Su búsqueda

Considerations in designing and developing curriculum for gifted students is a dynamic enterprise, influenced by many factors in the larger environment of education and the field of gifted education itself. Standards debates, ethics infractions, the development of new models, methods, and materials all influence how we view curriculum for gifted students and its essential components. This chapter addresses considerations considered universal and timeless, as well as newer considerations on the basis of contemporary topics. The context is aimed at K–12 educational landscapes, although the ideas have salience for college experiences at the undergraduate level as well. The chapter lays out the considerations for development of a specialized curriculum for gifted students, and the features of designing such curriculum. It concludes with a checklist that may be used for purposes of development and design on the basis of the commentary provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

To understand giftedness, and particularly intellectual giftedness, one must understand intelligence. But what is intelligence? In 1921, when the editors of the Journal of Educational Psychology asked 14 famous psychologists that question, the responses varied, but generally embraced two themes. First, intelligence involves the capacity to learn from experience. Second, it involves the ability to adapt to the surrounding environment. Sixty-five years later, 24 cognitive psychologists with expertise in intelligence research were asked the same question (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). They, too, underscored the importance of learning from experience and adapting to the environment. They also broadened the definition to emphasize the importance of metacognition—people’s understanding and control of their own thinking processes. Contemporary experts also more heavily emphasized the role of culture. They pointed out that what is considered intelligent in one culture may be considered less intelligent in another culture (Ang, Van Dyne, & Tan, 2011). To summarize, intelligence is the capacity to learn from experience, using metacognitive processes to enhance learning, and the ability to adapt to the surrounding environment; it may require different adaptations within different social and cultural contexts (Niu & Brass, 2011; Saklofske, van de Vijver, Oakland, Mpofu, & Suzuki, 2015; Sternberg, 2004). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word intelligence entered our language in about the 12th century. Today, we can look up intelligence in numerous dictionaries, but most of us still have our own implicit ideas about what it means to be smart. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Globalization in economy and in education has highlighted the importance of developing top students for global competition in various fields in Asian countries (Ibata-Arens, 2012). In response to the increasing demand for national talents, many Asian countries have actively moved to develop some form of gifted education. Generally, Western conceptions of giftedness, largely the Euro-American perspectives, provide the theoretical basis for the development of educational programs, procedures for the identification of gifted children, program delivery, and methods of instruction (Wu, Cho, & Munandar, 2000). However, Asian countries differ among themselves in the pace of gifted education development, and the policies and actual practices of gifted program provision. Globalization has also brought about the realization of the diversity of cultures and contexts, including the different cultural conceptions of giftedness. Although it is tempting to define a homogeneous Asian conception of giftedness, it soon becomes apparent that it is not possible nor is it desirable. Asians come from some 50 countries in five geographical regions: Central Asia, Eastern Asia, Southern Asia, Southeastern Asia, and Western Asia. Historically, each of these regions has pursued very different social and political paths, and countries in these regions are not necessarily homogenous ethnically. Although some countries, such as Japan and South Korea, are relatively homogeneous ethnically, others, such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, have several distinct ethnic groups. Despite the amazing diversity, when the development of gifted education is considered, attention has often been drawn to those countries where a period of sustained economic prosperity has brought about significant investment in education by their governments or the private sectors. These countries or regions include China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea in Eastern Asia, and India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand in Southern and Southeastern Asia. The focus of this chapter will be on the development of gifted education in these 11 Asian countries or regions, especially those in Eastern Asia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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)

Mental health providers in schools and the community are likely to see gifted clients who have high ability in one or more domains, and who represent a range of achievement levels, concerns, and contexts. This chapter underscores the importance of not only being knowledgeable about the potential impact of giftedness on a presenting issue, development, or wellbeing, but also of approaching practice accordingly. When giftedness is involved, providers should communicate respect for cognitive and affective aspects (Peterson, 2015). However, other areas are also discussed, such as therapist postures and biases, perspectives related to case conceptualization, clinically based theories important for practice, and approaches. Throughout, counseling refers to what helping professionals do, whether they are school psychologists, school or mental health counselors, counseling or clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, family therapists, or social workers. The phrase characteristics associated with giftedness refers to heightened sensitivity to environmental stimuli because of rapid information-processing (Mendaglio, 2007), anxiety (Tsui & Mazzocco, 2006), overexcitabilities (Probst & Piechowski, 2012), intensity (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009), and asynchronous development (Silverman, 2013), all of these are especially pertinent to social and emotional development and counseling practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In the absence of a federal mandate, policies and funding for the identification of and service options for gifted students are left to the discretion of individual states. Therefore, there is inconsistency in how the educational needs of gifted students are addressed across the nation. This chapter provides a national snapshot of the history and current status of gifted education as it relates to identification, programming, personnel preparation, and funding. Emerging trends that influence gifted education policy development at the state and local levels will also be examined with focus given to those policies intended to remedy equity issues. Following a discussion on the history and current condition of gifted education policy, legal issues that have resulted from a lack of coherent policy are explored. Seminal court cases, due process proceedings, and letters of findings from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights pertaining to gifted education are also examined. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the future direction of gifted education policy. Advocating for strong state and local gifted education policies requires informed advocates, influence, consensus, partnerships, and public relations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter begins with a provocative enigma: On one hand, the absolute number of gifted and talented people in the world must be extremely large; they may even be considered “a dime a dozen.” For example, suppose that anyone in the top 10% of some ability distribution could be considered gifted or talented. That implies that for every million people, there are at least 100,000 who qualify. Therefore, every metropolitan area could contain enough gifted and talented citizens to populate a large town. This number may actually be an underestimate because this example assumes that there is only one cross-sectional distribution from which the gifted and talented are taken. Yet, that is very unlikely the case. In line with Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences, the top 10% in mathematical ability need not be the same people as the top 10% in sports, art, or music. Accordingly, a city of a million would contain far more than 100,000 gifted and talented denizens. To be sure, some might argue that the 10% criterion is set too low and a top 1% threshold should be applied instead. Terman’s (1925) classic longitudinal study defined intellectual giftedness in terms of the top 1% of the school population in performance on an IQ test. Even when the bar is dramatically raised, the absolute number remains large: 10,000 gifted and talented people per million—and probably far more than this estimate if various abilities are largely uncorrelated. On the other hand, the absolute count of adults who have attained eminence in any given domain of achievement is appreciably smaller than the top 10% or top 1% of a population. When Zuckerman (1977) wanted to interview United States scientists who had received the Nobel Prize, only 56 laureates were then living in the country (out of which she was able to recruit 41). That figure is much, much smaller than even the number of scientific geniuses that would be expected to live in any major metropolitan area. Therefore, it seems that the probability of potential giftedness or talent developing to actual eminent achievement, or genius, is extremely small. Galton (1869) estimated that geniuses, as judged by eminence, number only around 250 per million adults, or about .025%—a very tiny proportion. Something seems to be happening between childhood and adulthood so that only a restricted elite progresses toward eminence. Many may enter the hopper at the beginning, but only a very small number emerge at the end. The purpose of this chapter is to examine this selection process by adopting a lifespan developmental perspective. The chapter begins with parental genetics and family environment, and then turns to education and training followed by a treatment of career trajectories and terminations, including death. To keep the discussion focused, the emphasis will be on creative talent. Even so, most of the developmental principles remain applicable to other forms of talent and giftedness, including exceptional achievement in music, sports, and games. Only simple talents, such as a gift for wiggling one’s ears, would likely fall outside the scope of these principles. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The treatment of expertise in this chapter is to consider expertise as a continuous variable, along which individuals differ to a greater or lesser degree, rather than a highly-selected group that represents only the “best,” in any particular domain. From this perspective, what makes an individual an expert is that he or she has a deep knowledge of a particular domain and the skills to express that knowledge. An extra capability for some experts is the ability to incorporate new information into the expert’s domain knowledge. There are two critical questions to be addressed in this chapter: What characteristics of an individual determine whether he or she will develop expertise? And how do these characteristics operate to enable the development of expertise? The first part of this chapter reviews some of the theories and empirical research on key traits (i.e., relatively stable and broad characteristics) related to the development of expertise. The second part of the chapter discusses some of the current ideas about how these traits combine with an individual’s direction and intensity of effort to yield expertise. The final section of the chapter considers the questions that are yet to be answered and strategies for shedding light on these enduring issues. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Do gifted students have unique social and emotional needs? Are gifted students more vulnerable to social and emotional difficulties than average-ability students? Common perceptions of the gifted include that they are more likely to suffer from emotional problems and more likely to have difficulties in social relationships (Bain, Choate, & Bliss, 2006), but what does the research say? Some researchers argue gifted individuals do have unique characteristics that render them particularly vulnerable to an array of social and emotional problems, such that gifted individuals experience the same developmental milestones and tasks as average-ability individuals (e.g., identity development, career decision-making, and friendship formation), but “the characteristics associated with giftedness . . . may make the subjective experience of meeting normal challenges qualitatively different from others’ experience and also sometimes hinder task accomplishment” (Peterson, 2009, p. 281). Further, some developmental tasks (e.g., development of abstract thought) are accelerated for gifted individuals compared with average-ability individuals (Moon, 2009). Others argue that gifted students are no more likely to be vulnerable to, or experience, social and emotional difficulties than students of average ability levels (Bain & Bell, 2004; Nail & Evans, 1997; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). The purpose of this chapter is to explore findings from existing research regarding the social and emotional development of gifted children and adolescents, as well as the circumstances in which social and emotional development may be compromised. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Research on gifted education in Africa has taken place sporadically, and in only a few countries. Moreover, very little (and no comprehensive) research has been undertaken on the topic because of the comprehensive chapter by Taylor and Kokot (2000), which remains the most comprehensive overview of research on the subject in Africa to date. This is deplorable, because there can be no doubt about the importance of education for the gifted (Bar-On, 2007a, 2007b). Millions of gifted people across the world are never given the opportunity to realize their potential, implying that, through the years, the world may have lost the likes of a Michelangelo, a Ludwig van Beethoven, a Sigmund Freud, a Mother Teresa, a Nelson Mandela, a Desmond Tutu, a Kofi Annan, or any of several other luminaries (Bar-On, 2007b). There are people who, irrespective of gender, mother tongue, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual preference, ethnicity, political belief, race, age, creed, or geographical location, could have made a major contribution to humankind. The situation in Africa is aggravated by rising unemployment rates resulting largely from major changes in the global economy (Maree, 2010, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a). The issue of gifted education can be best understood by considering Africa’s educational, social, political, cultural, and economic history. The reasons gifted African students do not fulfil their potential include adverse socioeconomic circumstances (e.g., not having access to good schooling), war conditions, and a childhood without caretakers. Moreover, society’s failure to acknowledge and support these gifted students (including the failure of education departments to acknowledge gifted students as a category of students who warrant special attention) contribute to the challenge of gifted students’ failure to construct themselves adequately. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter focuses on the use of the Woodcock-Johnson TV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ-IV-COG) and Woodcock- Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ-IV-ACH) in the assessment of students who may be gifted. To provide a context for this discussion, we first tackle the thorny issue of, "who are the gifted?" We then present the readers with the tripartite model of giftedness. Next, we discuss the various purposes of assessment of the gifted, basic principles, and fundamental beliefs underlying these assessments. Finally, we examine the unique strengths of the WJ IV COG and ACH for the assessment of the gifted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The Gifted Rating Scales-School Form (GRS-S), a teacher-completed rating scale, is designed to identify five types of giftedness and motivation. This study examines the reliability and validity of a Chinese-translated version of the GRS-S with a sample of Chinese elementary and middle school students (N=499). The Chinese GRSS was found to have high internal consistency. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis corroborated the six-factor solution of the original GRS-S. Comparison of the GRS-S scores and measures of academic performance provide preliminary support for the criterion validity of the Chinese-translated GRS-S. Significant age and gender differences on the Chinese GRS-S were found. Results provide preliminary support for the Chinese version of the GRS-S as a reliable and valid measure of giftedness for Chinese students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This chapter provides an overview on recent thinking about gifted and talented children and youth. The chapter briefly discusses a history of gifted education and then tackles some big picture issues and future possibilities. The chapter addresses a number of questions, including the following: Who are the gifted? How are gifted identified? Is giftedness domain-specific or domain-general? How malleable is giftedness? Does giftedness represent a qualitative or quantitative difference? How does the concept of expertise fit into gifted education? The chapter concludes with future directions and challenges facing the gifted field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Education administrators in most European countries seem to be aware that gifted and talented children need special provision to reach their potential. Their concerns can be seen in directives to schools where children with gifts and talents are valued, sought, and provided with appropriate educational services. However, these concerns are neither always obvious, nor necessarily evident in terms of actual official legislation. In many countries, notably in Scandinavia, the identification of gifted and talented children in education is purposefully avoided. Instead, educational aims are expressed as personalized and child-centered to help every child realize their potential. The preferred educational approaches in those countries where gifted education is overtly avoided are through in-school and out-of-school enrichment. When it is seen as necessary, a child may be offered extra teaching in a specialist area such as mathematics or music. Indeed, in theory, if each child is considered valuable and provided with an appropriate education, the most able will reach their potential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

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)

In this chapter, we try to note wherever presence or absence of privilege may mediate or moderate the results of investigations. What follows is an attempt to highlight all the research at the intersection of giftedness and gender—with attention to other intersectionalities that may make it more or less likely that a gifted girl will achieve eminence in her field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

There is a tension when it comes to educating underrepresented (i.e., racial/ethnic minority and economically poor) students. This tension may be especially heightened within the field of giftedness. It is impossible to discuss identifying and educating underrepresented gifted students without first addressing the history of marginalization in education. Genetics and race were considered related when determining who performed well (White students) and who did not (all other students; Helms, 1992). Detailing the extent of this marginalization is beyond the scope of this chapter, but it is clear that racial/ethnic minority psychologists have identified these biases in education, testing, and assessment (Guthrie, 1976; Helms, 1992; Suzuki, Ponterotto, & Meller, 2001). This history of marginalization and bias against underrepresented students, which many argue continues today, is not idiosyncratic or an issue for a specific teacher or psychologist. Instead, this marginalization has permeated many aspects of our society. R. T. Carter and Pieterse (2005) described interlocking and interdependent aspects related to the function and perpetuation of racism. They further elaborated on these interdependent aspects: sociopolitical refers to the unequal distribution of power and privilege, sociohistorical refers to the biased and inaccurate histories of peoples, and sociostructural refers to the established institutions and systems that perpetuate inequality (e.g., educational, legal, economic; Liu & Ali, 2005). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Talented students who are unmotivated to engage in academic tasks frustrate parents, educators, and psychologists (Colangelo, 2003; Renzulli, Reid, & Gubbins, 1991). When the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented conducted a national survey of educator concerns, the underachievement of gifted students topped the list (Renzulli et al., 1991). It is similarly a concern of psychologists and counselors. Colangelo (2002) suggested the “most intense counseling focus” (p. 14) for gifted students is underachievement. Colangelo (2003) also noted that underachievement is the problem that counselors in his Center most often addressed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

We wanted a catchy title for this potentially pedantic topic, but now that we may have one, it probably needs to be explained. Why “double Slinky phenomenon”? A Slinky is a coiled steel spring that “walks” when the top end is pulled down from the first to the second of a series of stairs or the top part of a ramp, then the trailing part leap-frogs to the third step or lower down the inclined plane, and so on. With two Slinkys working their way down, the progress was mostly but not entirely smooth or predictable, and one or the other would pull ahead or fall behind. Sometimes the two might even contact each other. Now let’s name one Slinky “gifted education” and the other “general education” and send them on their way. This is the visual image we want to create for our narrative. Dual Slinkys, unevenly making their way along, only sometimes in synchrony even though they were made in the same factory. The analogy is imperfect, especially because education is an uphill rather than downhill enterprise, and not in a straight line, but we hope the image can remain in mind as we get to the main point of the chapter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

There is a long history of interest in the adjustment of gifted children. Generally, two views have prevailed. The first view is that gifted children as a group are better adjusted than their typically developing peers, because they are capable of greater understanding of self and others. Therefore, they cope better with stress and conflicts. Many empirical studies support this view (Neihart, Pfeiffer, & Cross, 2015). The second view is that gifted children are more at-risk for psychological problems, particularly during adolescence and adulthood, because they are more sensitive to interpersonal conflicts and experience greater degrees of alienation and stress (Silverman, 2012). There is some evidence to support this idea (e.g., Gross, 1993, 2006). Gifted children do have unique psychological issues, but these do not arise from giftedness itself. Rather, giftedness seems to add complexity to an individual that can either enhance or interfere with healthy adjustment, depending on several factors. The aim of this chapter is to summarize the research on these factors and describe practical implications that have an evidence base. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)