Su búsqueda

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). Ziegler and Phillipson provide a timely, thought-provoking critique of traditional approaches to gifted education. For a long time, the field has searched in vain for the Holy Grail of giftedness. Alas, the essentialist assumption fails because giftedness does not have a single essence that holds its identity, unity, and continuity. Reification of the construct as an entity sitting in the head significantly narrows our vision of what constitutes human potential for excellence. To maximally realize human potential, it is important to reconceptualize giftedness as contextually and dynamically shaped through learning and development in a complex, reciprocal interaction of the person and the environment. Ziegler and Phillipson show us how it might be done. Although much is yet to be spelled out, some principles can be laid out. Too much time and resources are expended on futile attempts to figure out a gold standard or a litmus test for an unfailing determination of who are “gifted”. We should look at the current performance and proximal behavior of a child in deciding what kinds of education provisions are appropriate for the child instead of seeking the Holy Grail of giftedness and using the abstract notion of aptitude such as general intelligence or generic giftedness to guide policy and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

The history of giftedness pertains to historical changes regarding how giftedness is conceptualized and defined, and how it serves the practical purpose of identifying gifted children and providing them an appropriate education. The past century has witnessed debates and controversies about what constitutes this elusive human quality we deem “gifted.” Overall, it has undergone significant changes from monolithic, static to more pluralistic, dynamic conceptions. The first part of this article delineates historical changes in the past 100 years in our understanding of the nature and development of giftedness, followed by the second part on the changing ways we define, assess, and identify gifted children or gifted potential for intervention purposes. The final part of this article depicts a broad trend toward expanding gifted education to a wider range of students, with the understanding that gifts and talents are widely distributed in student populations, and the deliberate cultivation of human potential should not be confined to a selected few. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

In this article, I propose that various conceptions and theoretical models of giftedness can be understood along a continuum from the most reductionist to the most emergentist. Along with this continuum, I specify four levels of analysis based on the human functional hierarchy: the biological, operational (computational), intentional, and activity levels. I illustrate how reductionist and emergentist approaches provide contrasting views of intelligence and giftedness, with the former seeking basic elements and lower level explanations and the latter stressing complexity and higher level organization. I suggest that clearly articulating levels of analysis and principles for efforts of the reductionist or emergentist nature will enhance conceptual clarity and methodological rigor. Whether giftedness is understood in the reductionist or emergentist frameworks has many practical and policy implications for gifted education. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Comments on Sternberg's article on WICS as a model for giftedness (see record 2004-10570-002). The current author argues that the way Sternberg conceptualizes successful intelligence, creativity, and wisdom makes a compelling case that giftedness cannot be simply the genetic makeup of an individual. A valuable feature of the model is that it deviates from the traditional ability-centric conceptions of giftedness. As a point of disagreement, although Sternberg is correct in arguing that the distinction between natural ability and acquired expertise is a theoretical one, and that empirically teasing apart the two is extremely difficult, it seems safe to say that fluid ability tests rely much less on experience and prior knowledge than crystallized ability tests. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

This article presents a new theory of talent development, evolving complexity theory (ECT), in the context of the changing theoretical directions as well as the landscape of gifted education. I argue that gifted education needs a new foundation that provides a broad psychosocial basis than what the notion of giftedness can afford. A focus on talent development rather than giftedness should be based on a theory of talent development that is truly developmental, treating the developing person as an open, dynamic, and adaptive system, changing oneself adaptively while interacting with environmental opportunities and challenges. To introduce ECT, I first delineate the meaning and significance of four dimensions or “parameters” of talent development undergirding this new theory: domain, person, development, and culture. I then describe how ECT explicates the developmental processes and transitions as the result of human adaptations to environmental opportunities and challenges. More specifically, ECT uses the constructs of characteristic and maximal adaptation to elucidate how domain, person, development, and culture jointly shape a particular line of talent development, and how cognitive, affective, and social processes interact to push and sustain a critical transition from characteristic adaptation to maximal adaptation, eventually leading to high-caliber performance and creative productivity. I finally discuss the theoretical contributions and practical utilities of ECT for future research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Dr. Dai systematically redefines giftedness and proposes a new framework for the field of gifted education. He identifies nine essential tensions, revolving around three core questions: What do we know about the respective roles of natural ability, environment and experiences, and personal effort in talent development? How do we identify the gifted and talented, and study the process of gifted and talent development? And finally, how do we define the aims of gifted education and promote excellence? Sure to be a milestone in the field, this book: Scrutinizes some of the deeply held assumptions about the nature of giftedness and explains why a contextual, developmental approach is a more viable alternative to the traditional psychometric approach. Takes stock of the past, defines the present, and looks into the future in terms of understanding high potential and educating youths. Tackles tensions between the gifted child and talent development movements and between excellence and equity, and responds to the "elitism" criticisms in a constructive and comprehensive way. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: cover)

Paradigms of gifted education highlights how to conduct research in gifted education when researchers have to choose from myriad theoretical ideas, hypotheses, claims, practical models, and strategies. It shows researchers how to build clarity, rigor, and relevance into a research agenda that combats fragmentation and contributes to enhanced theoretical and practical endeavors in the field. Specifically, Paradigms of gifted education advocates a paradigmatic approach to conducting research in gifted education and shows how it can be done every step of the way by specifying the essential questions of What?, Why?, Who?, and How? in a coherent manner, and by selecting methods that are appropriate for the question asked and the phase of the research efforts. To facilitate the development of a research agenda, the book identifies three major paradigms of gifted education and 20 essential research questions that would help move the field forward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: cover)

The main argument of this article is that human living systems are open, dynamic, intentional systems and, therefore, are capable of building ever more complex behaviors through self-organization and self-direction. This principle underlying general human development is also applicable to the development of gifted and talented behaviors. These behaviors are dynamic because persons demonstrating such behaviors are forming dynamic, functional relations with a specific environment, with unique temporal trajectories capable of engendering emergent properties that feed into further development. This Contextual, Emergent, and Dynamic Model provides an alternative to traditional static, reductionistic, trait-based conceptions of giftedness. The article further elaborates on three dynamic facets of the making of gifted potential: selective affinity, maximal grip, and being at the edge of chaos. These facets allow for dealing with the genesis of talents, developing expertise over an extended period, and developing creative potential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This study surveyed 1,234 empirical studies on giftedness, gifted education, and creativity during 1998–2010 (April), using PsycINFO database and targeted journals as main sources, with respect to main topics these studies focused on, methods they used for investigation, and the conceptual spaces they traversed. Four main research topics emerged from the survey: creativity/creatively gifted, achievement/underachievement, identification, and talent development. Rich and broad conceptual spaces linking these four categories to their psychological underpinnings and educational implications have been explored by this body of research, though the conceptual spaces are still too loosely organized to be seen as paradigmatic. Several prominent trends are identified, including the emergent qualitative studies (accounting for a quarter of the total studies) and the dominance of descriptive (comparative and correlational) research. Although most psychosocial studies are conducted in the context of gifted education, there still seems to be a gap between theory and practice, between psychological understanding of gifted development and promoting such development through education. More systematic, sustainable programs of research and more coordination among researchers are warranted to move the field forward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Conceptions of giftedness and talent have undergone significant changes since Galton (Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London, UK: Macmillan, 1869) and Terman (Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1, Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1925). The general consensus seems to be that human potential is pluralistic rather than monolithic, dynamic rather than fixed; talent is shaped through developmental interaction with the environment over time in a bidirectional, probabilistic manner, rather than uni-directionally determined. In line with this general trend, I present Evolving Complexity Theory (ECT), a theory of talent development I have built with a developmental systems approach, as an attempt to account for a diverse range of talent outcomes. In this chapter, I first present major arguments of ECT phrased as a set of eight interrelated propositions regarding what develops, how it develops, and when it develops. I then compare ECT with other conceptions of talent development to show how a theoretical synthesis like ECT contributes to our understanding of developmental potential and its short-term and long-term development. Finally, I discuss practical implications of ECT, particularly with respect to educational policy, identification, educational intervention, and psychological guidance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)

This chapter discuses the science and education of the individual. Gifted education has been the core of the Eastern Asian education tradition, albeit following an extremely limited definition of giftedness. When giftedness is limited to academic performance, as it is the most common definition in practice even in the West, it would not be an exaggeration to describe Asian meritocracy as a sophisticated system of gifted education. In fact the entire system has been built to serve those children gifted in memorization, compliance, and test taking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Gifted education in Japan is unique in that there is neither formal definition of giftedness or identification of the gifted based on it, nor official gifted educational programs in school due to the climate of egalitarianism. However, education that virtually or de facto plays the role of gifted education, especially academic giftedness, has been implemented both in and outside of the school settings. These de facto gifted programs have created competition and hierarchies of schools based on student achievement. Recently the government changed its emphasis in educational policy from uniform curriculum to individualized education, while promoting the improvement of student achievement. The individualization of learning, which builds on the strengths of students and caters to their needs, is gradually spreading. This way of virtual gifted education is useful particularly in special needs education for students with disabilities. A challenge facing the educational system in providing appropriate education for precocious and advanced students is the development of plans that meet the diverse advanced learning needs of each student without calling it gifted education and selecting a small number of students for special gifted programs. In addition, in order to advance gifted education in Japan, giftedness in students with developmental disorders need to be more recognized. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, we present an account of how giftedness is viewed in India, the second most populous country in the world. Despite the innovative potential which could be harnessed from this vast populace, millions of students remain deprived of basic education, and are often restricted by matters of inequality. As a result, discussion will focus on issues of equity, as well as privileges and policies for the gifted and talented in India, which are often quite different in their nature and magnitude in comparison to other countries. This chapter will address the issue of how giftedness is perceived, identified, and nurtured in India through a socio-cultural and psychological lens. Discussion will then center on the status of programs and policies for the gifted and talented in India which will serve as indicators of a general roadmap of what India can and needs lo do for its gifted and talented population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Giftedness as a concept has evolved in history to become an entity of its own, on which conceptual, social, and educational enterprises have been built. Conceptually, whether what we call giftedness denotes an essence or quality that holds its identity, unity, and continuity relies on empirical verification in differential and developmental psychology research as well as theoretical and practical justifications. Socially, whether giftedness as a social construct serves an equitable, productive social cause or the public good relies on the affirmation of cultural values as well as cognizance of the nature of this precious human capital. Educationally, effective identification and education for the gifted and talented depends on a deep understanding of the nature and nurture of human potential. In this chapter, I provide an overview of the 100-year history of searching for this elusive human quality or exceptionality, delineating major historical periods and identifying related issues. I provide a critique of the construct of giftedness and its history, and discuss alternative ways to build on the legacy and move forward. The chapter concludes with the argument that a talent development approach to understanding human exceptional competence in the form of increasing differentiation and multiple developmental trajectories/pathways (involving nature and nurture) leading to various forms, kinds, and degrees of talent, high-level expertise, and creativity will help us get out of the conceptual quagmire and better guide educational policy and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In comparison to most research approaches and theoretical traditions in other fields of psychology, educational-psychological approaches to these concepts have been related more closely to practice in a wide variety of educational settings in and out of schools. For example, topics of research in the areas of motivation and cognition have been concerned with learning and achievement, and the language used has tended to be familiar to educators and teachers. Educational psychologists integrated new concepts and methods from other fields of psychology into their research as a way to more fully address issues of practice. Thus, when psychometric approaches relying on quantitative measures became dominant in the area of intelligence research, many investigators in the field of educational psychology began to conceptualize and measure variables using psychometric approaches. Statistical tools were adopted to measure talent (giftedness), as well as cognitive factors based on traditional intelligence tests. As a consequence, research efforts focused on interindividual differences. This line of research however, did not address intraindividual development, nor information about the relations between the variables under consideration (Krapp, 1999; Medved, Midi, & Ainley, 2002; Murphy & Alexander, 2000). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)