Buscar

Two major objectives motivated us to develop a volume of contributions from developmental psychologists and from experts in gifted education. First, we wanted to better understand how recent advances in developmental psychology might enhance our understanding of high-level achievement and performance and help to translate the science in light of research, policy, and practice in gifted and talented education. Second, we wanted to interest developmental psychologists in a consideration of exceptionally high-end abilities in their conceptual frameworks. These understandings also have implications for clinicians working with clients throughout the life span. This concluding chapter discusses key themes across the volume; gaps in the research literature; implications for policy; implications for educational practice; and challenges met and challenges ahead. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

In this chapter, I consider some of the specific challenges experienced by high-ability learners as they grow out of childhood and into adolescence. I also address evolving perspectives on giftedness that can work to obviate some of the added complications, with a focus on talent development and other theoretically grounded evidence-based approaches that incorporate individual and developmental diversity, including the domain specificity and fluidity of cognitive development, and the importance of mindsets in regulating young adults' responses to the challenges and opportunities in their lives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this volume, renowned developmental psychologists and experts in gifted education come together to explore giftedness from early childhood through the elder years. Focusing on the practical implications of emerging theoretical perspectives and empirical findings, contributors examine prediction and measurement, diversity issues, and psychosocial factors as they relate to developing talent in different domains. Is the expression of gifted behavior predictable? Is it a stable individual characteristic? How do race, ethnicity, gender, and culture influence or contribute to the development of gifted and talented behaviors? What sustains the development of giftedness and talent? And how can insights gleaned from the field of gifted education inform the research, policy, and practice of psychologists? These questions are considered at each stage across the life span by an interdisciplinary team of experts. This volume is intended for developmental and educational psychologists, as well as for researchers, educators, and anyone interested in the development of high-level abilities, individual differences, educational policy and practice, and the realization of human potential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: jacket)

The consideration of giftedness and talent in a developmental perspective requires an understanding of the current issues in developmental theory with respect to the origins of individual differences and prediction across the life span—from infancy through the adult years. In this chapter I discuss these matters along with changes in the definition of giftedness and talent, the emerging themes in the developmental discourse on giftedness and talent, the role of cultural contexts and matters of diversity, and the implications of all of these issues for setting the research agenda in the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Lynn Liben raises three broad, thought-provoking issues in her chapter on giftedness in the spatial-graphic domain (see chap. 4, this volume; see record 2009-00231-004). First is the role of the study of giftedness in developmental psychology and the question of why giftedness is such a neglected area of study within psychology. Second, she prods readers to consider just how one should undertake the study of spatial giftedness, which is itself a much neglected domain of study within the area of giftedness relative to the study of mathematical and verbal giftedness. And finally, she leads readers to recognize what can be learned from the study of spatial-graphic giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, I want to capture what it is like to be young, gifted, and Black in America. My theoretical perspective is that of a motivational psychologist, so I focus on how contemporary approaches to motivation research can shed light on giftedness in African American adolescents. I organize my discussion of African American gifted adolescents around overarching questions about "can" and "want." In framing my discussion, I focus on both the normative challenges of adolescence relevant to giftedness as well as the unique challenges that gifted Black adolescents are likely to encounter. To do this, I must cast a broad net and begin with factors that are unique to the everyday lives of people of color. Everything that I write in this chapter is shaped by the recognition that many racial and ethnic minority groups in contemporary America are positioned at the bottom of a status hierarchy wherein barriers to opportunity often override personal strivings for achievement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In an ideal world researchers and educators could collaborate to compile a definitive and exhaustive list of characteristics of gifted learners, which then could be used to guide identification, teaching strategies, and curriculum selection for this population. Unfortunately, no such list can or should be created, for one of the unifying themes in research on characteristics of gifted learners is, in fact, the great diversity among them. Gifted and talented learners are not a homogeneous group; to the contrary, they are varied and unique. Despite this diversity, research suggests that there are a handful of traits that may occur with greater frequency in gifted learners than in the general population. In this chapter, some of these characteristics are discussed, with the caveat that it is not the intention to provide a checklist by which students may be identified as either "gifted" or "not gifted." Rather, the intent is to provide educators with an overview of characteristics that may be present in some gifted and high-ability students, and to illustrate how these characteristics may vary based on a variety of factors, including gender, sociocultural group, the presence of a hidden or overt disability, age, and whether a student is achieving or underachieving. By discussing the heterogeneity associated with gifted and talented learners, this chapter may be useful to educators attempting to look beyond rigid stereotypes to more diverse and flexible conceptions of giftedness in a broad spectrum of children and young adults. To begin, the following illustrative case studies are presented. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

It had been said by many educators of the gifted that it is easier to define what differentiation of the curriculum is not than it is to define what differentiation of the curriculum is. Over the years, the concept of differentiating the curriculum for gifted students has changed commensurate to the changes in the definition of giftedness, the contemporary emphasis in general education, and the political and parental responses to general and gifted education. The many definitions of differentiation have resulted in the term becoming a referent for any learning experience that attends to individual differences. In reality, differentiation can be defined by the who—the learner and his or her needs, interest, and abilities; the what—the content and skills of the subject matter to be taught; the how—the pedagogy to be used to teach the content, skills, or both; and the where—the setting, grouping, or both needed to effectively implement the curriculum (the what) to the learner (the who). The original need to differentiate the curriculum for gifted students was based on the recognized strengths of these learners and the acknowledged inadequacy of the regular or core curriculum to meet these needs. The discrepancy theory assesses the core curriculum against the traits of gifted students in order to determine the missing curricular elements that would be responsive to the needs of students. This comparative analysis between the needs, interests, and abilities of gifted students and the content, processes, and product components of the core curriculum traditionally justified the purpose for a differentiated curriculum. To the degree that the core curriculum correlates with the defined attributes of gifted students, it is perceived as either appropriately or inappropriately differentiated. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The affective characteristics of gifted individuals, as well as the social and emotional needs related to those characteristics, have been well documented by researchers in the field of gifted education (Clark, 2002; Cohen & Frydenberg, 1996; Cross, 2001; Delisle,1987; Roeper, 1995; Silverman, 1993). However, despite the evidence and support provided by the literature, proactive attention to the affective domain is still overlooked in many schools unless that attention is in reaction to some overt problem identified by teachers or the administration (Peterson, 2003). Addressing the affective domain within the curricula is appropriate for all students, but it is essential for gifted students whose affective traits may include divergent thinking, overexcitabilities, sensitivities, perceptiveness, and entelechy (Lovecky, 1992). In order to meet the program standards set forth by NAGC, gifted programs must incorporate the affective domain. Specific strategies to meet students' affective needs can be integrated into any subject area through individual activities, lessons, curricular units, or separate units. It is essential, however, that teachers who endeavor to address the affective aspects of giftedness be willing to follow up on issues that are inadvertently revealed. Whenever classroom activities touch upon the affective realm, it is important to remember that most teachers are not trained counselors. Teachers may not be prepared for all that is disclosed. A support system must be in place in the form of school counselors, school psychologists, and/or therapists. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

My perspective on an affective curriculum in education for gifted students is colored by my clinical experiences as a counselor, including those as a counselor of gifted children, adolescents, and adults. During my last 5 years as a teacher in K-12 education, I directed a complex program for gifted high school students, which included an emphasis on affective concerns (Peterson, 1990). Ten discussion groups per week, geared almost entirely to social and emotional development and involving 115 students per year, taught me a great deal about nonacademic concerns of highly able students. The program actively sought out gifted underachievers, who became approximately 30% of total participants and were articulate contributors in the groups as well. Later, I facilitated several similar groups for diverse gifted middle school students, counseled gifted children and adolescents and their families in a clinic geared to giftedness, and also worked with medical students and others with high ability in private practice. The individuals I met while doing ethnographic research on perceptions of giftedness in nonmainstream cultures educated me further. I also sometimes encountered gifted individuals as a counselor in two substance-abuse treatment centers, in an alternative school for expelled high school students, and as a substance-use evaluator in a K-12 school district. Currently I prepare counselors for work in K-12 schools and advise and supervise many highly capable graduate students. These varied clinical experiences with gifted individuals inform this chapter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter focuses on the influence of multiple intelligences (MI) theory in special and gifted education in Australia. In both contexts, the MI impact is evident in changes of teachers' attitudes and practices toward these students. In gifted education, MI has provided a means to more broadly define and identify giftedness in students across all economic and cultural groups. It has also influenced the design of curriculum materials for gifted students. In special education, MI teachers have transcended a deficit approach; they have become more positive toward students and recognize a wider range of learning potentials. Through the framework provided by MI theory, teachers have learned to genuinely value and appropriately respond to the diversity of learners in integrated Australian classrooms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Research shows that gifted girls, in general, are underserved and their talents underidentified. This insightful resource helps educators discover and strengthen, gifted female students' potential and promote their healthy intellectual, psychological, and emotional growth. Each chapter examines a different aspect of female development, provides a reflective exercise for applying the material to professional practice, and presents helpful strategies for teachers, counselors, and parents. This vital guide includes appendices of mentoring programs, curriculum enhancers, Web resources, and research on the importance of fostering female gifted education, giving voice to gifted females and their unique developmental needs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: cover)

Gifted students often develop faster intellectually then socially and emotionally, resulting in feelings of isolation or inadequacy. This book provides educators with a window into the world of the gifted child, discusses how to develop the talents of gifted children with consideration for their unique needs, and suggests ways to help great kids become greater. Written by gifted education expert Dorothy A. Sisk, this practical resource offers techniques, strategies, and lessons to help gifted students bridge the gap between their cognitive and social-emotional development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: cover)

Although the concept of leadership is often studied, researched, and discussed. The art of leadership is still misunderstood, debated, and often neglected. It is known, however, that leadership skills can be developed and more intentional endeavors must be made to cultivate bright, young leaders for the future. Developing Leadership Potential in Gifted Students offers insight into developing leadership skills in gifted students and provides definitions and theories of leadership, looks at trends and changing paradigms, and suggests screening and identification tools for leadership, as well as instructional programs and materials to incorporate into the regular curriculum. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: cover)

The editors envision this volume as a handbook for researchers in psychology and education who target exceptional populations in their work, and particularly individuals exhibiting gifts and talents. The research tools described here can help to move the scholarship on giftedness and talent development to a new level of rigor and encourage the testing of program models, as well as predictive validity of theoretical or conceptual frameworks (see for example Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). Of course, the methods described in these chapters can also be usefully applied in general populations or in studies dealing with specialized subpopulations other than gifted and talented. The scholars who contributed to the first nine chapters of this volume are pioneers in the field of measurement and statistics, and they show us most elegantly how the methodologies they have mastered or developed can apply to samples that, by their nature, make statistical analysis more challenging. We tasked our contributors to address the following four barriers, and one facilitator, associated with gifted education research: Definitions of giftedness and talent are not standardized; Test ceilings can be too low to measure progress or growth; Comparison groups are difficult to find for extraordinary individuals; Participant attrition in longitudinal studies may compromise tests of hypothesized effects; and, Qualitative research conducted with gifted populations can be enhanced due to highly articulate study participants. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: introduction)

Especially gifted and creative people are in relatively short supply, but are also very interesting. Because Q-technique factor analysis is especially suited for the intensive study of a small number of especially interesting people, Q-technique factor analysis is especially suitable for inquiry about giftedness and creativity. The purpose of the present chapter is to provide a primer on using Q-technique factor analysis in the intensive study of gifted or creative people, or other especially interesting people. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Asher (1986) identified two factors that limit theory development and validation in gifted education research: imprecise measurement and small numbers of participants. He made this important point: “These two factors...combine to insure (sic) that results are obscure and that statistical significance is difficult to obtain” (p. 7). Asher was right about statistical significance being difficult to obtain: In fact, it may well be an unnecessarily difficult hurdle. The fact that p < .05 is difficult to obtain is only really a problem if statistical significance is considered the only acceptable evidence of result noteworthiness. In this chapter, I argue that it should not be and that falsely equating statistical significance with result noteworthiness has serious consequences. To demonstrate this, I draw lessons from other disciplines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Factor analysis is often used to summarize relationships among many variables into a manageable, smaller set of factors. The methodology is frequently employed in instrument development and assessment of score validity, but it has other applications as well. This chapter reviews some common applications of factor analysis, provides an accessible treatment of how to conduct and interpret the analysis with a heuristic example, and discusses some potential benefits and problems that may be faced when conducting factor analysis in the study of giftedness. Factor analysis has enjoyed a long history of use across the social sciences. With most approaches, factor analysis is employed when researchers seek to reduce many variables to a smaller set of factors. The factors can then be thought of as a synthesis, or representation, of the many variables from which the factors were created. There are other uses of the methodology, such as Q-technique factor analysis, which can be used to identify types of people (see chap. 2, this volume), but most often variables are the subject of the analysis and therefore are the focus of this chapter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Bias attributable to missing data conditions is often ignored by applied researchers. In response, journal editors (e.g., von Elm et al., 2007) and governing bodies (e.g., Wilkinson & APA Task Force, 1999) are increasingly calling for missing data analysis as routine assessment. The term missing data is traditionally used in reference to the condition of a study participant missing one or more, but not all, survey responses, test items, or other data points. In addition, methods to control the bias resulting from nonequivalent comparison groups could be viewed as a “missing data” scenario (Dates & King, 2009), though in this chapter we emphasize the former. Consideration of the effects of missing data is critically needed in studies of giftedness. Frequent causes of missing data include study dropouts in longitudinal studies of children through adolescence and adulthood and incomplete data records due to oversight on the part of respondents, refusal to answer certain questions, or a host of other reasons. Missing values can sometimes be safely ignored if observed for only a very small percentage of items. Yet even a few omitted responses can significantly bias results if the data are missing systematically. For example, consider a hypothetical study of 10,000 children in which 5% are categorized as gifted. Observing a modest missing data rate of 2% may nonetheless be of concern should the absent values all fall within the gifted population (i.e., 40% of gifted children would have missing data). In such an instance, ignoring missing values or applying ineffective adjustments may drastically alter study outcomes and lead to invalid conclusions. It is therefore imperative that giftedness researchers carefully examine the consequences of even modest amounts of missing data and familiarize themselves with best practices for handling these conditions. This chapter proceeds by briefly describing a typology for categorizing missing data. We then provide a review of the strengths and weaknesses of a number of traditional and contemporary methodologies for handling missing data, followed by discussion and detailed application of a new, “hybrid” approach that is capable of adjusting for both item-level missing data and missing cases in a nonequivalent groups design, a scenario frequently faced by the applied researcher. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter focuses on students with a unique profile of being strong in nonverbal areas but much lower in verbal abilities, a group that is surfacing with some regularity now that nonverbal tests are being used more frequently in schools. This particular group is included in the discussion of low-income gifted because of the prevailing view that strong nonverbal aptitudes are found in culturally different youngsters (e.g., Native Americans, African Americans, English language learners). We know that culturally different children often are found in poverty at higher rates, so discussion of this subset of gifted learners offers the opportunity to learn more about how to recognize and nurture giftedness in underserved groups. A literature review exploring aspects relevant to this special population opens the chapter. Aspects of the review include a working definition of high nonverbal, low verbal giftedness; identification route influences; student performance; and learning needs and supports, styles, and preferences. Drawing on case study findings of special needs gifted learners, this chapter discusses unique characteristics, educational needs, learning opportunities, and similarities/differences in student, parent, and teacher perspectives found in this special needs group. Examples and quotations from student vignettes illustrate these perspectives. Through integration of the literature and the case study findings, this chapter then provides ideas for school-based practitioners and gifted coordinators in the development of gifted high nonverbal, low verbal children. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)