RW.PhD.Precursor indicator mirage.Final

Precursor, indicator or mirage: What relationship exists between
spirituality and type of giftedness?
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
from
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
by
Russell Walton, B.Ed. (Hons)
School of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences
March, 2015

iii
Table of contents
Thesis certification....................................................................................................... ii

Table of contents......................................................................................................... iii

List of tables ............................................................................................................ v

List of figures.......................................................................................................... vi

Abstract...................................................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Framing the research.......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Framing the researcher....................................................................................... 3

1.3 Positioning a synthesis of research and researcher............................................ 5

Chapter 2: Literature review........................................................................................ 7

2.1 Framework......................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Intelligence......................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Sternberg’s triarchic theory ........................................................................ 9

2.2.2 Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory .......................................... 11

2.2.3 Spiritual intelligence................................................................................. 17

2.3 Giftedness ........................................................................................................ 19

2.3.1 Definitions of giftedness and talent .......................................................... 19

2.3.2 Gagné’s DMGT ........................................................................................ 22

2.4 MI/DMGT crossover ....................................................................................... 25

2.4.1 Linking spiritual intelligence to giftedness............................................... 29

2.5 A place for the spiritual ................................................................................... 30

2.5.1 Spirituality as intelligence ........................................................................ 31

2.5.2 Spirituality as existence ............................................................................ 36

2.6 The influence of contemporary spiritual models on the current research........ 43

2.7 Giftedness and spirituality ............................................................................... 49

2.7.1 Relating education and intelligence to religion and spirituality ............... 52

2.8 The current study ............................................................................................. 54

Chapter 3: Excising religion ...................................................................................... 56

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 56

3.2 Examining bias ................................................................................................ 57

3.2.1 Example 1: Bellous and Csinos (2009) .................................................... 58

3.2.2 Example 2: Hyde (2008b)......................................................................... 59

3.2.3 Example 3: Radford (2004) ...................................................................... 60

3.2.4 Exemplars summary ................................................................................. 62

3.3 Separate paths? ................................................................................................ 63

3.3.1 Religion..................................................................................................... 63

3.3.2 Spirituality ................................................................................................ 65

3.4 Meeting of the ways......................................................................................... 66

3.5 A causal relationship for confusion ................................................................. 68

Chapter 4: Method ..................................................................................................... 71

4.1 Research aim.................................................................................................... 71

4.2 Design.............................................................................................................. 72

iv
4.3 Site ................................................................................................................... 73

4.4 Participants ...................................................................................................... 75

4.5 Instrument........................................................................................................ 75

4.6 Procedure ......................................................................................................... 78

4.7 Data analysis.................................................................................................... 79

4.8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 79

Chapter 5: Results...................................................................................................... 80

5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 80

5.2 Analyses........................................................................................................... 80

5.3 Overall spirituality scores................................................................................ 81

5.4 Interaction between Group and Sex in spirituality scores ............................... 82

5.5 Spirituality domain and sub-scale scores by group ......................................... 83

5.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 89

Chapter 6: Discussion................................................................................................ 91

6.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 91

6.2 Giftedness group effects .................................................................................. 91

6.3 Sex effects........................................................................................................ 93

6.4 Domain effects................................................................................................. 99

6.5 Confounding factors ...................................................................................... 101

6.6 Theoretical considerations............................................................................. 105

6.6.1 MI factors................................................................................................ 105

6.6.2 DMGT factors......................................................................................... 110

6.6.3 DMMI factors ......................................................................................... 113

6.6.4 MSI factors ............................................................................................. 114

6.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 116

References................................................................................................................ 122

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 161

Appendix 1........................................................................................................... 162

Appendix 2........................................................................................................... 165

Appendix 3........................................................................................................... 168

v
List of tables
Table 2.1: Gardner’s 8.5 MI, with indicators and end-states..................................... 13

Table 2.2: Categories of spiritual sensitivity ............................................................. 44

Table 2.3: Relational consciousness dimensions and elements................................. 46

Table 4.1: ISIS domains and sub-scales .................................................................... 77

Table 5.1: Descriptive statistics for Consciousness domain...................................... 84

Table 5.2: Descriptive statistics for Grace domain.................................................... 85

Table 5.3: Descriptive statistics for Meaning domain............................................... 85

Table 5.4: Descriptive statistics for Transcendence domain ..................................... 86

Table 5.5: Descriptive statistics for Truth domain .................................................... 87

vi
List of figures
Figure 2.1: The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT 2.0; Gagné,
2008).................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 2.2: Modified DMGT (Gagné, 2008), with MI adjustment (DMMI) ............ 26

Figure 2.3: Walton’s (2010) Model of Spiritual Intelligence (MSI) ......................... 37

Figure 2.4: Walton’s (2010) Model of Spiritual Identity (MSI) – modified ............. 38

Figure 5.1: Overall spirituality means for Group ...................................................... 81

Figure 5.2: Overall spirituality means for Sex and Group......................................... 83

Figure 5.3: Group spirituality means by domain....................................................... 89

vii
Abstract
Gifted students are often credited with higher levels of spirituality than non-gifted
students, whether that be overall spirituality or aspects of spirituality. What has not
previously been explored, however, is whether this aspect can be distinguished by
type of giftedness. The current study aimed to contribute to filling that gap. The
process utilised a theoretical framework that combined Howard Gardner’s Multiple
Intelligences theory with Françoys Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and
Talent. The resulting model, the Differentiated Model of Multiple Intelligence
(DMMI; Walton, 2014), grounds spirituality in conceptions of both intelligence and
giftedness.
The research sought to answer two research questions: 1) Do students’
spirituality levels vary as a function of sex and type of giftedness?; and 2) Do
students’ spirituality levels also vary as a function of spiritual domain? A causal-
comparative design was adopted, utilising an adapted version of the Integrated
Spiritual Intelligence Scale (ISIS; Amram & Dryer, 2008). The participants were
drawn from three high schools with different gifted specialisations: academic,
creative and sport.
As there was no statistically significant difference between the sporting gifted
and control scores, these two groups were combined into an extended Control for
subsequent analyses. Results indicated that none of the gifted male groups differed
significantly from each other in spirituality scores. Scores for the female groups,
however, were all significantly different to each other. Academic female scores were
similar to all male groups, Creative females scored significantly higher than all other

viii
groups (regardless of sex), while the score for Control females was significantly
lower than all other groups (regardless of sex).
Overall, Creative appears to be higher in spirituality than either Academic or
Sport, but whether this is due a higher innate spirituality or differences in thought
processes is less clear. What is more apparent is that the different expressions of MI
which are associated with the giftedness types can influence the level/domain of
spirituality. Experiences that broaden aspects of MI should thus also broaden and
deepen spirituality.

ix
Acknowledgements
To my principal supervisor, Professor Wilma Vialle, I owe more thanks than she
would ever accept. Her consistent faith in my abilities, over an extended period, and
support where needed are the stuff of legend. Then there is Doctor Steven Howard
(aka ‘Stats Man’), without whose sage advice, when statistics were destroying the
boundaries of my sanity, this thesis would never have been completed. I stand in awe
of both, in their own ways, and offer each a hearty bow to true friends.
For my wife, Hayley, there are no words to adequately express my
appreciation for her unstinting and unqualified support. How she puts up with me I
will never know, but I love her for it. Our children have grown up over the course of
my studies, becoming the people they choose to be. From eldest to youngest: Ciarán,
tech whiz/librarian; Goibniu, death metal drummer; Brighid, artist; Angus, martial
arts. They are all fine people, yet the time that this thesis has taken has been time that
could have been with them. For this I offer my apologies, not least because they have
never begrudged me the time to complete it.
My colleagues, especially all of the casual tutors (many of whom are also
completing their Ph.D.), have been a constant source of inspiration and support. Of
these, Conor West, Amanda-Rita Gigliotti and Kylie Fraser-Seeto deserve special
mention. As undergraduates they were all my students, as colleagues they have been
a constant source of advice, encouragement and good cheer. I tip my hat to you,
ladies ☺
The many hundreds of undergraduates who have been in my lectures and
tutorials have been awesome – thank you all for believing. As a final word, I would
like to offer special thanks to Pomme Clayton, who taught me to be a storyteller.

RW.PhD.Precursor indicator mirage.Final

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
And yet, as angels in some brighter dreams
Call to the soul when man doth sleep,
So some strange thoughts transcend our wonted themes,
And into glory peep. (Henry Vaughan, 1622–1695)
Spirituality may be considered as an internalisation of ‘who you are’ (Walton, 2010), an
extension of “the eternal human yearning to be connected with something larger than
our own egos” (Palmer, 2003, p. 377). This is expressed through your interactions with
the world around you, in all its forms. Those interactions are grounded in context, past
and present, and personal experience. This simple premise belies the complexity and
intricacies of what is perceived as ‘spiritual’, but will be clarified throughout this thesis.
1.1 Framing the research
The central topic of this thesis, ‘Precursor, indicator or mirage: What relationship exists
between spirituality and type of giftedness?’, is the oft-conflated relationship between
aspects of spirituality and giftedness. This is addressed through two research questions:
1. Do students’ spirituality levels vary as a function of sex and type of giftedness?
2. Do students’ spirituality levels also vary as a function of spiritual domain?
This research is significant, as extant research into the spirituality of gifted
children does not distinguish according to giftedness type but, rather, implies that all
forms of giftedness may be characterised by a greater degree of spirituality. This
includes where a particular spiritual aspect, such as forgiveness or ethical behaviour, is
emphasised in gifted children. At times, such aspects are attributed to the individual’s

2
religion rather than their spirituality. The automatic assumption of a correlation, or
interchangeability, between spirituality and religion is discussed elsewhere (see Ch. 3).
However, the distinction also impacts upon both the practice of, and attitudes toward,
any research in the field of spirituality. For gifted individuals – and giftedness is not
dependent upon religiosity – spirituality is an important part of their giftedness.
Conceptions of giftedness, regardless of type or culture, routinely include aspects that
can be attributed to spirituality. For some gifted individuals it is spirituality itself that is
their field of giftedness (e.g., Gatto-Walden, 2009).
For a variety of reasons, under-identification of gifted students is a significant
issue, not the least of which is the failure of current forms of identification to cater for
students who do not fit within imposed conceptions. This is compounded by a tendency
for gifted students to ‘hide’ their capacities in order to ‘fit in’ with their peers, resulting
in unfulfilled potential and a concomitant loss to society (Davis, Rimm & Siegle, 2011).
The most common forms of testing for giftedness are rooted within what would be
considered ‘traditional’, academic-type forms of intelligence, as exemplified by the tests
for entry into NSW selective high schools1
. Yet giftedness extends beyond this artificial
boundary, beyond the threshold of formal expectation.
The primary aim of this research is to establish a baseline for future research
into the spirituality of diverse gifted populations, by investigating the spirituality of
cohorts that represent different types of giftedness. This will be done by comparison of
adolescent groups who can be identified as representative of different intelligences,
within the framework of Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory2
combined
1
NSW high schools catering solely for students with “superior academic ability” and
“exceptionally high classroom performance” (Department of Education and Communities,
NSW, 2014b).
2
Notwithstanding criticism of Gardner’s terminology, for the purposes of this thesis,
‘intelligence’ is the preferred term, rather than, for example, ‘traits’ or ‘abilities’.

3
with Françoys Gagné’s Developmental Model of Giftedness and Talent. There is also
the subsidiary purpose of establishing which groups can benefit most from spiritually
oriented learning.
1.2 Framing the researcher
Humans are storytelling organisms who, individually and socially, lead storied
lives. (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 2)
The quote above is in the context of the participants in narrative inquiry but is,
nonetheless, a truism that is applicable to all humanity, including researchers of all ilks,
whether qualitative or quantitative. This thesis, as does all research, tells a story; one
that is inextricably linked to the researcher’s schemata – a constructivist process,
whereby the individual’s combined experiences in, and understandings of, the world are
formed through a process of active construction of knowledge (Piaget, 1926, 1960,
1971, 1985). In my case, this includes training as a storyteller at the City Literary
Institute in London. What is spiritual is also uniquely personal and, in order to
understand my approach, some contextual background is provided.
I was born and grew up in a small town on the south coast of New South Wales.
Our house was on a hillside that overlooked the sea. The last thing in my ears at night
and the first in the morning was the whoosh and rush of the sea on the shore. It was both
inescapable and essential; when we visited relatives away from the coast I could not
sleep properly without that soothing soughing. Even now, decades later, I still feel the
rhythm implanted on my soul.
When I was a young boy I saw ghosts all the time. Being young, of course, I
thought of them as ghosts only because that was the nearest association I could make
from my limited experience at the time. Later on, I came to think of them as angels,

4
even though they did not have wings, because my understanding had come to be framed
by a Christian concept. My family was not especially religious, but for some reason it
was deemed that we children should go to Sunday School, so we dutifully did. My
parents did not really think that one through, though. The church grounds were next to
the town’s main beach and thus within sight and sound of the sea. At every opportunity
my brother and I would heed the sea’s siren song and sneak away to the beach. There
was an intense sense of connectedness to be felt by the shore that made the Sunday
School sermons pale into insignificance and irrelevance. There was nothing spiritual to
be found in that place, just the imprint of someone else’s concepts, certainly no freedom
of thought. Even at that young age I sensed a disquiet at using the term ‘angels’,
because of those imposed concepts, eventually coming to use the more-neutral
‘guardians’. What was their purpose? I have no idea, and they did not seem interested in
us. I told someone about the guardians once and received such scorn in return that I did
not mention them to anyone again, until now.
When I was around six years old, I had a near-death experience. Our family had
gone to visit some friends and I went to play on the swing set out the back. This was in
the 1960s, so it was one of the really solid ones, with a chunky metal frame and solid
steel seats that hung on chains that looked like they could hold a frigate at anchor. I was
told later that one of the daughters was particularly attached to the swing set, in a
figurative sense. It seems that while I was swinging away she had climbed onto the top
of the swing set, pulled up one of the swings and decided that the best way to get me off
was to drop the swing seat onto my head. Which she did. I remember falling off and
looking up to see my mother at the back door, before a curtain of blood descended and I
passed out. The next memory is different because ‘I’ was not ‘me’. What ‘I’ knew as
‘me’ was unconscious and had his head held over a basin trying to wash blood off,

5
whereas ‘I’ was somewhere above looking down at ‘me’ and aware of the turmoil in the
adults below. Someone else was with ‘I’ and we had a conversation. It would be lovely
if I could recount exactly what was said but, in truth, I only have a vague recollection of
the details. At some point, though, I was given a choice – to go away or return.
Obviously, I chose to return, and was left with parting words that belong to ‘me’ and
‘I’, not ‘you’.
I have had other ‘life flashing before my eyes’ and revelatory moments since,
but these early experiences are what really formed my self, that laid the groundwork for
who I am now and the way I approach life. I know that spirituality exists independent of
religion because I have known spirituality all my life, whereas organised religion has
been merely a token player. At the same time, I consider myself to be very religious.
Those views are seemingly irreconcilable yet simultaneously exist, without dichotomy.
Presenting an understanding of that is partly the point of Chapter 3.
1.3 Positioning a synthesis of research and researcher
The following chapters will pursue the themes already noted. Chapter 2 sets out the
framework that the research is positioned within. This is done through an overview of
intelligence, with particular consideration given to Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
theory and its implications. A discussion of giftedness follows, which includes
Australian policy distinctions. Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent is
then discussed, as well as the merged Differentiated Model of Multiple Intelligences.
Views of spirituality as intelligence or existence are presented, before spirituality and
giftedness is discussed. The chapter closes with links between the themes and the
current research. Chapter 3 builds on observations made in the literature review, making
a case for spirituality and religion being treated as separate entities, without disparaging

6
either. This is followed by an argument that, while they are separate concepts, each can
inform the other.
The chapters directly concerned with the implementation and interpretation of
this research start with Chapter 4, which sets out the research method, including aspects
of the research design and participant details. Chapter 5 presents the results, organised
by hypotheses, with analyses for each. Chapter 6 interprets the results by examining,
respectively, giftedness group, sex and domain effects. Theoretical considerations, from
the research framework, are also considered, before some concluding observations are
presented.
Taken together, it is anticipated that the research will establish that spirituality
does vary among types of giftedness. This will contribute to theoretical discussions in
spirituality, giftedness and the interplay between them. Discussions of practice will
follow, with particular relevance to encouraging spiritually oriented learning, in both
students and pre-service teachers.

7
Chapter 2: Literature review
If a few rare prodigious children have spiritual capacities or experiences, then
this might imply significance along the lines of research on gifted education or
child prodigies. However, if a larger percentage of children have spiritual
experiences and capacities, a fundamental revision in how we view children
may be required. (Hart, 2006, p. 165)
2.1 Framework
The framework for this research is comprised of a composite of perspectives of
intelligence and giftedness. Literature that links spirituality and giftedness is heavily
weighted toward theory rather than research, while being devoid of a research base that
delineates spirituality by type of giftedness. It is thus necessary for this review to cover
intelligence, giftedness and spirituality, insofar as the literature can inform discussion of
the confluence of these three areas. Particular attention will be paid to the envisaged
comingling of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory and Gagné’s Differentiated
Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), and how/why they are appropriate vehicles
for examining the spirituality of the gifted.
The terms ‘gifted’ and ‘talented’ are used in different contexts to indicate
individuals who are performing, or have the potential to perform, at a significantly
higher level than their peers in any specific field of human endeavour (Gagné, 2003,
2009). Rather than engaging in a semantic exercise to differentiate the two meanings,
which are not universally agreed upon, this thesis will adopt ‘gifted’ as a single
descriptor, except when discussing Gagné’s DMGT, which treats the two as separate.
From a historical perspective, giftedness has often been intimately tied to intelligence
through its capacity to demarcate higher-ability individuals from those of lower ability.

8
2.2 Intelligence
Conceptions of intelligence have undergone many changes in the history of humanity,
but perhaps none more so than during the twentieth century. For most of that century
the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) was a standard measure of intelligence, but was not
without its detractors (Bartholomew, 2004; Weiten, 2013). Much of this criticism
centred around the nature–nurture debate, with racial implications (e.g., Aby, 1990;
Herrnstein & Murray, 1996; Mensh & Mensh, 1991). If intelligence is a result of
genetics, and genetics underlies racial classifications, then it follows that the
underperformance of some races on IQ tests would indicate an intellectual inferiority in
those races, while affirming the superiority of the dominant culture, the creators of the
test (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009; Weiten, 2013). Note the differences in conditioned
terminology: the origin is a ‘culture’, even if that culture is dominated by a given race,
while the subjects are allocated ‘race’, unless they belong to the dominant culture,
which is itself an abstract concept. Concepts of intelligence thus became racially
divisive, even when there was a questionable basis (Beatty, 2013).
Adult IQ scores are good indicators of such factors as social and employment
status (Brant et al., 2013; Weiten, 2013), but whether an individual develops the
capacity to satisfactorily complete an IQ test appears to have its basis, to a large extent,
in environment and experiences (including those related to the genetic–environmental
correlation), through sensitive periods for cortical development (Brant et al., 2013).
Shavinina (1997) noted the importance of sensitive periods to the development of high-
level giftedness, referring to them as the “inner mechanism” (p. 250) driver of prodigy.
Even when the right genetic, environmental and socio-economic circumstances align, it
is questionable whether IQ testing is an accurate indicator of giftedness. Ziegler and
Ziegler (2009) suggest that tests of giftedness, specifically intellectual, as could be

9
applied to the academic domain, are flawed, in that the use of specific cut-off points
contributes to the paradoxical attenuation effect, whereby some individuals who are
identified as gifted are actually not while others who miss out are.
Dissatisfaction with IQ as a measure of an individual’s intelligence prompted
theorists to consider alternative models (for example, Guilford, 1967; Spearman, 1929;
Thurstone, 1938). These models had two central tenets: 1) that intelligence could not be
encapsulated by a single number; and 2) that the IQ tests only measured a narrow range
of intellectual capacities. In the latter decades of the twentieth century two theorists,
Robert Sternberg and Howard Gardner, fundamentally altered conceptions of
intelligence through a reassessment of what constitutes intelligence.
Notions of a multiplicity of intelligences – that intelligence should not be
narrowly defined – are egalitarian based. Each form of intelligence that is
acknowledged brings a previously excluded group of humanity into the recognition of
their peers. This forms a broader base of cultural value and, by extension, enhances
societal attitudes toward the manifestations of those intelligences. This is not to say that
people who displayed these ‘extra’ intelligences were not valued, rather that they were
not viewed as ‘intelligent’.
2.2.1 Sternberg’s triarchic theory
Robert Sternberg believed that the prevailing influence of IQ tests to measure
intelligence was detrimental because IQ tests only measure part of intelligence, that is,
those factors that are actually measurable. He positioned IQ, g and other standardised
indicators of intelligence as inadequate, if not misleading, for a holistic understanding
of intelligence (Sternberg, 1999b). In this context, his triarchic theory was proposed as a
framework for use with gifted children (Sternberg et al., 1996), as it would be better
able to identify those gifted students who did not fit the ‘standard’ profile.

10
Sternberg et al. (1981) identified the constructs of verbal, practical and social
intelligences, forming the basis of his triarchic theory of intelligence, which was
composed of componential (which is the closest correlate to g; Bartholomew, 2004),
experiential and contextual sub-theories. The sub-theories tied in to his definition of
human intelligence as a “mental activity directed toward purposive adaptation to,
selection and shaping of, real-world environments relevant to one’s life” (Sternberg,
1985, p. 45). Since proposing his triarchic theory, Sternberg (2003) has re-categorised
intelligence into three different types – analytical, creative and practical (which closely
parallel the Greek philosopher Aristotle’s theoretical, productive and practical
intellectual virtues; Tigner & Tigner, 2000) – all of which are dependent upon mental
abilities, with analytical broadly encompassing the same types of abilities that are
measured in IQ tests. This revisioning contributed to an updated definition of
intelligence as “your skill in achieving whatever it is you want to attain in your life
within your sociocultural context, by capitalizing on your strengths and compensating
for, or correcting, your weaknesses” (Sternberg, cited in Plucker, 2003).
As triarchic theory evolved, ‘intelligence’ was refined to “successful
intelligence” (Sternberg, 1999b, p. 292), which Sternberg defined as “the skills and
knowledge needed for success in life, according to one’s own definition of success,
within one’s sociocultural context” (Sternberg, 2004, p. 326). Intelligence is thus
positioned as subjective and predicated by the context of application. Rather than an IQ
test attempting to fit individuals into a one-size-fits-all standard – performance on
which is positioned as being more related to development of expertise (Sternberg,
1999a) than actual intelligence – Sternberg’s approach links the individual to a specific
sociocultural context within which success/intelligence is both judged and applied. In
support of Sternberg’s model of intelligence, Grigorenko, Jarvin and Sternberg (2002)

11
noted the potential for triarchic teaching to be more engaging and motivating than
‘regular’ instruction.
While both Sternberg’s triarchic theory and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
theory have altered the way we view intelligence, it is Gardner’s work that has had the
most impact on the educational environment by resonating with educators (Cuban,
2004), with consequent influence on teaching practice (Kornhaber, Fierros & Veenema,
2004). This is evident through such factors as MI-specific schools (e.g., Campbell &
Campbell, 1999), differentiation of teaching/assessment (e.g., Hickey, 2004; Hirsh,
2004; Ofrim-Stancuna, 2014; Shearer, 2004) and the stimulus for further research
beyond what could have been conceived with a single intelligence concept (Corno,
2004).
2.2.2 Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory
Howard Gardner’s MI theory has its grounding in the principle that each member of the
human race possesses a bundle of intelligences, not merely a single IQ-focused
intelligence, but that these intelligences are subject to a combination of nature and
nurture. A synthesis of such things as opportunity, societal values and talent influence
how, if or when these intelligences are manifested and to what extent. Gardner
originally identified intelligence as “the ability to solve problems, or to create products,
that are valued within one or more cultural settings” (Gardner, 1993, p. x), but this was
later refined to the “biopsychological potential to process information that can be
activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a
culture” (Gardner, 1999b, pp. 33–34). The theory of multiple intelligences originally
comprised seven intelligences – linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical,
bodily-kinæsthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal (Gardner, 1993; von Károlyi,

12
Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 2003) – all of which met the following set of criteria Gardner
devised to qualify as an intelligence:
1. Potential isolation by brain damage.
2. The existence of idiot savants, prodigies and other exceptional
individuals.
3. An identifiable core operation or set of operations.
4. A distinctive developmental history, along with a definable set of expert
‘end-state’ performances.
5. An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.
6. Support from experimental psychological tasks.
7. Support from psychometric findings.
8. Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system. (Gardner, 1993)
Two criteria were connected to each of four fields: biological sciences (1, 5),
logical analysis (3, 8), developmental psychology (2, 4) and traditional psychology (6,
7) (Gardner, 1999b). An extra one and a half intelligences were later added (Gardner,
1999b; von Károlyi, Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 2003) – naturalist and spiritual/existential
(see Table 2.1). Although meeting all of Gardner’s criteria, significant components of
naturalist (related to classification of species in the environment) parallel the
classification functions of logical-mathematical intelligence, rendering justification for
separation of the two as problematic. The position of spiritual/existential intelligence, as
the half intelligence, is discussed under sections 2.2.3 and 2.5.

13
Table 2.1: Gardner’s 8.5 MI, with indicators and end-states
Intelligence Core characteristics Child characteristics End-states
Linguistic Language sensitivity,
whether spoken, written or
symbolic (sign, body, etc.);
functional discernment
Lots of questions;
good vocabulary and
language skills;
word play
author
comedian
barrister
Logical-mathematical Recognition and exploration
of patterns and
relationships; utilising
logical procedures and/or
reasoning
Enjoy puzzles;
number play; ‘how
does it work?’;
classify and analyse
scientist
detective
accountant
Spatial Three-dimensional
visualisation of objects
and/or materials;
orientation, of self or
position
Eye for detail;
dismantle and build;
conceptual; doodles
surveyor
sculptor
photographer
Musical Musical capacity or
appreciation; discern sound
patterns
Attuned to patterns
of sound; movement
and discrimination
composer
musician
critic
Bodily-kinæsthetic Control of fine and/or gross
motor skills
Good hand–eye
coordination and
balance; gestures;
interprets body
language
athlete
dancer
calligrapher
Intrapersonal Understanding of self;
strengths/weaknesses,
desires, capacities, etc.;
guides behaviour
Self-awareness; self-
confidence; definite
opinions; self-
reflective
philosopher
artist
poet
Interpersonal Sensitivity to the contexts,
emotions, motivations, etc.
of others; appropriate
response
Empathy; relates
well to others;
mediator
counsellor
teacher
politician
Naturalist Recognition of features in
the natural world, both
sentient and non-sentient;
distinctions and
categorisation
Interest in natural
things; empathy
beyond humanity;
classifies
botanist
farmer
veterinarian
Spiritual/existential Ability to see and respond
to deeper relationships
Daydreamer; deep
questions;
contemplative
philosopher
humanitarian
altruist
(adapted from Gardner & Hatch, 1989; Vialle & Perry, 2002)
Gardner’s intelligence categories have been extended, with varying degrees of
credibility. Goleman’s (2005) addition of emotional intelligence (EQ) is widely
accepted, but others appear to have a tendency toward speculative invention. For
example, Wigglesworth (2013) promotes a ‘physical intelligence’ (PQ) that, on the

14
surface, would appear to be a parallel term for bodily-kinæsthetic intelligence.
Wigglesworth’s description of PQ as “stamina and good health” (p. 442), however, is
clearly more related to physical characteristics than physical application, with no
relation to an actual intelligence.
Each individual, regardless of context and/or culture, possesses all of the
intelligences to varying degrees (Gardner, 1993, 1999b), although societal input to
spirituality is acknowledged (Gardner, 1999b; Tirri, Nokelainen & Ubani, 2006, 2007).
As a result, the profiles of intelligence will vary from person to person. A dancer, for
example, would be stronger in bodily-kinæsthetic intelligence than a surveyor, whose
strength would be in spatial intelligence. Gardner’s end-states are essentially indicative
of which intelligence an individual is strongest in, but all can be developed and
improved.
From a Gardnerian standpoint, given ideal conditions, any individual can develop
higher, although not necessarily exceptional, levels of performance in all of the
intelligences. Moran and Gardner (2006) identified the interaction of interference,
compensation and catalysis as providing contributory factors to intelligence
development. Nonetheless, how, and if, particular intelligences develop is influenced by
four key factors:
1. Pluralisation – Intelligence is plural, such that there are societal, context-
dependent valued capacities that go beyond what is measured in an IQ test.
Which intelligence is ‘valued’, and thus likely to be expressed, will vary
both between and within societies and cultures. The intelligences proposed
by Gardner were not meant to be definitive, in the sense of being the only
possible intelligences. In particular, Gardner has also suggested the
possibility of pedagogical intelligence – “the ability to teach others”
(Gardner, 2011c, p. 8; see also Rubin, 1989).

15
2. Contextualisation – An individual’s intelligence is more evident when in a
familiar context, allowing expression of that intelligence through valuing
within the immediate setting. This also contributes to simultaneously
reducing cognitive demands (i.e., the load placed on the mind’s thought
processes; e.g., Pollock, Chandler & Sweller, 2002; Sweller, 1994; Sweller,
van Merriënboer & Paas, 1998) through the interaction of cognitive
functions (conscious and unconscious thought processes; e.g., Jacoby,
Yonelinas & Jennings, 1997; Krans, de Bree & Moulds, 2015; Lewicki,
Czyzewska & Hill, 1997) and context-specific memory: “an interaction
between, on the one hand, certain proclivities and potentials and, on the
other, the opportunities and constraints that characterize a particular cultural
setting” (Gardner, 1993, p. xiii; see also Johnson, 2002). How, and which,
intelligence is utilised is thus a contributor to the context rather than being
solely dependent upon it.
3. Distribution – Whereas the focus of contextualisation is the individual, the
focus here is on relationships to entities in the environment. Distribution
goes beyond the wider cultural context and its associated values, structures
and conformities to enhanced performance through the use of preferred
tools, whether concrete (e.g., pen, computer), assistive (e.g., files,
notebooks) or human (e.g., collegial networks, ego-centric networks;
Palchykov, Kaski & Kertész, 2014).
4. Learning environment – An educational environment, both concrete and
cognitive, recognises and caters for the varied skill sets of the students,
through provision, practice and assessment (Gardner, 2006). The learning
environment, however, extends beyond the direct education context. It also
takes into account wider governmental structures and support, particularly in
relation to investment, as well as the role of family in both preparing
children for school and the support needed to get the most out of the
children’s education.
While there have been criticisms of Gardner’s concept of MI, criticism of the eight
criteria has been minimal. Most criticisms of MI theory are essentially semantic,

16
relating to consideration that Gardner’s ‘intelligences’ are instead traits, cognitive
styles, skills, abilities (Armstrong, 2009; Morgan, 1996) or sensitivities (Tirri,
Nokelainen & Komulainen, 2013). Gardner’s definition of intelligence as
“biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural
setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture” (Gardner,
1999b, pp. 33–34) can be misread by critics, who overlook the key component of
‘value’. By positioning intelligence as something of value within a social/cultural
context, the emphasis is moved from a testable, psychometric-controlled scale to a
more-subjective measure.
Perks (2004) addresses Gardner’s MI theory using the analogy of a shattered
mirror, as an indicator of the fragmentation of intelligence concepts – in the process of
delivering a largely political critique for a UK context. His argument is based in
‘traditional’ intelligence principles, as both a defence and a refutation. This contributes
to the structure of his argument being based on a problematic analogy. Perks views the
MI concept as representing delineated intelligences, which all need to be approached
separately, thus compartmentalising the intelligences through fragmentation, rather than
acknowledging their unified nature. While acknowledging that there are no extant
standardised tests for each MI, Perks calls for the retention/reinstatement of
standardised norms of intelligence, based in traditional, IQ-type values. However,
testing, per se, is differentiated on many levels and is by no means exclusive, to either
MI or IQ.
Gifted students are accepted as being of higher potential and/or ability in their
fields than the norm (e.g., Davis, Rimm & Siegle, 2011), with each type of giftedness
requiring compliance with criteria for identification that is subjectively and practically
different to other types. At the same time, there remains a standardised minimum

17
component of educational ability that must be attained, and have been attained,
regardless of the level of ability in a specialised field. Rather than a fragmentation, this
indicates a solid underlying commonality that specialised components can build on, in
much the same way that Noam Chomsky’s universal grammar underlies all language,
regardless of culture (Chomsky, 2006, 2011; Pinker, 2007). Instead of Perks’ shattered
mirror, a more-appropriate analogy for this interrelationship would be a crystal, where
different perspectives are utilised to build a coherent picture of the whole subject,
whether that be of intelligence theory or of individual ability.
2.2.3 Spiritual intelligence
The concept of a spiritual intelligence is commonly attributed to Howard Gardner (e.g.,
Emmons, 2000a, 2000b; Meehan, 2010; Sisk & Torrance, 2001; Zohar & Marshall,
2000), which is at odds with Gardner’s own position of scepticism toward the actual
existence of the 0.5 intelligence of his MI theory (Gardner, 1999a, 2000). He goes so far
as to enter into a personal semantic debate as to whether ‘spiritual’ or ‘existential’ is a
more-appropriate term for this, by his own reasoning, questionable construct (Gardner,
2000). (For a review of the extent to which spirituality meets the criteria of an
intelligence, see Emmons, 2000a, 2000b.)
Despite Gardner’s reservations, the idea that certain people are gifted in the
spiritual field can be considered to be as old as humanity’s awareness (e.g., Frazer,
1919). What Gardner’s work did was present the concept of a ‘spiritual intelligence’ as
part of a wider redefinition of what constitutes intelligence, which is an ongoing
process. The term itself was quickly adopted by sectors of both academia and laity,
often as an intuitive response. As Gardner remains sceptical about spirituality qualifying
as an intelligence, it raises questions about why it was ever discussed in conjunction
with the other intelligences, a move which has been viewed as validation by association.

18
Vialle (2013, personal communication) suggested that Gardner’s inclusion of
spirituality as part of the MI discussions was a response to the incessant queries of
others, while also linking to his own interest in the area. This yearning for validation of
spiritual sensitivities by outside sources has led, indirectly, to ‘spiritual intelligence’
being inextricably associated with Gardner, despite his protestations of ineligibility. It is
notable that Gardner’s more-recent work has focused on ethical behaviour and life
choices, two areas that fall firmly into the field of spirituality (Gardner, 2011a, 2011b;
Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi & Damon, 2001; Harvard Project Zero, 2012).
2.2.3.1 Spiritual or existential?
Broadly speaking, existential relates to existence or, more specifically, human
existence, which Principe (1983, 2012) referred to as ‘real’ and a person’s “lived
quality” (2012, p. 5). In practice, this translates as experiences and contexts influencing
viewpoints and actions. In this light, a relationship between existential, as intelligence,
and existentialism becomes apparent, if unintended. According to the French
philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, “a good part of our life is passed in plugging up holes, in
filling empty places, in realizing and symbolically establishing a plenitude” (1957, p.
85). Existentialism is inherently individual, but this must be placed within a social
context, for it is only through observation and comparison that humanity acquires the
benchmarks necessary to be aware of what a ‘plenitude’ actually is in any given context.
Similarly, Sartre’s observation that “man is nothing else but what he makes of himself”
(p. 15) is also set in a wider context, for without a social context there is no position for
‘man’ to define himself in relation to. Individual subjectivity is the origin, but
existentialism “defines man in terms of action” (p. 35), where “action is the only thing
that enables a man to live” (p. 36). That individuality, however, cannot exist in isolation
or there is no relevance and/or purpose. This is in line with Heidegger’s (1961, 1996)

19
view of the individual’s relation to being ‘in-the-world’ and the inherent subjectivity
that entails (Webster, 2004).
Existentialism, as a theory, remains subject to the same scientific and moral
thought as all human existence, but it is not limited by them. Rather, it “may be defined
as the philosophical theory which holds that a further set of categories, governed by the
norm of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human existence” (Crowell, 2010; original
emphasis). That ‘authenticity’, lies in the realm of individual spiritual identity, which
can provide the overarching conceptual context for the collective human condition. Yet,
Gardner notwithstanding, despite the apparent relation of existential to existentialism,
along with the clearly spiritual connections within existentialism, there does not appear
to be any other reputable author who has actively adopted existential intelligence as
their favoured terminology. The hard fact is that ‘spiritual’ resonates with people in a
way that ‘existential’ does not – ‘humanity is spiritual not existential’, could be the
catchcry.
2.3 Giftedness
Whether referred to as spiritual or existential, if spirituality is accepted as an expression
of intelligence then there must be individuals who have a higher capacity than other
individuals, just as there must be those with a lower capacity. The identification of that
capacity, however, should still be considered within the framework of gifted models. As
a precursor to that discussion, attention should be given to how to define giftedness
and/or talent.
2.3.1 Definitions of giftedness and talent
Beyond the term ‘giftedness’ as a common starting point for gifted education, there is
little international agreement on the application of the terms ‘giftedness’ and ‘talent’,

20
making a universally accepted definition problematic, at best (Carman, 2013). The only
real commonality is that there is an acknowledgement that certain individuals have a
higher ability, or capacity, to perform at a significantly higher level than others.
Whether gifted and/or talented, such individuals have differing needs from the
mainstream at all levels (Fraser-Seeto, Howard & Woodcock, 2013; Shaywitz et al.,
2001; Tomlinson, 2005) and can be characterised by affective and cognitive capacities
that are beyond that of their same-aged peers (Fraser-Seeto, Howard & Woodcock,
2013; Glass, 2005; Maker & Schiever, 2010; Plunkett & Kronborg, 2011; Shaywitz et
al., 2001; Shore, 2000; Tomlinson, 2005). Dabrowski’s overexcitability theory accounts
for gifted individuals’ approach to life, which “is experienced in a manner that is
deeper, more vivid, and more acutely sensed” (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009, p. 9),
through five forms: psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational and emotional.
Three of these forms broadly parallel the domains of giftedness that feature in this
research – psychomotor (sport), intellectual (academic) and imaginational (creative) –
although, in practice, the overexcitabilities would not normally be restricted to a single
domain. For example, the imaginational/creative fusion would also draw upon the
sensual and emotional overexcitabilities, as displayed by Dabrowski himself (Amend,
2008).
Writing in the closing years of the twentieth century, Baldwin and Vialle (1999a,
1999b) noted that “we have moved to a position during the latter part of this century
when the construct of giftedness has been expanded to encompass fields of endeavor
beyond the scope of traditional views of intelligence” (1999b, p. xiv). An analysis of the
literature suggests that there are currently four main usages of the terms giftedness and
talent:
1. Synonymic – where ‘giftedness’ and ‘talent’ are interchangeable.

21
2. Compartmental – where ‘giftedness’ is applied to cognitive capacities and
‘talent’ to non-cognitive excellence, such as arts and sport (e.g., Winner &
Martino, 2003).
3. Gradated – where lower-level ‘talent’ is developed to reach the higher
excellence of ‘giftedness’, with gradations of each.
4. Differentiated – where ‘giftedness’ is potential for high achievement and
‘talent’ is the developed actuality – as in Françoys Gagné’s Differentiated
Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT; Gagné, 2003, 2008) (see Fig. 2.1).
In Australia, at both state and federal level, there is general acknowledgement (if little
funding or action) of the needs of gifted and talented students (Fraser-Seeto, Howard &
Woodcock, 2013). In application, how that is expressed through policy varies
considerably between states3
:
• Both Queensland (Education Queensland, 2008) and Tasmania (Department
of Education, TAS, 2000) follow synonymic usage. The Tasmanian
Department of Education (2011) submission to the 2012 Victorian inquiry
into gifted and talented education, while benefiting from being more recent
than Tasmanian policy, and acknowledging the influence of Gagné’s
DMGT, is nonetheless still phrased in synonymic fashion.
• South Australian (Department for Education and Child Development, SA,
2012) policy includes Gagné’s original DMGT in the appendices, but the
policy itself reads as synonymic.
• New South Wales (Department of Education and Training, NSW, 2004) and
Western Australia (Department of Education and Training, WA, 2011) both
follow the principles of Gagné’s DMGT, with explicit acknowledgement of
the DMGT’s importance.
3
Due to being a ‘territory’ rather than a ‘state’, with associated differences in governance, the
Northern Territory is not analysed here. The relevant ‘guidance’ document (Department of
Education and Children’s Services, NT, 2013), though, while referencing Gagné, is both
synonymic and differentiated at different points, suggesting an amalgam approach.

22
• Victoria does not have a gifted and talented policy, but the Southwick report
into gifted education (Parliament of Victoria, Education and Training
Committee, 2012) endorses Gagné’s DMGT as the preferred model. It
should be noted that there is no specific indication in the report of whether
the original or updated DMGT is being supported, however, the tenor of the
discussion suggests that this endorsement applies to the updated DMGT.
It should be apparent from this short summation that Gagné’s DMGT is influential
across much of Australia, with the consequent influence percolating into the other
states. There is a need, however, for informed updating of all policies. Two state
examples stand out: 1) New South Wales, as the most populous state, may be
considered to be the main proponent of the DMGT, yet its policy (Department of
Education and Training, NSW, 2004) is now a decade old and utilises the original,
underdeveloped, DMGT (Gagné, 2003); and 2) the South Australian policy
(Department for Education and Child Development, SA, 2012) is itself up to date, but
relies on the outdated DMGT, despite the updated version being available for five years
before the policy publication.
2.3.2 Gagné’s DMGT
The research discussed in this thesis utilises the updated DMGT4
(Gagné, 2008; see Fig.
2.1), through which Gagné considers giftedness to be comprised of significantly higher-
than-average natural aptitudes in at least one domain, sufficient for an individual to be
placed in the top 10% of their age peers in that domain. In contrast, talent applies to
significantly higher-than-average intentionally developed competencies in a field of
human activity, which would place the individual in the top 10% of their age peers in
that field. Gifts, in themselves, are not innate (Gagné, 2008), in the sense that they will
not automatically be apparent without suitable conditions. Talent, by contrast, is the
4
Subsequent reference to the DMGT should be taken to refer to this updated version, the
DMGT 2.0.

23
expression of giftedness that has been developed. Giftedness thus precedes talent, but
may not necessarily be developed into talent.
Figure 2.1: The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT 2.0; Gagné, 2008)
The DMGT is structured in five separate components, discussed below, all of
which are subject to the influence of ‘chance’. Chance (C) takes into account factors
that the individual is not in control of but which, nonetheless, influence how the DMGT
plays out through “accidents of birth and background” (Gagné, 2008, p. 5). This is
fundamentally based in the ‘nature or nurture’ argument, the actuality of which is
expressed through genes, environment (including experience) and the genetic–
environmental correlation. The five components have as their base, gifts (G), talents (T)
and developmental process (D) of talents, which are subject to the catalytic influences
of intrapersonal (I) and environmental (E). These components can be described as
follows:
1. Gifts (G) – Domains evident through observation of the learning process,
speed and ease of acquisition of task-based skills. Two clusters of sub-

24
components: mental – intellectual (GI), creative (GC), social (GS),
perceptual (GP); or physical – muscular (GM), motor control (GR).
2. Talents (T) – Fields of occupational applicability of developed gifts, evident
through generally accepted measures of performance in a wide range of
occupations: academic (TC), technical (TT), science and technology (TI),
arts (TA), social service (TP), administration/sales (TM), business operations
(TB), games (TG), sports and athletics (TS).
3. Developmental processes (D) – “the systematic pursuit by talentees, over a
significant period of time, of a structured program of activities leading to a
specific excellence goal” (Gagné, 2008, p. 2), which is an intentional, rather
than accidental or incidental, process. Three sub-components: activities
(DA), progress (DP), investment (DI).
4. Intrapersonal catalysts (I) – Two clusters: stable traits – physical (IF), mental
(IP); and goal-management processes – awareness (IW), motivation (IM),
volition (IV). There is a significant metacognitive factor inherent in (I),
through examination and re-examination of values, needs and progress.
5. Environmental catalysts (E) – Three sub-components: milieu (EM),
individuals (EI), provisions (EP). Filtered through (I) and thus dependent
upon which stimuli are chosen for expression through (I).
All aspects of the developmental process (D) and catalysts (I and E) have an influence
on the development of gifts into talent. Although Gagné acknowledges a likely,
descending, order of influence – G, I, D, E – he also notes that “talent emergence results
from a complex choreography between the four causal components, a choreography that
is unique to each individual” (Gagné, 2008, p. 6).
2.3.2.1 Into the basement
Natural abilities are not innate (Gagné, 2009, 2013), rather, they are a result of
progressive development, with a biological influence. The biological bases (anatomical,

25
physiological, genotypic) of Gagné’s Developmental Model for Natural Abilities
(DMNA) act as ‘basements’ to the DMGT – the biological counterpart to the DMGT’s
behavioural focus (Gagné, 2013) – in part precursors but also directors of the talent
development process evident in the DMGT. The addition of the basements to the
DMGT in Gagné’s Expanded Model of Talent Development (EMTD) (Gagné, 2013)
does not negate the validity of the DMGT, rather, it serves to inform the biological
influences of both individual and external factors. These, in turn, are contributors to the
DMGT as it stands, that is, impacting expression of the causal factors without calling
into question their applicability. What the EMTD does do is lead to questioning of the
role of both genetics and environment in career ‘choice’ (expressed through talents) and
whether it really is such, rather than being a culmination of circumstances that began
before conception, in a “choreography unique to each individual” (Gagné, 2013, p. 16).
2.4 MI/DMGT crossover
Utilising an approach that combines the principles of Gardner’s MI with Gagné’s
DMGT appears dichotomous, but the two theories have significant commonalities. The
underlying categorisations are different, but both are concerned with the means to turn a
potential into an actuality, with MI mapping quite comfortably onto the DMGT (see
Fig. 2.2) to form the Differentiated Model of Multiple Intelligences (DMMI). Gagné’s
gifts (G), underdeveloped natural abilities, align with Gardner’s intelligences, as both
are concerned with a potential capacity to perform (Gagné, 2009; Gardner, 2006). There
is an apparent conflict here between Gagné’s concept of giftedness in a single domain
and Gardner’s multiple forms of intelligence, all of which are present in every
individual. Gardner acknowledges, however, that while an individual will have all
intelligences there will inevitably be one in which the individual is strongest, which can

26
be expressed through a greater aptitude in that intelligence and a preference for working
within that intelligence domain (Gardner, 1993, 1999b, 2006; Gardner & Hatch, 1989).
This is in line with Gagné (2009), who does not preclude an individual having abilities
in other domains – in effect, giftedness is the potential expression of the dominant
intelligence.
Figure 2.2: Modified DMGT (Gagné, 2008), with MI adjustment (DMMI)
At first glance, the DMGT catalysts (E – Environmental; I – Intrapersonal)
would appear to be problematic for linking to MI theory. These need to be viewed
within the framework of the MI factors of contextualisation and distribution, with the
latter being dependent upon the former (Gardner, 2006). Environmental (E) ties directly
to contextualisation, through the context-specific characteristics of Milieu (EM),
Individuals (EI) and Provisions (EP), all of which provide both impetus and background
for the expression of intelligence/giftedness. Distribution is less clear-cut when linked
to Intrapersonal (I). However, when viewed as a reciprocant of
Environmental/Contextualisation, a contextualised theatre appears for the assessment of
what is ‘valued’, with the expression of the enhanced performance in an area being

27
dependent upon the value assigned to it through the sub-components of
Contextualisation.
The same argument extends into the use of preferred tools, both practical and
mental (rather than physical and mental traits in the DMGT), of expression of
giftedness/intelligence, which are also subject to the value assigned to both tools and
expression in Contextualisation. This is the only part of the talent/intelligence
development process where a change in the sub-categories is necessary, where Gagné’s
Physical (IF) trait becomes the Practical tool. Both complement the Mental (IP) sub-
category, but with a different focus. The individual’s physical expression in the DMGT
has effectively been superseded by the biological basements. What is left has primary
relevance to how the individual is perceived by others, rather than what the individual
can do, and how that impacts Mental (IP). Instead of physical attributes, in the DMMI
the role of Practical is focused on the physical means to achieve higher understanding.
Developmental process (D) can be equated to the factor of Learning
environment (Gardner, 2006), where the individual teacher and the prevailing education
system as a whole contribute to providing the medium for learning and expression
(Gardner & Hatch, 1989). In this instance, only the name changes, as all of the sub-
components (DA – Activities; DP – Progress; DI – Investment) are intact, applying to
both Developmental process and Learning environment. The teacher is in charge of the
micro-environment for the student, providing learning experiences and direction, in line
with the macro-environment dictated by the relevant government educational body. The
effectiveness and applicability of this process will be influenced by both
Contextualisation/Environmental (E) and Distribution/Intrapersonal (I).
Talents (T), or MI end-states, are the developed expression of a gift in specific
domains. These talents would be the application of highly developed intelligences in

28
Gardner’s MI within an occupational or avocational field. For example, someone with
an outstanding ability within the interpersonal intelligence would be eminently suitable
for employment in Social service (TP), or some aspects of Administration/sales (TM).
There is no need to amend this component of the DMGT to match it with MI, as both
link directly to the expression of gifts/intelligences through occupational categories.
For both MI and DMGT, Chance (C) is a constant factor, particularly in relation
to whether an individual has the opportunity to be aware of, and develop, their
particular gift(s)/intelligence(s). These linkages preserve Gagné’s suggested,
descending, order of influence – G, I, D, E – through correlating gifts with intelligences
(G), which can be expressed through enhanced performance that is grounded in
intrapersonal characteristics (I), while being nurtured during the learning process (D)
and situated within the value-laden context (E). Gardner’s MI are latent intelligences,
which may potentially be gifts, in that while all individuals have all of the intelligences
it is only those intelligences an individual possesses which have higher potential that
can be gifts. The expression and application of talents (T) is thus an end-state in itself
for both MI and DMGT.
The DMMI thus provides an opportunity to validate the DMGT, as a model for
gifted and talented development. That the DMGT’s underlying principles can be applied
to an unrelated theory is a good indicator of both validity and versatility, of the common
grounds evident in development. This is not to suggest that either MI theory in itself or
the DMMI can be used as an identifier of gifted students, just as the DMGT can not, nor
that because everyone has all of the intelligences that everyone can be gifted, which
Gardner specifically argued against (Gardner, 1997). MI, DMGT and DMMI are not
diagnostic tools. They are prisms that allow light to be shed on aspects of commonality
in development, while maintaining the integrity of each. In the process of recognising

29
what is common lies the opportunity to develop a greater understanding of how theories
overlap – that what is perceived by one person to be specific to their field actually
transcends that field and can inform both understanding and application in another.
2.4.1 Linking spiritual intelligence to giftedness
Giftedness is implicit in the term ‘intelligence’, because it is a way of differentiating
and valuing those of a higher ability, whether potential or actual. While spiritual
intelligence itself applies across cultures, by extension this also means that the
expression of spiritual intelligence will have different manifestations in different
cultural contexts. Giftedness, by contrast, appears to be imbued with a common thread
of spiritual intelligence that appears regardless of cultural context (Ambrose, 2009),
which Piechowski (2009) linked to higher levels of energy in gifted children. The
spiritual thus can be both a form of giftedness and a common denominator, with the
potential for development.
The updated six profiles of giftedness identified by Neihart and Betts (Neihart,
2010a, 2010b) contain recognisable indicators that can be linked to spiritual
intelligence. Indeed, spiritual intelligence, and thus spirituality, is an apparent
underpinning component of the profiles. The indicators are particularly evident in ‘The
Creative’ profile through, for example, “wants to right wrongs” and “stands up for
convictions”. Moral motivations such as these are the basis of ethical behaviour. The
development of ethical sensitivity is stronger in gifted students, particularly female
gifted, as supported by the research of Tirri and Nokelainen (2007), who attribute this to
gifted students’ “precocious intellectual growth” (p. 598). Nonetheless, expression of
moral considerations needs an outlet, a purpose. Juratowitch (2010) discussed the
concept of ‘flourishing’, which is expressed by the gifted through a concern for and
place in the world, which is inherently linked to the need for social support to be happy

30
and having opportunities to give back to society (Johnstone, 2014). The twin factors of
individual (personal happiness) and collective (giving back) are also evident in Miller’s
(2005, 2010) research with Maori gifted children, which led him to identify the two
most identified characteristics of Maori gifted children as: 1) outstanding personal
qualities and high moral values; and 2) service to others. The context of culture also
influences the expression of spiritual intelligence (Whiteoak, 2010; see also, Whiteoak,
2015), while a lack of connection to culture/society adversely affects the individual’s
personal balance and spiritual intelligence (Whiteoak, 2010, personal communication).
Just as spiritual intelligence is the undercurrent that links aspects of giftedness,
cultures are not mutually exclusive – spirituality, and through it spiritual intelligence, is
the commonality that binds humanity together (Levin, 2001; Van Ness, 2012) and
“gives meaning to life” (Gardner, F., 2011, p. 32). The stumbling block in this field is
‘intelligence’ and its annotation to ‘spiritual’. The two terms are not automatically
conjoined, but neither are they mutually exclusive. Indeed, in the vast majority, if not
all, instances of an author using the double-headed ‘spiritual intelligence’ what they are
actually referring to is spirituality, as there is no, or limited, consideration of the
cognitive functioning inherent in ‘intelligence’. This does not preclude spirituality from
being considered as aligning with the DMGT, in association with Gardner’s MI. It does
suggest, however, that establishing clarity of terminology is necessary, for the
discussion to progress.
2.5 A place for the spiritual
Sinetar (2000) noted that “in principle, the word ‘spiritual’ is a neutral term” (p. 18). In
practice, however, there is a multitude of concepts that can be applied to spiritual. It is
heavily loaded with meaning and associated contexts, varying between individuals and

31
cultures, at both micro and macro levels. This view is supported by authors such as
Cavanagh et al. (2004) – “there is no such thing as generic spirituality” (p. 119), with
spirituality being dependent upon context and practice. Spirituality consists of a
synthesis of ‘worldview’ – “a perspective on the world and the place of human life
within it” (p. 119) – and ‘path’ – “a set of practices that nurture and express the
worldview in one’s life” (p. 120). Such a view places spirituality at the congruence of
individuality and society, as collective. The framework thus provided permits a set of
beliefs and expectations that contribute to the individual’s perspectives on how to
interact with the world, in the process of establishing and maintaining a balanced
emotional, psychological and essentially social existence (Hay & Nye, 1996; Moritz et
al., 2006; Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006). This is particularly evident in the context of
ethical behaviours (Büssing et al., 2010; Hay & Nye, 1996). There is, however, no
universally agreed definition of what spirituality is, but a wide variety of componential
considerations.
2.5.1 Spirituality as intelligence
Spiritual intelligence (SI) is viewed by Gardner (1999a, 2006) as only 0.5 of an
intelligence yet, according to Sisk and Torrance (2001), it has an integrative function for
the other intelligences, “enable[ing] them to achieve the highest realization of human
nature” (p. 7), but “is not about organized religion” (p. 12). Indeed, the secular
humanistic aspect of spirituality is described by Büssing et al. (2010) as “vital” (p. 41)
for adolescents. Myers, Sweeney and Witmer (2000) introduced a revised version of the
Wheel of Wellness, one of the components of which is ‘spiritual wellness’, where
spirituality is “the source of all other dimensions of wellness” (p. 253; see also Briggs &
Rayle, 2005), such as self-concept and relationships. In this model spirituality is
conceptually broad, ‘private’ (i.e., personal) and grounded in “wholeness or

32
connectedness to the universe” (Myers, Sweeney & Witmer, 2000, p. 252). This is in
contrast to religiosity, which is positioned as narrower, ‘public’ and subsidiary to
spirituality. For primary-aged children, Clifford’s (2013) research established a link
between spiritual education and self-regulation of behaviour. Others have connected
educating for positive spirituality to increased resilience, reduced depression and risk
taking (e.g., Cotton et al., 2005; Damon, Menon & Bronk, 2003; Fraser, 2004; Miller,
2000; Ozaki, Kobayashi & Oku, 2006; Pargament, 2007; Tan & Wong, 2012; Taplin,
2011). Thus, rather than being an isolated concern, research has found spirituality to
have broad relationships to a wide range of positive outcomes, which can also be
enhanced by spiritual education/intervention. Spirituality is thus an important facet of
every student that educators must recognize and cater for. Given these positive
outcomes, West’s (2011) assertion that the educational environment, as it applies in
New South Wales, is not catering for spirituality is particularly worrying.
By definition, if only at a purely semantic level, spiritual intelligence must have
spirituality as a component, which is the line of reasoning that was followed by Hay and
Nye (2006) for their investigation into children’s spiritual lives. However, while there is
a relationship between the two, they are not interchangeable. The differences and
commonalities between spiritual intelligence and spirituality are moot, but the
discussion may not even be relevant to spirituality, just an issue of semantics. This is
certainly the approach offered by both Howard Gardner and critics of his MI theory,
where both agree that there is no spiritual intelligence, albeit for differing reasons.
The criteria established by Gardner (1993) for an intelligence to qualify as such
present notable obstacles for spirituality, such as Mayer (2000) suggesting that the
abstract reasoning necessary for intelligence is not evident in spiritual intelligence,
which would be more-appropriately titled spiritual consciousness. Chief among these

33
obstacles are differing perspectives on what constitutes spirituality. Without a clearly
defined understanding of what spirituality is, in relation to Gardner’s MI criteria,
support from experimental psychological tasks (Gardner’s sixth criterion) and support
from psychometric findings (Gardner’s seventh criterion) become particularly
problematic, tending toward a matter of subjectivity. Subjectivity also bedevils [sic] the
existence of idiot savants, prodigies and other exceptional individuals (Gardner’s
second criterion). Any attempt to establish who would qualify as being highly gifted in
spirituality would become a competitive tender process, where the various religions
promote their favoured deity and adherents as being above all others, to the detriment of
humanity (Paul & Elder, 2009). These qualifications notwithstanding, Gardner is in the,
likely, unique situation of being a critic of a concept that he is perceived as having
promoted. As elaborated in section 2.2.3, Gardner (2000) doubts whether spiritual could
ever qualify as an intelligence, engaging in a partly semantic debate with himself over
the attributes of ‘spiritual’ and ‘existential’, with a preference for the latter, potentially
based in Gardner’s difficulty in forging a personal conceptual separation of spiritual
from religious.
Gardner’s belief that spirituality cannot be accepted as an intelligence also
informs his arguments against the premise of a commonality of intelligence (e.g.,
Gardner, 1999b), that there could be one intelligence upon which all other intelligences
depend, as proposed by authors such as Sisk and Torrance (2001). Rather than being a
discrete intelligence, spirituality may actually underlie all other MIs – the ninth
intelligence as a unifier. The question would then become one of how spirituality could
be considered within MI theory. However, the very detail that stops spirituality from
being declared the ninth MI, Gardner’s criteria for intelligence, may actually provide
clues as to why it should be. For point one of his MI criteria (‘potential isolation by

34
brain damage’) to be accepted, a specific region of the brain needs to be associated with
the functioning of an intelligence. If there really is a unifying intelligence (e.g., Sisk,
2008) then it would not be restricted to a single type of functioning. What would be
more evident for a unifying intelligence are aspects of that intelligence being present in
different areas of the brain. For example, such aspects of spiritual identity as empathy
have been found to have correlates in brain activity (Seitz, Nickel & Azari, 2006), with
Gu et al. (2012) identifying the anterior insular cortex as the seat of empathy. In turn,
empathy is a key part of “intersubjective relations” (Gallese, 2005, p. 103), through
forming a “self–other identity” (p. 104). The mental ‘ability’ to apply empathy is part of
the transference from a personal spirituality to spiritual identity. It is the action of acting
upon empathic impulses that connects ‘ability’ to ‘action’. This can be seen through the
primate research of Chang, Gariépy and Platt (2013) where links to primitive empathy
helped identify the anterior cingulate gyrus as playing a key role in altruism, an ‘action’
function. The spirituality of an individual is not restricted to single-area brain
functioning, which suggests that a wide variety of influences could influence spiritual
development. Following a stroke that neutralised her left-hemispheric functioning, Jill
Bolte Taylor (2008; Tweedy, 2012) experienced her world in a manner that suggests the
right hemisphere’s dominance for spirituality, prompting her to describe it as “the seat
of my divine mind” (Taylor, 2008, p. 140).
Emmons (1999, 2000a, 2000b) provides eloquent arguments against Gardner’s
seeming abandonment of the intelligence that he fostered, linking to the emotive nature
of spirituality as a fundamental component of being human (James, 1963; Oberski,
2011; Tirri & Quinn, 2010; Tisdell, 2003; Van Ness, 2012; Zohar & Marshall, 2000).
Sisk (2008) followed this train of thought to suggest access points for engaging the
spiritual intelligence of gifted students, in the process classifying spiritual intelligence

35
as SQ, characteristics of which include “connectedness, compassion, responsibility,
balance, unity, and service” (Davis, Rimm & Siegle, 2011, p. 274). Other authors
extend on the intelligence categories. Tirri and Nokelainen (2008) included
environmental intelligence, but not naturalistic intelligence, in their research into MI
assessment and spirituality. Goleman (2005) promoted emotional intelligence (EQ) as
an adjunct to IQ (Matthews, Zeidner & Roberts, 2002; Piechowski, 2003), both of
which Zohar and Marshall (2000) tied to spiritual intelligence (SQ), with the three
components being separate but interrelated. Following the inter-relationship thread of
intelligences, Lin (2006) suggested that intelligences are not discrete entities and that
schools should aim toward developing an ‘integrated’ intelligence, comprised of IQ
(intellectual), EQ (emotional), MQ (moral), SQ (spiritual) and ECOQ (ecological).
Spiritual and moral intelligences are positioned by Lin (2006) as separate entities,
despite being intimately related, if not parallel aspects of the same construct, while
ECOQ also comprises aspects related to spirituality. This extended delineation of roles,
while attempting to clarify the varying intelligences and make holistic linkages, actually
reduces the clarity of what spiritual is perceived to be.
It is curious that these authors, while referring to ‘intelligence’, use ‘Q’,
quotient, rather than ‘I’, intelligence, in the acronym. Apart from being grammatically
erroneous and structurally peculiar, quotient and intelligence are hardly synonymous,
otherwise IQ would be rendered as II. What is suggested is that these authors are trying
to align their ‘intelligences’ with the perceived validity of IQ and its standardised,
objective measurement, but that, through their respective discussions, make it evident
that it is spirituality – hence, spirituality quotient (SQ) – they are referring to, rather
than spiritual intelligence. From Gardner’s perspective, intelligence is inherently to do
with application, rather than purely intrapersonal purposes. Amongst those promoting

36
spirituality as an intelligence, then, there is an incongruity that can only logically be
resolved by SQ referring to spirituality itself, rather than an actual intelligence.
2.5.2 Spirituality as existence
Once it is accepted that spirituality has validity in its own right, without the
‘intelligence’ rider, consideration of aspects of spirituality can be addressed. Not least
of these is forming a judgement of how wide the applicability should be for spiritual,
that is, what are spirituality’s boundaries.
In the 1901–1902 Gifford lectures, William James (1963) provided a clarity of
approach to spirituality that can still be applied today. While ostensibly in the field of
‘religious experience’, the lectures allowed James to range quite broadly in his
discussions, as well as make a distinction between objective and subjective experience –
broadly paralleling Heelas and Woodhead’s (2005) life-as and subjective-life. In the
process, James expressed many views that were not defined by relationship to a
particular religion, rather, he made distinctions between religion and spirituality, with
religion being an expression of spirituality, where the essence of humanity could be
found in the spiritual impulse (a position supported by Van Ness, 2012). James
positioned spirituality as a human birthright, the expression of which was predicated by
an individual’s experiences and influences, with an emphasis on the transformative
nature of the subjectivity of personal spiritual experience. Religious experience could,
thus, only be validated by a spiritual judgement, grounded in the triumvirate of
“immediate luminousness [enlightenment] … philosophical reasonableness, and moral
helpfulness” (James, 1963, p. 18; original emphasis). Although James’ ideas are not
without their critics (e.g., Rydenfelt & Pihlström, 2013), he distinguished himself from
other contemporary, and later, writers on religious experience through a concrete
separation of his own religious context from the parameters under discussion. He did

37
not allow his personal religious views to influence his philosophical views and their
expression, and the bias that would have applied (see Ch. 3).
Figure 2.3: Walton’s (2010) Model of Spiritual Intelligence (MSI)
In hindsight, Walton’s (2010) Model of Spiritual Intelligence (MSI; see Fig. 2.3)
has much in common with James. The single complicating factor in the MSI is the use
of ‘spiritual intelligence’ as the output. Developments in understanding of both
intelligence and spirituality, as well as their applications and cognitive resonance, have
meant that the output component of the model has since been modified to ‘spiritual
identity’ (see Fig. 2.4). This aligns with Moriarty (2011), who suggested that the
purpose of spirituality is to move toward “a coherent and meaningful sense of identity”
(p. 282), applied through individual worldview.

38
Figure 2.4: Walton’s (2010) Model of Spiritual Identity (MSI) – modified
In line with the Stoic view of philosophy, that it “engages the whole of
existence” (Hadot, 1995, p. 83), personal spirituality – all spirituality is personal,
comprising a “‘signature’ tied to one’s personality” (Hart, 2006, p. 165) – is comprised
of everything the individual has come in contact with (input). There are two levels to
the input’s conceptual reasoning – culture and experience, offering a connectedness that
is linked to levels of resilience (Dent 2005; Raftopolous & Bates, 2011), although “too
much emphasis on the individual’s experience ignores the underlying collective
experience” (Gardner, F., 2011, p. 53). Culture, at a macro level, refers to the dominant
societal expectations and values within which the individual exists (Ratner, 2012a,
2012b). At a micro level, how these expectations and values impact upon the individual
contribute to an understanding of their place, their standing in the world and their
responsibilities (Branco & Valsiner, 2012; Heise, 1996). The effects of the micro
component can be mitigated or exacerbated by the individual’s experiences, through
contact within the dominant culture and contact with alternative cultures (Branco &
Valsiner, 2012; Eretz & Gati, 2004). The influence of culture and experience provide
the input to the self, whereby a personalised understanding is formulated by the
individual (Ratner, 2012a, 2012b). Implicit ownership of this understanding is evident

39
in Sartre (1957), who observed that “everything which happens to me is mine” (p. 53).
The process of internalisation provides the structure for the individual to approach the
world, with spirituality a result of the synthesis of culture and experience (self). From a
child’s perspective, spirituality is, thus, not “separate and transcendent” (Hart, 2006, p.
166) but an immanent ‘right now’.
How this personal, internalised spirituality is expressed provides the output of
the process, where “both thought and feeling are determinants of conduct” (James,
1963, p. 504). The interactions the individual has, at macro and micro levels, are
expressions of their personal spirituality, as it exists at a given moment in time. This
expression of spirituality through action is what constitutes an individual’s spiritual
identity. However, spirituality is essentially fluid, as each new experience or change in
context has the potential to impact upon the individual. As such, while the expression of
spirituality is spiritual identity that identity is also fluid. The level of each is not
necessarily analogous. For example, if an individual’s spirituality has internalised the
concept of freedom of expression as a right, then choosing – and life is full of such
choices, based in experiences and the value attributed (Jordan, 1986) – to stay silent
when another person is at risk of losing that right is against personal spirituality, with
consequent adverse impact upon spiritual identity.
In the MSI, the difference between spirituality and spiritual identity can be
simply described as what you take in versus what you do with it. Spirituality thus
directly influences the practical expression of spiritual identity, however, spirituality
does not become spiritual identity until it is internalised and applied, whether that be
through actions or thoughts. This process of transferring the spiritual into an expression
of spiritual identity was described by Noble (2009), in a discussion of spiritual
intelligence, as the need for each individual to “mindfully integrate … [spiritual

40
experiences] … into the totality of his or her personal and community life” (p. 821).
According to Noble, this process is an active one, something that it is necessary to
consciously devote cognitive resources to.
Complementary to Noble’s active processing, there is also a passive viewpoint.
Gibson and Landwehr-Brown (2010) made a distinction between ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’
(building on Gibson, Rimmington & Landwehr-Brown, 2008), with ethics being based
in a value system while morals is acting upon the value system. In this view, ethics is
firmly grounded in context of culture, the experiential process of acquiring a value
system through exposure to societal norms and mores (Ambrose & Cross, 2009;
Sternberg, 2009, 2011, 2012). This has parallels to the spirituality component of the
MSI (Fig. 2.4), which is reinforced by Gibson and Landwehr-Brown’s ‘morals’
concept, the application of ethics to the value system to negotiate an active response
(Ambrose & Cross, 2009), which is akin to the spiritual identity process already
described.
There are also parallels to Schoonmaker’s narrative analogy, building on the
research of Hyde (2008d), where “children construct meaning from personal
experience, within their own personal narrative, and it is through this narrative that they
express their spirituality” (Schoonmaker, 2009, p. 2716). The constructed narrative is
simultaneously individual and collective. Whiteoak (2010, personal communication)
made an explicit connection between the expression of spiritual identity and the context
of culture (see also Niederer & Russell, n.d.; Russell, 2010), with specific reference to
Australian aboriginal communities, with disconnection from culture linked to a
destructive cycle for the individual. In Maori culture, kahupō (‘spiritual blindness’) is a
factor in suicide prevalence (Emery, Cookson-Cox & Raerino, 2015). But cultures are
not necessarily mutually exclusive. Büssing et al. (2010), when framing their research

41
into adolescent spirituality, concluded that spirituality, and by implication spiritual
identity, is the commonality that binds humanity together, as “an attribute of all human
beings” (p. 27).
Early shamanist and animist societies (Campbell, 1984) exhibited their spiritual
awakening through close connection with the components of their environment and
humans’ interaction with such. This extends into modern indigenous conceptions of the
spiritual, where the spiritual is inextricably linked to the ‘spirituality as existence’
factor, encompassing the totality of life. For Australian Aborigines, the concept of a
holistic connection is the philosophical ‘core’ of spirituality (Grieves, 2008, 2009)5
,
with explicit connection to social and emotional wellbeing (Grieves, 2009).
Aboriginality itself is grounded in community and “has much to do with kinship,
relationships and spiritual values” (Taylor, 1999, p. 44), although Taylor also cautions
against overgeneralising of perspectives to all Aboriginal people. Irwin (2000), in
relation to Native Americans, acknowledged “the need to engage Native peoples in
ways that fully recognize the value of the person (and personal experience) as central to
the formulation of Native spirituality” (p. 7), while Hodge and Wolosin (2015) observed
that, for many Native American cultures, spirituality is a significant contributor to
health and wellbeing, with respect as a key component. Similar sentiments apply to
other indigenous groups. Espinosa (2009), in a study of Amazonian tribespeople who
had adopted aspects of non-traditional culture, recognised that “ethnic spirituality
defines daily life behavior and attitudes” (p. 427). For Maori, spirituality complements
the “physical, emotional, intellectual and social” (Fraser, 2004, p. 88). The common
theme among these indigenous groups of an interconnection between spirituality and
social and emotional factors complements that of the Department of Education and
5
Grieves (2009) prefers ‘wholistic’, as a description of “a matter in its entirety” (p. 1).

42
Communities, NSW (2015). The Wellbeing Framework for Schools is premised on the
importance, for all students, of the four pillars of children and young people’s “physical,
social, emotional and spiritual development” (p. 2; emphasis added), and how each
pillar influences the others.
In Hill et al.’s (2012) attempt to find commonalities and differences for
spirituality and religion, based in literature rather than research, they identified criteria
for the two concepts. The base criterion for each, the commonality, was the same:
The feelings, thoughts, experiences, and behaviors that arise from a search for
the sacred. The term ‘search’ refers to attempts to identify, articulate, maintain,
or transform. The term ‘sacred’ refers to a divine being, Ultimate Reality or
Ultimate Truth as perceived by the individual. (Hill et al., p. 155)
Setting aside issues apparent when creating a homogeneous criterion for
spirituality and religion, of more interest are the additional criteria that are specific to
religion – there are none for spirituality – both of which appear counterintuitive. The
second criterion for religion relates to “a search for non-sacred goals (such as identity,
belongingness, meaning, health, or wellness)” (p. 155). Jones (2007) suggests that what
is considered ‘sacred’ differs according to what the individual values, from a personal,
non-uniquely religious, perspective. The allocation of ‘non-sacred goals’ as belonging
exclusively to religious precepts explicitly removes the possibility of the non-sacred
from spirituality and non-religious adherents. Despite the objective illogicality of this
position, Hill et al.’s third criterion for religion compounds the confusion, although in
the process it betrays a religious bias (see Ch. 3), where religion, but not spirituality,
“receive[s] validation and support from within an identifiable group of people” (p. 155).
From this perspective, the “legitimation” (p. 159) of organised groups of people who
share the same ideals and the same sense of who they are can be religious, but not

43
spiritual. For this criterion to be valid, the Atheist Foundation of Australia, as an
identifiable group for validation and support, would be religious, which runs counter to
their aim “to serve as a focal point for non-religious people” (Atheist Foundation of
Australia, 2014).
The criteria devised by Hill et al. (2012) specifically relegate the search for
identity, with consequent expression of identity, to a religious provenance, in direct
contrast to the MSI. Pawluczuk (2009) also drew on a religious background, but in the
process extended the notions that are evident in the MSI to express the development of
national and cultural identity, through the concept of a “symbolic universe” (p. 57),
where cultures cross-fertilise each other to form a collective identity. The national
identity is thus a collective correlate for individual spiritual identity. Individual spiritual
identity is also the undercurrent that links aspects of giftedness.
2.6 The influence of contemporary spiritual models on
the current research
Meehan (2010) noted that “Gardner does not add spiritual intelligence to his list because
it can not be quantified and measured”. While this is an appropriate observation in
relation to spiritual intelligence’s place in Gardner’s MI theory, there are extant studies
in the field of children’s spirituality that have contributed to categorising the
components of spirituality, some of which will be discussed, with particular emphasis
on an Australian context.
Nye (1998) viewed spirituality as a flowering process, driven by internal growth
processes rather than external influences (Schoonmaker, 2009), in an effective nature–
nurture analogy. Building on Hay and Nye (1996), Nye (1998) utilised three categories
of spiritual sensitivity, with sub-categories, as a conceptual–theoretical basis (see Table
2.2).

44
Table 2.2: Categories of spiritual sensitivity
Category Sub-category
Awareness-sensing Here-and-now
Tuning
Flow
Focusing
Mystery-sensing Wonder and awe
Imagination
Value-sensing Delight and despair
Ultimate goodness
Meaning
(Source: Hay & Nye, 2006, p. 65, from Nye, 1998, p. 129)
Following a grounded theory analysis of qualitative data, these provisional
categories were superseded by ‘relational consciousness’. Hay and Nye’s (2006)
relational consciousness provided the overarching framework for subsequent division of
that concept into five dimensions and their associated elements (see Table 2.3). This
alternative umbrella concept allowed children’s spirituality to be discussed without
using the actual term ‘spirituality’. While the initial categories partly arose from the
pilot stage of Hay and Nye’s combined research output, they were based in Hay and
Nye’s intuitive perception, as well as being “hinted at in the converging evidence of
other writers on spirituality and child psychology” (Hay & Nye, 2006, p. 64). As such,
given how much has been gained from subsequent research, there is no concrete basis
for the continuing use of these categories. The intention of the authors was for the
categories to be considered as a starting point only, a provisional attempt at imposing a
structure on an unruly subject. These categories, however, were used to underpin the
major Australian studies of children’s spirituality undertaken by Vialle, Walton and
Woodcock (2008; see also Vialle, 2007) and Hyde (2008c), as discussed below, as well
as Nemme (2008). They also continue to contribute to international research in the field
(e.g., Tirri, Nokelainen & Ubani, 2006, 2007; Tirri & Quinn, 2010). In particular, Tirri,

45
Nokelainen and Ubani (2006, 2007) extended Hay and Nye’s three ‘sensing’ categories
by including ‘community-sensing’, following the work of Bradford (1995). This extra
categorisation acknowledged the valued role of social context in spirituality.
In their investigation of children’s spirituality, Vialle, Walton and Woodcock
(2008) used Nye’s (1998) categories of spiritual sensitivity (Table 2.2) as a theoretical
starting point for qualitative focus groups with primary students, selected from public
and Catholic K–6 classes. There was, thus, a balance between secular and non-secular
schooling systems. The discussions centred around artefacts, with a conscious decision
being taken to avoid asking direct questions about, or making reference to, either
religion or concepts of godhood. This is not to say that the students did not raise these
factors, rather that they were not prompted to and, when raised, did so spontaneously.
The absence of researcher-generated prompting/positioning allowed the students’ voices
to be both dominant and pre-eminent. The seven identified themes, which appear to be
distinct facets of spirituality, were:
1. links to knowledge and personal experience – “We know when there’s
spiders about because there’s spider webs” (p. 151)
2. importance and utility – “They are [important] to me because they are
fun to play with … it is nice to have a collection of shells” (p. 152)
3. importance and aesthetics – “They make the sky nice because the birds
are colourful” (p. 152)
4. importance and uniqueness – “It’s somehow got a connection to what
something else does. It’s pretty unique” (p. 152)
5. the nature of Nature – “They’re nature and special to us as part of the
family” (p. 153)

46
6. ‘circle of life’ – “I think the water is much more important because if we
didn’t have water we couldn’t survive” (p. 153)
7. learned concepts – “If you’ve done something cruel to another animal
you can whack yourself on the head and that can be karma for you” (p.
154).
These themes exhibit elements of both spiritual sensitivity categories (Table 2.2) and
the ‘concepts’ dimension of relational consciousness (Table 2.3), so can not be wholly
attributed to either.
Table 2.3: Relational consciousness dimensions and elements
Contexts Child–God consciousness Processes Avoidance
Child–people consciousness Sidetracking
Child–world consciousness ‘Third-personising’
Child–self consciousness Sliding between contexts
Forcing a conclusion
Conditions Religious language Magnification
Language about beliefs, including
beliefs about death
Self-identification
Autobiographical language Interiorising
Language of fiction Forgetting
Language of play and games Changefulness
Language about time and place
Language about values and morals Consequences Calmness and peacefulness
Language of science and
technology
Holiness
Language of the natural world Goodness
Oneness
Strategies Explicit Impressed
Mental/physical withdrawal Wonder
Focusing, concentration Quest for understanding
Seeking relation or dialogue New clarity
Seeking/exploiting
aesthetic/stimulation
Sense of worth
‘Philosophising’ Thankfulness
Implicit Strangeness
Meandering questions, puzzling Perplexed and frustrated
Imagining Inner conflict
Reasoning Embarrassed
Searching for meaning Ridiculed
Moralising Undermined
Staying with a mood Search for supportive
comparison
Dreaming
Playing, escaping reality
Concrete/abstract combining
(Source: Hay & Nye, 2006, p. 114)

47
Hyde’s (2008a, 2008c) study was also qualitative and used Nye’s (1998)
categories of spiritual sensitivity as a theoretical starting point. In this case the subjects
were drawn from three Catholic primary schools, with the meetings explicitly structured
around Nye’s three categories, utilising a combination of activities, discussion and
writing. From this process, four themes were identified:
1. felt sense – “the intensity and immediacy of awareness of the present
moment” (p. 120)
2. integrating awareness – utilising different levels of awareness
simultaneously
3. weaving the threads of meaning – creating uniquely personalised
meaning from a mixture of internalised meaning and externally
perceived meaning
4. spiritual questing – “[I’d wish] that the poor become richer, well, not
rich, but average … so they don’t have to go around asking for money
and that they live a good life” (p. 124).
These themes are more-closely tied to Nye’s original theoretical categories than Vialle,
Walton and Woodcock’s themes. The basis for this may lie in Hyde’s deliberate
construction of his research practice to utilise the spiritual sensitivity categories as a
framework. While Vialle, Walton and Woodcock’s research used the same theoretical
framework, this was not evident through practice, allowing emerging themes to develop
dynamically. In both research studies, however, the findings indicated common qualities
of children’s spirituality that transcend the non-secular–secular divide.
While Vialle, Walton and Woodcock’s conclusions and recommendations are
inclusive of all faiths – or absence thereof – the conclusions from Hyde’s research are
explicitly linked to “nurturing the spirituality of children through the religious education
curriculum in Catholic primary schools” (Hyde, 2008c, p. 125). This approach reflects

48
Hyde’s own background as an academic with the Australian Catholic University and is
indicative of a wider issue when approaching concepts of children’s spirituality.
Researchers do not tend to exhibit significant differences in their practical approach to
examining children’s spirituality, in that the methods are similar even when theoretical
orientations differ. The application of methods and utilisation of results, however, tends
to be influenced by the academic and personal background of the researchers – whether
explicitly religious or nominally secular. (For further discussion of this perspective, see
Ch. 3.)
The uniformly qualitative nature of the above studies is indicative of a need to
provide a wider quantitative support base for spirituality, to enhance the generalisability
of results. The studies of Nye (1998), Hay and Nye (1996), Vialle, Walton and
Woodcock (2008) and Hyde (2008c) consistently indicate an underlying commonality
of children’s approach to experiencing the world. Even with adult-imposed schematic
structures of dimensions, themes or categories, that commonality can be identified in
both secular and non-secular subjects, so is not predicated on religion, rather, something
much more fundamental. The expression of that spirituality, however, is inherently
personal, in line with Walton’s MSI, as is the presented spiritual identity.
Quantitative data would simultaneously provide a generalisable baseline to
expand to a wider population (e.g., gifted) as well as indicators for a more-specific
focus (e.g., sex differences among gifted). Exploration of gifted attributes is a small part
of that, a keyhole study in relation to humanity as a whole. Given the role of the gifted
as providing the higher echelons of ability, regardless of culture, there is an inherent
value in understanding how they approach the world. Deeper understanding of the
higher levels of spiritual sensitivity in gifted people could be a key to unlocking higher
ability in non-gifted students, through active development of spiritual sensitivity

49
(Lovecky, 1998; Piechowski, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009; Sisk, 2008). Associated increases
in spirituality can contribute to individual and societal well-being (Moritz et al., 2006;
Nash, 2009; Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006), suggesting that consideration of student
spirituality when teaching can contribute to holistic development of each child.
2.7 Giftedness and spirituality
Spirituality, as distinct from religious affiliation, is a variable for every human, in that
the degree and expression of that spirituality will vary, inclusive of aspects of both light
(positive) and dark (negative) (de Souza, 2012). Although a variable, spirituality is also
a constant, due to spirituality being present to some degree in everyone, which Hart
(2006) used to suggest a revision in how children’s responses and interactions are
viewed. Spiritual events often provoke an emotional response (Piechowski, 2003), the
intensity of which varies in accordance with the internalised conceptions of the
individual. For gifted individuals, a greater intensity of experience is typical, which is
linked to the complexity of emotional and intellectual contexts (Grant & Piechowski,
1999; Harrison, 2000; Lovecky, 1998; Sisk, 2008), particularly in relation to the
difficulties gifted children experience in relating that intensity to the less-intense, at all
levels, experiences of their peers (Piechowski, 2002, 2006). Sisk (2008) describes this
intensity as “a unique way of perceiving their world and their relationship to it” (p. 24),
in line with archetypal concepts (Reynolds & Piirto, 2005). At the same time, intensity
has extremes, the expression of which can lead to gifted children being perceived as
emotionally unstable (Sword, 2009), rather than emotionally dynamic.
While ‘emotional’ and ‘spiritual’ have both come to be accepted as forms of
giftedness (Piechowski, 2003), and gifted individuals within all domains are routinely
ascribed a higher level of emotional and spiritual functioning (e.g., Lovecky, 1998;

50
Roeper, 1995; Sisk, 2008), the literature does not differentiate between spirituality
across the domains of giftedness. Finnish research with the academically gifted suggests
that there are differences in gifted male and female spirituality, with gifted females
more inclined to reflect on moral reasoning (Tirri & Pehkonen, 2002) and spend “more
time pondering existential questions” (Tamminen, 1991, 1996, cited in Ubani, 2010, p.
3). Gifted boys seem to have more of a focus on their relationship with nature as a
“source of spirituality and mystery” (Ubani, 2010, p. 3). However, it is also proposed
that higher intellectual ability is neither, in itself, an indicator nor a precursor for higher
levels of spiritual sensitivity (Tirri & Pehkonen, 2002). The spirituality of academically
gifted boys and girls appears to be qualitatively different, but that does not necessarily
equate to higher or lower levels of spirituality for either sex.
While academic giftedness is relatively straightforward to delineate, with its
specific ‘achievement’ basis, creativity comes in various forms (Sriraman, 2009), and
has had various expressions throughout history, but spirituality lies at its heart. Horan
(2011) conceptualised this through his observation that “the relationship between
creativity and spirituality is ancient” (p. 371), where intention differentiates intelligence
and creativity (Horan, 2007) and “intelligence supports creative endeavor” (p. 193). The
field of art is an easily accessible aspect of creativity, where the artwork is an
expression of the essence of the artist. Indeed, “artworks … cannot be devoid of
spirituality” (Coleman, 1998, p. xvi).
However, art is the sole province of neither creativity nor spirituality. While
there is little research that explicitly links creativity and spirituality, Goodliff (2013)
identified an intersect between spirituality and creativity that is evident in even young
children, beyond art. Creativity is thus a medium for expression of, and forming a locus
for, spirituality and spiritual identity. Creativity of thought was the focus for early

51
creativity theorists, such as Guilford (1950) and Torrance (1963), a tradition that has
since been considerably expanded (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Sternberg & Lubart
1995). As “a learnable skill that leverages common cognitive mechanisms” (Davis et
al., 2013, p. 13), creativity allows expression and development of ideas for all
individuals. For gifted creatives, that expression and development exist in a social
context, where “creativity is inherently interactive” (Davis et al., 2013, p. 21). Although
creativity is dependent upon “inner urge, rather than from outer request” (Kharkhurin,
2014, p. 347) and, where the task is ‘rich’, “a key component of creativity is the
potential of an idea to trigger further ideas” (Sosa & Dong, 2013, p. 331), it is also
value based – as in Gardner’s (1999b) MI theory – being subject to judgement of worth.
Judgement of the worth of a creative idea or work thus contributes to the internalisation
of self in Walton’s (2010) MSI, with consequent contribution to spiritual identity. There
does not appear to be a demarcation in the creativity literature between sexes for
spirituality.
Academic and creative giftedness have literature support for the presence of the
spiritual but the same cannot be said for sporting giftedness. As an example, Miller
(2008) addressed the role of the spiritual in sporting participation, however, while
literature on the development of functional sporting prowess is abundant, research
connection to the spiritual appears to have been largely ignored. One exception is Ford
et al. (2009), who suggested that early engagement in skills and practice play a major
role in development of sporting ability, which echoes the sensitive periods for
development noted by Brant et al. (2013) and Shavinina (1997). In schools, Moriarty’s
(2013) study established the importance of sport participation for children’s spirituality,
but lacked a gifted focus. Due to the limited gifted–spiritual literature, it is necessary to
look beyond formalised sporting experiences and into the bodily-kinæsthetic

52
intelligence for a spiritual component. This can be seen most evidently in nature sports
(Humberstone, 2011), such as windsurfing, and extreme adventure-based sports, where
participants report feelings of euphoric inclusion with nature that transcends the self
(Brymer & Gray, 2009, 2010). In such examples, the sporting involvement is
participatory rather than being necessarily competitive. Unlike the academically gifted,
where nature was noted as a main concern for males, the spirituality of the extreme
sportsperson does not seem to be qualitatively different for either sex, reflective of the
inherent interconnectedness of nature and spirituality (Suzuki, 2004). The sex duality of
the importance of nature was also noted by Hart (2006) as children’s “most common
catalyst for moments of wonder” (p. 165).
2.7.1 Relating education and intelligence to religion and
spirituality
If a distinction is being made between religion and spirituality then a correlate that
should be considered is whether that distinction extends into intelligence. Schlehofer,
Omoto and Adelman (2008) refer to a survey where a significantly higher percentage of
Americans described themselves as spiritual (79%) than religious (64%). Heelas
(2012b) suggests that such discrepancies may be due to religious language ‘falling out
of fashion’ and being supplanted by spiritual language. That is, the encumbrances of
religion have made it less desirable to be associated with. A greater acceptance of non-
religious spirituality also appears to correlate to higher levels of, and better access to,
education. This is more evident in affluent nations and the higher classes in less well-off
nations (Heelas, 2012a), where “educated women most readily engage with alternative
[spiritual] practices” (Glendinning & Bruce, 2012, p. 478).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, research into relationships between religious belief and
intelligence can have an atheistic aspect. This is certainly the case for Lynn, Harvey and

53
Nyborg (2009), whose meta-analysis identified four categories of evidence for a
negative relationship:
1. Negative correlations between intelligence and religious belief.
2. Lower percentages holding religious beliefs among intelligence elites
compared with the general population.
3. A decline of religious belief with age among children and adolescents.
4. Decline in religious belief during the course of the twentieth century as the
intelligence of the population has increased. (p. 12)
Lynn, Harvey and Nyborg also found a significant difference in g, with atheists
outscoring those with professed religious beliefs by six IQ-equivalent points. However,
the authors do not consider the role of cognition in their results, that is, how individuals
approach their interactions with the world. In an admittedly simplistic representation of
a complex construct, individuals who profess themselves to be atheists tend to be those
who have given consideration to a religious perspective and found it wanting, with their
atheism based in a denial of the validity of religious thought (Atheist Foundation of
Australia, 2014). Atheism is thus an actively informed choice to follow a particular
approach to religion, albeit through non-association, and is distinct from being non-
religious or a non-believer.
In this context, the thought processes of atheists and religious people can be
broadly encapsulated as freedom of thought (atheists; IHEU, 2013) versus limited
thought (religious; Goldenberg, 1979) – similar to Heelas and Woodhead’s (2005)
subjective-life and life-as, respectively. Where an atheist takes a holistic world view,
without limitation of context or possibilities, the religious affiliate’s world view is
limited by the need to filter information to their schemata through the strictures of the

54
particular religion’s credo. Atheism is thus presented as a more intellectually
invigorating approach to the world than that offered by religion.
From these perspectives, the, presumed, higher intelligence levels of gifted
students would make them more likely to be spiritual than religious. Life is rarely that
clear cut, however, and such a generalisation does a disservice to the gifted who are
religiously inclined, whether through genetic or environmental factors (Koenig et al.,
2005; Newcomb & Svehla, 1937).
2.8 The current study
Overall, the literature is inconclusive as to whether there are differences between type
of giftedness for the spirituality of the sexes, at least for academic, creative and sporting
giftedness. At the macro level, purely from the literature, there does not appear to be a
spirituality factor common to all types of giftedness, so how spirituality manifests may
be dependent upon micro influences, which can be informed by a more-compartmental
research approach. This can take the form of looking for commonalities and differences
in the domains of giftedness.
Winit (2010) suggested that variations among gifted domains may account for
qualitative differences in moral reasoning, which is linked to spiritual development
(Walker & Reimer, 2006). Before the data can be presented, however, there is a need to
address a point of contention. In Walton’s MSI (2010), religion would be part of
experience and culture, contributing to an individual’s spirituality, but the absence of
religion would also contribute. As has been noted at various points in this chapter, there
is confusion between spirituality and religion, the distinction between which will be
discussed in Chapter 3. If the gifted have a more-intense spirituality than the non-gifted
then a higher level of spirituality should be evident for all gifted respondents in this

55
research, however, the acceptance of this aspect of gifted experience is not currently
delineated by type of giftedness. The primary purpose of this research is to fill that gap
for the academic, creative and sporting domains of giftedness.

56
Chapter 3: Excising religion
If otherwise gifted individuals stop short of deep, spiritual development, which
tends to unite diverse peoples, while adhering to superficial, religious doctrine,
which tends to alienate groups from one another, they will be more inclined to
support or initiate hateful conflicts with those of other religious beliefs. They
will consider outsiders somewhat less human and less worthy of compassion.
Conversely, if they find ways to develop deep, inward, spiritual growth and
move past the particularities of religious doctrine, they will become more
compassionate, altruistic, and universalist in their moral approach to life. They
will be more inclined to reach out and help others regardless of superficial
differences. (Ambrose, 2009, p. 65)
3.1 Introduction
It is near impossible to hold a general discussion about spirituality without religion
being raised as a correlate. The connection is almost reflexive, in a Piagetian sense,
where the schema for spirituality is tied to the schema for religion by default, forming a
merged schematic entity. This presumptive association has been formed partly by
experience, through assimilation of others’ views, but also by failing to give
consideration to what the two terms actually mean and entail, at the personal level, with
consequent failure to accommodate these personal reflections into pre-formed schemata.
The inherent dichotomy between religious and spiritual is effectively between collective
and individual, with understandings related to collective positioned in a group context,
such as religion, and individual being inherently personal. Both contexts link to the
development of spiritual identity (Walton, 2010; see Ch. 2).
This chapter will examine instances of embedded bias toward a religious context
for spirituality, followed by a discussion of the dissociable traits of religion and
spirituality, utilising the lens of the collective/individual dichotomy. The purpose of
addressing religion and spirituality in this way is to position spirituality as the focus for

57
discussion within the thesis, while also positioning religion as an optional component of
spiritual identity. The approach adopted in this thesis is that religion is a choice,
whereas spirituality is a basic characteristic of all humanity, with varying expression
(e.g., Hay & Nye, 2006; James, 1963; Tirri & Quinn, 2010). In itself, of course, such an
approach may be indicative of this researcher’s bias toward such an interpretation,
regardless of personal religiousness.
3.2 Examining bias
In the field of spirituality, bias is usually derived from the author’s stated personal
religious affiliation and their place of employment or sponsor. Despite authors’ stated
aims to be objective, there is almost invariably an identifiable bias within their work
toward viewing both data and the world from their own religious, or non-religious,
context. This may be a natural response to what Piaget defined as schema-based
cognitive functioning (Piaget, 1926, 1960, 1971, 1985), where “our assumptions shape
our perceptions” (Hart, 2006, p. 174). If we have structured our thought processes to fit
with a particular worldview, be it doctrinal or philosophical, then it is inescapable that
our perspectives will be subject to the established strictures of that personal worldview,
whether conscious or unconscious. In the most fundamental form this can manifest as
being unable to see another’s point of view or accept the possibility of another belief
system having parallel validity. More commonly, however, it is expressed through
subtle manifestations of relationships with the world, where there is no conscious
complicity in applying bias. The examples of Bellous and Csinos (2009), Hyde (2008b)
and Radford (2004) will be used as exemplars of the different degrees to which this bias
can manifest.

58
3.2.1 Example 1: Bellous and Csinos (2009)
Even when bias is relatively benign, it can still be both apparent and restricting. For
example, Bellous and Csinos (2009) discuss spiritual styles and their wider application,
with the starting point of “our primary assumption about the human condition is that
people are spiritual, whether or not they are religious” (p. 213). They go on to discuss
case examples from Csinos’ research and put them into context. Part of this includes the
comment that “in order for children’s spirituality to flourish, their educational and
spiritual communities (whether or not they are religious communities) should
intentionally create environments saturated with characteristics of all four [spiritual]
styles” (pp. 219–220). Yet, despite claiming inclusivity of the research for both
religious and non-religious backgrounds, the research itself was undertaken both in a
religious environment and utilising an overtly religious population. Indeed, it was a very
specific religious context, with all participants drawn from “three different Christian
churches in southern Ontario” (p. 219), thus limiting both denomination and location.
Further, Bellous’ employer was McMaster Divinity College, while Csinos was a
PhD student at Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian
Education. It thus seems a reasonable assumption that Bellous and Csinos may have
faced both internal and external pressures toward a particular set of religious principles.
In a similar vein, choice of research population can be restricted by both convenience
and practicality. It is uncertain whether the churches from which Csinos selected the
research sample (thirteen children in focus groups) were drawn from the same pool
where Csinos had “been a staff member in children’s ministry at a number of churches
in southern Ontario” (p. 223). While the choice of population may be as simple as pure
convenience, that very convenience can be problematic. Definitions of what spirituality
is and how it can be expressed can influence the framing of the research through

59
positioning spirituality within a purely religious context. As a result, generalisations of
research findings to secular settings are problematised by the research utilising a
completely non-secular population. Religion exists as a whole-life choice and is thus
not confined to specifically religious settings (Bellous, 2008); selecting religious
subjects from a religious setting thus increases the likelihood of a religious perspective.
There is no non-religious context for spirituality given in Csinos’ research. Bellous and
Csinos’ (2009) position is by no means uncommon, and sometimes arises as a result of
pragmatic considerations, as in the case of Hyde (2008b).
3.2.2 Example 2: Hyde (2008b)
An author must always be conscious of their audience, which can manifest, and be
interpreted, in different ways. For example, whether the author consciously separates
religion and spirituality or not, there is a schematic connection made by readers that will
position each reader differently, dependent upon the readers’ schemata of these
constructs.
If it is genuine in its efforts to nurture spirituality, religious education needs to
take seriously the present temporal horizon and its multiplicity of meanings.
The spiritual questing of students, even if lying outside what may once have
been considered the objective reality presented by the Christian worldview, is
authentic. Religious education then needs to begin with the immediate temporal
horizon of students, dialogue with it, and intertwine within it, the potential
relevance of the Christian story to the students’ own search for authentic ways
of being and relating in the world. (Hyde, 2008b, p. 45; original emphasis)
The underlying suggestion here is that, in order to engage non-religious students with
Christianity, their own spiritual standpoint should be a starting point for intertwining the
Christian perspective. While such an approach would count as input in Walton’s (2010)

60
MSI (everything does), there is an inherent element of wanting to change the self, the
internalised personal spirituality, to fit with a religious value system. The individual
students’ spirituality and, by extension, all of the influences that have formed the
students’ spirituality and their extant spiritual identities (output), are thus co-opted to fit
an externally imposed construct.
The focus of the article the above quote is taken from is on the relationship
between spiritual questing and religious education. Appearing in Religious Education,
the audience for the article would expect a religious connection to the articles, so there
is an element of catering to a particular audience, lending itself to Hyde’s assertion of
purpose, “to suggest some pedagogical implications for nurturing spirituality through
the primary religious education curriculum” (Hyde, 2008c, p. 117). However, Hyde’s
research was undertaken exclusively in Catholic schools (within the system that is also
his employer), with no link to secular contexts. In spite of this, extrapolations of
findings to the secular were suggested. Hyde recognises the existence of the spiritual
and ‘questing’ outside of “traditional religious devotion” (Hyde, 2008c, p. 118; see also,
Adams, Hyde & Woolley, 2008), which is indicative of a pragmatic approach. Non-
separation of the constructs of religion and spirituality, however, can lead to over-
generalisation.
3.2.3 Example 3: Radford (2004)
While Hyde draws at least some division between the concept of spirituality and
religion, others tie spirituality exclusively to religion. Radford (2004) is an example of
this, through his arguments for curricular inclusion of scriptural doctrine and explicit
direct association between spirituality and religion. In a discussion of options for
including spirituality education in UK schools, after presenting his proposals, Radford
acknowledges that “I am not sure how far this will address the problem of the spiritual

61
development of our atheistic pupils” (p. 90). Radford appears to be suggesting that
atheists are not inclined toward adequate ‘spiritual development’, as they are a
‘problem’ through being non-religious. Despite this, Radford implicitly ascribes
ownership of a God concept to atheists: “The problem is, that to say one believes or
does not believe in God is to assume that we know what God is – that there is some
shared concept upon which we are all agreed and that forms the basis for our acceptance
or denial of his existence” (Radford, 2004, p. 87). This ‘shared concept’ is interpreted
by Radford as an acceptance of the concept of divinity by atheists through their active
disassociation, that is, it is necessary to know God in order to deny God. In reality,
atheism takes many forms (Silver, 2013), and it is restrictive to suggest a single
position. Rather than an acceptance of divinity, it would be more accurate to view the
‘shared concept’ as an atheist’s attempt to see another’s point of view through
understanding of their conceptual background.
Further, some of Radford’s assumptions and assertions appear counter-intuitive:
“There is still a tendency to conflate the spiritual with the personal, emotional, social
and moral development of the child … while failing to address its central quality, that
is, our human relationship with God” (Radford, 2004, p. 87). Without consideration of
our relation to God there is, by Radford’s definition, nothing spiritual in our personal
and emotional expression, nor is there a spiritual quality to our morality/ethics and its
social context. By contrast, research suggests that morality/ethics, working in
conjunction with spirituality, are significant aspects of gifted development (Ambrose,
2009; Ambrose & Cross, 2009; Paul & Elder, 2009; Piechowski, 2009 – see also Kant,
1966; Yust et al., 2006).
Radford restricts the field of candidates for a spiritual existence, through his
styling of God as ‘he’, without caveat, thus precluding the possibility of genuine

62
spirituality from pantheist (e.g., Levine, 1994), polytheist (e.g., Butler, 2008; Harwood,
1999) or feminist (e.g., Bedenarowski, 2012; Raphael, 2012; Ruether, 2005)
perspectives, as these belief systems do not have a male monotheistic deity. Explaining
this position as catering for a particular audience, as was the case with Hyde (2008b),
appears untenable, as Radford’s paper is part of a larger work on ‘key debates in
education’ that is for consumption by and for a multicultural context, inclusive of all
degrees of religion and spirituality.
3.2.4 Exemplars summary
The exemplars given are broadly representative of the range of bias, or potential for
perceived bias (often dependent upon an individual reader’s perception), within
spirituality literature in relation to religion, where schema-based assumptions abound or
are unintentionally propagated. For example, Heaven and Ciarrochi’s (2007)
longitudinal research examined how personality development influences later religious
values, yet there does not appear to be any recognition of concomitant influences for the
non-religious, that is, how personality development influences spiritual development.
Nor is there reasoning given for why ‘religious values’ should be of more importance
than ‘values’, which could be construed as a suggestion that values can only be
religious. These observations may be countered by such factors as necessary omission,
in that space requirements of the article precluded extended clarification. Equally, it
may be as simple as terminology usage, where ‘religious beliefs’ is intended to refer to
the internalisation of values, regardless of type of belief.
The potential for confusion of both intent and purpose, when what is ‘religious’
and what is ‘spiritual’ are not comprehensively defined, is significant. Religion cannot
encompass all forms of spirituality, which would suggest a need to conceptually
separate the two.

63
3.3 Separate paths?
As should be apparent from the above examples, there are various levels of confusion,
as propagated through academia and reflected in society, of what is spiritual and what is
religious, with a distinction between the two being contentious at times and obvious at
others. For all those who take the view that spirituality and religion are separate entities
(e.g., Büssing et al., 2010; Lin, 2006; Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006; Sisk & Torrance,
2001; Yust et al., 2006) or, at least, non co-dependent (e.g., Bellous & Csinos, 2009;
Gardner, F., 2011; Hyde, 2008b; Tacey, 2004; Vaughan, 2002), there are others who
express views such as “spirituality is incumbent in religiosity” (Horan, 2011, p. 365).
Certainly, there is a common assumption that religion and spirituality both coexist and
are co-dependent, but Horan’s sentiment may be better expressed as ‘spirituality should
be incumbent in religiosity’.
Hardy’s (1965, 1966, 1979) ‘natural theology’ approach “suggests that religious
awareness may be a universal property of our nature ‘selected’ by evolution” (Nye,
1998, p. 127; see also Hay, 1994) through emphasising the essentially spiritual nature of
humanity, based in biology. This view parallels Lakoff and Johnson’s (1999) ‘embodied
mind’ concept, which is distinctly non-religious. Spirituality also has an integrative
function, with “early attachment experiences [influencing] later manifestations of
spirituality” (Surr, 2011, p. 129). Positive early attachment experiences thus contribute
to positive spiritual identity expression, through the influence of genes, environment
and experience.
3.3.1 Religion
Defining religion is notoriously difficult, because of its multitude of varieties and
expressions (Bruce, 2011; Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006; Smart, 1992). Rooted in the
Latin religio (reverence/obligation), religion’s focus is often perceived to be on its

64
internal concerns and expectations, at least in Western contexts. As it is often cited,
Durkheim’s (1964) definition is worth consideration:
A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things,
that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite
into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to
them. (p. 47; original emphasis)
It is curious that only the first fourteen words of Durkheim’s definition are
usually chosen to represent his view. This abbreviated treatment is akin to historical
revisionism. Without the remainder of the definition the truncated version may
misrepresent Durkheim, for whom “unite into one single moral community called a
Church, all those who adhere to them” was clearly significant and without which a clear
understanding of his position on religion is effectively neutered, given that its omission
removes the collective context.
Commonly, religion has its roots in belief and affiliation, with a sub-text of
ritual (Sifers, Warren & Jackson, 2012). The context thus becomes a sense of belonging
to a community (Durkheim, 1964; Good & Willoughby, 2006; Saucier & Skrzypińska,
2006) – “religiously tethered” (Tan & Wong, 2012, p. 29). As with any community,
however, the group’s priorities are valued over the individual’s, à la Durkheim’s
singularity of Church community. This can lead to adopting choices of others, including
which religion to be a member of, on the basis of not wanting to be left out. The choice
adopted has potential for both social inclusion and, particularly, social ostracism
(Gruter, 1985; Kort, 1986). There is a clear sense of living life through the precepts of
the religion, which Heelas and Woodhead (2005) viewed as a ‘life-as’ approach.
Adherents of the life-as approach have a tendency to dissociate spirituality from being
their own provenance, in order to align spirituality with religiosity. This process

65
abrogates spiritual development to a ‘group’, thus removing the individual from
responsibility for their own spiritual development. In turn, this enables disavowal of
individual responsibility through collective allocation of action to the ‘group mind’.
Any subsequent shriving is thus transferred from ‘self’ to ‘group’.
3.3.2 Spirituality
While being subject to the same insecurity of definition as religion (Principe, 1983),
spirituality is consistently connected to mindfulness (e.g., Radoń, 2013). However,
“spirituality … is not affiliated with codified religion” (DeBlasio, 2011, p. 146) –
“religiously untethered” (Tan & Wong, 2012, p. 29) – although Kwilecki (2000) likened
spiritual intelligence to the application of individualised religion. Spirituality has its
roots in the individual, through personal thought and life expressions – “a subjective
experience of the sacred” (Vaughan, 1991, p. 105) – that potentially include the
religious (Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006; Sifers, Warren & Jackson, 2012). A spiritually
grounded individual has a clear sense of self and their place in the world. Heelas and
Woodhead (2005) viewed this as a ‘subjective-life’, where interactions beyond the
individual are framed in relation to the individual, a position that is supported by the
research of Glendinning and Bruce (2012). Adherents of the subjective-life approach
take ownership of their spirituality as an individual choice and responsibility, but are
not precluded from a community and/or religious context. The group mind has a parallel
in the ‘collective mind’, where individual consciousnesses form an entity that offers
more depth than its individual components. Rooted in the Latin spiritus (breath),
spirituality is both what vitalises the individual and nourishes the interactions of
humanity.

66
3.4 Meeting of the ways
It is near impossible to raise the topic of spirituality, in any context, without religion
being associated, but that does not need to be the case. In the debate over the
validity/legitimacy of spiritual intelligence, religion plays a central role. This is evident
even through Gardner’s justification of his disavowal of ‘spiritual’, in favour of
‘existential’, when giving a name to the intelligence, being partly grounded in his belief
that spiritual was too closely associated with ‘religious’, which “makes me
uncomfortable” (Gardner, 2006, p. 20). Compounding the issue, the bulk of ‘spiritual’
research and associated measures have a religious focus and/or reasoning (Sifers,
Warren & Jackson, 2012 – e.g., Heaven & Ciarrochi, 2007).
In Heelas and Woodhead’s (2005) discussion of why spirituality is subjugating
religion, they note that “one of the great virtues of ‘life-as’ and ‘subjective-life’ is that it
enables us to sharpen up the distinction between life-as religion and subjective-life
spirituality” (Heelas & Woodhead, 2005, p. 5). This is presented as though these were
hard-and-fast categorisations, but spirituality may also be a life-as choice, while religion
may also be subjective-life. In their research into independent ‘dispositions’ for
tradition-oriented religiousness and subjective spirituality, Saucier and Skrzypińska
(2006) observed that, while the two dispositions had a moderate correlation for
independence, personality attributes associated with each could be found in both the
religious and non-religious. This may be reflective of how the domains of religion and
spirituality overlap (Tirri & Quinn, 2010).
In noting the totality of conviction necessary for religious devotion, James
(1963) recognised that any approach to life that was composed of a “total reaction upon
life” (p. 35) – “a way of living life itself” (Simmel, 2012, p. 284) – could be considered
religious. On this basis, whole-of-life approaches such as vegetarianism (e.g.,

67
Dyczewska, 2012), environmentalism (e.g., Kashima, Paladino & Margetts, 2014) and
altruism (e.g., Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Warneken & Tomasello, 2009), all of which
are grounded in the connectedness of being and allow the adherent to transcend through
a higher purpose, could be classified as religious. Albert Einstein (1935, 2010), who
Gardner connected to “existential excellence” (Sisk & Torrance, 2001, p. 6),
acknowledged the depth of conviction of his own religious beliefs, in the process
extending the view of what qualifies as religious:
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are
only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms – it is this
knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this
sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Einstein, 1935, p.
5)
With these words, Einstein positioned himself as being simultaneously non-
religious and religious – non-religious through an elaborate contra-indication of
religiousness, yet religious through a clearly defined statement of value. In so doing,
consciously or otherwise, he also positioned the justification as both singular and
collective, through individual positioning of context within wider society (the
existentialist nature of such reasoning is discussed in Ch. 2).
Approaching life in a subjective pose – with implications for and requirements
of self – does not preclude considerations of how that ‘self’ fits with, or is constructed
in the context of, wider contexts, inclusive of other individuals and organisational
structures. Indeed, subjective-life can only have relevance when viewed or perceived
within the societal reference context. ‘Humanity’ is a pluralism, so consideration of
‘self’ is done as a component of that plurality (Sartre, 1957, 1967). Even if an individual

68
was the only human on Earth, perception would still exist as part of a pluralism – within
the plurality of known existence.
Rather than religion providing the key to accessing spiritual expression, James
(1963; Rydenfelt & Pihlström, 2013) positions religion, in any form, as a conduit for
expressing personal spirituality through life practice, in line with Gardner (F., 2011).
Religion is thus a tool that may be utilised to further spirituality, whether life-as or
subjective-life. Spirituality can be a component of religion, but it does not naturally
follow that religious belief should be a prerequisite for a spiritual life. Equally, religion
is not by default spiritual (Hay & Nye, 2006), rather, spirituality transcends religion
(Sinetar, 2000), as it is the spiritual dimension that is a necessity for human existence
(Büssing et al., 2010; Van Ness, 2012).
3.5 A causal relationship for confusion
Religion is the confusing factor in spirituality discussions; once it is stripped away then
the commonalities of spirituality, and its scope, can become apparent. Attempts to
annex spirituality to serve the needs of doctrinal religion are in opposition to serving the
spiritual needs of the religion’s congregation. In applying an adult-centric religious
doctrine to children, there is both an assumption that it is ‘best’ for the children and
apparent disregard of what children’s perspectives have to offer: “can we be as willing
to let what we learn from children change our theology and theory as we are willing to
change children by the imposition of our theology and theory on them” (Hart, 2006, p.
175; original emphasis).
Children are active agents and co-constructors of their own reality, with
coherent functioning within that sphere, yet they are framed by adults as social actors in
need of a director (Hyde, Yust & Ota, 2010a). The motivations for behaviours can be

69
manipulated at an early age – a grounding principle of behaviourist theory. For both
spirituality and religion, there is a fine balance between facilitating a child’s agency
through providing ‘direction’ and imposing external expectations and standards, which
may be ‘misdirection’. Misdirection through doctrinal religion can potentially result in
negative behaviours, where “surface-level religious beliefs can lead to both good and
evil action while deeper spirituality, where the altruistic commonalities reside, more
often leads to positive, moral effects” (Ambrose & Cross, 2009, p. 6). This is not to
suggest that spirituality can only be ‘deep and meaningful’ and purely positive, which is
certainly not the case. Rather, that the more-positive aspects of religious adherence arise
from the spiritual rather than the religious component. Paul and Elder (2009) took this a
step further through their assertion that the spiritual context for humanity and ethics
should take precedence over religious doctrine in order to develop deeper spirituality. In
specific relation to children, their spirituality “tends toward the immanent and
existential” (Hart, 2006, p. 174), however, it is also “hidden because of a culturally
constructed forgetfulness which allows us to ignore the obvious” (Hay & Nye, 2006, p.
9). Hay and Nye position this ‘forgetfulness’ as the provenance of adults, who are
conditioned to ‘rise above’ thinking like a child and ‘grow up’. The suggestion appears
to be that adults have been conditioned to ‘leave behind’ the views of childhood, to
‘forget’ them, in order to progress into more-developed, socially acceptable thinking.
Yet many adults long for the ‘simpler’ times of their childhood.
There is a constant need to be aware of a separation of religion and spirituality –
in the process, excising religion from spirituality discussions, to the benefit of both.
This chapter’s purpose was to position spirituality as the focus for discussion within the
thesis. Rather than religion being a pre-determinant for spirituality, the process of

70
establishing religion’s dependent relationship to spirituality has allowed the literature to
focus on backgrounding the relevance of the research undertaken.

71
Chapter 4: Method
Leadership ability without ethics leads to manipulation and corruption;
leadership ability with ethics leads to service to humanity. In preparing gifted
students to assume leadership positions in society, we must keep in mind the
importance of their ethical development. Popularity is not enough. (Silverman,
1993, p. 312)
4.1 Research aim
As there is no extant research that connects spirituality to different types of giftedness,
the overall aim of this research was to establish a baseline for future research by
investigating the levels of spirituality across cohorts characterised by different types of
giftedness. Specifically, the current study aimed to address two research questions:
1. Do students’ spirituality levels vary as a function of sex and type of
giftedness? This question sought to examine if there were effects of type
of giftedness and participants’ sex on self-rated spirituality levels, to
identify whether such differences exist and in what form. The literature
is inconclusive about whether qualitative differences for spirituality
between sexes (Tirri & Ubani, 2004; Ubani, 2010) translate to
quantitative differences, which remains to be established here. Given
Horan’s (2007, 2011) observations that creativity and spirituality are
intimately connected, it was expected that creative gifted students, both
male and female, would have the highest self-reported levels of
spirituality. Further, in light of authors such as Piechowski (2002, 2003,
2006, 2009) highlighting the more-intense spirituality of gifted students,
as compared to non-gifted, it was hypothesised that all gifted groups, of
both sexes, would have higher self-reported levels of spirituality than the
non-gifted control group. These insights have the potential to inform
targeted development of spiritual understandings in curricula and
associated interventions.

72
2. Do students’ spirituality levels vary as a function of spiritual domain?
Following Winit’s (2010) suggestion of qualitative differences between
gifted domains, the purpose of this question was twofold: 1) to map
domain-specific levels of spirituality for each giftedness group; and, 2)
identify any differences in spiritual profiles across the groups. From
Horan’s (2007, 2011) reasoning, as above, it was expected that creatively
gifted students would have higher levels of spirituality across all
domains. Also, given claims of higher levels of spirituality for the gifted
(e.g., Lovecky, 1998; Piechowski, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009; Roeper,
1995; Sisk, 2008) over the non-gifted, it was also expected that the gifted
groups would be largely consistent in their self-reported levels of
spirituality across domains.
4.2 Design
This research adopted a causal-comparative quantitative design, as it investigated
differences between naturally occurring groups, examined using a survey. Given that
there was no comparable research to extend upon, an exploratory descriptive approach
was also taken (mapping students’ self-reported levels of spirituality across domains) to
establish a baseline for further study. Survey-based research was selected for
generalisability (Brown & Dowling, 1998; Fink, 2009; Fowler, 2009; Kervin et al.,
2006; Nardi, 2006; Punch, 2003), as a method to gather data from a large number of
respondents across different specialised schools for gifted students in geographically
dispersed locations. Using a cross-sectional survey approach further allowed the
researcher to assess the anonymous participants’ views at a given point in time
(Creswell, 2012; Mertens, 2010; O’Toole & Beckett, 2013), while also yielding data
that permitted comparisons across giftedness types and sex. Lastly, survey-based data
collection also allowed a broad range of questions to be addressed in an efficient
manner. Although survey-based data is limited by its subjective self-report nature,

73
measures were taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the data collection (see
section 4.5).
4.3 Site
The three schools used in this research were situated in a large regional area of
Australia, and were chosen based on a combination of their accessibility and presence
of easily identifiable gifted student populations. The individual specialities of the
schools also related to different elements of Gardner’s (1993) MI theory. School A, as
academic, emphasised logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences; School C, as
creative, broadly emphasised a combination of musical, spatial and interpersonal
intelligences; while School S emphasised bodily-kinæsthetic intelligence.
School A is a selective high school, ranked in the top 50 high schools in the
NSW 2013 HSC rankings (out of 660). In New South Wales, selective high schools are
composed entirely of academically gifted and talented students, providing “intellectual
stimulation by grouping together gifted and talented students who may otherwise be
isolated from a suitable peer group” (Department of Education and Communities, NSW,
2014b). Placement is competitive and students are selected based on their performance
in the Selective High School Placement Test, administered by each selective high
school, which has a linguistic and logical-mathematical emphasis. School A draws from
a wide socio-economic and geographic region that is weighted toward the middle and
upper classes.
School C is a creative and performing arts high school, ranked in the top 200
high schools in the NSW 2013 HSC rankings (out of 660). In New South Wales,
creative and performing arts high schools are composed of a combination of general-
entry students and auditioned students, with specialist streaming for the successful

74
auditioned students. They “provide opportunities for students to pursue excellence
within the Creative and Performing Arts while studying the core curriculum prescribed
by the Board of Studies” (Department of Education and Communities, NSW, 2014a).
The range of creative and performing arts offered vary between schools; dance and
drama tend to be standard, with other options such as music, vocal and circus also
offered. School C draws its auditioned student population (≈ 40%) from a wide socio-
economic and geographic area. General entry placement (≈ 60%) – primarily for
students within the school’s catchment area – is still highly sought after, with academic
results above state average. The ratio of female to male students is higher than typical in
non-creative and performing arts high schools.
School S is a sports high school, ranked in the bottom 150 high schools in the
NSW 2013 HSC rankings (out of 660). In New South Wales, sports high schools are
composed of a combination of general-entry students and TSDP (Talented Sports and
Development Program) students and provide “opportunities for students who have
potential to reach elite athletic levels” (Department of Education and Communities,
NSW, 2014c). TSDP placement is competitive and students are selected based on their
assessed performance/knowledge in their specified sport. School S potentially draws its
TSDP student population (≈ 30%) from a wide socio-economic and geographic area –
while a significant proportion of TSDP students are from the local area, others are
drawn from further locales. General entry placement (≈ 70%) has a more-limited
demographic, being drawn almost exclusively from the low-SES (socio-economic
status) area in which the school is situated. School S has significant behavioural
challenges among its student population, both TSDP and non-TSDP. The ratio of
female to male students is lower than typical in non-sport high schools.

75
4.4 Participants
All 352 participants were solely drawn from years 11 and 12. Gifted participants were
identified from the target population using convenience sampling (Creswell, 2012), in
that all three schools were easily accessible to the researcher. The control group was
drawn from the non-TSDP population of School S. All three schools can be considered
to cater for giftedness due to their acceptance procedures: School A requires all students
to pass a formal, academically selective test for entry; School C includes ≈ 60%
population who have satisfactorily completed an audition process for entry – only
auditioned students participated in the study; School S has a TSDP, with set criteria to
be attained before acceptance into the program (≈ 30%), dependent upon discipline –
only TSDP students participated in the gifted study, with the control group drawn from
the remaining ≈ 70%. The resulting sample consisted of 352 students with an average
age of 16.43 years (SD = 0.67), 54% of whom were female. The sample was divided
into four naturally occurring groups: School A (N = 186, Mage = 16.37 years, SD = 0.66,
52% female); School C (N = 83, Mage = 16.49 years, SD = 0.76, 65% female); School S
(N = 34, Mage = 16.40, SD = 0.56, 29% female); and Control (N = 49, Mage = 16.43, SD =
0.67, 59% female).
4.5 Instrument
Quantification of the relationship between spirituality and giftedness is problematic. At
the time of this research, there was no extant instrument that had been specifically
designed for assessing the spirituality of gifted children or adolescents. Equally, no
satisfactory, standardised instrument existed for the measurement of spirituality within
the mainstream population of children or adolescents, although this deficit has been at
least partly addressed (Stoyles et al., 2012). Short of developing an adolescent-centred

76
spirituality scale from first principles – that is, researching, designing and piloting a
new adolescent-centred spirituality scale – the lack of appropriate instrumentation made
it necessary to adapt an adult-centric scale.
The Integrated Spiritual Intelligence Scale (ISIS), developed by Amram and
Dryer (2008; see Appendix 1), was adopted for these purposes because it offers both
depth and breadth of statements. Building on Amram (2007), the 83-item ISIS scale
features statements that are grouped into five spirituality domains and 22 capability sub-
scales (see Table 4.1), which share significant features with the themes identified in
Amram’s (2007) qualitative research. Statements for each of the sub-scales are spread
throughout ISIS, obviating any chance of the order influencing sub-scale and domain
response. Further, the ISIS scale was developed to yield a measurement of overall
spirituality levels, as well as levels of spirituality within each of five spirituality
domains. Each of the statements is non-prescriptive, in that they are not phrased to
encourage a particular direction for the response through either tenor or wording (Nardi,
2006). Further, the six-point Likert response scale permits standardisation in
administration and scoring (Mertens, 2010). A limited amount of amendment to the
original scale was necessary, however, to ensure age-appropriateness for adolescents.
All amendments were checked and approved by the original creators of ISIS, Amram
and Dryer. Apart from courtesy and copyright, this approval was sought as an assurance
that the original intent of the statements was retained. The ISIS version given to the
students was renamed the Life Perceptions scale, also with the approval of the authors,
in order to be less leading for responses, as the word ‘spiritual’ in the title had the
potential to be. The final adapted scale can be found in Appendix 2.

77
Table 4.1: ISIS domains and sub-scales
Consciousness Grace Meaning Transcendence Truth
Intuition Beauty Purpose Higher-self Egolessness
Mindfulness Discernment Service Holism Equanimity
Synthesis Freedom Practice Inner-wholeness
Gratitude Relatedness Openness
Immanence Sacredness Presence
Joy Trust
(Source: Amram & Dryer, 2008)
ISIS was adapted for a younger population for this study, with adjustments made
to the terminology in order to allow respondents to access the meaning in the statement
items. For example, as the original ISIS was designed for an adult audience, all ‘work’-
related references could not be transferred. Work-related terminology was adjusted to
reflect evaluations of school or life, for example: statement 1 – ‘I notice and appreciate
the beauty that is uncovered in my work’ became ‘I notice and appreciate the beauty
that is uncovered in the things I do’; statement 73 – ‘I see advancing my career as the
main reason to do a good job’ became ‘The main reason to perform well in school is to
advance my future career options’. In other instances, it was the complexity of the
language used that needed to be simplified, for example: statement 8 – ‘In my daily life,
I feel the source of life immanent and present within the physical world’ became ‘In my
daily life, I feel the source of life to be inherently divine and present within the physical
world’. In addition, separate clarification was given at the start of the survey form for
the following terms: ‘opening myself’, ‘nonconformity’, ‘cyclical’, ‘linear’, ‘sacred’,
‘sensual’, ‘holistic’ and ‘paradoxes’. These clarifications contributed to addressing any
issues of unfamiliarity for respondents (Tourangeau, Rips & Rasinski, 2000).
The original ISIS scale scored well on all aspects of validity (Amram & Dryer,
2008). This can be seen through a high internal consistency score (Cronbach’s Alpha =
0.97), high internal consistency of domain scales (range = 0.84–0.95; mean value =
0.89) and moderate to high internal consistency for the sub-scales (range = 0.62–0.88;

78
mean value = 0.75). Of the 22 sub-scales, only Egolessness (0.62; Truth) and
Relatedness (0.68; Transcendence) had an internal consistency below .70. Convergent
validity was also established by correlating ISIS with the Index of Core Spiritual
Experiences (INSPIRIT) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). INSPIRIT and ISIS
scores had a high correlation (r = 0.73, p < .001), as did ISIS and SWLS scores (r =
0.73, p < .001). There was a high correlation between INSPIRIT and the Transcendence
subscale (r = 0.85, p <0.01), but only moderate correlation with the Truth subscale (r =
0.37, p <0.01). As a pre-existing instrument was used (ISIS), with limited amendments,
the validity and reliability or responses were assumed on the basis of this reliability and
validity evidence (Creswell, 2012). Further, that 25 items are reverse-scored meant that
validity of the data generated could be evaluated on the basis of current data.
4.6 Procedure
The three schools participating in this research were chosen based on a combination of
their accessibility and presence of easily identifiable gifted student populations. Initial
contact was made with the respective principals to gauge their interest, discuss the
proposed research, view the research instrument and raise any queries/concerns. The
research was subsequently approved by the University of Wollongong Human Research
Ethics Committee in November 2010 and SERAP (New South Wales Department of
Education and Training) in August 2011, with data collection taking place in March
2012 (School A and School C) and May 2012 (School S) – see Appendix 3 for a sample
Participant Information Sheet. No adverse effects were expected for the participants,
however, in the unlikely event of a student feeling distressed as a result of completing
the survey, arrangements were made with all three schools for the school counsellor to

79
be available at the time of administration. In accordance with ethics approval, tacit
consent was provided by completion of the Life Perceptions scale.
Survey administration took place in the schools – School A in a lecture hall,
School C and School S in students’ regular classrooms, on a class-by-class basis –
supervised by the researcher and, for School A only, an assistant. In each case, the
students were given some background to the research and an opportunity to ask any
questions. On average, survey completion took approximately 15 minutes.
4.7 Data analysis
To investigate students’ overall spirituality scores, and whether these varied as a
function of giftedness type and sex, descriptive analyses and ANOVAs were conducted.
Subsequent analyses applied these same procedures to spirituality domain scores and
sub-scale scores to identify any differences in spirituality profiles as a function of
giftedness group. The results of these analyses are presented in Chapter 5.
4.8 Conclusion
The methodological foundation given in this chapter provided a solid framework for the
research through, for example, using an established scale, contributing to validity and
reliability of data, and a large sample size, for better generalisability. Results will be
presented in Chapter 5, while discussion of the results and their relation to the research
questions and hypotheses will be presented in Chapter 6.

80
Chapter 5: Results
An action from duty does not have its moral worth in the purpose which is to be
attained by it, but in the maxim according to which it has been formed. (Kant,
1966, p. 200; original emphasis)
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the research. Preliminary analyses will be discussed
that affected the sample size and structure of the groups. Subsequent to this, scores for
overall spirituality are presented followed by analysis of differences in spirituality
scores as a function of group and sex. Differences as a function of group are then further
explored to conclude this chapter.
5.2 Analyses
As a preliminary to the main analyses, an investigation was undertaken to establish if
there were significant differences between the sport and control groups. Two factors
contributed to an expectation of limited difference between the responses of the sport
and control groups: 1) lack of literature support for the spiritual as an attribute of
sporting giftedness; and 2) both groups were drawn from School S. To evaluate this
expectation, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the sport and
control groups on full-scale, domain and sub-scale spirituality scores. Results indicated
no statistically significant differences between the two groups on full-scale spirituality
scores, scores for each spirituality domain or sub-scale scores (all ps > .05, with the
exception of the Practice sub-scale, p = .03). The lack of significant differences between
the two groups justified collapsing them as a single control group for the purposes of

81
subsequent analyses. This also served to more closely align the sample sizes of the
giftedness groups (i.e., academic, creative, control).
5.3 Overall spirituality scores
An initial ANOVA was conducted to investigate differences in overall spirituality
scores as a function of giftedness group (see Fig. 5.1). Results indicated a main effect of
Group, F(2, 352) = 7.05, p = .001, partial η2
= .04, such that the Creative group had the
highest overall spirituality scores (M = 296.33, SD = 38.36), followed by Academic (M
= 281.22, SD = 43.48) and then Control (M = 268.93, SD = 48.09). Consistent with
expectations, the Creative group scored highest on overall spirituality. Further, as
predicted, the academic group also had significantly higher overall spirituality scores
than the control group.
Figure 5.1: Overall spirituality means for Group
296.33

281.22

268.93

281.88

255

260

265

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

Creative
Academic
Control
Total

Mean
overall
spirituality

Group

82
5.4 Interaction between Group and Sex in spirituality
scores
A subsequent 2 (Sex) x 3 (Group) ANOVA was conducted on participants’ total
spirituality scores to investigate a possible group by sex interaction. Results again
indicated a significant effect of Group, F(2, 352) = 7.05, p = .001, partial η2
=. 04 (as
presented in the preceding section). There was, however, no significant effect of Sex,
F(1, 352) = 0.64, p = .425, partial η2
< .01. These results were conditioned by a
significant Sex x Group interaction, F(2, 352) = 4.00, p = .019, partial η2
= .02. Post-hoc
analyses indicated no significant difference in males’ spirituality scores across
giftedness groups, yet significant differences in females’ spirituality scores across
giftedness groups (see Fig. 5.2): Creative–Academic, t(149) = 3.11, p = .002, η2
= .06;
Creative–Control, t(91) = 4.31, p < .001, η2
= .17; Academic–Control, t(134) = 2.32, p
= .022, η2
= .04. Specifically, females’ scores were highest in the Creative group (M =
301.81, SD = 38.36), followed by the Academic group (M = 279.02, SD = 45.53) and
then the Control group (M = 256.66, SD = 62.39). Taken together, this suggests
commonality among males in capacity for spirituality, while females’ capacity for
spirituality was more divergent, dependent primarily upon their ‘type’ of giftedness.

83
Figure 5.2: Overall spirituality means for Sex and Group
5.5 Spirituality domain and sub-scale scores by group
Descriptive statistics for spirituality domain scores are provided in tables 5.1–5.5. In
order to investigate whether domain-specific spirituality scores differed as a function of
giftedness group (i.e., Creative, Academic, Control), a 3 (Group) x 5 (Domain)
repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on participants’ spirituality domain scores.
Mean scores (as opposed to sum scores) were used in recognition of the different
number of items within each domain. Results indicated a significant effect of Group,
F(2, 350) = 10.14, p < .001, partial η2
= .06. Post-hoc REGWQ analyses indicated that
all groups significantly differed in their spirituality scores, with the Creative group
scoring highest (M = 3.57, SD = 0.46), followed by the Academic group (M = 3.40, SD
= 0.54) and then the Control group (M = 3.24, SD = 0.58). There was also a significant
effect of Domain, F(4, 1400) = 77.29, p < .001, partial η2
= .18. Post-hoc pairwise
comparisons indicated significant differences between all domains, with Consciousness
scores highest (M = 3.81, SD = 0.82), followed by Grace scores (M = 3.74, SD = 0.69),
240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

Male
Female

Mean
overall
spirituality

Sex

Creative

Academic

Control

84
Truth scores (M = 3.43, SD = 0.66), Meaning scores (M = 3.21, SD = 0.77) and then
Transcendence scores (M = 3.08, SD = 0.89).
Table 5.1: Descriptive statistics for Consciousness domain
Groups
Academic Creative Control Total
Domain/subgroup Q# M SD M SD M SD M SD
Consciousness 3.85 0.75 4.17 0.61 3.37 0.94 3.81 0.82
Intuition 3.75 0.99 4.41 0.75 3.67 1.00 3.86 1.00
12 2.85 1.78 4.05 1.58 3.58 1.61 3.31 1.76
43 3.80 1.51 4.02 1.41 3.40 1.68 3.76 1.54
50 4.15 1.36 4.94 1.09 3.92 1.53 4.29 1.39
51 4.17 1.20 4.69 1.08 3.78 1.53 4.20 1.29
Mindfulness 4.03 0.79 4.11 0.76 3.62 0.86 3.93 0.83
4 4.81 1.01 4.86 1.09 4.72 1.40 4.80 1.13
16 4.25 1.48 4.41 1.38 3.63 1.58 4.15 1.50
29 3.41 1.49 3.39 1.46 3.15 1.52 3.35 1.49
54 3.41 1.34 3.58 1.30 2.86 1.55 3.33 1.40
72 4.36 1.40 4.39 1.43 3.47 1.48 4.17 1.47
Synthesis 3.84 1.03 3.96 0.89 3.33 1.11 3.70 1.07
36 4.01 1.49 3.96 1.19 3.27 1.40 3.83 1.43
49 3.92 1.40 4.29 1.27 3.10 1.40 3.82 1.43
70 3.64 1.38 3.63 1.34 3.49 1.51 3.60 1.40

85
Table 5.2: Descriptive statistics for Grace domain
Domain/subgroup Q#
Groups
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Grace 3.81 0.65 3.91 0.61 3.41 0.74 3.74 0.69
Beauty 3.75 1.10 4.29 0.88 3.44 1.06 3.77 1.10
1 3.77 1.26 3.91 1.06 3.61 1.44 3.77 1.26
47 3.75 1.45 4.13 1.27 3.29 1.53 3.73 1.45
62 3.80 1.59 4.74 1.43 3.40 1.55 3.94 1.61
Discernment 3.80 0.91 3.86 0.81 3.54 0.88 3.76 0.88
28 4.55 1.16 4.3 1.20 3.75 1.61 4.31 1.32
42 3.07 1.60 3.36 1.58 3.16 1.62 3.16 1.60
45 3.68 1.48 4.10 1.43 3.70 1.41 3.78 1.46
79 3.98 1.56 3.62 1.33 3.61 1.63 3.81 1.53
Freedom 4.22 0.87 3.88 0.96 3.73 0.90 4.03 0.92
6 4.63 1.17 4.41 1.19 3.59 1.38 4.35 1.29
31 3.86 1.51 3.45 1.67 3.90 1.40 3.77 1.53
44 4.18 1.44 3.71 1.66 3.60 1.58 3.93 1.55
Gratitude 4.04 1.24 4.19 1.27 3.72 1.18 3.96 1.23
24 4.16 1.28 4.27 1.37 3.89 1.46 4.12 1.35
67 3.94 1.47 4.13 1.43 3.49 1.58 3.88 1.50
Immanence 3.63 0.91 3.94 0.85 3.60 0.82 3.69 0.89
13 3.99 1.33 4.10 1.07 3.85 1.33 3.99 1.27
21 4.17 1.45 4.46 1.42 3.93 1.54 4.18 1.47
27 2.99 1.43 3.20 1.46 2.84 1.45 3.01 1.45
52 3.39 1.45 3.99 1.47 3.72 1.62 3.61 1.51
Joy 3.79 1.03 3.68 0.98 3.51 0.89 3.65 1.02
76 4.07 1.72 3.29 1.61 3.75 1.57 3.81 1.69
77 3.43 1.47 3.22 1.41 3.12 1.58 3.31 1.48
80 3.83 1.35 4.48 1.31 3.75 1.62 3.97 1.43
NB: Question numbers in bold were reverse scored.
Table 5.3: Descriptive statistics for Meaning domain
Domain/subgroup Q#
Groups
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Meaning 3.13 0.79 3.48 0.62 3.12 0.83 3.21 0.77
Purpose 3.15 0.76 3.28 0.63 3.31 0.70 3.21 0.72
10 4.05 1.26 4.10 1.06 3.78 1.21 4.00 1.21
19 2.44 1.30 3.52 1.35 2.91 1.32 2.80 1.38
39 3.50 1.57 4.10 1.39 3.61 1.49 3.67 1.53
73 2.28 1.42 1.89 1.36 2.83 1.59 2.31 1.48
74 3.47 1.62 2.93 1.60 3.38 1.61 3.32 1.62
Service 3.26 1.10 3.85 0.99 3.27 1.00 3.37 1.10
38 3.40 1.51 4.22 1.19 3.19 1.30 3.55 1.44
40 3.51 1.40 4.20 1.40 3.30 1.58 3.63 1.48
71 2.82 1.47 3.17 1.44 3.27 1.38 3.00 1.45

86
Table 5.4: Descriptive statistics for Transcendence domain
Domain/subgroup Q#
Groups
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Transcendence 2.98 0.92 3.42 0.78 2.99 0.86 3.08 0.89
Higher-self 3.14 1.19 3.54 1.00 3.39 0.69 3.28 1.07
15 2.65 1.67 3.43 1.62 3.11 1.45 2.94 1.64
35 2.75 1.63 3.36 1.61 3.28 1.47 3.01 1.61
53 3.63 1.54 3.51 1.40 3.87 1.65 3.66 1.53
58 3.71 1.71 3.72 1.70 3.28 1.59 3.61 1.69
59 3.02 1.66 3.69 1.73 3.53 1.63 3.29 1.70
Holism 3.23 1.06 3.59 0.90 3.13 1.02 3.25 1.05
14 3.24 1.57 3.77 1.13 3.04 1.28 3.32 1.43
37 3.54 1.42 3.90 1.32 3.24 1.34 3.56 1.39
61 2.83 1.71 3.16 1.51 3.35 1.65 3.03 1.66
65 3.37 1.39 3.46 1.42 2.96 1.54 3.30 1.44
Practice 2.45 1.06 2.93 0.93 2.83 0.97 2.65 1.03
5 2.81 1.47 3.34 1.39 3.01 1.52 2.99 1.47
17 3.27 1.66 3.94 1.53 3.26 1.68 3.42 1.66
20 2.20 1.69 2.25 1.75 2.43 1.55 2.26 1.67
30 2.45 1.49 3.33 1.48 2.96 1.56 2.77 1.54
41 1.98 1.40 2.48 1.58 2.62 1.59 2.24 1.51
66 2.02 1.50 2.19 1.58 2.58 1.55 2.18 1.54
Relatedness 3.98 0.94 4.07 0.93 3.49 1.15 3.79 1.08
25 4.23 1.20 4.17 1.25 3.44 1.64 4.03 1.37
48 3.98 1.33 4.12 1.15 3.56 1.44 3.92 1.33
56 3.69 1.36 3.89 1.29 3.27 1.47 3.64 1.39
Sacredness 3.04 1.20 3.57 1.05 3.33 1.04 3.23 1.14
8 2.99 1.57 3.63 1.34 3.55 1.44 3.28 1.51
34 3.14 1.63 3.49 1.59 3.19 1.51 3.24 1.60
57 2.67 1.62 3.14 1.51 3.22 1.52 2.91 1.58
64 3.40 1.48 3.90 1.34 3.31 1.63 3.50 1.50

87
Table 5.5: Descriptive statistics for Truth domain
Domain/subgroup Q#
Groups
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Truth 3.48 0.68 3.28 0.65 3.47 0.63 3.43 0.66
Egolessness 3.19 1.04 3.11 0.95 3.56 1.16 3.25 1.06
46 2.78 1.45 2.92 1.52 3.34 1.55 2.94 1.50
63 3.78 1.48 3.66 1.52 3.83 1.59 3.76 1.51
78 3.05 1.69 2.79 1.65 3.35 1.64 3.05 1.68
Equanimity 3.41 1.01 3.45 0.81 3.41 0.88 3.42 0.93
3 3.89 1.23 4.12 0.96 3.70 1.44 3.90 1.22
9 3.25 1.33 3.02 1.34 3.56 1.47 3.22 1.37
32 3.05 1.38 3.19 1.36 3.18 1.37 3.11 1.37
Inner-wholeness 3.87 1.07 3.61 1.13 3.93 0.89 3.80 1.06
18 4.49 1.45 4.46 1.71 4.48 1.56 4.48 1.56
55 3.63 1.39 2.98 1.25 3.58 1.32 3.46 1.37
69 4.03 1.60 3.98 1.80 4.00 1.58 4.01 1.64
82 3.27 1.86 3.00 1.87 3.51 1.75 3.26 1.84
Openness 3.08 0.92 2.78 0.88 3.18 0.86 3.02 0.90
7 3.16 1.35 3.16 1.46 3.45 1.38 3.23 1.38
11 2.42 1.38 1.89 1.16 2.60 1.60 2.33 1.41
60 3.70 1.46 3.51 1.61 2.96 1.58 3.49 1.55
81 3.02 1.53 2.53 1.43 3.58 1.44 3.02 1.53
Presence 2.76 0.96 2.39 0.91 3.25 1.01 2.78 1.00
23 3.28 1.41 2.51 1.22 3.21 1.51 3.08 1.43
33 2.64 1.48 2.13 1.39 3.35 1.52 2.68 1.52
75 2.37 1.29 2.53 1.30 3.15 1.56 2.58 1.39
Trust 4.33 1.10 4.16 1.02 3.93 0.89 4.18 1.06
2 4.65 1.25 4.43 1.27 4.36 1.59 4.53 1.35
22 4.17 1.44 3.77 1.60 3.84 1.49 4.00 1.50
26 4.43 1.56 4.05 1.47 3.79 1.59 4.20 1.57
68 4.05 1.55 4.37 1.44 3.69 1.57 4.05 1.54
These results were conditioned by a significant Group x Domain interaction,
F(8, 1400) = 11.78, p < .001, partial η2
= .06 (see Fig. 5.1). Post-hoc REGWQ analyses
to investigate between-group differences indicated that: (1) all three giftedness groups
significantly differed in Consciousness scores (Creative: M = 4.17, SD = 0.61;
Academic: M = 3.85, SD = 0.75; Control: M = 3.37, SD = 0.94); (2) Creative (M = 3.91,
SD = 0.61) and Academic groups (M = 3.81 SD = 0.65) displayed significantly higher
Grace scores than the Control group (M = 3.41, SD = 0.74); (3) the Creative group had
significantly higher Meaning and Transcendence scores (Meaning: M = 3.48, SD =
0.62; Transcendence: M = 3.42, SD = 0.78) than either the Academic (Meaning: M =

88
3.13, SD = 0.79; Transcendence: M = 2.98, SD = 0.92) or Control groups (Meaning: M
= 3.12, SD = 0.83; Transcendence: M = 2.99, SD = 0.86); and (4) there was no
significant difference between groups in terms of Truth scores (Academic: M = 3.48,
SD = 0.68; Control: M = 3.47, SD = 0.63; Creative: M = 3.28, SD = 0.65).
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons to investigate within-group differences indicated
that for the creative group, Consciousness scores were highest (M = 4.17, SD = 0.61),
followed by Grace scores (M = 3.91, SD = 0.61) and then Meaning (M = 3.48, SD =
0.62), Transcendence (M = 3.42, SD = 0.78) and Truth scores (M = 3.28, SD = 0.65),
which did not significantly differ. This pattern of results differed somewhat in the
Academic group, with no significant difference between Consciousness (M = 3.85, SD
= 0.75) and Grace scores (M = 3.81, SD = 0.65), although these scores were higher than
scores in the other three domains. Among the other three domains, Truth scores were
highest (M = 3.48, SD = 0.68), followed by Meaning scores (M = 3.13, SD = 0.79) and
then Transcendence scores (M = 2.98, SD = 0.92). Lastly, for the Control group, there
was no significant difference between Consciousness (M = 3.37, SD = 0.94), Grace (M
= 3.41, SD = 0.74) and Truth scores (M = 3.47, SD = 0.63), yet these were significantly
higher than Meaning (M = 3.12, SD = 0.83) and Transcendence scores (M = 2.99, SD =
0.86), which did not significantly differ.
Considered together (and seen in Fig. 5.3), different patterns of results are
apparent in each domain. In the Consciousness and Grace domains, the Creative group
had higher scores than the Academic group, which, in turn, had higher scores than the
Control group. Similar results are apparent in the Meaning and Transcendence domains,
such that the Creative group had the highest scores, but the Academic and Control
groups did not significantly differ. This pattern of results is reversed in the Truth
domain, such that the Creative group scored significantly lower than the Academic and

89
Control groups, which did not significantly differ. These results were only partly in line
with expectations. That is, the expectation that the Creative group would score highest
across all domains was supported in four out of five domains. In the Truth domain, and
contrasting expectations, the Creative group actually scored lowest among the groups..
Further contrasting expectations, there were only two domains (Consciousness and
Grace) for which a significant difference between the Academic and Control groups in
spirituality scores were noted.
Figure 5.3: Group spirituality means by domain
5.6 Conclusion
Results thus largely supported hypotheses of creatively gifted students scoring higher
on overall spirituality and most spiritual domains. In contrast, academically gifted
students scored higher than the control group overall, but this was a function of higher
scores in only two spirituality domains. While there were no overall differences
between the sexes in terms of spirituality scores, there was a notable difference in the
2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

Mean
spirituality
score

Domain

Creative

Academic

Control

90
profile of spirituality scores as a function of sex and giftedness group (such that females
differed in spirituality scores as a function of giftedness group, whereas males did not).
The following chapter will provide a discussion of these results and attempt to interpret
them, to provide a framework for further research and practice.

91
Chapter 6: Discussion
It is what the child learns in himself, for himself and for the sake of his/her
fellow human beings that really matters. (Jarman, 1996, pp. 10–11)
6.1 Introduction
As the literature ascribes higher levels of spirituality to gifted students than non-gifted
students, the current study sought to establish whether there are different levels of
spirituality within the types of giftedness. In this aim, considering the absence of prior
research that examines differences in spirituality by type of giftedness, it provides novel
and converging evidence that addresses the research questions and associated
hypotheses. Specifically, results indicated that the Creative individuals rated themselves
significantly higher than all other groups on spirituality overall. The Academic gifted
group also had significantly higher overall spirituality ratings than the Control group,
which comprised the merged original control group with the sporting gifted. Further,
these results differed by both sex and domain. The sex differences reflected the same
group order as overall spirituality (Creative, Academic, Control) for females, yet there
were no significant differences between the male ratings as a function of gifted group.
The domain scores followed the same general pattern, with the exception of Truth, but
were less clear-cut. These results suggest that the higher levels of spirituality ascribed to
gifted students as a whole may be misleading, as there is an identified interaction
between giftedness type and sex.
6.2 Giftedness group effects
The presence of a higher level of spirituality in gifted students has been noted by
authors such as Piechowski (2002, 2003, 2006, 2009), Roeper (1995) and Sisk (2008),

92
notably through the tendency for gifted to have a more-highly evolved sensitivity to
moral and ethical standards. Such views tend to treat gifted students as a homogeneous
group for spiritual factors, where all gifted students have a higher level of spirituality
than the non-gifted. This assumption is compounded and reinforced by an absence of
research literature exploring variations in spirituality level according to type of
giftedness. The data from the current research thus provides a baseline estimate of
spirituality levels as a function of giftedness type that has not previously been available,
allowing the data to inform both subsequent hypotheses and future research.
The types of giftedness present in the current research – Academic, Creative and
Sport – were chosen partly because of the availability of participating high schools with
those specialities. They were also suitable because of the contradictory literature base in
regard to spirituality for these forms of giftedness. In the literature there does appear to
be an implicit expectation that creative individuals, regardless of whether they are gifted
or not, are more spiritual (e.g., Cameron, 1994), as if higher spirituality is a pre-
requisite for being creative. This contrasts sharply with sport where, although literature
on the development of sporting prowess is abundant, far less consideration is given to
the spiritual aspects of sporting giftedness, other than for personal participatory factors
(e.g., Brymer & Gray, 2009, 2010; Humberstone, 2011). As Academic comprise the
most-obvious, and perhaps most accepted, form of giftedness, as well as being a distinct
‘talent’ in Gagné’s (2008) DMGT (as is Sports and Athletics), Academic thus provides
a point of reference for Creative and Sport.
When conducting analyses, the responses of the sporting gifted displayed no
significant difference to the original Control, so the sporting gifted were included in an
extended Control group. This result contradicted expectations that all gifted groups
would have higher ratings of spirituality. However, results did indicate significantly

93
higher overall spirituality scores among the Creative group relative to all other groups.
The Academic group also had significantly higher overall spirituality ratings compared
to Control, but significantly lower than Creative. Subsequent analyses aimed to further
understand these results as a function of sex and spirituality domain. There were distinct
differences between male and female scores, suggesting that sex has a significant role.
6.3 Sex effects
Whether sex was a further factor in the spirituality scores, as a function of type of
giftedness, was addressed through seeking to answer two hypotheses: 1) creative gifted
students, both male and female, will have the highest self-reported levels of spirituality;
and 2) all gifted groups, of both sexes, will have higher self-reported levels of
spirituality than the non-gifted control group (discussed in 6.2). A distinct pattern of
results was found for female participants, which was not found with the male
participants. Specifically, all female groups significantly differed from each other, such
that Creative gifted females rated higher on overall spirituality scores, followed by
Academic gifted females, which in turn was rated higher than Control females. By
contrast, there were no significant differences between any of the male groups.
Hypothesis 1 was thus only partially supported by the data.
There was a clear, and significant, distinction between the spirituality scores for
males and females. It is less clear why this would be the case. At first glance, the male
spirituality scores could be interpreted as suggesting that there is little differentiation in
levels of spirituality amongst males. Females, by contrast, vary so widely that
identifying the source(s) of these differences may be problematic. Tirri and Ubani
(2004) and Ubani (2010) noted a qualitative difference in how males and females
approach spiritual concerns, where girls were more inclined to existentialist

94
considerations and the spirituality of boys was linked to their relationship with nature.
There appears to be an underlying suggestion by Tirri and Ubani that girls are more
likely to value interpersonal considerations, directed at understanding their place in, and
relationship to, the world. This would imply that boys devote fewer resources to
interpersonal considerations, suggesting that males and females have different ways of
thinking spiritually. Why this should be the case may be the result of an interaction of
genetic and cognitive factors – where sexes are hard wired to think in a certain way – or
socialisation – where the influences surrounding a child encourage a given way of
interacting with the world.
The genetic bases for sex differences in spirituality are contentious, at best
(Foster, 2011), with a more likely relation to evolutionary psychology (Beauregard &
O’Leary, 2008). Intelligence – as represented through IQ and g, for example – has the
most commonly cited genetic bases for cognitive functioning, but is itself the subject of
debate of both whether it is actually intelligence that is being measured and how
intelligence should be defined. Indeed, Sisk and Torrance (2001) viewed spiritual
intelligence as a unifying form of intelligence, a ‘master key’ to the functions of other
intelligence aspects. Even within this context, there is minimal research that compares
male and female intelligence. Intelligence is acknowledged as a desirable cognitive
construct, but its genetic basis, when differentiating by sex, is open to question. As
such, the role of socialisation, where there is a solid foundation for sex differences may
provide a stronger theoretical and empirical base from which to interpret the current
results.
Socialisation of sex roles and behaviours occurs from the moment of birth, when
infants are commonly dressed according to what is perceived by the parents, from their
own schemata, to be appropriate to the sex of the infant. Language use is sex

95
differentiated at an early age. In make-believe play, children use lower pitches and a
demanding tone when adopting a male role, while the female role features higher pitch
and a polite tone (Blakemore, Berenbaum & Liben, 2009). Such behaviours arise as a
result of imitation and modelling (Bandura, 1971). In line with Bandura’s social
cognitive theory, how parents approach topics, such as emotions or empathy, with their
children will influence the children’s understanding and expression of that topic.
Parents, of both sexes, “are more likely to talk about emotions with daughters”
(Blakemore, Berenbaum & Liben, 2009, p. 281), while empathy is a skill that is less
encouraged in boys, who are more likely to suppress emotions (Blakemore, Berenbaum
& Liben, 2009; Bosacki, 2001).
The MSI input of imitation is thus modified through the self via modelling in the
process of identity formation, with the socialising aspect providing a key determinant to
individuals’ development of spiritual identity. In particular, boys are less likely to be
socialised to behaviours that are clearly connected to spirituality, whereas girls are more
likely to be directed into behavioural avenues, such as concern for others, that have a
greater depth of spirituality and are tied to being “culturally desirable” (Bosacki, 2001,
p. 209). On that basis, however, the boys in the study should have scored lower than the
girls, regardless of type of giftedness. This was not the case (except in the Creative
gifted group), but the boys’ results did display a more-restricted range that is suggestive
of a commonality of perceptual approach at a group level. Extending the perceptual
commonality into the spiritual seems logical, if a consistency of male functioning is
accepted. This would initially appear to conflict with Shaywitz et al.’s (2001) study that
identified the heterogeneity of behaviour among gifted boys, although as this was IQ
based it would have only been directly relevant to the academically gifted group and is
more related to observable behaviours than cognitive consequences of giftedness.

96
Observation and modelling are not the only processes that children draw upon,
with practice being an important factor. If a process is not encouraged, however, then it
is less likely to develop to its potential. The role of encouragement is dependent upon
what is valued by the caregiver. The sex basis of this can been seen when parents use
more-technical vocabulary with boys than girls (Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2003;
Tenenbaum et al., 2005). Realising what is valued by a role model, such as a parent,
through encouragement, influences the thinking of the child in a particular direction. A
dismissive attitude “leads to repressing rather than refining the child’s spiritual nature”
(Hart, 2003, p. 3), in the process, overlaying the child’s innate sensitivities with
negative connotations. A positive attitude gives the child ‘permission’ to follow their
nature, but all interactions contribute to shaping “a child’s worldview, values, and
character” (Hart, 2003, p. 171). The more-existentially focused cognition of girls,
identified by Tirri and Ubani (2004) and Ubani (2010), may be a result of a greater
emphasis placed on interpersonal and intrapersonal MI for girls than boys, whereby the
latter are often actively discouraged from existential concerns in favour of more-
concrete thinking (e.g., Blakemore, Berenbaum & Liben, 2009; Bosacki, 2001). Boys
seem to be channelled into a narrower range of thinking than girls, consistent with the
current data, whereas girls are channelled toward existential concerns and empathy,
which are key aspects of spirituality and open to individual interpretation. Given that
spirituality research has existentialist concerns at its core, as does the current research,
poorer performance by males may be predicated on their gender (psychological) rather
than on their sex (biological). The differences in parental conditioning between boys
and girls suggested by Tenenbaum and Leaper (2003), Tenenbaum et al. (2005) and
others may contribute to children’s acquisition of a mindset that applies a gender
delineation to spirituality, of both breadth and depth. This would be as a result of less

97
importance being placed on existential considerations with boys than with girls, with
consequently less emphasis on developing those considerations. While this would
contribute to an understanding of the minimal differences between the boys’ spirituality
scores, regardless of type of giftedness, it seems to work against the range of difference
exhibited between the girls’ scores.
Type of giftedness may be a key factor. Both the female subjects in Tirri and
Ubani (2004) and the male subjects in Ubani (2010) had a similar giftedness profile to
the Academic group from the current research. If Tirri and Ubani’s findings are taken at
face value, it would suggest that a scale that measures spirituality in academic
giftedness would have differing results for males and females, due to the different
approaches to spirituality. The Academic group in the current research, however, does
not fit with that suggestion, where there was no significant difference between male
Academic and female Academic.
The type of thinking that is valued for academic pursuits is highly consistent for
both sexes, where convergent thinking, for which “knowledge provides a well from
which ideas are drawn” (Cropley, 2006, p. 395), rather than divergent thinking, which
“generates variability” (Cropley, 2006, p. 392; original italics), is the norm, at least in
schools. Divergent thinking is acknowledged as playing an important role in giftedness
(Runco, 2004), although its place as “a predictor of original thought, not a criterion of
creative ability” (p. 160) suggests that it is still subject to the strictures of giftedness
type. As such, while the male Academic and female Academic may be socially
influenced by their interactions to think differently, they are also influenced to respond
in a particular way due to their academic context. The similarity in the male Academic
and female Academic scores thus has the potential to be attributed to academic
influence trumping social influence.

98
How to explain the Creative and Sport/Control female differences is another
matter. Creative, at least, may have its grounds in the optimal interaction of sex and
type of giftedness. As previously discussed, there appear to be indications that females
are more likely to be socialised to existential considerations than males (Blakemore,
Berenbaum & Liben, 2009; Bosacki, 2001; Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2003; Tenenbaum et
al., 2005; Tirri & Ubani, 2004; Ubani, 2010). Combining this with expectations of
higher spirituality among creative people (e.g., Cameron, 1994) would create the
optimum conditions for the female creative to rank highest in spirituality. This
reinforcement of what is often perceived to be the elevated natural order for creative
individuals stands in contrast to the lower perceptions of giftedness beyond the physical
for exceptional-ability sport-inclined individuals. Both academic and creative types of
giftedness utilise higher-order thinking, whereas for athletes of all types, “thinking and
action seem to lie at opposite ends of the behavioural spectrum” (Moran, 2012, p. 85)
when, in reality, they are “inextricably linked” (p. 90). Giftedness is evident in all three
types, but the type of thinking differs. For sporting giftedness this is most evident
through decision making (Johnson, 2006), visualisation (Moran, A., 2009; Moran &
MacIntyre, 2008) and perceptual awareness (Faubert & Sidebottom, 2012). The latter
two are also evident in creative individuals, but in different contexts6
. While definitively
cognitive processes, visualisation and perception are often utilised by creative
individuals in the active development of a piece of work for display or performance. For
those with sporting giftedness these processes, while equally valuable, are more likely
to be reactively triggered in response to transient context and circumstances. The
active–reactive distinction may contribute to the difference between Creative and
Academic scores in the current study. While both types of giftedness involve a high
6
While ‘creative’ in this context refers to artistic expression through display and/or
performance, visualisation and perception are relevant to a much-wider range of fields.

99
level of cognitive functioning, they may be applied differently. A deeper and more-
sustained consideration of context and purpose is more characteristic of the creative
process than is the case for sport. That depth of sustained thought, a key consideration
of spiritual development, is the crucial distinction between the Creative and Academic,
which suggests that Creative should score significantly higher than Sport.
6.4 Domain effects
An additional aim of this study was to further investigate gifted group differences as a
function of domain of spirituality, such that there may be distinct profiles of perceived
strengths and weaknesses across these domains. The ISIS scale, as the research
instrument (Amram & Dryer, 2008), allowed consideration of spirituality scores across
the scale’s five domains: Consciousness, Grace, Meaning, Transcendence, Truth. These
domains represent “super-ordinate natural classes” (Amram & Dryer, 2008, p. 17) that
“reflect higher-order domains of spiritual intelligence” (p. 17). They were, however,
initially purely conceptual groupings of the 22 subscales (see Table 4.1), rather than
having an empirical basis. Subsequently, each of the domains were validated by Amram
and Dryer (2008) through comparison with INSPIRIT (Index of Core Spiritual
Experiences; Kass et al., 1991) scores. Other than Amram and Dryer (2008), there does
not appear to be any extant research that supports these groupings of items into
spirituality domains. As such, the interpretations that follow are necessarily tentative.
Nevertheless, analysis of domain effects allowed the sample population’s responses to
inform two hypotheses: 1) creative gifted students will have higher levels of spirituality
across all domains; and 2) the gifted groups will be largely consistent in their self-
reported levels of spirituality across domains.

100
Whereas there was partial support for a sex by gifted group interaction in overall
spirituality scores, the hypothesis of domain consistency within type of giftedness –
where the rank of a group’s spirituality score in any domain would be matched in all
others – was largely unsupported by the data. The Creative gifted group was the most
consistent, and thus closest to supporting the hypothesis, with significantly higher
scores in Consciousness, Meaning and Transcendence. The Creative score for Truth,
however, was significantly lower than both Academic and Control. The expectation that
Control would be lowest in all domains was not conclusively borne out either, with a
negligible difference to Academic in three of five domains. Across the domains, only
Creative scored consistently, even then only relative to Academic and Control’s
inconsistency. This suggests that there may be an unmeasured factor differentiating the
domain responses by type of giftedness (e.g., experiential factors), which requires
further research to explore.
The hypothesis that Creative would be rated highest across all spirituality
domains was supported in four of the five domains, but not Truth, where Academic and
Control were highest (but did not significantly differ from each other). This unexpected
result in the Truth domain may also have its explanation (at least in part) in sex
differences. To explain, the participating schools differed in their ratio of males to
females. Specifically, the Creative school had a significantly higher female to male
student ratio than is the norm, which is reflected in the participant profile (percentage
female: Creative = 65%; Academic = 52%; Control = 47%). Where there are gender
differences in responses, this imbalance could skew the results (positively or
negatively). The differences between group domain scores for males are typically much
smaller than for females, reflecting the overall spirituality scores, but follow the same
patterns. Of particular note is the significant stability for female rankings across the

101
domains of Meaning, Consciousness, Grace and Transcendence. The same pattern was
identified by Amram and Dryer (2008), who noted that “for the four statistically
significant domains, women had higher mean scores than did men across the domain
scales” (p. 24). This suggests that sex differences may have had some impact on the
actual domain score for each group, where a higher female participant percentage could
equate to a higher mean score. In this context, the markedly higher female participant
percentage of the Creative group should equate to higher ISIS scores, which it did.
Indeed, the female percentages of Creative (65%), Academic (52%) and Control (47%)
broadly reflect the domain pattern results, with limited difference between Academic
and Control a factor in both their variations and commonalities. The exception here is
for the Truth domain. Again, though, sex is implicated. In their ISIS analysis, Amram
and Dryer (2008) noted that “the gender [sex] effect was not significant for Truth” (p.
24). Where females had higher mean scores than males in the other domains, Amram
and Dryer recognised that the same principle could not be applied to Truth. For the
current research, it appears to be the case that where the markedly higher female
participant percentage in the Creative group may have resulted in increased scores for
the domains of Consciousness, Grace, Meaning and Transcendence, whereas for Truth
it may have had no effect or, at worst, influenced scores lower.
6.5 Confounding factors
There are a number of factors, common to both research questions and hypotheses,
which could have impacted on the results and which will be discussed here. While the
three high schools used all expressed an interest in participating, attempts to recruit
further schools were hindered by the research topic. Other specialist schools in all three
gifted categories were approached but declined on the grounds of relevance.

102
Specifically, ‘spiritual’ was problematic, as the other schools did not see its relevance
for either their gifted or non-gifted students. This contributed to a lower than desired
population in all categories, as well as limiting geographic and demographic
participation, which may impact on generalisability of the current results.
The Control and Sport groups were drawn from the same high school and, thus,
potentially drawn from the same demographic. This may be mitigated by the fact that
the Sport TSDP group was comprised of participants from a wider area than the non-
TSDP students, who were primarily local-area students. Behaviour differences were
noted by the researcher at the time of data collection, with the Sport group noticeably
more restless about having to ‘give up’ time to complete the survey, as well as being
generally dismissive of its relevance (especially the Sport males), while the original
Control group (both male and female) was more subdued and interested. Differing
motivations/attitudes within the Sport group (sex) and between the Sport and Control
groups raise the possibility of variance “within the person being measured” (Mertens,
2010, p. 381), that is, factors of variance between how individuals approach the research
influencing how they respond. The attitudes of the two groups to completing the survey
instrument, and the research relevance, may have influenced the level of consideration
given to their responses. This would have restricted the Sport scores, which thus may
not be a true indicator of spirituality for Sport. Any differences between responses for
the Sport and Control groups could be indicative of a delineation between expectations
for the two groups. The suspected delineation, however, was not borne out through
analysis, where there was no significant difference between spirituality scores for the
Sport and Control groups.

103
There were significant differences in both socio-economic (SEIFA7
ranking;
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013) and academic profiles (identified by 2013 HSC
rankings; see discussion in 4.3) of the three schools, which was reflected in the
respective participant profiles. Whether this contributed to the spirituality differences is
possible, if debatable. For instance, the Creative group scored significantly higher in
overall spirituality, followed by the Academic group and then the Control group. If
socio-economic profile was an influential factor in this difference, then a reasonable
expectation would be that School C’s socio-economic profile (IRSAD decile 3) would
be significantly higher than School A’s (IRSAD decile 5), which was not the case. Both
School C and School A draw from a wide socio-economic and geographic region, with
School A weighted toward the middle and upper classes. School C’s auditioned student
population (≈ 40%) also has an upper-class component, but not exceeding that of
School A. Both School C and School A were ranked in IRSD decile 3 (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2013). There is thus no readily discernible difference in the socio-
economic profiles of School A and School C.
The socio-economic profile of School S (IRSAD 1, IRSD 1), however, is
markedly different to both School A and School C, for both Sport and Control. The
TSDP (Sport) population (≈ 30%) is drawn from a wide socio-economic and geographic
area, but is predominantly low socio-economic profile, while the local area students
comprise the remaining ≈ 70%. School S is situated in a low socio-economic area, with
the local-area students also from low socio-economic backgrounds. There is thus
significance in the low socio-economic profile of School S and its participants,
7
Socio-Economic Index for Areas, as measured in the 2011 national census, by IRSAD score
(Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage), where a lower number is an
indicator of greater disadvantage and limited advantage, and IRSD score (Index of Relative
Socio-Economic Disadvantage), where a lower number is an indicator of greater disadvantage,
scored 1–10.

104
particularly when considering that there was no significant difference in the Sport and
Control scores. Social class may be positioned as a causal factor in the spirituality
scores, but this is only for the extremes. Schools A and C are at the more-privileged end
of the socio-economic spectrum, with School S at the less-privileged end, which may
have had an influence on the spirituality scores.
Socio-economic profile may not be the only confounding factor differentiating
the schools. School S has a high percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students, significantly higher than either School A or School C (Department of
Education and Training, NSW, 2001). No attempt was made in this research to record
the cultural background of participants, however. As such, just as IQ testing is widely
considered to have a racial bias, it may be the case that the ISIS scale is not connecting
to the cultural understandings of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in
the Sport and Control groups, with potentially different effects across groups given the
significantly lower proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in the
Academic and Creative groups. Rather than being less spiritual, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander students may be differently spiritual, such that the spirituality measured
by ISIS is less relevant to them.
In order to address concerns from these confounding factors, further research
would need to be undertaken. Specifically, this would need to utilise a larger population
completing the ISIS scale as part of a battery of scales, with each type of giftedness
drawing on a wide socio-economic profile and comparable sex profiles. This would
allow the results from the ISIS scale to be compared with results from other scales,
while also allowing more-detailed analysis within racial, sex and gifted groups. In order
to do this, however, data would need to be collected on social and economic status of
both schools and participants, as well as race affiliation, so that school profiles were not

105
generalised to student participants. In the non-gifted field, there is potential for
assessing the utility of ISIS for aboriginal groups through utilisation with both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups, rural and urban. Prior to this, consultation would
need to occur with aboriginal groups to establish what types of testing/comparison
would be suitable.
6.6 Theoretical considerations
The observations noted in the preceding discussion can be related to Gardner’s MI
(1993, 2006), Gagné’s DMGT (2008, 2009) and Walton’s MSI (2010) theories to
varying degrees. The conceptual overlap between MI and DMGT (see Ch. 2), in regard
to development of the attributes associated with the research sample, can inform how
gifts develop into talents and how intelligence is developed into practice, framed in a
generalised, contextual macrocosm. Neither the DMGT nor DMMI have an express
consideration of the spiritual and its development. The nearest they come is Milieu
(EM), where the actors influencing the individual as a person are framed, but this is
incidental rather than deliberate. The MSI, however, explicitly deals with the
individual’s personalised microcosm, where everything that is experienced is
internalised. Together, the DMMI and MSI can provide a more-complete framework for
adolescent spirituality, while neither makes a sex-based distinction.
6.6.1 MI factors
The schools used in this research emphasise different forms of intelligence. As a result,
not only are they representative of different types of giftedness but also of different
types of thinking, exhibited through MI:
• School A (Academic) = logical-mathematical/linguistic

106
o logical-mathematical – inductive and deductive reasoning, can be
both logical and linear, scientific thinking, patterns
o linguistic – understanding and application of language patterns; use
of language to express, assess and remember
• School C (Creative) = musical/spatial/interpersonal/intrapersonal
o musical – understanding and application of musical patterns; near
parallel to linguistic
o spatial – makes meaning through relations with space and
positioning; crucial for problem solving
o interpersonal – understanding, and working together with, others
o intrapersonal – understanding of self in order to facilitate spatial and
interpersonal
• School S (Sport) = bodily-kinæsthetic
o bodily-kinæsthetic – cognition controls body movement; mental and
physical are related.
There are aspects of all MI in every school and every individual, but the specific
emphases of these three schools may be manifesting the MI through the spirituality
scores, as a result of the different ‘types’ of thinking that are implicitly encouraged and
subtly exhibited. The thinking associated with each MI is qualitatively different.
There are assumptions, both academic and non-academic, about the capacities
and proclivities of creative, academic and sporting profiles. Creativity, in particular, is a
commonly misunderstood concept. For the general public, to be ‘creative’ is to be good
at artistic pursuits, whereas creativity is also a cognitive function. Indeed, higher-level
achievement in all fields is predicated by utilisation of creative thought (Davis, 2003).
Creative thinkers may be more likely to open their mind, their cognition, to a wider

107
range of possibilities. Such an externally focused position would take into account
others’ perspectives – a representational trait that Winner and Martino (2003) associated
with artistic giftedness. For example, an inventor would need to be aware of a ‘need’
and how that could be addressed to fill a gap in the market, with success governed by
whether society perceives the same ‘need’. Academic thinkers have high logical-
mathematical and/or linguistic abilities which may be more internally focused, in the
sense that, for example, a new mathematical concept has limited obvious connection to
societal needs until it is applied in practice. Sport and thinking can be often popularly
perceived as a misnomer, with a perception that sporting ability has limited, if any,
relation to intelligence.
The assumptions, however, are not necessarily indicative of the actuality. From
the above, creative thinkers may have a tendency toward divergent thinking, whereas
academic thinkers may exhibit limited aspects of divergent thinking, such as when
utilising problem solving, with the primary tendency toward convergent thinking,
similar to Marjoribanks’ (1978) observations on Hudson’s work. But can it really be the
case that academic thinkers are limited in their divergent thought processes when
society’s progression is dependent on academically creative thinking? In similar
fashion, removing conscious and/or unconscious cognitive functioning from a sport
orientation suggests that athletes do not need to think to perform, yet remove the input
of the seat of cognition, the brain, and the body ceases to function. Indeed, mental
functioning and physical functioning are intimately interrelated – Colzato et al. (2013)
found that exercise reduced divergent, and thus creative, thinking in both athletes and
non-athletes – but it is the value ascribed to the types of thinking that fashion
perceptions of ability. Gardner’s definition of intelligence as “biopsychological
potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve

108
problems or create products that are of value in a culture” (Gardner, 1999b, pp. 33–34)
provides an opportunity for redefinition.
Societal ‘culture’ is a macro-concept (where ‘macro’ indicates a larger scale,
e.g., Australian society), just as is what counts for ‘value’ within a culture. Any macro-
culture also encompasses a variety of micro-cultures (where ‘micro’ indicates a smaller
scale, e.g., ethnic sub-groups within Australian society), which themselves have
subsidiary value structures. Both culture and value, thus, have hierarchical structures
that can be accessed at different points for varied definitions of what counts as ‘culture’
and ‘value’. Part of that hierarchy are the micro-cultures of creativity, academia and
sport (as in the current research), along with the assignment of value in each and
whether these are consistent with the values of the macro-culture. There can be little
doubt that each of the three micro-cultures contribute to the macro-culture, if not
actually being integral parts of it. Therein lies a conundrum – whereas a macro-culture
is a unit in itself, it is dependent upon the existence of micro-cultures, without which the
quality of life would be diminished. What quality could be ascribed to a culture without
creativity, academic thinking or sport? A culture without all three would be unthinkable
by all but the most extreme. So, culture and value are componential, yet Gardner
delineates intelligence by the alternatives rather than the commonalities. Gardner’s
intelligences are about application rather than cognition, although the application is
evidence of the cognition, in that whether something is of value is a judgement made by
others. The Creative, Academic and Sport groups of the current research represent three
culture groups within any dominant cultural group, but they are also different types of
thinking, as already discussed. While the participants in the current research can be
representative of different intelligences, they are taken to be representative of high

109
performance/potential in particular domains of giftedness. The spirituality of each group
is also markedly different.
It was an ancient principle for many cultures that spirituality, like intelligence
(Howard & Walton, 2015), resided in the heart (e.g., Dunlap, 1858). This principle
continues today in some instances, including in an abstract sense in Shinto, where the
heart is a constant reference point (Yamakage, 2006). For the purposes of this thesis, the
mind is where spirituality resides (Beauregard & O’Leary, 2008), as a neurologically
complex, abstract, schematic construction of self and identity. From an MI perspective,
however, all of the research participants have the same intelligences, they just use their
different strengths to navigate the means and routes of access. There are, thus, different
values within and without each profile, but that does not equate to creative, academic or
sport individuals being less important, less cognitively engaged or less spiritual.
Everyone is spiritual and everyone has the potential to develop their spirituality (e.g.,
Hay & Nye, 2006; James, 1963; Tirri & Quinn, 2010; Walton, 2010), but a mind that is
more open to, and accepting of, possibilities has greater scope for spirituality. Such an
approach is more related to outlook on life than it is to intelligence, but is more evident
through both the process of utilising creativity and female socialisation, resulting in
higher spirituality scores.
The value that is placed on spirituality and its expression is moot, with
confusion over what spirituality is being likely at its root. Spirituality is not concrete,
whether of intelligence or identity, with its fluid and individual nature (Behl, 2015)
making assessment difficult. While the spirituality scores in the current research are not
subjective, they are also not definitive. While Gardner tied the possibility of
spiritual/existential to being an intelligence, in practice the expression of spirituality,

110
and the spirituality scores, seems to be more tied to socialisation factors than inherent
ability/perception.
6.6.2 DMGT factors
The hierarchy of the DMGT has been suggested by Gagné (2008) to be Gifts (G),
Intrapersonal (I), Developmental process (D) followed by Environmental (E), with
Talents (T) as an end result. The following discussion will adopt this same order, to
facilitate theoretical connections.
Gagné’s domains of giftedness (G) position the Academic and Creative groups
as belonging to ‘mental’ domains, while the Sport group occupies both ‘physical’
domains (muscular, GM, and motor control, GR). Of the mental domains, Academic is
most closely associated to Intellectual (GI) with Creative, not unnaturally, associated
with Creative (GC). In practice, however, the distinction between the mental domains is
not as neat as that for Sport. While Academic can acceptably be considered to be
predominantly GI, the ‘inventiveness’, at least, of GC is a necessary prerequisite to
conceptualise the GI factors and their expression. In this sense, Academic spirituality
scores should be nearer Creative than Sport. As Academic spirituality scores were
roughly in the middle of those for Creativity and Control, for both sexes, this effect is
not conclusive. Creative’s and Academic’s GC link to other domains as well, notably
Social (GS), as creativity and academic thought exist within social constructs. But the
latter observation also applies to Sport, particularly spectator sports, which extends
Sport beyond GM and GR. Both Creative and Academic have strong GC, but GC is
logically more developed in Creative, as the basis of domain functioning, whereas GC
is an extension for Academic. The same points can be made in relation to the DMMI, as
Gardner acknowledged that even well-developed intelligences have relation to, and are
sometimes dependent upon, factors of the other intelligences.

111
Intrapersonal (I) was noted as a factor in MI for the Creative group, as a
foundation for understanding of form and effect. In the DMGT this is a factor for all as
a necessity for success, regardless of domain, which also applies to the DMMI. Traits,
as the qualities of the individual, influence goal management, which is essential to the
active development of gifts into talents. Without adequate goal management the factors
of Awareness (IW), Motivation (IM) and Volition (IV) may be insufficiently utilised.
The Intrapersonal (I) factors are influenced through Developmental process (D).
Gagné’s domains and Gardner’s complete intelligences do not provide an obvious
avenue for spirituality within Developmental process, particularly in relation to the
“systematic pursuit … of activities leading to a specific excellence goal” (Gagné, 2008,
p. 2; original italics). The problem with that aspect of Developmental process is
twofold: 1) what would qualify as ‘systematic pursuit’ for spirituality? and 2) difficulty
in external definition of ‘specific excellence goal’. As an aspect of individual identity,
responses to both points would be inherently subjective rather than quantifiable. This
does not mean that Developmental process holds less relevance for spirituality, rather
that a different perspective is needed. All of the components of Developmental process
have relevance to talent development, but perhaps the most relevant for spirituality is
turning points (in Progress, DP), where a specific event prompts the individual to
examine and reflect upon their role in life and place in the world. While important for
all three gifted groups as part of the talent development process, none of the
Developmental process factors contribute to explaining the research results.
Gagné’s positioning of Intrapersonal as the most important influence upon Gifts
suggests that an understanding of self, whether through traits or goal management, is
the principal factor in talent development, however, Environmental (E) factors provide a
wider contextual framework of influence. While spirituality is formed intrapersonally,

112
its genesis may actually be in Environmental, through influences upon the individual
from those in positions of value. In this context, both Milieu (EM) and Individuals (EI)
are significant factors. The individual is positioned as an actor within a wider troupe of
EI, subject to EM groupings. In 6.3 the topic was raised of how sex identity is related to
the attitudes and behaviours the individual is exposed to, thus encouraging the
individual to frame themselves within expected norms. If an individual has more
exposure to spiritual understandings then these Environmental factors would make the
individual more likely to express spirituality through their Intrapersonal considerations.
This may be through a significant event, such as the turning point aspect of DP, or
simply being part of an environment where encouragement, and acceptance, of freer
thinking is embraced, where alternatives are to be explored. Such divergent thinking
would be more associated with Creative, but does not preclude Academic or Sport. The
research results appear to suggest that the socialisation factors associated with
environmental influences are the key determinant of whether participants score highly
for spirituality, and on the ISIS scale specifically. In particular, Milieu (EM) and
Individuals (EI) perform key roles in socialising individuals into their societal roles, for
both behaviour and cognition, with direct relevance to Creative females scoring
significantly higher than any other group. Given the importance of Environmental for
contextualised influences upon the individual and associated Intrapersonal factors, it
appears to be the case that Environmental has a more-prominent role than Intrapersonal,
which would suggest a re-ordering of Gagné’s hierarchy to GEID. While the current
research supports this reordering, at least for spirituality, this does not diminish the
importance of Intrapersonal. All of the causal factors for the development of giftedness
into talent are interlinked, but while the focus of Intrapersonal is on the individual every

113
individual is positioned within the Environmental influences around them, being
changed by and adapting to those influences.
The final factor of Talents (T) does not differ in any way between DMGT and
DMMI, as in both models T is about productive end-states. Gagné (2008) presents a
non-elitist view of achievement/talent, where talent is not restricted to select “human
occupations” (p. 2). From the perspective of this research, there is not just a
commonality of talent – all talents have spirituality as their foundation. The remaining
influence, Chance (C), is the province of accidents of birth and circumstance, or “birth
and background” (Atkinson, 1978, cited in Tannenbaum, 1983, p. 205). While Gagné’s
giftedness domains are predicated on the development of capacities, Chance operates in
the background for all aspects of the DMGT bar Talents. The development of Chance
from being a component of the original DMGT (Gagné, 2003) to an integral aspect of
the updated DMGT (Gagné, 2008) is notable, not least because Gagné considered
leaving it out of the DMGT 2.0 due to its ubiquity. The role of Chance in the catalysts
of Environmental and Intrapersonal is significant, but raises further questions as to
whether Environmental should be prioritised over Intrapersonal, as discussed above,
whether completely or just for spirituality, as Intrapersonal works with what
Environmental provides through contextual factors. For example, the ‘goal-
management’ factors of Intrapersonal may be subject to influence from the actors in
Environmental, just as the Environmental actors may directly influence the
Intrapersonal ‘traits’.
6.6.3 DMMI factors
As a conceptual overlay of one theory onto another – Gardner’s MI onto Gagné’s
DMGT – without significant alteration, the majority of the intent of the DMGT remains
the same. Most of the comments in regard to the DMMI are the same as those of the

114
DMGT, so primarily points of difference will be addressed here. The most obvious of
these is the replacement of Gagné’s domains of giftedness with Gardner’s intelligences.
Essentially, though, this is a cosmetic change, as both are different theorists’ versions of
potential, neither of which are innate but are dependent upon the catalysts to become
apparent. The headings of the DMMI components have been changed from the DMGT
to fit with the components of Gardner’s MI theory, but this does not affect the makeup
of the factors, with one exception, where ‘traits’ have been reclassified as ‘tools’ and
Physical (IF) amended to Practical. In 6.6.2 the point was raised about traits being the
qualities of the individual, whereas tools are more relevant to access and application.
Where traits have no direct influence on spirituality, tools do through the comingling of
Distribution (I) and Contextualisation (E), reinforcing the reordering of GIED to GEID.
It is through the socialisation aspects of Contextualisation that Practical becomes
evident and spirituality can manifest itself. The three types of giftedness – Academic,
Creative and Sport – while sharing some common instruction, also receive learning
tailored to their giftedness, channelling and reinforcing the desirable aspects in their
intelligence. Of the three types, creative individuals are far more likely to have an
intrapersonal emphasis, with ready avenues within their field for translation to
interpersonal considerations. The formal and informal skills and training that comprise
Practical thus mirror aspects of Learning Environment (D), but through a socialised
lens, bringing Contextualisation (E) to the fore. As in the DMGT discussion, above, the
environment that an individual is exposed to is the primary socialiser, with the same
arguments for its relevance to the research results.
6.6.4 MSI factors
The MSI positions everything an individual is exposed to as having the potential to
influence their spiritual identity. In this sense, it does not provide a reworking of either

115
MI or DMGT, nor does it set out to propose a holistic learning theory. It is true that
although the MSI was designed to demonstrate how spiritual identity is formed, the
progression from input to self to output can be applied in other individualised fields
(e.g., emotional development) if the components are changed. The focus here, however,
is on relating the MSI to spirituality through its three core components.
The catalysts of the DMGT and DMMI would broadly correlate to input,
particularly in relation to events within Milieu (EM), as would exposure to
opportunities to develop MI. In each case, the nature of the individual forms the
foundation of potential that is then subject to the various facets of nurture. The genetic–
environmental correlation is, thus, positioned as a key determinant leading into self.
Internalising input into self forms an individual’s spirituality, but that process of
internalisation is navigated by accessing and utilising pre-existing schemata in a
constant progression of current self to future self. Even explaining the concept of ‘who I
am’ will change, however slightly, ‘who I am’ in the process. This dynamic process
means that not only is self never static, but output, the individual’s spiritual identity, is
also fluid. Yet forming a sense of identity is a key attainment in adolescence (Moran, S.,
2009; Moriarty, 2011).
The MSI does not differentiate according to type of giftedness, but is a model
for humanity as a whole, regardless of the explanation of ‘who I am’. As a result,
opportunity to distinguish between the Creative, Academic and Sport groups is not
provided explicitly. However, the spirituality score itself is the output, rather than a
direct indicator of input. Where the three groups differ in their output (spirituality
score), however, lies with the input. Whether sex based or giftedness based, the
understandings internalised in self have been formed in the various social contexts
within which they are positioned. As already discussed, socialisation influences both

116
sex effects (6.3) and domain effects (6.4) in spirituality scores through the way that
individuals are conditioned to behave and think. In particular, the more-divergent
cognition of creativity coupled with the greater likelihood of girls being encouraged to
think existentially, albeit unintentionally, creates the ideal combination of factors for
Creative females to have the highest spirituality score. While the input and output
provide the socialisation and expressive factors, they are mediated by self, where the
process of thinking through the input is essentially one of adaptation of schemata, to
produce the output. Early understandings in self are formed through early exposure to
input, positioning early experiences and their schematic structures as crucial influences
on future spiritual development. The output spirituality scores are the result of self
consideration of socialised input.
6.7 Conclusion
The current results provide initial evidence that spirituality varies according to type of
giftedness, at least for the three giftedness types involved. Why that is the case is less
evident, with socialisation through sex roles and behaviours seeming to play a role. Just
as there are different expectations placed upon mothers and fathers (Lorber, 2009), so
do parenting styles and parent–child dynamics vary (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2006), both
in nature and over time, yet parents (or their proxies, such as foster parents) play the
primary role in the socialisation of children (Grusec & Davidov, 2006). Along with
social and economic factors, Polavieja and Platt (2014) identified demonstrations of
parental behaviour as the primary sources of children’s career ambition. This suggests
that overt parental behaviours are being assimilated into children’s schema of their own
capacities. There is also the possibility that the dynamic within the family can lead to
differences in how mothers and fathers treat their daughters and sons (Maccoby, 1998;

117
Wharton, 2005). Even then, though, parents’ behaviour-management practices do not
appear to align with parents’ roles in the development of cognition (Gauvain & Perez,
2006). Bem (1983, 1993) introduced the concept of gender schema theory, where the
socialisation of gender entails both forming and using gender schemas. In gender
schema theory, the child is an “agent of gender” (Liben & Bigler, 2015, p. 5) through
socialising the self. Rather than being a simplistic case of parents transferring gender
constructs, a “relational approach” (Laible & Thompson, 2006, p. 181) may be
applicable through a process of “mutual reciprocity” (p. 186). Children’s socialised
characteristics and/or behaviours can be thus acquired through a ‘transaction’ (Bates &
Pettit, 2006) or a ‘dynamic negotiation process’ (Brinkman et al., 2014). While social
experiences of children and young people vary, whether as passive recipients or active
agents, from a very young age “the foundations of their gender schemas are being
established” (Wharton, 2005, p. 126).
The inherent variability of individuals’ social experiences may well be the
strength of spirituality. Whether spirituality is viewed as an intelligence or not, a
discussion which this thesis positions as redundant, it is nonetheless a complex
construct, both acquired and applied in social contexts. The implications for spiritually
oriented teaching (i.e., teaching that takes into account students’ spiritual needs and
concerns) are significant, particularly in relation to promoting positive holistic outcomes
for students (Department of Education and Communities, NSW, 2015). Briggs and
Rayle (2005), drawing on Myers, Sweeney and Witmer (2000), suggested that
spirituality can be seen to be “an innate component of human functioning and serves to
integrate other components of wellness, thus making spiritual wellness central to
wellness in all other areas of life” (Briggs & Rayle, 2005, p. 70). The influence of
positive spirituality in these ‘other areas of life’ includes increased resilience, reduced

118
depression and risk taking (e.g., Cotton et al., 2005; Damon, Menon & Bronk, 2003;
Fraser, 2004; Miller, 2000; Ozaki, Kobayashi & Oku, 2006; Pargament, 2007; Tan &
Wong, 2012; Taplin, 2011), mental health (e.g., Snyder & Lopez, 2007), maintenance
of a balanced emotional, psychological and essentially social existence (e.g., Hay &
Nye, 1996; Moritz et al., 2006; Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006), character formation (e.g.,
Clifford, 2013; Tirri, 2009) and ethical behaviours (e.g., Büssing et al., 2010; Hay &
Nye, 1996). Jackson and Moyle (2009) also identified spiritual aspects such as wisdom,
ethics and moral reasoning as suggestions to support the gifted adolescent. Adopting a
spiritually oriented teaching approach could provide the balance that positively aids the
transitions from puberty to adolescence and from adolescence to adulthood. Both of
these transitions are fundamentally interactionist, in that they are comprised of an
interaction between the individual and a societal context that necessitates moving from
one theatre of human influence and experience into another over time (see
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, for a discussion of such change in the Bioecological
model of human development).
The role of spirituality in human interactions is central, necessitating
involvement and engagement (Solomon, 2007). There is a common thread of research
that positions relationality and connectedness as central (e.g., Hay & Nye, 2006;
Hemming, 2013; Ng, 2012). For adolescents, social networking appears to serve these
functions, but while social networking is a process of making connections, it is
questionable whether this would contribute to cyber spirituality (communal) or pseudo-
spirituality (isolationist) (Yust, Hyde & Ota, 2010). Given the variations in students’
home lives, teachers provide a consistent thread that can be used to develop positive
spirituality, with consequent positive effect both in school and life. This applies equally
to the teaching environment as teaching practice. Hemming (2013) recognised that the

119
school environment could be structured to encourage students’ spiritual agency, through
informal ‘spiritual spaces’ in school, which his research participants tied to emotion
(Hemming, 2013). Spaces that students connect to are more likely to be sought out,
where they can “quite consciously and deliberately choose to exercise their agency
through stillness and quiet” (Hyde, Yust & Ota, 2010b, p. 97). This also has potential
links to gifted students’ awareness of their natural environment, although Suzuki’s
(2004) observations extend this concept beyond the gifted by suggesting that
engagement with the environment is positive for all students.
It is teachers themselves who are the facilitating agents in a spiritually open
classroom, which becomes a question of teaching philosophy. For example, is a
teacher’s purpose to impart knowledge or to encourage learning? The two need not be
mutually exclusive but often are. People have an ‘eternal yearning’ to both belong and
contribute (Palmer, 2003); accessing this yearning in education can contribute to
academic engagement. Fraser (2014) presents compelling stories of activating that
engagement, including project-based approaches with real-life, contemporary relevance,
of concern for others. A spiritually significant learning environment is one of education
for freedom of thought, for self and community (Oberski, 2011), where “sustaining the
heart of education is not about taking, forcing or imposing; it is about trusting
supporting and nourishing ourselves and those in our midst through the timeless,
intuitive reciprocity of mindfulness, wisdom and compassionate action” (McClain,
Ylimaki & Ford 2010, p. 315). Fraser (2007) identified some examples of how this
could take place, through teaching experiences that linked self and community.
Community is integral to a child’s sense of self, to whether or not they feel that they
‘belong’, and teachers play a key role. In this sense, teachers have some of the same
improvisational functions as parents, where rather than teaching spirituality as a topic it

120
is often an impromptu inclusion, as a result of being “awake enough to offer the
nourishing idea, pose the thoughtful question, or seize the insight at a moment when
there is an opening – a soft and fertile spot for the seed to take root” (Hart, 2003, p.
174). The boundaries are shifting, though, into a more-structured inclusion of
spirituality, at least in New South Wales public schools, whereby “all schools are
required to have a planned approach to wellbeing in place that incorporates the
elements of the Wellbeing Framework” (Department of Education and Communities,
NSW, 2015, p. 7; emphasis added). This formalisation of the importance of spirituality
to physical, social and emotional development, “in an enabling school environment” (p.
6), indirectly places an onus on tertiary providers of teacher training programs to
prepare future teachers for the reality of a practice that needs to take the spiritual into
account, for all students.
Spiritually focused education may even be seen to challenge traditional learning
(Fraser, 2004). To do that, though, teacher training programs would need to recognise
and include spirituality, defining which, Speck (2005) argued, should be “the focal
point of academic dialogue” (p. 12). There is a need to include spirituality in tertiary
education (Astin, Astin & Lindholm, 2011; Tisdell, 2003) and this is particularly
important in teacher education where there is currently a “lack of practical guidance for
spiritual development in classrooms” (Ng, 2012, p. 167). Spiritually aware teachers
need to be reflective and flexible, while also being able “to think openly and critically”
(Clifford, 2013, p. 273). In short, they need to be aware of their own spirituality to
enable their students to develop a spiritual awareness that will enhance their communal
perspectives, as in the teacher case studies identified by Fraser and Grootenboer (2004).
Results from Astin et al. (2004) suggest that US tertiary students are more than willing
to explore spirituality in their education. The challenge remains for the Australian

121
tertiary sector to adequately meet our students’ needs, to prepare them for meeting their
students’ spiritual needs. This observation could equally apply to teacher trainees’
understandings of giftedness and talent, given the low incidence of any form of
giftedness education in teacher training programs (Fraser-Seeto, Howard & Woodcock,
2013).
While the above practice observations could be applied to all teaching, they are
particularly germane to the significance of this research. Addressing the research aim of
establishing a baseline for future research into the spirituality of diverse gifted
populations has identified that there does, indeed, appear to be variability in the
spirituality of adolescent academic, creative and sporting giftedness. The literature
implies that all forms of giftedness may be characterised by higher levels of spirituality.
However, this was only markedly so for the creatively gifted female group. Further
examination of the qualities and attributes that contribute to the Creative females’
spirituality scores can indicate how spiritual development might better be fostered with
other groups through spiritually oriented learning, with the aim of increasing the
spirituality of other gifted groups to promote positive holistic outcomes. This would, in
turn, contribute to improved social and emotional outcomes for all gifted students.

122
References
Aby, S.H., with McNamara, M.J. (1990). The IQ Debate: A selective guide to the
literature. New York: Greenwood Press.
Adams, K., Hyde, B. & Woolley, R. (2008). The Spiritual Dimension of Childhood.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Ambrose, D. (2009). Morality and high ability: Navigating a landscape of altruism and
malevolence. In D. Ambrose & T. Cross (eds), Morality, Ethics, and Gifted
Minds (pp. 49–71). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ambrose, D. & Cross, T.L. (2009). Connecting ethics with high ability: An
interdisciplinary approach. In D. Ambrose & T. Cross (eds), Morality, Ethics,
and Gifted Minds (pp. 3–15). Dordrecht: Springer.
Amend, D. (2008). Creativity in Dabrowski and the theory of positive disintegration. In
S. Mendaglio (ed.), Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration (pp. 123–
137). Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Amram, Y. (2007). The seven dimensions of spiritual intelligence: An ecumenical,
grounded theory. Paper presented at the 115th annual conference of the
American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 17–20 August.
Amram, Y. & Dryer, D.C. (2008). The Integrated Spiritual Intelligence Scale (ISIS):
Development and preliminary validation. Paper presented at the 116th annual
conference of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA, 14–17
August.
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom (3rd edn). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Astin, A.W., Astin, H.S. & Lindholm, J.A. (2011). Cultivating the Spirit: How college
can enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

123
Astin, A.W., Astin, H.S., Lindholm, J.A., Bryant, A.N., Calderone, S. & Szelényi, K.
(2004). The Spiritual Life of College Students: A national study of college
students’ search for meaning and purpose. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute.
Atheist Foundation of Australia (2014). Homepage. URL: http://atheistfoundation
.org.au/ (accessed 15 June 2014).
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). Census of Population and Housing: Socio-
Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2011. URL:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2033.0.55.001
~2011~Main%20Features~Main%20Page~1 (accessed 09 March 2015).
Baldwin, A.Y. & Vialle, W. (1999a). Preface. In A.Y. Baldwin & W. Vialle (eds), The
Many Faces of Giftedness: Lifting the masks (pp. ix–x). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Baldwin, A.Y. & Vialle, W. (1999b). Introduction: Potential that is masked. In A.Y.
Baldwin & W. Vialle (eds), The Many Faces of Giftedness: Lifting the masks
(pp. xii–xxiii). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Bartholomew, D.J. (2004). Measuring Intelligence: Facts and fallacies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bates, J.E. & Pettit, G.S. (2006). Temperament, parenting, and socialization. In J.E.
Grusec & P.D. Hastings (eds), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and research
(pp. 153–177). New York: Guilford Press.
Beatty, B. (2013). The bell curve. URL: http://www.intelltheory.com/bellcurve .shtml
(accessed 24 June 2014).

124
Beauregard, M. & O’Leary, D. (2008). The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for
the existence of the soul. New York: HarperOne.
Bedenarowski, M.F. (2012). The New Age movement and feminist spirituality:
Overlapping conversations at the end of the century. In P. Heelas (ed.),
Spirituality in the Modern World: Within religious tradition and beyond, vol. 3
(‘Autonomous’ spiritualities beyond religious tradition) (pp. 426–438). London:
Routledge.
Behl, C. (2015). Anatomy of Spirituality: Portrait of the soul. Victoria, BC:
FriesenPress.
Bellous, J.E. (2008). Editorial. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 13 (3),
195–201.
Bellous, J.E. & Csinos, D.M. (2009). Spiritual styles: Creating an environment to
nurture spiritual wholeness. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 14
(3), 213–224.
Bem, S.L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child development:
Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society. Signs, 8 (4),
598–616.
Bem, S.L. (1993). The Lenses of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Blakemore, J.E.O., Berenbaum, S.A. & Liben, L.S. (2009). Gender Development. New
York: Psychology Press.
Bosacki, S.L. (2001). Spirituality, gendered subjectivities, and education in
preadolescents: Canadian preadolescents’ reflections on gender-roles and their
sense of self. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 6 (2), 207–221.
Bradford, J. (1995). Caring for the Whole Child: A holistic approach to spirituality.
London: The Children’s Society.

125
Branco, A.U. & Valsiner, J. (eds) (2012). Cultural Psychology of Human Values.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Brant, A.M., Munakata, Y., Boomsma, D.I., DeFries, J.C., Haworth, C.M.A., Keller,
M.C., Martin, N.G., McGue, M., Petrill, S.A., Plomin, R., Wadsworth, S.J.,
Wright, M.J. & Hewitt, J.K. (2013). The nature and nurture of high IQ: An
extended sensitive period for intellectual development. Psychological Science,
24 (8), 1487–1495.
Briggs, M.K. & Rayle, A.D. (2005). Incorporating spirituality into core counseling
courses: Ideas for classroom application. Counseling and Values, 50 (1), 63–75.
Brinkman, B.G., Rabenstein, K.L., Rosén, L.A. & Zimmerman, T.S. (2014). Children’s
gender identity development: The dynamic negotiation process between
conformity and authenticity. Youth & Society, 46 (6), 835–852.
Bronfenbrenner, U. & Morris, P.A. (2006). The bioecological model of human
development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (eds), Handbook of Child
Psychology. Vol. 1: Theoretical Models of Human Development (6th edn; pp.
793–828). Online edn: John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, A. & Dowling, P. (1998). Doing Research/Reading Research: A mode of
interrogation for education. London: Falmer Press.
Bruce, S. (2011). Defining religion: A practical response. International Review of
Sociology, 21 (1), 107–120.
Brymer, E. & Gray, T. (2009). Dancing with nature: Rhythm and harmony in extreme
sport participation. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 9
(2), 135–149.
Brymer, E. & Gray, T. (2010). Developing an intimate ‘relationship’ with nature
through extreme sports participation. Leisure/Loisir, 34 (4), 361–374.

126
Büssing, A., Föller-Mancini, A., Gidley, J. & Heusser, P. (2010). Aspects of spirituality
in adolescents. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 15 (1), 25–44.
Butler, E.P. (2008). Polycentric polytheism and the philosophy of religion.
Pomegranate: The international journal of Pagan studies, 10 (2), 207–229.
Cameron, J. (1994). The Artist’s Way: A spiritual path to higher creativity. London:
Pan/Macmillan.
Campbell, J. (1984). The Way of the Animal Powers. Historical atlas of world
mythology (vol. 1). London: Times Books.
Campbell, L. & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple Intelligences and Student Achievement:
Success stories from six schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Carman, C.A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of
giftedness in research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24 (1), 52–70.
Cavanagh, G., Hanson, B., Hanson, K. & Hinojoso, J. (2004). Toward a spirituality for
the contemporary organization: Implications for work, family and society. In
M.L. Pava & P. Primeaux (eds), Spiritual Intelligence at Work: Meaning,
metaphor, and morals (pp. 111–138). Oxford: Elsevier.
Chang, S.W.C., Gariépy, J.-F. & Platt, M.L. (2013). Neuronal reference frames for
social decisions in primate frontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 16 (2), 243–
252.
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind (3rd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Chomsky, N. (2011). Language and other cognitive systems: What is special about
language? Language Learning and Development, 7 (4), 263–278.

127
Clifford, P. (2013). Moral and spiritual education as an intrinsic part of the curriculum.
International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 18 (3), 268–280.
Coleman, E.J. (1998). Creativity and Spirituality: Bonds between art and religion. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Colzato, L.S., Szapora, A., Pannekoek, J.N. & Hommel, B. (2013). The impact of
physical exercise on convergent and divergent thinking. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 7 (art. 824), 1–6.
Connelly, F.M. & Clandinin, D.J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 19 (5), 2–14.
Corno, L. (2004). ‘Foreword for special issue of TCR on multiple intelligences’.
Teachers College Record, 106 (1), 1.
Cotton, S., Larkin, E., Hoopes, A., Cromer, B.A. & Rosenthal, S.L. (2005). The impact
of adolescent spirituality on depressive symptoms and health risk behaviors.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (6), 529.e7–529.e14.
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th edn). Boston: Pearson.
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18
(3), 391–404.
Crowell, S. (2010). ‘Existentialism’. In E.N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2010 edn). URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives
/win2010/entries/existentialism/ (accessed 08 December 2010).
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of
creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 313–335).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

128
Cuban, L. (2004). Assessing the 20-year impact of multiple intelligences on schooling.
Teachers College Record, 106 (1), 140–146.
Damon, W., Menon, J. & Bronk, K.C. (2003). The development of purpose during
adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7 (3), 119–128.
Daniels, S. & Piechowski, M.M. (2009). Embracing intensity: Overexcitability,
sensitivity, and the developmental potential of the gifted. In S. Daniels & M.M.
Piechowski (eds), Living with Intensity: Understanding the sensitivity,
excitability, and emotional development of gifted children, adolescents, and
adults (pp. 3–17). Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Davis, G.A. (2003). Identifying creative students, teaching for creative growth. In N.
Colangelo & G.A. Davis (eds), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd edn) (pp.
311–324). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Davis, G.A., Rimm, S.B. & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the Gifted and Talented (6th
edn). Boston: Pearson.
Davis, N., Winnemöller, H., Dontcheva, M. & Do, E.Y.-L. (2013). Toward a cognitive
theory of creativity support. In E.Y.-L. Do, S. Dow, J. Ox, S. Smith, K.
Nishimoto & C.T. Tan (eds), Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on
Creativity & Cognition (pp. 13–22). New York: ACM.
de Souza, M. (2012). Connectedness and connectedness: The dark side of spirituality –
implications for education. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 17
(4), 291–303.
DeBlasio, G. (2011). The effect of spiritual intelligence in the classroom: God only
knows. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 16 (2), 143–150.
Dent, M. (2005). Nurturing Kids’ Hearts and Souls: Building emotional, social and
spiritual competency. Dunsborough, WA: Pennington.

129
Department for Education and Child Development, South Australia (2012). Policy
statement: Gifted and talented children and students policy. URL:
www.decd.sa.gov.au/docs/documents/1/GiftedChildrenandStudents.pdf
(accessed 30 December 2013).
Department of Education, Tasmania (2000). Policy statement: Education for students
who are gifted. URL: https://education.tas.edu.au/tasmanianeschool/...
/giftedpolicy.pdf (accessed 30 December 2013).
Department of Education, Tasmania (2011). Submission to the Victorian Parliament’s
Education and Training Committee’s (ETC) inquiry into the education of gifted
and talented students. URL: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/component
/content/article/275-inquiry-into-the-education-of-gifted-and-talented-
students/1338-submissions (accessed 30 December 2013).
Department of Education and Children’s Services, Northern Territory (2013).
Guidelines and Procedures: Gifted education. URL: http://www.education.nt
.gov.au/about-us/policies/documents/schools/school-management/gifted-
education (accessed 07 September 2015).
Department of Education and Communities, New South Wales (2014a). Secondary
schools – Creative and performing arts. URL: http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au
/gotoschool/types/selectiveschools.php (accessed 03 July 2014).
Department of Education and Communities, New South Wales (2014b). Secondary
schools – Selective high schools. URL: http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au
/gotoschool/types/selectiveschools.php (accessed 03 July 2014).
Department of Education and Communities, New South Wales (2014c). Secondary
schools – Sports high schools. URL: http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au
/gotoschool/types/sportshighs.php (accessed 03 July 2014).

130
Department of Education and Communities, New South Wales (2015). The Wellbeing
Framework for Schools. Sydney: NSW DEC.
Department of Education and Training, New South Wales (2001). Submission to the
Senate inquiry into the education of gifted and talented students. Sydney: NSW
DET.
Department of Education and Training, New South Wales (2004). Policy and
Implementation Strategies for the Education of Gifted and Talented Students.
Sydney: Department of Education and Training, Curriculum K–12 Directorate.
Department of Education and Training, Western Australia (2011). Gifted and talented
guidelines. URL: http://det.wa.edu.au/policies/detcms/policy-planning-and-
accountability/policies-framework/web-references/gifted-and-talented-
guidelines.en?oid=SiteProxy-id-3766865 (accessed 30 December 2013).
Dunlap, S.F. (1858). Vestiges of the Spirit-history of Man. New York: D. Appleton.
Durkheim, E. (1964). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (trans. J.W. Swain).
London: George Allen & Unwin.
Dyczewska, A. (2012). Vegetarianism as an example of dispersed religiosity. In P.
Heelas (ed.), Spirituality in the Modern World: Within religious tradition and
beyond, vol. 1 (Overview: Spirituality, the perennial and the zoned) (pp. 289–
302). London: Routledge.
Education Queensland (2008). Gifted and talented students action plan 2008–2010.
URL: http://www.qagtc.org.au/free-info-and-resources (accessed 30 December
2013).
Einstein, A. (1935). The World as I see it (trans. A. Harris). London: Bodley Head.
Einstein, A. (2010). Ideas and Opinions. London: Folio Society.

131
Emery, T., Cookson-Cox, C. & Raerino, N. (2015). Te Waiata A Hinetitama: Hearing
the heartsong. AlterNative, 11 (3), 225–239.
Emmons, R.A. (1999). The Psychology of Ultimate Concerns: Motivation and
spirituality in personality. New York: Guildford Press.
Emmons, R.A. (2000a). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the
psychology of ultimate concern. International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 10 (1), 3–26.
Emmons, R.A. (2000b). Spirituality and intelligence: Problems and prospects.
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10 (1), 57–64.
Eretz, M. & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro
level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 53 (4), 583–598.
Espinosa, M.C. (2009). Ethnic spirituality, gender and health care in the Peruvian
Amazon. Ethnicity & Health, 14 (5), 423–437.
Faubert, J. & Sidebottom, L. (2012). Perceptual-cognitive training of athletes. Journal
of Clinical Sport Psychology, 6, 85–102.
Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425 (6960),
785–791.
Fink, A. (2009). How to Conduct Surveys: A step-by-step guide (4th edn). Los Angeles:
SAGE.
Ford, P.R., Ward, P., Hodges, N.J. & Williams, A.M. (2009). The role of deliberate
practice and play in career progression in sport: The early engagement
hypothesis. High Ability Studies, 20 (1), 65–75.
Foster, C. (2011). Wired for God? The biology of spiritual experience. London: Hodder
& Stoughton.

132
Fowler, F.J., Jr (2009). Survey Research Methods (4th edn). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Fraser, D. (2004). Secular schools, spirituality and Maori values. Journal of Moral
Education, 33 (1), 87–95.
Fraser, D. (2007). State education, spirituality, and culture: Teachers’ personal and
professional stories of negotiating the nexus. International Journal of Children’s
Spirituality, 12 (3), 289–305.
Fraser, D. (2014). The eternal yearning. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality,
19 (1), 17–24.
Fraser, D. & Grootenboer, P. (2004). Nurturing spirituality in secular classrooms.
Fraser-Seeto, K., Howard, S.J. & Woodcock, S. (2013). Preparation for teaching gifted
students: An updated investigation into university offerings in New South Wales
[online]. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 22 (2), 45–51.
Frazer, J.G. (1919). Folk-Lore in the Old Testament (3 vols). London: MacMillan & Co.
Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental
theory. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (eds), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd
edn) (pp. 60–74). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gagné, F. (2008). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. URL:
nswagtc.org.au/images/stories/infocentre/dmgt_2.0_en_overview.pdf (accessed
30 December 2013).
Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In B.
MacFarlane & T. Stambaugh (eds), Leading Change in Gifted Education: The
festschrift of Dr Joyce VanTassel-Baska. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gagné, F. (2013). The DMGT: Changes within, beneath, and beyond. Talent
Development & Excellence, 5 (1), 5–19.

133
Gallese, V. (2005). Being like me: Self–other identity, mirror neurons, and empathy. In
S. Hurley & N. Chater (eds), Mechanisms of Imitation and Imitation in Animals
(pp. 101–118). Perspectives on Imitation: From neuroscience to social science
(vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gardner, F. (2011). Critical Spirituality: A holistic approach to contemporary practice.
Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10th
anniversary edn). New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1997). Six afterthoughts: Comments on ‘Varieties of intellectual talent’.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 31 (2), 120–124.
Gardner, H. (1999a). ‘Are there additional intelligences? The case for naturalist,
spiritual, and existential intelligences’. In J. Kane (ed.), Education, Information
and Transformation (pp. 111–131). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gardner, H. (1999b). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century.
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2000). A case against spiritual intelligence. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 10 (1), 27–34.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2011a). Intelligence, creativity, ethics: Reflections on my evolving
research interests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55 (4) 302–304.
Gardner, H. (2011b). Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Reframed: Educating for the virtues
in the twenty-first century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2011c). Multiple Intelligences: The first thirty years (30th anniversary
introduction to Frames of Mind). URL: http://multipleintelligencesoasis.org
/resources/ (accessed 15 December 2014).

134
Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Damon, W. (2001). Good Work: When excellence
and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). ‘Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational
implications of the theory of multiple intelligences’. Educational Researcher, 18
(8), 4–10.
Gatto-Walden, P. (2009). Living one’s spirit song: Transcendent experiences in
counseling gifted adults. In S. Daniels & M.M. Piechowski (eds), Living with
Intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development
of gifted children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 203–223). Tucson, AZ: Great
Potential Press.
Gauvain, M. & Perez, S.M. (2006). The socialization of cognition. In J.E. Grusec &
P.D. Hastings (eds), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and research (pp. 588–
613). New York: Guilford Press.
Gibson, K. & Landwehr-Brown, M. (2010). Global learning: Collaborations for
developing ethics, morality and global citizenship in gifted students. Paper
presented at the 11th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness, 28 July–1 August,
Sydney.
Gibson, K.L., Rimmington, G.M. & Landwehr-Brown, M. (2008). Developing global
awareness and responsible world citizenship with global learning. Roeper
Review, 30 (1), 11–23.
Glass, T.F. (2005). What gift? The reality of the student who is gifted and talented in
public school classrooms. In S.K. Johnsen & J. Kendrick (eds), Teaching
Strategies in Gifted Education (pp. 183–192). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Glendinning, T. & Bruce, S. (2012). New ways of believing or belonging: Is religion
giving way to spirituality. In P. Heelas (ed.), Spirituality in the Modern World:

135
Within religious tradition and beyond, vol. 1 (Overview: Spirituality, the
perennial and the zoned) (pp. 465–480). London: Routledge.
Goldenberg, N.R. (1979). Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the end of traditional
religions. Boston: Beacon Press.
Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional Intelligence (10th anniversary edn). New York: Bantam
Books.
Good, M. & Willoughby, T. (2006). The role of spirituality versus religiosity in
adolescent psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35 (1),
41–55.
Goodliff, G. (2013). Spirituality expressed in creative learning: Young children’s
imagining play as space for mediating their spirituality. Early Child
Development and Care, 183 (8), 1054–1071.
Grant, B. & Piechowski, M.M. (1999). Theories and the good: Toward child-centered
gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43 (1), 4–12.
Grieves, V. (2008). Aboriginal spirituality: A baseline for indigenous knowledges
development. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 28 (2), 363–398.
Grieves, V. (2009). Aboriginal Spirituality: Aboriginal Philosophy. The basis of
Aboriginal social and emotional wellbeing. Discussion Paper Series no. 9.
Darwin, NT: Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health.
Grigorenko, E.L., Jarvin, L. & Sternberg, R.J. (2002). ‘School-based tests of the
triarchic theory of intelligence: Three settings, three samples, three syllabi’.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27 (2), 167–208.
Grusec, J.E. & Davidov, M. (2006). Socialization in the family: The roles of parents. In
J.E. Grusec & P.D. Hastings (eds), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and
research (pp. 284–308). New York: Guilford Press.

136
Gruter, M. (1985). Ostracism on trial: The limits of individual rights. Social Science
Information, 24 (1), 101–111.
Gu, X., Gao, Z., Wang, X., Liu, X., Knight, R.T., Hof, P.R. & Fan, J. (2012). Anterior
insular cortex is necessary for empathetic pain perception. Brain, 135 (9), 2726–
2735.
Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5 (9), 444–454.
Guilford, J.P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hadot, P. (1995). Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual exercises from Socrates to
Foucault (trans. M. Chase). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hardy, A. (1965). The Living Stream. London: Collins.
Hardy, A. (1966). The Divine Flame. London: Collins.
Hardy, A. (1979). The Spiritual Nature of Man: A study of contemporary religious
experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harrison, C. (2000). Out of the mouths of babes: Spiritual awareness and the young
gifted child. Advanced Development, 9, 31–43.
Hart, T. (2003). The Secret Spiritual World of Children. Makawao, HI: Inner Ocean.
Hart, T. (2006). Spiritual experiences and capacities of children and youth. In E.C.
Roehlkepartain, P.E. King, L. Wagener & P.L. Benson (eds), The Handbook of
Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence (pp. 163–177). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Harvard Project Zero (2012). The Good Project: Ideas and tools for a good life. URL:
http://www.thegoodproject.org/ (accessed 05 January 2014).
Harwood, R. (1999). Polytheism, pantheism, and the ontological argument. Religious
Studies, 35 (4), 477–491.

137
Hay, D. (1994). The biology of God: What is the current status of Hardy's hypothesis?
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 4 (1), 1–23.
Hay, D. & Nye, R. (1996). Investigating children’s spirituality: The need for a fruitful
hypothesis. International Journal of Children's Spirituality, 1 (1), 6–16.
Hay, D. & Nye, R. (2006). The Spirit of the Child (rev. edn). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Heaven, P. & Ciarrochi, J. (2007). Personality and religious values among adolescents:
A three-wave longitudinal analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 98 (4), 681–
694.
Heelas, P. (2012a). On making some sense of spirituality. In P. Heelas (ed.), Spirituality
in the Modern World: Within religious tradition and beyond, vol. 1 (Overview:
Spirituality, the perennial and the zoned) (pp. 3–37). London: Routledge.
Heelas, P. (2012b). On some major issues. In P. Heelas (ed.), Spirituality in the Modern
World: Within religious tradition and beyond, vol. 1 (Overview: Spirituality, the
perennial and the zoned) (pp. 38–68). London: Routledge.
Heelas, P. & Woodhead, L., with Seel, B., Szerszynski, B. & Tusting, K. (2005). The
Spiritual Revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Heidegger, M. (1961). An Introduction to Metaphysics (trans. R. Manheim). Garden
City, NY: Anchor Books.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time (trans. J. Stambaugh). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Heise, D.R. (1996). Social order through macroactions: An interactionist approach.
Presentation at Ninth Annual Group Processes Conference, 21
August, New York. URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~socpsy/papers/MicroMacro
.html (accessed 27 June 2014).

138
Hemming, P.J. (2013). Spaces of spiritual citizenship: Children’s relational and
emotional encounters with the everyday school environment. International
Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 18 (1), 74–91.
Herrnstein, R.J. & Murray, C. (1996). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and class structure
in American life. New York: Free Press.
Hickey, M.G. (2004). ‘Can I kick more than one project?’: Case studies of five teachers
who used MI-based instructional planning. Teachers College Record, 106 (1),
77–86.
Hill, P.C., Pargament, K.I., Hood, R.W., Jr, McCullough, M.E., Swyers, J.P., Larson,
D.B. & Zinnbauer, B.J. (2012). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points
of commonality, points of departure. In P. Heelas (ed.), Spirituality in the
Modern World: Within religious tradition and beyond, vol. 1 (Overview:
Spirituality, the perennial and the zoned) (pp. 140–167). London: Routledge.
Hirsh, R.A. (2004). Early Childhood Curriculum: Incorporating multiple intelligences,
developmentally appropriate practice, and play: Theory, planning, implication,
assessment. Boston: Pearson.
Hodge, D.R. & Wolosin, R.J. (2015). Addressing the spiritual needs of American
Indians: Predictors of satisfaction. Social Work in Health Care, 54 (2), 118–133.
Horan, R. (2007). The relationship between creativity and intelligence: A combined
yogic-scientific approach. Creativity Research Journal, 19 (2–3), 179–202.
Horan, R. (2011). Spirituality. Encyclopedia of Creativity (2nd edn) (pp. 364–372).
London: Academic Press.
Howard, S. & Walton, R. (2015). Educational Psychology: Foundations of learning and
development. Macksville, NSW: David Barlow.

139
Humberstone, B. (2011). Embodiment and social and environmental action in nature-
based sport: Spiritual spaces. Leisure Studies, 30 (4), 495–512.
Hyde, B. (2008a). Children and Spirituality: Searching for meaning and connectedness.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hyde, B. (2008b). I wonder what you think really, really matters? Spiritual questing and
religious education. Religious Education, 103 (1), 32–47.
Hyde, B. (2008c). The identification of four characteristics of children’s spirituality in
Australian Catholic primary schools. International Journal of Children’s
Hyde, B. (2008d). Weaving the threads of meaning: A characteristic of children’s
spirituality and its implications for religious education. British Journal of
Religious Education, 30 (3), 235–245.
Hyde, B., Yust, K.-M. & Ota, C. (2010a). Defining childhood at the beginning of the
twenty-first century: Children as agents. International Journal of Children’s
Hyde, B., Yust, K.-M. & Ota, C. (2010b). Silence, agency and spiritual development.
IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union) (2013). Freedom of Thought 2013: A
global report on the rights, legal status, and discrimination against humanists,
atheists, and the non-religious. URL: http://freethoughtreport .com/download-
the-report/ (accessed 30 June 2014).
Irwin, L. (2000). Native American spirituality: An introduction. In L. Irwin (ed.), Native
American Spirituality: A critical reader (pp. 1–8). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.

140
Jackson, P.S. & Moyle, V.F. (2009). Inner awakening, outward journey: The intense
gifted child in adolescence. In S. Daniels & M.M. Piechowski (eds), Living with
Intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development
of gifted children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 57–71). Tucson, AZ: Great
Potential Press.
Jacoby, L.L., Yonelinas, A.P. & Jennings, J.M. (1997). The relation between conscious
and unconscious (automatic) influences: A declaration of independence. In J.D.
Cohen & J.W. Schooler (eds), Scientific Approaches to Consciousness (pp. 13–
47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
James, W. (1963). The Varieties of Religious Experience: A study in human nature.
Gifford lectures on natural religion, Edinburgh, 1901–1902. New York:
University Books.
Jarman, R.A. (1996). Foreword. In R. Wilkinson, The Spiritual Basis of Steiner
Education (pp. 9–12). London: Sophia Books.
Johnson, E.B. (2002). Contextual Teaching and Learning: What it is and why it’s here
to stay. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Johnson, J.G. (2006). Cognitive modeling of decision making in sports. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 7 (6), 631–652.
Johnstone, C. (2014). Creating a cultural shift in happiness. Positive News, 80
(Summer), 18. URL: http://positivenews.org.uk/ (accessed 25 June 2014)
Jones, C. (2007). An Authentic Life: Finding meaning and spirituality in everyday life.
Sydney: ABC Books.
Jordan, S.M. (1986). The value of experience and the experience of value. In M.H.
DeArmey & S. Skousgaard (eds), The Philosophical Psychology of William

141
James (pp. 113–124). Washington, DC: Center for Advanced Research in
Phenomenology/University Press of America.
Juratowitch, M. (2010). Gifted and flourishing: An integrated approach. Paper presented
at the 11th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness, 28 July–1 August, Sydney.
Kant, I. (1966). The moral law – the categorical imperative. In J.A. Mann & G.F.
Kreyche (eds), Approaches to Morality: Readings in ethics from classical
philosophy to existentialism (pp. 193–215). New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World.
Kaplan, R.M. & Saccuzzo, D.P. (2009). Psychological Testing: Principles,
applications, and issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kashima, Y., Paladino, A. & Margetts, E.A. (2014). Environmentalist identity and
environmental striving. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 64–75.
Kass, J., Friedman, R., Leserman, J., Zuttermeister, P. & Benson, H. (1991). Health
outcomes and new index of spiritual experience. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 30 (2), 203–211.
Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Herrington, J. & Okely, T. (2006). Research for Educators.
South Melbourne: Thomson.
Kharkhurin, A.V. (2014) Creativity.4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 26 (3), 338–352.
Koenig, L.B., McGue, M., Krueger, R.F. & Bouchard, Jr, T.J. (2005). Genetic and
environmental influences on religiousness: Findings for retrospective and
current religiousness ratings. Journal of Personality, 73 (2), 471–488.
Kornhaber, M.L., Fierros, E.G. & Veenema, S.A. (2004). Multiple Intelligences: Best
ideas from research and practice. Boston: Pearson.
Kort, F. (1986). The politics of ostracism. Ethology and Sociobiology, 7 (3), 367–377.

142
Krans, J., de Bree, J. & Moulds, M.L. (2015). Involuntary cognitions in everyday life:
Exploration of type, quality, content, and function. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 6
(art. 7), 1–11.
Kuczynski, L. & Parkin, C.M. (2006). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization:
Interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. In J.E. Grusec & P.D.
Hastings (eds), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and research (pp. 259–283).
New York: Guilford Press.
Kwilecki, S. (2000). Spiritual intelligence as a theory of individual religion: A case
application. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10 (1), 35–46.
Laible, D. & Thompson, R.A. (2006). Early socialization: A relationship perspective. In
J.E. Grusec & P.D. Hastings (eds), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and
research (pp. 181–207). New York: Guilford Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its
challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Levin, M. (2001). Spiritual Intelligence: Awakening the power of your spirituality and
intuition. London: Coronet.
Levine, M.P. (1994). Pantheism: A non-theistic concept of deity. London: Routledge.
Lewicki, P., Czyzewska, M. & Hill, T. (1997). Cognitive mechanisms for acquiring
‘experience’: The dissociation between conscious and nonconscious cognition.
In J.D. Cohen & J.W. Schooler (eds), Scientific Approaches to Consciousness
(pp. 161–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liben, L.S. & Bigler, R.S. (2015). Understanding and undermining the development of
gender dichotomies: The legacy of Sandra Lipsitz Bem. Sex Roles, (in press), 1–
12.

143
Lin, J. (2006). Love, Peace, and Wisdom in Education: A vision for education in the
21st century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Lorber, J. (2009). The social construction of gender. In E. Disch (ed.), Reconstructing
Gender: A multicultural anthology (pp. 112–119). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Lovecky, D.V. (1998). Spiritual sensitivity in gifted children. Roeper Review, 20 (3),
178–183.
Lynn, R., Harvey, J. & Nyborg, H. (2009). Average intelligence predicts atheism rates
across 137 nations. Intelligence, 37 (1), 11–15.
Maccoby, E.E. (1998). The Two Sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Maker, J. & Schiever, S.W. (2010). Curriculum Development Strategies for Gifted
Learners (3rd edn). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Marjoribanks, K. (1978). The relation between students’ convergent and divergent
abilities, their academic performance, and school-related affective
characteristics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15 (3), 197–207.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. & Roberts, R.D. (2002). Emotional Intelligence: Science and
myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, J.D. (2000). Spiritual intelligence or spiritual consciousness? International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10 (1), 47–56.
McClain, L., Ylimaki, R. & Ford, M.P. (2010). Sustaining the heart of education:
Finding space for wisdom and compassion. International Journal of Children’s
Meehan, C. (2010). What is spiritual intelligence? Paper presented at the 11th Asia
Pacific Conference on Giftedness, 28 July–1 August, Sydney.

144
Mensh, E. & Mensh, H. (1991). The IQ Mythology: Class, race, gender, and inequality.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Mertens, D.M. (2010). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology:
Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd edn).
Los Angeles: SAGE.
Miller, G. (2005). Exploring perceptions of giftedness in the Cook Islands Maori
community. International Education Journal, 6 (2), 240–246.
Miller, G. (2010). Gifted and talented Maori and Pacifika students: Issues in their
identification and programme provision. Paper presented at the 11th Asia Pacific
Conference on Giftedness, 28 July–1 August, Sydney.
Miller, J.P. (2000). Education and the Soul: Toward a spiritual curriculum. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Miller, T. (2008). Sport and spirituality: A comparative perspective. Sport Journal, 11
(3), online. URL: http://thesportjournal.org/ (accessed 09 March 2015).
Moran, A. (2009). Cognitive psychology in sport: Progress and prospects. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 10 (4), 420–426.
Moran, A. (2012). Thinking in action: Some insights from cognitive sport psychology.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7 (2), 85–92.
Moran, A. & MacIntyre, T. (2008). Motor cognition and mental imagery: New
directions. Paper presented at conference on Functional, Algorithmic and
Implementation Aspects of Motor Control and Learning, 15–16 May, Liverpool
Hope University.
Moran, S. (2009). Purpose: Giftedness in intrapersonal intelligence. High Ability
Studies, 20 (2), 143–159.

145
Moran, S. & Gardner, H. (2006). Assessing and developing multiple intelligences
purposefully. In H. Gardner (ed.), Multiple Intelligences: New horizons (pp.
213–232). New York: Basic Books.
Morgan, H. (1996). ‘An analysis of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence’. Roeper
Review, 18 (4), 263–269.
Moriarty, M.W. (2011). A conceptualization of children’s spirituality arising out of
recent research. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 16 (3), 271–
285.
Moriarty, M.W. (2013). Sport and children’s spirituality: An Australian perspective.
Moritz, S., Quan, H., Rickhi, B., Liu, M., Angen, M., Vintila, R., Sawa, R., Soriano, J.
& Toews, J. (2006). A home study-based spirituality education program
decreases emotional distress and increases quality of life – a randomized,
controlled trial. Alternative Therapies, 12 (6), 26–35.
Myers, J.E., Sweeney, T.J. & Witmer, J.M. (2000). The Wheel of Wellness counseling
for wellness: A holistic model for treatment planning. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 78 (3), 251–266.
Nardi, P.M. (2006). Doing Survey Research: A guide to quantitative methods (2nd edn).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Nash, S. (2009). Promoting young people’s spiritual well-being through informal
education. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 14 (3), 235–247.
Neihart, M. (2010a). The revised profiles of the gifted and talented: A research-based
approach. Keynote address 1, 11th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness, 28
July–1 August, Sydney.

146
Neihart, M. (2010b). Developing psychological preparedness in gifted children. Paper
Sydney.
Nemme, K. (2008). Nurturing the inner lives of children: An exploration of children’s
spirituality in three educational settings. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University
of Wollongong, Australia.
Newcomb, T. & Svehla, G. (1937). Intra-family relationships in attitude. Sociometry, 1
(1–2), 180–205.
Ng, Y.-L. (2012). Spiritual development in the classroom: Pupils’ and educators’
learning reflections. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 17 (2),
167–185.
Niederer, K. & Russell, V. (n.d.). Community engagement: A critical factor for success.
Te Toi Tupu: Leading Learning Network. URL: http://www.tetoitupu.org
/community-engagement-critical-factor-success (accessed 10 September 2015).
Noble, K.D. (2009). Spiritual intelligence. In B. Kerr (ed.), Encyclopedia of Giftedness,
Creativity and Talent, vol. 2 (pp. 820–822). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Nye, R. (1998). Psychological perspectives on children’s spirituality. PhD thesis,
University of Nottingham, UK. URL: http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/1177/
(accessed 28 June 2014).
Ofrim-Stancuna, L.-A., (2014). A multiple intelligences approach 2: Project-based
assessment. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128, 504–508.
Oberski, I. (2012). Rudolf Steiner’s philosophy of freedom as a basis for spiritual
education? International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 16 (1), 5–17.
O’Toole, J. & Beckett, D. (2013). Educational Research: Creative thinking and doing
(2nd edn). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

147
Ozaki, M., Kobayashi, K. & Oku, T. (2006). Healthy spirituality and genuineness –
from the research on spirituality with authenticity and flow. Journal of
International Society of Life Information Science, 24 (1), 165–175.
Palchykov, V., Kaski, K. & Kertész, J. (2014). Transmission of cultural traits in layered
ego-centric networks. Condensed Matter Physics, 17 (3), 1–10.
Palmer, P.J. (2003). Teaching with heart and soul: Reflections on spirituality in teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (5), 376–385.
Pargament, K. (2007). Spirituality: In search of the sacred. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez
(2007), Positive Psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human
strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Parliament of Victoria, Education and Training Committee (2012). Inquiry into the
Education of Gifted and Talented Students (Parliamentary paper No.108,
Session 2010–2012) URL: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/etc/inquiries
(accessed 30 December 2013).
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2009). Critical thinking, creativity, ethical reasoning: A unity of
opposites. In D. Ambrose & T. Cross (eds), Morality, Ethics, and Gifted Minds
(pp. 117–131). Dordrecht: Springer.
Pawluczuk, W. (2009). The concept of civilizational boundary. LIMES: Cultural
regionalistics, 2 (1), 57–63.
Perks, D. (2004). The shattered mirror: A critique of multiple intelligences theory. In D.
Hayes (ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer Guide to Key Debates in Education (pp. 122–
126). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Piaget, J. (1926). The Language and Thought of the Child (trans. M. Gabain). New
York: Harcourt, Brace.

148
Piaget, J. (1960). The Psychology of Intelligence (trans. M. Piercy & D.E. Berlyne).
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and Knowledge (trans. B. Walsh). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago.
Piaget, J. (1985). The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures (trans. T. Brown & K.J.
Thampy). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Piechowski, M.M. (2002). Experiencing in a higher key: Dabrowski’s theory of and for
the gifted. Gifted Education Communicator, 33 (1), 28–36.
Piechowski, M.M. (2003). Emotional and spiritual giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G.A.
Davis (eds), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd edn) (pp. 403–416). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Piechowski, M.M. (2006). “Mellow out,”they say. If I only could. Intensities and
sensitivities of the young and bright. Madison, WI: Yunasa Books.
Piechowski, M.M. (2009). The inner world of the young and bright. In D. Ambrose &
T. Cross (eds), Morality, Ethics, and Gifted Minds (pp. 177–194). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Pinker, S. (2007). The Stuff of Thought: Language as a window into human nature. New
York: Viking.
Plucker, J.A. (ed.) (2003). Human intelligence: Historical influences, current
controversies, teaching resources. URL: <http://www.indiana.edu/~intell>
[homepage] (accessed 24 January 2010).
Plunkett, M. & Kronborg, L. (2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The
importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and
Talented International, 26 (1–2), 31–46.

149
Polavieja, J.G. & Platt, L. (2014). Nurse or mechanic? The role of parental socialization
and children’s personality in the formation of sex-typed occupational
aspirations. Social Forces, 93 (1) 31–61.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information.
Learning and Instruction, 12 (1), 61–86.
Principe, W. (1983). Toward defining spirituality. Studies in Religion, 12 (2), 127–141.
Principe, W. (2012). Toward defining spirituality. In P. Heelas (ed.), Spirituality in the
Modern World: Within religious tradition and beyond, vol. 2 (Spirituality from
within religious tradition) (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.
Punch, K.F. (2003). Survey Research: The basics. London: SAGE.
Radford, M. (2004). The subject of spirituality. In D. Hayes (ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer
Guide to Key Debates in Education (pp. 87–90). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Radoń, S. (2013). Mindfulness – A neuro-psycho-biological way forward for defining
spirituality. Studia Religiologica, 46 (3), 187–191.
Raftopolous, M. & Bates, G. (2011). ‘It’s that knowing that you are not alone’: The role
of spirituality in adolescent resilience. International Journal of Children’s
Raphael, M. (2012). Truth in flux: Goddess feminism as a late modern religion. In P.
Heelas (ed.), Spirituality in the Modern World: Within religious tradition and
beyond, vol. 2 (Spirituality from within religious tradition) (pp. 253–270).
London: Routledge.
Ratner, C. (2012a). Macro Cultural Psychology: A political philosophy of mind. New
York: Oxford University Press.

150
Ratner, C. (2012b). Macro-cultural psychology. In J. Valsiner (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Culture and Psychology (pp. 207–238). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Reynolds, F.C. & Piirto, J. (2005). Depth psychology and giftedness: Bringing soul to
the field of talent development and giftedness. Roeper Review, 27 (3), 164–171.
Roeper, A.M. (1995). Selected Writings and Speeches. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit
Publishing.
Rubin, L. (1989). The thinking teacher: Cultivating pedagogical intelligence. Journal of
Teacher Education, 40 (6), 31–34.
Ruether, R.R. (2005). Goddesses and the Divine Feminine: A Western religious history.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Russell, V. (2010). Developing identity in our gifted indigenous students. Paper
Sydney.
Rydenfelt, H. & Pihlström, S. (eds) (2013). William James on Religion. Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sartre, J.-P. (1957). Existentialism and Human Emotions. New York: Philosophical
Library.
Sartre, J.-P. (1967). Existentialism. In M. Greene (ed.), Existential Encounters for
Teachers (pp. 109–113). New York: Random House.
Saucier, G. & Skrzypińska, K. (2006). Spiritual but not religious? Evidence for two
independent dispositions. Journal of Personality, 74 (5), 1257–1292.
Schlehofer, M.M., Omoto, A.M. & Adelman, J.R. (2008). How do ‘religion’ and
‘spirituality’ differ? Lay definitions among older adults. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 47 (3), 411–425.

151
Schoonmaker, F. (2009). Only those who see take off their shoes: Seeing the classroom
as a spiritual space. Teachers College Record, 111 (12), 2713–2731.
Seitz, R., Nickel, J. & Azari, N. (2006). Functional modularity of medial prefrontal
cortex: Involvement in human empathy. Neuropsychology, 20 (6), 743–751.
Shavinina, L. (1997). Extremely early high abilities, sensitive periods, and the
development of giftedness: A conceptual proposition. High Ability Studies, 8
(2), 247–258.
Shaywitz, S.E., Holahan, J.M., Freudenheim, D.A., Fletcher, J.M., Makuch, R.W. &
Shaywitz, B.A. (2001). Heterogeneity within the gifted: Higher IQ boys exhibit
behaviors resembling boys with learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45
(1), 16–23.
Shearer, C.B. (2004). Using a multiple intelligences assessment to promote teacher
development and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 106 (1), 147–
162.
Shore, B.M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative differences in how gifted
children think. In R.C. Friedman & B.M. Shore (eds), Talents Unfolding:
Cognition and development (pp. 167–187). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Sifers, S.K., Warren, J.S. & Jackson, Y. (2012). Measuring spirituality in children.
Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 31 (3), 205–214.
Silver, C.F. (2013). Atheism, agnosticism, and nonbelief: A qualitative and quantitative
study of type and narrative. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga.

152
Silverman, L.K. (1993). Social development, leadership, and gender issues. In L.K.
Silverman (ed.), Counseling the Gifted & Talented (pp. 291–327). Denver, CO:
Love Publishing.
Simmel, G. (2012). The conflict of modern culture, and the problem of religion today.
In P. Heelas (ed.), Spirituality in the Modern World: Within religious tradition
and beyond, vol. 4 (Explorations of explanations) (pp. 283–298). London:
Routledge.
Sinetar, M. (2000). Spiritual Intelligence: What we can learn from the early awakening
child. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Sisk, D. (2008). Engaging the spiritual intelligence of gifted students to build global
awareness in the classroom. Roeper Review, 30 (1), 24–30.
Sisk, D.A. & Torrance, E.P. (2001). Spiritual Intelligence: Developing higher
consciousness. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Smart, N. (1992). The World’s Religions: Old traditions and modern transformations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S.J. (2007). Positive Psychology: The scientific and practical
explorations of human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Solomon, R.C. (2007). Spirituality for the Skeptic: The thoughtful love of life. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sosa, R. & Dong, A. (2013). The creative assessment of rich ideas. In E.Y.-L. Do, S.
Dow, J. Ox, S. Smith, K. Nishimoto & C.T. Tan (eds), Proceedings of the 9th
ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition (pp. 328–331). New York: ACM.
Spearman, C. (1929). ‘The uniqueness of g’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 20 (2),
212–216.

153
Speck, B.W. (2005). What is spirituality? New Directions for Teaching and Learning:
Spirituality in higher education, 104, 3–13.
Sriraman, B. (2009). Spirituality. In B. Kerr (ed.), Encyclopedia of Giftedness,
Creativity and Talent, vol. 2 (pp. 822–823). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R.J. (1999a). ‘Intelligence as developing expertise’. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 24 (4), 359–375.
Sternberg, R.J. (1999b). ‘The theory of successful intelligence’. Review of General
Psychology, 3 (4), 292–316.
Sternberg, R.J. (2003). Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R.J. (2004). ‘Culture and intelligence’. American Psychologist, 59 (5), 325–
338.
Sternberg, R.J. (2009). Ethics and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 20 (2), 121–130.
Sternberg, R.J. (2011). Slip-sliding away, down the ethical slope. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 57 (19), A23.
Sternberg, R.J. (2012). Giftedness and ethics. Gifted Education International, 28 (3),
241–251.
Sternberg, R.J., Conway, B.E., Ketron, J.L. & Bernstein, M. (1981). ‘People’s
conceptions of intelligence’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41
(1), 37–55.
Sternberg, R.J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P. & Grigorenko, E.L. (1996).
‘Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct
validation of a triarchic model’. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (3), 129–137.

154
Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.I. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating creativity in a
culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Stoyles, G.J., Stanford, B., Caputi, P., Keating, A.-L. & Hyde, B. (2012). A measure of
spiritual sensitivity for children. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality,
17 (3), 203–215.
Surr, J. (2011). Links between early attachment experiences and manifestations of
spirituality. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 16 (2), 129–141.
Suzuki, D. (2004). The David Suzuki Reader: A lifetime of ideas from a leading activist
and thinker. Vancouver, BC: Greystone Books.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.
Learning and Instruction, 4 (4), 295–312.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.
Sword, L. (2009). Gifted children: Emotionally immature or emotionally intense.
Gifted, 153, 5–9.
Tacey, D. (2004). The Spirituality Revolution: The emergence of contemporary
spirituality. Hove, East Sussex: Brunner-Routledge.
Tan, C. & Wong, Y.-L. (2012). Promoting spiritual ideals through design thinking in
public schools. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 17 (1), 25–37.
Tannenbaum, A.J. (1983). Gifted Children: Psychological and educational
perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
Taplin, M. (2011). Silent sitting: A cross-curricular tool to promote resilience.
Taylor, J.B. (2008). My Stroke of Insight: A brain scientist’s personal journey. New
York: Viking.

155
Taylor, S. (1999). Indigenous cultures and identities. In D. Meadmore, B. Burnett & P.
O’Brien (eds), Understanding Education: Contexts and agendas for the new
millennium (pp. 41–47). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Prentice Hall.
Tenenbaum, H.R. & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent–child conversations about science: The
socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39 (1), 34–47.
Tenenbaum, H.R., Snow, C.E., Roach, K.A. & Kurland, B. (2005). Talking and reading
science: Longitudinal data on sex differences in mother–child conversations in
low-income families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26 (1), 1–
19.
Thurstone, L.L. (1938). Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Tigner, R.B. & Tigner, S.S. (2000). ‘Triarchic theories of intelligence: Aristotle and
Sternberg’. History of Psychology, 3 (2), 168–176.
Tirri, K. (2009). Character education and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 20 (2), 117–
119.
Tirri, K. & Nokelainen, P. (2007). Comparison of academically average and gifted
students’ self-rated ethical sensitivity. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13
(6), 587–601.
Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P. & Komulainen, E. (2013). Multiple intelligences: Can they be
measured? Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55 (4), 438–461.
Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P. & Ubani, M. (2006). Conceptual definition and empirical
validation of the spiritual sensitivity scale. Journal of Empirical Theology, 19
(1), 37–62.

156
Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P. & Ubani, M. (2007). Do gifted students have spiritual
intelligence? In K. Tirri (ed.), Values and Foundations in Gifted Education (pp.
187–202). Bern: Peter Lang.
Tirri, K. & Pehkonen, L. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of
gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13 (3), 120–129.
Tirri, K. & Quinn, B. (2010). Exploring the role of religion and spirituality in the
development of purpose: Case studies of purposeful youth. British Journal of
Religious Education, 32 (3), 201–214.
Tirri, K. & Ubani, M. (2004). How do gifted girls perceive the meaning of life? Gifted
Education International, 19 (3), 266–274.
Tisdell, E.J. (2003). Exploring Spirituality and Culture in Adult and Higher Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2005). Travelling the road to differentiation in staff development.
Journal of Staff Development, 26 (4), 8–12.
Torrance, E.P. (1963). The creative personality and the ideal pupil. Teachers College
Record, 65 (3), 220–226.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J. & Rasinski, K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tweedy, R. (2012). The God of the Left Hemisphere: Blake, Bolte Taylor, and the myth
of Creation. London: Karnac.
Ubani, M. (2010). Science and spirituality: An empirical study of Finnish academically
gifted boys. Religious Education Journal of Australia, 26 (1), 3–8.
Van Ness, P.H. (2012). Introduction: Spirituality and the secular quest. In P. Heelas
(ed.), Spirituality in the Modern World: Within religious tradition and beyond,

157
vol. 1 (Overview: Spirituality, the perennial and the zoned) (pp. 273–288).
London: Routledge.
Vaughan, F. (1991). Spiritual issues in psychotherapy. Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology, 23 (2), 105–119.
Vaughan, F. (2002). What is spiritual intelligence? Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
42 (2), 16–33.
Vialle, W. (2007). Spiritual intelligence: An important dimension of giftedness. In K.
Tirri (ed.), Values and Foundations in Gifted Education (pp. 171–186). Bern:
Peter Lang.
Vialle, W. & Perry, J. (2002). Teaching Through the Eight Intelligences. Cheltenham,
VIC: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Vialle, W., Walton, R. & Woodcock, S. (2008). Children’s spirituality: An essential
element in thinking and learning in new times. In P. Kell, W. Vialle, D.M.
Konza & G. Vogl (eds), Learning and the Learner: Exploring learning for new
times (pp. 143–160). Wollongong: Faculty of Education, University of
Wollongong. Research Online, URL: http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/42
(accessed 17 November 2009).
von Károlyi, C., Ramos-Ford, V. & Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A
perspective on giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (eds), Handbook of
Gifted Education (3rd edn) (pp. 100–112). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Walker, L.J. & Reimer, K.S. (2006). The relationship between moral and spiritual
development. In E.C. Roehlkepartain, P.E. King, L. Wagener & P.L. Benson
(eds), The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence
(pp. 224–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

158
Walton, R. (2010). Spiritual intelligence (SI) and giftedness. Paper presented at the 11th
Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness, 28 July–1 August, Sydney.
Walton, R. (2014). Mapping MI to the DMGT: A theoretical framework. Australasian
Journal of Gifted Education, 23 (2), 37–44.
Warneken, F. & Tomasello, M. (2009). The roots of human altruism. British Journal of
Psychology, 100 (3), 455–471.
Webster, R.S. (2004). An existential framework of spirituality. International Journal of
Children’s Spirituality, 9 (1), 7–19.
Weiten, W. (2013). Psychology: Themes and variations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
West, C. (2011). The confluence of education and children’s spirituality in New South
Wales. Journal of Student Engagement: Education matters, 1 (1), 11–20. URL:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/jseem/vol1/iss1/3 (accessed 16 February 2013).
Wharton, A.S. (2005). The Sociology of Gender: An introduction to theory and
research. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Whiteoak, A. (2010). The Booderoo Junior Rangers program. Paper presented at the
11th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness, 28 July–1 August, Sydney.
Whiteoak, A. (2015). Booderoo Junior Ranger program. URL: http://www.slideserve
.com/marius/booderee-junior-ranger-program (accessed 08 September 2015).
Wigglesworth, C. (2013). Spiritual intelligence. In J. Neal (ed.), Handbook of Faith and
Spirituality in the Workplace: Emerging research and practice (pp. 441–454).
New York: Springer.
Winit, L. (2010). Moral reasoning of academically gifted adolescence: Does domain
and level of giftedness make a difference? Paper presented at the 11th Asia
Pacific Conference on Giftedness, 28 July–1 August, Sydney.

159
Winner, E. & Martino, G. (2003). Artistic giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis
(eds), Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd edn) (pp. 335–349). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Yamakage, M. (2006). The Essence of Shinto: Japan’s spiritual heart (trans. M.S.
Gillespie, G.L. Gillespie & Y. Komuro). Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Yust, K.-M., Hyde, B. & Ota, C. (2010). Cyber spirituality: Facebook, Twitter, and the
adolescent quest for connection. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality,
15 (4), 291–293.
Yust, K.-M., Johnson, A.N., Sasso, S.E. & Roehlkepartain, E.C. (2006). Traditional
wisdom: Creating space for religious reflection on child and adolescent
spirituality. In K.M. Yust, A.N. Johnson, S.E. Sasso & E.C. Roehlkepartain
(eds), Nurturing Child and Adolescent Spirituality: Perspectives from the
world’s religious traditions (pp. 1–14). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Ziegler, A. & Ziegler, A. (2009). The paradoxical attenuation effect in tests based on
classical test theory: Mathematical background and practical implications for the
measurement of high abilities. High Ability Studies, 20 (1), 5–14.
Zohar, D. & Marshall, I. (2000). SQ: Spiritual intelligence. The ultimate intelligence.
London: Bloomsbury.

161
Appendices
Appendix 1: Original ISIS scale – statements only, which would be self-rated on a score
of 1–6
Appendix 2: Adapted ISIS scale, renamed Life Perspectives Scale – front page plus
remaining statements
Appendix 3: Sample Participant Information Sheet

162
Appendix 1
The Integrated Spiritual Intelligence Scale (ISIS)
1. I notice and appreciate the beauty that is uncovered in my work
2. I expect the worst in life, and that’s what I usually get
3. When things are chaotic, I remain aware of what is happening without getting
lost in my experience
4. During an activity or conversation, I monitor and notice my thoughts and
emotions
5. I practice inner and outer quiet as a way of opening myself to receive creative
insights
6. I have a good sense for when my purpose requires nonconformity, out-of-the-
box thinking or taking an unpopular stand
7. I resist events that I don’t like, even when they need to occur
8. In my daily life, I feel the source of life immanent and present within the
physical world
9. I get upset when things don’t go the way I want them to go
10. In my day-to-day activities, I align my purpose with what wants to and needs to
happen in the world
11. I find it frustrating when I don’t know what the truth is
12. I pay attention to my dreams to gain insight to my life
13. In my daily life, I am disconnected from nature
14. Seeing life’s processes as cyclical rather than linear gives me useful insights to
daily challenges
15. A higher consciousness reveals my true path to me
16. I live and act with awareness of my mortality
17. In difficult moments, I tap into and draw on a storehouse of stories, quotes,
teachings or other forms of time-proven wisdom
18. I don’t know how to just be myself in interactions with others
19. I hold my work as sacred
20. I have a daily spiritual practice – such as meditation or prayer – that I draw on
to address life challenges
21. I enjoy the small things in life – such as taking a shower, brushing my teeth or
eating
22. I am driven and ruled by fears
23. I tend to think about the future or the past without attending to the present
moment
24. My life is a gift, and I try to make the most of each moment
25. I draw on my compassion in my encounters with others
26. I am limited in my life by the feeling that I have very few options available to
me
27. I spend time in nature to remind myself of the bigger picture
28. My actions are aligned with my values
29. In meetings or conversations, I pause several times to step back, observe and
reassess the situation
30. I use objects or places as reminders to align myself with what is sacred
31. I find it hard to go against conventions, expectations or rules

163
32. Even when things are upsetting and chaotic around me, I remain centred and
peaceful inside
33. I find it upsetting to imagine that I will not achieve my desired outcomes
34. In my day-to-day tasks, I pay attention to that which cannot be put into words,
such as indescribable sensual or spiritual experiences
35. I am aware of a wise- or higher-self in me that I listen to for guidance
36. I can hold as true and integrate seemingly conflicting or contradictory points of
view
37. I strive for the integration or wholeness of all things
38. My work is in alignment with my greater purpose
39. I derive meaning from the pain and suffering in my life
40. I feel that my work is an expression of love
41. I use rituals, rites or ceremonies during times of transition
42. My actions are aligned with my soul – my essential, true nature
43. I remember to consider what is unspoken, underground or hidden
44. Because I follow convention, I am not as successful as I could be
45. I am aware of my inner truth – what I know inside to be true
46. Being right is important to me
47. I notice and appreciate the sensuality or beauty of my daily life
48. I enhance my effectiveness through my connections and receptivity to others
49. Even in the midst of conflict, I look for and find connection or common ground
50. I listen to my gut feeling or intuition in making important choices
51. I listen deeply to both what is being said and what is not being said
52. I am mindful of my body’s five senses during my daily tasks
53. I seek to know what is logically provable and ignore the mysterious
54. I look for and try to discover my blind spots
55. I have a hard time integrating various parts of my life
56. I work toward expanding other people’s awareness and perspectives
57. I live in harmony with a force greater than myself – a universal life force, the
divine, nature – to act spontaneously and effortlessly
58. My goals and purpose extend beyond the material world
59. I draw on deep trust or faith when facing day-to-day challenges
60. I hold resentment toward those who have wronged me
61. I feel like part of a larger cosmic organism or greater whole
62. I find ways to express my true self creatively
63. When looking at others, I tend to focus on what they need to do to improve
64. Experiences of ecstasy, grace or awe give me insights or direction in dealing
with daily problems
65. To gain insights in daily problems, I take a wide view or holistic perspective
66. I have daily and weekly times set aside for self-reflection and rejuvenation
67. I remember to feel grateful for the abundance of positive things in my life
68. I have faith and confidence that things will work out for the best
69. I accept myself as I am, with all my problems and limitations
70. To solve problems, I draw on my ability to hold, accept and go beyond
paradoxes
71. In my daily life, I feel my work is in service to the larger whole
72. In arguing or negotiating, I am able to see things from the other person’s
perspective, even when I disagree
73. I see advancing my career as the main reason to do a good job
74. I see financial rewards as being the primary goal of my work

164
75. My mind wanders away from what I am doing
76. I am frustrated by my inability to find meaning in my daily life
77. Even when I seem to have very few choices, I feel free
78. I want to be treated as special
79. I have a hard time standing firm in my inner truth – what I know inside to be
true
80. I bring a feeling of joy to my activities
81. I strongly resist experiences that I find unpleasant
82. I am my own worst enemy
83. I have answered all the questions truthfully and to the best of my ability

165
Appendix 2
Group Age Year Gender
G
Life Perspectives scale
Clarification of terms
Statement 5) ‘opening myself’ – keeping in a receptive state of mind
Statement 6) ‘nonconformity’ – behaving in a manner different to most other people
Statement 14) ‘cyclical’ – current events/actions impact other aspects of my life through consequences
Statement 14) ‘linear’ – events/actions have no influence beyond the event/action itself
Statement 19) ‘sacred’ – spiritual or loved
Statement 30) ‘sacred’ – spiritual or loved
Statement 34) ‘sensual’ – felt through the senses
Statement 65) ‘holistic’ – big picture or all-encompassing
Statement 70) ‘paradoxes’ – seemingly conflicting information or events
1 – Never or almost never
2 – Very infrequently
3 – Fairly infrequently
4 – Fairly frequently
5 – Very frequently
6 – Always or almost always
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 I notice and appreciate the beauty that is uncovered in the things I do
2 I expect the worst in life and that is usually what I get
3 When things are chaotic, I remain aware of what is happening without
getting lost in my experience
4 During an activity or conversation, I am aware of my thoughts and
emotions
5 I practice inner and outer quiet as a way of opening myself to receive
creative insights
6 I have a good sense for when my purpose requires nonconformity, beyond-
the-square thinking or taking an unpopular stand
7 I resist events that I do not like, even when they need to occur
8 In my daily life, I feel the source of life to be inherently divine and present
within the physical world
9 I get upset when things do not go the way I want them to go
10 In my day-to-day activities, I take care to ensure that what I do is consistent
with what I feel ‘should’ happen in the world
11 I find it frustrating when I do not know what the truth is
12 I pay attention to my dreams to gain insight to my life
13 In my daily life, I am disconnected from nature
14 Seeing life’s processes as cyclical rather than linear gives me useful
insights into daily challenges
15 A higher consciousness reveals my true path to me
16 I live and act with awareness of my mortality
17 In difficult moments, I tap into and draw upon stories, quotes, teachings or
other forms of time-proven wisdom

166
18. I do not know how to just be myself in interactions with others
19. I hold the things I do as sacred
20. I have a daily spiritual practice – such as meditation or prayer – that I draw on
to address life challenges
21. I enjoy the small things in life – such as taking a shower, brushing my teeth or
eating
22. I am driven and ruled by fears
23. I tend to think about the future or the past without paying attention to the
present moment
24. My life is a gift, and I try to make the most of each moment
25. I draw on my compassion in my encounters with others
26. I am limited in my life by the feeling that I have very few options available to
me
27. I spend time in nature to remind myself of the bigger picture
28. My actions are in line with my values
29. In meetings or conversations, I pause several times to mentally step back,
observe and reassess the situation
30. I use objects or places as reminders to align myself with what is sacred
31. I find it hard to go against conventions, expectations or rules
32. Even when things are upset and chaotic around me, I remain centred and
peaceful inside
33. I find it upsetting to imagine that I will not achieve my desired goals
34. In my day-to-day tasks, I pay attention to things that cannot be put into words,
such as indescribable sensual or spiritual experiences
35. I am aware of a wise- or higher-self in me that I listen to for guidance
36. I can believe and accept seemingly conflicting or contradictory points of view
37. I strive for the integration or wholeness of all things
38. The things I do are in line with my greater purpose
39. I derive meaning from pain and suffering when it occurs in my life
40. I feel that the things I do are an expression of love
41. I use rituals, rites or ceremonies during times of change in my life
42. My actions are aligned with my soul – my essential, true nature
43. In conversation, I remember to consider what is unspoken, underground or
hidden
44. Because I keep within society’s expectations, I am not as successful as I could
be
45. I am aware of my inner truth – what I know inside to be true
46. Being right is important to me
47. I notice and appreciate the sensuality or beauty of my daily life
48. I enhance my effectiveness through my connections to and acceptance of others
49. Even in the midst of conflict, I try to find connection or common ground
50. I listen to my gut feeling or intuition in making important choices
51. I listen deeply to both what is being said and what is not being said
52. I am aware of my body’s five senses during my daily tasks
53. I seek to know what is logically provable and ignore the mysterious
54. I look for and try to discover my blind spots
55. I have a hard time integrating various parts of my life
56. I work toward expanding other people’s awareness and perspectives
57. I live in harmony with a force greater than myself – for example, a universal
life force, the divine, nature – to act spontaneously and effortlessly

167
58. My goals and purpose extend beyond the material world
59. I draw on deep trust or faith when facing day-to-day challenges
60. I hold resentment toward those who have wronged me
61. I feel like part of a larger cosmic organism or greater whole
62. I find ways to express my true self creatively
63. When looking at others, I tend to focus on what they need to do to improve
64. Experiences that inspire awe or wonder give me insights or direction for dealing
with daily problems
65. To gain insights into daily problems, I take a wide view or holistic perspective
66. I have daily and weekly times set aside for self-reflection and rejuvenation
67. I remember to feel grateful for the abundance of positive things in my life
68. I have faith and confidence that things will work out for the best
69. I accept myself as I am, with all my problems and limitations
70. To solve problems, I draw on my ability to hold, accept and go beyond
paradoxes
71. In my daily life, I feel that the things I do are in service to the larger whole
72. In arguing or negotiating, I am able to see things from the other person’s
perspective, even when I disagree
73. The main reason to perform well in school is to advance my future career
options
74. I see financial rewards as being the primary goal of my education
75. My mind wanders away from what I am doing
76. I am frustrated by not being able to find meaning in my daily life
77. Even when I seem to have very few choices, I feel free
78. I want to be treated as special
79. I find it hard to stand firm in my inner truth – what I know inside to be true
80. I bring a feeling of joy to my activities
81. I strongly resist experiences that I find unpleasant
82. I am my own worst enemy
83. I have answered all the questions truthfully and to the best of my ability
(Based on the original ISIS scale developed by Amram & Dryer, 2008)

168
Appendix 3
10 February 2012
Dear Parent(s)/caregiver(s)
Your child has been invited to participate in a research project conducted by the University of
Wollongong. The project is entitled Precursor, indicator or mirage: What depth of
relationship exists between spiritual intelligence and giftedness? For this research, spiritual
intelligence is defined as the application of personal spiritual perspectives, while giftedness is
the ability to perform above the average in a particular field. Each of the participating schools
represents a different demographic of giftedness. The study makes no attempt to link spiritual
intelligence with religious orientation and will not gather religious data.
We would like your approval to conduct the research and to involve your child as a participant,
as part of a total survey population of approx. 500 students across three high schools. Your child
will be asked to undertake a proforma, 83-item, paper-based survey, which should take approx.
30 minutes. Sample statements are: 9) I get upset when things do not go the way I want them to
go; 28) My actions are in line with my values; 69) I accept myself as I am, with all my problems
and limitations. Responses take the form of a 1–6 rating. The survey has been designed and
validated as a measure of an individual’s spiritual intelligence.
Your child’s involvement in the study is voluntary and he/she may withdraw from the study at
any time, however, as the surveys are anonymous, it will not be possible to identify and
withdraw any data that has been provided to that point. If you do not want your child to take
part in this research, non-consent forms are available from the school office or you may contact
the school principal (xxxx@det.nsw.edu.au) directly.
This study will form the basis for Russell Walton’s PhD thesis. If you decide to help us in this
study, you will provide us with valuable information on the relationship between spiritual
intelligence and giftedness. Findings from the study will be published in a report to the NSW
Department of Education and Communities (DEC), as well as possible publication in
educational journals and conference proceedings. Confidentiality is assured, and your child will
not be identified in any part of the research or reportage.
This study has been reviewed by the Human Research Ethics Committee (Social Science,
Humanities and Behavioural Science) of the University of Wollongong. This research has been
assessed by the DEC as presenting minimal risk, however, should your child become distressed
they will be referred to the school counsellor. If you have any concerns or complaints regarding
the conduct of this research, you can contact the Ethics Officer, on (02) 4221 3386.
Yours sincerely
Russell Walton (PhD student) Professor Wilma Vialle (Supervisor)
Faculty of Education Faculty of Education
(02) 4221 4178 (02) 4221 4434
rwalton@uow.edu.au wvialle@uow.edu.au
Miss Conor West & Ms Joanne Molyneux (research assistants), Faculty of Education

RW.PhD.Precursor indicator mirage.Final

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to RW.PhD.Precursor indicator mirage.Final (20)

RW.PhD.Precursor indicator mirage.Final