Su búsqueda

Giftedness as a construct is increasingly found relevant in all of life’s endeavors. It is a construct with a long history in schools. As institutions tasked with the academic preparation of young people, schools must consider the practical application of any conception adopted. The constraints of schools and their institutional purpose determine what giftedness is in that setting. The optimal conception of giftedness within these boundaries provides for the development of exceptional abilities, while supporting the psychological well-being of students. It requires a commitment from schools to provide resources, supports, and opportunities that foster the development of students’ talents, with an eye toward their success beyond the K-12 experience. Students must also commit to their own talent development, bringing their abilities, interests, and the psychosocial skills required to bear in their approach to the school-provided opportunities. This chapter addresses the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in a practical, school-based conception of giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)

The chapters in Parts 1 and 2 of this book provide considerable detail about myriad approaches to quantitative and mixed method research designs and important issues to consider when using those designs. The authors build a compelling case for the importance of using those designs in moving the research base in gifted studies toward greater sophistication. The first author’s awareness of the need to enhance the literature base by incorporating increasingly sophisticated research approaches crystallized in November 1997 at the National Association of Gifted Children conference just after a symposium on research methodology had ended, when Laurence J. Coleman, Michael Pyryt, and I stood talking about the session. I asked Michael if he thought the field of gifted studies was ready to move in a postpositivistic direction. As he was known to do, he thought about what I had asked him and carefully responded with his own question: “How can the field of gifted studies become postpositivistic when our research base is still prepositivistic?” That was Michael’s way of critiquing our field as being reliant on too many studies that were theoretically unsound and poorly conducted. The symposium had emphasized the epistemological and ontological assumptions of qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Arguments were made during the session for the utility of both approaches, but with an emphasis being placed on the limitations of each in terms of the nature of the research questions that can and cannot be addressed by either. While few academics these days still question the usefulness of either quantitative or qualitative research (see Capraro & Thompson, 2008; Larabee, 2003), what Michael did in few words was summarize the research in the field of gifted studies circa 1997. This book is intended to be both a catalyst and a primer for future research in gifted studies to help us move from prepositivistic to positivistic and postpositivistic approaches. Michael would be pleased. In this chapter, we describe the various research approaches we have utilized over the years, including both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Other chapters in this volume have provided fodder for additional discussions about our research. As a result of the ideas generated by our fellow authors in this volume, we propose an enhancement to our existing research through the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) as described by Kline in chapter 7 of this volume. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The purpose of this chapter is not to catalog research on individual social or emotional traits associated with gifted individuals; such summaries will be found in subsequent chapters. Rather, it is to offer a survey of theoretical frameworks through which those traits can be more effectively understood and addressed. The following section highlights several theories of social or emotional development that have found use in recent years among gifted educators, as well as recent research drawing on those frameworks. It is not a comprehensive list, but it represents a cross-section of popular acceptance, recent development, and depth of application. The greater intent is to demonstrate how placing traits of giftedness in a theoretical context can help us formulate better service. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

My perspective on an affective curriculum in education for gifted students is colored by my clinical experiences as a counselor, including those as a counselor of gifted children, adolescents, and adults. During my last 5 years as a teacher in K-12 education, I directed a complex program for gifted high school students, which included an emphasis on affective concerns (Peterson, 1990). Ten discussion groups per week, geared almost entirely to social and emotional development and involving 115 students per year, taught me a great deal about nonacademic concerns of highly able students. The program actively sought out gifted underachievers, who became approximately 30% of total participants and were articulate contributors in the groups as well. Later, I facilitated several similar groups for diverse gifted middle school students, counseled gifted children and adolescents and their families in a clinic geared to giftedness, and also worked with medical students and others with high ability in private practice. The individuals I met while doing ethnographic research on perceptions of giftedness in nonmainstream cultures educated me further. I also sometimes encountered gifted individuals as a counselor in two substance-abuse treatment centers, in an alternative school for expelled high school students, and as a substance-use evaluator in a K-12 school district. Currently I prepare counselors for work in K-12 schools and advise and supervise many highly capable graduate students. These varied clinical experiences with gifted individuals inform this chapter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

During a late summer morning in the Midwest, the mother of a 16-year-old gifted student received a phone call telling her that her son was just found hanging from the eaves above the bus stop at their local high school. It was later discovered from his journal entries that he had planned this event for months. The death of a young person is a terrible thing; but the death of a young person by suicide is a calamity for humankind. This scenario, with different actors, repeats itself every day in the United States and students with gifts and talents (SWGT) and their families are not immune to this devastating outcome. During the 2014–2015 school year, a total of 26 students died by suicide in two high-achieving school districts in the United States (Palo Alto Unified School District in California and Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia), and at two universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology and College of William and Mary). Several suicides among top students in a short period creates many questions about links between giftedness and suicidal behavior. The belief that SWGT are more prone to emotional disturbance is widely held (Coleman & Cross, 2005). Two perspectives have been offered to describe the relationship between giftedness and psychological well-being: (a) The nature of giftedness makes these students more resilient to psychological maladies, and (b) their characteristics make them more subject to adjustment issues (J. Delisle, 1986; Neihart, 1999). Coleman and Cross (2000) offered a third position: American subcultures create environments that can affect the lived experience of SWGT and, subsequently, their psychological well-being. This chapter explores the research on suicide among SWGT and applicable research from the general population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, advanced development and giftedness within the context of the school are discussed. The authors contention is that advanced development is the fundamental concept for understanding giftedness, and they attempt to explain our position by offering a definition, describing the roots of the definition--explaining the changes in our thinking--that have led to a deeper understanding of giftedness and schooling, and proposing a modified definition. The authors also discuss some implications of the ideas they have proposed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This chapter discusses the promotion of optimal mind-sets among gifted children. Students need to hear the message that effort increases their ability. Discussing the developmental nature of giftedness and the maleability of the brain with students helps to promote this message. Equally important is the mind-set parents and teachers hold, as well as the ways they encourage students to excel. The key is to separate the recognition of the talent from the attribution for how the talent came to fruition. Challenging curriculum supports growth mind-sets. When work is not challenging, gifted students earn good grades without putting forth substantial effort. Researchers and practitioners have speculated on the possible negative effects of being able to earn high grades with limited effort, and a fixed mind-set may be one of them. A challenging curriculum helps students learn to recover from setbacks and understand the importance of effort. Having a mind-set that does not foster coping with setbacks inhibits the movement from ability to eminence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The material in this chapter results from a comprehensive review of the scientific literature in psychology that draws from these five views of giftedness and talent development as well as research on expertise, high performance, creativity, motivation, and human development. The outcome of the Subotnik et al. analysis is a framework that includes the following central points: (a) giftedness is not static but maleable and needs to be developed; (b) it is more useful to consider giftedness as domain specific rather than global; (c) psychosocial skills play an outsize role in optimal development; and (d) the desired outcome of gifted education is to provide the skills, knowledge, and opportunities needed for talent to be developed to optimal levels of performance or creative productivity at each phase, which includes eminence for those individuals who wish to and are able to pursue that goal. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

"Developmental Psychology and Giftedness: Theories and Research" / Franz J. Mönks and Emanuel J. Mason "Genetic Tools for Exploring Individual Differences in Intelligence" / Lee A. Thompson and Robert Plomin "Giftedness, Expertise, and (Exceptional) Performance: A Developmental Perspective / Wolfgang Schneider "Issues in the Cognitive Development of Exceptionally and Profoundly Gifted Individuals" / Miraca U. M. Gross "Motivation and Cognition: Their Role in the Development of Giftedness" / Willy Lens and Per Rand "Social-emotional Development and the Personal Experience of Giftedness" / Laurence J. Coleman and Tracy L. Cross "A Life Span Approach to Talent Development" / Ingrid Schoon "Prodigies, Savants and Williams Syndrome: Windows into Talent and Cognition" / Martha J. Morelock and David Henry Feldman "Addressing the Most Challenging Questions in Gifted Education and Psychology: A Role Best Suited to Longitudinal Research" / Rena F. Subotnik and Karen D. Arnold "A 'Talent' for Knowledge and Judgement About Life: The Life-span Development of Wisdom" / Monisha Pasupathi and Ursula M. Staudinger (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)