Su búsqueda

This reprinted chapter originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(4), 147-151. From kindergarten to college, most classrooms contain students who learn at different rates. Some students, for diverse reasons, operate at a low level of achievement. The average students have some of the same needs as the low achievers, but are better able to learn. The few gifted students, of course, have no trouble learning content. Yet, in a gifted situation where no leaning problem exists, there is the need to extend students' imaginations into inventive speculation, which is the basis for the creative arts and sciences. This chapter puts forth a model for gifted education, SES Synectics, that is able to accomplish just that. The first step of the process, the paradox procedure, is not crucial for the gifted, but it does help expose an explicit and distinct focus. The second step, the analogue procedure, is crucial since it produces a stretched and aesthetic analogy which goes beyond the content and reveals it in a fresh and vibrant way. The model is presented through an illustrative case. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This reprinted chapter originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol 39(2), Spr 1995, 110-114. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1995-42516-001.) Reports on 418 schools' assessment of creativity as part of their identification procedures for gifted programs. School districts across the nation were asked to supply information on the published instruments they used to measure creativity. Coding definitions for creativity included divergent thinking, problem solving, persons/traits, and none. Simple frequency counts were done for each creativity instrument used by a school district. Although many school districts include creativity as part of their assessment, they continue to have difficulty with the complex conceptual and operational definitions of creativity. Districts often select instruments for assessment of creativity without attending to the definition of the construct. Researchers are encouraged to improve the translation of their work to the practitioner so that more valid, reliable, and useful assessments will be possible in the schools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

Recognizing, assessing, and nurturing creativity continue to be dynamic, evolving topics in gifted education. The articles in this text offer over 20 years of research, insight, and practical applications designed to pique the interest of gifted students and inspire them to reach their full potential. Further, the readings in this ready-reference debunk the many misconceptions about the connection between creativity and giftedness, and lend clarity to the most critical issues in this often nebulous area of gifted research. Key features include: A portrait of the origins, current state, and future of the field of creativity from Donald J. Treffinger, Director of the Center for Creative Learning; Examples and practical suggestions for putting research findings to use; and Sixteen influential articles from pioneers in creativity as well as from current leaders in the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: cover)

This reprinted chapter originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly Vol 37(1) Win 1993, 16-22. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1994-01210-001.) Reviews the most recent research on divergent thinking and serves as an addendum to M. A. Runco's (1991; see also PA, Vol 80:34) previous reviews. Several new assessment techniques are examined, including those using either lenient or stringent solution standards, those relying on ideational pools (examinees' total output of ideas), and those involving qualitative aspects of ideation. Recent research (e.g., S. M. Okuda et al; see PA, Vol 78:27045; J. K. Sawyers and N. C. Canestaro; see PA, Vol 78:2821) showing moderately high predictive validity coefficients is also reviewed. The role played by evaluation and valuation in the divergent thinking process is outlined, as is the role of problem definition and problem identification. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This article describes an important, yet largely neglected, kind of giftedness, namely, wisdom. First, the article discusses how giftedness is identified currently. Second, the article is an alternative view based on a balance theory of wisdom. The theory is described, and it is shown why the theory offers a useful way of of conceptualizing wisdom. Finally, the article concludes that, given the state of the world, we should have a strong incentive to identify and develop wisdom as a form of giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This chapter attempts to capture the nature of giftedness and talent by briefly tracing key studies, programs, and developments in the field. The author begins by defining the terms, using the U.S. Office of Education definition: Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons who, by virtue of outstanding abilities, are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society. (p. IX) They then tackle such questions as what is giftedness? Who is gifted? Who is talented? How are giftedness and talent manifested? (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

The recent popularity of Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory corresponds with current efforts to move away from the use of standardized measures of achievement and ability to more authentic assessment techniques, including portfolio and performance-based assessment. Gardner and his colleagues have strongly encouraged the application of MI theory to performance-based assessment. This study investigates the reliability and validity of a battery of instruments based on MI theory, including teacher checklists and performance-based assessment activities. The purpose in developing the instruments was the identification of talent in culturally diverse and/or low income kindergarten and first grade students. Results suggest acceptable evidence of reliability but raise questions about the validity of the assessments. This study has implications for both future research efforts and the application of MI-based, performance measures to the assessment and identification of talent. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This reprinted chapter (originally published in Gifted Child Quarterly, 25[2], 55-62) is a preliminary report of 22 years of research on predicting the adolescent and adult creative achievements of elementary school children and some of the things their teachers did that "made a difference." Beginning in 1958 and continuing through 1964, all pupils enrolled in two Minneapolis elementary schools were administered various batteries of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking each year. Scores over a three-year period were combined to yield a Creativity Index. In 1979-80, follow-up data of adolescent and adult creative behavior were obtained from 220 (118 women and 102 men) of the 400 originally tested, for three or more years. This chapter summarizes those findings, with an emphasis on those teachers that "made a difference." (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This reprinted article originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, 1986, Vol 30(1), 20-23. The following abstract of the original article appeared in (see record 1987-12029-001). Examines 4 research designs of potential use in addressing the meaning of giftedness, including the traditional test-score-as-criterion design and 3 performance-based-research designs (academic mastery in a domain-specific area, creative productivity in domain-specific/interdisciplinary areas, and long-range creative productivity). It is suggested that the designs offer different conceptions of giftedness and imply different ways of providing educational services. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This reprinted chapter originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol 30(1), Win 1986, 15-19. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1987-11955-001.) Discusses research relating creativity to gifted behavior. Research with regard to theories of creativity, its identification, and its nurturance is described. Five directions for future research on creativity in gifted education are proposed. It is concluded that the importance of creative productivity has been recognized in recent years. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This position paper is a call for efforts to increase connections between studies of giftedness and mainstream psychological and educational research. Most mainstream researchers have paid scant attention to the literature on giftedness and have ignored the field's journals. However, Studies of giftedness have contributed to mainstream theory and may play some special roles in theory development. Strategies for overcoming barriers to further integration with mainstream research are proposed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This reprinted article originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol 34(1), 21-26. The following abstract of the original article appeared in (see record 1990-21181-001). Compared performance on tests of specific abilities commonly associated with intelligence for 112 13-yr-olds who were extremely mathematically gifted (MG) or verbally gifted (VG). VG Ss scored higher on verbal and general knowledge tests, and MG Ss scored higher on tests of nonverbal reasoning, spatial ability, and memory. Findings suggest that speed might also be an important component of extreme giftedness. Results (1) have implications for the selection of MG and VG Ss for special programs and (2) support the use of the Progressive Matrices for identification of MGs in particular. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This reprinted article originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol 28(4), 149-151. The following abstract of the original article appeared in (see record 1985-23834-001). Discusses problems in the identification of gifted and talented children that can occur at any point in the identification process. The 5 major steps involved in such a process are outlined: defining program goals and types of youth to be served, nomination procedures, assessment procedures, individual differentiation, and validation of the identification process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

It is sometimes said of our profession, that we are practitioners without rationale. This reprinted chapter (originally published in Gifted Child Quarterly, 24[1], 24-28) is an effort to provide some logical reasons for some specific procedures with gifted children. To start, the following three postulates are regarded as obvious: (a) creativity is the objective of talent development; (b) the dynamics of developmental process is necessary for this development; and (c) developmental stage theory is a necessary part of developmental dynamics. Accordingly, we shall proceed with: General Developmental Stage Theory; Suitable Modifications for the Gifted Child; and Three Paramount Issues for Educators for the Gifted, namely: Stage 3 (age, 4-6)--Creative Fantasy or Magic Nightmare; Stage 4 (age, 7-11)--Teaching to Avoid the Creativity Drop; and Stage 5 (age, teens)--Establishing Verbal Creativity at Adolescence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This reprinted chapter originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol 25(3), Sum 1981, 99-101. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1984-25045-001.) Discusses those unique strategies and processes that each creative person uses to achieve his/her creative insights and perceptions. It is suggested that teachers of gifted and talented leaders-of-tomorrow be aware of the importance of personal creativity techniques and that they should be ready to help students develop such strategies and skills. Examples of personal creative thinking techniques are cited. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This reprinted chapter originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol 28(3), Sum 1984, 106-109. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1985-26673-001.) Reviews studies of the characteristics of significant scientific contributions, types of productive thinking, and the implications of this research for the design of educational programs that foster creativity and excellence in students. The need to achieve a balance between conventional and creative excellence is examined with reference to the system of education in Venezuela and to A. Toynbee's views of history. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This reprinted chapter originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol 37(1), Win 1993, 7-15. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1994-01215-001.) Presents an investment view of creative giftedness (CRG); discusses identification of the gifted; and addresses the resources necessary for CRG, the interaction of resources, and the domain specificity of CRG. The investment concept suggests that individuals must attempt to "buy low and sell high" to achieve creativity. In other words, they propose ideas that initially seem odd, out of sync with the ideas of others. Over time, however, these gifted individuals bring these ideas to fruition, convince other people of the worth of their ideas, and then metaphorically sell the ideas when these ideas are at a "high price." They then move on to the next novel idea. To buy low and sell high, one needs a combination of 6 resources that function interactively: intelligence, knowledge, style of thinking, personality, motivation, and environment. Each of these resources and its role in CRG are described. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: create)

This article presents a pentagonal implicit theory of giftedness and a set of data testing the theory. The exposition is divided into five parts. First, we discuss what an implicit theory is and why such theories are important. Second, we describe the pentagonal theory, specifying five conditions claimed to be individually necessary and jointly sufficient for a person to be labeled as gifted. These conditions help us understand not only why some people are labeled as gifted but also why some others are not. Third, we consider the relation of the pentagonal theory to explicit theories of giftedness. Fourth, we present data supporting the theory. Finally, we discuss some implications of the pentagonal theory for gifted education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

This reprinted article originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 155-160. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1994-19557-001.) Compared a national sample of gifted underachievers and gifted high achievers on a number of characteristics. Giftedness was measured as a composite score at or above the 95th percentile on the ACT. Underachievement was defined as reporting a high school GPA of <=2.25 (on a 4.00 scale), and high achievement was defined as reporting a GPA of >=3.75 (on a 4.00 scale). Ss were 30,604 high school juniors and seniors: 257 gifted underachievers and 30,347 gifted high achievers. The underachievers generally had lower scores on the ACT and less extensive out-of-class accomplishments. Over 90% of the underachievers were Caucasian males. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The seminal articles from Gifted Child Quarterly in this volume address this issue of what giftedness is. They thereby inform our efforts to do research on giftedness and to identify children as gifted. What are some of the major issues raised in these articles, and what are examples of some ideas proposed to address each of these issues? What is the nature of giftedness and talent? One can learn more about the nature of giftedness through viewing responses to enrichment activities than through conventional tests(Passow, 1981). Giftedness involves excellence, rarity, productivity, demonstrability, and value attached to the skills/products of the individual (Sternberg & Zhang, 1995). How should we study giftedness? We need more to use the techniques of mainstream psychological research to study giftedness (Jackson, 1993). Should we expand conventional notions of giftedness, and if so, how should we do so? Metacognition is crucial to giftedness (Shore & Dover, 1987). Creativity is an important facet of giftedness (Runco, 1993). Wisdom is an important kind of giftedness (Sternberg, 2000). How, if at all, are giftedness and talent different? Giftedness refers to domains of human abilities, talents, to domains of human accomplishments (Gagne, 1985). Are there different profiles of giftedness and talent, and if so, what are they? Six profiles of giftedness and talent are successful, challenging, underground, dropouts, double-labeled, and autonomous (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Different kinds of gifted individuals (e.g., statesmen versus religious leaders) develop through different profiles of strengths and weaknesses (Walberg, Tsai, Weinstein, Gabriel, Rasher, Rosecrans, Rovai, Ide, Trujillo, & Vukosavich, 1981). How do giftedness and talent develop? They develop in part through certain kinds of overexcitabilities, namely, psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional (Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984). Prodigies develop in a way that is different from that of most gifted individuals in part as a function of opportunities made available to them in their environments (Feldman, 1993). Giftedness can be understood in part in terms of the interaction of the organism and the environment, which produces diverse developmental outcomes (Horowitz, 1987). How valid are available assessments of giftedness and talent? Measures of multiple intelligences appear, in general, to be reliable but not particularly valid (Plucker, Callahan, & Tomchin, 1996). It would, of course, be delightful if a consensus could be found on all or even many of these issues, but consensus is hard to find. Nevertheless, there appear to be at least several points of broad agreement. Giftedness involves more than just high IQ. Giftedness has noncognitive (e.g., motivationally driven) components as well as cognitive ones. Environment is crucial in terms of whether potentials for gifted performance will be realized. Giftedness is not a single thing: There are multiple forms of giftedness. Hence, one-size-fits-all assessments or programs are likely to be too narrow. Measures for identifying or evaluating gifted individuals need to be proposed to operationalize theories, and then they need to be evaluated rather than merely being assumed to be valid. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: introduction)