Su búsqueda

There is a fallacy about identifying gifted and talented children and youth that refuses to go away: It is the notion that a single score is sufficient for determining giftedness (see Treffinger, 1982). In the following paragraphs, I address briefly several reasons for the longevity and ubiquity of this myth, as well as the data that call the myth into question. These include (a) the predictive validity of test scores, (b) the belief that ability is fixed, and (c) the lack of attention to and evidence for other explanations for outstanding achievement. The focus of this article is on the academic domains and IQ, as there are few who argue that a single score predicts performance in the visual and performing arts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Few studies directly examine the relationship between giftedness and peer victimization. Despite the limited available data, there is an abundance of prescriptive advice addressing the unique challenges for gifted students. Such advice derives from research on the psychosocial characteristics of gifted youth (at best) or outdated misperceptions of gifted youth as inherently vulnerable (at worst). The purpose of this dissertation was to elucidate the giftedness-victimization link by utilizing measurement and sampling that improve upon research to date. The first goal was to assess victimization frequency of gifted youth and make comparisons to similar non-gifted peers. The second goal was to examine whether victimization was more strongly tied to self-worth, anxiety, and depression for gifted youth compared to their non-gifted peers. At the outset of the study, it was hypothesized that no discernible differences would emerge between gifted and non-gifted students. Data for this dissertation were collected as part of the UCLA Middle School Diversity Project, a multisite longitudinal study of California middle school students from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds ( N = 6,058). The analytical sample in the current study consisted of 2,888 students in Grade 6, 50% of whom had been identified for gifted and talented education (GATE) programs. The other 50% consisted of non-GATE students matched on potential covariates using propensity score analysis. Data were collected using surveys in which students reported their experiences with victimization, their self-perceptions, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Contrary to the stated hypotheses, the results indicated that gifted students were victimized significantly less than non-gifted peers for almost every form of victimization. The exception was physical victimization, and several potential interpretations are offered. Analyses examining the impact of victimization were mixed. Victimization was more strongly linked to depressive symptoms for gifted students (b = .049), but significant differences did not emerge on measures of self-worth or anxiety. Although the need for future research is clear, these findings represent a meaningful expansion of knowledge in this area and help to refute simplistic characterizations of gifted youth. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Reviews the book, Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says edited by Jonathan A. Plucker and Carolyn M. Callahan (see record 2008-01728-000). Over the years, gifted education has received substantial criticism in and beyond the research literature (e.g., Grant, 2002; Sapon-Shevin, 1993). Criticisms have fallen into several camps. One group of critics describes gifted education as elitist and suggests that there should not be special programs for high-achieving students. Others criticize how giftedness is defined and more frequently how gifted students are identified, and even suggest that gifted education is responsible for maintaining the achievement gap. Some critics comment on the programming choices available for students who are identified, and others criticize the field of gifted education for making decisions based on fads and myths rather than empirical evidence. This context provides a backdrop for the publication of Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. In this book, the authors have attempted to bring together research that addresses almost all of the aforementioned issues. Their goal is aptly stated in the book’s introduction: “Despite a century of research on giftedness, the enthusiasm and rhetoric surrounding...services offered to gifted students often exceeds the level of available empirical support—or even contradicts the available evidence” (Plucker & Callahan, 2008b, pp. 1). The editors go on to state that their goal is to be inclusive, but brief. Thus, they included chapters across several domains—conceptual and foundational issues, curriculum, cognition, affect, programming, issues related to teacher and parents, and special populations—that are synopses rather than comprehensive reviews of the empirical literature in the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Gifted education in the United States is not a high priority. Federal funding is allocated primarily through the Javits Act, a federal initiative that funds intervention research aimed at traditionally underserved populations of gifted learners. Poverty has many deleterious effects on children, and these can begin at birth. The achievement gap is present at the start of school and persists through all levels of schooling. This chapter provides several strategies for schools to use in operationalizing giftedness using a talent development framework. Very often, schools or districts rely on teachers to recommend students for gifted services as either a first step in their identification protocol or as a major component in the identification process. The field of gifted education has tended to approach programming with a one-size-fits-all strategy. Schools can help students envision a future trajectory and identity within their talent area by exposing them to professionals that share their educational and career paths. The image associated with school psychology and gifted education is typically an IQ test. School psychology training includes the limitations of individual test scores, the understanding of potential, and the important role that culture and identity can play in performance outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This chapter addresses some of the most frequent misconceptions about the talent development framework. The misconceptions include: emphasizing domains of talent over general giftedness means that everyone is gifted in something; including a wider range of students may lead to talent development programs being watered down; talent development supporters do not value IQ or general ability; talent development ignores psychological needs by not focusing on the "whole child"; in a talent development framework, it is possible to 'lose' one's giftedness, whereas with the IQ model, once gifted, always gifted; a talent development framework does not serve underachievers; everyone could be gifted if they just had the right opportunities; and talent development only focuses on individuals who can become eminent. Gifted education will continue to evolve and change as new information is learned from basic and applied research studies. New conceptions of intelligence, giftedness, and talent development may emerge as a result. Revision of prevalent models based on new understandings keeps a field fresh and relevant. Talent development offers a new perspective on how to serve gifted and talented students with a greater focus on a broader range of students as well as a broader range of talents and abilities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, we discuss racial/ethnic identity and gender identity and their association with outstanding performance. We begin with a brief review of giftedness as a construct, and a review of statistics on the demographic membership of gifted and talented education (GATE) programs. Next, we discuss in turn racial identity and ethnic identity and the research that relates these constructs to outstanding achievement. Then, we repeat this discussion in the context of gender identity. Finally, we conclude with some thoughts about research in this area. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this article we present research concerning important aspects of domain-specific giftedness. Specifically, we address the evidence regarding the relationship between specific abilities and achievement. Empirical evidence suggests that specific abilities have been used widely and validly for identification of exceptional talent in performance domains, and mathematical and spatial reasoning ability have demonstrated predictive validity for achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) domains. We note that domains of talent have unique trajectories and discuss four critical aspects of domain-specific giftedness. These include the developmental nature of giftedness (giftedness moves from potential to competency to expertise and possibly to eminence over time); the temporal nature of giftedness (that domains vary in their starting, peak, and ending points); the contextual aspect of giftedness (societal value of some domains over others, changing of domains and emergence of new domains, and the environmental influences in fostering domain-specific achievement); and the relative nature of giftedness (childhood giftedness is advancement relative to age peers, and adult giftedness is exceptional achievement relative to other domain experts). Finally, we present some implications of a domain perspective on giftedness for educational practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This article provides a definition of giftedness that is useful across all domains of endeavor and acknowledges several perspectives about giftedness on which there is a fairly broad scientific consensus. The article summarizes what we have learned about giftedness from the literature in psychological science and suggest some directions for the field of gifted education. Throughout its history, the field of gifted education has been troubled by a lack of agreement on a definition of giftedness. Outstanding performance is almost always judged relative to others in one’s peer group. Increasing the number of individuals who make path-breaking, field-altering discoveries and creative contributions by their products, innovations, and performances is the aim of proposed framework for gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

In this article, we provide a response to the Active Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership (ACCEL) model put forward by Sternberg (see record 2018-07419-003). Our commentary focuses on four critical areas that do not receive sufficient attention in Sternberg’s proposed model: (a) the developmental nature of giftedness; (b) that giftedness is domain specific, particularly at later stages in the talent development process; (c) the challenge in applying ACCEL in the real world of schools; and (d) whether the arts and other performance areas are compelled to have an ethical theme in order to be valuable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

The authors present a historical perspective on giftedness, highlighting the impact of key research studies on practice, research, and policy. A comprehensive model is presented emphasizing that giftedness is domain specific and developmental and involves the cultivation of psychosocial as well as cognitive skills. Implications for counselors are discussed, specifically which psychosocial issues and skills should be the focus of counseling at each stage of talent development and what counselors can do to support the development of gifted students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

In this article, the authors respond to the eight commentaries, J. Y. Jung (see record 2012-24309-003); A. Ziegler, H. Stoeger and W. Vialle (see record 2012-24309-004); M. C. Makel, M. Puttalaz and J. Wai (see record 2012-24309-005); A. Robinson (see record 2012-24309-006); A. N. Rinn (see record 2012-24309-007); M. T. McBee et al. (see record 2012-24309-008); T. C. Grantham (see record 2012-24309-009) and J. A. Plucker (see record 2012-24309-010) , on the original article “Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science” (see record 2012-24309-002), using several themes to organize their response. These themes include ability, developmental trajectories, effort and opportunity, psychosocial factors, eminence, and equity. The authors reaffirm the contention that eminence is an appropriate standard for assigning the gifted label in individuals with well-developed talents. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

We all have an intuitive feel for the terms gifted, talented, high performer, expert, and eminent and often use the words interchangeably. Most have identified themselves as talent developers as well as psychologists of high performance. They have in some way engaged with programs serving children, youth, and adults who have been classified as gifted. They have been called experts themselves, and some are eminent psychologists, scientists, artists, and sporting greats. This chapter serves to frame the discussion of talent development and high performance. It begins with an overview of the talent development mega model because it provides the theoretical basis for this volume. The chapter provides brief definitions of several of the terms that reoccur in discussing high performance including potential, giftedness, talent development, high performance, expertise, and eminence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter briefly discusses programming options for the primary grades, intermediate grades, and upper grades. Adopting a talent development framework for gifted education services in schools requires significant shifts in perspective and practice, but these are shifts that many administrators find appealing and that communities will support. A talent development approach expands the traditional concept of a gifted education program. Gifted education programs that emphasize domains of talent instead of a notion of global giftedness are easily understood and embraced, not only by other education professionals, but also by the public, which can lead to expanded parental, legislative, and corporate support for services for gifted students. With this support from important stakeholders, parents of gifted learners and K–12 educators are able to address a wide variety of challenges that impede school districts from providing appropriate services across all grade levels on a day-to-day basis for students with gifts and talents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Mathematical talent is an intriguing human phenomenon. From the time of Poincare (1908/1952), who linked mathematical talent to mathematical creation, the relationship between mathematical talent and mathematical creativity has been at the heart of the discussion of mathematical talent. Analysis of the criteria used for empirical examination of mathematical talent shows that researchers connect mathematical talent to general giftedness, to mathematical achievement, or to mathematical creativity. This chapter discusses the developing mathematical talent in schoolchildren. It starts by discussing the components and complexities of mathematical talent and goes on to review several frameworks for its development. It briefly addresses characteristics of mathematical content and didactical principles directed at the development of mathematical talent. Finally, it briefly addresses the proficiency required for teaching the gifted and presents examples of mathematical problems and their solutions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Giftedness is described as the possession and use of outstanding natural abilities, called aptitudes, in at least one ability domain [i.e., intellectual, creative, social, perceptive, muscular, or motor control] to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers. The definitions of giftedness that are adopted by schools and education systems provide a rationale and framework for the specific procedures to be used in the identification of gifted students. The identification of gifted students has always been a difficult exercise, due to factors such as the diverse range of gifted domains, the various levels of giftedness, and the existence of gifted students from diverse cultural and socioeconomic status backgrounds. Consequently, multiple identification tools, including objective instruments (e.g., IQ tests and achievement tests) and subjective instruments (e.g., teacher nominations, parent nominations, peer nominations, and portfolios of work), are recommended by scholars to accurately identify gifted students. Although substantial progress has been made in Australia in terms of practice and research in giftedness and gifted education, a number of areas are in need of further attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

I was asked to respond to chapter 7 of this volume by Sandra Graham on giftedness in adolescence (see record 2009-00231-007). When I read the chapter, I found, as expected, that Graham's social-psychological perspective and my psychosocial perspective have much in common, including a focus on the interaction of motivation and social context. Therefore, I have endeavored to expand on some of the issues that Graham addresses in her chapter, in the hope of stimulating discussion among researchers and practitioners concerned with giftedness in adolescence. In this chapter, I discuss identification practices in some detail, as I believe that there are some fundamental misunderstandings in this area. I highlight some of the more recent research on teachers and the messages that they send. I also address the potential role played by identity variables such as stereotype threat. In addition, I discuss the concept of oppositional identity, which relates to Graham's notion of "I can, but do I want to?" Finally, I briefly discuss the idea of cultural learning styles. Although much of what I discuss is applicable to adolescents of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, the implications may be different for youth who are traditionally underrepresented in gifted and talented education (e.g., African Americans, Latinos). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The foundation for talent development as a framework for gifted education can be found in a synthesis of the psychological literature on creativity, eminence, giftedness, and high performance. The talent development framework acknowledges the contributions of both general cognitive ability and domain-specific abilities to achievement, as well as the malleability of these ability constructs. Talent development is also consistent with research on the contributions of non-cognitive or psychosocial factors to school achievement, as well as studies on factors that influence the attainment of scholarly productivity and artistry within specific domains of non-academic talent. Although there are several theoretical frameworks and models of giftedness, talent development, ability, and intelligence, each with varied areas of emphasis and desired outcomes, the research base and practical applications for the talent development megamodel (TDMM) can serve as a guide to leaders and school administrators in making fiscal and programmatic decisions that maximize short- and long-term impacts for individuals and society. In this article, we discuss some of the practical implications of the model for assessment, curriculum and instruction, and psychosocial development within a school context. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This chapter focuses on gifted and talented education (GATE) in service of US students who are given the label, gifted and talented, and students who have the potential to earn that label. It discusses that the notion of potential is related to the philosophy of giftedness. However, the focus on potential is also related to concerns about equity of identification and access to programs. The chapter is intended to help schools serve all students with high academic potential. It begins with a brief overview of the history of gifted education, a definition of giftedness, and an overview of the talent development megamodel on which the work is based. The chapter provides some guidance on how to use assessment as a tool for identifying students with well-developed talents as well as students with potential. Using the Cole and Siegel (2003) model, it discusses consultation in the context of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and intervention, adapted for the context of maximizing talent development rather than managing risk. The chapter provides an annotated bibliography of print and electronic resources that can be used by educators and school personnel in working with gifted and talented students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter addresses the question of how gifted athletes were discovered and developed their potential into exceptional performance. It focuses on talent identification and talent development in game sports. Some coaches in youth basketball, football, or soccer may feel delighted when someone joins their team who appears to be "a natural," "a once-in-a- century-talent," or a prodigy, expecting that the individual's involvement in their practice program will lead to exceptional performance within a few years. On the other hand, coaches may believe that only hard work makes champions or perhaps hard work beats talent until talent starts to work hard. The chapter first outlines central tenets of general frameworks for research into giftedness and the developmental acquisition process of expertise. It describes significant particularities of the game sports domain and provides an overview of existing empirical research evidence with reference to the generic frameworks. Finally, it discusses implications and future directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, the authors present a comprehensive conception of talent development that draws from research in the psychological sciences and is applicable across diverse domains, from academics and athletics to the visual and performing arts. The model is distinguished by the following components: (a) recognizing the varied beginnings of domain trajectories from the earliest manifestations of talent to expertise and beyond; (b) promoting the role of opportunities not only inside, but outside, and beyond school; and (c) the increasing importance of malleable social and mental skills as well as insider knowledge as individuals progress to higher stages of performance and creative productivity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)