The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

December 2003 12(2}, 135 - 175

A LATE DEVELOPER - GIFTED EDUCATION IN

MALAYSIA WITHIN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

SHANE N. PHILLIPSON
Hong Kong Institute of Education

INDERBIR KAUR
Universiti Putra Malaysia

SIVANES PHILLIPSON
The Flinders University of South Australia

Gifted education is a relatively neglected aspect of the Malaysian

education system, both within the local community and at the
ministry level. The absence of a national policy addressing the
specific needs ofgifted children is surprising not only in the light
of other educational innovations within Malaysia, but also
because many of Malaysia s neighbours have well established
programs for gifted children. Despite this situation, Malaysia has
an opportunity to build a gifted education program that, in the
context ofeducational globalization, is unique in the international
community. To guide this development, a generic model for gifted
education is described, based on four components (including policy
development, implementation, advocacy and research & teacher
education). However, this paper argues that Malaysia must
develop its own conceptions of giftedness where the individual
character of the three major ethnic groups is recognised. Finally,
a number of recommendations are made for both Malaysian
universities and the National Association of Gifted Children
Malaysia in terms of research, teacher education, and policy
development that also provide examples for other nations to study
when meeting the needs ofgifted children within a global society.

Gifted education in Malaysia is relatively neglected and

undeveloped. This state is surprising in the light of other recent
innovations in education, particularly the implementation of the
 136 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA
"Smart School" project since 1999. Although the national education
policy mentions gifted childten and their specific needs, the mission of
the Special Education Unit since its inception in 1964 appears to be
directed to the needs of childten with disabilities' . Without decrying the
merits oftheir efforts for these childten, many countries around the world
recognise that gifted children also have specific needs, and educational
programs for them are often based on the premise that a regular
curriculum may, in fact, be detrimental to their academic development.
Issues of equity, apart from anything else, demand that the needs of
gifted children should also be met.

The development of gifted education within Malaysia involves much

more than just a formal commitment by the Ministry of Education in the
form of policy documents. This paper argues that a successful
educational program requires the active involvement of three
additional components of influence, including advocacy, research
and implementation. Together, these four components and their
interrelationship encompass what can be referred to as the gifted
education movement.

In a broad context, the field of gifted education is experiencing

change as a result of the pressures from the globalization of education
(Hernandez de Hahn, 2000). Although little research appears to have
been conducted on the specific impact of globalization on gifted
education, it is clear that the gifted education movement is facing a number
of challenges, the most fundamental of which involves how giftedness is
conceived (Moon & Rosselli, 2000). Until recently, a Euro-American
framework, including the use oftest instruments from this framework,
was used to studypsychologica\ knowledge across a number of different
cultures. Because these instruments were developed and validated in
one culture, they may not be valid in another (Segall, Lormer & Berry,
1998) and any conclusions based on these instruments are necessarily
suspect. Segall et al argued that the psychological phenomenon should
be explored within each culture before being studied across cultures.

I Disabilities result from a loss or abnormality of a psychological, physiological

or anatomical structtrre or function, and contribute to impairments in the learning

process (see Ashman & Elkins, 1998).
 SHANE PlllLLIPSON et al. 137

For gifted education, conceptions of giftedness are often based on

a dominant culture and again this culture is likely to be Euro-
American, with other cultures, together with their conceptions of
giftedness, relegated to minority status (Cohen, Ambrose, & Powell,
2000; Peterson, 1999). The notion ofminority culture, however, no longer
exists within the global context, although culture is recognized as
increasingly more complex and less stable. Researchers are now
starting to question the role of gifted education in this context, asking
whether its role is to "water down" the various cultural conceptions of
giftedness, or whether it is to maintain the uniqueness of these
conceptions (Rudnitski, 2000). Because it is becoming clear that there
are fundamental differences in psychological phenomenon specifically
related to culture (Tomasello, 2000), the initial aim of research should
be to understand the conceptions of giftedness as a function of culture.

A recent study comparing the construct of giftedness in

university students across ten countries, including several Asian
countries, concluded that there were cross-cultural differences in this
construct (Stone, 2002). Aitho'ugh the study makes a significant
contribution to our understanding of giftedness in these countries, the
study can be criticized on several methodological grounds.

The primary purpose of this paper is to contribute towards the

development ofgifted education within Malaysia The first section briefly
illustrates the unique ethnic background of Malaysia and the
educational challenges this presents in terms of gifted education. The
second section more fully describes the interrelationship between the
four components of the gifted education movement, and makes some
general recommendations for its development in Malaysia. In doing so,
the paper will then draw on the experiences of some of Malaysia's
geographic and ethnic neighbours in order to facilitate this development.
The second and equally important aim of this paper is to provide
guidelines for the development of gifted education in a global context.
 138 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

Gifted education in Malaysia

The Malaysian population is a mix of three main ethnic groups.

Of the 23 million people, recent census estimates indicated that the
Bumiputra (indigenous Malays) constitute 66% of the population,
Chinese 25% and Indian 7% . The modem education system was
implemented in 1961 as the result of the Education Act, with
responsibility for its implementation residing in the Ministry of
Education. The Education Act now mandates at least nine years of
education for each child, and plans to raise the school leaving age to 17
years.

In 1964, the Ministry of Education set up the Special Education

Unit' . The charter of the unit mentioned gifted children but, in practice,
only children with physical and mental disabilities appear to have
benefited from their activities. The absence of a clearly articulated
definition of giftedness is a strong indication of the continuing lack of
awareness by the Ministry of Education toward gifted education. One
possible reason for this absence is that the Curriculum Development
Centre of the Ministry of Education perceives gifted students as
sufficiently 'intelligent' or 'clever' enough to not warrant the need for
any special provision, including definition, because they are able to master
education earlier than 'average children'. However, Kaur (2000) argued
that this perception is both vague and unsubstantiated, and furthennore,
seriously undennines the needs ofthese children.

The "Smart School" project, implemented in 1999, refers to

school settings that use interactive infonnation technology for teaching
and learning. Although the rationale for the school mentions the needs of
exceptional children, the term does not, however, refer to schools for the
gifted learner. To date, 90 out of 2000 (5%) government schools have
implemented the Smart School concept (Ministry of Education, 2002).

Curriculum changes have been implemented in four subjects,

including Mathematics, Science, Bahasa Melayu and English. These

2 The unit was upgraded to department level in 1995 and restructured in 1998.
 SHANE PIDLLIPSON et al. 139

changes focus on the development of multi-media software packages

that allow for self-accessed, self-paced and self-directed student
learning (Ministry of Education, 2002). The Smart Schools have, in
fact, many curriculum principles normally found in programs for
academically gifted children. The curriculum has a focus on analytical
and creative thinking, and problem solving, as well as allowing students
to progress through the cunriculum at a rate that suits their capabilities
whilst remaining with their age cohort. The changes found in the Smart
School project were not only intended to prepare schoolleavers for the
information age, but also included a reassessment of an education
"culture" centred on public examinations.

Despite being intended as a school for all students regardless of

ability, the Smart School concept has often been confused as a school
for the gifted. Although the rationale for the implementation ofthe Smart
School mentions the needs of exceptional students, the overall
curriculum is more focused on the technological aspects of education,
and where every student is provided with the same opportunities. It is
uncertain, however, as to how gifted students would benefit from such a
curriculum. Moreover, there does not appear to be any plans by the
Ministry for the evaluation of the Smart School project in terms of the
gifted learner' . Even if the Smart Schools were implicitly meeting the
needs of gifted children, the remaining 95% of government schools have,
as yet, no such provision.

The Smart School project represents Malaysia's formal entry

into the use oflnformation and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
(Rahimah, 1998). As Rahimah and others have cautioned, the use of
ICTs represent special challenges to East Asian society in terms
of generational tensions within culture as well as to pedagogy
(Loveless & Ellis, 2001; Richards, in press).

The MARA Junior College system appears to be the one

exception for the education of the gifted child in Malaysia. Based

J The economic crisis in Malaysia in 1997 had slowed down the progress of "Smart

School" and, therefore, it will take much longer to fully implement the concept and to
detennine its success.
 140 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

on the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) (Renzulli & Reis, 1985;

2000), specialised programs have been developed by some of the
Colleges since the 1980s that emphasise the use of technology, while
grade-skipping is practised as one form of educational acceleration.
Despite appearing to be successful in meeting the educational needs of
the gifted child, so far only three out of the 21 MARA colleges in
Malaysia are using this system. Furthermore, MARA colleges are not
under the direction of the Ministry of Education, nor do they have a
student population that is representative ofthe three ethnic groups (Kaur,
2000).

Apart from government schools and the MARA colleges,

Malaysia has a number of other international and private schools
offering education at the primary and/or secondary level. To date,
however, no research has been conducted to determine which, if any,
provide programs for gifted children.

Some research in gifted education and the gifted child have been
conducted within Malaysia. It appears that the first attempt to draw
attention to the education of children with "creative talents" was a thesis
by Chua (1976). Chua pointed out that the Malaysian education system
tended to encourage conventionality, routine, and pseudo-innovation
rather than the inventive and innovative aspects of human intellect. In a
second and unrelated study, it was concluded that the Malay language
versions of both the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices and the
WISC-I1I were useful in being able to identify "gifted" children (Fields,
1997).

Chua's (1976) thesis pre-empted the formation of the N alional

Association for Gifted Children Malaysia (NAGCM) in 1986, with
formal registration of the association occurring the following year.
Although the Ministry was independently advised in 1990 by their
education advisor Professor Awang Had Sailah to include provision for
the gifted child (Fields, 1997), the NAGCM remains the primary
advocacy group for gifted education in Malaysia.
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 141

Although Malaysia now plays an active role in global

education (Dale & Robertson, 2002; McBumie & Ziguras, 200 I), the
effects of globalization have created political tensions in Malaysia
following the recent policy shift from Malay as the medium of
instruction to the use of English for secondary students and universities
(Richardson, 2002). In gifted education, the paradigm shifts marking
gifted education over three decades elsewhere in the world have not been
experienced within Malaysia. However, the continued absence of a
national policy for gifted education indicates that Malaysia is out of
step with her closest neighbours, including Singapore, Indonesia and
Thailand. The specific reasons behind Malaysia's inability to formulate
a national policy remain speculative due to the lack of research and are
outside the scope of this paper.

A four-component model of gifted education

For a number of years, the development of gifted education

in many countries has benefited from an international perspective.
Furthermore, it is often espoused tbat gifted education within each country
should reflect the unique cultural context of the "host" country.
Therefore, it is neither desirable (nor possible) to be entirely
prescriptive about how gifted education is to develop in Malaysia.
Nevertheless, at least four "components" appear to be important in its
development. Apart from the formation of a national educational policy,
there is also a need for indigenous research and teacher education in the
general field of gifted education, the involvement of advocacy groups
such as regional and national associations for gifted education and, last,
the implementation of this policy at the level of the school (Figure I).
The four components are active within a global context through
membership in world and regional councils, and participation in
international conferences. The next section describes each component
and their interrelationship with each other, and in doing so, will draw on
the experiences of some of Malaysia's neighbors.
 142 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

Implementation

.~ ~
(identification,
curriculum)

Research
National .. (curriculum developments.
educationalpoUcy ~ conceptions of giftedness,
identification, and teacher

'\
education awards and
jn service training)

.~
Advocacy
(advocacy for the
gifted, parent
~
DO"ps)

Globalization

Figure 1. A four-component model of the forces within gifted education within

the context of globalization

Fundamental to the development of a Malaysian national policy

is the debate regarding the role of gifted education. The first viewpoint
argues that the primary purpose of gifted education is to meet the needs
of the individual child. The second, on the other hand, argues that the
needs of the wider community or, indeed, national interest, are served
when gifted children are allowed to realize their potential. These two
views are most often articulated in the many textbooks written for teachers
and parents of gifted children (Clark, 1992; Colangelo & Davis, 1997;
Davis & Rimm, 1998; Piirto, 1994; Porter, 1999). A third view is an
extension of the first two where gifted children must not only contribute
to the national interest, but they must be taught the value of this
contribution (Winner, 2000).

A fourth view is likely to become increasingly important,

particularly within Malaysia. This view argues that gifted education
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et.1. 143

must playa role in the development of innovative curriculum that

benefits all children (Tannenbaum, 2000). Indeed, some researchers
believe that this integration is also fundamental to the survival of the
gifted movement itself(Braggett, 1992). The key to the development of
Malaysian gifted education, indeed anywhere in the world, may partly
lie in the demonstration that these programs can be beneficial to
students who are not gifted.

Clear conceptions of giftedness, intelligence and creativity are

not the only important steps in thc development of a national policy for
gifted education. Research that underpins the theoretical foundations of
gifted education is also seen to be increasingly important (see Cohen,
Ambrose & Powell, 2000). Conceptions of giftedness, for example, are
highly dependent on culture and time, and hence, are not necessarily
consistent between, different cultures. Furthermore, the conceptual
foundations of giftedness often shift in the light of new theory and
research, and Malaysia will need to be aware ofthese developments and
the limitations of each conception (Cohen, Ambrose & Powell). As a
starting point, particular effort must be made toward understanding
conceptions of giftedness specific to each of the three ethnic groups
within Malaysia. There is no doubt that the three groups lie on "zones of
contact" (Hermans & Kempen, 1998) and, hence, these conceptions are
ideally suited to cross-cultural comparisons.

The answers to these and other issues must be determined through

the ongoing debate between proponents within and between each of the
four components.

National policies for the education of gifted children

The development of programs for gifted children reflects

political ideologies as much as they do issues of education (Gross, 1999).
The needs of gifted children must first be made a part of the political
agenda, and not just the concerns of schools, teachers or parents. The
 144 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

rise and fall of the gifted education movement in the US over the past
four decades, for example, mirrors the commitments made by the US
legislature toward gifted education (Tannenbaum, 2000). Of course, the
Malaysian Ministry of Education cannot formulate education policy in
isolation. Together with the advocacy groups, the schools and its
teachers, and guided by the product of research, the ministry must
advise the government of the concerns of its people and make the
necessary recommendations for legislature. The development of a
national policy in Malaysia must reflect culturally sensitive conceptions
of giftedness, where they exist, and articulate a fundamental role for
gifted education. The answers to these questions will then help guide the
process of identification.

Advocacy groups

Advocacy groups play an important role in helping to place

gifted education on the political agenda, as well as to contribute to the
debate regarding the nature of giftedness and its identification, and the
role of gifted education. However, these are not the only ways that
advocacy groups can be influential in gifted education.

The relationship between advocacy and program development

in gifted education has been documented in many nations (see Moon &
Rosselli, 2000). Advocacy is, however, an ongoing process and requires
an effective association of teachers, parents and researchers. In
Malaysia, the main advocacy group has been the NAGCM. Although
the NAGCM has been in existence since 1986, it is not a member of the
World Council for Gifted & Talented Children (WCGTC) and, hence,
lacks access to information and experience from an international
perspective.

Not only should the advocacy group attempt to bring about

educational change by influencing government policy, it should also bring
pressure to bear on institutions that conduct basic research into
education, and that provide teacher education. Furthermore, these groups
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et .1. 145

should also playa leading role in bringing the attention of the wider
community to the issues behind gifted education. (See Moon & Rosselli,
2000, for a full discussion ofthese and other issues relating to program
development, and for a list of publications referring to strategies of
effective advocacy.)

The other role of any advocacy group is to provide support for

its members. For gifted education, this support generally includes
information and counselling for both the gifted child and their parents,
the dissemination of information via seminars and conferences, or through
the organisation of enrichment programs. These additional functions also
appear to have been largely neglected by the NAGCM.

Research, curriculum development and teacher education

The response by Malaysian universities to the needs of gifted

children appears to be very limited. The Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)
in Kuala Lumpur appears to be the only exception when, in 2001, it
began to formulate a new course in their teacher education program that
focused on the needs of gifted children.

Central to the development of an effective curriculum and the

processes of identification is an indigenous conception of giftedness.
The initial role of Malaysian research should beto test the generalizability
of Westem notions of giftedness, intelligence and creativity, within the
Indian, Chinese and Malay cultures. Since research in gifted education
is often criticised as lacking in rigour (Craven, Marsh & Print, 2000),
Malaysian research must be based on the use of appropriate
comparisons and control groups. In the case of cross-cultural
psychology, care must be taken with methodological issues.
Specifically, Malaysian research must utilize an emic approach to
research where the conceptions of giftedness are first explored within
each culture and then explored across cultures (Segall, et aI., 1998).
 146 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

The forces that drive curriculum development are varied

(VanTassel-Baska, 2000). These forces, as well as those arising out of
specific developments in our understanding of the concepts of giftedness
(including intelligence and creativity) and reassessments ofthe specific
needs of the gifted learners, have also driven curriculum in gifted
education. A word of caution is warranted at this stage. In gifted
education, the distinction between fad and best practice is often blurred,
and there is the potential for curriculum development to be founded on
commercial interests or principles that have yet to be scientifically
validated. However, deeper understandings in the field ofneuro-science,
for example, can be expected to play an increasingly greater role in
shaping gifted education in the future (McCann, 2000).

At the most basic level, a number of scholars have argued that

a curriculum for the gifted should be based on sound pedagogical
research (Braggett, 1992, 1996; Jacobs & Borland, 1989), and
developments in our understanding of intelligence, curriculum
differentiation and the appreciation of individual differences (Tomlinson
& Callahan, 1992). Furthermore, the ongoing success of gifted
education, in the light of economic and/or egalitarian pressure, may
require that the division between one curriculum for the gifted and
another for the average leamer be removed (Braggett, 1992; Renzulli,
1994; Tomlinson & Callahan).

A recent study concluded that teachers play an important role in

the success of any gifted program (Tallent-Runnels, Tirri & Adams,
2000). This study recommended that training in the education for the
gifted be a part of undergraduate programs of teacher education.
Similar research needs to be conducted within Malaysia in order to
confirm the generalisability of their findings in the local context.
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 147

Implementation

Curriculum is only one aspect of gifted education. A number of

curriculum models have emphasized the need for schools to provide
support mechanisms such as counseling. These models include the
Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) (Renzulli, 1994; Renzulli & Reis,
2000) and the Purdue Three-stage Enrichment Model (Feldhusen &
Kollof, 1986; Moon, 1996). Within the SEM, for example, all students
have the potential to benefit from one or more aspects of the program
including access to the enriched curricular and support services. The
experience of MARA College in Malaysia may hold the key to the
implementation of the SEM in Malaysia. It should be noted, however,
that a great deal of the research designed to test the effectiveness of the
SEM was poorly conceived and precluded definitive conclusions from
being drawn (VanTassel-Baska, 2000).

Any curriculum for gifted children in Malaysia should allow

for the educational needs of all children, and from initial observation,
the Smart School concept appears to offer a starting point in this
development. For example, the key premises behind curriculum
development for gifted education (-such as the curriculum should enable
the gifted learner to reach their potential and meet the different cognitive
requirements ofthe gifted learner, including those related to creativity,
critical thinking and problem solving-), already provide the guiding
principles for the Smart Schools. (See Davis & Rimm, 1998; Piirto,
1994; VanTassel-Baska, 2000 for a full description of these and other
premises behind curriculum development for gifted learners.)

A number of different modes of delivery have been

employed within gifted education. They include acceleration
(including curriculum compacting, telescoping, early entry and grade
skipping) and enrichment (see Davis & Rimm, 1998). The method
of choice depends as much upon administrative issues as it does on
 148 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

pedagogy. The question of the relative merits of acceleration and

enrichment, for example, is currently learning toward acceleration as
the preferred group of options (Kulik & Kulik, 1992). However, recent
research regarding the impact on the self-concept, motivation and
achievement of gifted children when they are grouped together
continues to keep the debate open (Craven,et aI., 2000; Gross, 1997).
Again, the Smart School concept already seems to allow for academic
acceleration although the success of the concept in terms of the
gifted learner remains unknown.

Other schools in Malaysia may already have implemented gifted

education programs. Research must be conducted in order to discover
the extent and type of these programs, and to determine whether they
have been successful in their aims.

Directions toward the implementation of gifted education in

Malaysia

The second survey by the WCGTC into the current status

of gifted education is instructive for Malaysian gifted education.
Respondents to the survey included members from the Asia-Pacific
region, such as Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Taiwan ROC,
New Zealand and Australia, although the People's Republic of China
(China), Japan and Singapore, also members of the WCGTC, failed to
respond (Clark, 2001, p. 3). Clark reported that, in general, the
provisions for meeting the needs of the gifted and talented children
are both" ... hopeful and concerning" (p. 2), but concluded that
work still needs to be done in the areas of identification,
curriculum development, teacher education, support services
(including counselling), advocacy and research within each of the
respondent countries. McCann (2000), then president of the Asia-
Pacific Federation of the WCGTC, pleaded that differences in the
way each culture defmed and identified giftedness were a healthy
sign in the development of gifted education within each country.
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 149

Conceptions of giftedness

Giftedness is an often used but sometimes, ill-defined concept.

This section begins with a brief description of some the commonly used
conceptions of giftedness. In contrast to McCann's (2000) plea,
however, the conceptions are largely if not entirely developed from a
Euro-American cultural perspective. As a consequence, other cultures
are often referred to as "minorities", and the problem of gifted education
then become one of under-representation of these minority groups.
Efforts then need to be expended to develop conceptions and
instruments for identification that are independent of culture or
simultaneously fair to all cultures (Borland & Wright, 2000).

Most Western conceptions of giftedness have moved well

beyond unitary or IQ-based definitions of intelligence (see Jensen &
Weng, 1994). Giftedness now encompasses aptitudes in a wide variety
of domains as well as high intelligence (Morelock, 1996). One of the
most influential definitions of giftedness is that of Renzulli (1978). His
"three-ring" conception of giftedness, represented as the overlap of three
behavioural traits, is amenable to empirical study (Hong & Milgram,
1996). The SEM, implemented by some of the MARA colleges in
Malaysia, represents the practical application of Renzulli's "three-ring"
model of giftedness (Renzulli, 1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; 1998; 2000).

Also of potential importance to the development of gifted

education in Malaysia is Gardner's (1983, 1993, 1995, 1997) theory of
mUltiple intelligences. It is a theory of intelligence rather than giftedness
and, despite its popularity, has been recently criticised on theoretical
grounds (Anderson, 1992; Elliott, 1999; Klein, 1997; Morgan, 1996;
Phillipson, 2000). Nevertheless, MI theory has been very influential as
a pedagogical tool around the world, including gifted education, since it
allows educators to design varied curriculum materials (Lloyd, 1999),
and because the theory implies an educational equity where none may
exist (Tannenbaum, 2000; Vialle, 1995).
 150 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA
Gardner believes that identification is a contextualised exercise
requiring instruments that contain material that is familiar to the testee
(Gardner, 1997). In other words, it appears that any testing is much
more dependent on the culture ofthe child than, for example, the Raven's
tests. As well as being criticized for its lack of a theoretical basis, MI
theory also lacks valid instruments that are able to identify a specific
intelligence or level of ability (Feldhusen & Jarwan, 2000; Plucker,
Callahan & Tomchin, 1996), although attempts have been made to
develop these tests in Hong Kong (Li & Chan, 1996).

Despite the difficulties with the scientific construct of

giftedness, and its relationship with intelligence and creativity (Ziegler
& Heller, 2000), unitary views of intelligence still dominate the identifi-
cation process of gifted children. Psychometric tests such as the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) (Wechsler,
1991) and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (SB-4)
(Thorndike, Hagan & Sattler, 1986) are often the instruments of choice,
although their use is commonly criticized as reflecting inadequate views
of giftedness (Davis & Rimm, 1998). In other words, doing well on
these tests depends on a very restricted view of Western culture as well
relying too much on verbal ability. On the other hand, the Raven
(Standard Progressive Matrices and Advanced Progressive Matrices)
tests (Raven, Court & Raven, 1993; Raven, Raven & Court, 1998) are
often described as being culture-fair and will, therefore, readily identifY
the potentially gifted from within a minority group without modification
(Mills, Ablard & Brody, 1993; Saccuzzo, Johnson & Guertin, 1994),
although this view has been recently disputed (Chaffey, 200 I). The Raven
tests are also the tools of choice for many studies characterising "g", the
general factor of intelligence (see Jensen & Weng, 1994), and shortened
versions have been developed (Ablard & Mills, 1995; Bors & Stokes,
1998).

A recent study concluded that the Malay language versions of

both the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices and the WISC-III were
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 151

uS,eful in being able to identifY "gifted" Malay children (Fields, 1997).

Unfortunately, the research did not clearly articulate the nature of
giftedness, nor were ethnic Chinese or Indian students part of the study.
At a fundamental level, the study merely demonstrated that the two
instruments were able to differentiate Malay children on the basis of test
scores. Giftedness in these children would have needed to be
independently assessed according to whatever cultural criteria were
appropriate, and the relationship between the assessment and scores then
detennined.

The distinction between potential and talent is an important one

for any nation to consider when adopting a conception of giftedness.
Gagne's (1995; 2000) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent
(DMGT) distinguishes between giftedness, "the possession and use of
untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities in at least one
[of four domains]" and talents, "the superior mastery of systematically
developed abilities in at least one field of human activity" (p. 67). Gagne
(2000) described the DMGT as an analytic tool that can be used
retrospectively to identify and classifY the factors, or "catalysts" (p. 69)
responsible for the development of exceptionality. Although the model is
not intended to aid the identification of giftedness, Gagne maintains that
giftedness "can be observed in every task children are confronted with
[such as in] the intellectual abilities needed to learn to read, speak a
foreign language, or understand new mathematical concepts" (p. 69).
Furthennore, Gagne maintained that high aptitudes are most easily seen
in young children, and that the speed at which learning occurs is an
indicator of the level of aptitude. Checklists for the use of self, peer and
teacher have been used to help in the identification process (Gagne, 1999).

Experiences from Malaysia's geographic and ethnic

neighbors

Since the Malaysian popUlation is a mix of three broad ethnic

groups and because giftedness is considered to be a socio-cultural
phenomenon (Hernandez de Hahn, 2000), it is instructive to consider
 152 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

recent Chinese, Indian and Malay experience in the education of gifted

children from a cultural perspective. Each ethnic group brings with it a
unique culture, derived from a number of historical and current forces
of influence, including religion and language. Although it is beyond the
scope of this paper to discuss the nature of culture, modem conceptions
regard it as being constructed by the individual in their interaction
with their surrounding, rather than imposed upon the individual
(Segall, et al., 1998).

Religion plays an important role in the development of culture

and hence, conceptions of giftedness, but it would be unwise to assume
that the influence ofIslam, for example, is the same within the Malay
people in Malaysia as compared with the Arab people in Egypt.
Nevertheless, it clear that the problems created through the use ofICTs
within Southeast Asia in general (Richards, in press) and Malaysia in
particular (Rahimah, 1998) are partly due to the clash between Islamic
value systems and new ideas. Although the direct relationship between
religion and conceptions of giftedness remain to be described, we feel it
would be more profitable to look at conceptions of giftedness as a
function of culture, where religion is but one of a number of important
forces. Furthermore, Segall, et al. (1998) propose that psychological
constructs such as giftedness must be allowed to reveal itself from within
the culture rather than through the lens of any cultural force, including
religion.

The recent study comparing perceived traits of gifted behavior

across ten countries, including Taiwan, Thailand, Korea and Japan,
revealed significant differences in a number of traits, particularly
those within the cognitive, achievement, motivation, creativity, and
existential clusters (Stone, 2002). However, the research can be
criticized on several methodological grounds. Primarily, the research
did not allow the construct to reveal itself from each of the different
cultures. Second, the participants were senior university students
majoring in psychology or education across a number of universities.
These participants were chosen on the assumption that they would
possess " ... a more valid frame of reference ... " (p. 66) from which to
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et .1. 153

better understand the behavioral traits of other university students who

" ... exhibit traits of high intelligence within an academic environment"
(p. 66). These traits represent psychological constructs from a Western
tradition and may not reflect constructs from the local culture.

"Chinese" gifted education

Gifted children in China are termed "supernormal" to emphasise

the belief that exceptionality is not caused solely by "inborn" factors.
Shi and Zha (2000) described giftedness as involving a complex
interaction ofinteJligence, creativity and "positive" personality traits
such as interest and motivation (p. 758). Although this definition
is reminiscent of Renzulli's three-ring model of giftedness, the
identification of gifted children usually begins with nomination by
parent or teacher, or a desire to be enrolled in the special classes for the
gifted. The WISC-III or SB-4 is then employed as a screening test and
only those children who meet the strict criteria are offered enrolment.
Continued participation in the class is then dependent on evidence of
achievement and further psychometric testing because of the beliefthat
the level of giftedness can be raised by the educational process (p. 758).

The identification of"supemormal" children in China is highly

dependent on the initial evidence of exceptional achievement and ofthe
appropriate personality. Although exceptionality is recognised in a wide
range of endeavors (including leadership, calligraphy and music), Shi
and Zha (2000) recognised that their process of identification fails to
take into account different kinds of gifted children. They pointed to the
MI tests developed and used by the Gifted Education Council in Hong
Kong (Li & Chan, 1996) as one possible way to take into account
differences in the form of giftedness and to widen the identification
process, although the tests are yet to be validated (Chan, 2000).

As in China, gifted students in Taiwan are identified on the

basis of scores obtained with intelligence tests, and their continuing
involvement is dependent on daily assessments oftheir performance (Wu,
 154 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

Cho & Munander, 2000). Both acceleration and enrichment programs

are offered as options for these students.

Gifted students in Singapore are formally identified on the

basis of tests held at the end of Grades 3 and 7 (Wu, et aI., 2000). The
tests, administered by the Gifted Education Unit of the Ministry of
Education, screen students on the basis of proficiency in English Lan-
guage and Mathematics. Students who are in the top I% are offered
places in specialised classes within nine primary and seven secondary
schools. The classes offer a specialised curriculum in Gifted Education
Programs (GEP) consisting of enrichment programs (rather than
acceleration), where the content emphasises both individual needs and
"real world problems". Creativity and higher order thinking skills, within
the context of increasing independence, are also part of the specialised
curriculum. The approach taken by the GEP is to develop the
" ... cognitive, affective, physical, moral and spiritual capacities of the
gifted pupil..." (p. 30), as well as to provide support in the event of
psychological problems.

The Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) normally

occurs at the end of Grade 6 and it also allows a second point of entry
into the GEP. High achievement in the examination, as well as the
results of four additional aptitude tests, provides the basis for
identification and enrolment. Finally, gifted students are expected to cover
extra subjects in the national examinations.

The two screening tests are totally weighted toward academic

achievement and high motivation, and do not take into account the
possibility ofunrealised giftedness or low motivation. Furtbermore, the
restricted number of places in the GEP would encourage a high degree
of competition between students and their families, not only to gain a
place in the program but also to maintain it. A recent development in
Singapore has been the introduction of counselling as an important
aspect of the nurturing of the gifted student. Some students find it
difficult to maintain the high standard and they can be referred for
counselling (Teo, 2000).
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 155

Recent attempts have been made to determine the differences

between Chinese and Western students, particularly in the US, and to
specifically target the teaching of creativity for these students (Chan,
1997; Lingling, Yuqian & Phillipson, 2001). Recent reports of
curriculum differentiation in the subjects of mathematics (Ma, 1997;
Liu & Liu, 1997), physics (Wang, 1997) and the English language (Guo,
Cheng & Sun, 1997) are very positive in their stated outcomes, but the
studies lack the scientific rigour of the type demanded by VanTassel-
Baska (2000) and others.

Not only are there differences in the learning styles between

gifted and non-gifted students in the US, there are significant differences
in the leaming styles of gifted American and gifted Chinese students (Li,
Ye, Zhu & Fleming, 2000). It is, therefore, important to recognise the
need for culturally sensitive instrnctional strategies. These differences
are also reflected in the learning styles of different ethnic groups within
the same country of origin (Dunn, 1993; Ewing & Yong, 1993).

The Chinese students described thus far are derived from

countries with a Confucian heritage (Ho, 1991). This heritage stresses
the pursuit toward human perfection through a positive attitude toward
education and intense personal effort (Bergen & Mi, 1995). It has
become clear that exceptional outcomes in academic achievement in
students compared with students from the Western cultures, are derived
from the unique processes oflearning that are largely attributed to this
heritage (Biggs, 2001; Kennedy, 2002; Leung, 2002; Smith & Smith,
1999). In one study looking at the relationship between culture and
conceptions of creativity, Yue and Ruowicz (2002) found that Chinese
university students from Guangzhou, Beijing, Hong Kong and Taipei
tend to associate creativity with scientific and political achievements
rather than art or music. If Chinese giftedness is the amalgam of
intelligence, creativity and high levels of effort (Shi & Zha, 2000), then
its manifestation may only be found in Science and Politics, in contrast
to conceptions from the West.
 156 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

Some recent studies have concluded that there are cultural

differences in "implicit" notions of giftedness (Zhang & Hui, 2003; Zhang
& Sternberg, 1998). Implicit notions "reside in the minds of the
theorists" (Zhang & Sternberg, 1998, p. 149) and help to define the
conceptions. The studies proposed that "five criteria ... are individually
necessary and jointly sufficient for a student to be identified as
gifted (Zhang & Hui, 2003, p. 78). Of the five criteria, rarity and
demonstrability were not important to preservice teachers in mainland
China, but the other three, excellence,productivity and value, were. In
a similar group of Hong Kong in-service and preservice teachers,
excellence was rated as the most important criterion, particularly for
males (Zbang & Sternberg, 1998).

Indian gifted education

In India, there is a growing awareness of the specific needs of

gifted children and increasing attempts to design appropriate educational
programs. However, a single conception of giftedness does not yet exist
(Bhagwat, 1998), and it is not surprising, then, that these programs
have been criticised as promoting mediocrity because of the lack of a
clearly defined psychological or theoretical basis (Raina & Srivastava,
2000). At a more fundamental level, however, the lack of a single
definition may not be possible because of the diverse nature of the
various ethnic groups. In any case, the identification of gifted children
in India may not an issue because the general aim of education is to
develop the "giftedness" in all children (Wu, et aI., 2000). Despite some
ethnic similarities with India, there appears to be little for Malaysia to
gain by studying the approach taken in this country toward gifted
education.
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 157

Indonesian and Arab gifted education

For Indonesia to recognise that gifted children can be found in a

large number of ethnic groups and over a large geographic area (Marat,
1992) is a considerable achievement. The recognition also reflects the
country's commitment to provide a specialised program for exceptional
children (Wu, et aI., 2000). In meeting this commitment, the Indonesian
Ministry of Education and Culture uses a combination of intelligence
and creativity tests, as well as nomination scales (including self, peer
and teacher) to identifY both gifted and under-achieving gifted children
(Munander, 1996). The primary aim of the identification process is to
select students for academic acceleration in one ofthe country's Schools
of Excellence.

Arab research into creativity, intelligence and giftedness is

dominated by the Western view of these concepts (Khaleefa, 1999; Subhi
& Maoz, 2000). Khaleefa's meta-analysis suggested that there was a
need for both indigenous and cross-cultural studies of creativity,
intelligence and giftedness. Furthermore, Khaleefa believed that
employing the "practice of importing methods of studying creativity,
intelligence and giftedness without rigorous adaptation is handicapping
[for Arab research in these concepts]" (p. 25). Khaleefa concluded that
the Arab world must develop an indigenous psychology of creativity,
intelligence and giftedness that is specific to their needs by testing the
generalizability of current notions of these concepts. Without this
research, the Western view will continue to influence the processes of
identification.

Khaleefa's (1999) concerns are highlighted in a recent study of

Islamic women living in the US. Although not an empirical study,
Al-Lawati and Hunsaker (2002) described five dimensions of the
development of five gifted Islamic women, including social motivation,
spiritual motivation and a focus for change. These dimensions are not
seen in Western conceptions of giftedness.
 158 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

In general, gifted education in Malaysia's neighbours reflect

a reliance on intelligence tests as initial indicators of giftedness and the
need for students to continually prove their ongoing giftedness,
reflecting, in part, the reliance on Western conceptions of giftedness.
However, there are strong indications that other cultures have different
conceptions of giftedness. Without first understanding how giftedness is
understood within Malaysian culture, Malaysian education risks
conflict between different value systems, or possibly losing these
conceptions altogether, ifthey decide to rely on Western conceptions.

Once a conception of giftedness is clearly articulated, a

process of identification is nonnally considered an essential next step
(Davis & Rimm, 1998; Feldhusen & Jarwan, 2000; Moon & Rosselli,
2000). Whatever identification process is used, it must not only reflect
the particular conception of giftedness, but it must also be sensitive to
special groups within the society including the gifted handicapped,
females, and the socially disadvantaged (Feldhusen & Jarwan, 2000).
The experiences of the international community, including those closest
to Malaysia, must be used to help guide research and development rather
than be adopted in a prescriptive sense. For example, most if not all of
Malaysia's neighbours base their conceptions of giftedness on academic
excellence, and use standardised tests as the sole means of identification
although Indonesia appears to be one exception. Not only is the
theoretical basis of these conceptions rarely articulated, many of these
tests are administered at a very early age and, hence, may miss many
potentially gifted children. Acceleration appears to be the preferred model
of curriculum differentiation and, as a result, many of the opportunities
for enrichment and extension of educational programs are lost.

Some recommendations for Malaysian gifted education

Although gifted education is largely undeveloped in Malaysia,

there are likely to be pockets of interest and activity, and the first
objective of any research would be to measure the extent and success of
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 159

any activity. Concomitant with this research is the need to determine the
wider community's knowledge of and attitudes towards gifted
education. The results of this research are expected to confirm that the
community, in general, is aware of the specific needs of gifted children
but that they are divided in their opinion as to the best way to meet these
needs. Furthermore, we suspect that gifted education programs, where
they exist, are likely to be based on Western models ofintelJigence, and,
hence, are likely to be heavily based on the use of psychometric testing.

Conceptualization and identification

The conceptualization of giftedness within Malaysia'S

geographical and ethnic neighbours remains ill-defined. However, it
would be unwise to assume that, whatever these conceptions might be,
they are shared in the corresponding ethnic groups within Malaysia and
research is required in order to confirm their consistency, and to
determine the educational implications of the differences between the
groups. Furthermore, a number of minor ethnic groups such as the
Eurasians of Portuguese descent, are unique to Malaysia for historical
reasons, and conceptions of giftedness within these communities have
yet to be characterised. Again, the findings are likely to show some
correlation within ethnic groups, irrespective oftheirnational origin, as
well as a mismatch between these conceptions and educational outcomes.

Gifted children can be identified using a number of different

processes, not just through the use of standardized testing. Since the
identification process should be explicit and match the construct of
giftedness it purports to identify, it is not possible at this stage to be
specific about wbat the process should be. However, a number of
general principles should be borne in mind. First, identification should
be regarded as an ongoing process and not restricted to a single point in
time. Second, the identification should be made in context. That is,
identification should be rooted in the behavior expected ofthe construct.
Finally, opportunities to show gifted behavior should be made available
 160 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

to all children. These principles have been articulated in a number of

recent publications, including Feldhusen and Jarwan (2000), Kanevsky
(2000) and Borland and Wright (2000).

A positive attitude toward gifted children and their educational

needs is essential for the success of gifted education programs. For
teachers, this can be achieved by a thorough understanding of the
conceptions of intelligence, creativity and giftedness and of curriculum
development. Teacher education would need to include courses of study
in gifted education at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, as well as
curriculum theory and development.

The role of the NAGCM

The NAGCM's role as the main advocacy group for gifted

education in Malaysia will continue. The current aims of the NAGCM
are to assist the gifted child mainly through the support of their parents,
teachers and other professionals concerned with the development of gifted
individuals. Most of the current members of the association are parents
of gifted children who meet for mutual support and the exchange of
ideas and experiences, and to arrange suitable activities for their gifted
children. In this way, gifted children are able to interact with others of
similar abilities to share experiences and interests. Included in the types
of activities they provide are talks and workshops, visits to places of
educational interest, courses and social gatherings.

In practice, however, the Association is fully dependent on

volunteers and the lack of active members is not conducive to a schedule
of regular meetings. Most parents of gifted children are happy to
encourage the participation of their children in activities as long as they
themselves are not involved. Furthermore, more fathers need to become
members since findings show that students with strong family bonds are
more likely to have higher levels of adaptation to schooling. According
to Callahan (I993), supportive and excellent teaching has little
consequence unless there is appropriate parenting. Supportive family
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 161

surroundings can often limit the effects of poor schooling experiences

and practice, but not the other way round. Parents should also be
specifically educated about the characteristics of gifted students and the
implications for their adjustment at home and in school, with the NAGCM
widening its interests to include the support of their children's schools.

A number of recent studies have contributed to our specific

knowledge regarding the relationship between parents and their
children's education in Malaysia. These studies confirm that, in
general, Malaysian parents (-including those from all three major
ethnic groups-) "invest" in both their sons' and daughters' education in
the expectation that they will be compensated for in their old age (Lillard
& Willis, 1994; 1997; Pong, 1997). Similar findings were found in
intergenerational relationships in Indonesia (Frankenberg, Lillard &
Willis, 2002). Lillard and Willis (1994; 1997) also note that this
expectation is in contrast to that in the West, where the flow of money
and time from their parents continues when they retire. Furthermore,
Selamah, Ruzita, Mohamed and Hazizan (2002) found that Malay
parents playa significant role in the development of their children's
(Islamic) values. At one level, the relationship between parents and
children in Malaysia suggests that parents in Malaysia would be keenly
interested in the identification of their children's giftedness, ifthis
knowledge could be used to reduce the investment needed in their
children's education. As Rahimah (1998) pointed out, the importation
of foreign education systems, such as gifted education, brings with it the
potential for conflict because of the inherently different values within
each system.

From an international perspective, one reason that academically

gifted Malaysian students are able to adapt well to school seems to stem
from the prevailing social and cultural attitudes of the Malaysians.
Despite complaints about being bored and intellectually unchallenged,
Malaysian gifted students are still performing at least reasonably well
as students in the US and UK. This could be due to cultural influences
where obedience and conforming to parental and school pressures are
part of the culture, and, hence, accepted without question (Kaur, 2000).
Furthermore, students in the West may be more likely to speak freely in
 162 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

school compared with students in Malaysian schools, where it may be

considered impolite to question teachers. These and other behavioural
comparisons need to be further studied.

Apart from training teachers to identify gifted students, schools

should actively involve parents of gifted students, especially families
from the disadvantaged groups (low socio-economic status, low
parental educational level, ethnic minorities, single parents) who may
not be as aware of the needs of their gifted children because ofa lack of
information or personal experience.

Malaysian policy for gifted education

Together with interested universities, the NAGCM must

initiate discussion on the formulation of a national policy for gifted
education and its implementation by the Ministry of Education. At the
initial stages of its formulation, the policy can define giftedness in broad
terms, but should include reference to all ethnic groups. The policy must
contain reference to the existence of the unique nature of gifted children,
and for their regular and active identification. In order to do this, the
policy must help to define the nature of giftedness, including, perhaps,
the concepts of intelligence and creativity. Furthermore, the policy must
require that each gifted child have access to a specialised curriculum in
order to meet its educational potential. Lastly, the role of gifted
education needs to be articulated, including the expected outcomes for
the child and the wider community.

Curriculum development

Currently, tbe Malaysian curriculum empbasizes the teacbing

of religious values in order to enhance quality of individual development
(Rahimah, 1998). Although Islamic values are of primary importance,
the curriculum also recognizes the value systems of other religions. This
emphasis is reflected in the Kurikulum Barn Sekolab Rendah (KBSR)
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et .1. 163

and the Kurikulum Barn Sekolah Menengah, (KBSM) which are the
New Primary School Curriculum and the New Secondary School
Curriculum, respectively (Ministry of Education, 1993). These
curricular aim to reduce content while concentrating on the development
of fundamental skills of reading, writing, speaking, listening,
understanding, application, and arithmetic calculations, particularly
within the KBSR. The role of the KBSM is to provide a general
education over five years of secondary education through a number of
core and elective subjects, before students undertake two years of
matriculation studies. The approach also aims to be both holistic and
child centered with emphases given to learning through small group
interactions, and the interests and abilities of students.

A preliminary study in Malaysia has shown that some

academically gifted students may be discontented with the way subjects
are taught in schools, and that they feel bored and academically
unchallenged (Kaur, 2000). Furthermore, they feel limited in the choices
made available to them when choosing between the Science and Art
streams during their two years of matriculation studies. The
introduction of new courses that are more generic in nature, such as a
general knowledge course (offered only in the Sixth Form), or courses in
creativity and problem solving, could be beneficial to all students and
not just gifted students.

School libraries should widen the type of reading materials they

provide since gifted students are known to be avid readers. Many
students expressed dismay that most of the books in the libraries are
directly related to the subjects taught in schools, with very little
emphasis on non-academic books (Kaur, 2000).

Kaur (2000) also identified the possibility that under-

achievement of gifted children may lead to their active involvement in
socially unbealthy activities. The low motivational level of her sample
of gifted children may be due to a number of factors including an
unstimulating method ofteaching, an unchallenging curriculum, lack of
recognition of the "at risk" gifted child, an over-emphasis on grades,
 164 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

and pressure to perform. Many of these difficulties can be overcome by

allowing children to progress through the curriculum at a pace that suits
the child rather than the school. Although this requires the least amount
of effort on behalf ofthe school, curriculum reform should also be adopted
that, in part, allows for a greater freedom of choice of subjects.

A greater freedom of choice within the Malaysian curriculum

can be achieved through acceleration, enrichment, sophistication to
novelty (Gallagher, 1998).Acceleration involves upgrading the level of
content to a level higher than is normal at the students' chronological
age, whilst enrichment provides for students to be exposed to other
extensive and in-depth content within the usual classroom setting.
Sophistication is similar to enrichment but at a higher level of complexity,
whereas novelty, as the term suggests, involves provision of content that
is not part of the regular curriculum, but is of intense interest and
stimulation for these students. This usually.includes activities from
domains of knowledge not normally found within schools.

Conclusion

Gifted education in Malaysia currently lacks direction.

However, Malaysia has an opportunity to learn from the experience of
other countries and to take a leading role in the area of gifted education,
including basic research and curriculum development. In order for this
to occur, the four components of influence must be developed
concurrently and in a way that reflects the unique cultural blend of the
country. Because of the absence of a national policy for gifted children
in Malaysia, the specific needs of this group of children have generally
been neglected. The experiences of Malaysia's neighbours show that
many of these children underachieve in school, and some increase their
involvement in socially unhealthy activities. Some preliminary research
by Kaur (2000) has highlighted the potential for similar problems amongst
Malaysia's gifted children.
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et aI. 165

Rather than directly importing gifted education programs from

other countries, it is imperative that Malaysia develops a local gifted
education strategy complete with specific conceptions of giftedness,
methods of identification and curriculum development. The roles played
by Malaysia's universities in terms of research and teacher education,
and by the NAGCM, are essential in this development. At a time of
educational globalization, there are opportunities to learn from
non-western educational traditions (Reagan, 2000). The premise that
each culture can learn from the others is also tme for gifted education.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers ofthis article for a number
of helpful suggestions. Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Shane N. Phillipson PhD. Department of Educational
Psychology, Counselling and Learning Needs, Hong Kong Institute of
Education, 10 Lo Ping Rd, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. E-mail:
[email protected]

References

Ablard, K. E. & MiIls, C. J. (1995). Evaluating abridged versions of the

Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices for identitying students
with academic talent. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment,
14,54-64.
Al-Lawati, F. A. & Hunsaker, S. L. (2002). Muhr and Mawhibah: A
multicultural perspective on women's gifts. Roeper Review, 25,
22-26.
Anderson, M. (1992). Intelligence and development: A cognitive theory.
Cambridge, MA: BlackwelL
Ashman,A. & Elkins, J. (Eds.) (1998). Educating children with special
needs (3,d ed.). Prentice Hall: New York.
Bergen, T. J. & Mi, H-f. (1995). Analysis and review of Confucian
philosophy as the basis for Chinese education. International
Education, 24,40-52.
166 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

Bhagwat, S. (1998). The gifted children in the mainstream school. In

Abstract Book of the Fifth ASia-Pacific Conference on
Giftedness, New Delhi, 1-5~ September.
Biggs, J. B. (2001). Learning, schooling, andsociaIization: A Chinese
solution to a Western problem. In Sing Lau (Ed.), Growing
up the Chinese way: Chinese child and dolescent
development (pp. 147-167). Hong Kong: The Chinese
University Press.
Borland, J. H. & Wright, L. (2000). IdentifYing poor and under-
represented gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J.
Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook
ofgiftedness and talent (2"' ed.) (pp. 587-594). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Bors, D. A. & Stokes, T. L. (1998). Raven's Advanced Progressive
Matrices: Norms for first year university students and the
development of a short form. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 58, 382-399.
Braggett, E. (1992). Where will the gifted movement be in the year
2000? The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 1, 5- I 3.
Braggett, E. (1996). Fusing talents without confusing issues: Eminent
Australian sAddress. 6~ National Conference of the Australian
Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented Inc,
University ofAdelaide, 18-20 April.
Callahan, C.M. (1993). Evaluation programs and procedures for gifted
education: International problems and solution. In K.A. Heller,
FJ. Monks, & A.H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of
research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 605-
618). New York: Pergamon.
Chaffey, G. (2001). A dynamic assessment approach with Australian
Indigenous children: Producing hidden gold. 8 th International
Conference of the Association for Cognitive Education.
Jyvaskyla, Finland, 10-14 June.
Chan, J. (1997). Creativity in the Chinese culture. InJ. Chan, R. Li & J.
Spinks (Eds.), Maximizing potential: Lengthening and
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 167

strengthening our stride (pp.212-218). Proceedings of the

111h World Conference on the Gifted and Talented Education,
Hong Kong, The University of Hong Kong: Social Sciences
Research Centre.
Chan, D. W. (2000). IdentifYing gifted and talented students in Hong
Kong. Roeper Review, 22, 88-93.
Chua, T.T. (1976) Some aspects of Special Education in Malaysia,
Singapore, Thailand & the Philippines: A comparative study.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Universiti Malaya.
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted (41h ed). Merrill: New York.
Clark, B. (2001). Building a cross cultural knowledge base - programs
and services. World Gifted Newsletter, 19, 1-3.
Cohen, L.M., Ambrose,. D. & Powell, W. N. (2000). Conceptual
foundations and theoretical lenses for the diversity of giftedness
and talent. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F.
Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook ofgiftedness and talent
(2'" ed.) (pp. 331-344). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of gifted
education (2"' ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Craven, R., Marsh, H. W. & Print, M. (2000). Gifted, streamed and
mixed-ability programs for gifted students: Impact on self-
concept, motivation, and achievement. Australian Journal of
Education, 44, 51-75.
Dale, R. & Robertson, S. L. (2002). The varying effects of regional
organisations as subjects of globalization of education.
Comparative Education Review, 26, 10-36.
Davis, G.A. & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education ofthe gifted and talented
(3" ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Department
of Statistics (200 I). Department of Statistics Home Page
(updated 27/10/01, accessed 31110101). http://
www.statistics.gov.my/nsdpibtrn
Dunn, R. (1993). Learning styles of the multieulturally diverse.
Emergency Librarian, 20, 24-32.
Elliott, M. (1999). Multiple Intelligences; The White Wings approach
to gifted learners. Talented, 17, 6-10.
 168 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

Ewing, N. 1. & Yong, F. L. (1993). Learning style preferences of gifted

minority students. Gifted Education International, 9,40-44.
Feldhusen, 1. F. & larwan, F. A. ( 2000). Identification of gifted and
talented youth for educational programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J.
Monks, R. 1. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International
handbook of giftedness and talent (2,d ed.) (pp. 271-282).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Feldhusen, 1. F. & Kolloff, P. B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage
enrichment model for gifted education at the elementary level.
In 1. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing
programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126-152). Mansfield
Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Fields, 1. I. (1997). Measuring giftedness in young children: A
comparative study in Malaysia. Early Child Development and
Care, 131,93-106.
Frankenberg, E., Lillard, L., & Willis, R.I. (2002). Patterns of
intergenerational transfers in Southeast Asia. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 64,627-641.
Gagne, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: a developmental model and
its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103-
111.
Gagne, F. (1999). My convictions about the nature of human abilities,
gifts and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 22,
109-136.
Gagne, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent
development through DMGT-based analysis. In K. A. Heller,
F. 1. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.)
International handbook ofgiftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp.
67-79). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Gallagher,1. J. (1998). Accountability for gifted students. Phi Delta
Kappan, 79,739-742.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames ofmind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and
messages. Phi Delta Kappan, November, 200-209.
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 169

Gardner, H. (1997). Multiple Intelligences: Reflections after 15 years.

7" International Conference on Thinking. Singapore, June 1-6.
Gross, M. U. M. (1997). How ability grouping turns big fish into little
fish-or does it? Of optical illusions and optimal environments.
The Australasian Journal ofGifled Education, 6, 18-30.
Gross, M. U. M. {I 999). The Millennium ... Looking forward ... Looking
back. Understanding Our Gifled, 12, 6-1 O.
Guo, Y Q., Cheng, L. & Sun, B. F. (1997). The way to teach gifted
children in leaming foreign languages: A community approach
for teaching gifted students English in China. In J. Chan, R. Li
& 1. Spinks (Eds.), Maximizing potential: Lengthening and
strengthening our stride (pp. 100- 103). Proceedings of the 11"
World Conference on the Gifted and Talented Education, Hong
Kong. The University of Hong Kong: Social Sciences Research
Centre.
Hermans, H. J. M. & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The
perilous problems ofcuJtural dichotomies in a globalizing society.
American Psychologist, 53, 1111-1120.
Hernandez de Hahn, E. L. (2000). Cross-cultural studies in gifted
education. In K. A. HelJer, F. J. Monks, R. 1. Sternberg & R. F.
Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook ofgifledness and talent
(2,d ed.) (pp. 549-561). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1991). Cognitive socialization in Confucian heritage
cultures. Paper presented to Workshop on Continuities and
Discontinuities in the Cognitive Socialization of Minority
Children. US Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC, June 29-July2.
Hong, E. & Milgram, R. M. (1996). The structure of giftedness: The
domain ofiiterature as an example. Gifled Child Quarterly, 40,
31-40.
Jacobs, H. H. & Borland, J. H. (1989). The interdisciplinary concept
model: Theory and practice. Gifled Child Quarterly, 30, 159-
63.
Jensen, A. R. & Weng, L. J. (1994). What is a good "g"? Intelligence,
18, 231-258.
 170 GIFTED EDUCATION TN MALAYSIA

Kaur, I. (2000). Adaptation ofgifted students to the system ofeducation

in Malaysian secondary schools. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,
University of Cambridge, UK.
Kanevsky, L. (2000). Dynamic assessment of gifted children. In K. A.
Heller, F. 1. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.),
International handbook ofgiftedness and talent (2"d ed.) (pp.
283-295). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: myth-
understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners.
International Journal ofLifelong Education. 21, 430-445.
Khaleefa, O. (1999). Research on creativity, intelligence and giftedness:
The case of the Arab world. Gifted and Talented International,
14,21-29.
Klein, P. D. (1997) Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A
critique of Gardner's theory. Canadian Journal ofEducation,
22,377-394.
Kulik, J. & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping
programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
Leung, F. K. S. (2002). Behind the high achievement of East Asian
students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8,87-108.
Li, D., Ye, R., Zhu, Y. & Fleming, D. L. (2000). A comparison of the
learning styles of gifted American students and gifted Chinese
students. Gifted and Talented International, 15, 19-29.
Li, R. & Chan, 1. (1996). Manual of MI (Multiple Intelligences) test.
Hong Kong: Gifted Education Council.
Lillard, L. A. & Willis, R. J. (1994). Intergenerational educational
mobility: effects of family and state in Malaysia. The Journal
of Human Resources, 29, 1126-1166.
Lillard, L. A. & Willis, R. 1. (1997). Motives for intergenerational
transfers: Evidence from Malaysia. Demography, 34, 115-134.
Lingling, L., Yuqian, H. & Phillipson, S. N. (2001). The development
of creativity in Chinese students and research about open-
mindedness. TalentEd, 19 (2/3), 17-26.
Liu, Z. P. & Liu, P. Z. (1997). Practice and theoretical exploration on
supernormal education of mathematics to gifted and talented
children from 6-8. In J. Chan, R. Li & J. Spinks (Eds.).
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 171

Maximizing potential: Lengthening and strengthening our

stride (pp. 130-135). Proceedings ofthe 11 th World Conference
on the Gifted and Talented Education, Hong Kong. The
University of Hong Kong: Social Sciences Research Centre.
Lloyd, L. (1997). MUltiple Intelligences: Commentary on "the White
Wings approach". TalentEd, 17, 10-\5.
Loveless, A. & Ellis, V. (Eds.) (2001). leT, pedagogy and the
curriculum: subject to change. London, UK: RoutledgelFalmer.
Ma, Y. P. (1997). The research of developing pupil's mathematical ability.
In J. Chan, R. Li & J. Spinks (Eds.). Maximizing potential:
Lengthening and strengthening our stride (pp. 136-140).
Proceedings of the 11 'h World Conference on the Gifted and
Talented Education, Hong Kong. The University of Hong Kong:
Social Sciences Research Centre.
Marat, S. (1992). The g{jied and talented in Indonesia. 2'd Asia-Pacific
Conference on Giftedness, Taiwan, 24-27 July.
McBurnie, G. & Ziguras, C. (200 I). The regulation of transactional
higher education in Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hong Kong,
Malaysia and Australia. Higher Education, 42,85-105.
McCann, M. (2000). The path to the future: Signposts in gifted
education. Eminent Australian's address. The 8th National
Conference of the Australian Association for the Education of
the Gifted and Talented Inc, Brisbane, July 2-5.
Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E. & Brody, L. E. (1993). The Raven's
Progressive Matrices: Its usefulness for identifying gifted/
talented students. Roeper Review, 15, 183-186.
Ministry of Education (Malaysia). (1993). Education in Malaysia.
Educational Planning and Research Division, Kuala Lumpur.
Ministry of Education (Malaysia). (2002). The History of the Smart
School Web page (last update unknown, accessed 04/10/02).
http://www.moe.edu.my/
Moon, S. M. & Rosselli, H. C. (2000). Developing gifted programs. In
K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik
(Eds.) International handbook ofgiftedness and talent (2nd ed.)
(pp. 499-521). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
 172 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

Moon, S. M. {I 996). Using the Purdue Three-Stage Model to facilitate

local program evaluations. Gifted Child Quarterly; 40, 121-
128.
Morelock, M. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing
order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19,4-12.
Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple
intelligence. Roeper Review, 18,263 -269.
Munander, U. (1996). Education of the gifted and talented in Indonesia.
In U. Munander & C. Semiawan (Eds.), Optimizing Excellence
in Human Resource Development (pp. 129-141). Jakarta:
University ofIndonesia Press.
Peterson, J. S. (1999). Gifted through whose cultural lens? An application
ofthe post positivistic mode of inquiry. Journalfor the Education
of the Gifted, 22, 354-383.
Phillipson, S. (2000). Gifted learners and multiple intelligences. Talented,
18,28-31.
Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development and
education. New York: Macmillan.
Plucker, J. A., Callahan, C. M. & Tomchin, E. M. (1996). Wherefore
art thou, multiple intelligences? Alternative assessments for
identifYing talent in ethnically diverse and low income students.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 81-92
Pong, S-L. (1997). Sibship size and educational attainment in peninsular
Malaysia: Do policies matter? Sociological Perspectives, 40,
227-242.
Porter, L. (1999). Gifted young children: A gUide for teachers and
parents. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Rahimah, H. A. (1998). Educational development and reformation in
Malaysia: past, present and future. Journal of Educational
Administration, 36,462-475.
Raina, M. K., Srivastava,A. K. (2000). India's search for excellence: A
clash of ancient, colonial, and contemporary influences. Roeper
Review, 22, 102-108.
Raven, J. c., Court, J. H. & Raven, J. (1993). Manualfor Raven's
Advanced Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales: Section
4 Advanced Progressive Matrices. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Psychologists Press.
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 173

Raven, J., Raven, J. C. & Court, J. H. (J 998). Manual for Raven s

Advanced Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scale: Section
4 Advanced Progressive Matrices (1998 Edition). Oxford, UK:
Oxford Psychologists Press.
Reagan, T. (2000). Non-western educational traditions: Alternative
approaches to educational thought and practice (2 nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Renzulli,l S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition.
Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools are places for talent development:
Applying "gifted education" know-how to total school
improvement. Gifted, June, 7-13.
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (J 985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model:
A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield
Centre, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (1998). Talent development through
curriculum differentiation. National Association ofSecondary
School Principals, 82,61-74.
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (2000). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model.
In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik
(Eds.), international handbook of giftedness and talent (2 n'
ed.) (pp. 367-382). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Richards, C. (in press). From old to new learning: Global dilemmas,
exemplary Asian contexts, and ICT as a key to cultural change
in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education.
Richardson, M. (2002). In Asia, the English imperative. The Interna-
tional Herald Tribune: The IHTonline. (accessed 15105/03).
http://www.iht.coml
Rudnitski, R. A. (2000). National/provincial gifted education policies:
Present state, future possibilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks,
R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), international hand-
book ofgiftedness and talent (2 nd ed.) (pp. 673-679). Oxford,
UK: Elsevier.
Saccuzzo, D. P., Johnson, N. E., & Guertin, T. L. (1994). Use of the
Raven Advanced progressive Matrices Test in an ethnically
diverse gifted population. San Diego, CA: San Diego State
University.
174 GIFTED EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA
Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. 1. & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural
psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture
in behavioural research. American Psychologist. 53, 11 Ol-Ill O.
Selamah, A. Y, Ruzita, M. A., Mohamed A. M. H. & Hazizan, M. N.
(2002). Formation of desired values: The role of parents.
International Journal of Social Economics, 29, 468-479.
Shi, J. & Zha, Z. (2000). Psychological research on and education of
gifted and talented children in China In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks,
R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.),International handbook
ofgiftedness and talent (2 rul ed.) (pp. 757-764). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Smith, P. J. & Smith, S. N. (1999). Differences between Chinese and
Australian students: Some implications for distance educators.
Distance Education, 20, 64-80.
Stone, K. M. (2002). A cross-cultural comparison of the perceived traits
of gifted behaviour. Gifted and Talented International, 17, 61-
75.
Subhi, T. & Maoz, N. (2000). Middle east region: Efforts, politics,
programs and issues. In K. A. Heller, F. 1. Monks, R. J. Sternberg
& R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook ofgiftedness
and talent (2,d ed.) (pp. 743-756). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Tirri, K. A. & Adams, A. M. (2000). A cross-
cultural study of teachers' attitudes toward gifted children and
programs for gifted children. Gifted and Talented International,
15,103-115.
Tannenbaum, A. (2000). A history of giftedness in school and society. In
K. A. Heller, F. 1. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik
(Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2 nd
ed.) (pp. 23-53). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Teo, C. T. (2000). Holistic counselling of gifted adolescents in Singapore.
Gifted and Talented International, 15, 30-38.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagan, E. P. & Sattler, 1. M. (1986). Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition. Technical Manual. Chicago,
IL: The Riverside Publishing Company.
Tomasello, M. (2000). Cultnre and cognitive development. Current
directions in Psychological Science, 9,37-40.
 SHANE PHILLIPSON et al. 175

Tomlinson, C. A. & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted

education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 36, 183-189.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory and Research on Curriculum
Development for the Gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. 1. Monks, R. 1.
Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of
giftedness and talent (2,d ed.) (pp. 345-365). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Vialle, W. (1995). Giftedness in culturally diverse groups: The MI
perspective. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 4,
5-11.
Wang, M. Z. (1997). Investigation on the high school physics education
for the gifted children. In 1. Chan, R. Li & J. Spinks (Eds.),
Maximizing potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride
(pp. 187-190). Proceedings of the 11 th World Conference on the
Gifted and Talented Education, Hong Kong. The University of
Hong Kong: Social Sciences Research Centre.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence scale for children (3'" ed.)
(WISC-IlI). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American
Psychologist, 55, 159-169.
Wu, W-T., Cho, S. & Munander, U. (2000). Identifying and nurturing
gifted and talent in Asia (outside the mainland of China). In K.
A. Heller, F. 1. Monks, R. 1. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.),
International handbook ofgiftedness and talent (2,d ed.) (pp.
765-777.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Yue, X. D. & Ruowicz, E. (2002). Perceptions of the most creative
Chinese by undergraduates in Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong,
and Taipei. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 36,88-104.
Zhang, L-f. & Hui, S. K-f. (2003). From pentagon to triangle: A cross-
cultural investigation of an implicit theory ofgiftedness. Roeper
Review, 25,78-82.
Zhang, L-f. & Sternberg, R. 1. (1998). The pentagonal implicit theory of
giftedness revisited: A cross-validation in Hong Kong. Roeper
Review, 21, 149-153.
Zieglar, A. & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a
meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. 1. Monks, R. J.
Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of
giftedness and talent (2 00 ed.) (pp. 3-21). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.