Gifted Children

Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of

aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or

competence (documented performance or achievement in top10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any

structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g.,

mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills

(e.g., painting, dance, sports)

(NAGC, n.d.)

Models of Giftedness

(Renzulli, 1986)

Three- Ring Model: This model presents giftedness as an interaction of three attributes:above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity

Above average ability, task commitment, and creativity must ALL be present before the

criteria of giftedness can be met, otherwise the child is not considered to be gifted this

model makes a direct connection between creativity and giftedness.

However, this connection does not “guarantee” giftedness, according to this particular

model. There must be an interaction with above-average ability and task commitment as

well.

Criticism: A lack of consistency in definitions of creativity and a corresponding lack of

evidence for measurement validity are the primary critiques of the creativity ring

(Jarrell & Borland, 1990)

Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Sternberg (2000)

giftedness is present when an individual demonstrates high levels of intelligence

Three types of intelligence:

Analytic: consists of abilities used to analyze, judge, evaluate, compare

Creative: consists of abilities used to create, invent, discover, imagine, suppose, andhypothesize;

Practical: and practical intelligence consists of abilities used to apply, put into practice, andimplement.

The individual must capitalize on strengths and compensate for weaknesses; adapt to, shape,and select environments; and balance the three aspects

According to this theory, an individual can be strong or weak in any given type of intelligence.

Given this postulate, it only follows that giftedness can be manifested within any of the threeareas and that different “combinations” of strengths and weaknesses can lead to differentpatterns of giftedness If children are matched with their strengths, according to their pattern ofgiftedness, their educational experience has the potential to be enhanced.

(Sternberg, 2000)

Star Model:

Tannenbaum (2003)

superior general Intelligence

distinctive special aptitudes

Non- intellective

Requisites

environmental supports

Chance

this conceptualization of giftedness is applied more broadly, not limiting itself toacademic achievement or a single domain

Considers traditional concept of giftedness (Superior Intelligence) but alsoconsiders domain specific abilities ( Distinctive special aptitude)

Considers the factors outside of gifted person (Chance, environmental support)

The non intellective requisites refer to creativity, motivation, self-concept, and anyother individual characteristics related to giftedness but not falling within a strictlycognitive realm of functioning

This model extends the conceptualization of giftedness outside of the focus on the individual

to acknowledge the importance of environmental factors and the role of chance, which

sets it apart from the previously discussed theories of giftedness. (Nurture aspect of

giftedness)

Another difference between the star model and the others presented thus far is the

treatment of creativity as a construct. The star model places creativity and motivation in the

same category (non intellective requisites), whereas the three-ring model acknowledges

these elements as separate from one another that interact,

Dynamic Theory

Babaeva (1999)

Based on Vygovsky’s theory sociocultural environment presents a barrier forpositive psychological development process of compensation to overcomethe obstacle successful adjustment and incorporation of the experience intofuture functioning

(Vygotsky, 1997)

Due to these barriers and generated solutions, the individual incorporatesthe information into a higher level of functioning, eventually resulting in themanifestation of giftedness.

Babaeva found that creativity increased over time for children who wereplaced in classrooms using challenging curricula, developed based on theDynamic Theory of Giftedness, that were slightly above their ability level.

emphasizes the process of how giftedness develops It also diverges from theother models in its reliance on environmental factors in theconceptualization of giftedness.

Domain Specific: Musical and Artistic

(Winner, 2000)

focused on the development and characteristics of artistic and musical giftedness.

According to this theory, giftedness is defined by precocity, intense motivation, andqualitative differences in learning and understanding the information in the domain

Makes differences between creativity with “c” ( solving problems, making discoveries innovel ways) and “C” (making changes on the level of the domain)

This model attributes the presence of giftedness to a combination of innate aptitudecoupled with an intense drive to develop mastery of the domain and asserts that hard workin the absence of a predisposed ability is not sufficient to develop giftedness

rather than citing creativity as one of many components of giftedness, this theoreticalperspective states that “creativity is an inextricable part of giftedness”

(Winner, 2003)

Critical points to consider:

Though the nature–nurture debate is not confined to the field of gifted research, this theory

emphasizes the nurture explanation, which contrasts with other theories that focus on the

nature aspect or a combination of both.

Other models, such as the three-ring model, dodge this debate entirely, focusing on how

the various components interact instead of how the components have come into

existence.

The star model does acknowledge that the elements of giftedness can change and

fluctuate, which is a main characteristic of the dynamic theory, but the star model also

asserts that some stable and unchanging aspects of the components are present, which

the dynamic theory does not.

(Miller, 2012)

Differentiated Model of Giftedness:

Gagne (1999)

makes a distinction between giftedness, considered to be aptitude domains;talents, considered to be fields in which these aptitudes are expressed; anddevelopmental processes, considered to be the connecting path between theabilities of giftedness and their expression as talents

Additionally, this model acknowledges how intrapersonal characteristics,environmental factors, and chance can also influence different aspects of theprocess.

Giftedness

developmental processes

talent expression

intrapersonal attributes

environmental factors

Chance

(Gagne, 2009)

Psychological Well-being

Lombroso (1891) ‘divergence hypothesis: exceptionally high levels of intelligence areassociated with maladjustment and potentially psychopathology.

This viewpoint was supported by works published by subsequent theorists, such as Witty andLehman (1929) and Kretschmer (1931).

Seemingly since this time, there has been a common perception that giftedness isinexorably coupled with poor psychological well-being (Nail & Evans, 1997).

Terman (1947) reported that data from his sample of over 1500 gifted people (all withStanford-Binet IQs over 140) indicated that there was no difference between the wellbeingof these individuals and non-gifted members of the general population. (Terman’s scalehowever was limited in representation of young people from other ethnic backgrounds)

there was a suggestion that the gifted group were in fact better adjusted than the ‘normal’population

(Walker & Pernu, 2002).

Hollingworth (1942) suggested;

gifted group who experience poor mental health is a subset of talented and gifted.

“exceptionally gifted” (1% of population).

These children attempt deliberate underachievement to be socially more acceptable

For children who’s IQ is higher than 160, are too different from their peers, therefore socialisolation is unavoidable.

“socially optimal giftedness” (between 125- 155)

There appears to be a small but measurable

difference between gifted and non-gifted

learners in terms of their scores on indicators of mental health and well-being, favouring the

gifted and talented students.

That is, in general gifted children and young people experience more positive psychological

health and well-being than their non- gifted peers.

Primary and secondary school-aged gifted pupils had more positive outcomes than their

non gifted counterparts, so age does not seem to have an affect

No evidence to suggest that the educational environment of students (mainstream schools

or targeted ‘pull-out’ programmes) has a differential impact on their mental health and

well-being.

Psychological well-being measures related to self-concept and self-esteem did not appear

to consistently favour either gifted or non-gifted individuals; by comparison, gifted learners

received significantly more positive scores on indicators of mental health.

There does not appear to be a difference in psychological health and well-being indicators

for students classified as ‘exceptionally gifted’ compared to the wider ‘gifted’ grouping.

(Jones, 2013)

Two dominant views:

Gifted children are protected from maladjustment by their superior intelligence.

Gifted children are better adjusted than not gifted ones, because they have better

understanding of themselves and others due to their cognitive capacities, they cope better

with stress and conflicts

It is supported by many studies

(Baker, 1995; Jacobs, 1971; Kaiser, Berndt, & Stanley, 1987; Neihart, 1991; Ramasheshan,1957;Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985).

Gifted children are more vulnerable to adjustment difficulties due to their difference.

Gifted children are more sensitive to interpersonal issues and experience greater degrees of

alienation and exclusion due to their cognitive capacities.

(Lombroso, 1889)

Controversial findings of studies;

No difference in self- concept between gifted and non-gifted children

(Tong & Yewchuk, 1996)

Gifted children have significantly more positive self concepts

(Milgram & Milgram, 1976)

Gifted children have lower self- concept

(Lea-Wood & Clunies-Ross, 1995)

Literature suggests that gifted children exhibit same or lower levels of depression oranxiety than non- gifted children (Mash & Barkley, 1996, Parker, 1996)

There is no empirical support for higher levels of depression among gifted childrenand adolescents.

gifted sample exhibited significantly more prosocial behaviour. The gifted childreninteracted more cooperatively and demonstrated more sharing of playthings thandid the average children. In this study gifted children demonstrated advancedsocial skills

(Martin, 2010, Barnett & Fischela, 1985)

Some studies show that children with IQ > 120, are more vulnerable to eating disorders

(Dally & Gomez, 1979) however some contradicts this finding (Touyiz, 1986).

Garner (1991) suggested that early labelling of Children as gifted, will increase parental

expectations for performance which can lead to perfectionism.

Parents also may over valuate children’s abilities, which would increase the child’s

expectation to meet parental needs.

Perfectionism, competitiveness, and high performance expectations from others are

characteristics of the gifted that are viewed as possible contributors to the onset of eating

disorders.