Su búsqueda

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)

The current knowledge base in the area of twice exceptionality, particularly regarding those students with learning disabilities, includes both empirical research from the neurosciences and lessons from practice, where clinical and educational programs have sprouted to provide support and an organizational identity for twice exceptionality. Twice exceptionality is not a diagnosis widely accepted and supported in mainstream education. Notably, little epidemiological data exist to provide incidence or precedence for it, because it extends across several populations of disability and because no central definition exists for giftedness. However, information from empirical and epidemiological research, case studies, assessment, and current models of practice provides the fundamental knowledge necessary to advocate for and serve these special gifted children, poised to contribute to the world in extraordinary ways with their unique skills and talents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Gifted children and youth remain a misunderstood population. Part of the problem is definitional. The federal definition states that the gifted demonstrate outstanding ability or potential and require differentiated educational programs, and includes exceptional intellectual, academic, and leadership ability, creativity, and artistic talent. In clinical practice, however, high IQ remains the predominant definitional criterion. Most psychologists and schools use the criterion of an IQ score of 120,125, or 130. A second definitional issue that has contributed to misunderstanding is whether we should narrowly define giftedness as persons of high IQ or more broadly define giftedness as any person with exceptional ability or uncommon talent. A third issue is whether we should restrict our conceptualization to those children with already demonstrated high ability or also consider children with outstanding promise. The gifted are not immune to the social and emotional challenges that all children face. Some gifted underperform to mask their abilities. A number of gifted struggle with depression, suicide ideation, anxiety, social isolation and feelings of alienation, anger management, neurotic perfectionism, and sexual identity issues. Finally, some gifted are twice exceptional and have sensory, orthopedic, or communication disabilities or psychiatric disorders coexisting with their giftedness, including ADHD, Asperger's disorder, eating disorders, and mood disorders. Experts hypothesize that the majority of twice exceptional gifted/disabled have specific learning disabilities (SLD). There are three types of gifted/SLD. The first type is the gifted with subtle, subclinical learning problems. The second type is diagnosed as learning disabled but rarely identified as gifted. Their learning disability is more pervasive and severe and moderates their academic success. The third type remains unrecognized as either learning disabled or gifted. Their learning disability masks their gift and their gift obscures their learning disability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Paradigms of gifted education highlights how to conduct research in gifted education when researchers have to choose from myriad theoretical ideas, hypotheses, claims, practical models, and strategies. It shows researchers how to build clarity, rigor, and relevance into a research agenda that combats fragmentation and contributes to enhanced theoretical and practical endeavors in the field. Specifically, Paradigms of gifted education advocates a paradigmatic approach to conducting research in gifted education and shows how it can be done every step of the way by specifying the essential questions of What?, Why?, Who?, and How? in a coherent manner, and by selecting methods that are appropriate for the question asked and the phase of the research efforts. To facilitate the development of a research agenda, the book identifies three major paradigms of gifted education and 20 essential research questions that would help move the field forward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: cover)

By establishing the American Association for Gifted Children (AAGC), Strang and her colleagues raised awareness amongst teachers, counselors and parents of the needs of gifted, talented, and creative students across the United States. Her actions emphasized the importance of advocacy for gifted students and contributed to an awareness of the research on giftedness and gifted education. Ruth Strang was a respected female professor of education at a leading university. She was an educator and astute counselor of gifted students. She was highly perceptive of gifted students' developmental needs and spent decades honing her knowledge and understanding of child and adolescent development. Her writings on the nature of giftedness were based on case studies of gifted children and research on giftedness. As one of a group of academics at Teachers College interested in giftedness, she added to the credibility of the field of gifted education in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Her depth of knowledge in regard to adolescent development, guidance and psychology of students, and the importance of reading development provided her with the broad educational knowledge that she applied to her studies of gifted students. Professor Ruth May Strang was a woman ahead of her times as an observant and insightful educator; much of what she wrote on the psychological and educational needs of the gifted continues to be relevant to gifted children and adolescents today. References (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Calvin W. Taylor, scholar, thinker, and imaginer, devoted his life to the development of creative talents and abilities in all people. He worked to promote an educational system in which all students would be given the opportunity and support to develop their talents to the fullest. His doctoral work with psychologist L.L. Thurstone further defined linguistic fluency to include the subcategories of ideational fluency and verbal versatility, set the stage for his life's work in promoting the idea that there are multiple factors involved in human intelligence. He viewed talents as the intellectual or mental abilities recognized through the work of Thurstone (1938) and Guilford (1967). Taylor's work, along with the work of E. Paul Torrance and others, changed the fundamental conception of giftedness—that IQ alone was not sufficient to predict success in later life. He insisted that multiple talents were the key to understanding whether someone would be successful and believed that education should concern itself with the identification and cultivation of all human talents. He felt that creative talents and their development through multiple-talent teaching were needed to insure our productive future, stating, "Creativity has the power to transform giftedness to eminence" (as cited in Kim, 2009, p. 571). For Taylor, the development of one's talents had the potential to change the course of history (Kim, 2009). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

To summarize the rationale for including Ann Isaacs in a book of nineteenth and twentieth century "illuminated minds" for the field of gifted education, it seems clear that she belongs in this pantheon. She may not have contributed most profoundly to the intellectual foundations of the field, but she did contribute to the heart and well-being of the field through her direct communications with schools, families, and the two national organizations she founded. Her philosophy about what was needed served both national organizations well for 28 consecutive years. She also was someone to whom the regular readers of the two journals she founded and managed could relate. Her messages were simple and direct, based on the "real world," something readers and audience participants could expect when they read to or listened to Ann Isaacs. She was the field's most vocal advocate through her books, journals, music, and art. She kept the field, without much political, societal, or economic support (or respect), from being erased from conscious awareness and conscience. She may have had her flaws and her personal ambitions, but she was consistent in her message about the development of giftedness, creativity, and talent. Fond as she was of lists (25 strategies for teaching gifted readers, 100 ways to raise self-esteem, etc.), it is hoped the following succinct list of her accomplishments would please her if she could see it today. The accomplishments are large for such a tiny but energetic woman. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Catharine Morris Cox (later) Miles is most widely known in the field of gifted education as the author of Terman's second volume of Genetic Studies of Genius. Her contributions to research on giftedness included a study of historical figures who were highly gifted children using historiometric inquiry, contributions to handbooks and reviews. Her work influenced scholarly inquiry and popular culture. This chapter discusses her life and career. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

Building on the work of Francis Galton, extending the work of Alfred Binet, and contradicting the work of Cesare Lombroso, Lewis Terman, Leta Hollingworth, and Catharine Cox Miles set in motion a series of studies that would provide the space from which the field of gifted education would contract and expand during its nearly 100 years of existence. The intentions of their investigations differed in focus and meaning. Terman concentrated on description, definition, and identification of giftedness and how this related to the prediction of future success. Hollingworth's intentions lay in the description and education of the gifted. Cox also sought to describe the gifted genius but in an infinitely different but no less scientific way than her contemporaries by employing methodologies of history and imposing them on psychological principles and theories. The greatness of their investigations stem from two aspects: (a) the innovativeness of their undertakings and (b) the sense making achieved from the sheer magnitude and scope of the data.Their investigations spawned conceptual and empirical activity that continues in the twenty-first century. This chapter discusses these figures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Kazimierz Dabrowski's theorizing has contributed significantly to the broadening conceptualization of giftedness, beyond academic achievement and eminence. Based on his clinical practice and research, Dabrowski noted that gifted and talented individuals tended to experience the world and themselves in qualitatively different ways. In his conceptualization, Dabrowski emphasized the primacy of emotion, explicitly relegating other factors, including intelligence, to subservient roles. Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration provides scholars, researchers, practitioners, and parents a unique lens through which to view giftedness with emotion taking center stage. Unlike other theoretical contributions that have broadened the conceptualization of giftedness, for example, Mariand's (1972) expansion from unidimensional to multidimensional, Dabrowski's theory has contributed to a re-conceptualization of giftedness itself. Emotional giftedness (Mayer, Perkins, Caruso, & Salovey, 2001; Piechowski, 1997), giftedness as asynchronous development (Silverman, 1997, 2012), identification of giftedness (Carman, 2011), and self-actuaUzation and morality ofthe gifted (Ruf, 2009) are a few examples of Dabrowski's influence on our current conceptualization of giftedness. The pilot research by Mayer and his associates (2001) is particularly important because it showed that positive maladjustment appears at the high end of emotional intelligence and that it characterizes emotional giftedness. In addition, other contemporary theorizing such as giftedness as greater awareness (Roeper, 1982), spiritual giftedness (Lovecky, 1998), and heightened multifaceted sensitivity (MendagUo, 2003) resonate with Dabrowski's theory and receive indirect support from it. In general, TPD has had the effect of ending the stranglehold that cognition and material achievement had on the field of gifted education. Scholars, adopting a Dabrowskian perspective on giftedness, have reinforced the importance of a holistic approach to giftedness—to concern ourselves with the emotional, moral, and spiritual dimensions of gifted individuals, not simply to focus on meeting their intellectual needs, but rather the development of the whole person. As such, TPD contrasts sharply with conceptions of giftedness that emphasize productivity (Renzulli, 1978; Gardner, 1999; Sternberg, 2000). Interest in TPD's conception of giftedness is on the rise, despite renewed attempts to reduce giftedness to an external criterion of achievement (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The life and work of Sir Francis Galton is surely the most important in any history of the field of gifted education. He not only was the first to study giftedness in a serious way but also invented statistical techniques such as correlation and regression in order to use statistics to handle the data sets he constructed. His interest in children in schools and women in hospitals led to his initiating questionnaires to collect data on needs in both settings. Galton's investigations led to improved attention to vision and hearing needs of children and to pregnancy issues related for women. Thus, his work impacted many aspects of what we still do today in education in general as well as in gifted education. This chapter discusses Galton's contributions to the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In the 1930s and 1940s, Paul Witty emerged as one of the leading spokespersons of gifted education (Hildenbrand, 1981) and became one of the most prolific writers in the field during the 1940s and 1950s. He also had a variety of interests during his career including reading, the effects of television on children, and creativity (Beckstrand, n.d.). His interest in gifted education and gifted children spanned a number of areas, including programming options and educational provisions, identification and the definition of giftedness, gifted African American students, gifted students and science, and the Quiz Kids show (a popular program in the 1940s and 1950s that began on radio and then moved to television). In addition to editing one of the most important books in the 1950s, The Gifted Child, Witty contributed numerous journal articles and book chapters to the literature and conducted longitudinal and case study research. What Witty's archival collection and his publications reveal is a scholar and gentleman dedicated to advancing the educational needs of gifted children. He was one of the first researchers in the field to seriously advance the idea that students of color were to be found in the ranks of high intelligence, which ran counter to the standard belief during the first half of the 20th century. Witty encouraged challenging educational opportunities for all gifted children and was active in advocating on their behalf. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)