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)

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)

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)

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)