Su búsqueda

At the culmination of an 11-year qualitative, cross-sectional study of life events, 48 high-ability high school graduates fitting common stereotypes associated with giftedness completed an open-ended questionnaire, part of which focused on positive life experiences and sources of support. Findings included that intense investment in academics, activities, and service contributed to new perspectives, vision and direction, confidence in competence, social connections, spiritual growth, and additional opportunities. Some experiences were considered life-changing. Participants' language reflected individual accomplishment, a dominant-culture value, but the main themes reflected fulfillment, validation, satisfaction, and, unexpectedly, many values associated with nonmainstream cultural groups. Findings are presented within a core-values framework associated with positive psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Gifted children and adolescents can display behavioral characteristics similar to those exhibited by children and adolescents who have been diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), leading to potential issues with misdiagnosis. The overlapping characteristics between giftedness and ADHD are often seen as anecdotal or to only exist in theory, such as that explained by Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration and his notion of overexcitabilities. There is a paucity of empirical data to support this perceived relationship between ADHD and overexcitabilities. This study provides empirical support for a relationship between ADHD and overexcitabilities within a sample of gifted adolescents. Implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Schools often administer brief intelligence tests as the first step in the identification of students who are cognitively gifted. However, brief measures are often used without consideration of underlying constructs or the psychometric properties of the measures and without regard to the links between screening decisions and educational programming. This article provides an overview of these issues and offers recommendations for using brief intelligence measures particularly when screening children who are cognitively gifted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Exceptional cases such as Michael Jackson and Mozart illustrate the concepts of high potential, talent and precocity. If their musical worlds are distant, at least by a few centuries, their environment (notably the family environment), developmental path and personality show notable similarities. Studying these two cases of exceptional musical talent sheds light on a multidimensional approach to intelligence, which is not limited to academic abilities, allows a better understanding of the process leading a gift to be transformed into talent, and fosters the examination of asynchronies observed in great musicians between extreme talent and impaired socio-affective development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (MDDT) is a broad theory of talent development in academics, arts, science, and sports. At its core is a clear distinction between outstanding aptitudes (the gifts or G) and outstanding achievements (the talents or T). Talent development (the D component) represents the progressive transformation of specific gifts into outstanding competencies (knowledge and skills) in a given field of human activity. Apart from this basic trio of dynamically linked components, the DMGT includes two additional components, called catalysts: intrapersonal (I) catalysts (e.g., temperament, needs, interests, will power) and environmental (E) catalysts (e.g., social and family environments, significant persons, enrichment provisions). The DMGT represents a psychosocial model of talent development. But, all the components have their roots in biological and genetic underpinnings that contribute significantly to their development. Complex interactions between the G, D, I, E, and T components, as well as the positive or negative influence of chance, will determine to what extent high aptitudes—the gifts—will eventually be realized as talents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

The proposal of Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (see record 2012-24309-002) on rethinking giftedness and gifted education has a number of implications from an occupational/career decision-making perspective. In this examination of their ideas, consideration is given to the literature in vocational psychology/career development, the emerging findings on the occupational/career decisions of gifted adolescents, and the existing research in gifted education. The new model represents a timely platform and impetus for a constructive discussion and debate on rethinking and advancing the field of gifted education. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

We were thrilled to see an article focusing on giftedness, written by such thoughtful and well-respected researchers as Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (see record 2012-24309-002). The expansive scope of their synthesis is so impressive that it could serve as a crash course introduction to gifted education. In our commentary, we focus specifically on the perspective of education service delivery. From this perspective, we review their guiding principles, chief goal, and provide some follow-up questions for further clarification as well as an implementation option also based on talent development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Comment on Subotnik et al.'s article (see record 2012-24309-002). The talent development approach to the conceptualization of giftedness has historical precedent in the field. Examples of large-scale and longitudinal research studies from previous decades guided by the talent development approach are provided as illustrations. The implications of focusing on domain-specific talents in academics, the arts and sport, their individual patterns of development, and the use of eminence as a goal for programs and services in gifted education are discussed. The importance of linking theoretical debates and research with the realities of policies, resource allocation, and advocacy is emphasized. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

In this article, the authors respond to the eight commentaries, J. Y. Jung (see record 2012-24309-003); A. Ziegler, H. Stoeger and W. Vialle (see record 2012-24309-004); M. C. Makel, M. Puttalaz and J. Wai (see record 2012-24309-005); A. Robinson (see record 2012-24309-006); A. N. Rinn (see record 2012-24309-007); M. T. McBee et al. (see record 2012-24309-008); T. C. Grantham (see record 2012-24309-009) and J. A. Plucker (see record 2012-24309-010) , on the original article “Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science” (see record 2012-24309-002), using several themes to organize their response. These themes include ability, developmental trajectories, effort and opportunity, psychosocial factors, eminence, and equity. The authors reaffirm the contention that eminence is an appropriate standard for assigning the gifted label in individuals with well-developed talents. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Despite numerous calls for research on parents of gifted learners, researchers have given only cursory treatment to the topic. In this article, the authors review and synthesize 53 sources, published since 1983, on parents of gifted learners. Existing research on parents of gifted learners may be categorized into three thematic areas that include (a) parent influence, (b) parent perceptions of giftedness and ability, and (c) parent satisfaction with gifted programming. Theory-driven research is conspicuously absent from this body of work, and study designs emphasize self-report measures and lack control groups. The analysis of this literature reveals gaps in the research record and offers recommendations about where future research should be focused. These areas include attitudes, values, and expectations of families of underserved gifted children; relationships between parents and schools; parents’ understanding of giftedness; parents of gifted underachievers; and how parents support and influence their children at home. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

For a full personal development, the planning of curricula tailored to individual capabilities is essential. This argument regards all individuals, including those who are characterized by exceptional skills. Enhancing everyone's talents is a factor of social development empowering human capital, especially when gifted people are targeted. An overview of the European context makes it imperative not to delay the empowerment of giftedness in the school. Thus it is useful to provide school professionals with instruments for its assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Current models of cognition and behavioral diagnosis emphasize categorical classification over continuous considerations of function and promote the “differential diagnosis” of various conditions according to observational criteria. However, an overemphasis on a purely behavioral, categorical approach to understanding human function fails to address the comorbidity of different disorders and does not include a consideration of overlapping levels of function, from “pathological” through “normal,” to “gifted” or exceptional. The frequent co-occurrence of “gifted” and “pathological” function is thus difficult to understand from a corticocentric and purely behavioral and observational point of view. This article reviews “giftedness” in relation to the diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, coexistence of which is termed “twice exceptional.” It additionally considers problems in assessing these functions using current neuropsychological tests and methodologies that are presumably based upon a corticocentric model of cognition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Why and how should a society devote special resources to the development of giftedness in young people for the twenty-first century? If we agree that the goals of gifted education and talent development are to maximize young people’s opportunities for self-fulfillment and increase society’s reservoir of creative problem solvers and producers of knowledge, then it would seem wise that programming and services enhance students’ capacity for creative productivity, not just content acquisition. This general theory for the development of human potential is discussed through an exploration of four research-based subtheories: the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, the Enrichment Triad Model, Operation Houndstooth, and Executive Functions. In this article, a reexamination of current gifted and talented programming is intended to generate future research, extend dialogue among scholars, and inspire continued support for programming based on theory and related research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

Comments on an article by Albert Zieglera & Shane N. Phillipson (see record 2012-16824-002). In their article, Ziegler and Phillipson criticize the “erroneous view” of the research paradigms mentioned with respect to gifted education as well as to our understanding of the development of excellence or exceptionality. Instead of them, they plead for a “paradigm shift” and describe “basic principles of gifted education” based on the “actiotope model” in a systemic view. This reminds me of the controversial debate on psychometric research approaches versus process diagnostics and “action research” in the field 25 years ago. In the first part of their article Ziegler and Phillipson review the “state of the art” and complain the deficiencies of many current fundamental principles of gifted education including talent search and identification approaches in educational and school psychology. All in all: Ziegler and Phillipson offer a very stimulating article, which provides the reader with many new insights into gifted education and useful information relevant to its improvement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

With this issue of High Ability Studies, the journal continues its tradition of having distinguished colleagues comment on target articles. High Ability Studies received 49 peer commentaries from 17 nations in response to Ziegler’s and Phillipson’s article. A majority of these viewed the idea of a paradigm shift wholly or largely positively. This enthusiastic and positive reaction bespeaks the promising and innovative nature of Ziegler’s and Phillipson’s position. At the same time, some colleagues expressed reservations about such a paradigm shift. This issue not only presents a new theoretical approach to the field of gifted education. It also inaugurates a number of organizational changes. (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 draw upon the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (AMG) to give an overview of a systemic approach to gifted education. They argue the value of such a systemic approach for understanding the development of exceptionality. We certainly agree that the achievement of excellent performance is not only the result of individual abilities and efforts but also the collective support from interactive components within the system. In our field, the AMG has provided us with a conceptual framework that helps us interpret our data on connectedness and life skills development among children in Hong Kong. Ziegler and Phillipson also point out weaknesses in key models and strategies established so far in gifted education. They certainly challenge the fundamentals of the current mode of nurturing giftedness. They hold that the development of exceptional achievement requires attention to students’ needs at an individual level, rather than group or class level. As suggested by Ziegler and Phillipson, one of the few strategies implemented at the moment that can cater to students’ individual needs is mentorship found that gifted students regard interaction with experienced people from their field of interest as the most valued and helpful means for their development. Similarly, our study of high ability adolescents in Hong Kong has shown that many students benefit from peer mentoring and counseling in school (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Introduction: The current models in the study of giftedness such as the Triadic Interdependence define it as a favorable outcome of the interaction between intrinsic (intellectual capacity, creativity and motivation) and extrinsic (family, peers, and school) factors. Based on this, the purpose of this study was to identify and establish a profile of gifted adolescents that includes both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics, as well as to analyze the relationships and the differences between these characteristics within the resulting group of the profile. Method: Participants were 666 students from a public school, age ranged between 12 to 18 years, and the mean of age was 14.77. Various statistical analyzes were performed such as Pearson’s correlation, Student’s t-test and ANOVA test to compare the possible similarities and differences between intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of students identified as gifted. Results: 93 out of 666 students were found to meet the criteria established in the literature to be considered as gifted. The collected data allowed us to establish both a general profile of the group and a more specific profile based on feature grouping. In both cases it was possible to determine every group’s homogeneity and heterogeneity with regard to the presence of intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics, as well as the relationships between them. Discussion: The findings highlight that although gifted adolescents are a heterogeneous population, which shares some intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics, they differ in others depending on giftedness degree, and this should be taken into account when designing educational programs that meet both their internal and environmental needs so they can develop successfully in higher education levels. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)

A 15-year phenomenological case study of an exceptional female from age 15 through 30 was focused on exploring the subjective experience of development during adolescence and young adulthood, with attention to how giftedness and context interacted. The main focus became her response to trauma, which was revealed early in the study. Data, including recollected childhood experiences, were gathered through letters, e-mail, face-to-face interaction, and journals and essays from her troubled adolescence. The central phenomenon that emerged is given particular attention: that giftedness was both an asset and a vulnerability throughout these years, certainly as she struggled in the aftermath of trauma and developed strategies for surviving and healing. The struggles of the subject included dealing with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The concepts of overexcitability and positive disintegration are used to frame some findings. (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). As Ziegler and Phillipson discussed in their article, various paradigms, models and theories have been described in the extensive literature on giftedness. According to Ziegler and Phillipson, there is a pressing need for new models of giftedness—they call for a paradigm shift. In the introduction to the current article and, as a justification for presenting the actiotope model, Ziegler and Phillipson are critical of the gaps and “deficiencies” in the current research literature and practice of gifted education. There is a crisis in gifted education research—it is stuck in a contested, competitive landscape that is littered with fragmented research, rivalries and questions about the quality of published research studies. Ziegler and Phillipson could focus on the steps and processes, and identify specific evidence, support their paradigm through substantiation, formulate and reformulate the paradigm in order to advance gifted education so that the research literature matures and deep knowledge can influence practices. While evolving conceptualizations of the actiotope model have appeared in publications for awhile, Ziegler, Phillipson and others should proceed to confirm assumptions and gather evidence. (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 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)