In addition, the
previous study did not examine cognitive and motiva-
tional characteristics of the gifted. To understand what
distinguishes different types of giftedness, various charac-
teristics of the gifted need to be studied.
This study examined cognitive and motivational
characteristics of adolescents who were academically gift-
ed or creatively talented in the mathematics domain. The
academically gifted in this study were students who were
high achieving in school math; by contrast, the creatively
talented were those who were highly interested, active,
and/or accomplished in math, but not necessarily high
192 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
achieving in school math. One might expect that gifted
individuals in these two categories might share some gen-
eral cognitive characteristics, considering that mathemat-
ics is highly intellectual in nature and requires certain
types of cognitive processes whether individuals engage
in math activities for school-related or out-of-school self-
selected purposes. On the other hand, there may be some
differences in their cognitive and motivational character-
istics due to different types and levels of interest, curiosi-
ty, and task commitment required to be excellent in the
two different categories of giftedness.
Cognitive and motivational characteristics have been
studied in general student populations. Hong and O’Neil
(2001) conducted a construct validation study examining
self-regulation in academic performance. Self-regulation
was composed of metacognition and motivation. The
metacognition component consisted of planning and self-
checking. Students who used metacognitive strategies
tended to plan strategies and checked their solution
processes and answers while solving problems.
Motivation consisted of self-efficacy and effort. Students
who were intrinsically motivated tended to be self-effica-
cious and also expended their efforts while they were
engaged in tasks. Their findings supported previous stud-
ies indicating strong relationships among motivation,
self-efficacy, and strategy use (e.g., Shih & Alexander,
2000).
Zimmerman (1990), in his social-cognitive theory,
asserted that a student’s use of cognitive and metacogni-
tive strategies enhances perceptions of self-efficacy,
which in turn are assumed to provide the motivational
basis for further self-regulation during learning. Self-effi-
cacy beliefs contribute to motivation by determining the
goals people set for themselves, how much effort they
expend, and how long they persevere (Bandura, 1986,
1993; Schunk, 1987).
The causal attributions that individuals make about
the success or failure of their actions (Weiner, 1994)
inf luence motivation and performance largely through
the mediational role of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995;
Schunk, 1991, 1994). In general, students who are confi-
dent of their ability intensify their efforts when failure
occurs and persist until they succeed (Pajares, 1996;
Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). Highly perceived ability,
learning goals, intrinsic value, and attainment together
are likely to support optimism and persistence during
learning (Harrison, Rainer, Hochwarter, & Thompson,
1997).
Of the various theories of intelligence, entity (fixed
ability) versus incremental (f lexible ability) theories
NO 3
 C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H
(Dweck, 2000) have been discussed in regard to their
relationships with educational constructs such as attribu-
tion theory (e.g., Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan,
1999; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996). While both entity and
incremental theorists recognize the importance of ability
in task performance, incremental theorists (those stu-
dents holding a f lexible ability or incremental theory of
intelligence) also stress effort. Further, when faced with
unsatisfactory performance, incremental theorists tend to
put forth more efforts to take remedial action to improve.
On the other hand, entity theorists (those students hold-
ing a fixed ability or entity theory of intelligence) are
more concerned with demonstrating their ability or not
revealing their lack of it, and they tend to attribute their
failure to lack of ability, rather than effort (Hong et al.).
Studies with gifted students have indicated that these stu-
dents tend to hold an incremental view, rather than an
entity view of ability (Feldhusen & Dai, 1997; Hsueh,
1997).
Cognitive and motivational characteristics of the
gifted have been examined by comparing them with
those of their nongifted peers. Gifted children are cogni-
tively more competent and are more intrinsically moti-
vated than their nongifted peers (Fehrenbach, 1991;
Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996; Vallerand, Gagné, Senécal,
& Pelletier, 1994; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).
Gifted students tend to be more strategic (Montague &
Applegate, 1993; Shore & Dover, 1987); are more likely
to have conscious control over the solution process
(Shore & Carey, 1984); use more strategies for organizing
and transforming information (Zimmerman & Martinez-
Pons, 1990); use learning strategies more effectively and
transfer these strategies to novel tasks when trained
(Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992); and use more reread-
ing, inferring, analyzing structure, predicting, and evalu-
ating strategies (Fehrenbach, 1991) when compared to
their nongifted counterparts.
Tallent-Runnels et al. (1994) found that junior high
female students scored higher than male students in
motivation. Female gifted students also reported greater
confidence in English (Li & Adamson, 1995). However,
Junge and Dretzke (1995) found that, in mathematics,
male high school students had stronger self-efficacy
expectations than females on more than one fourth of the
items on the mathematical self-efficacy scale they used,
whereas females reported stronger self-efficacy expecta-
tions on only a few items that involved stereotypical
female activities. On the other hand, Vallerand and his
associates (1994) found no gender effects in motivation
and perceived competence in elementary students.
G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
Although these studies have compared cognitive or
motivational characteristics between gifted versus
nongifted students, to our knowledge, research compar-
ing those characteristics among different types of gifted
students or research examining interaction effects
between gender and type of giftedness in various cogni-
tive and motivational characteristics has not been con-
ducted.
Therefore, the current study compares cognitive and
motivational characteristics among the three groups of
students (i.e., the gifted in two different categories and
their nongifted age peers) across gender. We investigated
two major areas of cognitive and motivational characteris-
tics: One measured student perceptions of their character-
istics in general task-oriented situations and the other in
the mathematics domain. Specifically, the study examined
interaction and main effects of the type of giftedness and
gender in (a) their theories about ability and their percep-
tions about their own effort expenditure, self-efficacy,
and cognitive strategy use in general task-oriented situa-
tions; and (b) their perceived math ability, effort expendi-
ture in math, value of math, and math self-efficacy.
Method
Participants
Participants were 90 tenth or eleventh graders (42
males, 47 females, 1 unspecified) who were taking a math
course (Algebra II) in three high schools located in a large
school district in the southwestern United States.
Math teachers who taught Algebra II were contacted
through the chair of the math department to determine
their interest in assisting data collection with students
taking their course. Seven math teachers from three
schools volunteered to help with the project. Parental
consent and student assent forms were collected from
students who were willing to participate in the study.
There were 216 volunteers for the study. However, only
90 students met the grouping criteria for the current
investigation (see Grouping Procedure below).
Measures
Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ
(Hong, 2001) measured participants’ perceptions about
domain-general and domain-specific cognitive and moti-
vational constructs. Mathematics was the domain for the
latter. Some of the SAQ items were created by the first
NO 3 193
C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H
author, and others were modified from the self-regulato-
ry inventory developed and validated by O’Neil and his
colleagues (O’Neil, Baker, Ni, Jacoby, & Swigger, 1994;
O’Neil & Herl, 1998), from Generalized Self-Efficacy by
Schwarzer (1993) and Wegner, Schwarzer, and Jerusalem
(1993) and from the self-efficacy portion of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ) by Pintrich and his associates (Pintrich & De
Groot, 1990; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie,
1993).
The domain-general SAQ items measured partici-
pants’ (a) views about ability (5 items; e.g., “Intelligence
cannot be changed,” “If you are smart, you don’t have to
study very hard to get good grades”), (b) perceptions
about their own effort expenditure (7 items; e.g., “I work
as hard as possible on all tasks,” “I don’t give up even if
the task is hard”), (c) general self-efficacy (6 items; e.g.,
“When I am confronted with a problem, I usually find
several solutions,” “I always manage to solve difficult
problems if I try hard enough”), and (d) cognitive strate-
gy use (8 items; e.g., “I use multiple thinking techniques
or strategies to solve a problem,” “I select and organize
relevant information to solve a problem”). The internal
consistency estimates (coefficient alpha) of the domain-
general SAQ subscales in the current study were .62 for
ability, .87 for effort, .76 for self-efficacy, and .85 for cog-
nitive strategy.
The domain-specific SAQ items measured percep-
tions specifically related to mathematics in four areas.
They included participants’ (a) perceptions of their own
math ability (5 items; e.g., “I have a mathematical mind,”
“I can solve any math problems if I put my mind to it”),
(b) perceived effort exerted in math tasks (5 items, e.g., “I
work as hard as possible on math tasks,” “I don’t give up
even if the math problem is hard”), (c) perceived value of
math (6 items; e.g., “It is important for me to learn the
course material in this math class,” “The content taught
in this math course is valuable for me”), and (d) perceived
math self-efficacy (6 items; e.g., “I believe I will receive
an excellent grade in this math class,” “I expect to do well
in this math class”). The internal consistency estimates
(coefficient alpha) of the domain-specific SAQ subscales
in the current study were .88 for math ability, .91 for
math effort, .93 for math value, and .93 for math self-
efficacy. Participants responded to each SAQ item by rat-
ing themselves on the following four-point scale: 1 = not
at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderately so, and 4 = very
much so.
Activities and Accomplishment Inventory. Participants’
interest, activities, and accomplishment in mathematics
194 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
were measured using eight math-related items from the
80-item Activities and Accomplishments Inventory
(AAI; Milgram & Hong, 2001). The AAI taps specific
challenging nonacademic activities and accomplishments
in 10 specific activity domains. The 10 domains are sci-
ence, computers, mathematics, literature, social activi-
ties, drama, music, art, dance, and sports, with each
domain consisting of eight items. Two of the eight items
were similar across domains: “Have you ever taken part in
a [e.g., mathematics/drama] competition/contest?” and
“Have you ever won a prize in a [e.g., mathematics/
drama] competition/contest?”
This instrument was developed on the basis of earli-
er work by Holland and his associates (Holland, 1961;
Holland & Austin, 1962; Holland & Nichols, 1964;
Holland & Richards, 1965) and Wallach and Wing
(1969). Hong, Whiston, and Milgram (1993) reported
evidence of moderate to good construct validity for a
longer version of the inventory. Predictive validity of the
instrument scores was also investigated in a longitudinal
study. A significant relationship was found between the
domain of out-of-school activity in adolescent and the
domain of vocational activity in adulthood. In addition,
the adult participants whose adolescent activities matched
adult occupation had a higher level of work accomplish-
ment than those for whom a match was absent.
The attainments and activities are designated as
nonacademic because they are freely chosen and not done
to fulfill school requirements or to earn grades or credits.
The instructions of the AAI questionnaire read: “This
questionnaire is about the activities that students do in
their free time. Please read the questions and mark your
answers on the questionnaire. If you do an activity, circle
the answer YES next to the question. If you don’t, circle
the answer NO. There are no right or wrong answers to
these questions.” Examples of the items in the mathe-
matics domain include: “Do you like games that are
based upon simple mathematical activities such as card
games, puzzles, or mathematical computer games?”;
“Have you ever devised new and original mathematical
rules that were based on existing rules?”; and “Have you
ever taken part in a mathematics competition?” A student
with a high score in the math AAI was considered cre-
atively talented in mathematics in this study (see
Grouping Procedure).
Math achievement. Math achievement scores from a
math midterm exam were collected from the participat-
ing teachers. Because the participating schools used dif-
ferent tests, the reported math scores were standardized
before subsequent data analyses and the grouping proce-
NO 3
 C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H
dure took place. The transformed math achievement
scores for the 90 students involved in the current study
ranged from 17.64 to 71.43, with a mean and standard
deviation of 48.19 and 12.53, respectively.
Grouping Procedure
Three groups were created to represent adolescents
who are (a) academically gifted, but not creatively talent-
ed in mathematics (Group 1); (b) creatively talented, but
not academically gifted in mathematics (Group 2); and (c)
neither academically gifted nor creatively talented in
mathematics (Group 3). For the purpose of the study,
participants with a math achievement score higher than
59 (78th percentile of the entire sample) and with 3 (76th
percentile) or less “yes” responses to AAI were assigned
to the first group (n = 25). Participants with 4 (89th per-
centile) or more “yes” responses to AAI items and with a
math achievement score lower than 59 were assigned to
the second group (n = 21). Participants with a math
achievement score lower than 42 (22nd percentile) and
an AAI score of 2 (59th percentile) or less were placed in
the third group (n = 23). The grouping procedure
excludes students in the middle range of mathematics
scores to accomplish group distinction (high and low lev-
els of academic mathematics) with a reasonable sample
size in each group. Due to high difficulty levels of math
activities and accomplishment items included in the AAI
that was used to measure creative talent in mathematics,
only 3 participants scored 6 or above (out of 8). Thus,
activity scores between 2 and 4 were used as cutoff scores
for this category.
Data Analysis
Two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs)
were performed using the four domain-general and the
four domain-specific SAQ measures as dependent vari-
ables and gender and group (three types of giftedness;
henceforth, group) as independent variables. To deter-
mine which of the four domain-general and four
domain-specific measures contributed to group differ-
ences, follow-up univariate analyses of variance
(ANOVA) were conducted. Bonferroni corrections for
probability (α = .0125) were applied due to assessing a
large number of group comparisons (four for domain-
general and four for domain-specific measures). When
interaction effects were found significant, further analy-
ses were conducted to compute simple effects and simple
contrasts for comparing group differences within each
G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
level of an independent variable. When main effects were
significant, necessary post hoc multiple comparisons
were performed using the Tukey method.
The sample size of 90 was reduced to 89 due to 1 stu-
dent in the second group having no gender specification.
Due to the small sample sizes that resulted from selecting
participants representing three types of giftedness,
assumptions for MANOVA procedures were carefully
examined to determine if they were reasonable analytical
procedures for the current data. No within-cell outliers
were found at p < .001. Skewness measured for each vari-
able for each cell was not extreme, mostly smaller than
|1| with the largest value of 1.86. Scatterplots for each
pair of dependent measures within each group revealed
no cause for concern about linearity.
Box’s M test of equality of covariance matrices indi-
cated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance-
covariance matrices was met for the domain-general
measures, F(50, 10543) = 1.35, p > .05. Univariate tests of
homogeneity of variance also confirmed equality of vari-
ances for individual dependent variables except for effort
p < .05. For the domain-specific measures, Box’s M test
was significant, although only math self-efficacy indicat-
ed nonequality of variance, p < .05. Thus, Pillai’s criteri-
on was used to evaluate multivariate significance (Mertler
& Vannatta, 2001; Olson, 1979). The results of overall
evaluations of assumptions were considered satisfactory
to continue with the planned statistical procedures.
Results
Effects on Domain-General Cognitive
and Motivational Variables: Theories of Ability,
Effort, Self-Efficacy, and Cognitive Strategy
Use in General Task-Oriented Situations
The combined domain-general measures were sig-
nificantly affected by a disordinal interaction between
gender and group, F(8, 162) = 3.63, p = .001, with partial
η2 = .15 ref lecting a weak association between the com-
bined measures and the interaction of the two independ-
ent variables. The gender and group main effects were
also statistically significant in the multivariate analyses, p
< .01 and p < .0005, respectively, indicating that some of
the individual measures might have been affected by the
group or gender difference.
Follow-up univariate analyses indicated that the gen-
der-group interaction effect was found only for the effort
variable, F(2, 83) = 11.69, p < .0005, partial η2 = .35.
NO 3 195
 C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations of the Domain-General Effort Scores
in the Academically Gifted, Creatively Talented, and Nongifted Group by Gender

Academically Gifted Creatively Talented Nongifted

n M SD n M SD n M SD

Male 12 2.23 .43 15 2.92 .51 15 2.28 .33

Female 19 3.15 .57 12 3.02 .31 16 2.19 .26

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations of the Four Domain-General Cognitive Measures
in the Academically Gifted, Creatively Talented, and Nongifted Group

Academically Gifted Creatively Talented Nongifted

M SD M SD M SD F(2, 63) Partial η2

Ability 2.26 .67 2.28 .49 2.21 .56 .75 .01

Efforta 2.79 .69 2.97 .43 2.23 .30 12.13** .35
Self-efficacy 2.81 .54 3.01 .47 2.51 .39 8.71** .17
Cognitive strategy 2.37 .61 2.74 .52 2.26 .35 8.31 .17

Note. * p < .01. ** p < .0005.

aInterpretation of the effort main effect not meaningful due to the significant interaction effect between gender and group.

Thus, simple effects for gender and those for group were
computed for the effort variable. A statistically significant
gender difference was found only in Group 1 (academi-
cally gifted), F(1, 83) = 38.00, p < .0005, with η2 = .31,
indicating a moderate association between gender and
effort scores. The mean effort score of female students (M
= 3.15, SD = .57) was higher than that of their male coun-
terparts (M = 2.23, SD = .43). Gender differences were
not found in the other two groups, ps > .40.
Tests of simple effects for the group variable (type of
giftedness) indicated that, for male students, statistically
significant group differences were shown among the
three group means, F(2, 83) = 11.21, p < .0005. A similar
result was found for female students, F(2, 83) = 24.51, p <
.0005. Simple contrasts were performed for pairwise
comparisons within males and females separately. For
male students, the mean effort scores were significantly
different between Group 1 and Group 2, F(1, 83) = 17.14,
p < .0005, η2 = .16, and between Group 2 and Group 3,
F(1, 83) = 17.11, p < .0005, η2 = .17. The difference
between Group 1 and Group 3 was not statistically sig-
nificant, p > .80. Male students in Group 2 had a higher
mean effort compared to Group 1 and to Group 3 (see
Table 1 for means and standard deviations for the three
groups across gender).
For female students, effort scores were significantly
different among all three groups, ps < .05. Female stu-
dents in Group 1 had a higher mean score compared to
Group 2, F(1, 83) = 4.60, p < .05, with η2 = .02, indicat-
ing that the group difference was statistically significant,
but not substantially meaningful with only 2% of vari-
ance of effort accounted for by group membership. The
difference between Group 1 and Group 3 was also signif-
icant, F(1, 83) = 44.68, p < .0005, η2 = .36, as well as the
difference between Group 2 and Group 3, F(1, 83) =
27.49, p < .0005, η2 = .22 (see Table 1).
We next examined main effects on univariate
domain-general variables that were not inf luenced by the
group-by-gender interaction. Statistically significant dif-
ferences were found only on self-efficacy and cognitive
strategy use among the three types of giftedness, but not
for gender. The mean self-efficacy scores were signifi-

196 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8 NO 3
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
 C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations of the Mathematics Effort Scores
in the Academically Gifted, Creatively Talented, and Nongifted Group by Gender

Academically Gifted Creatively Talented Nongifted

n M SD n M SD n M SD

Male 12 2.20 .64 15 2.87 .75 15 2.09 .45

Female 19 2.97 .60 12 2.70 .54 16 1.70 .45

cantly different among the three groups, F(2, 83) = 8.71,
p < .0005, partial η2 = .17. The results of the post hoc
analyses indicated that mean differences between Group
1 and Group 3, p < .05, and Group 2 and Group 3, p <
.0005, were statistically significant, with the creatively
talented in math (Group 2) reporting the highest mean
self-efficacy and Group 3 the lowest. The mean self-effi-
cacy difference between Group 1 and Group 2 was not
statistically significant, p > .20 (see Table 2 for means and
standard deviations).
For cognitive strategy use, F(2, 83) = 8.31, p = .001,
partial η2 = .17, again, students creatively talented in math
(Group 2) reported using cognitive strategies the most
and Group 3 the least (see Table 2). The mean differences
between Group 1 and Group 2, p < .02, and between
Group 2 and Group 3 showed were statistically signifi-
cance, p = .001.
Effects on Domain-Specific Cognitive
and Motivational Variables: Ability, Effort,
Value, and Self-Efficacy in Mathematics
A statistically significant disordinal gender-group
interaction was found on the combined domain-specific
cognitive measures, F(8, 162) = 3.04, p = .003, with par-
tial η2 = .13. The gender and group main effects were also
statistically significant in the multivariate analyses, p < .05
and p < .0005, respectively, indicating again that some of
the domain-specific measures might have been affected
by group or gender differences. These multivariate find-
ings were similar to those found with the domain-gener-
al variables.
Univariate analyses indicated that the gender-group
interaction effect was only in the effort variable, F(2, 83)
= 8.28, p = .001, partial η2 = .17. This result was also sim-
ilar to that with the domain-general variables. Tests of
simple effects for gender on math effort indicated that
significant gender differences were found only in Group
1 (academically gifted), F(1, 83) = 16.33, p < .0005, η2 =
.16. Female students (M = 2.97, SD = .60) scored a high-
er mean effort than their male counterparts (M = 2.20,
SD = .64). Gender differences were not found in the
other two groups, ps ≥ .05.
Tests of simple effects for the group variable (type of
giftedness) indicated that statistically significant group
differences were found for both males, F(2, 83) = 7.62, p
= .001, and females, F(2, 83) = 22.02, p < .0005. The
results of simple contrasts showed that, for male students,
the mean effort scores were significantly different
between Group 1 and Group 2, F(1, 83) = 9.54, p = .003,
η2 = .09, and between Group 2 and Group 3, F(1, 83) =
13.38, p < .0005, η2 = .14. The difference between Group
1 and Group 3 was not statistically significant, p > .40.
Male students in Group 2 had a higher mean effort score
compared to Group 1 and to Group 3 (see Table 3 for
means and standard deviations).
For female students, the mean effort scores were sig-
nificantly different among all three groups, ps < .05.
Female students in Group 1 reported a higher mean score
compared to Group 2, F(1, 83) = 4.75, p < .05, with η2 =
.02, indicating that the group difference was statistically
significant, but not practically significant. The difference
between Group 1 and Group 3 was significant, F(1, 83) =
40.70, p < .0005, η2 = .33, as well as the difference
between Group 2 and Group 3, F(1, 83) = 23.66, p <
.0005, η2 = .19. The pattern of findings from the analysis
of math effort and of general effort was the same (see
Table 3).
Group differences were shown in math ability, math
value, and math self-efficacy in the follow-up univariate
analyses, all ps < .0005, with partial η2 ranging from .25 to
.31. Post hoc analysis indicated that both Group 1 and
Group 2 were significantly different from Group 3, all ps
< .0005. However, no statistically significant differences
were found between Group 1 and Group 2 on the three
measures. Gender effects for the three variables were not

G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8 NO 3 197
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
 C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations of the Four Domain-Specific (Mathematics) Measures
in the Academically Gifted, Creatively Talented, and Nongifted Group.
Academically Gifted Creatively Talented
M SD M SD
Math ability 2.87 .69 2.70 .79
Math efforta 2.67 .72 2.79 .66
Math value 2.82 .75 2.74 .75
Math self-efficacy 3.02 .79 2.70 .85
Note. * p < .0005
a
Interpretation of the effort main effect not meaningful due to the significant interaction effect between gender and group.
statistically significant (see Table 4 for means, standard
deviations, and F statistics for the three groups).
Discussion
Students’ beliefs regarding ability (intelligence) were
similar across gender and the three types of giftedness.
That is, whether gifted or not, or male or female, stu-
dents’ theories about intelligence were the same in gen-
eral. With the mean scores ranging from 2.21 to 2.28,
students in the current sample were neither particularly
entity theorists nor incremental theorists. Since incre-
mental theorists tend to place more emphasis on effort
(Stipek & Granlinski, 1996) and since effort has been
shown to have a positive relationship with achievement
(e.g., Chen, 1996), this finding was somewhat surprising.
However, both types of theorists also acknowledge the
importance of intellectual ability in task performance
(Hong et al., 1999). In their studies of gifted students in
gifted programs, Feldhusen and Dai (1997) and Hsueh
(1997) found that gifted students tend to hold an incre-
mental view of their abilities. Neither study, however,
compared gifted to nongifted students regarding their
beliefs about abilities. The lack of group difference in
beliefs about intelligence found in the current study
might ref lect the beliefs of such adolescents as those who
participated in this study. Studies with various age levels
and various cultures would shed light on whether there is
any developmental change or cultural inf luence on belief
formation.
Adolescents academically gifted or creatively talented
in math reported being more self-efficacious in general
198 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
Nongifted
M SD F(2, 63) Partial η2
1.91 .65 15.58* .27
1.89 .48 18.96* .31
1.87 .74 13.97* .25
1.91 .58 17.29* .30
compared to their nongifted peers. Similarly, gifted stu-
dents reported using cognitive strategies more often than
the nongifted, especially with the creatively talented
reporting significantly higher uses than the nongifted.
Although the difference between the academically gifted
and the creatively talented was not significant for self-
efficacy, the difference between the two groups in the use
of cognitive strategies was significant, with the creatively
talented reporting a higher mean than the academically
gifted. This finding might indicate cognitive resourceful-
ness of creatively talented students, even though they do
not do as well in school math tests. Further studies are
needed to determine the source of high-level cognitive
strategies (e.g., profound interest) found in this group. In
addition, studies that require math problem solving
would help us closely observe cognitive strategies used by
students in these groups.
Research findings regarding gender effects on moti-
vational variables conf lict widely. Whereas Tallent-
Runnels et al. (1994) found females scoring higher in
motivation, it was male students in Junge and Dretzke
(1995) who showed stronger self-efficacy than females.
Moreover, Vallerand et al. (1994) found no gender main
effects in motivation and perceived competence in ele-
mentary students. In the current study with secondary
students, gender effects also were not found except as part
of an interaction with the type of giftedness.
Furthermore, gender and group interaction effects were
indicated only in effort (both domain-general effort and
math effort). Female high achievers in academic mathe-
matics reported expending more effort in general tasks
(e.g., working as hard as possible on all tasks) and in
mathematics (e.g., putting forth best efforts when solving
NO 3
 C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H
math problems) compared to male high achievers.
However, gender differences were not found within the
creatively talented or the nongifted.
The gender difference found among academically
gifted students might point to the tendency of female
adolescents to examine their work meticulously even
when they attain high levels of achievement in school
math. On the other hand, male high achievers might
believe that they can do well in school math without
exerting much effort. Interestingly, however, both male
and female creatively talented students reported high lev-
els of effort in the general domain, as well as in mathe-
matics, possibly because out-of-school math activities
require a higher level of commitment and sustained effort
to excel. Student interviews along with a questionnaire
would help clarify this phenomenon in future studies.
Whereas female students in either gifted category
reported expending more effort than the nongifted, cre-
atively talented males stood out in the amount of effort
expenditure as compared to their academically gifted and
nongifted counterparts. That the pattern of the findings
was the same for both domain general tasks and mathe-
matics domain might indicate that gender differences in
effort are consistent across domains. Studies using other
domains are needed to further examine this conclusion.
The conf licting research findings regarding gender
effects on motivational variables in previous and current
studies (i.e., males scoring higher than females, females
scoring higher than males, no gender differences, or dif-
ferences in some components of motivational variables,
in various studies) suggest that more research studies are
warranted to determine the pattern of gender difference
in various domains, as well as in various grade levels and
cultures.
In mathematics-related cognitive and motivational
characteristics, the findings were consistent across the
three measures (math ability, math value, and math self-
efficacy). Compared to nongifted students, gifted male
and female students, whether high achievers in academic
mathematics or creatively talented in mathematics, per-
ceived themselves as highly able in math (e.g., “I have a
mathematical mind”), valued their math class (e.g., “It is
important for me to learn the course material in this math
class”), and were confident in mathematics (e.g., “I
expect to do well in this math class”).
Previous studies demonstrated that the gifted, when
compared to their nongifted counterparts, perceived
themselves to be cognitively more competent, attributed
their success and failure to effort (e.g., Chen, 1996;
Fehrenbach, 1991; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996;
G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
Vallerand et al., 1994), and were more strategic or used
more strategies (Montague & Applegate, 1993; Shore &
Dover, 1987; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).
Overall, the new findings from this study add to findings
of previous research, especially the differences found
between students in the two types of giftedness in math-
ematics. Among the findings that have not been dis-
cussed in previous studies are the gender difference found
only in the academically gifted, but not in the creatively
talented regarding their effort expenditure; creatively tal-
ented males putting forth more effort than academically
gifted males, but finding no difference among females in
these two groups; creatively talented students using more
cognitive strategies than academically gifted or nongifted
peers; and no gender or group differences in their beliefs
about intelligence.
However, the lack of differences in the three math-
related measures (ability, value, self-efficacy) between the
gifted and talented groups was somewhat surprising and,
at the same time, somewhat expected due to the area (i.e.,
mathematics) being investigated. In the study of the liter-
ature domain by Hong and Milgram (1996), low to mod-
erate factor correlations were found between these two
gifted and talented groups, with .29 and .37 in the two
samples used in their study. The previous findings indi-
cated that school grades and out-of-school accomplish-
ment scores can, to some extent, discriminate between
the individuals who are characterized as highly gifted in
literature in school and creatively talented in out-of-
school accomplishments in literature.
However, the lack of distinctions between the gifted
and talented categories manifested in the mathematics
domain might indicate that, in mathematics, the content
and quality of in-school and out-of-school activities may
not be distinctly different. For example, although the
instructions printed in the Activities and
Accomplishments Inventory explain that the question-
naire is about the activities students do in their free time,
the out-of-school mathematical activities may be largely
related to in-school math activities. Mathematics,
whether practiced by a student as school math or freely
chosen out-of-school math, might require similar cogni-
tive processes more so than other domains such as litera-
ture or leadership. However, the findings might also
indicate the need to enhance the empirical distinction
between the gifted and talented categories by developing
better assessment approaches, with better definitions of
creative mathematical ability and performance that
ref lect cognitive and metacognitive conceptions of gift-
edness. In addition to the type of assessment used in the
NO 3 199
C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H
current study (i.e., assessment of activities and accom-
plishment), other assessments, such as analysis of cogni-
tive processing, would increase the understanding of the
distinction between the academically gifted and the cre-
atively talented in mathematics. In addition, whether
similar results would emerge with profoundly gifted sam-
ples in the two gifted categories would be an important
topic for a future study.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive devel-
opment and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28,
117–148.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, L. K. S. (1996). Motivational orientations and metacog-
nitive abilities of intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 40, 184–194.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, person-
ality, and development. Florence, KY: Psychology Press.
Fehrenbach, C. R. (1991). Gifted/average readers: Do they use
the same reading strategies? Gifted Child Quarterly, 35,
125–127.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Dai, D. Y. (1997). Gifted students’ attitudes
and perceptions of the gifted label, special programs, and
peer relations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 15–20.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelli-
gences. New York: BasicBooks.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for
the 21st century. New York: BasicBooks
Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal
study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually
gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 179–183.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological
Bulletin, 53, 267–293.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Harrison, A. W., Rainer, R. K., Jr., Hochwarter, W. A., &
Thompson, K. R. (1997). Testing the self-efficacy-per-
formance-linkage of social-cognitive theory. Journal of
Social Psychology, 137, 79–88.
Holland, J. L. (1961). Creative and academic performance
among talented adolescents. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 52, 136–147.
Holland, J. L., & Austin, A. W. (1962). The prediction of the
academic, artistic, scientific, and social achievement of
undergraduates of superior scholastic aptitude. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 53, 132–143.
200 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
Holland, J. L., & Nicholas, R. C. (1964). Prediction of aca-
demic and extracurricular achievement in college. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 55, 55–65.
Holland, J. L., & Richards, J. M., Jr. (1965). Academic and
nonacademic accomplishment: Correlated or uncorrelat-
ed? Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 165–174.
Hong, E. (2001). Self-assessment questionnaire. Unpublished doc-
ument, College of Education, University of Nevada, Las
Vegas.
Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (1996). The structure of gifted-
ness: The domain of literature as an exemplar. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 40, 31–40.
Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Whiston, S. C. (1993). Leisure
activities in adolescents as a predictor of occupational
choice in young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Career Development, 19, 221–229.
Hong, E., & O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (2001). Construct validation of
a trait self-regulation model. International Journal of
Psychology, 36, 186–194.
Hong, E., Whiston, S. C., & Milgram, R. M. (1993). Leisure
activities in career guidance for gifted and talented adoles-
cents: A validation study of the Tel-Aviv Activities
Inventory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 65–68.
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M., & Wan, W.
(1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A
meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 588–599.
Hsueh, W. (1997). A cross-cultural comparison of gifted children’s the-
ories of intelligence, goal orientations, and response to challenge.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN.
Junge, M. E., & Dretzke, B. J. (1995). Mathematical self-effica-
cy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 39, 22–28.
Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1995). Motivational patterns
related to gifted students’ learning of mathematics, science,
and English: An examination of gender differences. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 284–297.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented:
Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S.
Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to
the U.S. Office of Education, 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. (Government Documents,
Y4.L 11/2: G36)
Mertler, C., & Vannatta, R. (2001). Advanced and multivariate sta-
tistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Los
Angeles: Pyrczak.
Milgram, R. M. (Ed.). (1989). Teaching gifted and talented learners
in regular classrooms. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Milgram, R. M. (1991). Counseling gifted and talented children: A
guide for teachers, counselors, and parents. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (2001). Activities and accomplishment
inventory. Unpublished document, School of Education, Tel
NO 3
 C O G N I T I V E C H A R AC T E R I S T I C S O F T H E G I F T E D I N M AT H
Aviv University, Israel, and College of Education,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Creative thinking
and creative performance in Israeli children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73, 568–572.
Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (1993). Middle school stu-
dents’ mathematical problem solving: An analysis of think-
aloud protocols. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 19–32.
Olson, C. L. (1979). Practical considerations in choosing a
MANOVA test statistic: A rejoinder to Stevens.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1350–1352.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Baker, E. L., Ni, Y., Jacoby, A., & Swigger,
K. M. (1994). Human benchmarking for the evaluation of
expert systems. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. & E. L. Baker (Eds.),
Technology assessment in software applications (pp. 13–45).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Herl, H. E. (1998, April). Reliability and
validity of a trait measure of self-regulation. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings.
Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and gen-
eral mental ability in mathematical problem solving.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 427–444.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and
self-regulated learning components of classroom academic
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J.
(1993). Reliability and predictability of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational
& Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness:
A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J.
Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness
(pp. 53–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Risemberg, R., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1992). Self-regulated
learning in gifted students. Roeper Review, 15, 98–101.
Schunk, D. H. (1987, September). Self-efficacy and cognitive
achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, New York.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attri-
butions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance:
Issues and educational implications (pp. 75–99). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy:
Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin: Forschung
an der Freien Universitat Berlin.
G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on February 20, 2015
Shih, S., & Alexander, J. M. (2000). Interacting effects of goal
setting and self- or other-referenced feedback on children’s
development of self-efficacy and cognitive skill within the
Taiwanese classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
536–543.
Shore, B. M., & Carey, S. M. (1984). Verbal ability and spatial
task. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 59, 255–259.
Shore, B. M., & Dover, A. C. (1987). Metacognition, intelli-
gence, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 37–39.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of
giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children’s beliefs about
intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 397–407.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Olivárez, Jr., A., Candler-Lotven, A.
C., Walsh, S., Gray, A., & Irons, T. (1994). A comparison
of learning and study strategies of gifted and average-abili-
ty junior high students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
17, 143–160.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physi-
cal traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius:
Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years follow-up of
a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius:
Vol. 4. The gifted child at mid-life: Thirty-five years follow-up of
the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of
the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 153–156.
Vallerand, Gagné, F., Senécal, C., & Pelletier, L. G. (1994). A
comparison of the school intrinsic motivation and per-
ceived competence of gifted and regular students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 38, 172–175.
Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented student:
A validation of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Wegner, M., Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1993).
Generalized self-efficacy. In Measurement of perceived self-effi-
cacy: Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research (R. Schwarzer,
Trans.). Berlin: Forschung an der Freien Universitat
Berlin.
Weiner, B. (1994). Ability versus effort revisited: The moral
determinants of achievement evaluation and achievement
as a moral system. Educational Psychologist, 29, 163–172.
Yager, R. E. (1989). Teaching science to gifted science students.
In R. M. Milgram (Ed.), Teaching gifted and talented learners
in regular classrooms (pp. 223–248). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student dif-
ferences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and
giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use.
NO 3 201