Su búsqueda

Bullying among school-age youth continues to be cause for concern. In a recent U.S. national survey, approximately 28% of 12- to 18-year-old students reported they had been bullied at school during the school year, and victimization was highest among sixth graders (37%) compared to seventh or eighth graders (30% and 31% percent, respectively; Robers, Kemp, & Truman, 2013). It is not surprising that sixth graders reported more bullying, given that this is the year that most students transition to middle school. Gifted youth are at particular risk for being targets of bullying (Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). Longitudinal data show that victims of bullying have compromised social, emotional, and academic development (Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011) and even physical health (Copeland et al., 2014). Studies have documented that victims often experience depression, social anxiety, and low self-esteem, which could then contribute to academic and social challenges (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010). From 1970 through 2014, approximately 14 peer-reviewed articles and four dissertations focused on bullying, aggression, or victimization among gifted or exceptional children. Less than five of these studies were conducted outside of the United States. In comparison to numerous studies focusing on students in general education and students with disabilities (Blake, Lund, Zhou, Kwok, & Benz, 2012; Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001; Rose, Espelage, Aragon, & Elliot, 2011), studies examining the rates of victimization and bullying among gifted students generally only include gifted students and lack a general education control group. However, studies including gifted students suggest that these students are bullied and victimized at similar, but not elevated, rates of other student populations, but they may experience it differently and in different forms (Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). These two studies (one quantitative, one qualitative) were drawn from the same nationally representative sample of 432 eighth graders in the United States with no control group, indicating that the findings should be viewed with caution. In this chapter, we define bullying and giftedness and review of the few studies on this topic. Promising interventions for bully prevention are described and recommendations for future research are provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The term gifted means that an individual is exceptional at something and we prefer to use the term as an adjective (e.g., he or she is a gifted pianist, etc.) rather than as a noun (e.g., the gifted). We also talk about gifted behaviors rather than use giftedness to represent a state of being. The study of gifts and talents and the ways in which individuals’ abilities interact with and are affected by environment, personality, educational opportunities, family support, and life experiences have fascinated researchers for several decades. As we consider our scholarly and school-based experiences in developing programs and identification systems for high potential students, as well as our knowledge base about how giftedness can be developed in children and adolescents, several common themes emerge about talent development and giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Perfectionism has long been considered a characteristic associated with giftedness. In this chapter, we make the case for a multivalenced view of perfectionism as it relates to the concept of giftedness. This view is derived from several conceptual and empirical approaches for understanding the effects that traits and characteristic adaptations have on various outcomes. The perfectionism literature generally supports two higher-order latent factors of perfectionistic strivings and concerns, and three or four latent class differentiations into adaptive, maladaptive, and nonperfectionistic groups. We pay particular attention to the implications of such a model for various kinds of challenges that gifted individuals may face. In general, much of the research supports other findings regarding the generally positive psychological health and resilience of the gifted, but also suggests that a subgroup may be at risk for stress-related adjustment difficulties. We conclude this chapter with methodological recommendations aimed at encouraging more contemporary and diversified approaches to measurement and to modeling classes and change trajectories to capture uniquely intersecting aspects of perfectionism and giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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, we outline contemporary efforts to create and implement “alternative” models of gifted education identification or program selection. We address where these models have been successful and where they have stumbled, and on the basis of these findings, we offer recommendations for practice for psychologists and teachers who are charged with developing and implementing identification practices in K–12 schools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Our economy and quality of life increasingly depend on innovative ideas and products, and businesses and society in general are calling for more creativity in our communities. This is being seen in schools, with an emphasis on problem solving and creativity in the curriculum, such as can be found in efforts to focus K–12 education on 21st century skills (Plucker, Kaufman, & Beghetto, 2015). Although there are increasing amounts of research on how to enhance creativity in the classroom, teaching for creativity is not a common practice in most K–12 schools (Sternberg, 2015). For example, Schacter, Thum, and Zifkin (2006) found on average that teachers perform very few creative behaviors. Many teachers know little about how to implement interventions for creativity enhancement, and they may even feel reluctant to learn how to approach the topic. In this chapter, we review the major theoretical work that underlies intervention efforts, review specific techniques and strategies for fostering creativity, and examine broader policy issues that may impact creativity enhancement efforts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter focuses on the remarkable research base and impact on practice of the talent search model. Researchers, educators, psychologists, and policymakers citing Pressey’s (1949) definition of acceleration typically do not include Pressey’s explanation of conventional education. However, understanding conventional or regular education is critical to a thorough understanding of the phenomenal impact of the talent search model, most of which occurs outside of the typical school setting. Pressey described “conventional or regular for an American child [is] to enter school shortly before or after his [or her] sixth birthday, to take a grade a year thereafter for twelve years, to enter college around eighteen, and graduate around twenty-two” (p. 2). In other words, Pressey’s definition of conventional education does not include acceleration. Pressey’s definitional paragraph concludes with questions salient to the topic of acceleration and the talent search model: “Whether the conventional pace and the normal ages are desirable [emphasis added] is an issue still to be determined, as is also the extent to which deviations from an established rate may be desirable for certain individuals” (p. 2). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter argued that talent, giftedness, creativity, and elite performance are not solely the products of innate genetic gifts resulting in superior abilities. Instead, we agree with other scholars in these fields (e.g., Simonton, 2014; Subotnik et al., 2011) that what is most important is to understand the dynamic interplay between individual abilities and environmental opportunities. The experience of flow is influential in the development of the individual and of society because it requires an ongoing balance of challenge and skill, immediate feedback, and clear and proximate goals, and serves the development of an increasingly complex self, which is capable of expressing the full range of human potentialities. By providing opportunities for these types of optimal experiences in daily activities, parents, teachers, gatekeepers of social institutions, and policy makers can serve the development of creative individuals and the evolution of culture. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Before this chapter can focus on international perspectives and trends in research on giftedness and talent development, we need to clarify the meaning of central key terms. Neither common usage nor scientific parlance offer generally accepted definitions of giftedness and talent (Carman, 2013). Most definitions fit roughly into one of four categories: psychometric definitions, performance definitions, labeling definitions, and specific giftedness/talent definitions. According to psychometric definitions, the terms apply to individuals who score well in psychometric tests (e.g., tests of intelligence or creativity). Performance definitions describe those individuals as gifted or talented who demonstrate high achievements, for instance the best pupil in a certain class or a school valedictorian. According to labeling definitions, gifts/talents are socially accorded, usually by an expert. In the case of specific giftedness/talent definitions, strengths in a particular domain (e.g., music, mathematics, endurance running) qualify a person as gifted or talented. The lack of uniform distinctions between the terms giftedness and talent is as problematic as the sheer variety of definitions that can be found in the literature. There is no generally accepted understanding of the difference between the two. Although some researchers use both terms synonymously (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1986), others seek clear distinctions. Some researchers view talent as a hyponym of giftedness (e.g., Haensly, Reynolds, & Nash, 1986); others equate talent with potential and giftedness with achievements (e.g., Tannenbaum, 1986; but cf. also Gagné, 2005). In this chapter we will use the terms giftedness and talent as conceptually overlapping terms (e.g., Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

There is considerable diversity among South American countries in relation to regulations and procedures for identifying and developing giftedness in children and adolescents. The experiences of three South American countries (Brazil, Peru, and Uruguay) are described to illustrate the variety of approaches. Although these countries do not share the same cultural or linguistic backgrounds, there are commonalities among them regarding the development of gifted children and adolescents. Despite federal and state regulations regarding education for high-ability and gifted children, educators still face many challenges when implementing these laws, including myths regarding giftedness in the general population. Resources provided to public education in these countries are scarce, however several programs are being offered to improve motivation and excellence among gifted children and adolescents. The role of professional associations and research on giftedness is considered of vital importance to increase public awareness of the social and educational needs of this special population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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)

In this chapter, we focus on research that is most pertinent to gifted education. We begin with an overview of the constructs (organized within the three original pillars of positive psychology) relevant to youth, education, and gifted education. First, we offer a working definition of giftedness and gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Negative responses to the proposal that eminence should be the ultimate outcome of gifted education was surprising to us, especially as this outcome emerged from the extant literature (e.g., Albert, 1992a). As should be the case, the responses led us to revisit the proposed role of eminence in a formulation of gifted education. We concluded that we did not articulate what we meant as clearly as we intended, an omission that this chapter attempts to rectify by incorporating our most recent thinking on this issue. Additionally, much of the pushback against eminence is based on a misunderstanding of the concept and the process by which eminence is attained. To set the stage for addressing these misconceptions, we discuss definitions of eminence, and propose a definition of our own (see also Chapter 18, this handbook). We review some of the definitions of giftedness and talent in our field, and the reasons why individuals are identified for gifted and talented programs. We also highlight the similarities between the goals of gifted education in several of the well-known models of gifted education and the quest for eminence, drawing from the extant literature on outstanding performers as well as more popular media, and addressing the focus on a small elite population. We also discuss eminence in relation to groups that are underrepresented in gifted and talented education programs in school. Finally, we conclude with a rationale for proposing eminence as a goal for gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Family is the first and often most powerful influence on a developing child, impacting the existence and quality of educational opportunities, promoting productive mindsets and meaningful values and beliefs, and encouraging cognitive, social, psychological, and emotional growth. For a gifted child, the influence of family can determine whether talent is recognized and allowed to flourish. In this chapter, we present research findings on the psychological aspects of family functioning as they affect talent development. We also discuss parenting within a general conceptual and developmental model for talent development. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter focuses on a conception of giftedness that encompasses five main principles in defense of domain-specific talent development. First, ability is a cornerstone of talent development, especially ability in specific domains (e.g., mathematics, music, creative writing). Second, foundational abilities are malleable and need to be developed. These developing abilities begin, peak, and end their trajectories at different ages. That is, talent in violin or mathematics may be recognizable in elementary school with reasonable accuracy, whereas potential giftedness in diplomacy or mediation skills may not emerge until adulthood. Third, to transform potential into accomplishment, opportunities need to be offered to talented individuals that match their stage of talent development, and it is important that talented individuals take those opportunities. Fourth, all individuals can benefit from psychosocial skills training or coaching to enhance their performance and confidence in risk taking. Some children and adolescents are reluctant to take opportunities when offered, which may be due to underdeveloped psychosocial skills. Fifth, in this conception of talent development, the aspired outcome of gifted education is to prepare talented youth seeking to “change the world” to transform their abilities into creative or path-breaking contributions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

For a topic that can seem amorphous, mystical, or impossible to study, creativity has more than 65 years of active research and a surprisingly high level of agreement on fundamental issues. Unlike many topics, scholars, teachers, and students of creativity can apply their knowledge to their own lives and to enrich the lives of those near them. Creativity has an array of benefits, from personal to professional to global, which are often assumed and not actively studied (Forgeard & Kaufman, 2016). A strong creativity advocate knows the facts about the topic, models creativity in her own life, and defends, enables, and nurtures creativity in the classroom and the world. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Career development theories are one attempt to provide informed guidance to an individual and to explain how one chooses an occupational direction in life on the basis of a number of factors. Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) can be an appropriate conceptual framework through which counselors can explore and support gifted individuals’ career decision making (Watters, 2010). Counselors and psychologists, by nature of their training, are also commonly versed in this vocational theory and could apply it in their work with gifted students. The purpose of this chapter is fivefold: (a) elaborate on the tenets of SCCT in comparison with other historical and contemporary career theories; (b) detail specific research findings pertaining to the use of career theories, including SCCT, with gifted and talented individuals; (c) offer an overview of the career needs of gifted individuals; (d) provide examples of how SCCT can be applied by school counselors and career counselors to gifted and talented young adults; and (e) suggest support strategies for gifted individuals’ career development and related lines of research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Gifted education exists at the intersection of psychology and education. The roots of gifted education are deeply intertwined with the roots of psychological science (Robinson & Jolly, 2014). Psychology is one of the most wide-ranging of the scientific fields, and it contains numerous perspectives, foci, and philosophical orientations. We speak not of the traditional division of psychology into its recognizable subfields (e.g., clinical, developmental, cognitive, biological, etc.), but rather we note those perspectives and orientations that cut across subdisciplines, providing unified worldviews through which phenomena are understood. One of those dominant perspectives is known as trait theory. This perspective explains individual differences in behavior or performance in terms of differences in underlying traits, which are components shared by all individuals but whose strength or quantity varies between individuals (Elkind, 1981), exemplified by the psychometric approach to studying human intelligence (cf. Carroll, 1993), as well as personality psychology from Allport (1937) to the present. We summarize the trait theory perspective as follows: Individuals are collections of traits—general intelligence (g), Big Five personality components (e.g., extraversion and openness), grit, narcissism, aggression, mindfulness, and so on. These traits exist as latent variables and can be measured using carefully designed and validated psychological or educational instruments. Typically, there is no intrinsically meaningful metric for measuring these traits, so they are often expressed on a norm-referenced basis. These traits are relatively stable over time, though this stability varies considerably according to the nature of the trait. For example, conscientiousness (a Big Five personality component) is more stable than depression (a psychological condition that is responsive to stress, medication, and treatment). Individuals vary widely in their endowment with respect to these traits. The quantity of each trait possessed by individuals results in observable differences in behavior and performance that are relatively stable across contexts. Gifted education is rooted in this perspective, which has been fruitful, led to many important discoveries, and provided the underlying rationale for a large portion of the interventionist wing of psychology. However, like all perspectives, the focus on traits has significant limitations and “blind spots.” In this chapter, we argue that moving beyond this perspective is necessary for our field to make continued progress with respect to its scientific agenda—understanding the nature of precocious intellectual talent in childhood and exceptional achievement in adulthood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Research on emotional intelligence (EI) may inform understanding of the characteristics of emotional functioning in gifted children (Pfeiffer, 2001). This construct remains controversial in educational psychology, but it may prove useful for exploring interrelationships between cognitive and social–emotional competencies (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Indeed, the pioneers of systematic testing for EI (Mayer, Perkins, Caruso, & Salovey, 2001) proposed that children high in EI should be able to represent information about emotional encounters in greater accuracy, depth, and richness, supporting social adaptation. In this chapter, we explore possible relationships between intellectual giftedness and EI, covering conceptual bases, empirical research, and applications in education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

How we view young children matters. It influences ways we interact with, respond to, and predict outcomes of young children’s learning. We may think about the image of young children through a metaphor of lenses—with what lenses are children viewed? Are they seen as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge, or as competent and curious human beings, ready to explore the world around them? If children are viewed as gifted, or as having potential for advanced or accelerated work, does that change the teaching of and interactions with these children? In this chapter, we focus on young children (ages 3–8, preschool–third grade), excluding, for the most part, the development of infants and toddlers. Preschool-age children enter the world of academia expected to build kindergarten readiness skills. Many preschoolers already demonstrate mastery of academics, and show the need for a different type of preschool curriculum and instruction. However, others come to preschool from homes where English is not spoken, or from homes where parents did not have enough money or time to provide enriched learning experiences (e.g., travel, visits to the library, campouts in the woods). Do teachers view students who can already read and write as more intelligent or more gifted than those who have not yet been exposed to the types of experiences that would nourish and develop literacy and mathematical thinking? How do teachers view young children who are ahead of their peers—gifted, precocious, or advanced? How do those labels impact the teachers’ interactions and expectations of those students? Views and beliefs about people matter. Having high expectations for children impacts their academic achievement, and stereotype threat can influence achievement (Steele, 2011). Stereotype threat occurs when people are or feel themselves to be at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their identities. In the case of gifted students, who have identities that relate to their intelligence, the way they view their own talents and intelligence impacts not only their achievement, but their willingness to attack challenging problems and grow (Dweck, 2006). Knowing how we think about children impacts our interactions and ultimately their outcomes; therefore, we must be cautious not to project stereotypes, biases, or labels on children. Instead, we must address all children with the intent to learn about them, to connect what they know with new knowledge, and to provide learning contexts that maximize their growth opportunities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)