Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T16:44:40.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Intellectual Giftedness

from Part III - Intelligence and Group Differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2019

By
Sally M. Reis  and
Joseph S. Renzulli
Edited by
Robert J. Sternberg
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

Different views about and conceptions of intellectual giftedness are discussed in this chapter, including the work of Sternberg, Gardner, Renzulli, Reis, and other new and emerging theorists. Four case studies of diverse students with intellectual gifts and talents are used to summarize the challenges in defining, identifying, and providing programs for these students, particularly those from culturally diverse backgrounds and with both gifts and disabilities, called twice exceptional (2E) students. Characteristics of various students with intellectual giftedness are summarized, as are interventions in the areas of acceleration and enrichment, both widely used in the field of gifted education. The chapter concludes with a call for educators to challenge and engage academically talented and high-potential learners, and the importance of the development of a continuum of services in schools, with services focusing both on students’ academic needs and social and emotional needs.

Keywords

giftednesstalentcreativitytask commitmenthoundstoothaccelerationschoolwide enrichmentgifted education
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , pp. 291 - 316
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archambault, F. X. Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Research Monograph 93102. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015a). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses that hold back America’s brightest students, vol. 1. Iowa City: Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses that hold back America’s brightest students, vol. 2. Iowa City: Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Baum, S. M. (2008). Talent centered model for twice exceptional students. In Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., McMillen, K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (Eds.), Systems and models in gifted education (pp. 17–48). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hébert, T. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235.Google Scholar
Baum, S., Schader, R. M., & Hébert, T. P. (2014). Through a different lens: Reflecting on a strengths-based, talent-focused approach for twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 311–327.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Borland, J. H. (2012). A landmark monograph in gifted education, and why I disagree with its major conclusion. The Creativity Post. www.creativitypost.com/education/a_landmark_monograph_in_gifted_education_and_why_i_disagree_with_its_majorGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the “have nots” gain but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist, 60, 149–160.Google Scholar
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (Eds.) (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: A longitudinal study of their development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. L. (2010). Bright, talented, and Black: A guide for families of African-American gifted learners. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. H., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1991). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74, 289–306.Google Scholar
Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential. Research Monograph 94112. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Gagne, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development. In Heller, K. A., Monks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 67–79). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1995a). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200–209.Google Scholar
Gardner, H., with the collaboration of Laskin, E. (1995b). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (2016a). Multiple intelligences: Prelude, theory, and aftermath. In Sternberg, R. J., Fiske, S. T., & Foss, D. J. (Eds.), Scientists making a difference: One hundred eminent behavioral and brain scientists talk about their most important contributions (pp. 167–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (2016b). Three frames for good work. In Levinson, M. & Fay, J. (Eds.), Dilemmas of educational ethics: Cases and commentaries (pp. 97–100). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., Sheffield, L. J., & Spinelli, A. M. (2007). Project M3: Mentoring mathematical minds: Challenging curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 566–585.Google Scholar
Gelbar, N. W. (Ed.) (2017). Adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: A clinical handbook. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentry, M. L., & Owen, S. V. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 224–243.Google Scholar
Gubbins, E. J., Housand, B., Oliver, M., Schader, R., De Wet, C., Moon, T. et al. (2007). Unclogging the mathematics pipeline through access to algebraic understanding. Research Monograph 08236. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, J., & Undheim, J. O. (1996). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 186–242). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hamilton, R., McCoach, D. B., Tutwiler, M. S., Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., Brodersen, A. V., et al. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hébert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22–28.Google Scholar
Housand, A., & Reis, S. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy and instructional settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 108–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2017). Does growth mindset improve children’s IQ, educational attainment or response to setbacks? Active-control interventions and data on children’s own mindsets. osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/tsdwyGoogle Scholar
Lohman, D. F., Gambrell, J., & Lakin, J. (2008). The commonality of extreme discrepancies in the ability profiles of academically gifted students. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 269–282.Google Scholar
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Kell, H. J. (2014). Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later. Psychological Science, 25, 2217–2232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614551371Google Scholar
Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10 year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 718–729.Google Scholar
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2015). Talent searches and accelerated programming for gifted students. In Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Vantassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski- Shoplik, A. (Eds.), A nation empowered (vol. 2, pp. 111–121). Iowa City, IA: Belin- Blank Center.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, S. I., Shaunessy-Dedrick, E., & Foley-Nicpon, M. (Eds.) (2018). APA handbook of giftedness and talent (APA handbooks in psychology). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, S. N., & McCann, M. (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: Sociocultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
Reis, S. M. (2002). Toward a theory of creativity in diverse creative women. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 305–316.Google Scholar
Reis, S. M. (2005). Feminist perspectives on talent development: A research based conception of giftedness in women. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). Boston: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 317–230.Google Scholar
Reis, S. M., Gubbins, E. J., Briggs, C., Schreber, F. R., Richards, S., Jacobs, J., et al. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 309–338.Google Scholar
Reis, S. M., Hébert, T. P., Díaz, E. I., Maxfield, L. R., & Ratley, M. E. (1995). Case studies of talented students who achieve and underachieve in an urban high school. Research Monograph No. 95120. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., & Gubbins, E. J. (2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. Elementary School Journal, 108, 3–24.Google Scholar
Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1997). Case studies of high ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional Children, 63, 463–479.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (246–279). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 33–40, 57–58.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). Boston: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150–159.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2002 ). Giftedness and high school dropouts: Personal, family, and school-related factors. Research Monograph No. 02168. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The school-wide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relation to the development of social capital. In Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 75–87). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Shavinia, L. V. (2001). Beyond IQ: A new perspective on the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities. New Ideas in Psychology, 19(1), 27–47.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1998). Creativity, genius, and talent development. Roeper Review, 21(1), 86–87.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2005). Genetics of giftedness: The implications of an emergenic-epigenetic model of giftedness. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 312–326). Boston: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review of General Psychology, 12, 28–46Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Wisdom and its relations to intelligence and creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp. 142–159). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347–365.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36, 227–245.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59, 325–338.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The WISC model of giftedness. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). Boston: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2015). Successful intelligence: A new model for testing intelligence beyond IQ tests. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 8, 76–84.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. (Eds.) (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. (Eds.) (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Boston: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54.Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 176–188.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1991). The social psychology of giftedness. In Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 27–44). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Terman, L. M. (1925–1959). Genetic studies of genius (5 vols.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tieso, C. L. (2002). The effects of grouping and curricular practices on intermediate students’ math achievement. Research Monograph 02154. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Westberg, K. L. (2012). Young creative producers: twenty years later. Gifted Education International, 26, 261–270.Google Scholar
Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X. Jr., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Research Monograph 93104. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×