Mind, Brain, and the Education of Gifted Children:Take-aways for Parents and Teachers

This is the first in a series of occasional columns related to neuroscience and gifted children (series title still TBA). Erin Miller and I wrote the book chapter* on which this column is based first because we are fascinated by the topic, and second because we wanted to dispel some "neuromyths" that are popular in education in general and in gifted education in particular. Here are a few take-aways from our work.

• Educational neuroscience (AKA "mind, brain, and education") research is burgeoning but the field is still very young, so strong conclusions about practice are as yet fairly rare. One major conclusion, however, has to do with "neuroplasticity:" the brain physically changes over time as a result of the environment and experience. This argues for "talent development" approaches to gifted education.
• There are interesting individual studies that include gifted students, but actual brain imaging (e.g. fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging) is very expensive, so study sample sizes tend to be small and replication studies are infrequent.
• The brains of gifted and/or creative individuals are more similar to those of others than different, but there are some interesting differences in efficiency of information processing with different kinds of problem-solving. So far, neuroscience research tends to corroborate much parent and teacher observation: for example, gifted students tend to work more quickly and have better memories than others.  
• There is a strong temptation to over-apply neuroscience research results to educational practice. Some of what is recommended as "brain-based" practice has an actual neuroscience research foundation, but much is speculative (though often perfectly reasonable) advice about teaching or parenting. 
• One neuromyth that is popular in gifted education has to do with right-brain vs. left-brain and learning styles. While these are useful metaphors to describe learning preferences, there is no underlying neuroscience research to support that children should be taught in any particular way due to these preferences. All children can benefit from being taught in a variety of modalities.
• One neuroscience research result that seems quite robust is the value of aerobic activity for brain function. It almost sounds too simple, but numerous studies have found that getting oxygen to the brain really does result in better mental performance.

Future columns will probably summarize individual neuroscience research studies (or small groups of studies) and highlight their relevance for gifted students and talent development. Topics will include social-emotional issues ("affective neuroscience"), creativity (the "default network"), and the importance of appropriate challenges for optimal brain development. Suggestions and questions welcome! Just email pclinkenbeard@watg.org.

"Take-aways" from *Miller, E. M. & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2020). Mind brain, and the education of gifted children.  In J.A. Plucker and C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: A survey of current research on giftedness and talent development (3rd ed.). Washington: National Association for Gifted Children and Waco, TX: Prufrock Academic Press. 

Pamela R. Clinkenbeard, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, UW-Whitewater, and WATG board member and past president