Su búsqueda

This Editorial presents seven original contributions from authors around the globe which are not only interesting for researchers, but also for practitioners. In the first contribution authors introduce what they call a universal model of giftedness. It is a hybrid approach that combines strengths of previous models into a promising new model. It will be interesting to see how well is received in the scientific communtity and if it will be used by practitioners to guide their development of gifted education provisions. In line with this trend authors pose the important question if being gifted is always an advantage? In particular, they were interested in differences with regard to social accceptance and self-concept. Their empirical study shows a generally positive situation of gifted adolscents, however, individual differences are substantial. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 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)

Reply by the current authors to the comments made on the original article (see record 2012-16824-002). The commentaries to our target article Towards a systemic theory of gifted education differed in their assessments of the various arguments we put forward. Of the more than 40 responses to our target article, 27 responses were chosen as being representative of all commentaries. We grouped the responses according to the main points in our target article, including our claims that current approaches to gifted education are ineffective, current models of giftedness are generally flawed, and systemic models of giftedness represent an advancement in the way that giftedness can be understood. Next, we outlined a systems approach to gifted education, based on the actiotope model of giftedness as its theoretical foundation. Finally, we argued that the systemic theory of gifted education represents a paradigm shift in the way we view the development of exceptionality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

In this target article, we argue that current approaches to gifted education are based on the erroneous view that to understand the development of exceptionality we need to understand firstly the components of giftedness, including cognitive such as intelligence and non-cognitive factors such as motivation. In contrast, systemic approaches to understanding exceptionality focuses on the interactions of these components where it is important to firstly understand the system that leads to exceptionality before it is possible to understand its components. After analyzing the weaknesses of current approaches to gifted education we then present three central arguments for the need for a paradigm shift. This is followed by an introduction of constructs of a systemic approach of gifted education. Using the Actiotope Model of Giftedness to understand the development of exceptionality, this article describes the basic principles of a gifted education that is based on this systemic approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 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)

Recent handbooks of giftedness or expertise propose a plethora of conceptions on the development of excellent performance but, to our knowledge, there are no comparative studies that provide empirical evidence of their validity to guide researchers and practitioners in their adoption of a particular conception. This study sought to close that gap by conducting an empirical comparison of the major approaches to giftedness and expertise currently in use: the IQ model, the performance model, the moderator model, and the systemic model. The four models were tested in a longitudinal study with a sample of N = 350 German students attending university preparatory schools; 25% of the sample had been assigned to special classes for the gifted. The construct and predictive validity of the four models were tested by means of structural equation modeling. Theoretical considerations along with our results indicated a differentiation among the models whereby some could only predict while others could also explain the emergence of excellent performance and thereby yield valuable information for the design of interventions. The empirical comparison of the approaches showed that they were unequally suited for the two challenges. For prediction purposes, the performance approach proved best while, for explanations, the moderator and systemic approaches were the most promising candidates. Even so, the latter did demonstrate conceptual and/or methodological problems. The IQ approach was superseded by the other approaches on both prediction and explanation. Implications and limitations of the findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This special issue of High Ability Studies is devoted to contexts that support talent development. While numerous conceptions of giftedness consider the role played by the environment for talent development, most of these conceptions nevertheless viewed giftedness itself as an individual attribute. Newer approaches have, however, begun to fundamentally alter this view: The environment and learning contexts are not only important for talent development, but they also make up an integral part of what giftedness actually is. Plucker and Barab (2005), for example, have called for investigating “gifted transactions” (p. 210) rather than gifted individuals. In a similar vein, Ziegler (2005) defined giftedness as the property of a system made up of the individual and his or her environment. The articles assembled in this special issue emphasize different perspectives of the relevance of learning environments. The first three contributions present empirical studies on the relevance of learning contexts in general and in different cultural settings. The following two articles discuss important implications of current research for the establishment of supportive learning contexts at school. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

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)

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)

The underachievement of gifted students is a serious problem in gifted education. Although analytic research strategies have identified many causes of underachievement, this kind of approach still needs to be complemented by synthetic research strategies. The actiotope model of giftedness, for example, suggests that the effect of educational capital on achievement is mediated by learning capital. In an empirical study with a sample of 143 gifted Spanish secondary school students, educational capital was characterized by various forms of parental involvement aimed at the learning successes of children. Learning capital was represented by two types of learning strategies: metacognitive strategies and elaboration strategies. Following the method developed by Baron and Kenny, the hypothesized mediation of learning capital between educational capital and school achievement was confirmed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Unlike traditional person-centered models of giftedness, the Actiotope Model of Giftedness focuses on the person-environment interactions. It postulates that successful learning requires necessary resources, termed educational and learning capital, located both in the environment and the individual. The Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital (QELC) is introduced. The results of a validation study with students from China, Turkey and Germany is reported which shows that the QELC has satisfactory psychometric properties as well as construct and concurrent validity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

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)

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)