He found that: 1 Type III interests of students affect post-secondary plans, 2 creative outlets are needed in high school, 3 a decrease in creative Type III productivity occurs during the junior high experience perhaps due to increasing demands of more teachers and peer pressure not to pursue additional academic work and 4 the Type III process serves as important training for later productivity.
Some of the programs studied by Torrance included those discussed in this section, that have been implemented to nurture creativity in talented students. National programs such as Future Problem Solving, conceived by Torrance, have taught hundreds of thousands of students to apply creative problem-solving techniques to the real problems of our society. Although not developed solely for talented students, Future Problem Solving is widely used in programs for academically talented students because of the curricular freedom associated with these programs.
The Future Problem Solving Program is a year-long program in which teams of four students use a six-step problem solving process to solve complex scientific and social problems of the future such as the overcrowding of prisons or the greenhouse effect.
At regular intervals throughout the year, the teams mail their work to evaluators, who review it and return it with their suggestions for improvement. As the year progresses, the teams become increasingly more proficient at problem solving. The Future Problem Solving Program takes students beyond memorization. The program challenges students to apply information they have learned to some of the most complex issues facing society.
They are asked to think, to make decisions, and, in some instances, to carry out their solutions. Little research has been conducted on this program, however. Eleven states have created separate schools for talented students in math and science such as The North Carolina School for Math and Science, and several of these stress creative products and self-selected research. Some large school districts have established magnet schools to serve the needs of talented students.
In New York City, for example, the Bronx High School of Science has helped to nurture and develop mathematical and scientific talent for decades, producing internationally known scientists and Nobel laureates. It is clear, however, that these opportunities touch a small percentage of creatively gifted adolescents who could benefit from them.
Some students also become involved in advanced research on topics that they select in a resource room or in a classroom. Some classroom teachers provide opportunities for creativity training or creative work or even independent study projects that provide students with opportunities to engage in pursuing both individual interests and creative work.
Many districts have created innovative mentorship programs that pair students with older students or adults who have similar interests.
In addition to Future Problem Solving, programs such as Odyssey of the Mind, a national program in which teams of students use creative problem solving to design structures, vehicles, and solutions to problems such as designing a vehicle which uses a mousetrap as its primary power source.
Many talented students have the opportunity to participate in History Day in which students work individually or in small groups to research an historical event, person from the past, or invention related to a theme that is determined each year. Using primary source data including diaries or other sources gathered in libraries, museums, and interviews, students prepare research papers, projects, media presentations or performances as entries.
These entries are judged by local historians, educators, and other professionals and state finalists compete with winners from other states each June. Additional research is needed concerning the overall effectiveness of this program. It is difficult to identify what does not work to develop creativity as researchers usually focus on what can increase creativity, rather than diminish it.
It seems clear that some classroom environments seem to constrict creative thoughts and productivity. Too much rigidity, too few opportunities for freedom of choice and enjoyment exist in the learning process and too few teachers today concentrate on trying to develop creativity.
Instead, they seem to focus on how to increase achievement test scores. The most common manner in which the underachievement of talented students is described involves identifying a discrepancy between ability and achievement described in detail by Reis and McCoach who review the issues surrounding the definition and identification of underachievement in gifted.
The absence of creative opportunities for work is widely mentioned as one reason that creatively talented students underachieve. Teachers may judge students only on the basis of their performance or apply unreasonable pressure for achievement and conduct strict, autocratic classes emphasizing rote, repetitive learning that may stifle creativity in talented learners.
The ultimate goal of education for adolescents should be engagement in current learning that inspires adolescents to continue learning and working to develop their academic and creative potential. This potential is best developed in a systematic approach that targets the benefits of the development of creative productivity, such as the three types of enrichment that are a part of the SEM approach. Type I enrichment is designed to expose students to a wide variety of disciplines, topics, occupations, hobbies, persons, places, and events that would not ordinarily be covered in the regular curriculum.
In schools that use this model, an enrichment team consisting of parents, teachers, and students often organizes and plans Type I experiences by contacting speakers, arranging mini-courses, demonstrations, or performances, or by ordering and distributing films, slides, videotapes, or other print or non-print media. Type II enrichment consists of materials and methods designed to promote the development of thinking and feeling processes.
Some Type II enrichment is general, consisting of training in areas such as creative thinking and problem solving, learning how to learn skills such as classifying and analyzing data, and advanced reference and communication skills. Other Type II enrichment is specific, as it cannot be planned in advance and usually involves advanced instruction in an interest area selected by the student.
Type III enrichment occurs when students become interested in pursuing a self-selected area and are willing to commit the time necessary for advanced content acquisition and process training in which they assume the role of a first-hand inquirer.
The goals of Type III enrichment include: providing opportunities for applying interests, knowledge, creative ideas and task commitment to a self-selected problem or area of study; acquiring advanced level understanding of the knowledge content and methodology process used within particular disciplines, artistic areas of expression and interdisciplinary studies; developing authentic products primarily directed toward bringing about a desired impact upon a specified audience; developing self-directed learning skills in the areas of planning, organization, resource utilization, time management, decision making and self-evaluation; developing task commitment, self-confidence, and feelings of creative accomplishment.
Today, many educators and politicians seem to be more interested in raising achievement scores, rather than in developing creativity in their students. This may be very short-sighted from an historial and societal perspective. By using some of the strategies developed in the programs that nurture creativity, we can help some students develop their creativity, as well as their academic potential, as part of their overall school experiences.
UConn A-Z. Sally M. Reis Joseph S. Renzulli Introduction. Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits—above average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity. Individuals capable of developing gifted behavior are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance.
Persons who manifest or are capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional programs. Above average ability , viewed as a general ability, includes 1 high levels of abstract thought, 2 adaptation to novel situations, and 3 rapid and accurate retrieval of information.
Viewed as a specific ability, it includes 1 application of general abilities to a specific area of knowledge, 2 the capacity to sort out relevant from irrelevant information, 3 the capacity to acquire and use advanced knowledge and strategies while pursuing a problem.
Amabile, T. Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. New York, NY: Crown. Barron, F. Putting creativity to work. Sternberg Ed. Baum, S. The prism metaphor: A new paradigm for reversing underachievement CRS Bloom, B.
Developing talent in young people. Chapman, S. Introducing young children to real problems of today and tomorrow. Gifted Child Today, 14, Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Creativity and genius: A systems perspective. Steptoe Ed.
Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Daniels, S. Creativity in the classroom: Characteristics, climate, and curriculum.
Hollingworth, L. Variability as related to sex differences in achievement. A critique. The American Journal of Sociology, 19 , — Sex Differences in mental tests. Psychological Bulletin, 13 , — Social devices for impelling women to bare and rear children. The American Journal of Sociology, 22 , 19— The vocational aptitudes of women.
Hollingworth Ed. New York: Appleton. Gifted children. Their nature and nurture. New York. Horn, J. Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57 , — Howe, M. Biographical evidence and the development of outstanding individuals. American Psychologist, 37 , — Innate gifts and talents: Reality or myth?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21 , — Hoyle, E. Gifted children and their education. Mehrmodale Klassifikation von Intelligenzleistungen.
Experimentell kontrollierte Weiterentwicklung eines deskriptiven Intelligenzstrukturmodells [Multimodal classification of intelligence performances: Experimentally controlled development of a descriptive model of intelligence structure].
Diagnostica, 28 , — Jenkins, M. The upper limit of ability among American Negroes. Science, 66 , — Jensen, A. The chronometry of intelligence. Sternberg Ed. Jolly, J. The women question: An historical overview of the education of gifted girls. Kendrick Eds. Justman, J. Personal and social adjustment of intellectually gifted accelerants and non-accelerants in Junior High Schools. School Review, 61 , — Karnes, M. Gifted handicapped. Davis Eds. Khaleefa, O. Research on creativity, intelligence and giftedness: The case of the Arab world.
Gifted and Talented International, 14 , 21— Klausmeier, H. Effects of accelerating bright older pupils from second to fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53 , 93— Klein, A. Fitting the school to the child: The mission of Leta Stetter Hollingworth, founder of gifted education. Roeper Review, 23 , 97— Krogius, N. Kulik, J. Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 , 73— Kurtz, J. Factors related to over-achievement and underachievment in school. School Review, 59 , — Kyllonen, P. Reasoning ability is little more than working-memory capacity? Intelligence, 14 , — Lippa, R. Gender-related individual differences and mortality in the Terman longitudinal study: Is masculinity hazardous to your health?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 , — Lipsey, M. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioural treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48 , — Lombroso, C. The men of genius. London, UK: Scott. Lovell, K. Some aspects of a study of the gifted child. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 37 , — Lupart, J. The hidden gifted: Current state of knowledge and future research directions.
Peters Eds. Maker, C. Training teachers for the gifted and talented: A comparison of models. Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 , 41— Marland, S. Education of the gifted and talented Vol. Washington: Government Printing Office. Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the congress of the United States by the U.
Commissioner of Education. Martinson, R. The California study of programs for gifted pupils. Exceptional Children, 26 , — McCall, R. Developmental changes in mental performance. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 38, 1— Entwicklungspsychologische Aspekte der Hochbegabtenforschung [Aspects of developmental psychology in giftedness research].
Wagner Eds. Giftedness and gifted education. Moon, S. Developing gifted programs. Morgan, H. A psychometric comparison of achieving and non achieving college students of high ability. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 , — Nelson, J. The role of the teacher of gifted and creative children. Witty Ed. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Neubauer, A. Intelligenz und Geschwindigkeit der Informationsverarbeitung [Intelligence and speed of information processing].
New York: Springer. Nisbet, J. The insanity of genius, and the general inequality of human faculty, physiologically considered. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. Gender differences among elementary school-aged gifted students in achievement, perceptions of ability, and subject preference.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25 , — Owens, W. Some measured personality traits of collegiate underachievers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 40 , 41— Passow, A.
Planning for talented youth. Oxford, UK: Bureau of Publications. Research and education of the gifted in the year and beyond. Pellegrino, J. Cognitive correlates and components in the analysis of individual differences.
Intelligence, 3 , — Perleth, Ch. Indicators of high ability in young children. Early indicators of high ability. Peters, W.
Underachievement in gifted children and adolescents: Theory and practice. Moenks, R. Subotnik, Eds. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Petersen, P. Der Aufstieg der Begabten [Rise of the gifted]. Leipzig, Germany: Teubner. Phillipson, S. A framework for the study of socio-cultural perspectives of giftedness. McCann Eds. Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives. Plomin, R. Nature, nurture, and social development. Social Development, 3 , 37— Pressey, S.
Concerning the nature and nurture of genius. French Ed. Pyryt, M. The gifted child quarterly as database. Pyryt M. Quantitative research methods in giftedness research. Rahn, H. Jugend forscht [Youth research]. Raph, J. Bright underachievers.
Reis, S. Gifted girls, twenty-five years later: Hopes realized and new challenges found. Roeper Review, 25 , — Gender, Adolescence, and Giftedness. In Dixon, F. Developing high potentials for innovation in young people through the school wide enrichment model. New York: Elsevier Science. Renzulli, J. What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60 , — The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity.
Cambridge, UK: University Press. The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness: Its implications for understanding the nature of innovation. Ripple, R.
A controlled experiment in acceleration from the second to the fourth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5 , — Robinson, H. Early identification and intervention. Passow Ed. The gifted and talented: Their education and development pp. Roe, A. The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead. A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists and a comparison with biological and physical scientists.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 67 , 1— Rogers, K. A content analysis of the literature on giftedness. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 13 , 78— Rost, D. Lebensumweltanalyse hochbegabter Kinder. Das Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Analysis of the environment of gifted children. The Marburg Giftedness Project]. Grundlage, Fragestellungen, Methode [Foundations, research questions and method]. Rost Ed. Neue Ergebnisse aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt pp.
Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Neue Ergebnisse aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Gifted and high achieving adolescents. New results of the Marburg Giftedness Project]. Roth, H. Berlin, Germany: Schroedel. Runco, M. Creative giftdness. Samson, G. Academic and occupational performance: A quantitative synthesis.
American Educational Research Journal, 21 , — Sattler, J. Assessment of children. Sattler Publishers. Scarr S. How people make their own environments: A theory of environment effects. Child Development, 54 , — Schneider, W. Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance in children.
Educational Psychology Review, 5 , — Lebenslanges Lernen aus der Sicht der kognitiven Entwicklungspsychologie [Lifelong learning from the perspective of cognitive developmental psychology]. Lempert Ed. Die Entwicklung des Denkens und der Intelligenzunterschiede zwischen Kindern [The development of thinking und intelligence differences among children]. There are various social understandings of giftedness that influence the way the term is used, but it can be used broadly to refer to individuals who demonstrate high ability across a wide range of learning areas, or narrowly to refer to high ability in specific learning domains [ii].
Different groups understand giftedness in different ways based on explicit researched or implicit personal understandings of the term [iii]. Current understandings about giftedness are based on a foundational set of theories. Researchers at the beginning of the twentieth century focused on domain-general, IQ models of intelligence that considered giftedness in terms of a number calculated by performance on a general ability test [iv].
Later theorists highlighted the different ways in which individuals could be gifted — these are known as domain-specific models [v]. Systems theorists focused on the interaction between different psychological variables in the expression of giftedness, such as wisdom, intelligence, creativity and learning behaviours [vi].
More recently, researchers have embraced a developmental model of giftedness that considers the effects of environmental influences on the advancement of gifts into talents [vii]. There are also many areas of disagreement among gifted researchers, especially with respect to the influence of individual learning dispositions, the role of creativity, and, importantly, the fundamental idea of how to conceptualise giftedness.
For example, there is considerable debate about whether to view giftedness in terms of individual potential or as demonstrated achievement [ix]. Some researchers argue that, even though early achievement in an area can be a predictor of giftedness, more average achievement is not necessarily indicative of a lack of exceptional ability because performance is dependent on many factors.
Teachers are likely to encounter a number of gifted and talented students during their careers. As there is no internationally agreed-upon definition of giftedness [xi] , developing valid and reliable methods of assessment for identifying giftedness in schools challenging.
In New Zealand, the Ministry of Education promotes a multidimensional view of giftedness and talent but does not provide a national definition. This is problematic because what a society believes giftedness to be ultimately determines what individuals look out for as characteristics of giftedness [xii]. However, this IQ-based definition has been criticised for its emphasis on measures of domain-general academic intelligence.
Such a focus typically fails to identify students with gifts and talents in creative or practical domain s , gifted and talented students from minority cultures, rural communities, and socio-economically disadvantaged groups, and students who are twice exceptional, a term used to describe students who are gifted and also have some form of learning difficulty such as dyslexia [xvi].
Domains include any structured area of activity with its own symbol system e. The development of ability or talent is a lifelong process. As individuals mature through childhood to adolescence, however, achievement and high levels of motivation in the domain become the primary characteristics of their giftedness.
Various factors can either enhance or inhibit the development and expression of abilities. Understanding giftedness and talent in this way means that individuals who are identified as gifted require differentiation of the curriculum in order to develop their talents.
It is important to note that, while this definition is inclusive of multiple domains of intelligence, it is also centred on exceptionality in one or more areas so as not to become so broad that it becomes unworkable. This consideration aligns with concerns of New Zealand researchers who argue against too general a definition [xix]. A significant challenge facing schools is the high levels of underachievement associated with gifted students.
Statistics show that half of all gifted and talented students currently underachieve in school [xx] with twice-exceptional students regarded as being especially at risk [xxi].
Realising learning achievements depends on an individual being able to recognise and then capitalise on their learning strengths.
Gifted individuals are at increased risk of underachievement if a school places no value on making appropriate provision for them.
Therefore, it is important that all teachers are able to identify underachieving gifted students and provide learning opportunities for them that help develop their gifts and talents. Gifted learners in New Zealand schools face a number of challenges, often directly influenced by the many myths about giftedness that exist.
The following five common misconceptions about gifted students are adapted from a list compiled by the National Association for Gifted Children [xxiii]. There are a number of strategies that can be used in schools to appropriately provide for gifted learners:. While not all teachers have access to specialist training, there are a number of teaching strategies that can be incorporated into classroom practice to help provide for gifted learners [xxx] :.
Inclusive education: Looking through the kaleidoscope of diversity. Brown, J. St George Eds. Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning. Conceptions of giftedness. Pfeiffer Ed. New York, NY: Springer. Plucker Eds. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. The development of intelligence in children. Primary mental abilities. The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. Davidson Eds.
0コメント