Su búsqueda

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). The field of giftedness and gifted education is about 100-years (plus/minus) old. This new systems approach clearly brings many interesting topics to the discussion,some new and some old, but now organized in a complex structure. Thus, the concept of an actiotope, a component of the system that is potentiated with exceptionality,is a system itself. This “system-within-a-system” includes the action repertoire,goals, the environment, and subjective action space – all complex systemic structures on their own, which are introduced and described in detail by Ziegler and Phillipson. This “system-within-a-system” to the nth degree approach is well thought through and provides much food for thought. Yet, while reading the text, I had athought about what might be missing in this elegant and complex structure crafted by Ziegler and Phillipson. The remainder of this commentary will explicate that thought of mine. In short, it seems to me that Ziegler and Phillipson’s systemic view does not cancel out the ideas and findings of “traditional views” of giftedness, but takes the field, capitalizing on its previous accomplishments, in a new direction, fruitfully perpetuating the field’s development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). In their article, Zieglera & Phillipson present an interesting approach to gifted education. The actiotope model explains giftedness in light of systems theory where constant interchange occurs between the gifted person,his/her actions, and the environment in which he or she evolves. The approach is refreshing and sheds light on the complex and dynamic process of giftedness as opposed to linear approaches that consider either the individual alone or the environment by itself, but rarely the interaction of both. Without doubt, the approach is significant, but not entirely new, as the authors claim. The paradigm change that they are proposing does include some novelty, but this change is hardly“monumental” as stipulated by the authors. At first, the authors discuss at great length and expand a great effort to establish that a century long of gifted education was ineffective. They stipulate that all paradigms currently and previously used in gifted education, such as acceleration,enrichment, pull-out programs, and other similar approaches have led to no significant advances in the education of gifted learners. A sequel article in which the authors explain more clearly how the actiotope model constitutes a "monumental" change in the current paradigms of gifted education and how it translates into real life is warranted and would add value to the monumental effort the authors have put into constructing this model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness and the systemic theory of gifted education (Ziegler and Phillipson) shed light on the difficulties faced by gifted education in practice all over the world. The Actiotope Model emphasizes the importance of actions of gifted individuals and the interactions between individuals and their environment. If the excellence, exceptionality, or creativity of an individual can be understood as a result of one’s action repertoire in a given environment, then the evaluation of a gifted education program should focus on not only the outcome or achievement of the individual but also the whole system, especially the actions of the individual, the interactions between the individual and his or her action space, and the support from his or her environment. In summary, the Actiotope Model of Giftedness and the systemic theory of gifted education remind people of focus on constructing a proper system for gifted individuals. It is also very important for people to realize that learning procedures and interactions of gifted individuals with their family, school, peers, and society are just as important as their final achievements when people try to evaluate a special program for gifted children or students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

In this target article, we argue that current approaches to gifted education are based on the erroneous view that to understand the development of exceptionality we need to understand firstly the components of giftedness, including cognitive such as intelligence and non-cognitive factors such as motivation. In contrast, systemic approaches to understanding exceptionality focuses on the interactions of these components where it is important to firstly understand the system that leads to exceptionality before it is possible to understand its components. After analyzing the weaknesses of current approaches to gifted education we then present three central arguments for the need for a paradigm shift. This is followed by an introduction of constructs of a systemic approach of gifted education. Using the Actiotope Model of Giftedness to understand the development of exceptionality, this article describes the basic principles of a gifted education that is based on this systemic approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Introduction: This study explores the level of assertiveness in various samples of students from Primary and Secondary Education. With the data obtained, on the one hand, we analyzed the relation between assertiveness and academic performance and, on the other, we verified whether students who are excluded from the norm, either because of their intellectual giftedness or because they display disruptive behavior in the classroom, obtain different scores in assertiveness. The study analyzes the relation between the excess or deficit of assertive skills and academic performance and, in turn, seeks to verify whether more rebellious students, from an academic viewpoint, or students who are intellectually gifted score differentially from the rest of the students of their level of assertion. Method: A sample of Primary and Secondary Education students from Spanish public centers, whose academic performance was normally distributed, was used. Students from Primary Education, selected for their high intellectual giftedness and good academic performance, who participated in a cognitive-affective development program, and a group of students from Secondary Education, integrated in Compensatory Education units, who were highly conflictive and who achieved very poor academic results, were analyzed. Self-rated assertiveness questionnaires were administered for comparison with the mean school grades and the number of subjects flunked. Results: A statistically significant negative correlation was obtained between the variables assertiveness and academic performance in the diverse samples analyzed. The data support the hypotheses proposed in the study. Significant negative correlations were obtained between performance in Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Mathematics, Technology and the variable assertiveness; the correlation was lower when Language was also taken into account, and nonexistent when correlated with English. Discussion: From this study, it is concluded that, although an assertive deficit can act like a variable that predisposes towards academic failure, as it hinders students' interactions with teachers and classmates, a deficient assertive or passive dependent pattern can also generate behaviors that lead to very satisfactory academic results. However, the excess of this social skill or students’ erroneous selfperception can originate a form of academic failure. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Most theories of giftedness include creativity as a central component. Creativity assessment has a key role, therefore, in measuring giftedness. This article reviews the state of the creativity assessment, from divergent thinking tests (including the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking) to the consensual assessment technique to rating scales and self assessments. Despite the many flaws present in every type of creativity measurement, there are compelling reasons for including creativity as part of a gifted assessment battery. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Although the support by others of gifted and/or creative individuals has been well documented, what has been overlooked are supportive persons as creative forces in their own right, with the “object” of creation being the development of others for the greater good: engendering. No literature on engendering as a form of giftedness and creativity has been found that focuses on helping others to become great. This article addresses definitions of engendering, creativity as a social construction, issues of gender, and the tension between traditional and nontraditional models of achievement. It then explores engendering across three realms: the self as creative object; the home and family; and the greater society. It concludes with a call for defining, developing, and encouraging conceptions of giftedness and creativity that include engendering. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). In their introduction to the idea of a systems approach to understanding talent and giftedness, Ziegler & Phillipson broach the larger issue of the positivistic or mechanistic mind set to knowing and understanding that pervades much of what is called educational research. This worthy tactic brings to light the need to move away from the status quo of accepted research approaches toward something a bit different. No argument from me on this point. I do feel Ziegler and Phillipson begin a complicated conversation that might lead to a more ecologic view of giftedness and talent development; but, the approach is not paradigmatic in any of the myriad ways Kuhn (1970) defined the term. Keeping the conversation going is one approach; yet, not quite enough from my perspective. Ziegler & Phillipson leave out an important component of the entire system—the gifted themselves. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Gifted children who do not achieve often have problems with motivation and socioemotional adjustment and may also have learning disabilities. This article examines factors such as attachment difficulties and maternal depression as these may contribute to underachievement. The article reviews past and current practices of gifted identification and argues that schools have an important role in the early identification of socioemotional problems and learning difficulties, as these can create barriers to learning and achievement. Although Gagné did include underachievers in his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent, he has also argued that only achieving children should be included in academic talent development programs, and he supports a separate pathway for gifted underachievers. This article demonstrates that such a pathway can be achieved through an inclusive model for gifted achievers and underachievers. A model involves the early triaging of children through identification of giftedness, socioemotional problems, and learning difficulties. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

In reviewing literature on culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) parental inclusion and disproportionality, Cam Cobb, assistant professor at the University of Windsor, Ontario, illustrates how CLD giftedness—and especially CLD giftedness in Canadian settings—represents an area in need of further research. In part, this article begins to address that need. Drawing from a larger critical qualitative inquiry, he details the stories of two CLD Canadian mothers as they sought to become involved in gifted identification and decision‐making processes. Knowledge and language arose in the data as two core themes of robust parental inclusion. These core themes, along with associated recommendations for policy, practice and research, are outlined in a discussion of the findings. While this article focuses on the gifted domain of special education in Ontario, the findings have wider implications for robust CLD parental inclusion in special education in general. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This commentary addresses Subotnik et al.’s (see record 2012-24309-002) target article from the perspective of researchers active in the field of giftedness. First, we self-critically examine the current standing of giftedness research within the scientific community. Second, the authors’ critique of gifted education is sharpened in three respects: (a) gifted identification, (b) effectiveness of gifted education, and (c) credentials of gifted education. Finally, four necessary and productive lines for future research are proposed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

There has been an increase in publications of quantitative research studies investigating overexcitabilities (OEs) and giftedness. On one hand, increased interest in OEs bodes well for the dissemination of Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (TPD), from which OEs are derived. On the other hand, recent research raises concerns regarding the assumptions underlying the research methods in common use. This article argues that the assumptions regarding OEs and their relationship to giftedness evident in recent research run counter to Dabrowskian theorizing. Due to the uniqueness and coherence of TPD, the article concludes by noting the need for a paradigm shift when researchers investigate TPD concepts such as OE. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). In the study, we tried to find out what made a person demonstrate outstanding scientific creativity. The result showed that eminent scientists had a variety of essential traits, such as intrinsic motivation, eruditeness, autonomy, and initiative. However, we also know that these traits are also possessed by many ordinary people to some extent. So these traits are necessary but not sufficient for preeminence. More importantly, along the pathway the interaction and the co-evolution are the keys to transcendence. It is lucky that we have a chance to read Ziegler and Phillipson’s systemic theory of gifted education,which can shed more light on our findings. Here, we will first comment on the theory that inspires us, then reinterpret our findings in the light of it, and put forward some tentative suggestions in the end. In contrast to traditional trait-oriented conceptions, Ziegler and Phillipson redefine excellence from the perspective of an action-oriented approach. In the Actiotope Model of Giftedness, which has been elegantly crafted over the years,excellence refers to a specific quality of actions. In this way, Ziegler and Phillipson greatly expand the understanding of giftedness. The model provides a comprehensive new vision for gifted education, and can help researchers understand giftedness more profoundly and broadly. What we are looking forward to is its widespread application in gifted education in China. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

To compare the occurrence of bullying among students with and without characteristics of giftedness and talent it was applied a questionnaire to 339 elementary school students, being 59 of them gifted students. No significant differences were found between subgroups with and without giftedness in regard to their involvement with bullying, types of aggression suffered and sociometric variables. Gifted students more often adopt the behavior of calling for help to combat bullying. Students with talent for arts tend to be more victimized than the ones gifted in other domains. Although few variables related to socioemotional adjustment have been investigated, the results may imply that students with giftedness do not necessarily differ from peers regarding that aspect of human development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). Current gifted education clearly has its problems as outlined by Ziegler and Phillipson. The focus on personal traits and the assumption of an autocatalytic development of gifts into extraordinary achievement has not been proved a valid approach for designing effective supportive measures. At least one of the reasons proposed by Ziegler and Phillipson—lacking consideration of the very individual contexts the gifted persons find themselves in—is also acknowledged by counselors in the field of giftedness. To sum up, all counseling centers show at least tendencies towards systemic counseling strategies. Obviously, these principles are viewed as essential to reach long-term effects in fostering giftedness. Despite this practical need for a holistic–interactive theoretical approach common theories of giftedness do not explain the complex process of talent development in a realistic way. Gifted education as well as counseling practice show the need for a paradigm shift which has already begun.But the empirical and theoretical foundation must extend dramatically to ensure the required professional standards an educational system should fulfill. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). The beginning of China’s gifted education programs in universities seemed promising. However, its proceeding was frustrating. By the end of the 1990s, eight out of the 13 universities had ended their programs for various reasons. How can Chinese gifted education best emerge from this predicament? Undoubtedly, AMG has some implications for the possible solutions. According to the AMG, there is no choice but to go in two directions. First, if we continue to put gifted children into special programs, we must pay more attention to the systematic characteristics of gifted education, particularly to the dynamic, interdependent, interconnected, and interactive characteristics of the system. Second, we must lay more emphasis on the equifinality of the gifted education system. Giftedness is not a personal trait, but a product of systematic achievement behaviors. A gifted education program, even if it is very specialized, does not necessarily bring about giftedness. Common college education, if meeting students’ needs well, can also cultivate giftedness. Thus, another realistic solution to China’s gifted education problems is to offer good developmental opportunities for the ordinary students. In my view, this is a broader way forward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Spousal giftedness, dual-career status, and gender were studied in relation to marital and life satisfaction among gifted adults. The data for the present study were collected twice over a 5-year period in order to examine the stability of the findings over time. Results indicated that marital satisfaction was significantly related to life satisfaction at both episodes of data collection. However, differences were found between the first and second data collection period regarding spousal giftedness and dual-career status. No gender differences were found in marital or life satisfaction at either data collection period. Further, qualitative data were collected regarding areas of spousal giftedness. The most commonly identified areas were math and science, interpersonal skills, creativity, and general intelligence. Example responses were provided for each of the identified areas. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Definitions of what constitute students who are gifted and talented as well as policies and procedures to identify these high-ability students play a critical role in determining which individuals actually receive gifted services. This article reports on a national survey of how state policies and practices define giftedness, identify gifted students, and accommodate for gifted minority group students. Results indicate substantial changes in definitions and categories of giftedness over the past decade. Results also reveal variability in identification methods, with a majority of states using a 3–5% cutscore for demarcating giftedness while endorsing a multiple cutoff or averaging approach to gifted decision making. Most noteworthy is the fact that at present, no state advocates using a single-score decision-making model for gifted classification. The authors discuss the implications for school psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Reviews the book, The development of giftedness and talent across the life span edited by F. D. Horowitz et al. (see record 2009-00231-001). The book is organized logically by developmental period and divided into five sections: 'Infancy and Early Childhood,' 'Childhood,' 'Adolescence,' 'Adulthood and Later Years,' and 'Life-Span Perspectives: Understandings and Implications.' The book is best suited for researchers and educators and would not necessarily be accessible to the lay reader or parent of a gifted child. The book addresses the specificity of talent and individual differences, that a person's giftedness may be specific to one or more areas rather than a consistent trait across domains. The book also suggests that giftedness flows like ebbs and tides across the lifespan, and a gifted child may not necessarily become a gifted adult. The book places a stronger emphasis on the cultivation and development of talent and the critical need for positive interventions at key points in a gifted person's development. Though the book makes a noble effort toward recognizing giftedness across the lifespan, it does not completely succeed. The preface acknowledges the gaps in the literature and expresses a hope that the book 'will inspire developmental psychologists and others to move the field forward'. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). Models of giftedness are aimed at creating a picture of aspects which are important for developing a special talent. Approved models of giftedness are based on influencing factors like genetic, environmental and individual orientated variables. But the described models do not focus on the interdependencies of the mentioned variables. Therefore, for Ziegler and Phillipson these approaches are insufficient. They favor a broader view, taking into account interactions between the components of previous models and more, pointing on a variety of possible influences and their interdependencies. The systemic theory offers a perspective on a way of working with one child,honoring her or his special needs, adapting pedagogical actions on a special situation fitting at a certain moment on an individual. The systemic theory of gifted education is closer to reality of gifted education and its multidimensional aspects. At the moment, the actiotope model poses open questions and therefore inspires discussions about the process of development of giftedness. Especially due to the necessity to deal with complex and dynamic systems, the question of controlling the procedures comes up again. It is to credit the authors that they do not exclude influencing factors but encourage the scientific community to take them into account.So it is time to start a discussion about a change of perspective on giftedness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)