Su búsqueda

Gifted people have a special responsibility to use their talent to participate in finding out novel solutions to the challenges of our century. This chapter focuses on the practices of talent support actions that may foster contemplation, creative; deep thinking; and deliberative discussions of gifted people. Importantly, the chapter links these practices to the development of wisdom, as an emergent property of mind that can be obtained by the successful integration of life experiences, where success means a balanced, impartial, and independent life and is guided by universal love—as explained in the next section. Summarizing three case studies of talent support programs, this chapter shows that developing deep thinking and wisdom is an important, but heretofore not well-developed, aspect of gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The Autonomous Learner Model incorporates the needs of the whole gifted child, looking at giftedness and potential. This model moves beyond the label of "gifted and talented" to understanding giftedness as an integral part of who the learner truly is. A brief description of the model's five dimensions and four domains follows. These dimensions will be discussed in detail in the application section of this chapter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The premise is that gifted education should have the same goal as any other educational intervention or curriculum in schools—that is, to assure that all students are challenged in their learning to the degree necessary to develop to their full potential. To meet this goal, we argue that gifted education programs and services are needed only when and if students are not otherwise having their instructional needs met. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Unfortunately, an approach to talent identification that suggests that individuals either are or are not gifted fails to recognize the complex nature of cognitive abilities and the many factors that influence the development of those abilities in children and adolescents. Although talent search programs do require certain scores for eligibility for their programs, the purpose of the talent search assessment is not to determine who is gifted, but to provide insight into students’ abilities so that academic needs can be met in school and elsewhere through appropriate programmatic options. There is much in this approach to talent identification and development that schools might replicate as they seek to address the needs of students who exhibit advanced academic abilities and/or achievement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, the integrative model of talent development (IMTD), and especially its differentiating model of giftedness and talent (DMGT) component, will serve as the conceptual framework to answer the five following questions: (1) How does the DMGT distinguish gifts from talents? (2) How does the DMGT describe the talent development process? (3) Where do gifts come from; are they innate? (4) How can we best foster academic talent development? (5) What makes the DMGT/IMTD unique? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Grouping used by teachers to address the diverse needs of their students and with aim to close the achievement gaps has become more popular recently and is one set of education strategies. Grouping can be used in schools to meet the needs of students with gifts and talents without incurring additional cost. However, grouping, and specifically, ability grouping, has been the subject of much and heated debate during the past three decades. Researchers from both sides of the ability grouping debate continue to discuss the pros and cons of its application in schools. As such, not all educators support the use of grouping, and further, not all forms of grouping strategies bring about the same results. For grouping strategies to appropriately meet the needs of students with gifts and talents, there are more factors to consider than simply putting students of similar levels of academic achievement together. Namely, curriculum and instruction has to be adjusted to accommodate the needs of these students, and care must be taken to ensure that other students receive appropriately enriched instruction and interesting curriculum so that they have a high-quality education that promotes academic growth and achievement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Our goal in this chapter is to share a sociocultural perspective on gifted education and talent development that addresses the importance of context in children's development. Indeed, we believe context should be the primary concern of educators working with advanced students. We begin by defining our terms, followed by a summary of sociocultural perspectives on talent development. The chapter closes with an examination of the implications of this perspective for educators. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Imagine a scenario where you wake up as principal of an elementary school. You are standing in front of parents explaining the implementation of a new gifted program. In this dream, you are describing to the audience how you will be serving high IQ children with a daily program designed to enhance and support the participating children’s gifts. The next night you are once again in the limelight at a parent meeting rationalizing a new program for mathematically talented students, selected by virtue of demonstrated interest, achievement, and creativity in mathematics. What arguments would you use in each case? Which program would be easier for you to explain to the parents and to other audiences in your professional world? We hope in this chapter to acknowledge drawbacks while leaving readers as supporters of the domain-specific talent development approach to gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

When educational opportunities at any level are not offered as part of the public educational system, then some families will seek them at their own cost and some will not or cannot. This is one of the reasons that educational achievement and family income are so highly correlated—money is often directly linked to access educational opportunity. Families who are aware of supplementary options, can afford them, have the time to seek them out and enroll their children in them, and are willing to do so even when such content is not part of the local school’s curriculum, will take advantage of such opportunities in order to further their child’s learning. Some of this is due to financial capital and some due to cultural capital—the culture of knowing and being willing to challenge the system. All parents would want to provide advanced opportunities to their children, but only some have that option due to financial, cultural, logistical, or political barriers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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)

Epigenetics is a discipline that aims to demonstrate how environmental factors influence organisms on a molecular level by explaining how these factors can affect the expression of genes. Epigenetic changes are assumed to be heritable and reversible, thus challenging the central dogma of genetics. This dogma states that genes are transcribed and translated unidirectionally to proteins and the genetic code cannot be changed through environmental influences. In addition, in neurology it is believed that epigenetics partly explains the development of neurological conditions and plays an important role in synaptic plasticity. As many epigenetic changes happen in utero, maternal behaviour may affect brain development. This raises questions regarding the responsibility of the pregnant woman. In this chapter, I investigate first whether and how epigenetics complicates the question of maternal responsibility, if even behaviour of years before conception may have consequences for the wellbeing of the future child. To what extent is it an individual responsibility or a collective one? Second, by using the examples of autism and high intelligence (“giftedness”), I investigate the distinction between prevention and enhancement, and demonstrate the relevance for this discussion of classifying neurological difference as an identity rather than an affliction. By analysing different concepts and arguments, I highlight the need for a new framework for maternal, parental and collective responsibility that is applicable to the context of neurology, epigenetics and beyond. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

It is evident in the last two decades that there has been a sustained growth of knowledge and understanding of the diverse educational needs of gifted and talented students. An increasing number of teachers have become more conscious of supporting the intellectual, social, and emotional needs of their academically able students in our more competitive world. This has emerged largely from a small group of academics in universities in Australia and New Zealand who have conducted their research in the field of gifted education and talent development and shared their knowledge with their students at universities. By academics responding to teachers’, psychologists’, and educational administrators’ requests for professional learning in schools, there has been an expansion of the field of gifted educators at the state and national level. In addition, academics have worked with ministries of education in Australia and New Zealand to raise the awareness of gifted and talented students’ needs, and to create relevant policies with local departments of education. The development of these policies have varied in impact, yet these have had a significant influence on teachers’ acknowledging the importance of gifted and talented students’ educational needs in their care—at the early childhood level and within primary and secondary schools. Within Australia and New Zealand the egalitarian mantra is that gifted education tends to be favored within an inclusive education framework, yet, the research indicates that much of our successful education with these students takes place in selective environments, especially at the secondary level (Kaman & Kronborg, 2012; Kronborg & Plunkett, 2012, 2013). It will be interesting to see what research questions guide our investigations of the educational needs of gifted and talented students in the coming decade, as educators revise their pedagogy, curriculum, knowledge, and understanding of what gifted and talented students need to realize their talent potential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

How we view young children matters. It influences ways we interact with, respond to, and predict outcomes of young children’s learning. We may think about the image of young children through a metaphor of lenses—with what lenses are children viewed? Are they seen as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge, or as competent and curious human beings, ready to explore the world around them? If children are viewed as gifted, or as having potential for advanced or accelerated work, does that change the teaching of and interactions with these children? In this chapter, we focus on young children (ages 3–8, preschool–third grade), excluding, for the most part, the development of infants and toddlers. Preschool-age children enter the world of academia expected to build kindergarten readiness skills. Many preschoolers already demonstrate mastery of academics, and show the need for a different type of preschool curriculum and instruction. However, others come to preschool from homes where English is not spoken, or from homes where parents did not have enough money or time to provide enriched learning experiences (e.g., travel, visits to the library, campouts in the woods). Do teachers view students who can already read and write as more intelligent or more gifted than those who have not yet been exposed to the types of experiences that would nourish and develop literacy and mathematical thinking? How do teachers view young children who are ahead of their peers—gifted, precocious, or advanced? How do those labels impact the teachers’ interactions and expectations of those students? Views and beliefs about people matter. Having high expectations for children impacts their academic achievement, and stereotype threat can influence achievement (Steele, 2011). Stereotype threat occurs when people are or feel themselves to be at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their identities. In the case of gifted students, who have identities that relate to their intelligence, the way they view their own talents and intelligence impacts not only their achievement, but their willingness to attack challenging problems and grow (Dweck, 2006). Knowing how we think about children impacts our interactions and ultimately their outcomes; therefore, we must be cautious not to project stereotypes, biases, or labels on children. Instead, we must address all children with the intent to learn about them, to connect what they know with new knowledge, and to provide learning contexts that maximize their growth opportunities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

There is considerable diversity among South American countries in relation to regulations and procedures for identifying and developing giftedness in children and adolescents. The experiences of three South American countries (Brazil, Peru, and Uruguay) are described to illustrate the variety of approaches. Although these countries do not share the same cultural or linguistic backgrounds, there are commonalities among them regarding the development of gifted children and adolescents. Despite federal and state regulations regarding education for high-ability and gifted children, educators still face many challenges when implementing these laws, including myths regarding giftedness in the general population. Resources provided to public education in these countries are scarce, however several programs are being offered to improve motivation and excellence among gifted children and adolescents. The role of professional associations and research on giftedness is considered of vital importance to increase public awareness of the social and educational needs of this special population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, we outline contemporary efforts to create and implement “alternative” models of gifted education identification or program selection. We address where these models have been successful and where they have stumbled, and on the basis of these findings, we offer recommendations for practice for psychologists and teachers who are charged with developing and implementing identification practices in K–12 schools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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)

In the fictional Harry Potter series, one of the tools in Harry’s arsenal against the evil Lord Voldermort is his cloak of invisibility. With this cloak, Harry is able to walk the halls of Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry unseen by those around him (Rowling, 1997). This phenomenon occurs daily in hallways and classrooms of schools all across the country, though not for the greater good, as twice-exceptional students’ gifts, and even their challenges, may go unrecognized by teachers, counselors, and administrators. Moon and Reis (2004) asserted that because it is outside the norm, giftedness is, by definition, exceptionality. For students to be considered twice exceptional, they must display characteristics associated with giftedness and with one or more learning or behavioral disorders (Baum & Olenchak, 2002; Baum, Olenchak, & Owen, 1998; Moon & Reis, 2004). Much like giftedness, varying definitions of twice-exceptionality exist. In 2009, a joint task force consisting of representatives from the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, the Association for the Education of Gifted Underachieving Students, and the Bridges Academy developed a comprehensive definition that encompassed the identification and servicing of this unique population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Research on gifted education in Africa has taken place sporadically, and in only a few countries. Moreover, very little (and no comprehensive) research has been undertaken on the topic because of the comprehensive chapter by Taylor and Kokot (2000), which remains the most comprehensive overview of research on the subject in Africa to date. This is deplorable, because there can be no doubt about the importance of education for the gifted (Bar-On, 2007a, 2007b). Millions of gifted people across the world are never given the opportunity to realize their potential, implying that, through the years, the world may have lost the likes of a Michelangelo, a Ludwig van Beethoven, a Sigmund Freud, a Mother Teresa, a Nelson Mandela, a Desmond Tutu, a Kofi Annan, or any of several other luminaries (Bar-On, 2007b). There are people who, irrespective of gender, mother tongue, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual preference, ethnicity, political belief, race, age, creed, or geographical location, could have made a major contribution to humankind. The situation in Africa is aggravated by rising unemployment rates resulting largely from major changes in the global economy (Maree, 2010, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a). The issue of gifted education can be best understood by considering Africa’s educational, social, political, cultural, and economic history. The reasons gifted African students do not fulfil their potential include adverse socioeconomic circumstances (e.g., not having access to good schooling), war conditions, and a childhood without caretakers. Moreover, society’s failure to acknowledge and support these gifted students (including the failure of education departments to acknowledge gifted students as a category of students who warrant special attention) contribute to the challenge of gifted students’ failure to construct themselves adequately. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Do gifted students have unique social and emotional needs? Are gifted students more vulnerable to social and emotional difficulties than average-ability students? Common perceptions of the gifted include that they are more likely to suffer from emotional problems and more likely to have difficulties in social relationships (Bain, Choate, & Bliss, 2006), but what does the research say? Some researchers argue gifted individuals do have unique characteristics that render them particularly vulnerable to an array of social and emotional problems, such that gifted individuals experience the same developmental milestones and tasks as average-ability individuals (e.g., identity development, career decision-making, and friendship formation), but “the characteristics associated with giftedness . . . may make the subjective experience of meeting normal challenges qualitatively different from others’ experience and also sometimes hinder task accomplishment” (Peterson, 2009, p. 281). Further, some developmental tasks (e.g., development of abstract thought) are accelerated for gifted individuals compared with average-ability individuals (Moon, 2009). Others argue that gifted students are no more likely to be vulnerable to, or experience, social and emotional difficulties than students of average ability levels (Bain & Bell, 2004; Nail & Evans, 1997; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). The purpose of this chapter is to explore findings from existing research regarding the social and emotional development of gifted children and adolescents, as well as the circumstances in which social and emotional development may be compromised. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

During a late summer morning in the Midwest, the mother of a 16-year-old gifted student received a phone call telling her that her son was just found hanging from the eaves above the bus stop at their local high school. It was later discovered from his journal entries that he had planned this event for months. The death of a young person is a terrible thing; but the death of a young person by suicide is a calamity for humankind. This scenario, with different actors, repeats itself every day in the United States and students with gifts and talents (SWGT) and their families are not immune to this devastating outcome. During the 2014–2015 school year, a total of 26 students died by suicide in two high-achieving school districts in the United States (Palo Alto Unified School District in California and Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia), and at two universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology and College of William and Mary). Several suicides among top students in a short period creates many questions about links between giftedness and suicidal behavior. The belief that SWGT are more prone to emotional disturbance is widely held (Coleman & Cross, 2005). Two perspectives have been offered to describe the relationship between giftedness and psychological well-being: (a) The nature of giftedness makes these students more resilient to psychological maladies, and (b) their characteristics make them more subject to adjustment issues (J. Delisle, 1986; Neihart, 1999). Coleman and Cross (2000) offered a third position: American subcultures create environments that can affect the lived experience of SWGT and, subsequently, their psychological well-being. This chapter explores the research on suicide among SWGT and applicable research from the general population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)