Su búsqueda

Teachers are often asked to nominate students for enrichment programs for gifted children, and studies have repeatedly indicated that students’ intelligence is related to their likelihood of being nominated as gifted. However, it is unknown whether class-average levels of intelligence influence teachers’ nominations as suggested by theory—and corresponding empirical results—concerning reference group effects. Herein, it was hypothesized that when students’ individual fluid and crystallized intelligence scores were similar, students from classes with higher average levels of intelligence would have a lower probability of being nominated for an enrichment program for gifted children than students from classes with lower average levels of intelligence. Furthermore, we investigated whether 3 teacher variables—experience with giftedness, beliefs about the changeability of intelligence, and the belief that giftedness is holistic or domain specific—would influence the expected reference group effect. In a study comprising data from 105 teachers and 1,468 of their (German) third-grade students, we found support not only for a positive association between students’ individual intelligence scores and the probability that students would be nominated as gifted but also, more importantly, for the proposed reference group effect: When controlling for individual levels of intelligence, students’ probability of being nominated was higher in classes with lower average levels of intelligence. In addition, the results showed that this reference group effect was stronger when teachers saw giftedness as holistic rather than domain specific. Also, depending on teachers’ kinds of experience with giftedness, the reference group effect varied in size. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This article deals with the problem of students’ giftedness development. Students’ test results (n = 851) for "IQ level" and "creativity level" indicators demonstrated the need to improve the quality of work in reference to students’ professional giftedness development at the university. Designed complex of pedagogical conditions involves students’ giftedness development on organizational-pedagogical, psycho-pedagogical and didactic levels. Results can be used in educational practice of higher educational institutions of any type as methodological recommendations in work organization with gifted students, as well as in specialists training. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Studies investigating the life satisfaction of intellectually gifted and non-gifted students are scarce and often suffer from methodological shortcomings. We examined the life satisfaction of gifted and non-gifted adolescents using a rather unselected sample of N = 655 German high-school students ( n = 75 gifted), adequate comparison groups of non-gifted students, and a clear definition of giftedness (general intelligence g > 2 SD above the mean). There was no difference in life satisfaction between gifted and non-gifted adolescents ( d < |0.1|). Girls reported somewhat lower life satisfaction scores than boys ( d = 0.24). However, this result was not specific to giftedness but was instead found across the entire sample. Thus, gifted girls were not found to be especially unsatisfied with their lives. Our findings support previous research showing that giftedness is not a risk factor for impaired psycho-social well-being of boys or girls. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Scientific research on giftedness has been profuse in the last few years. Unfortunately though, the conclusions one can draw from the literature in terms of cognitive and personality specificity of the gifted and talented often remain limited, due to methodological recurrent flaws. Here, we describe two of the most problematic such flaws: the variability of criteria used in the definition of giftedness, and the sampling of gifted children. We show that these flaws probably elicited false conclusions now widely held in the field of giftedness. Advice for a cautious analysis of existing literature and the design of future research is suggested. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

A qualitative, longitudinal, phenomenological case study explored how a gifted female experienced various life events and aspects of development during adolescence and young adulthood (ages 15–30 years), particularly as related to multiple traumatic experiences, which were revealed late in the first year of the study. Additional experiences, well into young adulthood, appear to have been precipitated by posttrauma phenomena, among them a sense of powerlessness, a need for control, extreme and confusing emotions and behaviors, disordered eating, and sensitivity to others’ responses. The control concern was manifested in a pervasive “sense of urgency,” which contributed to decisions that had particular impact on her development. Special attention is given to the intersection of giftedness and adversity, with reference to characteristics associated with giftedness. Method and findings begin to fill multiple gaps in the giftedness literature, but findings are generally supported by existing literature related to trauma and protective factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

In this issue of High Ability Studies, various models of giftedness are empirically tested against one another. The authors examine how well various approaches are suited to predicting high achievement. They also consider how individual and environmental factors – as well as their systemic interaction – influence performance and how subjective theories help shape the development of achievement. In line with the tradition of this journal, the findings represent a wide variety of interesting results, the theoretical and practical relevance of which the authors discuss. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Traditionally the determination of the giftedness has performed with traditional intelligence tests. The main argument to do so has been the temporal stability of this measure. In recent years some authors defend a determination early giftedness in children, although others point out that toddlers evaluation produces a significant number of false positives due to the variability in the measurement of intelligence by different factors such as plasticity, stimulation, etc.., therefore proposed the use of complementary indices for giftedness diagnosis. This paper presents a longitudinal study of two years to 49 children aged between 5 and 9 years, initially identified as gifted, to check the stability of your IQ and other measures such as the learning potential and working memory. The results show how learning potential and working memory measures remain stable in time while the IQ of a group of younger children is not maintained during this period. These results indicate the usefulness of P.A. measures as a supplementary index in the determination of the giftedness on young children. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Insight into causal mechanisms underlying underachievement among gifted students has remained elusive. Based on the premise of self-worth theory and implicit beliefs about intelligence, it was hypothesized that entity-focused messages about giftedness would lead to maladaptive academic coping behaviors when gifted status was threatened. Therefore, the current research examined the interactive effect of messages about giftedness as fixed or malleable and success or failure experiences on both behavioral and claimed self-handicapping among a sample of 108 undergraduates attending an elite university. Following a failure experience, participants who had heard an entity message about giftedness engaged in behavioral self-handicapping to a greater degree than those who heard an incremental message about giftedness. Female participants who received an entity message engaged in more claimed self-handicapping after experiencing failure and less claimed self-handicapping after experiencing success. There were no differences in claimed self-handicapping after success and failure for female participants who received an incremental message. This pattern is in line with an impression management strategy. In contrast, implicit messages did not influence male participants’ claimed self-handicapping. Implications for motivational theory and educational practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Studies demonstrated that overexcitability (OE) is a strong predictor of giftedness. In order to perform a systematic review about OE instruments, articles containing terms overexcitability or overexcitabilities and assessment, measure or evaluation were retrieved in the databases CAPES Portal and Google Scholar. The scientific production about this issue seems to be increasing and it is predominantly composed of research reports conducted with samples of participants with giftedness. Only five measures of SE were identified: Overexcitability Questionnaire, Overexcitability Questionnaire Two, Me Scale, ElemenOE, and Adult Questionnaire. Criterion validity and internal consistency are the psychometric properties more described in the literature. Strengths, limitations, and the more appropriate uses of these tools are emphasized. The use of them to identify giftedness is emphasized. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

In contrast to intellectual giftedness reflected in high academic performance and often measured by IQ tests, there is growing recognition that other forms of giftedness exist. This paper focuses on creative giftedness, defined as high potential to produce work that is original and context appropriate. After a brief introduction to the psychological basis of creative giftedness, the role of school context in the development of creative potential is highlighted. Then an empirical study suggesting that creative potential is influenced by educational context is presented; pupils attending traditional and Montessori schools in France were compared on a set of creativity tasks in both the graphic and verbal domains. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were conducted as children were seen at two measurement occasions, with approximately one year delay. Results indicated greater scores on measures of creative potential for children in the Montessori context. The discussion situates the results in a broader context of issues concerning the development of creative giftedness through education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Reply by the current authors to the comments made on the original article (see record 2012-16824-002). The commentaries to our target article Towards a systemic theory of gifted education differed in their assessments of the various arguments we put forward. Of the more than 40 responses to our target article, 27 responses were chosen as being representative of all commentaries. We grouped the responses according to the main points in our target article, including our claims that current approaches to gifted education are ineffective, current models of giftedness are generally flawed, and systemic models of giftedness represent an advancement in the way that giftedness can be understood. Next, we outlined a systems approach to gifted education, based on the actiotope model of giftedness as its theoretical foundation. Finally, we argued that the systemic theory of gifted education represents a paradigm shift in the way we view the development of exceptionality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). Ziegler and Phillipson provide a timely, thought-provoking critique of traditional approaches to gifted education. For a long time, the field has searched in vain for the Holy Grail of giftedness. Alas, the essentialist assumption fails because giftedness does not have a single essence that holds its identity, unity, and continuity. Reification of the construct as an entity sitting in the head significantly narrows our vision of what constitutes human potential for excellence. To maximally realize human potential, it is important to reconceptualize giftedness as contextually and dynamically shaped through learning and development in a complex, reciprocal interaction of the person and the environment. Ziegler and Phillipson show us how it might be done. Although much is yet to be spelled out, some principles can be laid out. Too much time and resources are expended on futile attempts to figure out a gold standard or a litmus test for an unfailing determination of who are “gifted”. We should look at the current performance and proximal behavior of a child in deciding what kinds of education provisions are appropriate for the child instead of seeking the Holy Grail of giftedness and using the abstract notion of aptitude such as general intelligence or generic giftedness to guide policy and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). As an alternative to the current paradigm of gifted education, Ziegler and Phillipson proposed a systemic approach and argued that factors in the current mechanistic model of giftedness are not good predictors for exceptionality. They pinpointed that a single factor identified as an indicator of giftedness, ineffective measures, inappropriate context, and over-reliance on products make it futile to maneuver appropriate educational practices for gifted population. Their perspectives have raised some important issues in understanding the theoretical framework of gifted education. First, Ziegler and Phillipson assert that the systemic approach deals with the wholeness of giftedness without scrutinizing its components and that its main feature is in interactions between individuals and environments. However, crucial roles of environments have not been dismissed in the mechanistic perspective, either. Nonetheless, individuals’ active involvement in developing giftedness and recognition of various modes of outstanding behaviors within the system are the noticeable features of this proposed model. It is also promising that persons within the system are committed to their gifted actions, which would be changeable via interactions with environments.Hopefully, the systemic approach would be instrumental in stimulating diverse forms of giftedness, often unrecognized by traditional approaches, and producing gifted behaviors conducive to the society as well. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

This article reviews seven different theories of giftedness that include creativity as a component, comparing and contrasting how each one conceptualizes creativity as a part of giftedness. The functions of creativity vary across the models, suggesting that while the field of gifted education often cites the importance of creativity, the conceptualizations of creativity differ depending on the particular theory. The various models of giftedness can be interpreted from the context of current creativity research because certain elements of these conceptualizations can be found in social models, the evolving systems approach, and the domain-generality debate. An integrative perspective of creativity research reveals that some models of giftedness are more comprehensive and consistent in terms of the creativity literature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This article describes five values attributed to giftedness. The ascription of values to this phenomenon resembles values attached to gifts in gift-giving processes. Whereas gift-giving often includes expectations of reciprocity, each gift possesses a numerical, utility, social, personal, and intrinsic value. Developmental models of giftedness and educational thinking reflect these values. Within prevailing models, the utility value of giftedness reigns. Its numerical value comes second. Social and personal values play a considerable role, yet the gift's intrinsic value is almost absent. This finding leads to the conclusion that the value attribution is unbalanced. This article suggests turning to dynamical-systems approaches, which might balance the value attribution to giftedness. It could expand valuations with the idea of a genuine gift, not requiring reciprocation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Child development involves the process of mastering cultural tools, which modify relations with the world and provide the means to act on the self. A sign is a universal cultural tool, but these tools are not the same for all ages. The problem of specifying development becomes one of finding the tools that children use in their activity. Capacities (as opposed to knowledge, skills or habits) have a meaning that lasts for life. One type of capacity is to find the qualities of the world using sign tools and modelling. A second type is to express attitudes to reality using symbolisation. Childhood activities provide a special space for the development of capacities. Researchers have identified two types of situations in which capacities develop. In the first, children learn to identify natural phenomena through observation and the use of sign tools (modelling). In the second, children use symbolic tools such as painting, dancing and stories to understand these phenomena and express their attitudes towards them (symbolisation). Regulation of children’s actions happens in three ways. The first uses sign tools and involves the adoption of cultural standards. The second uses symbolic tools and involves expressing an attitude towards events. The third uses both sign and symbolic tools and involves transforming reality in a personally meaningful way. These three ways of regulation give rise to three types of cognitive capacity; normative, symbolic and transformational. Coaching children in the run-up to school entry results in predominantly ‘normative’ capacities. The problem of giftedness is related to the problem of capacities. Giftedness is related to the development of capacities in preschool rather than to specific knowledge, skills or habits. This analysis solved the problem of intellectual and creative giftedness being poorly correlated, but raised the further problem of how to influence the development of giftedness. A total of 17 preschool children, 10 of whom were identified as intellectually gifted, were followed for two years. An intervention supported the mastery of figurative tools. The results of testing supported the analysis of ‘capacities’ as underpinning the development of giftedness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

This article provides a definition of giftedness that is useful across all domains of endeavor and acknowledges several perspectives about giftedness on which there is a fairly broad scientific consensus. The article summarizes what we have learned about giftedness from the literature in psychological science and suggest some directions for the field of gifted education. Throughout its history, the field of gifted education has been troubled by a lack of agreement on a definition of giftedness. Outstanding performance is almost always judged relative to others in one’s peer group. Increasing the number of individuals who make path-breaking, field-altering discoveries and creative contributions by their products, innovations, and performances is the aim of proposed framework for gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

The focus of this study was on gifted adults' perceptions of multigenerational giftedness in their families. Participants have been surveyed annually since their high school graduation in 1988. The purpose of the longitudinal study is to gain insight into the career and life development of gifted individuals post-high school. For the present follow-up study, data were collected via the Internet and mailed surveys and analyzed by a 5-member research team. Participants reported their perceptions of whether or not their parents and children were gifted and the areas of giftedness. The number of participants who perceived both parents to be gifted was roughly equal to those stating that neither parent was gifted. Areas of perceived giftedness differed between mothers and fathers. The majority of participants identified at least one of their children as gifted. Specific areas of giftedness perceived in participants' children and parents are described. Implications of the findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

The concept of intellectual giftedness has had a long history in the literature of psychology and education. However, though the existence of the phenomenon underlying this concept has never actually been disputed, there are multiple ongoing debates regarding its definition, methods for its identification, and subsequent programming. This essay is conceived to contribute to the discussion on intellectual giftedness and to provide a global context for the other articles in this issue. The essay is comprised of three major parts. First, we review the defining terms, contexts and theories historically and currently applied to the understanding of intellectual giftedness. Second, we comment on models used to identify it. Third, we discuss the major influences that directly shape the treatment of giftedness in a number of international settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Dąbrowski’s theory of positive disintegration has been associated with the psychology of giftedness for four decades, and Sal Mendaglio has significantly contributed to the thoughtful understanding of the theory throughout those 40 years. In this interview, Mendaglio discusses the relationship between the theory of positive disintegration and the psychology of giftedness. Mendaglio addresses potential misunderstanding of the theory as well as the concept of overexcitabilities. He clarifies that Dąbrowski’s theory is not a theory of giftedness; however, the theory as well as Dąbrowski’s concept of intelligence contributed to Mendaglio’s understanding of the psychology of giftedness. Mendaglio cautions against the oversimplification of overexcitabilities and the tools with which the construct has been measured. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)