Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 49(7), 2012

C



2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21628

MOTIVATION AND GIFTED STUDENTS: IMPLICATIONS OF THEORY AND RESEARCH

PAMELA R. CLINKENBEARD

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

An analysis of contemporary motivation theories reveals implications for gifted and talented stu-

dents. The expectancy-value framework, intrinsic-extrinsic motivation theories, goal orientations,



with great intellectual and creative promise is why some bright students never reach the level of

success of which they seem so capable. More than half a century ago, David McClelland and his

colleagues published a now-classic study of this problem, Talent and Society (McClelland, Baldwin,

Bronfenbrenner, & Strodtbeck, 1958). They suggested that the solution to this puzzle could be found

by looking at a range of nonintellective factors, with particular attention to achievement motivation.

and sustained” (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008, p. 4). In other words, motivation includes choosing

characteristics of gifted and talented students? Which aspects of motivation seem to either promote

or inhibit the fulfillment of giftedness? Research and theory on motivation and gifted students has a

long history, and it can be classified into personal and environmental categories as noted previously

(Clinkenbeard, 1996, 2006). On the more psychological or personal side, there is a large body

of research that has investigated the motivational characteristics of children and adults who have

been identified as gifted. Many theories of giftedness and definitions of the gifted even include

motivation as a defining characteristic (e.g., Renzulli, 1986, included task commitment along with

creativity and above-average ability in his three-ring model of giftedness). On the more educational

or environmental side, there is a growing set of studies that examines motivation, especially variables

related to achievement motivation, as an important outcome of educational programs and practices

application of motivation theories to gifted students. Finally, cautions about definitional issues and

suggestions for research will be presented.

Whitewater, 800 West Main St., Whitewater, WI 53190. E-mail: clinkenp@uww.edu

OTIVATION THEORIES

Contemporary motivation theories tend to arise from a cognitive perspective. As distinguished

from the mechanistic view of behaviorism, in which motivation is seen as behavior resulting from

of gifted and talented students.

Contemporary expectancy-value theories are built on a foundation laid partly by Atkinson’s

(1964) work on achievement motivation, which built on McClelland’s (1961) more psychoanalytic

investigation of need for achievement. Expectancies are people’s beliefs about whether they can

succeed at a task, and values are beliefs about why they might want to engage in a particular task

(Schunk et al., 2008). Motivated behavior occurs when we think a task is worth doing and expect

that we can do it. In addition, many other motivation theories can be considered from within an

expectancy-value framework. For instance, attribution and self-efficacy theories (discussed later)

are related to expectancy: Do I think that I can achieve at this task? Goal and intrinsic motivation

cost of doing the task. There are numerous other components to this particular theory, many of which

are related to theories mentioned later. However, when one looks just at expectancies and values, a

number of implications for gifted students can be generated.

With regard to expectancies, most intellectually and academically gifted students will expect to

perform well on a wide range of school tasks. However, difficulties can arise if students are placed

in a fast-paced general class but their academic talent is restricted to one particular domain; for

instance, a child with extremely high math achievement but more typical verbal achievement may

have low expectancies of success with the reading curriculum if placed in a self-contained gifted

class. With regard to values, high-achieving gifted students are probably willing to engage in any

work that is assigned, whereas less compliant students and gifted underachievers may see no reason

expectancies for success and values for tasks. They provided examples and research evidence and

discussed the implications of that research for gifted youth. The general cautions and advice re-

garding the motivation of gifted students from an expectancy-value theoretical framework are: try

to match the challenge level of the task with the abilities of the student (so that expectancies for

success are not for easy success, but for success that requires effort), help students see the long-term

624 Clinkenbeard

value of tasks that may not seem intrinsically interesting to them, and allow enough choice so that

students can select tasks of interest and value to them.

2008). People who are highly intrinsically motivated to learn are interested, curious, and usually

focused on the task. People who are extrinsically motivated are interested in the outcomes of

studies showing that gifted students score higher on measures of motivation that reflect intrinsic

reasons for learning, including internal locus of control and measures of intrinsic motivation and

autonomy. Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen (1993) conducted a longitudinal study of in-

tellectually talented adolescents and found that compared with average students, they showed more

intrinsic motivation for reading, thinking, and solitude. Gottfried and Gottfried (1996) found that

gifted students (as defined by IQ above 130) scored significantly higher on a measure of academic

intrinsic motivation than a comparison group.

tion. Flow is defined as a state of deep involvement associated with intrinsic motivation, which occurs

when an individual’s capability matches the challenge level of the task. A task that is too difficult

determination theory. A sense of autonomy is central to this theory, that is, that humans need to feel

in control of their own lives. Other important factors in this theory are the need to feel competent and

the need to feel related to others. Implications for gifted education include the consideration of how

parents and educators provide evaluative feedback to gifted students. Feedback that praises students

for independence and for successful results based on their own effort is more likely to preserve

and develop self-determination than feedback that focuses primarily on students’ abilities. Feedback

that provides information (“Here’s how this section could be improved”) is more motivating than

feedback that can seem controlling (“I’m disappointed in you”). Relatedness is also a particular issue

for gifted students. Working with teachers who genuinely like and appreciate gifted students, as well

independent study, and an ability to relate school success to personal goals. Although parents and

teachers may tend to employ extrinsic measures to try to get gifted underachievers to improve their

performance, it appears that appealing to their intrinsic interests may be more effective in the long

term.

There are a number of theories that address the specific goals that people might select across a

variety of life areas. Goal orientation theories are strongly related to achievement and school settings

(Schunk et al., 2008). The main two orientations in these theories are mastery (or learning) goals

and performance goals. The terminology may vary across theories, but in general, a learning goal

is a focus on wanting to learn more about a subject. The emphasis is on mastery of a task, learning

new material, and developing understanding. A performance goal (in the intellectual domain) is a

focus on wanting to appear smart compared with others. It is more ego-oriented and concerned with

626 Clinkenbeard

gifted and talented students. Following is a brief overview of the recommendations for each of the

six classroom practices, along with an analysis of their appropriateness for the motivation of gifted

praise the performance of gifted students, but the TARGET model would imply that the recognition

should be for improvement, learning, and mastery of new material, not for performing the best on

work that is too easy for them.

The TARGET model recommends that students work together in heterogeneous groups, and

that groupings of students be flexible. In addition to small groups, it supports developing the whole

classroom into a community of learning. This TARGET variable probably poses the most problems

for gifted students. Although small groups have been demonstrated to be useful for a variety of

learning outcomes, when grouping is heterogeneous, the danger is that the highest achievers in the

groups will do most of the work (either because of their own desire to get an “A” or because the

628 Clinkenbeard

the high-achieving student enjoys tutoring, it is not a solution to giving both students an appropriate

challenge. Gifted students should sometimes be given the opportunity to work in small groups with

and private rather than public. Social comparison and public grading can lower the self-efficacy

of struggling students and can embarrass students who frequently perform the best and may make

them targets for hostility from other students. Grading and evaluation, as noted earlier, should

be based at least partly on effort and improvement if the goal is to increase mastery motivation.

Struggling students can be graded partly for improving their skills, and high-achieving students can

be challenged to improve and master new material as well.

including pacing and workload. The model recommends adjusting time and workload so that students

or small group research projects, and even simply independent reading time.

(Ames, 1992); these classroom structures are interdependent, and the effects of using mastery-

oriented strategies in one area could be offset by the use of performance-oriented strategies in

another. Is the TARGET model good for the motivation of gifted and talented students? Most of

its objectives and recommended practices are good for the motivation, especially the intrinsic or

task-oriented motivation, of all students. A classroom that is structured for the mastery motivation

of both struggling and at-grade-level students does not have to be one that sacrifices motivation and

appropriate challenge for gifted students.

C

core definition of giftedness and its relationship to underachievement (Robinson & Clinkenbeard,

1998, 2008). For instance, researchers who look at cognitive and metacognitive characteristics of

the gifted usually use a traditional high IQ definition, probably as a way of holding constant at least

some intellective aspects of their samples. Researchers in nonintellective areas such as motivation

are more likely to use whatever practical definition of giftedness has been employed by participating

school districts. There is some validity to this approach for the study of motivation because it tends

to result in a more diverse sample and because the experience of being labeled “gifted” (however

that is defined) may be critical to the motivational patterns of gifted and talented students, for better

or for worse.

underachieving gifted students are included in a sample or not. Also, some underachievement in the

gifted may be due to learning disabilities or other exceptionalities, which can mask the giftedness

and result in the student being overlooked (Davis, Rimm, and Siegle, 2011).

stable characteristic). The nonresearch articles, aimed more at parents and practitioners, have tended

to focus on strategies for improving the motivation of gifted students (motivation as an educational

outcome, something that fluctuates according to the situation). This “mismatch” has been partially

remedied in more recent research in which scholars have devoted more attention to examining gifted

students’ motivation as an outcome of educational practices and as a mediating variable in predicting

achievement. The emphases on motivation as a trait and motivation as a state are both important,

and a complete understanding would involve the interaction of the two.

Where might research on motivation and the gifted head in the future? In addition to looking

at motivation as an outcome of programming, current research is attempting to link motivation with

various cognitive variables in a rich, complex interaction that has promise for better understanding

Alexander, J. M., & Schnick, A. K. (2008). Motivation. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261 – 271.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122 –147.

Chan, L. K. S. (1996). Motivational orientations and metacognitive abilities of intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child

Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2006, May). Motivation and the gifted: Research versus practice. Paper presented at the biennial Wallace

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge,

Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 140 – 148.

630 Clinkenbeard

Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and malleable minds: Implications for giftedness and talent. In R. Subotnik, A. Robinson,

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner & N. Eisenberg (Eds.),

Epstein, J. L. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.),

Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted

McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. New York: The Free Press.

McClelland, D. C., Baldwin, A. L., Bronfenbrenner, U., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1958). Talent and society. Princeton, NJ:

McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted

Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S., M. (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children:

Robinson, A. & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examined. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,

Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2008). History of giftedness: Perspectives from the past presage modern scholarship.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, M. L. (2008) Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.).

Shore, B. M., & Irving, J. A. (2005). Inquiry as a pedagogical link between expertise and giftedness: The high ability and