Su búsqueda

This chapter will illustrate how one team of researchers and curriculum developers designed a program addressing the needs of different learner profiles that enabled teachers to serve—and assess—all of the students in their classroom, including gifted students. The program was not designed for the exclusive use in gifted classrooms, but rather, offers a model for teaching that will benefit both gifted students and children not identified as such. First, we provide a brief review of existing definitions of giftedness. We then present the principles of Teaching for Successful Intelligence (TSI) and show how this instructional approach can help teachers meet the needs of students of varying levels of ability. Finally, we present concrete examples from an elementary school intervention based on TSI. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Reviews the research on giftedness and talent in the arts. Topics addressed include: the nature and identification of giftedness/talent in the arts; and factors supporting artistic talent development. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The major research question related to self-concept and gifted students is the extent to which the self-concept facets of gifted students are comparable to the self-concept of average-ability students. A related question involves the extent to which giftedness interacts with the process of self-concept development. A third research question relates to the impact of placement of intellectually gifted students in gifted programs on their self-concept facets. A fourth research question focuses on the congruity between self-concept ratings and demonstrated accomplishments. A final research question relates to the generalizability of findings across various subgroups of gifted students (gifted females, culturally diverse gifted, students with gifts and disabilities, creatively gifted students). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Robinson provides an important cautionary tale about the use of alternative assessments. She clearly argues for the retention of more traditional tests as a way of ensuring that underrepresented populations are not overlooked in the identification process. In crafting her argument for traditional tests, she cites literature supporting the use of both aptitude and achievement tests to find students who already are demonstrating giftedness, the majority of students we seek to find. In identifying students of promise, she suggests that such tests may be useful but far from conclusive in locating these students, suggesting that traditional measures also need to be considered. An important issue raised in her chapter is that of the purpose for which the testing is done, noting the need to provide the optimal match between the tools employed to find students and the program provided to serve them. If giftedness is defined as advanced cognitive development, then we have many traditional measures that can identify it, according to Robinson. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)

In this chapter, we report and synthesize the major findings in the specific domain of mathematics with direct implications for the secondary curriculum. We draw on the relevant literature from international journals in mathematics education, gifted education, and philosophy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The following chapter addresses the following questions: (1) How well do various forms of assessment predict behaviors that are associated with gifted students or that are required of students in the gifted program in which students are placed? (2) To what extent do various forms of assessment actually measure the constituents of giftedness? and (3) To what extent can identification procedures be made more equitable with respect to issues such as race and SES? Although there are numerous studies that deal with the identification of gifted students, I will focus on a few that are historically significant and that have affected practice in the field of gifted education before turning to some more recent studies that exemplify current concerns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

A discussion of all of the different conceptions of giftedness is beyond the scope of this chapter; therefore, only those conceptions for which there is evidence of use in the U.S. school system and/or those conceptions with evidence of empirical validation are described here. In addition to presenting a general overview of the influence of an individual's personal conception of giftedness, this chapter will address the terms used in the literature, particularly as these are associated with the major theorists in the field; the major questions that are addressed in research and the available empirical support for different conceptions; the limitations and the practical implications of the research; and the major references and resources for obtaining further information. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Sternberg explores a new use for alternative assessment as a value-added aspect of identification of gifted learners, exploring the employment of practical and creative performance-based assessment tasks as part of a college admissions process at a selective university. Rather than discontinue the use of the SAT, which he argues measures primarily analytical abilities, he and his Rainbow Project collaborators devised a system that added additional tasks to the college application form, resulting in finding more minority students who qualified for admission during the pilot year of the initiative. The theory underlying this new "Rainbow Assessment" is the theory of successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1997), which also forms the basis for a theory of giftedness (Sternberg, 2000, 2005). His pilot use of this multifaceted testing approach at grades 4-7 also is briefly described. Sternberg concludes his chapter by asserting the need to identify for diversity and to validate tests that are successful in doing so. Such a stance provides a strong purpose for identification, yet it is clearly different from our testing history that has sought to identify the students who are most advanced in cognitive development across and within areas of learning. Sternberg then raises an important issue about the core purposes of testing for gifted programs: Should diversity trump evidence of advanced ability? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

Assessing nontraditional students who come from culturally diverse backgrounds, low socioeconomic households, or who have limited English language proficiency has long been a concern in psychology and education. With an increasingly large and diverse student body in U.S. schools, there has been a corresponding press for equitable assessment and representative identification of ethnic and racial minority students for inclusion in special education programs, including programs for the gifted and talented. Additional efforts and new directions have been required to ensure that equitable assessment and identification practices are employed for all students in U.S. schools, especially for those nontraditional students who historically have been disenfranchised by the educational system. This chapter explores two innovative and promising strategies for accurately and representatively identifying diverse populations of students as gifted and talented, while reducing the sometimes biased overlays of language, culture, and poverty. The two primary instruments addressed in this chapter are the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (Bracken & McCallum, 1998), which assesses cognitive functioning from a nonverbal assessment paradigm, and the Clinical Assessment of Behavior (Bracken & Keith, 2004a), which assesses teachers' and parents' perceptions of students' behavioral functioning, including important behaviors associated with giftedness (e.g., social skills, competence, executive functioning). Other instruments will be mentioned in passing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The problem of deciding what criteria to use to identify giftedness remains an intractable one in the field. Giftedness has traditionally been taken to mean intellectual giftedness, and the gifted have often been identified through IQ achievement, or other formal tests of school-based skills. To avoid an IQ bias, the discussion in this chapter relies heavily on studies whose gifted subjects were selected by other means. Even though their findings are drawn primarily from testlike settings, these researchers' observations of the students' thinking processes are detailed and comprehensive, thus allowing for comparisons with information from other sources. The following discussion takes into consideration not only intellectual abilities but also artistic talents in cases where both share similar cognitive characteristics. Studies on artistic talent use subjects who had distinguished themselves through class performance, auditions, or products. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter addresses the major issues facing educators, administrators, and parents in nurturing mathematical talent in students at the elementary level. The focus is on presenting relevant research and guidance on the application of this research so that the reader will be able to make informed decisions that will benefit young mathematically gifted students. Providing appropriate curriculum for mathematically gifted students is complex, in part because the definition of mathematical giftedness is not universal. How one defines mathematical giftedness in turn affects how students are identified for services and how the actual services, including the curriculum, are rendered. Thus, to get a true picture of the research associated with curriculum for elementary mathematics gifted education, several areas need to be addressed. To varying degrees, the research addresses the following questions related to providing appropriate curriculum for mathematically gifted elementary students: (1) How can we identify students who are mathematically gifted? (2) What kinds of programming options for these students have research support? (3) What instructional approaches and grouping models work best for these options? and (4) What research-based curriculum is appropriate for mathematically gifted elementary students? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

What does it mean to be gifted? Is there something different about the neurobiology of a gifted person compared to us average people? If so, what is it? These are questions that have been debated for years and ones that I have attempted to address here. The approach discussed in the current chapter takes into consideration a number of general neural operating principles that may be used to guide future studies of giftedness. In this chapter I present a theory of neural processing that is derived from the use of functional neuroimaging, particularly functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The major proposal of this chapter is that how well the neural system can adapt to changes in the environment will affect the quality and efficiency of its processing, thereby constituting a major source of individual differences in cognitive processing. Adaptability is assessed here by examining neural efficiency, the malleability of processing networks, and functional connectivity. These measures are used because how well someone can adapt to fluctuations in the computational demands is thought to be correlated with these measures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Many in the field of gifted education have suggested that new conceptions of giftedness and a new paradigm for identifying and selecting students will help low socioeconomic and minority students become more represented in gifted programs. This new paradigm of identification would recognize the different ways in which students display giftedness and would call for more varied and authentic assessments. Based on our current understanding of the problem of underrepresentation of low-income and minority students in gifted programs and preliminary studies, the use of performance-based assessment as a nontraditional tool for enhancing the possibility of greater representation of such students in these programs appears to be a promising development. Performance assessments focus on challenging open-ended problems that require high-level thinking and problem solving, and put an emphasis on the process the student uses to come to an answer rather than on whether or not the student can quickly find the right answer. This chapter examines the academic and social-emotional impact of performance task assessment, utilizing data from a follow-up study of gifted students' identification and achievement profiles over 6 years and vignette analyses of students of special prototypes in terms of SES, ethnic membership, and ability profiles. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Giftedness is, in large part, a function of creativity in generating ideas, analytical intelligence in evaluating the quality of these ideas, practical intelligence in implementing the ideas and convincing others to value and follow the ideas, and wisdom to ensure that the decisions and their implementation is for the common good of all stakeholders. The model is referred to as WICS—wisdom, intelligence, creativity, synthesized—although the order of elements in the acronym is intended only to make it pronounceable. This chapter considers the elements of creativity, intelligence and wisdom, in that order, because it represents the order in which the elements often are initially used. As gifted performance evolves, however, the elements become interactive and so order becomes less relevant. The chapter then considers how the concepts can be employed in teaching and assessment, and finally, how they can be employed in identifying the gifted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

There is considerable evidence that intelligence as a brain function occurs through the synchronized integration of information processing, involving a myriad of interconnected functional modules. Consistently, the brains of gifted children show relatively higher levels of cerebral interconnectivity when engaged in cognitive tasks. An important part of the evidence for integrated brain function as the seat of intelligence comes from studies into cross-modal processing, where sensory information in one modality, e.g. vision, is processed in multiple sensory areas, e.g. auditory, sensory. Thus, so-called learning styles such as VAK (Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic) based on processing information in a single modality, fail to acknowledge how the brain actually works. This could explain why no independent evidence has been found for the learning efficacy of VAK and similar learning style inventories. Moreover, as an anti-integration pedagogy, VAK is implicitly anti-intellectual and anti-giftedness. Savants are an intriguing example of high-functioning individuals. Despite their extremes of performance, this chapter argues that in terms of their neural interconnectivity, the brains of savants are qualitatively different from those of children we usually classify as gifted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Ian Warwick has been working with inner city students and educators for many years now to develop a broad-based approach to gifted education that can be available to every student and teacher. He has written this chapter with Dona Matthews on an initiative currently in place in London. They observe that there are enormous benefits not only for families and students, but also for schools and for society as a whole when educators see cultural diversity as a strength to be capitalized on, rather than a problem to be solved. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: book)

This chapter reports on the outcomes of a three-year project, commissioned by the British government, involving fourteen local education districts drawn from a range of socioeconomic settings. The project was carried out as a set of action research projects, with practitioners working collaboratively with university academics, exploring practical strategies for enhancing educational provision for gifted children aged 4 to 7. Each project was designed to address the local schools' and education districts' needs within the context of a rapidly developing national agenda for gifted and talented education in the UK. Analysis of the fourteen case studies generated a number of issues with implications for classroom practice and policy. The findings from the projects enrich and extend the knowledge base and understanding of gifted and talented education in foundation and key stage one settings (4 to 7 years) in England and Wales. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter addresses the issue of whether the dominant conception of 'gifted and talented' is justified by psychological research, and what effects holding this conception have for learners. It argues that both the research base and practical and moral considerations should lead us to exclude ideas of innate and unchangeable degrees of 'giftedness' from our educational practice as incorrect, inhuman and counter-productive. It is easy to forget that 'brightness' or 'giftedness' are inferences and attributions, not statements of self-evident fact. In this chapter we want to go back to the behaviors and dispositions on which these inferences and attributions are based and explore the ways in which they might have been learned, and thus could be subject to further systematic modification. We ask: To what extent do young people learn to act in ways that will lead parents and teachers to attribute 'brightness' to them? To what extent are such behaviors capable of further modification? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The contemporary Russian educational system is struggling with the many economic and social issues that resulted from the global instability following the collapse of the Soviet Union, when much of the financial, political, and social support for education in general and gifted education in particular eroded. This chapter addresses the current state of affairs in mathematics and science education for the gifted in post-Soviet Russia and describes (a) the infrastructure of gifted education; (b) the identification of giftedness; (c) the nature and scope of gifted and specialized programs (and schools), with a separate discussion of programs in mathematics and science; and (d) the trajectory of talent development and realization (i.e. performance in mathematics and science olympiads for youth compared with adult employment). The chapter expands and supplements the discussion offered in Yurkevich and Davidovich (this volume; see record 2008-17742-013) on general trends in the education of gifted children in Russia and focuses specifically on such trends in the teaching of mathematics and science, the domains in which gifted education in Russia has previously been recognized as one of the world-leaders (Grigorenko 2000). Today, there are many interesting innovations in teaching the social sciences and humanities to gifted children, but this field is still in development and needs further crystallization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Over the past few decades, there has been a change in prevailing definitions and understandings of intelligence, in the ways that giftedness is identified and in the programming that is recommended for exceptionally capable learners. After a brief description of the historical and conceptual underpinnings of this paradigm shift, we discuss here its practical consequences, including connections to current psychological research on mindsets, and to teaching that promotes both intellectual and emotional learning. Throughout, our focus is on what this means for understanding and supporting high-level development in diverse kinds of learners. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)