Module 1: Conceptualisation of GiftednessConceptualisation of Giftedness

- Nature and conceptions of human intelligence and creativity: models and theories

- Theories and models on giftedness and talent: implicit, explicit, others- Cognitive, affective, social characteristics of the gifted and talented

General Intelligence (IQ)

Francis Galton (1822-1911)

Influenced by Darwin’s work, in 1865 Galton began to study heredity and variations in human ability. His key contribution in the field of human intelligence studies was analysis of the lineage and lives of eminent men in Europe to develop the hypothesis that human mental abilities and personality traits, were passed down to offspring through heredity.

These findings sparked the formative years of the eugenics movement, which called for methods of improving the biological make-up of the human species through selective parenthood. It led to the inevitable value-laden categorisation or ranking of populations based on measurable traits and natural ability.

"Galton's belief in the adaptive value of natural ability became thereby translated into widespread conviction that general intelligence provides the single most critical psychological factor underlying success in life" (Simonton, 2003). However, even Galton took into account energy and persistence as well as intellect when factoring the ingredients of success (Galton, 1869 as cited in Simonton, 2003).

The debate about IQ heritability touches on the nature/nuture divide, and there has been significant controversy in the academic community about it ever since research began in the 19th century.

Alfred Binet and Theodor Simon

In 1904 Binet was appointed to a governmental commission charged with investigating the state of the mentally subnormal France. Recently enacted universal education laws required that all French children be given public education. In 1905 Alfred Binet and Theodor Simon devised a very different sort of test that was considered a breakthrough in measuring intelligence, and still forms the basis for much current IQ testing.

The basic insight that drove the design of the test items is that of measuring with respect to age:

they found that the subnormal children's performance could be equated with that of much younger normal children.

they devised age linked items that should be within the capacities of a child of that age (1905 Binet-Simon test and its subsequent 1908 and 1991 revisions).

The items were a mixture of different things, brought together only by the general ability of children of a certain age to answer them correctly.

Binet observed that

children varied a great deal in the particular items that they could answer; and that there was substantial variability from test to test for the same child.

He developed the rule of thumb that a score of two years below chronological age would result in the child experiencing difficulty in ordinary schools.

Binet believed that

intelligence itself was liable to substantial change within an individual; there was always room for improvement; there may be an upper limit for each person's intelligence, but few people actually

approach that limit in real life.

In this Binet differed radically from Galton:

Binet regarded intelligence as fluid and subject to change through learning, whereas Galton saw it as a fixed hereditary characteristic.

Binet felt his tests were only appropriate at the lower end of the distribution, in diagnosing difficulties in learning, whereas Galton focused on the top end of the scale, emphasising genius which he took to be hereditary.

Binet insisted on three cardinal principles for using his tests 1. The scores are a practical device; they do not buttress any theory of intellect. They do not

define anything innate or permanent. We may not designate what they measure as "intelligence" or any other reified entity.

2. The scale is a rough, empirical guide for identifying mildly retarded and learning-disabled children who need special help. It is not a device for ranking normal children.

3. Whatever the cause of difficulty in children identified for help, emphasis shall be placed upon improvement through special training. Low scores shall not be used to mark children as innately incapable.

Lewis Terman (1877-1956) Stanford-Binet Individual Test of Intelligence (1916)

Lewis Terman, a psychologist at Stanford, administered translations of Binet's test to American children and found that the tests overestimated mental age for young American children while underestimating it for older children.

Terman and his graduate student Childs added new items like "fill-in-the-word" and fable interpretation; removed several of Binet and Simon's original items; conducted an extensive standardisation of the new test (1916); introduced the term IQ (following a suggestion of the German psychologist William

Stern), by dividing the mental age by chronological age to get one number, then multiplied by 100 to get rid of decimals.

This simplification of the results of the test into one easy number contributed to the reification of the concept of intelligence, and was completely counter to Binet's careful qualifications and cautions about 'brutal' numbers.

2

Terman's revision of the Binet test utilised the largest standardised sample and, by the 1920s, became the most widely used individually administered intelligence scale.

In 1917 he played a key role in the development of intelligence tests for the army. These group-administered tests were largely based on the Stanford-Binet and enabled large numbers of individuals to be tested at one time;

Postwar, Terman endeavoured to utilise this efficient form of test administration in the schools. In collaboration with a committee of psychologists who had worked on the army tests, he developed the "National Intelligence Tests" for grades three to eight, which were ready for use in 1920;

Throughout the 1920s he played a leading role in establishing the widespread use of various group intelligence tests in schools so that students could be classified into homogeneous ability groups, in what became termed a tracking system. This educational practice became well established in American schools by the 1930s.

Not surprisingly, Terman fell on the hereditarianism side of the nature/nurture divide and spent much of his career studying gifted children. Terman launched a longitudinal study of gifted children in 1921, the first longitudinal study in psychology to use a large sample

close to 1500 children with IQ scores of at least 135; included measures of personality, character, and interests to dispel the popular notion

that gifted children were underdeveloped in non-intellectual areas; compared with a control group of California schoolchildren, the gifted children excelled

in measures of academic achievement; their profiles also revealed that they were emotionally as well as intellectually mature.

This sample was followed as the participants moved through adolescence, adulthood, and the retirement years. The study of the gifted over the lifespan demonstrated that they had achieved career success well above the average of college graduates and attained a high degree of personal satisfaction.

Charles Spearman (1863-1945)

The general intelligence factor (abbreviated g) is a controversial construct used in the field of psychology to quantify what is common to the scores of all in intelligence tests. It was postulated in 1904 by Spearman and subsequently developed into a theory in 1923.

Spearman developed the two-factor theory of intelligence based on

his finding that that school children’s grades across seemingly unrelated subjects were positively correlated; and

the proposition that these correlations reflected the influence of a dominant factor, which he termed g for "general" intelligence.

According to the two-factor theory of intelligence, the performance of any intellectual act requires some combination of "g", which is available to the same individual to the same degree for all intellectual acts, and of "specific factors" or "s" which are specific to that act and which varies in strength from one act to another.

3

An individual’s "g" factor can reasonably safely predict a similar level of performance for a highly "g" saturated task. Predictions of performance on tasks with high "s" factors are less accurate. Nevertheless, since "g" pervades all tasks, prediction will be significantly better than chance. Thus, the most important information to have about a person's intellectual ability is an estimate of their "g."

The accumulation of cognitive testing data and improvements in analytical techniques have preserved g's central role and led to the modern conception of g. According to the American Psychological Association, an hierarchy of factors with g at its apex and group factors at successively lower levels is the most widely accepted model of cognitive ability. Other models have also been proposed, and significant controversy attends g and its alternatives.

Specific Intelligences

Louis L. Thurstone (1887-1955)

Thurstone is best known for the development of new factor analytic techniques to determine the number and nature of latent constructs within a set of observed variables.

The new statistical techniques developed by Thurstone provided the necessary tools for his most enduring contribution to psychology: The Theory of Primary Mental Abilities, a model of human intelligence challenged Spearman’s then-dominant paradigm of a unitary conception of intelligence.

Thurstone argued that g was a statistical artefact resulting from the mathematical procedures used to study it. Using his new approach to factor analysis, Thurstone found that intelligent behaviour does not arise from a general factor, but rather emerges from seven independent factors that he called primary abilities:

Verbal comprehension--the ability to define and understand words Word fluency--the ability to produce words rapidly

Number--the ability to solve arithmetic problems.

Space--the ability to visualize relationships.

Memory--the ability to memorize and recall

Perception--the ability to see differences and similarities among objects

Reasoning--the ability to find rules (Thurstone, 1938).

When Thurstone analysed mental test data from samples comprised of people with similar overall IQ scores, he found that they had different profiles of primary mental abilities, further supporting his model and suggesting that his work had more clinical utility than Spearman’s unitary theory.

However, when Thurstone administered his tests to an intellectually heterogeneous group of children, he failed to find that the seven primary abilities were entirely separate; rather he found evidence of g. Thurstone managed an elegant mathematical solution that resolved these apparently contradictory results, and the final version of his theory was a compromise that accounted for the presence of both a general factor and the seven specific abilities. This compromise helped lay the

4

groundwork for future researchers who proposed hierarchical theories and theories of multiple intelligences.

J.P. Guilford (1897– 1987): Structure of Intellect

Guilford came to believe intelligence was not one monolithic, global attribute but a combination of multiple abilities. This is what was to be the dominant focus of his professional career—individual differences. Guilford believed there were many relatively independent mental abilities factors. With WWII, Guilford was able to apply his factor analytic methodology to study these mental abilities. Because of his research on U.S. Army Air Corps during the war, he and his collaborators were able to identify and measure twenty-five important mental ability factors.

Further, Guilford believed society’s quest for easily objectifiable testing and scoring had directed away from measuring important qualities that individuals possess. Operationally, intelligence was defined as the ability to read, compute mathematically, and perform other similar subjects. According to Guilford, these types of intelligence tests revealed little about a person’s creative nature. After researching available intelligence tests, he determined many do not intercorrelate perfectly because each test emphasized a different primary ability. Guilford concluded individuals differ in a continuous manner for each primary ability.

Traditional models prior to Guilford proposed a single universal ability at the top of a hierarchal pattern. In Guilford's Structure of Intellect (SI) theory, intelligence is viewed as comprising operations, contents, and products. There are 5 kinds of operations (cognition, memory, divergent production, convergent production, evaluation), 6 kinds of products (units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications), and 5 kinds of contents (visual, auditory, symbolic, semantic, behavioral). Since each of these dimensions is independent, there are theoretically 150 different components of intelligence.

Guilford researched and developed a wide variety of psychometric tests to measure the specific abilities predicted by SI theory. These tests provide an operational definition of the many abilities proposed by the theory. Furthermore, factor analysis was used to determine which tests appeared to measure the same or different abilities.

5

Guilford’s SI Theory is an open system such that it allows for newly discovered categories to be added in any of three directions. The model also suggests where new abilities may be discovered based on existing abilities. Guilford’s contributions showed intelligence to be incredibly complex rather than a monolithic global trait once considered innate and absolute.

Example:

The following example illustrates closely related abilities that differ in terms of operation, content, and product.

Evaluation of semantic units (EMU) is measured by the ideational fluency test in which individuals are asked to make judgments about concepts. For example: "Which of the following objects best satisfies the criteria, hard and round: an iron, a button, a tennis ball or a light bulb?

Divergent production of semantic units (DMU) would require the person to list all items they can think of that are round and hard in a given time period.

Divergent production of symbolic units (DSU) involves a different content category than DMU, namely words (e.g., "List all words that end in 'tion').

Divergent production of semantic relations (DMR) would involve the generation of ideas based upon relationships. An example test item for this ability would be providing the missing word for the sentence: "The fog is as ____ as a sponge" (e.g., heavy, damp, full).

Scope/Application: SI theory is intended to be a general theory of human intelligence. Its major application (besides educational research) has been in personnel selection and placement.

David Wechsler (1896 - 1981): Wechsler Intelligence ScalesThe Wechsler Intelligence Scales are a series of standardised tests used to evaluate cognitive abilities and intellectual abilities in children and adults.

ApplicationThe Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (regular, revised, and third edition) and Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence are used as tools in school placement, in determining the presence of a learning disability or a developmental delay, in identifying giftedness, and in tracking intellectual development.The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (regular and revised) are used to determine vocational ability, to assess adult intellectual ability in the classroom, and to determine organic deficits. Both adult and children's Wechsler scales are often included in neuropsychological testing to assess the brain function of individuals with neurological impairments.

The most distinctive feature of the Wechsler tests is their division into a verbal section and a nonverbal (or performance) section, with separate scores available for each subsection. All of the Wechsler scales are divided into six verbal and five performance subtests.

Verbal intelligence, the component most often associated with academic success, implies the ability to think in abstract terms using either words or mathematical symbols.

6

Performance intelligence suggests the ability to perceive relationships and fit separate parts together logically into a whole.

Wechsler defined intelligence as an individual's ability to adapt and to constructively solve problems in the environment. Wechsler viewed intelligence not in terms of capacity, but rather, in terms of performance. That is, the Wechsler scales are not purported to measure but rather, intellectual performance. The rationale for conceptualising intelligence as a performance variable is that:

it does not really matter how much intelligence one has; what matters is how well one uses it.

since intellectual capacity cannot be seen nor its existence concretely verified, it cannot be reliably measured;

performance can be measured and, thus, should be the focus of the test.

Most major intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and the Guilford Intelligence Scales, are grounded in the view of intelligence tests as performance measures.

The Wechsler scales, like the Binet and other tests, measure intellectual performance as a multidimensional construct. Rather than conceptualising intelligence as a single characteristic, the tests contain numerous scales assessing qualitatively different types of intellectual functioning. The notion of multidimensional intelligence is certainly not new in cognitive psychology; in the 1920s, Thurstone and Spearman viewed intelligence as consisting of several components. However, in contrast to earlier multidimensional views, current intelligence tests view intelligence not as specific abilities emanating from a "general" intellectual capacity (e.g., general S with many specific "s" factors), but as different types of intelligence, each type being of equal adaptive importance.

Multiple intelligences

Howard Gardner (1943 - )

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences developed by Howard Gardner in 1983 and subsequently refined, this theory states there are at least seven ways (“intelligences”) that people understand and perceive the world. These intelligences may not be exhaustive. Gardner lists the following:

Linguistic. The ability to use spoken or written words. Logical-Mathematical. Inductive and deductive thinking and reasoning abilities, logic, as well

as the use of numbers and abstract pattern recognition.

Visual-Spatial. The ability to mentally visualise objects and spatial dimensions.

Body-Kinaesthetic. The wisdom of the body and the ability to control physical motion

Musical-Rhythmic. The ability to master music as well as rhythms, tones and beats.

Interpersonal. The ability to communicate effectively with other people and to be able to develop relationships.

Intrapersonal. The ability to understand one’s own emotions, motivations, inner states of being, and self-reflection.

7

The theory was not primarily developed from the study of children, but from brain-damaged adults, and Gardner’s observations on the destruction and preservation of separate abilities depending on the area of the brain that had been damaged. His concurrent work with non-brain damaged children indicated that while some children were skilled in many areas, most seemed to demonstrate greater skill in some areas than others, indicating that “the human mind is best thought of as a series of relatively separate faculties, with only loose and non-predictable relations with one another, than a single all-purpose machine” (Gardner, 1999, p. 32).

The multiple intelligences theory represented/represents a definition of human nature, from a cognitive perspective, i.e., how we perceive; how we are aware of things.

This provides absolutely pivotal and inescapable indication as to people's preferred learning styles, as well as their behavioural and working styles, and their natural strengths. The types of intelligence that a person possesses (Gardner suggests most of us are strong in three types) indicates not only a person’s capabilities, but also the manner or method in which they prefer to learn and develop their strengths - and also to develop their weaknesses.

Reflection: What are the dangers, if any, of applying Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences to educational planning for individual children?

CreativityCreativity is frequently associated with giftedness, but as far back as the early 1960s researchers have been aware that above an IQ threshold of 120 - the top 10% of the population - there is virtually no correlation between intelligence and creativity; they are quite different constructs (Getzels & Jackson, 1962).

From Human Motivation, (1998,3rd Edn) by Robert E. Franken: Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognise ideas, alternatives, or

possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others (p. 396).

Three reasons why people are motivated to be creative:

1. need for novel, varied, and complex stimulation

2. need to communicate ideas and values

3. need to solve problems (page 396).

In order to be creative, you need to be able to view things in new ways or from a different perspective. Among other things, you need to be able to generate new possibilities or new alternatives. Tests of creativity measure not only the number of alternatives that people can generate but the uniqueness of those alternatives. The ability to generate alternatives or to see things uniquely does not occur by chance; it is linked to other, more fundamental qualities of thinking, such as flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity or unpredictability, and the enjoyment of things heretofore unknown (p. 394).

From Creativity - Beyond the Myth of Genius, Robert W. Weisberg (1993):

..."creative" refers to novel products of value, as in "The airplane was a creative invention." "Creative" also refers to the person who produces the work, as in, “Picasso was creative."

8

"Creativity," then refers both to the capacity to produce such works, as in "How can we foster our employees' creativity?" and to the activity of generating such products, as in "Creativity requires hard work" (p. 4).

For something to be creative, it is not enough for it to be novel: it must have value, or be appropriate to the cognitive demands of the situation" (p. 4).

From Creativity - Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1996):

Ways that "creativity" is commonly used: 1. Persons who express unusual thoughts, who are interesting and stimulating - in

short, people who appear to unusually bright.

2. People who experience the world in novel and original ways. These are (personally creative) individuals whose perceptions are fresh, whose judgements are insightful, who may make important discoveries that only they know about.

3. Individuals who have changes our culture in some important way. Because their achievements are by definition public, it is easier to write about them. (e.g., Leonardo, Edison, Picasso, Einstein, etc.) (pp. 25-26)

The Systems Model of Creativity: (pages 27-28)

1. the creative domain, which is nested in culture - the symbolic knowledge shared by a particular society or by humanity as a whole (e.g., visual arts).

2. the field, which includes all the gatekeepers of the domain (e.g., art critics, art teachers, curators of museums, etc.).

3. the individual person, who using the symbols of the given domain (such as music, engineering, business, mathematics) has a new idea or sees a new pattern, and when this novelty is selected by the appropriate field for inclusion into the relevant domain.

Creativity is any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a new one...What counts is whether the novelty he or she produces is accepted for inclusion in the domain" (p. 28).

Characteristics of the creative personality: (pp. 58-73) 1. Creative individuals have a great deal of energy, but they are also often quiet and at

rest. 2. Creative individuals tend to be smart, yet also naive at the same time.

3. Creative individuals have a combination of playfulness and discipline, or responsibility and irresponsibility.

4. Creative individuals alternate between imagination and fantasy at one end, and rooted sense of reality at the other.

5. Creative people seem to harbor opposite tendencies on the continuum between extroversion and introversion.

6. Creative individuals are also remarkable humble and proud at the same time.

9

7. Creative individuals to a certain extent escape rigid gender role stereotyping and have a tendency toward androgyny.

8. Generally, creative people are thought to be rebellious and independent.

9. Most creative persons are very passionate about their work, yet they can be extremely objective about it as well.

10. The openness and sensitivity of creative individuals often exposes them to suffering pain yet also a great deal of enjoyment.

Downloaded from: http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/creativity/define.htm 08/10/2010

Many of the studies of creativity have been driven by the desire to identify those children who are most likely to profit from programs for developing giftedness or the desire to identify adults who are likely to be innovative in science, business, and industry (Kerr & Gagliardi, 2003). Most creativity research concerns the nature of creative thinking, the distinctive characteristics of the creative person, development of creativity across the individual life span, and the social environments most strongly associated with creative activity (Simonton, 2000). The lack of a unified, widely-accepted theory of creativity causes several difficulties: “establishing a useful operational definition, understanding the implications of differences among tests and test administration procedures, and understanding the relationship of creativity to other human abilities” (Treffinger, Renzulli & Feldhusen, 1971, p. 107). Sternberg (2001) argues that it is the interrelations or “dialectic” among intelligence, wisdom, and creativity, where intelligence advances existing societal agendas, creativity questions them and proposes new ones, and wisdom balances the old with the new, that provides a common thread.

Measuring creativityThe Guilford Battery, based on his S I model (Guilford, 1967) differentiated among 180 different kinds of thinking, including many forms of divergent thinking. The abilities most relevant for creative thinking are to be found in the divergent production abilities that allow information to be generated from information; and transformation abilities, which involve revision of what one experiences or knows, thereby producing new forms and patterns. Ten individual tests:

(1) Names for Stories (divergent production of semantic units); (2) What to Do with It (divergent production of semantic classes); (3) Similar Meanings (divergent production of semantic relations); (4) Writing Sentences (divergent production of semantic systems); (5) Kinds of People (divergent production of semantic implications); (6) Make Something Out of It (divergent production of figural units); (7) Different Letter Groups (divergent production of figural classes); (8) Making Objects (divergent production of figural systems); (9) Hidden Letters (divergent production of figural transformations); and (10) Adding Decorations (divergent production of figural implications).

Although Guilford’s Structure of the Intellect model has earned support over the decades, his battery of tests does not have the extensive validity research to compare with the Torrance tests.

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking consists of nonverbal and verbal forms, Thinking Creatively with Pictures and Thinking Creatively with Words, which are suitable for grades kindergarten

10

through graduate school to assess four creative abilities: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The nonverbal forms consist of three sets of activities which require subjects to draw lines to elaborate on a single shape, to draw lines to complete a picture, and to draw as many different pictures as possible using the same shape. The verbal forms consist of six activities that require subjects to generate questions, alternative uses, and guesses. Each of the activities in each of the nonverbal and verbal forms is timed and scored for fluency, flexibility, and originality. The nonverbal forms are scored also for elaboration.

Treffinger et al. (1971) aptly described a primary criticism of divergent thinking tests when he cautioned us to not make inferences about the complex and multifaceted construct of creativity from measures that are distinctly cognitive. Moreover, the perceived lack of predictive validity for divergent thinking tests is problematic. Divergent thinking, or critical thinking therein defined, does not necessarily correspond to creative production or eminence.

Almeida et al (2008) emphasise that the perspective adopted by particular researchers will influence the ways in which they measure, describe and understand creativity.

Theories and models on giftedness and talent: implicit, explicit, othersSince the late 1950s, researchers internationally in gifted education have emphasised that giftedness comprises much more than just high academic potential. DeHaan and Havighurst identified six fields in which high ability should be sought and developed: intellectual ability, creative thinking, scientific ability, social leadership, mechanical skills and talent in the fine arts.

The emphasis on scientific ability and mechanical skills arose in part because Russia’s success Sputnik threatened American supremacy in the space race. The National Defence Education Act encouraged and supported identification and fostering of young people with special talent in science and maths (Refer to the significant work in this field at the Johns Hopkins University).

After the American success in the moon landing in 1969, the United States Office of Education, under its Commissioner of Education, Sidney Marland, altered and expanded DeHaan and Havighurst’s categories of giftedness and talent to reflect a change in priorities. This has become known as the Marland definition:

‘Gifted children are those capable of high performance with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any one of the following areas, singly or in combination:

general intellectual ability specific academic aptitude creative or productive thinking visual and performing arts leadership ability psychomotor ability’

(Marland, 1972, p. 2).

Subsequent research has focused developing models of giftedness that might be used to facilitate identification of gifted children, and to promote those conditions (especially in education) which allow gifted individuals to flourish, and to realise their potential.

11

Renzulli’s Three-Ring Model

Renzulli’s definition affirmed what was now widely accepted - that giftedness was multi-dimensional and could be sited in any area of human ability:

‘Giftedness consists of an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits - these clusters being above average general abilities, high levels of task commitment and high levels of creativity. Gifted and talented children are those possessing or capable of possessing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance. Children who manifest or are capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational opportunities or services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional programs’

(Renzulli, 1978, p. 261).

However:

‘above average’ meant among the top 15-20% of people in any area of human endeavour (Renzulli, 1986).

‘task commitment’ - ‘perseverance, endurance, hard work, dedicated practice, self-confidence and a belief in one’s ability to carry out important work’ (Renzulli, 1986, p. 69). Task commitment is a very specific form of motivation focused on the task in hand.

none of the three ‘clusters’ of traits noted above is by itself sufficient to define a child as gifted:

It is the interaction among the three clusters that research has shown to be the necessary ingredient for creative/productive accomplishment (Renzulli, 1978, p. 182).

12

Renzulli derived his model from analysis of the characteristics of ‘creative/productive’ adults (three groups of architects studies by Mackinnon in the 1950s and Galton’s ‘great men’ studied retrospectively in the 19th century). Because the Renzulli model is based on the characteristics of creative and productive adults it may fail to identify children who have the potential for high performance but are not yet performing at levels commensurate with their ability. It places too much emphasis on task commitment and may disadvantage gifted students who are demotivated or whohave not yet been given work with which they can engage productively. Students who are notcreatively gifted may not be identified or may not be admitted to programs.

The website of the American National Research Centre on Gifted Education at the University of Connecticut has some useful articles on aspects of the three-ring model, e.g.:• ‘The three ring conception of giftedness’ by Joseph Renzulli, at:www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semart13.html• ‘What is this thing called giftedness and how do we develop it?A twenty-five year perspective’ by Joseph Renzulli, at:www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semart14.html

AbrahamTannenbaum Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives (1983)Tannenbaum’s ‘sea star’ model of giftedness addresses the relationships between abilityand achievement - ‘the links between promise and fulfilment’ (Tannenbaum, 1983, p. 95) - andclearly identifies the roles of both the child’s personality and the environment in which he or she is brought up and educated.

Relationship between ability and achievement Identifies role of personality AND environment Based on highly able children & teenagers Definition, giftedness in children is potential for adult activity 5 internal & external variables (points on star) All 5 must be present for ability to translate into achievement Producers (develop) Performers (interpret/recreate) Creativity or proficiency General ability: testable general intelligence, different levels for different

accomplishments Special ability: capacity/affinity for particular work plus capacity to think Non-intellective factors: motivation, self concept, persistence, mental health etc. Environmental: societal choices, family, peers, school, community, economic, social,

legal, political institutions Chance: unpredictable events, teachers, job market Static and dynamic elements

Unlike Renzulli’s model, Tannenbaum’s model is based on the characteristics of highly able children and adolescents and focuses on potential.

13

To have the potential to succeed as talented adults, children require the general and specific abilities identified in other models, but also facilitative personal attributes and some ‘special encounters with the environment’ to encourage emergence of talent. The overlap and intermeshing of the five internal and external variables that ‘mesh into excellence’ produce giftedness.

Special ability: special capacity and affinity for particular fields of endeavour – may not emerge until late childhood or adolescence

Non-intellective factors: confluence of factors such as motivation, secure self-concept, task focus and persistence, ability to defer gratification, sound mental health….. for example.

Environmental factors: include child’s family, peer group school and community, as well as economic, legal social and political institutions, but the wider cultural values of the community or culture in which the child is located – what kinds of talent are recognised, valued and supported.

Chance factors: unpredictability of being in the right place at the right time, availability of the right teacher, role model, or opportunity.

Static elements: portray the status of the individual at any given time in relation to each of the five factors.

Dynamic elements: are those which affect the child and may cause or bring about change – in status, or opportunity.

14

In later work (2003) Tannenbaum distinguished between two broad types of gifted people as producers and performers, who operate either creatively or proficiently.

Creatively Proficiently

Producers Thoughts/ideas Philosopher produces a new theory

Talented editors who can turn original work or ideas into a

15

Painter/poet/writer creates a new work

Experimental scientist develops new process

final brilliant product

Efficiency experts in science or industry who use critical skills as trouble shooters to correct and improve existing schemes, or bring an original idea to application or market.

Use effectively what already exists

Tangibles People who develop new products – science and technology, sculptors, architects, design engineers

Precision workers whose talents lie in high quality production and execution of ideas/designs of others

Performers Staged artistry Creators of original works – choreographers, composers, stories

Artists who interpret original works individually to bring and added dimension to the original

Artists who reproduce the original work faithfully and accurately with little or no interpretation or variation

e.g movie actors who carry out the will of the director accurately.

Human services

Members of helping professions (teachers, political leaders, social workers) who work innovatively to develop new techniques or to modify existing in response to needs of special groups

Brilliant practitioners who implement guidelines, techniques, innovations successfully and effectively.

Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT)The Gagné model has won wide acceptance internationally. It is practical, research-based and teacher-friendly. This model emphasises that talent development is not automatic; many gifted students fail to develop their high ability into high achievement.

Gagné's Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) proposes a clear distinction between the two basic concepts of giftedness and talent:

Giftedness designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities (called aptitudes or gifts), in at least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers.

16

Talent designates the superior mastery of systematically developed abilities (or skills) and knowledge in at least one field of human activity to a degree that places an individual within at least the top 10% of age-peers who are or have been active in that field or fields.

Gifted underachievers: students who certainly have high ability but who, for some reason, have not yet been able to translate their potential into performance.

The Gagné model proposes five aptitude domains (see diagram below):

Intellectual: General intelligence (“g”), fluid reasoning, crystallised verbal, numerical and spatial memory, sense of observation, judgement, metacognition

Creative: inventiveness (problem solving), imagination, originality (arts), retrieval fluency

Socioaffective: intelligence (perceptiveness), communication (empathy, tact), influence (leadership, persuasion)

sensorimotor; visual, auditory, olfactive etc; power, speed, strength, endurance, agility, co-ordination, reflexes

"others" (eg. extrasensory perception).

These natural abilities, which have a clear genetic substratum, can be observed in every task children are confronted with in the course of their schooling; for instance, the intellectual abilities needed to learn to read, speak a foreign language or understand new mathematical concepts, the creative abilities needed to solve many different kinds of problems and produce original work in science, literature and art, the physical abilities involved in sport, music or woodwork, or the social abilities which children use daily in interactions with classmates, teachers, and parents.

Talent developmentIn the DMGT, high natural abilities or aptitudes act as the "raw material" or the constituent elements of talents. The process of talent development manifests itself when the child or adolescent engages in systematic learning, training and practising; the higher the level of talent sought, the more intensive these three activities will be.

Intrapersonal catalystsThe intrapersonal catalysts are subdivided into physical and psychological factors, all of them under the partial influence of the genetic endowment. Among the psychological catalysts, motivation and volition play a crucial role in initiating, guiding and sustaining talent development through obstacles, boredom and occasional failure. Hereditary predispositions to behave in certain ways (temperament), as well as acquired styles of behaviour (e.g., traits and disorder), also impact on talent development.

Environmental catalystsThe environment manifests its significant impact in many different ways. The surroundings exert their influence both at a macroscopic level (e.g.geographic, demographic, sociological) and in a more microscopic framework (size of family, socioeconomic status, etc). Many different persons, not only parents and teachers but also siblings and peers, may exert positive or negative influences on the process of talent development. Gifted education programs within or outside the school belong to the category of undertakings; they are a more systematic form of intervention to foster or hinder talent development. Finally, significant events (the death of a parent, winning a

17

prize or award, suffering a major accident) can influence markedly the course of talent development.

Retrieved 7 May 2007 from: http://www.tki.org.nz/r/gifted/reading/theory/francoys-gagne_e.php.

Gagné makes it clear that a child’s learning will not progress optimally unless he or she has the ongoing support of the school.

18

DMGT_2008. Retrieved 1 August 2009 from: http://www.templetonfellows.org/program/FrancoysGagne.pdf

Both the Gagné and Tannenbaum models recognise the importance of personality and environment in the translation of high ability into high performance. Both recognise that giftedness can be sited in any domain of human ability but acknowledge that there must be some threshold level of intelligence (which may differ from domain to domain) for high potential to become high performance. Both view creativity as a valuable quality

19

and see it as one area in which an individual may be gifted - but unlike Renzulli they don’t see creativity as a necessary ingredient of giftedness.

Cognitive, affective, social characteristics of the gifted and talented

Researchers have consistently identified these characteristics as relating to general intellectual ability (Clark, 1997; Colangelo & Davis, 1991; Coleman & Cross, 2001; Davis & Rimm, 1994; Gilliam, Carpenter, & Christensen, 1996; Khatena, 1992; Piirto, 1999; Renzulli et al., 2002; Rogers, 2001; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986; Swassing, 1985; Tannenbaum, 1983):

The key characteristic that is often associated with creativity is divergent thinking. As opposed to convergent thinking (arriving at a single conclusion), divergent thinking requires the gifted and talented student to produce many ideas or ideas that are different from the norm.

Researchers have identified some of these common characteristics (Clark, 1997; Coleman & Cross, 2001; Gardner, 1993; Gilliam et al., 1996; Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962; Gruber, 1982; Guilford, 1950; Khatena, 1992; Perkins, 1981; Piirto, 1999; Renzulli et al., 2002; Sternberg, 1988; Tannenbaum, 1983; Torrance, 1974):

Has an extensive and detailed memory, particularly in an area of interest.

Has vocabulary advanced for age—precocious language.

Has communication skills advanced for age and is able to express ideas and feelings.

Asks intelligent questions.

Is able to identify the important characteristics of new concepts, problems.

Learns information quickly.

Uses logic in arriving at common sense answers.

Has a broad base of knowledge—a large quantity of information.

Understands abstract ideas and complex concepts.

Uses analogical thinking, problem solving, or reasoning.

Observes relationships and sees connections.

Finds and solves difficult and unusual problems.

Understands principles, forms generalizations, and uses them in new situations.

Has in-depth foundational knowledge.

Prefers complexity and open-endedness.

Contributes new concepts, methods, products, or performances.

Has extreme fluency of thoughts and a large number of ideas.

Is observant and pays attention to detail.

Uses unique solutions to problems, improvises.

Challenges existing ideas and products.

Connects disparate ideas.

Is constantly asking questions.

Criticizes constructively.

Is a risk taker, confident.

Is attracted to the novel, complex, and mysterious.

Is a nonconformist, uninhibited in expression, adventurous, able to resist group pressure.

Accepts disorder.

Tolerates ambiguity; delays closure.

Is persistent and task committed in area of

20

Wants to learn and is curious.

Works conscientiously and has a high degree of concentration in areas of interest.

Understands and uses various symbol systems.

Is reflective about learning.

interest.

Has a sense of humour.

Is intellectually playful.

Is aware of own creativity.

Is emotionally sensitive; sensitive to beauty.

Is intuitive.

Enjoys alone time.

Is reflective about personal creative process.

Vulnerable Areas for Gifted students

Personal Characteristics Motivation School Conditions

1. Perfectionism leads to high degree of self criticism, competition, and/or unrealistic performance expectations

2. Supersensitivity to social feedback leads to withdrawal

3. Desire for independence leads to attempts to control the situation

4. Given an intense desire to satisfy curiosity, the GT students feels restricted in analyzing the problem in the time allocated

5. Using advanced problem solving, the GT students manipulates peers and adults

6. Desiring complexity, the GT students is not interested in memorization, repetition or lower levels of thinking

1. Too easy or too difficult a task limits the GT student’s possibility for success

2. The GT students fears failure from high expectations

3. Desires and abilities may not match opportunities

4. No positive role model is present

5. The GT students does not have a positive vision of the future

6. The GT students doesn’t have accurate self-knowledge about his ability

7. Unable to control emotions, the GT student is easily frustrated. Embarrassed, and aggressive toward people who create obstacles

8. The GT student doesn’t have the energy to persist to completion of a goal.

1. If individuality is not valued, then social isolation occurs

2. Teachers and others have unrealistic expectations of high performance in all areas consistently

3. Teachers and others are uncomfortable with differentness, fear superior knowledge

4. School activities are not differentiated or challenging, offer no depth or complexity

5. The school district does not offer any appropriate education provision

Adapted from Whitmore, J.E. (1980) Giftedness, Conflict and Underachievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Cited in Johnsen, Susan K. Definitions, Models and Characteristics of Gifted Students.

http://www.prufrock.com/client/client_pages/Definitions_and_Characteristics (downloaded 06/10/2010)

21

22

23

References

Almeida, L.S., Prieto Prieto, L., Ferrando, M., Oliveira, E., & Ferrandiz, C. (2008). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: The question of its construct validity, Thinking Skills and creativity, 3, 1, 53-58.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity - Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins.

DeHaan, R. F. & Havighurst, R. J. (1957). Educating gifted children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Franken, Robert E. (1998). Human Motivation, 3rd ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and Talent: Reexamining a Reexamination of the Definitions, Gifted Child Quarterly, 29 , 3, 103-112.

Gagné, François. (1999). My Convictions About the Nature of Abilities, Gifts, and Talents, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 2, 109-136.

Gardner, Howard. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, Howard. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Second edition). New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, Howard. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books.

Getzels, J.W. & Jackson, P.W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: explorations with gifted students. London; New York: Wiley.

Guilford, J.P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Johnsen, Susan K. (2006). Definitions, Models and Characteristics of Gifted Students.http://www.prufrock.com/client/client_pages/Definitions_and_Characteristics (downloaded

06/10/2010)

Kerr, B., & Gagliardi, C. (2003). Measuring creativity in research and practice. In S. J.Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.). Positive Psychological Assessment: A handbook of models and measures., American Psychological Association, Washington, DC (2003).Models and Measures. Washington D.C: American Psychological Association.

Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1, A report to the Congress of the United States by the US Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: US Government Printing House.

24

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davison (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Seligman, D. (2002). Good breeding. National Review, 54(1), 53-54.

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Francis Galton's Hereditary Genius: Its place in the history and psychology of Science. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The anatomy of impact: What makes the great works of psychology great (pp. 3-18)? American Psychological Association: Washington, D.C.

Simonton, D. K.(2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects, American Psychologist, 55, 151-158.

Spearman, C. E. (1904). ‘General intelligence’ objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom, American Psychologist, 56, 360-362.

Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Component processes in analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 84, 353-378.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied: Understanding and increasing your intellectual skills. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The scientific basis for the theory of successful intelligence. In R. F. Subotnik & H. J. Walberg (Eds.) The scientific basis of educational productivity (pp. 161–184). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Co.

Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E.L. (2007). Teaching for Successful Intelligence. Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (1982). The mind of the puzzler. Psychology Today, 16, 37-44.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education (3rd edition) (pp. 45-59). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Thurstone, L. L. (1924/1973). The Nature of Intelligence. London: Routledge.

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior: experiments in classroom activity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

25

Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented, Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 153-156.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). The Nature of Creativity. (pp. 43-75). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Treffinger, D. J., Renzulli, J. S. & Feldhusen, J. F. (1971). Problems in the assessment of creative thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 5, 104-111.

Weisberg, Robert W. (1993) Creativity - Beyond the Myth of Genius. 2nd Edn. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.

Whitmore, J.E. (1980). Giftedness, Conflict and Underachievement. Boston: Alyn and Bacon.

26