Su búsqueda

This article presents a new, systems theory of creative giftedness. The system has three major parts: the person, the ecological context in which the person operates, and the creative contributions that the person makes. Creative giftedness thus is seen as an interaction between the person, the ecological context, and the tasks that the individual undertakes within that context. Suggestions are given as to how to develop creative giftedness within this theoretical approach.

In this article, I discuss two kinds of giftedness, transactional and transformational. Transformational giftedness is giftedness that is transformative. Transformationally gifted individuals seek positively to change the world at some level—in their own way, to make the world a better place. Transactional giftedness is giftedness that is based on exchange. It is tit-for-tat in nature. The individual is identified as gifted and then expects and is expected to do something in return. That something, for children, is typically high-level performance in academic coursework. Society also may expect that the individual later in life will continue to show high educational achievement. The two kinds of giftedness are not inborn. Rather, they are shaped through life in school and in the home interacting with the personal attitudes toward life of the gifted individual. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

The focus of the field of giftedness is on the wrong thing. Instead of focusing on identifying who is gifted, the field should identify how people will deploy their gifts and educate students to deploy their gifts in ways that will make the world a better place. In this article, I present at least a partial taxonomy of how gifts can be deployed and discuss how the taxonomy can be used to shift the emphasis in the field. In particular, I discuss nine types of giftedness: Type 1—unidentified; Type 2—inert (largely undeployed) giftedness; Type 3—fully transactional giftedness (where one gives something back in return for getting something); Type 4—self-transformational giftedness (where one transforms oneself but not others); Type 5—other-transformational giftedness (where one transforms others but not oneself); Type 6—full transformational giftedness (where one transforms both oneself and others); Type 7—self-destructive giftedness (where one’s gifts are deployed self-destructively); Type 8—other-destructive giftedness (where one’s gifts are deployed toward destroying others); and Type 9—full pseudo-transformational giftedness (where one’s gifts are destructive of oneself and others). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Two implicit metaphors can be seen as having dominated the study of the gifted—the savings bank and the investment bank. In the savings-bank metaphor, people have differential levels of IQ or general intelligence, which is viewed as determining whether they are gifted. Their cognitive ability is their metaphorical “money in the bank.” In the investment-bank metaphor, people are seen as having differential investments in varied kinds of abilities and talents. Their pattern of abilities is their metaphorical portfolio of investments. A better implicit metaphor might be the foundation, however, whose effectiveness is judged by the worthiness of the transformational causes to which it contributes and the effectiveness of the use of the foundation’s assets toward these causes. A person is gifted by virtue not merely of the assets they have but of how they transformationally deploy those assets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This article reviews the implications of many of the major schools in the history of psychology for understanding giftedness and its inner workings: operationist, psychometric, psychoanalytic, associationist, behaviorist, Gestalt, cognitive, humanistic/positive psychology, functionalist/pragmatic/constructivist, cultural, and biological. Each paradigm has elucidated different aspects of human nature and functioning, and each has somewhat different implications for how we can understand giftedness. No one paradigm can provide complete understanding of giftedness. Rather, the paradigms should be viewed as different windows toward understanding giftedness, all of which together tell us much more than any individual one. It is regrettable that so many theorists and practitioners have locked themselves into an operationist paradigm, which simply accepts current measurement operations as sufficient for identifying and developing giftedness. The operationist paradigm is wholly insufficient to meet the challenges of the world of the 21st century. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

The late Marcia Gentry sought equity in the identification and instruction of the gifted. This was a noble and proper goal: Inequity has been a problem in the field of giftedness since the very beginning. A related challenge that feeds into the inequity problem is that educators often look for the wrong thing. What matters is not merely how gifted a person is, or how many gifts they possess, but rather what they do with those gifts. Many of the problems in today’s world derive from people who are gifted and then use their gifts for selfish and even narcissistic ends. A model is needed that takes into account one’s deployment of gifts, not just one’s possession of them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

The field of giftedness—including educators, theorists, and researchers--needs to show more cognizance of a phenomenon that is rearing its ugly head in more and more visible ways, namely, dark giftedness. Dark giftedness is giftedness used for bad and even toxic ends. Being gifted provides little, if any protection against the dark deployment of the abilities, talents, and skills that lead one to be viewed as gifted. The field of giftedness needs to take responsibility for identifying dark giftedness and mitigating its effects, to the extent possible. It needs also to teach gifted young people to use their gifts for positive rather than negative ends. The field of giftedness cannot assume that this will happen automatically, or that by ignoring the world-pervasive problem of dark giftedness, the problem will somehow not, nevertheless, be part of its responsibility to understand and assuage. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This article discusses a problem in the field of giftedness—the meaning and deployment of giftedness in authoritarian systems, or in declining, failing, or pseudo-democracies. This problem exists for much of the world’s population yet seems to be relatively little discussed. The article opens with a consideration of what the problem is. It then discusses how widespread it is—it applies to most of the world’s population. Indeed, much of what is discussed in teaching of the gifted, with regard to both content and pedagogy, truly can be applied fully only to those who live in relatively free countries, as wide-ranging creative and critical thinking may be suppressed in nondemocratic societies. The article then discusses the roles individuals can play in declining or non-free societies, and the defense mechanisms they use to justify certain roles. The article further discusses ways of teaching in various societies, and the risks these ways of teaching pose. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

The kind of transactional, or tit-for-tat giftedness that so many programs identify and develop will not help to create a better world. Yet, if anyone is in a position to create a better world, it is our gifted young people. In this article, roles are presented that can be used to create change in the world. Some of these roles, when applied toward good causes, can be positive—advocate, activist, and champion. Others tend to be negative—fool, fanatic, and spoiler. We should teach in a way that encourages gifted students to become champions of positive causes—to take leadership roles in effecting positive change. This article discusses how those in the gifted field might think about this task. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Giftedness is typically thought of as an individual characteristic. But the development and labeling of an individual as “gifted” is always a collective process and takes place embedded within local, sociocultural, and temporal contexts. The view of giftedness as individual is deceptive and results in faulty practice, such as the bestowal of huge advantages in development and labeling upon children whose parents have more substantial financial and other resources. This article applies a pentagonal implicit theory of giftedness to the analysis of individual, collective, and contextual factors in development and labeling and concludes that giftedness should never be viewed merely as an individual characteristic. Doing so not only distorts reality but creates procedures that tend to pass identification and development of “giftedness” inequitably through successive generations of families by virtue of the families’ resources. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This article presents WICS as a model of giftedness. WICS stands for Wisdom, Intelligence, Creativity, Synthesized. The article considers the relation between giftedness and expertise, and argues that giftedness is, ultimately, expertise in development. One cannot clearly distinguish between giftedness and expertise, because all measures of giftedness assess some kind of expertise, at least to an extent. The article then considers intelligence, creativity, and wisdom as elements of giftedness. It then draws some conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Reports an error in "Direct measurement of scientific giftedness" by Robert J. Sternberg ( Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 2018[Apr-Jun], Vol 40[2], 78-85). In the original article, there was an error on page 80, left column, in a sentence beginning on the fourth line of the first paragraph under the heading “OUR TESTS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING AND REASONING ABOUT TEACHING.” The correct text should read as follows: Instead of measuring general cognitive skills, we focused on the particular cognitive and scientific skills needed by scientists. (The descriptions below also provided the basis for analyses in Sternberg & Sternberg, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2017.) In addition, on page 79, left column, the heading “THEORY UNDERLYING OUR TESTS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING AND REASONING ABOUT TEACHING” should have included the following footnote: The theory described in this section also has been used in prior analyses (Sternberg, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2017). (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-16871-004). Giftedness in science today is largely measured by various kinds of standardized tests—IQ tests, SATs, ACTs, GREs, and so forth. For example, many STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) gifted programs rely at least in part on IQ tests or the SAT for identifying students as gifted. It might be useful to supplement such standard measures with measures that directly measure the skills involved in actual scientific work, such as (a) generating hypotheses, (b) generating experiments, (c) drawing conclusions, (d) reviewing (i.e., analyzing scientific work), (e) editing (i.e., evaluating reviews of scientific work), and (f) evaluating teaching. This article discusses the status of the measurement of scientific giftedness and also describes assessments designed to measure scientific giftedness as well as giftedness in evaluating teaching (an important component of scientific success). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 40(3) of Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education (see record 2018-38625-011). In the original article, there was an error on page 80, left column, in a sentence beginning on the fourth line of the first paragraph under the heading “OUR TESTS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING AND REASONING ABOUT TEACHING.” The correct text should read as follows: Instead of measuring general cognitive skills, we focused on the particular cognitive and scientific skills needed by scientists. (The descriptions below also provided the basis for analyses in Sternberg & Sternberg, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2017.) In addition, on page 79, left column, the heading “THEORY UNDERLYING OUR TESTS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING AND REASONING ABOUT TEACHING” should have included the following footnote: The theory described in this section also has been used in prior analyses (Sternberg, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2017).] Giftedness in science today is largely measured by various kinds of standardized tests—IQ tests, SATs, ACTs, GREs, and so forth. For example, many STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) gifted programs rely at least in part on IQ tests or the SAT for identifying students as gifted. It might be useful to supplement such standard measures with measures that directly measure the skills involved in actual scientific work, such as (a) generating hypotheses, (b) generating experiments, (c) drawing conclusions, (d) reviewing (i.e., analyzing scientific work), (e) editing (i.e., evaluating reviews of scientific work), and (f) evaluating teaching. This article discusses the status of the measurement of scientific giftedness and also describes assessments designed to measure scientific giftedness as well as giftedness in evaluating teaching (an important component of scientific success). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

When we identify people, especially children, for giftedness, we often neglect what arguably is the most important kind of giftedness of all--giftedness for leadership. Ultimately, the individuals we identify should not just be potentially "good" in one or more domains, but also potential leaders in that domain. There is a big difference between merely knowing a lot about a field and taking a leadership role in that field. Gifted adults-- certainly those who are remembered--are those who take a leadership role. This article argues that effective leaders demonstrate in their leadership a synthesis of three elements: creativity, intelligence, and wisdom. Creativity is used to generate novel ideas; intelligence is used to analyze the quality of these ideas, as well as to implement the ideas and persuade others of their worth; and wisdom is used to balance the effects of these ideas on all possible stakeholders. This article reviews the proposed "WICS" (Wisdom-Intelligence-Creativity-Synthesized) theory of giftedness in leadership, and compares it to some other theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This article describes how giftedness can be viewed as developing expertise. The general conception of giftedness as developing expertise is outlined. Then research examples are given that, in conjunction, seem odd under traditional interpretations of abilities but that make sense as a whole in the context of the developing expertise model. It is concluded that this new model offers potential for better understanding the nature of giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Describes a largely neglected kind of giftedness, namely, wisdom. First, the article discusses how giftedness is identified currently. Second, the article presents an alternative view based on a balance theory of wisdom. The theory is described, and it is shown why the theory offers a way of conceptualizing wisdom. Finally, the article concludes that, given the state of the world, we should have a strong incentive to identify and develop wisdom as a form of giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Describes profiles of 3 female graduate students with different kinds of intellectual giftedness and argues that conventional intelligence tests provide, at best, a modest assessment of only 1 kind of giftedness. The triarchic theory of intelligence is described. According to this theory, intelligence must be understood in terms of the internal and external worlds of the individual and the interface between these 2 worlds as it unfolds through experience. The theory is explained through the Ss' profiles, and measures based on this theory that better assess all 3 kinds of giftedness are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Courage may be the most important gift of all. It is not something we are born with. It is not something that, for the most part, we learn in school. Rather, it is a choice that anyone can make—if they are willing to pay the price. This article discusses the gift of courage. It discusses what courage is, why it is important, and why it crucially needs to be incorporated into contemporary discourse about giftedness. It is courage, perhaps more than any other form of giftedness, that will determine what this world becomes—or does not become. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Gifted children are an extremely precious resource. But what does it mean to be gifted? Ellen Winner has devoted much of her career to addressing this question. In this essay, I argue that our society misdefines giftedness, placing undue emphasis on analytical skills. Moreover, the problem is getting worse. Amplifying factors in society are narrowing rather than broadening our definition of giftedness. I discuss what is happening, why, and what we can do about it. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This article presents an analysis of patterns of giftedness based on the triarchic theory of intelligence. The analysis distinguishes among seven different patterns of giftedness, each involving a different combination of analytical, creative, and practical abilities. The seven patterns are the Analyzer, the Creator, the Practitioner, the Analytical Creator the Analytical Practitioner, the Creative Practitioner, and the Consummate Balancer. Examples are given of each pattern and the strengths and weaknesses of each pattern are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)