Su búsqueda

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)

When the great psychometrician Louis L. Thurstone migrated from engineering to psychology, he noticed an important difference between psychologists and engineers. He observed that when engineers are confronted with a problem, they begin to think, whereas when psychologists are confronted with a problem, they begin to talk (Thurstone, 1952). Happily, over the past 3 decades, highly replicable empirical findings from multiple longitudinal studies on tens of thousands of participants have revealed important things to think about and talk about. These findings are critical for understanding educational, occupational, and creative outcomes among students who learn abstract/symbolic material at precocious rates. Some of the most salient longitudinal advances in recent times involve intellectual abilities, the primary focus of this chapter. Arguably the two most important points uncovered by modern longitudinal research are (a) assessing intellectual abilities within the top 1% of ability and (b) doing so multidimensionally. For optimal practice and theorizing, both are essential. Because of the need to focus more systematically on objective assessments of intellectual capacities in the gifted field (Warne, 2016), this chapter focuses on recent advances based on objective assessments because these determinants identify populations that learn at precocious rates. Thus, these determinants are central. Yet, because the importance of intellectual abilities, commitment, interests, and opportunity are all needed to understand precocious intellectual development, a comprehensive model encompassing intellectual and motivational determinants is further recommended (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000, 2006). This model is, in turn, enriched by broader lifestyle determinants (Ferriman, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009; Lubinski, Benbow, & Kell, 2014), which are crucial for understanding how outstanding educational, occupational, and creative accomplishments unfold over the lifespan among intellectually talented populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In the fictional Harry Potter series, one of the tools in Harry’s arsenal against the evil Lord Voldermort is his cloak of invisibility. With this cloak, Harry is able to walk the halls of Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry unseen by those around him (Rowling, 1997). This phenomenon occurs daily in hallways and classrooms of schools all across the country, though not for the greater good, as twice-exceptional students’ gifts, and even their challenges, may go unrecognized by teachers, counselors, and administrators. Moon and Reis (2004) asserted that because it is outside the norm, giftedness is, by definition, exceptionality. For students to be considered twice exceptional, they must display characteristics associated with giftedness and with one or more learning or behavioral disorders (Baum & Olenchak, 2002; Baum, Olenchak, & Owen, 1998; Moon & Reis, 2004). Much like giftedness, varying definitions of twice-exceptionality exist. In 2009, a joint task force consisting of representatives from the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, the Association for the Education of Gifted Underachieving Students, and the Bridges Academy developed a comprehensive definition that encompassed the identification and servicing of this unique population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Motivation is generally regarded as an important component for success, in school and at work. Motivation provides the fuel to ignite abilities and transform them into achievements. Although natural talent or giftedness predicts academic and career success, motivation is the catalyst that allows ability to be harnessed to accomplish those great successes. Even when endowed with natural talent or potential, without adequate motivation, gifted students are unable to fully develop their talents. The word motivation comes from the Latin root moveo, which means “to move.” In the Merriam-Webster dictionary motivation is defined as the act or process of giving someone a reason for doing something. It is also described as a force or influence that causes someone to do something. These general definitions of motivation capture the emphasis on being moved to action. Deckers (2001) defines motivation as “inducing behavior”—stimuli that motivate us to take action are those that transform potential energy into kinetic energy. This transformation is literal and figurative. In the absence of motivation, ability or potential cannot be transformed into products or performance. Therefore, ability without motivation is like wind without a windmill. The energy produced by the wind must be harnessed to produce electricity. So too must ability be coupled with motivation to produce achievement. Often motivation and ability are pitted against each other. An admission of the importance of one of these traits is often perceived as an indictment of the other. In fact, a recent issue of Intelligence was devoted to answering the question “Is ability necessary to explain the development of expertise?” (Detterman, 2014, p. 1). Interestingly, the special issue treated as fact the necessity of motivation and deliberate practice on the development of expertise in a domain. Instead, the authors debated whether ability played any role in the development of expertise. We agree with Ackerman (2014) that achievement or performance in any domain requires ability and motivation: “In any theory of performance…, motivation is one of the two essential ingredients of performance (the other being the capacity to perform the behavior)” (p. 11; see also Chapter 17, this handbook). Although academic and occupational success appear to require ability and motivation, the relationship between giftedness and motivation is less clear. Are gifted students more motivated than other students? Are gifted adults more motivated than other adults? Does motivation manifest itself differently in the gifted? Is motivation more or less essential to the success of the gifted? Do traditional motivational theories apply to the gifted? Or are different theories necessary to explain the formation and role of motivation within gifted populations? In this chapter, we explore the empirical research on motivation as it relates to giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The purpose of this chapter is to provide psychologists and other professionals with a foundation for working with twice-exceptional students in clinical and educational settings. The discussion is grounded in a historical context outlining how twice-exceptionality has evolved since first recognized, and the rationale for why professionals should conceptualize students’ strengths and areas of concern within a social–ecological theoretical perspective. Extant research findings describing empirically validated interventions with twice-exceptional students are summarized, followed by practice and policy implications and multicultural considerations. Finally, future directions will be offered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)