Su búsqueda

In this chapter, the integrative model of talent development (IMTD), and especially its differentiating model of giftedness and talent (DMGT) component, will serve as the conceptual framework to answer the five following questions: (1) How does the DMGT distinguish gifts from talents? (2) How does the DMGT describe the talent development process? (3) Where do gifts come from; are they innate? (4) How can we best foster academic talent development? (5) What makes the DMGT/IMTD unique? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Gifted people have a special responsibility to use their talent to participate in finding out novel solutions to the challenges of our century. This chapter focuses on the practices of talent support actions that may foster contemplation, creative; deep thinking; and deliberative discussions of gifted people. Importantly, the chapter links these practices to the development of wisdom, as an emergent property of mind that can be obtained by the successful integration of life experiences, where success means a balanced, impartial, and independent life and is guided by universal love—as explained in the next section. Summarizing three case studies of talent support programs, this chapter shows that developing deep thinking and wisdom is an important, but heretofore not well-developed, aspect of gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Athletic talent development typically follows a similar path (often conceptualized as a pyramid) regardless of the sport of interest. At the base, we find children engaged in play or recreation, with local clubs and high school sports typically forming the next level. Some young athletes are identified for entry into elite programs, such as traveling teams or Olympic development programs. From there, athletes join regional or college teams. Next may come a pre-elite level. Finally, the tip of the pyramid is the elite level comprised of professional and Olympic athletes. To understand effective talent development, it is important to first take a critical look at this traditional pathway. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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)

Unfortunately, an approach to talent identification that suggests that individuals either are or are not gifted fails to recognize the complex nature of cognitive abilities and the many factors that influence the development of those abilities in children and adolescents. Although talent search programs do require certain scores for eligibility for their programs, the purpose of the talent search assessment is not to determine who is gifted, but to provide insight into students’ abilities so that academic needs can be met in school and elsewhere through appropriate programmatic options. There is much in this approach to talent identification and development that schools might replicate as they seek to address the needs of students who exhibit advanced academic abilities and/or achievement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

An unfortunate feature of much research is the tendency to attract attention—such as increased citations—by advocating extreme positions on difficult questions, the nature-nurture issue decidedly among them. The downside of this practice for our understanding of giftedness is that the complex interactions between genetic and environmental factors tend to get overlooked. Worse yet, in minimizing the function of one or the other side of the debate, proponents of single-factor explanations tend to vastly oversimplify the supposed operation of the neglected factor. That oversimplification is certainly apparent in the advocates of deliberate practice as the sole factor in talent development—a point that I wish to elaborate in this chapter. As will be seen below, the genetics of genius, talent, or giftedness is far more complex and nuanced than these extremists realize. I begin by showing that any innate gift or talent for a given domain must be defined in terms of deliberate practice for the definition to feature any scientific validity. I then focus specifically on the genetics side of the foregoing demonstration, showing that nature most likely operates in a far more complex and dynamic manner than often realized. A gift or talent does not work anything like the inheritance of eye color or even height. After these two arguments are presented, I close by discussing some implications for practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Grouping used by teachers to address the diverse needs of their students and with aim to close the achievement gaps has become more popular recently and is one set of education strategies. Grouping can be used in schools to meet the needs of students with gifts and talents without incurring additional cost. However, grouping, and specifically, ability grouping, has been the subject of much and heated debate during the past three decades. Researchers from both sides of the ability grouping debate continue to discuss the pros and cons of its application in schools. As such, not all educators support the use of grouping, and further, not all forms of grouping strategies bring about the same results. For grouping strategies to appropriately meet the needs of students with gifts and talents, there are more factors to consider than simply putting students of similar levels of academic achievement together. Namely, curriculum and instruction has to be adjusted to accommodate the needs of these students, and care must be taken to ensure that other students receive appropriately enriched instruction and interesting curriculum so that they have a high-quality education that promotes academic growth and achievement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Paula has been teaching for more than 30 years at a school specializing in gifted education. She loves working with her students, who are quick and dedicated learners. In 2016, the school was taken over by a new consortium, which decided to adopt a more contemporary school approach to replace the existing one that had been in force for more than 30 years. The consortium appointed Paula to put together an Innovation Team to oversee the transition to the new structure. Paula happily accepted. In this chapter, we will report Paula's initial thought processes. She was fully cognizant that the efficiency and success of the Innovation Team would depend on the quality of her preparatory work. Along with carefully monitoring and analyzing her school and conducting a thorough examination of the relevant literature, she also consulted several experts from various backgrounds. These included experts in gifted education (representatives from other gifted schools and researchers), experts in administration and governance, parents of gifted students, and organizational psychologists and sociologists. She also consulted specialists, such as the program director of a mentoring program and the head of a school specializing in self-regulated learning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Both qualitative and quantitative longitudinal studies of school-wide enrichment model (SEM) gifted programs demonstrate positive outcomes in cognitive, affective, and social development of participating students. The participants increased their college and work aspirations, and maintained interests and creative productive work that begin in gifted programs after they finished college and graduate school. It is our hope that more schools and districts will continue to implement talent development programs based on the SEM in the years to come, whether as part of gifted or enrichment programs, magnet or theme schools, or as a part of a general education program. During the last decade, several Renzulli Academies, schools based on the SEM using the SEM-based strategies and methods described in this chapter, have been developed, focusing on the pedagogy described in this chapter for high-potential students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

When educational opportunities at any level are not offered as part of the public educational system, then some families will seek them at their own cost and some will not or cannot. This is one of the reasons that educational achievement and family income are so highly correlated—money is often directly linked to access educational opportunity. Families who are aware of supplementary options, can afford them, have the time to seek them out and enroll their children in them, and are willing to do so even when such content is not part of the local school’s curriculum, will take advantage of such opportunities in order to further their child’s learning. Some of this is due to financial capital and some due to cultural capital—the culture of knowing and being willing to challenge the system. All parents would want to provide advanced opportunities to their children, but only some have that option due to financial, cultural, logistical, or political barriers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Our goal in this chapter is to share a sociocultural perspective on gifted education and talent development that addresses the importance of context in children's development. Indeed, we believe context should be the primary concern of educators working with advanced students. We begin by defining our terms, followed by a summary of sociocultural perspectives on talent development. The chapter closes with an examination of the implications of this perspective for educators. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The premise is that gifted education should have the same goal as any other educational intervention or curriculum in schools—that is, to assure that all students are challenged in their learning to the degree necessary to develop to their full potential. To meet this goal, we argue that gifted education programs and services are needed only when and if students are not otherwise having their instructional needs met. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight three acceleration interventions, (a) above-level testing, (b) content acceleration in math, and, (c) Advanced Placement. Each intervention is practical in its approach and grounded in university-based partnerships. The identification process for each of the three interventions varies. However, the goal of each intervention is to address the needs of academically talented students through one or more forms of acceleration. Although we do not adhere to a single definition of gifted and talented, we regard a gifted student as an individual who is ready to learn advanced material, in more depth, at a faster rate, and earlier age than their grade cohort or their age-peers. These are students who are typically considered very high achievers, a concept that is operationalized through their performance on grade-level standardized tests. Typically, these high achievers earn scores that are near or have hit the ceiling of the grade-level test. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In the Achievement Orientation Model, giftedness involves performance, rather than some measure of potential. Although we agree that individuals vary greatly on their potential to achieve, ultimately their accomplishments determine their giftedness rather than their latent potential. Therefore, our model supports a developmental perspective of giftedness that fits well with the work of those who support a talent development approach to giftedness. Although we do not attempt to address who is or is not gifted with our model, we do address what attitudes and beliefs gifted individuals possess when they pursue achievement. The Achievement Orientation Model addresses the beliefs individuals have about themselves and their environment when those conditions exist. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Imagine a scenario where you wake up as principal of an elementary school. You are standing in front of parents explaining the implementation of a new gifted program. In this dream, you are describing to the audience how you will be serving high IQ children with a daily program designed to enhance and support the participating children’s gifts. The next night you are once again in the limelight at a parent meeting rationalizing a new program for mathematically talented students, selected by virtue of demonstrated interest, achievement, and creativity in mathematics. What arguments would you use in each case? Which program would be easier for you to explain to the parents and to other audiences in your professional world? We hope in this chapter to acknowledge drawbacks while leaving readers as supporters of the domain-specific talent development approach to gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The Autonomous Learner Model incorporates the needs of the whole gifted child, looking at giftedness and potential. This model moves beyond the label of "gifted and talented" to understanding giftedness as an integral part of who the learner truly is. A brief description of the model's five dimensions and four domains follows. These dimensions will be discussed in detail in the application section of this chapter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

It is a grave understatement and injustice to ignore a long-term reality that certain students of color (i.e.. Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans) have historically been relegated to a footnote and/or second-class status in gifted education definitions, theories, measures, and policies. Early scholarship on intelligence, and, thus, giftedness, all but ignored cultural variables. Hence, many students of color were (and are) significantly underrepresented in gifted education; this is particularly the case for Blacks and Hispanics. In this chapter, we present three frameworks to help gifted educators become culturally responsive and equitable: (1) Ford's Venn diagram of culturally responsive gifted education applied to characteristics, referrals, definitions, philosophy, evaluation, and curriculum; (2) an equity formula adopted from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and (3) Ford's revised Bloom-Banks Matrix. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)