The Evolution of The Term of Giftedness & Theories to Explain Gifted Characteristics

Abstract

The term giftedness has been interpreted in many different ways throughout history depending on the area(s) of expertise of a researcher, the focus of a study, and the current trends of time. Each new definition has introduced a different dimension of giftedness to produce better representations for the gifted population and it’s diversity. The first portion of this paper summarizes the most common definitions of giftedness in education research and examines the evolution of the term giftedness in the classroom. The second portion of this paper highlights how researchers have characterized general traits of gifted students. Rather, during the course of this research a new definition emerged that considered diversity and uniqueness of the gifted students and of the environments that support their special talents. This definition asserts that there are two type of giftedness: active and dormant. Active giftedness manifests as outstanding potential in a defined area, influences others, promotes productivity, and active gifted students need differentiated services to maximize their potential. Dormant giftedness manifests when natural abilities shine through when its time to solve problems, produce ideas, or to be a leader. Dormant gifted students need rich, supportive learning environments to be motivated to bring forth their giftedness. 

Keywords

• giftedness,definition challenge,active giftedness,dormant giftedness

The Evolution of The Term of Giftedness & Theories to Explain Gifted Characteristics

Abstract

The term giftedness has been interpreted in many different ways throughout history depending on the area(s) of expertise of a researcher, the focus of a study, and the current trends of time. Each new definition has introduced a different dimension of giftedness to produce better representations for the gifted population and it’s diversity. The first portion of this paper summarizes the most common definitions of giftedness in education research and examines the evolution of the term giftedness in the classroom. The second portion of this paper highlights how researchers have characterized general traits of gifted students. Rather, during the course of this research a new definition emerged that considered diversity and uniqueness of the gifted students and of the environments that support their special talents. This definition asserts that there are two type of giftedness: active and dormant. Active giftedness manifests as outstanding potential in a defined area, influences others, promotes productivity, and active gifted students need differentiated services to maximize their potential. Dormant giftedness manifests when natural abilities shine through when its time to solve problems, produce ideas, or to be a leader. Dormant gifted students need rich, supportive learning environments to be motivated to bring forth their giftedness.
Keywords

Keywords

• giftedness,definition challenge,active giftedness,dormant giftedness

References

1. Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19, 229–236.
2. Belsky, J. (2005). Differential susceptibility to rearing influence: An evolutionary hypothesis and some evidence. In B. Ellis & D. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development (pp. 139–163). New York: The Guilford Press.
3. Belsky, J., & Pleuss, M. (2009). Differential susceptibility to rearing experience: The case of childcare. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 396–404.
4. Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 248-253.
5. Betts, G and Neihart, M (2010) Revised Profiles of the Gifted and Talented.
6. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1911). A method of measuring the development of the intelligence of young children. Lincoln, IL: Courier.
7. Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
8. Colangelo, N., & Dettman, D. G. (1983). A review of research on parents and families of gifted children. Exceptional Children, 50, 20-27.

9. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1993). Family influences on the development of giftedness. The origins and development of high ability. Ciba Foundation Symposium 178. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
10. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. London: Littke, Brown.
11. Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. London, England: Gryf.
12. Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential (Research Monograph 94112). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
13. Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definition. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.
14. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Book Inc.
15. Gardner, H. (1996) "Probing More Deeply into the Theory of Multiple Intelligences." Bulletin, November, 1-7.
16. Joseph, R. (1999). Environmental influences on neural plasticity, the limbic system, emotional development and attachment: A review. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 29, 189–208.
17. Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education. 2 vols (Government Documents, Y4.L 11/2: G36). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
18. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
19. Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2006). Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration and Giftedness Overexcitability Research Findings. Journal For The Education Of The Gifted, 30, 68-87.
20. National Association for Gifted Children. (2014). Definitions of giftedness.
21. Parker, C. A. (1977). On modeling reality. Journal of College Student Personnel, 18, 419-425.
22. Passow, A. H. (1955). Planning for talented youth: Consideration for public schools. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia.
23. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness. A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
24. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davison (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Renzulli, J. S. (2011). Theories, actions, and change: An academic journey in search of finding and developing high potential in young people. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 305-308.
26. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness. A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
27. Rogers, K. B. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently'? A review 1080 October 1997. American Psychologist of recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 17-39.
28. Rogers, K. B., & Silverman, L. K. (1997). Personal, medical, social and psychological factors in 160+ IQ children. Paper presented at the National Association for Gifted Children 44th Annual Convention, Little Rock, Arkansas.
29. Ryckman, R. (2004). Theories of Personality. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
30. Silverman, L. K. (1993). A developmental model for counseling the gifted. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 51-78). Denver: Love
31. Silverman, L. K. (1998). Developmental Stages of Giftedness: Infancy through adulthood. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted & talented learners 3rd Edition (pp.145-166). Denver: Love.
32. Silverman, L. K. (2002). Upside-down brilliance: The visual-spatial learner. Denver, Colorado: DeLeon Publishing.
33. Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in High-Ability Students: Relational Precursors and Influences on Achievement Motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly,50, 238–251.
34. Strang, R. (1958). The nature of giftedness. In N. B. Henry (Ed). Education for the gifted (pp. 64-86). The fifty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
35. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983) Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
36. Terman, L. M. (1926). Children's reading: A guide for parents and teachers.
37. United States Congress, Educational Amendment of 1978 [P.L. 93-561, IX (A)]
38. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
39. Wellisch, M., Brown, & Knight, R. (2011). Gifted and Misunderstood: Mothers’ Narratives of their Gifted Children’s Socio-Emotional Adjustment and Educational Challenges.
40. Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2013). Many faces of a gifted personality: Characteristics along a complex gifted spectrum. Talent Development and Excellence, 5, 43–58.
41. Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American psychologist, 55, 159–169.
42. Witty, P. A. (1958). Who are the gifted? In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Education for the gifted, (pp. 42-63). The fifty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.