Su búsqueda

Educational programming, clinical practice, and even parenting decisions are shaped and driven by beliefs and philosophies. They may not be overt or articulated, but they underlie actions from everyday behaviors to high-level policy decisions. Because the field of gifted education is characterized by not one, but many belief systems, there is a considerable variation from state to state and school to school in definitions of giftedness, identification of students for special services, programming delivery models, curriculum and instructional practices, and guidance and counseling practices. One can argue the merits of one belief system or philosophy over another, but the key to providing high-quality services to gifted children is to examine carefully the current theory and research in the field; come to a consensus on underlying principles to guide programming, based on sound reflections of what the theory and research indicate is best practice; and then create the components of a program consistent with a set of beliefs derived from careful reflection and decision making based on current knowledge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter begins with an overview of the historical relationships between the intelligence testing movement and the corresponding dominance of the IQ definition of giftedness that has evolved. Then a sample of representative definitions of giftedness reflecting changing conceptions of intelligence during the last 3 decades is used to illustrate the range of variability in current thinking. Finally, the chapter includes a review of the issues underlying discussions of the value or relevance of the various definitions and a summary of promising developments in the research on gifted children and adults that may inform practice in identifying and providing appropriate educational interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Discusses what we do and do not know about giftedness in the early years, roughly birth to age 7. In this chapter, we focus on cognitive and academic giftedness because, with few exceptions—mainly case studies—that is the major kind of giftedness about which there exists coherent research-based knowledge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Although many gifted students are provided adequate school opportunities and most do not develop social or emotional problems as they move through childhood and adolescence, it is a myth that gifted students will make it without positive and supportive interventions from school and family. Although gifted students may achieve in school, schools are failing these students, as well as society and schools themselves, when they do not provide gifted students the opportunities to achieve their full potential. The evidence indicates that schools are not responding fully to the educational and learning needs suggested by the defining characteristics of giftedness. Failure to respond to those needs creates an environment that is likely to foster frustration, underachievement, and social and emotional problems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

As with all decisions about programming or selecting curriculum for gifted students, the choices made at the secondary level should be internally consistent and consonant with beliefs about giftedness and the most appropriate goals for gifted students. While all of the program models offered at the secondary level are unique, they are all based on a belief that gifted students are unique in their learning characteristics and that the traditional or standard school curriculum as delivered in a lock-step fashion in the heterogeneous classroom is insufficient to meet the needs that arise from the distinguishing characteristics that these learners present. The ways in which the differences are defined and the suggested responses differ across models, although the models share some common attributes or assumptions that allow general categorization as either enrichment or acceleration models. This chapter discusses a variety of program models that have been developed and implemented at the secondary level. The most critical concern of all schools should be to evaluate the outcomes of the options that are offered. Current research does not clearly support any one of the available options as the best or most appropriate for the achievement of the goals we have outlined for successful education for gifted students. Clearly, differences in definitions of giftedness and beliefs about giftedness, as well as the expectations and meaning of success in any community will drive the goal-setting and evaluation processes. A clear evaluation plan that has been approved by the stakeholders in the education of gifted students will be the best test of whether or not a given set of options is successful in addressing the needs of these students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The current knowledge base in the area of twice exceptionality, particularly regarding those students with learning disabilities, includes both empirical research from the neurosciences and lessons from practice, where clinical and educational programs have sprouted to provide support and an organizational identity for twice exceptionality. Twice exceptionality is not a diagnosis widely accepted and supported in mainstream education. Notably, little epidemiological data exist to provide incidence or precedence for it, because it extends across several populations of disability and because no central definition exists for giftedness. However, information from empirical and epidemiological research, case studies, assessment, and current models of practice provides the fundamental knowledge necessary to advocate for and serve these special gifted children, poised to contribute to the world in extraordinary ways with their unique skills and talents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Since its first appearance in Gifted Child Quarterly, the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) has evolved into a full-fledged theory of talent development now referred to as the DMGT 2.0. No chapter-length text can encompass all the details of its contents and dynamics. Consequently, I offer the present text as a "detailed overview"—a potential oxymoron!—of the updated DMGT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

What does it mean to be gifted? Is there something different about the neurobiology of a gifted person compared to us average people? If so, what is it? These are questions that have been debated for years and ones that I have attempted to address here. The approach discussed in the current chapter takes into consideration a number of general neural operating principles that may be used to guide future studies of giftedness. In this chapter I present a theory of neural processing that is derived from the use of functional neuroimaging, particularly functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The major proposal of this chapter is that how well the neural system can adapt to changes in the environment will affect the quality and efficiency of its processing, thereby constituting a major source of individual differences in cognitive processing. Adaptability is assessed here by examining neural efficiency, the malleability of processing networks, and functional connectivity. These measures are used because how well someone can adapt to fluctuations in the computational demands is thought to be correlated with these measures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The problem of deciding what criteria to use to identify giftedness remains an intractable one in the field. Giftedness has traditionally been taken to mean intellectual giftedness, and the gifted have often been identified through IQ achievement, or other formal tests of school-based skills. To avoid an IQ bias, the discussion in this chapter relies heavily on studies whose gifted subjects were selected by other means. Even though their findings are drawn primarily from testlike settings, these researchers' observations of the students' thinking processes are detailed and comprehensive, thus allowing for comparisons with information from other sources. The following discussion takes into consideration not only intellectual abilities but also artistic talents in cases where both share similar cognitive characteristics. Studies on artistic talent use subjects who had distinguished themselves through class performance, auditions, or products. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

A discussion of all of the different conceptions of giftedness is beyond the scope of this chapter; therefore, only those conceptions for which there is evidence of use in the U.S. school system and/or those conceptions with evidence of empirical validation are described here. In addition to presenting a general overview of the influence of an individual's personal conception of giftedness, this chapter will address the terms used in the literature, particularly as these are associated with the major theorists in the field; the major questions that are addressed in research and the available empirical support for different conceptions; the limitations and the practical implications of the research; and the major references and resources for obtaining further information. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

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)

The major research question related to self-concept and gifted students is the extent to which the self-concept facets of gifted students are comparable to the self-concept of average-ability students. A related question involves the extent to which giftedness interacts with the process of self-concept development. A third research question relates to the impact of placement of intellectually gifted students in gifted programs on their self-concept facets. A fourth research question focuses on the congruity between self-concept ratings and demonstrated accomplishments. A final research question relates to the generalizability of findings across various subgroups of gifted students (gifted females, culturally diverse gifted, students with gifts and disabilities, creatively gifted students). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter briefly outlines the history of research on expertise and provides examples of research merging the views of giftedness and expertise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The term identification, when used in an educational context, is very broad and encompasses processes that might be in place for deciding which students will be offered particular services within a school or school district, which students might be selected for a special school, or who is given the option of attending a summer Governor's School. Before any program personnel can determine who will be selected for participation, the definition of whatever construct is to be identified must be clear and agreed upon. Because of the many conceptions of giftedness found in the theoretical and research literature, the first and most important decision that should be made regarding practical procedures for identification of gifted students is to select a conception or definition of giftedness to guide decision making. Once consensus is reached on a definition of giftedness, this definition provides guidance in determining who needs to receive special services and the method one will use to select those students. The process of identification will, of course, vary considerably depending on how a school district defines giftedness. But in any identification plan, regardless of the definition chosen, a common set of questions can be used to guide how decision makers respond to the recurring and problematic questions surrounding the identification of students for special programs and services. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Significant advances have been made in the education of gifted rural students, especially in the areas of identification and curriculum development. In general, the existing research suggests that culturally-sensitive, creativity-focused identification practices and experiential, community-based curricular efforts provide numerous benefits to bright students living in rural areas. There also appears to be empirical evidence, albeit limited in scope, that providing comprehensive educational and counseling support to gifted rural students, especially those in high school and college, leads to greater academic success. In addition, over the past 20 years, a hallmark of almost every successful program for gifted rural students has been intensive professional development focused on the characteristics and needs of gifted students. Of course, the positive impact of professional development is not surprising: The well-known lack of content on gifted students in most teacher preparation programs, combined with traditional rural attitudes toward giftedness, make it unlikely that many rural educators have had much exposure (or motivation to get exposure) to gifted education issues. Despite the advances in the education of rural gifted students stretching back a couple of generations, the literature on this particular group of students is still marked by collections of presumed best practices, anecdotal evidence, and conceptual analyses. It is worth noting that the flurry of recent publications on gifted rural students focuses primarily either on conceptual analyses or reviews of literature. The lack of program evaluations and empirical studies of specific interventions has delayed progress substantially. The field has a strong foundation from which to proceed, but a great deal of additional work is needed to provide educators with tools for fostering the development of gifted students living in rural communities. Finally, educators and researchers need to keep in mind that the nature of rurality is rapidly changing. Due to broader economic, cultural, and immigration trends (and most probably, interactions among them), describing a prototypical "rural community" has become nearly impossible. For example, numerous languages are spoken in rural areas; in rural communities in Northeast Indiana, one may overhear conversations in English, German, or Spanish. The linguistic, cultural, and racial/ethnic diversity in rural communities is often noted, but rarely directly addressed in the literature on gifted students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Students who simultaneously show evidence of high performance or potential in a talent or ability and have a disability that impacts on their ability to achieve and learn are often referred to as "twice exceptional" and require attention in the academic setting. Recognition that twice-exceptional students exist in U.S. classrooms was articulated over three decades ago by Maker (1977) who referred to these students as "gifted handicapped." Initially, educators viewed twice exceptionality as paradoxical, as it seemed implausible that intellectually gifted children could concomitantly have a learning disability. However, based on Maker's contention that intellectual giftedness and learning disabilities can and do coexist, researchers began to investigate the characteristics, identification, and curriculum needs of students with dual exceptionalities. The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) (2010) recognizes this population and advocates finding mechanisms for identifying twice-exceptional children so that educators can serve both their gifts and disabilities, and thereby prevent them from falling through the academic cracks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The study of the psychological constructs of cognitive ability and intelligence' has its roots in the work of theorists and researchers in the fields of psychometric measurement, intelligence, and developmental psychology. Giftedness as a trait of individuals is an outgrowth of the study of intelligence and cognitive abilities, and the definition of giftedness has changed over time as the study of human abilities has evolved in psychology. The study of giftedness in psychology can be traced back to Francis Galton's (1869) Hereditary Genius. From his observations of families of eminent persons, Galton defined giftedness as either attainment of genius or children showing the potential for genius, emphasizing the influence of heredity. Galton's beliefs about the high hereditability of intelligence and the link between measured intelligence and giftedness had a strong influence on the study of both intelligence and giftedness. This orientation continued with the work of Terman and his longitudinal study of gifted students and the work of Hollingworth (1942) with highly gifted students. Terman defined gifted children as those scoring two standard deviations above the norm on the Stanford-Binet intelligence Scale, an assessment created by Terman. Theories of giftedness that align with the conception of giftedness as advanced cognitive ability have generally focused on performance as measured by the Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler intelligence Scales, or other intelligence tests. (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)

Identification of gifted students remains one of the most controversial aspects of gifted programming. This controversy stems from the lack of a consistent definition of giftedness, which makes identifying giftedness tricky; diversity in the ways in which giftedness is operationalized from school district to school district, sometimes referred to as the "geographic giftedness" phenomenon; and a lack of understanding of the technical aspect of measurement involved in the identification process. While there are myriad ways in which school districts implement the process of gifted identification, one commonly used process includes the use of a gifted identification matrix. Scholars in the field have written extensively about the perils of using matrices in identifying students for gifted services. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a (mostly) non-technical discussion of the uses and misuses of matrices and to offer some guidance on appropriate practices that can be applied in a school setting. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

A traditional identification procedure using primarily quantitative assessments is the most widely used approach in the United States. Implementation of this approach, however, is quite diverse and is influenced by federal and state definitions, standards-based practices, state rules and regulations, program characteristics, and implicit or explicit conceptions of giftedness. For the most part, educators who use traditional approaches believe that gifted students exist and form a distinct group, that they can be identified with technically adequate assessments, and that they need to be served to develop their gifts and talents. To implement this approach, all who are involved in the identification process need to receive professional development, including administrators, parents, special educators, and general educators. Without this development, the quality of the overall process is in jeopardy. Moreover, technically adequate assessments need to be selected to ensure adequate ceilings, alignment with-the program, and recognition of all groups, particularly those from special populations. Since traditional assessment approaches do not generally provide sufficient diagnostic information for programming, a diverse group of gifted students is often served within a common program. To meet each student's interests, abilities, and skills more effectively, teachers need to gather more information to tailor the curriculum to each student. Even when well implemented, the traditional approach presents challenges including under-representation of minority students and inability to consider the dynamic nature of giftedness. Therefore, decisions are made on what is assessed, what the student has acquired, rather than what the student might develop. Politically, the process raises important issues; however, even though traditional approaches have serious challenges, they do recognize that gifted and talented students exist. Without the recognition that some students have distinct characteristics, is there a need for professional development, for services, or for resource support? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)