Su búsqueda
Resultados 6 recursos
-
The myth that gifted children constitute 3% to 5% of the school population was addressed in the 1982 issue of the Gifted Child Quarterly by Joe Renzulli, a fact that is more than a little intimidating to one charged with addressing the same myth 27(!) years later. In his 1982 article, Renzulli interpreted the 3% to 5% myth as an implicit endorsement of the belief that giftedness equals high IQ, which he rightly took pains to refute. Moreover, consistent with his Three-ring Conception of Giftedness (e.g., 1978), of which “above-average ability” is a major (and salutarily radical) component, Renzulli argued that “high levels of creative productivity can be achieved by students below the top 5% if we use a more flexible identification process.” Because more than a quarter of a century has passed, the belief that 3% to 5% of the school population is gifted and the belief that giftedness can be reduced to a high score on an IQ test must now be mere historical curiosities from the Reagan years, as outdated as Cabbage Patch Dolls, Milli Vanilli, and supply-side economics. Alas, this is not the case. Both myths still flourish, apparently invulnerable to reason and the lessons of experience. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
In this chapter, I argue that conceptions of giftedness are problematic in that they derive from what Dai and Chen have identified as “the gifted-child paradigm,” which has dominated the thinking of scholars and practitioners in gifted education since the field’s advent. However, I believe that the gifted-child paradigm encompasses beliefs that are untenable and that have rendered the field nugatory. The central tenet of the gifted-child paradigm is the seemingly unexceptionable belief that there is a distinct subgroup in our school-age population known as gifted students. I argue that this foundational belief is belied by, among other things, the fact that, about a century on, there is no consensus as to what a gifted student is, as the table of contents of this volume reveals. Instead, I believe that giftedness is a social construction unanchored to a body of empirical data and unhelpful in developing defensible curriculum and instruction for capable students. I suggest that our field’s focus should not be existential (“Is this student gifted?”) but should rather be educational (“What form (s) of instruction are appropriate for this student at this time?”). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)
-
The following chapter addresses the following questions: (1) How well do various forms of assessment predict behaviors that are associated with gifted students or that are required of students in the gifted program in which students are placed? (2) To what extent do various forms of assessment actually measure the constituents of giftedness? and (3) To what extent can identification procedures be made more equitable with respect to issues such as race and SES? Although there are numerous studies that deal with the identification of gifted students, I will focus on a few that are historically significant and that have affected practice in the field of gifted education before turning to some more recent studies that exemplify current concerns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)
-
What is giftedness? My short answer to this question is that giftedness, in the context of the schools, is a chimera. But, because I am an academic, there is a predictably longer answer. I believe that the concept of the gifted student is incoherent and untenable on a number of grounds. The first of these is that the concept of the gifted child in American education is a social construct of questionable validity. The second is that educational practice predicated on the existence of the gifted child has been largely ineffective. The third is that this practice has exacerbated the inequitable allocation of educational resources in this country. I elaborate on each of these assertions in this section of the chapter. The fourth component of my thesis is that the construct of the gifted child is not necessary for, and perhaps is a barrier to, achieving the goals that brought this field into existence in the first place. In other words, I argue that we can, and should, have gifted education without gifted children. I discuss this in the following section in responding to another of the questions we were asked to address, "How should gifted individuals be instructed in school and elsewhere?" (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)
-
I have attempted in this chapter to undermine some of the most fundamental articles of faith in the field of gifted education: that enrichment works; that gifted education requires gifted programs; and, finally, that the notion of giftedness among school students makes sense and results in positive outcomes. Many, if not most, people in the field of gifted education, I suspect, would reject my arguments out of hand. That is well and good; intellectual disagreement and debate are healthy signs in any discipline or field of practice. What I would find disturbing would not be disagreement with my conclusions, but dismissal of the value of problematizing our most cherished notions. A decade and a half ago, I wrote an article entitled "Gifted Education and the Threat of Irrelevance" (1996) in which 1 suggested that, as a field, we have a "fear of the big questions". By this I meant that we let others explore questions we find to be too controversial and thereby cede to others important intellectual territory that ought to be ours. We need to reclaim those "big questions" that others, including some not so friendly to our purposes, have laid claim to. Problematizing our most fundamental beliefs would be a good step in that direction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)
-
"Global Professionalism and Perceptions of Teachers of the Gifted" / Alexinia Y. Baldwin, Vialle Wilma and Catherine Clarke "Families: The Essential Context for Gifts and Talents" / Joan Freeman "Identifying and Educating Poor and Under-represented Gifted Students" / James H. Borland and Lisa Wright "Counseling Gifted Students" / Nicholas Colangelo and Susan G. Assouline "Underachievement in Gifted Children and Adolescents: Theory and Practice" / Willy A. M. Peters, Helga Grager-Loidl and Patricia Supplee "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity Disorder in Gifted Students" / Felice A. Kaufmann and F. Xavier Castellanos "Gender Differences in Engineering and Physical Sciences Among the gifted: An Inorganic-Organic distinction / David Lubinski, Camilla P. Benbow and Martha J. Morelock "Guiding Gifted Girls and Young Women / Barbara Kerr "Inclusive Education for Gifted Students with Disabilities" / Carolyn Yewchuk and Judy Lupart (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)
Explorar
Tipo de recurso
- Book Section (5)
- Journal Article (1)
Año de publicación
-
Entre 2000 y 2026
- Entre 2000 y 2009 (4)
-
Entre 2010 y 2019
(1)
- 2013 (1)
-
Entre 2020 y 2026
(1)
- 2021 (1)