Su búsqueda
Resultados 8 recursos
-
Discusses several common definitions of the terms giftedness and talent, with particular emphasis on the models proposed by J. S. Renzulli (1979) and S. J. Cohn (1981). The critique of these 2 models leads to a clear differentiation between giftedness and talent: the former is associated with domains of abilities that foster and explain exceptional performance in varied fields of activities, that is, talents. Thus, an individual can be gifted without necessarily being talented (as in the case of underachievers), but not vice versa. Several factors that can act as catalysts for the actualization of giftedness in specific talents are discussed, particularly motivation and environmental quality. (36 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Examines several definitions of the concepts giftedness and talent, particularly those of J. S. Renzulli (1979) and S. J. Cohn (1981). Criticism of their models leads to a proposal for differential definitions, where giftedness is associated with skill domains that underlie and explain exceptional performance in different fields of activity. An individual can be gifted without necessarily being talented, as attested by the phenomenon of underachievement. However, the inverse is not true. Several factors, such as motivation and environment, which act as catalysts for actualization of giftedness in specific talents, are discussed. (29 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) presents the talent development process (P) as the transformation of outstanding natural abilities, or gifts (G), into outstanding systematically developed skills which define expertise, or talent (T) 3 in a particular occupational field. This developmental sequence constitutes the heart of the DMGT. Three types of catalysts help or hinder that process: (a) interpersonal (I) catalysts, like personal traits and self-management processes; (b) environmental (E) catalysts, like socio-demographic factors, psychological influences (e.g., from parents, teachers, or peers), or special talent development facilities and programs; and (c) chance (C). The DMGT includes a 5-level metric-based (MB) system to operationalize the prevalence of gifted or talented individuals, with a basic 'top 10 per cent' threshold for mild giftedness or talent, through successive 10 per cent cuts for moderate, high, exceptional and extreme levels. Complex interactions between the six components are surveyed. The text ends with a proposed answer to a fundamental question: 'What factor(s) make(s) a difference, on average, between those who emerge among the talented and those who remain average?'. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)
-
Replies to the comments of J. H. Borland (see record 1999-10122-002), D. K. Detterman and J. Ruthsatz (see record 1999-10122-003), D. H. Feldman (see record 1999-10122-004), E. A. Hany (see record 1999-10122-005), and N. M. Robinson (see record 1999-10122-006) on the original article by F. Gagné (see record 1999-10122-001) concerning his structured statements about the nature of human abilities, talents, and gifts. Gagné defends the worthiness of his quest to achieve some consensus among professionals in the field of gifted education over the definition of the core concepts of giftedness and talent and also, the validity and usefulness of his distinction between high natural abilities (gifts) and high systematically developed ones (talents) in comparison to alternative proposals. He finally reiterates, in the light of the criticisms received, the basic arguments supporting his conviction that his own differentiation between giftedness and talent is the most appropriate and defensible solution to gifted education's terminological conundrum. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Comments on the article by J. A. Sloboda and M. J. Howe (see record 1991-30071-001) examining the backgrounds of promising young musicians. Gagné demonstrates that the authors incorrectly interpreted their data because they did not acknowledge the role of musical giftedness as a significant determinant of the large differences observed in their sample between exceptional and average students. Gagné intends to show that their results cannot be correctly interpreted without introducing musical aptitudes as a significant causal factor. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Addresses the laxity in terminology that afflicts the field of gifted education, especially the definitions of 2 central constructs: giftedness and talent. A differentiated model is proposed, based on a distinction between 2 types of abilities, natural abilities and systematically developed skills, labeled respectively gifts (or aptitudes) and talents. Both types of abilities are described and exemplified. The model is used as a guide for a series of comments on the appropriate use of labels to describe more accurately the target population(s), emphasizing the predominance of intellectually gifted and academically talented pupils. Four other labels that have been used to describe gifted and talented children and adults are discussed (i.e., precocity, ableness, genius, and prodigy). (A correction concerning this article appears in Roeper Review, 1996[Feb–Mar], Vol 18[3], 231. The correct version of Figure 1 is presented.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Presents a critical analysis of 13 validation studies of peer nomination forms (PNFs), which are growing in popularity as a screening technique for giftedness. A 4-step blueprint for research on their psychometric qualities is also described: (1) developing a taxonomy of abilities or talents to be assessed by peers; (2) drafting experimental PNFs; (3) evaluating their reliabilities, especially interjudge agreement; and (4) conducting rigorous validity studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Explored estimates of the percentage of gifted and talented persons in the population. 341 adults were asked their estimates; for half of them the target concept was "gifted" persons, while the other half were questioned about "talented" persons. Ss also indicated if they perceived a difference between being gifted and being talented, and if so what was the nature of that difference. Estimates varied greatly between Ss for both concepts; the average estimate was almost twice as large for talented persons (36%) as for gifted persons (17%); the perceived discrepancy was the same even for those Ss (20%) who judged the 2 concepts to be synonymous. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
Explorar
Tipo de recurso
Año de publicación
-
Entre 1900 y 1999
(7)
- Entre 1980 y 1989 (3)
- Entre 1990 y 1999 (4)
-
Entre 2000 y 2026
(1)
-
Entre 2000 y 2009
(1)
- 2004 (1)
-
Entre 2000 y 2009
(1)