Su búsqueda

Finding John Galt: People, Politics, and Practice in Gifted Education covers significant highlights in the history of gifted education, addressing significant contributors to the field, important political and policy concerns, and programs and practices of note. Finding John Galt's scope is holistic, using Ayn Rand's concept of "men [and women] of the mind" to frame giftedness as a quality of individuals that extends beyond the academic or "schoolhouse" setting and into a range of aspects of the lived human experience of gifted individuals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: cover)

Interest in gifted women has continued in the three decades since Carolyn Callahan published one of the first articles about this topic in the context of gifted education in 1979. Indeed, during the last three decades, books and multiple articles have been published about gifted girls and women by Karnes, Kerr, Rimm, Reis, and others. This chapter probes the reflections of gifted women in the field of gifted education in an effort to identify their perceptions of their contributions, challenges, and beliefs about giftedness and talents in girls and women. Reis (1998) defined talent development in women as occurring when women with high intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership ability or potential achieve at in an area of choice and make what they define as personally meaningful contributions to society. Reis identified several factors that contribute to this conception of giftedness and talent in women including: abilities (intelligence and special talents), personality traits, environmental factors, and personal perceptions, such as the social importance of the use of one's talents to make a positive difference in the world. Each of these factors contributes to what Gruber called "self-mobilization", characterized in some talented women by the development of belief in self, a desire to develop one's talents, and a sense of destiny enabling one to make conscious decisions to develop talents, often with little support and against many obstacles. Each of the women profiled in this chapter displayed these characteristics, working many hours over years of sheer effort as they successfully used their talents to make a difference in this field. This chapter highlights both their stories and their personal reflections on their journeys. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The character of John Galt in Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged (1957) was faced with his professor who had forgotten, in his thrust for political gain, an important statement made to John as his student. The statement was "The only sacred value in the world, John, is the human mind, the inviolate human mind...". As a brilliant scientist and philosopher, the character Galt thought that the mind needs freedom to think and create. He believed that the mind is the power that moves the world. It was in this role that he led several gifted people to strike against a society that envied instead of saluted their ability to make the world a better place. Is there a message in Galt's activities and philosophy that speak to the present status of minority and other exceptionalities in the field of education of the gifted? Perhaps there is a need to find him because the present processes for addressing the needs of gifted minorities for inclusion in programs for the gifted lack the qualities that are necessary to achieve the goal proposed in Galt's statement regarding the mind and its power. The future where there will be a consensus of philosophies regarding the approach toward identifying and developing programs for students who have historically been left out of organized programs for the gifted is promising. There are many ideas and questions to be resolved, and in coming to a consensus there will be many pros and cons regarding any suggestions that are made. It is important that the process of finding some answers to questions posed in this chapter not be used as a political football by those who seek recognition. Funds are being provided by the government to develop programs for the gifted. There are many children of difference cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds that bring untapped exceptional abilities. Their opportunity to develop these abilities is important in our new technology society. It is probably time for us to consider that one type of educational arrangement will not be able to fit the many abilities that do not fall within the category of the usual "school house" requirements. Perhaps there is a "John Galt" among us trying very hard to get us to understand. We need to seek him and his ideas. Perhaps geniuses such as those that Galt embraced are among us as we pursue ideas for a more enhanced understanding of giftedness. Let's find them! (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter provides a practitioner's focus on why Cal Taylor matters, as contextualized within other multi-modal systems of understanding giftedness. While there are many psychologists who worked on a theory of intellect, the focus here is on the work that served as a base for other researchers and not to account for what Taylor himself might call the many, varied, and sometimes unusual models that have been developed from those initial efforts. Unlike many other researchers, Calvin Taylor interpreted gifted students as those at the very top of any talent area, and talented students as those who are above average. As a result of this interpretation, he has suggested that nearly all students are talented in al least one way and that if a program was developed to cater for a wide range of talent areas, greater numbers of students would benefit. Taylor argued for a complete reformation of the education system to allow for the development of this diversity of talents displayed by students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

There is no doubt that the Cold War, and specifically America's emphasis on defeating the "red menace," had a significant effect on Western gifted education. And, while it's tempting to think of this period as something of a "golden age" for gifted education—when programs were funded and gifted students were valued—it's more appropriate to think of it as "the best of times... the worst of times." On the one hand, during the Sputnik era, gifted students were indeed valued—for "values" of "gifted" that equaled "productive," or in Renzulli's somewhat-deliberately inflammatory term, "schoolhouse gifted." This was a great time to be gifted—if you were a high-performing, high-achieving student, preferably from a family that valued education and possessed enough of it themselves to support your efforts. But was it enough simply to be brilliant? Yes—and no. Even within the intellectually liberating, and seemingly liberated, environment, culturally imposed taboos still existed. Even a suspicion of homosexuality was enough to get a man exiled from this Eden—and women were unlikely to be invited in at all. The range of tolerable deviation from the norm in the gifted stretched only so far, even among the gifted. Indeed, the very individuality of the highly gifted scientists who were lionized at the time supported and validated a larger-scale cultural belief in individualism; at the same time, the individualistic nature even of the scientific wunderkinder was only permitted its scope so long as it validated, or at least did not conflict with, other broad cultural values. Paradoxically, and sadly, it was precisely these cultural conditions that brought about the end of the "golden age of giftedness" and paved the way for the civil rights movement—a political and social shift from excellence to equity in education, which in turn ultimately paved the way for an examination of the gifted, not merely as culturally-conforming high-producers, but as individuals whose unique intellectual and creative capacities affect every aspect of their lives. But the Sputnik era nonetheless left its mark, for better and for worse, on the American approach to giftedness studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

For more than 100 years, intelligence tests have had a significant role in determining the appropriateness of special programs and classes for certain children. Intelligence is generally accepted to be an important element of giftedness. The research-based models for developing programs and services for gifted and talented students include multiple components for identification, instruction, and curriculum. Several types of assessment are used in each of these components, including intelligence or aptitude tests, observation, interview, portfolio, and check lists for parents, teachers, peers, and the students themselves. This chapter examines the significant characteristics of standardized tests, including intelligence tests, that are used in gifted education, their historical development and contribution to the development of gifted education, and the pros and cons of their continued use in the field today. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The main goal of this chapter is to present general treatment aspects of children suffering both a pain disorder and a mental disorder. We pinpoint the specifics for paediatric pain therapy in children with a pain disorder and concomitant depressive symptomatology, anxiety disorder, trauma disorder, or adjustment disorder. We furthermore discuss the specific therapeutic needs of children who are accused of school truancy or who actually have learning disabilities or intellectual giftedness. Finally, we discuss children with chronic pain also suffering a severe somatic disease or living in highly burdening family systems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Educational programming, clinical practice, and even parenting decisions are shaped and driven by beliefs and philosophies. They may not be overt or articulated, but they underlie actions from everyday behaviors to high-level policy decisions. Because the field of gifted education is characterized by not one, but many belief systems, there is a considerable variation from state to state and school to school in definitions of giftedness, identification of students for special services, programming delivery models, curriculum and instructional practices, and guidance and counseling practices. One can argue the merits of one belief system or philosophy over another, but the key to providing high-quality services to gifted children is to examine carefully the current theory and research in the field; come to a consensus on underlying principles to guide programming, based on sound reflections of what the theory and research indicate is best practice; and then create the components of a program consistent with a set of beliefs derived from careful reflection and decision making based on current knowledge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

A traditional identification procedure using primarily quantitative assessments is the most widely used approach in the United States. Implementation of this approach, however, is quite diverse and is influenced by federal and state definitions, standards-based practices, state rules and regulations, program characteristics, and implicit or explicit conceptions of giftedness. For the most part, educators who use traditional approaches believe that gifted students exist and form a distinct group, that they can be identified with technically adequate assessments, and that they need to be served to develop their gifts and talents. To implement this approach, all who are involved in the identification process need to receive professional development, including administrators, parents, special educators, and general educators. Without this development, the quality of the overall process is in jeopardy. Moreover, technically adequate assessments need to be selected to ensure adequate ceilings, alignment with-the program, and recognition of all groups, particularly those from special populations. Since traditional assessment approaches do not generally provide sufficient diagnostic information for programming, a diverse group of gifted students is often served within a common program. To meet each student's interests, abilities, and skills more effectively, teachers need to gather more information to tailor the curriculum to each student. Even when well implemented, the traditional approach presents challenges including under-representation of minority students and inability to consider the dynamic nature of giftedness. Therefore, decisions are made on what is assessed, what the student has acquired, rather than what the student might develop. Politically, the process raises important issues; however, even though traditional approaches have serious challenges, they do recognize that gifted and talented students exist. Without the recognition that some students have distinct characteristics, is there a need for professional development, for services, or for resource support? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Identification of gifted students remains one of the most controversial aspects of gifted programming. This controversy stems from the lack of a consistent definition of giftedness, which makes identifying giftedness tricky; diversity in the ways in which giftedness is operationalized from school district to school district, sometimes referred to as the "geographic giftedness" phenomenon; and a lack of understanding of the technical aspect of measurement involved in the identification process. While there are myriad ways in which school districts implement the process of gifted identification, one commonly used process includes the use of a gifted identification matrix. Scholars in the field have written extensively about the perils of using matrices in identifying students for gifted services. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a (mostly) non-technical discussion of the uses and misuses of matrices and to offer some guidance on appropriate practices that can be applied in a school setting. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Since its first appearance in Gifted Child Quarterly, the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) has evolved into a full-fledged theory of talent development now referred to as the DMGT 2.0. No chapter-length text can encompass all the details of its contents and dynamics. Consequently, I offer the present text as a "detailed overview"—a potential oxymoron!—of the updated DMGT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The question "What makes giftedness?" has been debated for decades, with renewed interest over the past 20 years as new theories of intelligence emerged, questions of equity were raised, and resources in schools declined. To shed light on this complex and controversial question, we will draw heavily on the theoretical and research literature associated with the study of gifted and talented persons, but our approach also reflects the point of view of educational practitioners who have devoted significant time and effort to translating research and theory into defensible identification and programming practices. In this chapter, an explanation of key features to be included in a definition of giftedness is followed by a review of the types of giftedness typically identified by school personnel and a summary of purposes for educating gifted students. Subsequent discussion of the developmental nature of giftedness and a rationale for viewing giftedness as a displayed behavior rather than a possessed trait lead to an explicit definition—the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

I have attempted in this chapter to undermine some of the most fundamental articles of faith in the field of gifted education: that enrichment works; that gifted education requires gifted programs; and, finally, that the notion of giftedness among school students makes sense and results in positive outcomes. Many, if not most, people in the field of gifted education, I suspect, would reject my arguments out of hand. That is well and good; intellectual disagreement and debate are healthy signs in any discipline or field of practice. What I would find disturbing would not be disagreement with my conclusions, but dismissal of the value of problematizing our most cherished notions. A decade and a half ago, I wrote an article entitled "Gifted Education and the Threat of Irrelevance" (1996) in which 1 suggested that, as a field, we have a "fear of the big questions". By this I meant that we let others explore questions we find to be too controversial and thereby cede to others important intellectual territory that ought to be ours. We need to reclaim those "big questions" that others, including some not so friendly to our purposes, have laid claim to. Problematizing our most fundamental beliefs would be a good step in that direction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The study of the psychological constructs of cognitive ability and intelligence' has its roots in the work of theorists and researchers in the fields of psychometric measurement, intelligence, and developmental psychology. Giftedness as a trait of individuals is an outgrowth of the study of intelligence and cognitive abilities, and the definition of giftedness has changed over time as the study of human abilities has evolved in psychology. The study of giftedness in psychology can be traced back to Francis Galton's (1869) Hereditary Genius. From his observations of families of eminent persons, Galton defined giftedness as either attainment of genius or children showing the potential for genius, emphasizing the influence of heredity. Galton's beliefs about the high hereditability of intelligence and the link between measured intelligence and giftedness had a strong influence on the study of both intelligence and giftedness. This orientation continued with the work of Terman and his longitudinal study of gifted students and the work of Hollingworth (1942) with highly gifted students. Terman defined gifted children as those scoring two standard deviations above the norm on the Stanford-Binet intelligence Scale, an assessment created by Terman. Theories of giftedness that align with the conception of giftedness as advanced cognitive ability have generally focused on performance as measured by the Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler intelligence Scales, or other intelligence tests. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Definitions of terms and concepts in any field of study provide the basis for common understanding and shared meaning while also facilitating decision making and resource allocation. They serve an important role in building credibility and consensus among theorists, researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. The field of gifted education is no exception, but as the following example demonstrates, there is still much work to be done regarding the clarity and utility of policy-related definitions of giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Students who simultaneously show evidence of high performance or potential in a talent or ability and have a disability that impacts on their ability to achieve and learn are often referred to as "twice exceptional" and require attention in the academic setting. Recognition that twice-exceptional students exist in U.S. classrooms was articulated over three decades ago by Maker (1977) who referred to these students as "gifted handicapped." Initially, educators viewed twice exceptionality as paradoxical, as it seemed implausible that intellectually gifted children could concomitantly have a learning disability. However, based on Maker's contention that intellectual giftedness and learning disabilities can and do coexist, researchers began to investigate the characteristics, identification, and curriculum needs of students with dual exceptionalities. The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) (2010) recognizes this population and advocates finding mechanisms for identifying twice-exceptional children so that educators can serve both their gifts and disabilities, and thereby prevent them from falling through the academic cracks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The field of gifted education is characterized by a confusing array of perspectives concerning such fundamental issues as definition, philosophy, curriculum, social and emotional development, and underserved populations. The mission of this book is to provide a coherent framework that instructors and service providers can use in planning effective programs, providing appropriate counseling services, and evaluating programs for the gifted. Most sections are organized around fundamental issues confronting the field and follow a common structure: an introductory chapter that provides a historical and theoretical background and organizing questions followed by several point-of-view chapters written by experts that provide varied perspectives on the topic at hand. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: cover)

The term identification, when used in an educational context, is very broad and encompasses processes that might be in place for deciding which students will be offered particular services within a school or school district, which students might be selected for a special school, or who is given the option of attending a summer Governor's School. Before any program personnel can determine who will be selected for participation, the definition of whatever construct is to be identified must be clear and agreed upon. Because of the many conceptions of giftedness found in the theoretical and research literature, the first and most important decision that should be made regarding practical procedures for identification of gifted students is to select a conception or definition of giftedness to guide decision making. Once consensus is reached on a definition of giftedness, this definition provides guidance in determining who needs to receive special services and the method one will use to select those students. The process of identification will, of course, vary considerably depending on how a school district defines giftedness. But in any identification plan, regardless of the definition chosen, a common set of questions can be used to guide how decision makers respond to the recurring and problematic questions surrounding the identification of students for special programs and services. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The use of norm-referenced, standardized tests of intelligence and achievement in the process of identifying gifted students has a long tradition. Indeed, use of these tests continues to dominate the identification of giftedness in most states and school districts. Proponents of the use of intelligence tests contend that they are objective, valid means of assessing intellectual ability and the single most reliable predictors of academic achievement. However, reliance on traditional assessment intelligence and achievement tests—as the sole data sources in identifying gifted students has received scrutiny. Critics question the validity of these tests for measuring giftedness and argue that an emphasis on traditional assessment tools reflects outdated conceptions of giftedness. They further contend that traditional assessments contribute to the under-identification of minority, low socioeconomic status (SES), and twice-exceptional students, as well as students with creative talents. Still others note that relying solely on traditional test scores results in an arbitrary and indefensible use of cut-off scores for inclusion in gifted programs. These criticisms have led to expanded conceptions of giftedness along with new paradigms for identifying more diverse populations for gifted programs and services. New paradigms call for the use of multiple criteria for identification, including a combination of portfolios, authentic and dynamic assessments, performance tasks, teacher rating scales, and other non-traditional assessments in combination with traditional assessments. While moving the role of traditional assessment tools from center stage in the decision- making process has been encouraged, few argue that they have no place in conceptions of intellectual giftedness' or identification of students gifted in specific academic domains, and they remain a prominent data source in identification procedures in most school districts. However, in order to evaluate the advantages, and limitations, of using traditional assessment tools for identifying gifted students, one must understand what these instruments purport to measure and for what purposes they are valid and reliable instruments. This understanding will aid educators in determining how and under what circumstances it is appropriate to use traditional assessment tools to identify gifted students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Significant advances have been made in the education of gifted rural students, especially in the areas of identification and curriculum development. In general, the existing research suggests that culturally-sensitive, creativity-focused identification practices and experiential, community-based curricular efforts provide numerous benefits to bright students living in rural areas. There also appears to be empirical evidence, albeit limited in scope, that providing comprehensive educational and counseling support to gifted rural students, especially those in high school and college, leads to greater academic success. In addition, over the past 20 years, a hallmark of almost every successful program for gifted rural students has been intensive professional development focused on the characteristics and needs of gifted students. Of course, the positive impact of professional development is not surprising: The well-known lack of content on gifted students in most teacher preparation programs, combined with traditional rural attitudes toward giftedness, make it unlikely that many rural educators have had much exposure (or motivation to get exposure) to gifted education issues. Despite the advances in the education of rural gifted students stretching back a couple of generations, the literature on this particular group of students is still marked by collections of presumed best practices, anecdotal evidence, and conceptual analyses. It is worth noting that the flurry of recent publications on gifted rural students focuses primarily either on conceptual analyses or reviews of literature. The lack of program evaluations and empirical studies of specific interventions has delayed progress substantially. The field has a strong foundation from which to proceed, but a great deal of additional work is needed to provide educators with tools for fostering the development of gifted students living in rural communities. Finally, educators and researchers need to keep in mind that the nature of rurality is rapidly changing. Due to broader economic, cultural, and immigration trends (and most probably, interactions among them), describing a prototypical "rural community" has become nearly impossible. For example, numerous languages are spoken in rural areas; in rural communities in Northeast Indiana, one may overhear conversations in English, German, or Spanish. The linguistic, cultural, and racial/ethnic diversity in rural communities is often noted, but rarely directly addressed in the literature on gifted students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)