Su búsqueda

This issue of High Ability Studies pertains to sex differences and implicit theories among gifted students. The issue particularly focuses on the misconceptions, dogmas and popular views regarding giftedness commonly found among layperson as well as perceptions of giftedness held by parents and implicit theories of creativity held by educational researchers. To conclude, multi-method research studies in particular can contribute a great deal—both to our understanding of the individual constructs and of the differences between gifted students and students of average giftedness as well as to the optimal improvement of educational and gifted-support efforts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

This editorial informs the readers that the current and following issue of High Ability Studies share a focus on a special topic: motivational and emotional aspects of high ability. Together, the issues will present articles on various motivational and emotional aspects and their meaning for learning and achievement behavior as well as for learners of various giftedness and achievement levels. While some contributions focus on motivational aspects of high ability, others consider emotional aspects or both motivational and emotional components in equal measure. The authors employ a large variety of methods, ranging from experience sampling and interviews to questionnaires and standardized tests. Many of the contributions in both special issues offer new insights for giftedness research, and they show just how much giftedness research can profit from the work being done in other fields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

This issue collects articles offering markedly divergent approaches to the topics of talent development and excellence. Alongside empirical studies within various talent domains, the authors present theoretical reflections on the best measures for supporting and encouraging giftedness and expertise, and take a closer look at common notions regarding giftedness. The first two contributions describe work done in the realm of athletics. With their examination of the meaning of creative behavior in team ball sports. Some of the authors concentrate on self-efficacy in career and talent development as well as the identification of career and talent development needs among Hong Kong middle-school adolescents. In contrast to results for other countries, Author's research points to a multidimensional understanding of giftedness in which both intrapersonal and environmental contributions are regarded as meaningful for talent development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

This issue sets itself apart from earlier issues through its lack of traditional giftedness research articles. This is not simply a coincidence. The work on display here is becoming generally more prevalent, and I see at least two developments in our field that help explain this shift. The issue's first contribution raises fundamental questions about giftedness research and the nature and quality of the relationship between the field and its various parent disciplines. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

This issue of High Ability Studies stands out with regard to diversity in two respects. First, it includes contributions from various areas of talent development and expertise, some of which have been studied very little to date. It features studies focusing on, for instance, expertise in poker, the musically gifted, talented dancers and academic giftedness. Second, highly diverse aspects of talent development, giftedness, and expertise such as decision making, cooperative learning, competition perfectionism, and ability climates are examined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

This editorial focuses on the articles in this issue of High Ability Studies. This issue will present four more articles on motivational and emotional aspects, and their meaning for learning and achievement behavior as well as for learners of various giftedness and achievement levels. The authors again employ a large variety of methods and offer many new insights for giftedness research and gifted education. Obergrießer and Stoeger analyze relationships between achievement emotions (enjoyment, anxiety, anger, and boredom), learning preferences, and the use of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies in a sample of 200 students from 20 primary schools in Germany who were about to start high-achiever track secondary school in the following school year. In their study, Vladut, Vialle, and Ziegler propose two general motivational strategies for gifted educators: a learning resource-oriented homeostatic orientation and a learning resource-oriented allostatic orientation. McCoach, Newton, Siegle, Baslant, and Picho consider questions of measurement methodology in the area of motivation and learning. The contribution of Fugate and Gentry sets itself apart from the other eight articles in this two-part special issue with regard to both its sample and method. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

With this issue of High Ability Studies, the journal continues its tradition of having distinguished colleagues comment on target articles. High Ability Studies received 49 peer commentaries from 17 nations in response to Ziegler’s and Phillipson’s article. A majority of these viewed the idea of a paradigm shift wholly or largely positively. This enthusiastic and positive reaction bespeaks the promising and innovative nature of Ziegler’s and Phillipson’s position. At the same time, some colleagues expressed reservations about such a paradigm shift. This issue not only presents a new theoretical approach to the field of gifted education. It also inaugurates a number of organizational changes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Over the past few decades, systemic thinking has gained in popularity in developmental and learning sciences. The trend has, however, shown up in gifted education research only occasionally. The aim of this article is to introduce systemic thinking to the field of giftedness and explore possibilities for its application. In the first part, a definition of a system is provided and basic concepts of systemic thinking are introduced. In the second part, a full-fledged systemic model is introduced, the actiotope model of giftedness. In the third part, implications for gifted education are elaborated. In the discussion, the authors explain (a) how systemic thinking can make a valuable contribution to gifted education, (b) why systemic thinking will complement rather than replace current approaches to gifted education, and (c) the necessity of combining systemic thinking with other empirically testable theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This commentary addresses Subotnik et al.’s (see record 2012-24309-002) target article from the perspective of researchers active in the field of giftedness. First, we self-critically examine the current standing of giftedness research within the scientific community. Second, the authors’ critique of gifted education is sharpened in three respects: (a) gifted identification, (b) effectiveness of gifted education, and (c) credentials of gifted education. Finally, four necessary and productive lines for future research are proposed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

This editorial discusses the identification of effective learning environments. Leading models of expertise development and giftedness have placed environmental factors as fundamentally important for understanding attainment. This special issue of Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling highlights the diversity of approaches used by researchers who have examined optimal environments for learning and achievement and the various influences of different forms of educational and learning capital. It is hoped that the papers featured in this special issue will enhance the knowledge of its readers in the field of educational and learning capital. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

Multidimensional models of giftedness specify individual and environmental moderators or catalysts that help transform potential into achievement. However, these models do not state whether the importance of the ‘individual boxes’ and the ‘environmental boxes’ changes during this process. The present study examines whether, during the early stages of talent development, the ‘environmental boxes’ play a more important role than the ‘individual boxes.’ To answer this question, we analyzed individual moderators and environmental moderators of achievement for fourth-grade primary-school students (N = 976). A cluster analysis that included intelligence, achievement, and two individual moderators (motivation and learning behavior) revealed three groups of students, two of which are of particular interest, as they both displayed high intelligence and achievement but differed in their motivation and learning behavior. Questionnaire data on family environment (filled out by parents, N = 682) and school environment (filled out by teachers, N = 47) supported the assumption that among young students an inauspicious set of individual moderators, in this case maladaptive motivation and learning behavior, can be compensated by a sufficiently propitious set of environmental moderators, in this case parents’ and teachers’ learning support, cultural capital within the family, and teachers’ commitment to support their students’ learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Based on the Actiotope Model of Giftedness, this article introduces a learning-resource-oriented approach for gifted education. It provides a comprehensive categorization of learning resources, including five exogenous learning resources termed educational capital and five endogenous learning resources termed learning capital. Evidence from the literature is presented that supports the validity of each of the categories. Finally, 12 implications of a learning resource orientation for gifted education are discussed in relation to four areas: gifted education orientations, gifted identification, gifted education principles, and gifted learning resources management. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

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)