Su búsqueda

It is evident in the last two decades that there has been a sustained growth of knowledge and understanding of the diverse educational needs of gifted and talented students. An increasing number of teachers have become more conscious of supporting the intellectual, social, and emotional needs of their academically able students in our more competitive world. This has emerged largely from a small group of academics in universities in Australia and New Zealand who have conducted their research in the field of gifted education and talent development and shared their knowledge with their students at universities. By academics responding to teachers’, psychologists’, and educational administrators’ requests for professional learning in schools, there has been an expansion of the field of gifted educators at the state and national level. In addition, academics have worked with ministries of education in Australia and New Zealand to raise the awareness of gifted and talented students’ needs, and to create relevant policies with local departments of education. The development of these policies have varied in impact, yet these have had a significant influence on teachers’ acknowledging the importance of gifted and talented students’ educational needs in their care—at the early childhood level and within primary and secondary schools. Within Australia and New Zealand the egalitarian mantra is that gifted education tends to be favored within an inclusive education framework, yet, the research indicates that much of our successful education with these students takes place in selective environments, especially at the secondary level (Kaman & Kronborg, 2012; Kronborg & Plunkett, 2012, 2013). It will be interesting to see what research questions guide our investigations of the educational needs of gifted and talented students in the coming decade, as educators revise their pedagogy, curriculum, knowledge, and understanding of what gifted and talented students need to realize their talent potential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

How we view young children matters. It influences ways we interact with, respond to, and predict outcomes of young children’s learning. We may think about the image of young children through a metaphor of lenses—with what lenses are children viewed? Are they seen as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge, or as competent and curious human beings, ready to explore the world around them? If children are viewed as gifted, or as having potential for advanced or accelerated work, does that change the teaching of and interactions with these children? In this chapter, we focus on young children (ages 3–8, preschool–third grade), excluding, for the most part, the development of infants and toddlers. Preschool-age children enter the world of academia expected to build kindergarten readiness skills. Many preschoolers already demonstrate mastery of academics, and show the need for a different type of preschool curriculum and instruction. However, others come to preschool from homes where English is not spoken, or from homes where parents did not have enough money or time to provide enriched learning experiences (e.g., travel, visits to the library, campouts in the woods). Do teachers view students who can already read and write as more intelligent or more gifted than those who have not yet been exposed to the types of experiences that would nourish and develop literacy and mathematical thinking? How do teachers view young children who are ahead of their peers—gifted, precocious, or advanced? How do those labels impact the teachers’ interactions and expectations of those students? Views and beliefs about people matter. Having high expectations for children impacts their academic achievement, and stereotype threat can influence achievement (Steele, 2011). Stereotype threat occurs when people are or feel themselves to be at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their identities. In the case of gifted students, who have identities that relate to their intelligence, the way they view their own talents and intelligence impacts not only their achievement, but their willingness to attack challenging problems and grow (Dweck, 2006). Knowing how we think about children impacts our interactions and ultimately their outcomes; therefore, we must be cautious not to project stereotypes, biases, or labels on children. Instead, we must address all children with the intent to learn about them, to connect what they know with new knowledge, and to provide learning contexts that maximize their growth opportunities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

There is considerable diversity among South American countries in relation to regulations and procedures for identifying and developing giftedness in children and adolescents. The experiences of three South American countries (Brazil, Peru, and Uruguay) are described to illustrate the variety of approaches. Although these countries do not share the same cultural or linguistic backgrounds, there are commonalities among them regarding the development of gifted children and adolescents. Despite federal and state regulations regarding education for high-ability and gifted children, educators still face many challenges when implementing these laws, including myths regarding giftedness in the general population. Resources provided to public education in these countries are scarce, however several programs are being offered to improve motivation and excellence among gifted children and adolescents. The role of professional associations and research on giftedness is considered of vital importance to increase public awareness of the social and educational needs of this special population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In this chapter, we outline contemporary efforts to create and implement “alternative” models of gifted education identification or program selection. We address where these models have been successful and where they have stumbled, and on the basis of these findings, we offer recommendations for practice for psychologists and teachers who are charged with developing and implementing identification practices in K–12 schools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Before this chapter can focus on international perspectives and trends in research on giftedness and talent development, we need to clarify the meaning of central key terms. Neither common usage nor scientific parlance offer generally accepted definitions of giftedness and talent (Carman, 2013). Most definitions fit roughly into one of four categories: psychometric definitions, performance definitions, labeling definitions, and specific giftedness/talent definitions. According to psychometric definitions, the terms apply to individuals who score well in psychometric tests (e.g., tests of intelligence or creativity). Performance definitions describe those individuals as gifted or talented who demonstrate high achievements, for instance the best pupil in a certain class or a school valedictorian. According to labeling definitions, gifts/talents are socially accorded, usually by an expert. In the case of specific giftedness/talent definitions, strengths in a particular domain (e.g., music, mathematics, endurance running) qualify a person as gifted or talented. The lack of uniform distinctions between the terms giftedness and talent is as problematic as the sheer variety of definitions that can be found in the literature. There is no generally accepted understanding of the difference between the two. Although some researchers use both terms synonymously (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1986), others seek clear distinctions. Some researchers view talent as a hyponym of giftedness (e.g., Haensly, Reynolds, & Nash, 1986); others equate talent with potential and giftedness with achievements (e.g., Tannenbaum, 1986; but cf. also Gagné, 2005). In this chapter we will use the terms giftedness and talent as conceptually overlapping terms (e.g., Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

In the fictional Harry Potter series, one of the tools in Harry’s arsenal against the evil Lord Voldermort is his cloak of invisibility. With this cloak, Harry is able to walk the halls of Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry unseen by those around him (Rowling, 1997). This phenomenon occurs daily in hallways and classrooms of schools all across the country, though not for the greater good, as twice-exceptional students’ gifts, and even their challenges, may go unrecognized by teachers, counselors, and administrators. Moon and Reis (2004) asserted that because it is outside the norm, giftedness is, by definition, exceptionality. For students to be considered twice exceptional, they must display characteristics associated with giftedness and with one or more learning or behavioral disorders (Baum & Olenchak, 2002; Baum, Olenchak, & Owen, 1998; Moon & Reis, 2004). Much like giftedness, varying definitions of twice-exceptionality exist. In 2009, a joint task force consisting of representatives from the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, the Association for the Education of Gifted Underachieving Students, and the Bridges Academy developed a comprehensive definition that encompassed the identification and servicing of this unique population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Research on gifted education in Africa has taken place sporadically, and in only a few countries. Moreover, very little (and no comprehensive) research has been undertaken on the topic because of the comprehensive chapter by Taylor and Kokot (2000), which remains the most comprehensive overview of research on the subject in Africa to date. This is deplorable, because there can be no doubt about the importance of education for the gifted (Bar-On, 2007a, 2007b). Millions of gifted people across the world are never given the opportunity to realize their potential, implying that, through the years, the world may have lost the likes of a Michelangelo, a Ludwig van Beethoven, a Sigmund Freud, a Mother Teresa, a Nelson Mandela, a Desmond Tutu, a Kofi Annan, or any of several other luminaries (Bar-On, 2007b). There are people who, irrespective of gender, mother tongue, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual preference, ethnicity, political belief, race, age, creed, or geographical location, could have made a major contribution to humankind. The situation in Africa is aggravated by rising unemployment rates resulting largely from major changes in the global economy (Maree, 2010, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a). The issue of gifted education can be best understood by considering Africa’s educational, social, political, cultural, and economic history. The reasons gifted African students do not fulfil their potential include adverse socioeconomic circumstances (e.g., not having access to good schooling), war conditions, and a childhood without caretakers. Moreover, society’s failure to acknowledge and support these gifted students (including the failure of education departments to acknowledge gifted students as a category of students who warrant special attention) contribute to the challenge of gifted students’ failure to construct themselves adequately. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Do gifted students have unique social and emotional needs? Are gifted students more vulnerable to social and emotional difficulties than average-ability students? Common perceptions of the gifted include that they are more likely to suffer from emotional problems and more likely to have difficulties in social relationships (Bain, Choate, & Bliss, 2006), but what does the research say? Some researchers argue gifted individuals do have unique characteristics that render them particularly vulnerable to an array of social and emotional problems, such that gifted individuals experience the same developmental milestones and tasks as average-ability individuals (e.g., identity development, career decision-making, and friendship formation), but “the characteristics associated with giftedness . . . may make the subjective experience of meeting normal challenges qualitatively different from others’ experience and also sometimes hinder task accomplishment” (Peterson, 2009, p. 281). Further, some developmental tasks (e.g., development of abstract thought) are accelerated for gifted individuals compared with average-ability individuals (Moon, 2009). Others argue that gifted students are no more likely to be vulnerable to, or experience, social and emotional difficulties than students of average ability levels (Bain & Bell, 2004; Nail & Evans, 1997; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). The purpose of this chapter is to explore findings from existing research regarding the social and emotional development of gifted children and adolescents, as well as the circumstances in which social and emotional development may be compromised. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

During a late summer morning in the Midwest, the mother of a 16-year-old gifted student received a phone call telling her that her son was just found hanging from the eaves above the bus stop at their local high school. It was later discovered from his journal entries that he had planned this event for months. The death of a young person is a terrible thing; but the death of a young person by suicide is a calamity for humankind. This scenario, with different actors, repeats itself every day in the United States and students with gifts and talents (SWGT) and their families are not immune to this devastating outcome. During the 2014–2015 school year, a total of 26 students died by suicide in two high-achieving school districts in the United States (Palo Alto Unified School District in California and Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia), and at two universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology and College of William and Mary). Several suicides among top students in a short period creates many questions about links between giftedness and suicidal behavior. The belief that SWGT are more prone to emotional disturbance is widely held (Coleman & Cross, 2005). Two perspectives have been offered to describe the relationship between giftedness and psychological well-being: (a) The nature of giftedness makes these students more resilient to psychological maladies, and (b) their characteristics make them more subject to adjustment issues (J. Delisle, 1986; Neihart, 1999). Coleman and Cross (2000) offered a third position: American subcultures create environments that can affect the lived experience of SWGT and, subsequently, their psychological well-being. This chapter explores the research on suicide among SWGT and applicable research from the general population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Perfectionism has long been considered a characteristic associated with giftedness. In this chapter, we make the case for a multivalenced view of perfectionism as it relates to the concept of giftedness. This view is derived from several conceptual and empirical approaches for understanding the effects that traits and characteristic adaptations have on various outcomes. The perfectionism literature generally supports two higher-order latent factors of perfectionistic strivings and concerns, and three or four latent class differentiations into adaptive, maladaptive, and nonperfectionistic groups. We pay particular attention to the implications of such a model for various kinds of challenges that gifted individuals may face. In general, much of the research supports other findings regarding the generally positive psychological health and resilience of the gifted, but also suggests that a subgroup may be at risk for stress-related adjustment difficulties. We conclude this chapter with methodological recommendations aimed at encouraging more contemporary and diversified approaches to measurement and to modeling classes and change trajectories to capture uniquely intersecting aspects of perfectionism and giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The term gifted means that an individual is exceptional at something and we prefer to use the term as an adjective (e.g., he or she is a gifted pianist, etc.) rather than as a noun (e.g., the gifted). We also talk about gifted behaviors rather than use giftedness to represent a state of being. The study of gifts and talents and the ways in which individuals’ abilities interact with and are affected by environment, personality, educational opportunities, family support, and life experiences have fascinated researchers for several decades. As we consider our scholarly and school-based experiences in developing programs and identification systems for high potential students, as well as our knowledge base about how giftedness can be developed in children and adolescents, several common themes emerge about talent development and giftedness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Gifted education exists at the intersection of psychology and education. The roots of gifted education are deeply intertwined with the roots of psychological science (Robinson & Jolly, 2014). Psychology is one of the most wide-ranging of the scientific fields, and it contains numerous perspectives, foci, and philosophical orientations. We speak not of the traditional division of psychology into its recognizable subfields (e.g., clinical, developmental, cognitive, biological, etc.), but rather we note those perspectives and orientations that cut across subdisciplines, providing unified worldviews through which phenomena are understood. One of those dominant perspectives is known as trait theory. This perspective explains individual differences in behavior or performance in terms of differences in underlying traits, which are components shared by all individuals but whose strength or quantity varies between individuals (Elkind, 1981), exemplified by the psychometric approach to studying human intelligence (cf. Carroll, 1993), as well as personality psychology from Allport (1937) to the present. We summarize the trait theory perspective as follows: Individuals are collections of traits—general intelligence (g), Big Five personality components (e.g., extraversion and openness), grit, narcissism, aggression, mindfulness, and so on. These traits exist as latent variables and can be measured using carefully designed and validated psychological or educational instruments. Typically, there is no intrinsically meaningful metric for measuring these traits, so they are often expressed on a norm-referenced basis. These traits are relatively stable over time, though this stability varies considerably according to the nature of the trait. For example, conscientiousness (a Big Five personality component) is more stable than depression (a psychological condition that is responsive to stress, medication, and treatment). Individuals vary widely in their endowment with respect to these traits. The quantity of each trait possessed by individuals results in observable differences in behavior and performance that are relatively stable across contexts. Gifted education is rooted in this perspective, which has been fruitful, led to many important discoveries, and provided the underlying rationale for a large portion of the interventionist wing of psychology. However, like all perspectives, the focus on traits has significant limitations and “blind spots.” In this chapter, we argue that moving beyond this perspective is necessary for our field to make continued progress with respect to its scientific agenda—understanding the nature of precocious intellectual talent in childhood and exceptional achievement in adulthood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Career development theories are one attempt to provide informed guidance to an individual and to explain how one chooses an occupational direction in life on the basis of a number of factors. Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) can be an appropriate conceptual framework through which counselors can explore and support gifted individuals’ career decision making (Watters, 2010). Counselors and psychologists, by nature of their training, are also commonly versed in this vocational theory and could apply it in their work with gifted students. The purpose of this chapter is fivefold: (a) elaborate on the tenets of SCCT in comparison with other historical and contemporary career theories; (b) detail specific research findings pertaining to the use of career theories, including SCCT, with gifted and talented individuals; (c) offer an overview of the career needs of gifted individuals; (d) provide examples of how SCCT can be applied by school counselors and career counselors to gifted and talented young adults; and (e) suggest support strategies for gifted individuals’ career development and related lines of research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Education administrators in most European countries seem to be aware that gifted and talented children need special provision to reach their potential. Their concerns can be seen in directives to schools where children with gifts and talents are valued, sought, and provided with appropriate educational services. However, these concerns are neither always obvious, nor necessarily evident in terms of actual official legislation. In many countries, notably in Scandinavia, the identification of gifted and talented children in education is purposefully avoided. Instead, educational aims are expressed as personalized and child-centered to help every child realize their potential. The preferred educational approaches in those countries where gifted education is overtly avoided are through in-school and out-of-school enrichment. When it is seen as necessary, a child may be offered extra teaching in a specialist area such as mathematics or music. Indeed, in theory, if each child is considered valuable and provided with an appropriate education, the most able will reach their potential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

For a topic that can seem amorphous, mystical, or impossible to study, creativity has more than 65 years of active research and a surprisingly high level of agreement on fundamental issues. Unlike many topics, scholars, teachers, and students of creativity can apply their knowledge to their own lives and to enrich the lives of those near them. Creativity has an array of benefits, from personal to professional to global, which are often assumed and not actively studied (Forgeard & Kaufman, 2016). A strong creativity advocate knows the facts about the topic, models creativity in her own life, and defends, enables, and nurtures creativity in the classroom and the world. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

When the great psychometrician Louis L. Thurstone migrated from engineering to psychology, he noticed an important difference between psychologists and engineers. He observed that when engineers are confronted with a problem, they begin to think, whereas when psychologists are confronted with a problem, they begin to talk (Thurstone, 1952). Happily, over the past 3 decades, highly replicable empirical findings from multiple longitudinal studies on tens of thousands of participants have revealed important things to think about and talk about. These findings are critical for understanding educational, occupational, and creative outcomes among students who learn abstract/symbolic material at precocious rates. Some of the most salient longitudinal advances in recent times involve intellectual abilities, the primary focus of this chapter. Arguably the two most important points uncovered by modern longitudinal research are (a) assessing intellectual abilities within the top 1% of ability and (b) doing so multidimensionally. For optimal practice and theorizing, both are essential. Because of the need to focus more systematically on objective assessments of intellectual capacities in the gifted field (Warne, 2016), this chapter focuses on recent advances based on objective assessments because these determinants identify populations that learn at precocious rates. Thus, these determinants are central. Yet, because the importance of intellectual abilities, commitment, interests, and opportunity are all needed to understand precocious intellectual development, a comprehensive model encompassing intellectual and motivational determinants is further recommended (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000, 2006). This model is, in turn, enriched by broader lifestyle determinants (Ferriman, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009; Lubinski, Benbow, & Kell, 2014), which are crucial for understanding how outstanding educational, occupational, and creative accomplishments unfold over the lifespan among intellectually talented populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

The treatment of expertise in this chapter is to consider expertise as a continuous variable, along which individuals differ to a greater or lesser degree, rather than a highly-selected group that represents only the “best,” in any particular domain. From this perspective, what makes an individual an expert is that he or she has a deep knowledge of a particular domain and the skills to express that knowledge. An extra capability for some experts is the ability to incorporate new information into the expert’s domain knowledge. There are two critical questions to be addressed in this chapter: What characteristics of an individual determine whether he or she will develop expertise? And how do these characteristics operate to enable the development of expertise? The first part of this chapter reviews some of the theories and empirical research on key traits (i.e., relatively stable and broad characteristics) related to the development of expertise. The second part of the chapter discusses some of the current ideas about how these traits combine with an individual’s direction and intensity of effort to yield expertise. The final section of the chapter considers the questions that are yet to be answered and strategies for shedding light on these enduring issues. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

There is a long history of interest in the adjustment of gifted children. Generally, two views have prevailed. The first view is that gifted children as a group are better adjusted than their typically developing peers, because they are capable of greater understanding of self and others. Therefore, they cope better with stress and conflicts. Many empirical studies support this view (Neihart, Pfeiffer, & Cross, 2015). The second view is that gifted children are more at-risk for psychological problems, particularly during adolescence and adulthood, because they are more sensitive to interpersonal conflicts and experience greater degrees of alienation and stress (Silverman, 2012). There is some evidence to support this idea (e.g., Gross, 1993, 2006). Gifted children do have unique psychological issues, but these do not arise from giftedness itself. Rather, giftedness seems to add complexity to an individual that can either enhance or interfere with healthy adjustment, depending on several factors. The aim of this chapter is to summarize the research on these factors and describe practical implications that have an evidence base. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Research on emotional intelligence (EI) may inform understanding of the characteristics of emotional functioning in gifted children (Pfeiffer, 2001). This construct remains controversial in educational psychology, but it may prove useful for exploring interrelationships between cognitive and social–emotional competencies (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Indeed, the pioneers of systematic testing for EI (Mayer, Perkins, Caruso, & Salovey, 2001) proposed that children high in EI should be able to represent information about emotional encounters in greater accuracy, depth, and richness, supporting social adaptation. In this chapter, we explore possible relationships between intellectual giftedness and EI, covering conceptual bases, empirical research, and applications in education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)

Bullying among school-age youth continues to be cause for concern. In a recent U.S. national survey, approximately 28% of 12- to 18-year-old students reported they had been bullied at school during the school year, and victimization was highest among sixth graders (37%) compared to seventh or eighth graders (30% and 31% percent, respectively; Robers, Kemp, & Truman, 2013). It is not surprising that sixth graders reported more bullying, given that this is the year that most students transition to middle school. Gifted youth are at particular risk for being targets of bullying (Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). Longitudinal data show that victims of bullying have compromised social, emotional, and academic development (Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011) and even physical health (Copeland et al., 2014). Studies have documented that victims often experience depression, social anxiety, and low self-esteem, which could then contribute to academic and social challenges (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010). From 1970 through 2014, approximately 14 peer-reviewed articles and four dissertations focused on bullying, aggression, or victimization among gifted or exceptional children. Less than five of these studies were conducted outside of the United States. In comparison to numerous studies focusing on students in general education and students with disabilities (Blake, Lund, Zhou, Kwok, & Benz, 2012; Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001; Rose, Espelage, Aragon, & Elliot, 2011), studies examining the rates of victimization and bullying among gifted students generally only include gifted students and lack a general education control group. However, studies including gifted students suggest that these students are bullied and victimized at similar, but not elevated, rates of other student populations, but they may experience it differently and in different forms (Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). These two studies (one quantitative, one qualitative) were drawn from the same nationally representative sample of 432 eighth graders in the United States with no control group, indicating that the findings should be viewed with caution. In this chapter, we define bullying and giftedness and review of the few studies on this topic. Promising interventions for bully prevention are described and recommendations for future research are provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: chapter)