ArticlePDF Available

Learning Potential in high IQ children: The contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted children


Abstract and Figures

In recent years, models of giftedness have incorporated personal and social variables which influence IQ, rather than taking IQ into account exclusively. Among the various options presented in this context, authors have proposed dynamic assessment techniques as a method for revealing the potential capacity in different groups, independently of the IQ they present. The aim of the present study was to investigate, in two samples of Spanish children from the urban middle class previously identified as gifted and of normal intelligence, three basic assumptions common to studies in this line of research: (1) that there are significant differences in Learning Potential between gifted children and children with average IQ; (2) that the differences are apparent in diverse tasks, and (3) that Learning Potential significantly predicts the high/average status of the subjects. 127 children from 6 to 11 years old (64 high-IQ and 63 average-IQ) were evaluated using different dynamic tests. Significant intergroup differences were obtained and the tests were shown to have high predictive power.Research Highlights► The Learning Potential Assessment has been used to identify children with high ability in population Disadvantaged. ► This application is based on the assumption that children with high ability are more L P regardless of their IQ. ► These assumptions have not been proven in not-disadvantaged populations. ► This work shows that children with high IQ have a greater potential for learning that children of normal intelligence. ► Moreover, this potential is shown in different tasks. ► These results validate the initial use of these techniques.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
Author's personal copy
Learning Potential in high IQ children: The contribution of dynamic assessment to
the identication of gifted children
M. Dolores Calero , García-Martin M. Belen, M. Auxiliadora Robles
University of Granada, Spain
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 13 September 2009
Received in revised form 24 November 2010
Accepted 30 November 2010
Learning Potential
Dynamic assessment
High-IQ children
In recent years, models of giftedness have incorporated personal and social variables which inuence IQ,
rather than taking IQ into account exclusively. Among the various options presented in this context, authors
have proposed dynamic assessment techniques as a method for revealing the potential capacity in different
groups, independently of the IQ they present. The aim of the present study was to investigate, in two samples
of Spanish children from the urban middle class previously identied as gifted and of normal intelligence,
three basic assumptions common to studies in this line of research: (1) that there are signicant differences in
Learning Potential between gifted children and children with average IQ; (2) that the differences are apparent
in diverse tasks, and (3) that Learning Potential signicantly predicts the high/average status of the subjects.
127 children from 6 to 11 years old (64 high-IQ and 63 average-IQ) were evaluated using different dynamic
tests. Signicant intergroup differences were obtained and the tests were shown to have high predictive
Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction
When Terman introduced the concept of giftedness in 1916
(Terman, 1925), the criterion for its denition was purely normative
(IQ score), and this shaped the reductionist concept of high capacities
which, in practice, is still prevalent today (Borland, 2005). With
Sternberg and Gardner's contributions (Gardner, 1983; Sternberg,
1985), the most recent models of giftedness establish a network of
interrelations between different types of construct and modulating
variables (Coleman, 1995; Mönks & Katzko, 2005). Thus, Gagné
(2003), Sternberg's WICS model (Sternberg, 2005; Sternberg &
Grigorenko, 2002) and the MMG Munich Model of Giftedness (Heller,
Perleth, & Lim, 2005) conceive giftedness as a multifactor construct of
abilities with social and meta-cognitive modulating parameters, as
well as luck.
Most of these approaches support the view that giftedness
involves the existence of aptitudes which, in conjunction with certain
personality characteristics and a favourable environment, induce in
individuals the need and capacity to learn rapidly and efciently by
themselves in different elds (Calero, García-Martín, & Gómez, 2007;
Coleman & Cross, 2001; Freeman, 2005; Jeltova & Grigorenko, 2005).
Underlying these new conceptualizations is a paradigm of
identication of gifted children in which high capacity is acknowl-
edged to show in different ways and to require more varied and
reliable forms of assessment (Van Tassel-Baska, Feng, & Evans, 2007).
This view also derives from the perception that diverse minorities are
underrepresented in giftedness programs in countries of the devel-
oped world. According to such authors, actual and potential execution
should be distinguished (Cross & Coleman, 2005) and attention
should be paid to concepts such as emergent giftedness(Rea, 2001),
potential giftedness (Babayeva & Voiskunovsky, 2003; Leitis, 2000), or
high-potential children (Lohman, 2005). The implication of this
approach is that intelligence and/or creativity are regulated by other
abilities, such as exibility and self-regulation, and/or by specic
socio-environmental variables which may help to optimize these
qualities or conversely, maintain them at normal or low levels of
functioning. While some authors have developed performance-based
instruments (Van Tassel-Baska, 2005; Van Tassel-Baska, Feng, & de
Brux, 2007), others defend the use of dynamic assessment to identify
children with high capacities in underrepresented communities. This
is based on the assumption that individuals who show poor
performance for cultural or environmental reasons may be detected
if their performance is shown to improve signicantly after intensive
training on the task concerned (Joseph & Ford, 2006; Laing & Kahmi,
2002; Naglieri & Ford, 2005; Noel & Edmunds, 2007; Peña, Gillam,
Malek, & Ruiz-Felter, 2006; Stormont, Stebbins, & Holliday, 2001;
Strong & Delgado, 2005; Swanson, 2006).
Although several dynamic tests focus on specic aspects, partic-
ularly of the educational curriculum, the techniques used in this
context generally involve non-verbal tasks based on inductive
reasoning, probably with the aim of establishing cognitive modi-
ability as a general capacity that each person possesses, as claimed by
Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 176181
Corresponding author. Campus of Cartuja, University of Granada, 18071 Granada,
Spain. Tel.: +34 58243754.
E-mail address: (M.D. Calero).
1041-6080/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences
journal homepage:
Author's personal copy
Feuerstein (Feuerstein, Feuerstein, Falik, & Rand, 2002; Feuerstein,
Rand, & Hoffman, 1979). The standard methodological procedure is
pre-testtrainingpost-test. Training uses feedback about implemen-
tation, contingent reinforcement and verbal signs, and effects of the
training have been shown to be task-specic(Brown & Campione,
1984; Fernández-Ballesteros & Calero, 2001). It should be noted that
while some studies show that pretest scores correlate with IQ, gain
scores (measure of Learning Potential) in some samples (low
performance) do not correlate with IQ (Lidz & Van der Aalsvoort,
2005; Resing, De Jong, Bosma, & Tunteler, 2009).
Two types of analyses may be carried out on the results of these
tests: quantitative (gain or transfer score), basically consisting of the
difference between post-test and pre-test, or a typological approach
(Budoff, 1987). This involves classifying participants as Non-gainers,
Gainers and High Scorers, thus differentiating between signicant and
non-signicant gains. This type of statistical calculation has been used
frequently (see Budoff, 1987 or Schöttke, Bartram, & Wield, 1993)to
establish prognostic groups in populations with learning difculties,
and has been shown to be effective and reliable in other groups, such
as old people and patients with schizophrenia (Waldorf, Wiedl, &
Schöttke, 2009).
The use of dynamic assessment in the context of giftedness
originates with studies by Boling and Day (1993) and Passow and
Frasier (1996). Their approach was based on the fact that dynamic
tests had proved to be valid for the identication of children of low
intellectual level and/or with learning difculties, and for planning
subsequent intervention (Strong & Delgado, 2005; Swanson, 1995).
Studies also indicated that training considerably improved the
performance levels of different groups of subjects (e.g. Hickson &
Skuy, 1990; for a review see the meta-analysis by Swanson & Lussier,
2001). As a result, the methodology is increasingly applied in
countries with established attention programs for gifted children
(e.g. the USA). For instance, Borland and Wright (1994), Calvo (2004),
Stanley (1995), Lidz and Macrine (2001), and Matthews and Foster
(2005) used dynamic assessment to identify gifted children (from
minority groups) for participation in gifted programs. The published
research is scarce and focuses on traditionally underrepresented
populations (primarily ethnic minorities). However, the results show
that the methodology was successful at identifying children who
passed unnoticed through traditional intelligence tests.
Kanevsky's (2000) studyofpre-schoolchildrenwithanIQ
between 110 and 150 demonstrated that gifted children possessed a
broader ZPD
as well as faster learning capacity and higher
generalization from such learning. Moreover, the learning demon-
strated by the children was associated with high levels of motivation,
meta-cognition, self-regulation and exibility, a nding which has
been conrmed in other studies (Calero, García-Martín, Jiménez,
Kazén, & Araque, 2007). Subsequently, Kanevsky and Geake (2004)
found signicant qualitative and quantitative differences in Learning
Potential between gifted and non-gifted children. However, these
results were not very conclusive due to the small sample size (5
gifted/20 non-gifted). Other authors have proposed applying perfor-
mance tests involving problem-solving processes or based on learning
acquisition, but always as a method for detecting children with high
potential in disadvantaged groups (Van Tassel-Baska, 2005; Van
Tassel-Baska, Feng, & de Brux, 2007; Van Tassel-Baska, Feng, & Evans,
Two assumptions underlie the dynamic assessment studies to
date: rst, gifted children are those who obtain the highest gain as a
result of the training, independently of their IQ. Second, the potential
learning capacitymeasured by the studies is a global capacity
(manifested in different tasks) and may subsequently be used as a
global indicator of high capacity. The aim of the present study was to
investigate the validity of both these assumptions in a sample of
Spanish children. The children, who were not socially disadvantaged,
had been previously identied as gifted, and were compared with
children of average intelligence.
Working hypotheses were as follows:
(1) Children with high IQ will present a signicantly higher pre-
test score than those of average intelligence in each and all of
the dynamic tests used.
(2) Children with high IQ will present a signicantly higher
Learning Potential, measured through gain scores (post/pre-
test difference) in each and all of the dynamic tests used.
(3) The gain scores obtained in the different Learning Potential
tests employed will be signicantly predictive of the estab-
lished classication status (high IQ vs. average IQ).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample comprised of 127 Spanish middle-class urban-
dwelling children divided into two groups (high-IQ vs. average IQ).
In the high-IQ group, N = 64 (41 female and 23 male, Mage =8.18 -
years (SD= 1.859); age range: 711 years). IQ scores range from 136
to 160 (M IQ= 144.59; SD = 8.01) measured by the K-BIT test
(Kaufman & Kaufman, 1997). In the average IQ group, N = 63 (34
female and 29 male, Mage= 8.25 years (SD=1.859); age range: 7
11 years). IQ scores range from 90 to 120 (MIQ=101.96, SD = 9.29).
2.2. Materials and procedure
2.2.1. Materials
The Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT)(Kaufman & Kaufman, 1997)
consists of two subtests, Vocabulary and Matrices. Used to evaluate an
age range from 4 to 90 years, the test provides typical scores for each
subtest and a Global Composite IQ. The original version has high
reliability and validity ratings. In the Spanish adaptation, coefcients
of reliability for Vocabulary range from 0.76 to 0.94 in the test age-
range (490 years); from 0.74 to 0.93 for Matrices and from 0.82 to
0.96 for the Composite IQ. With regard to validity, the K-BIT
Composite IQ has a correlation of 0.80 with the WISC-R global IQ,
and of 0.75 with the WAIS-R.
Learning Potential (L.P.) was evaluated using the following three
tests from the LPAD (Feuerstein et al., 1979), one of the few dynamic
assessment techniques adapted to the Spanish population.
Positions Test(Calero & Navarro, 2003). This is a version of the
Position Fixation Test (Rey, 1968) designed to evaluate visualspatial
memory, adapted by Feuerstein et al. (1979) and adapted again for
the Spanish population with a dynamic training-within-test format by
Calero and Navarro (2003). The examiner presents ve crosses drawn
on a grid with 25 squares and the subject attempts to reproduce the
positions by marking them on a blank grid. After each failed the
trainer provides more assistance with increasingly precise strategic
clues. The gain score (equal to posttest) is based on how much
assistance the child does not require to resolve each model.
The Organizer Test(Feuerstein et al., 1979). This test evaluates
the ability to use given information, resolve logic problems through
inferential processes, and deduce connections through analysis of
complex verbal information. Tasks consist of closed logical systems,
with a series of assertions or premises in each item. The test has a pre-
test, training and post-test, with a parallel structure of 20 items in
each phase. During the training, the assessor directs the child towards
ways of compiling data using memory and organization. Three types
of scores are obtained: pre-test, post-test and gain scores.
Stencil Design Test(Feuerstein et al., 1979). This perceptual
structuration task involves the analysis and synthesis of a series of
Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978).
177M.D. Calero et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 176181
Author's personal copy
stimuli through the superimposition of patterns of different colors and
shapes. Using a total of 20 items, children are required to construct a
design identical to the one in the colored model, by means of
representation rather than manually. Five items are used for the pre-
test and 15 for the training and post-test. The training focuses on
visual transport and internal transformation of the stimulus. The gain
score is calculated according to the degree of help required to solve
each item.
The reliability of the three Learning Potential tests has been
assessed as part of Feuerstein's LPAD. Internal consistency and test
retest reliability ranged from .70 to .95 (For more details on scoring
and application techniques, see Feuerstein et al., 1979; Feuerstein
et al., 2002).
2.2.2. Procedure
High-IQ children were recruited through a local Association of
Spanish Parents of Gifted Children. Three of the children attended
accelerated learning programs. The others only received complemen-
tary tuition from their usual teacher. The children had been previously
identied as gifted by educational orientation teams using instru-
ments approved by the Autonomous Government of Andalusia
(Spain) (interviews with parents, WISC-R (Weschler, 1994), Raven's
Progressive Matrices (Rave, 1995) and school aptitude tests).
Average-IQ children were randomly selected in various schools
from students with an IQ of between 90 and 110 according to the
government orientation teams, using the WISC-R. Participation was
voluntary and subject to parents' informed consent. Children
presenting learning problems, hyperactivity or other psychological
conditions were excluded from both groups in order to control the
effects of other variables on the results.
All participants carried out the K-BIT and the dynamic tests in
three individual sessions lasting 50 min each. Presentation of the
different tests was counterbalanced to control learning effects.
The study followed a correlational two-group study design. The
independent variable was performance in the K-BIT; dependent
variables were pretest and gain scores in the L. P. tests.
In addition to the pre-test and gain scores, the results were
analyzed typologically. In this case, in line with previous studies
(Fernández-Ballesteros & Calero, 1993; Fernández-Ballesteros &
Calero, 1995), the calculation for the group of Gainers was based on
an improvement score of more than 1.5 SD with respect to the group
mean pre-test score. Calculation for the group of High Scorers was
based on the maximum range score with less than 1.5 SD with respect
to the group mean pre-test score.
The following statistical analyses were carried out: t-test, Chi-
square for classifying groups and Discriminant Analysis. All analyses
were performed using the statistics pack SPSS 15.1.
3. Results
As stated earlier, the objective of the study was to establish
differences in the Learning Potential between high-IQ children and
those of average intelligence in the three different L. P. tests.
Accordingly, we initially carried out an independent group mean
comparison using the t- test analysis. Fig. 1 shows pre and post-test
scores obtained by each group. As may be seen, the high-IQ children
present a signicantly higher initial score (pre-test) and nal score
(post-test) in each and all of the tests. Differences in the Positions
Test are apparent only in the post-test score, since the training-
within-test format does not involve a pre-test. Results of the t-test
statistical analysis for independent samples were as follows: Positions
Post (t
=18.82; p = .0001); Organizer Pre: (t
p= .0001); Organizer Post:(t
=26.36; p b= .0001); Stencil Design
Pre: (t
=1.28; p = 0.0001); Stencil Design Post, (t
Table 1 shows inter-group mean differences in gain scores for each
of the L. P. tests. Again, the high-IQ children achieve signicantly
higher gain scores in all three tests. Moreover, while the size of effect
for each score in each test is signicantly high for both groups, the size
of effect for the high-IQ group is considerably superior in all cases.
Table 2 shows group distribution according to the established
categories for each dynamic test. In this case, the high-IQ children
appear as Gainers or High Scorers in the three dynamic assessment
tests. By contrast, children of average IQ are classied as Non-gainers
in some of the tests, and greater variability exists in the more difcult
tests, that is, Organiser and Stencil Design. The Chi-square statistical
analysis is signicant for each classication performed.
Finally, Table 3 shows the results of the Step-by-Step Discriminant
Analysis to determine the predictive capacity of each test with regard
to the initial classication of each subject as Gifted or Non-gifted. As
may be seen, the three tests show predictive capacity, although Wilks
Lambda statistics for Step 3 are relatively low (.184, .165 and .150). In
view of these results, the most reliable predictor would be to take the
three tests together.
4. Discussion
As specied earlier, in addition to determining if there are
signicant differences between high and average IQ subjects in gain
scores in Dynamic tests, the study aimed to establish if such
differences occurred in diverse types of tasks and if the tests
discriminate between the Gifted and Non-gifted status.
Regarding the rst objective, the high-IQ children started with a
signicantly higher performance level in each of the tests. Addition-
ally, they showed a signicantly higher improvement than those of
Fig. 1. Pre and post-score differences between high-IQ children and children with average intelligence.
178 M.D. Calero et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 176181
Author's personal copy
average intelligence in all of the tests, on the basis of simple gain. This
is also conrmed by the fact that if children are classied according to
their gain scores, no gifted child is assigned to the Non-gainers group
in any of the tests, in contrast to some normal-intelligence children.
Following Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Develop-
ment (Vygotsky, 1978), which concentrates on what a child may
potentially become rather than what (s)he is, these results show that
high IQ children have a more extensive ZPD than average IQ children.
Accordingly, under the same training conditions, they achieve
markedly superior results in three different tests. It therefore appears
that dynamic assessment is a reliable method of establishing the
Learning Potential of such children, as was maintained in previous
studies (Coleman & Cross, 2001; Heller, 2004; Jeltova & Grigorenko,
2005; Van der Stel & Veenman, 2007; Veenman & Spaans, 2004).
These ndings lend support to recent studies which argue that
intelligence implies capacity for learning and meta-cognition (Calero,
García-Martín, & Gómez, 2007; Calero, García-Martín, Jiménez, et al.,
2007; Kanevsky & Geake, 2004; Morris, 2005). High-IQ children not
only demonstrate high performance in all three tests, but also have a
high capacity to learn in each.
In this study we centered on a non-disadvantaged population in
order to show that children of high intelligence have a signicantly
higher and more general Learning Potential than children with
normal IQ. The results lead us to the view that, as proposed in earlier
studies (Borland & Wright, 1994; Lidz & Macrine, 2001; Matthews &
Foster, 2005), the methodology may be used to identify children
whose high potential is not manifested for environmental reasons,
and who present an average or even a low IQ. After training, such
children will show greater and more general improvement than
children with average capacity. Taken together with previous ndings
(Calero, García-Martín, & Gómez, 2007; Calero, García-Martín,
Jiménez, et al., 2007; Morris, 2005), these results endorse the view
that the criteria for the identication and differentiation of a gifted
child should not be based exclusively on the results of intelligence
tests, but should take other characteristics into account, particularly
when identifying children of potentially high intelligence but with
average or inadequate current performance (Borland, 2005; Brown
et al., 2005).
Regarding the second objective, our study also conrms that
giftedness is a general capacity which is apparent in different contexts
(Gagné, 1985; McCoach & Siegle, 2003; Selby, Shaw, & Houtz, 2005).
In this respect, results show that high-IQ children learn more in each
and every one of the tasks assessed, representing different abilities:
memory of positions, verbal reasoning and perceptual structuration.
By contrast, the performance and Learning Potential of the average IQ
children varies from task to task. In our opinion, these results indicate
that high IQ children learn more than average IQ children in diverse
tasks. This may mean that the high performance of high IQ children in
certain areas is due to contextually-derived learning opportunities
(Sternberg, 2005; Winner, 2000).
Finally, we investigated the capacity of dynamic assessment to
predict the children's established status (Gifted/Non-gifted). In this
respect, our initial hypothesis was conrmed, with the gain scores of
each and all of the tests signicantly predicting the classication
status of the sample as determined by IQ. However, the opposite does
not occur, that is the IQ scores do not predict the gains obtained in the
dynamic tests (in line with previous studies by Kanevsky & Geake,
2004). Results demonstrate the signicantly high predictive power of
the Organizer, Stencil Design and Positions Test, in descending order.
These ndings lend empirical support to the contention that dynamic
tests are capable of accurate identication of gifted children.
To sum up, the results of our study indicate that high-IQ children
not only possess a high level of intelligence (measured by means of
standard tests), but that they learn more and more effectively in all or
most of the tasks undertaken, rather than in just one domain. Finally,
the dynamic assessment tests used in this study have proved to be
reliable instruments for discrimination between high and average IQ
All these results underline the usefulness of dynamic techniques
for assessing the potential of high-ability subjects, a nding which
may improve the process of identifying gifted children in general and
particularly as other authors have suggested of identifying
potential ability in children whose initial performance is low (e.g.
underrepresented groups) (Babayeva & Voiskunovsky, 2003;
Kanevsky & Geake, 2004; Leitis, 2000).
To carry out the Discriminant Analysis in this study, the IQ score
was used as indicative of high ability, and there was no attempt to
analyze other characteristics which determine giftedness. While this
may be viewed as a methodological limitation, in our view it was
necessary to use the IQ classication as a starting point, in order to
show that dynamic assessment can help improve the identication of
intellectually gifted children, as results have indicated. Although
following Vigotsky these tests evaluate a phenomenon distinct from
the manifestperformance measured by IQ tests, they have proved
Table 1
Mean differences in gain scores and effect size in high-IQ children and children with average intelligence.
Group Mean S.D. t (1/126) p d* t(1/63) p
Positions test Gain/effect size Average IQ 23.7 5.78 18.82 .0001 3.32 8.35 .0001
High IQ 38.11 2 4.88 10.81 .0001
Organizer test Gain/Effect Size Average IQ 3.85 1.93 19.74 .0001 2.49 14.08 .0001
High IQ 9.59 1.28 6.37 36.04 .0001
Stencil design test Gain/effect size Average IQ 9 5.67 18.34 .0001 1.54 8.68 .0001
High IQ 30.04 7.15 5.58 31.60 .0001
d*: effect sizes.
Table 2
Contingency table of distribution between IQ level and gain status (with a typological
analysis) in the Learning Potential tests.
Gainer High
Total χ
Positions test Average IQ 1 59 3 63 107.81 .0001
High IQ 0 2 62 64
Organizer test Average IQ 43 20 0 63 67.25 .0001
High IQ 0 59 5 64
Stencil design test Average IQ 24 39 0 63 37.12 .0001
High IQ 0 53 11 64
Table 3
Discriminant Analysis.
Step Introduced Tolerance F to exit Wilks
F(d.f.) p
1 Gain scores organizer 1.000 389.67 389.67(1/126) .0001
2 Gain scores organizer .999 100.08 .271 351.62(2/125) .0001
Gain scores stencil
.999 76.92 .243
3 Gain scores organizer .969 52.34 .184 275.95(3/124) .0001
Gain scores stencil
.937 33.80 .165
Gain scores positions .909 19.53 .150
179M.D. Calero et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 176181
Author's personal copy
capable of predicting such a performance in children for whom a
favourable environment and/or other modulating variables have
made it possible to obtain high scores. The next step is to carry out
longitudinal studies to test the validity of these techniques for
identifying children of high ability who for various reasons do not
currently manifest such potential (Boling & Day, 1993; Borland &
Wright, 1994; Lidz & Macrine, 2001; Sibaya, 1996). In this respect,
future lines of research should include the replication of these results
in previously unidentied populations; that is, in the near future, the
tests should be used in the detection and follow-up of giftedness in
minority groups, and longitudinal studies should be undertaken to
monitor the evolution of children identied as Gifted or Non-gifted on
the basis of this methodology.
Babayeva, Y. D., & Voiskunovsky, A. E. (2003). Odarennyi rebenok za komp'yuterom.
(Gifted child behind the computer). Ministry of education of the Russian Federation:
Presidential program Children of Russia.
Boling, E., & Day, J. D. (1993). Dynamic assessment and giftedness: the promise of
assessing training responsiveness. Roeper Review,16(2), 110113.
Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E.
Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 119). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Pres.
Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically
disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly,38(4), 164171.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1984). Psychological theory and the study of learning
disabilities. The American Psychologist,41, 10591068.
Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., Zhang, W., Siegle, D., & Chen, C. H. (2005).
Assumptions underlying the identication of gifted and talented students. The
Gifted Child Quarterly,49(1), 6879.
Budoff, M. (1987). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.),
Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential
(pp. 173195). New York: The Guilford Press.
Calero, M. D., García-Martín, M. B., & Gómez, T. (2007). El alumno con sobredotación
intelectual. Conceptualización, Evaluación y respuesta educativa. Consejería de
Educación. Junta de Andalucía.
Calero, M. D., García-Martín, M. B., Jiménez, M. I., Kazén, M., & Araque, A. (2007). Self-
regulation advantage for high-IQ children: Findings from a research study. Learning
and Individual Differences,17, 328343.
Calero, M. D., & Navarro, E. (2003). El test de aprendizaje de posiciones: Un instrumento
de medida de la plasticidad del anciano deterioro cognitivo leve. Revista de
Neurologia,36(7), 619624.
Calvo, A. (2004). Detection of talent giftedness by means of mental-capacity testing.
Canada: York University AAT MQ99286.
Coleman, L. J. (1995). The power of specialized educational environments in the
development of giftedness: The need for research on social context. The Gifted Child
Quarterly,39(3), 171186.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development,
guidance and teaching. Waco TX: Prufrock Press.
Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (2005). School-based conception of giftedness. In R.
Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 5263). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fernández-Ballesteros, R., & Calero, M. D. (1993). Measuring learning potential.
International Journal of Cognitive Education and Mediated Learning,3(1), 920.
Fernández-Ballesteros, R., & Calero, M. D. (1995). Training effects on intelligence of
older persons. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics,20, 135148.
Fernández-Ballesteros, R., & Calero, M. D. (2001). Not all testing is dynamic testing. A
comment to: Sternberg & Grigorenko's All testing is dynamic testing. Issues in
Education,7(2), 171174.
Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., Falik, L. H., & Rand, Y. (2002). The dynamic assessment of
cognitive modiability. Jerusalem: The ICEL Press.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarder
performers. The learning potential assessment devic e: Theory, instru ment and
techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Freeman, J. (2005). Permission to be gifted: How conceptions of giftedness can change
lives. In R. Sternberg, & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 8097).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Re-examining a re-examination of the
denition. Gifted Child Quarterly,29, 103112.
Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory.
In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 6074).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: Theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Heller, K. A. (2004). Identication of giftedness and talented students. Psychology
Science,46, 302323.
Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness designed to
identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),
Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 147171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hickson, J., & Skuy, M. (1990). Crea tivity and cognitive modiability in gifted
disadvantaged pupils. School Psychology International,11(4), 295301.
Jeltova, I., & Grigorenko, E. (2005). Systemic approaches to giftedness: Contributions of
Russian psychology. In R. J. Sternberg, & Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness
(pp. 171187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joseph, L. M., & Ford, D. Y. (2006). Non-discriminatory assessment: Considerations for
gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly,50,42
Kanevsky, L. (2000). Dynamic assessment of gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks,
R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent
(pp. 283296). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Kanevsky, L., & Geake, J. (2004). Inside the zone of proximal development: Validating a
multifactor model of learning potential with gifted students and their peers. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted,28(2), 182217.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1997). K-BIT: Test breve de inteligencia de Kaufman.
Madrid: TEA.
Laing, S. P., & Kahmi, A. (2002). Alternative assessment of language and literacy in
culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools,34(4), 4455.
Leitis, N. S. (2000). Vozrastnaya odarennost'shkol'nikov (Developmental giftedness in
school children). Moscow: Academia.
Lidz, C. S., & Macrine, S. L. (2001). An alternative approach to the identication of gifted
culturally and linguistically diverse learners. School Psychology International,22,
Lidz, C. S., & Van der Aalsvoort, G. M. (2005). Usefulness of the application of cognitive
functions scale with young children from the Netherlands. Transylvanian Journal of
Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: implications for identication
of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,28
(3/4), 333362.
Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005). A dynamic scaffolding model of teacher
development: The gifted education consultant as catalyst for change. The Gifted
Child Quarterly,49(3), 222233.
McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, W. Z. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted
students from high-achieving gifted students. The Gifted Child Quarterly,47(2),
Mönks, F. J., & Katzko, M. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In R. J. Sternberg,
& J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 187216). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Morris, E. (2005). Studying the meaning of giftedness: Inspiration from the eld of
cognitive psychology. Roeper Review,27(3), 172178.
Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children's participation in gifted
classes using the NNAY: A response to Lohman. TheGiftedChild Quarterly,49(1), 2936.
Noel, K., & Edmunds, A. L. (2007). Constructing a synthetic-analytic framework for
precocious writing. Roeper Review,29(2), 125132.
Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identicationof talent potential
among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review,18(3), 198202.
Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Malek, M., & Ruiz-Felter, R. (2006). Dynamic assessment of
school-age children's narrative ability: An experimental investigation of classi-
cation accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,49(5),
Rave, J. C. (1995). RAVEN: Matrices progresivas escala general. Madrid: TEA.
Rea, D. (2001). Maximizing the motivated mind for emergent giftedness. Roeper Review,
23(3), 157164.
Resing, W. C. M., De Jong, F. M., Bosma, T., & Tunteler, E. (2009). Learning during
dynamic testing: Variability in strategy use by indigenous and ethnic minority
children. Journal of Cognitive and Psychology,8(1), 2230.
Rey, A. (1968). Epreuves mnésiques et d'apprentissages. París: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Schöttke, H., Bartram, M., & Wield, K. (1993). Psychometric implications of learning
potential assessment: a typological approach. In J. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, & M.
Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological and
practical issues (pp 253273) (pp. 387403). Lisse: Swets and Zeintlinger.
Selby, E. C., Shaw, E. J., & Houtz, J. C. (2005). The creative personality. The Gifted Child
Quarterly,49(4), 300317.
Sibaya, P. (1996). Giftedness and intelligence assessment in a third world country:
Constraints and alternatives. Gifted Education International,11(2), 107113.
Stanley, N. V. (1995). Identication of gifted with the Dynamic Assessment Procedure
(DAP). Gifted Education International,10(2), 8587.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: Toward a triarchic theory of intelligence. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Wics: A model of giftedness in leadership. Roeper review,28(1),
Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (2002). The theory of successful intelligence as basis for
gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly,46, 265277.
Stormont, M., Stebbins, M. S., & Holliday, G. (2001). Characteristics and educational
support needs of underrepresented gifted adolescents. Psychology in the Schools,38
(5), 413423.
Strong, M., & Delgado, C. F. (2005). Identifying cognitively gifted minority students in
preschool. Gifted Child Quarterly,49, 199210.
Swanson, H. L. (1995). Using the Cognitive Processing Test to assess ability:
Development of a dynamic measure. School Psychology Review,24, 672693.
Swanson, J. D. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority
gifted students. The Gifted Child Quarterly,50(1), 1127.
Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective syntesis of the experimental
literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research,71(2), 321363.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius. Mental and physical characteristics of a
thousand gifted children,Vol. 1, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
180 M.D. Calero et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 176181
Author's personal copy
Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. (2007). Relation between intellectual ability and
metacognitive skilfulness as predictors of learning performance of young students
performing tasksin differentdomains.Learning and Individual Differences,18, 128134.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2005). Acceleration: Strategies for teaching gifted learne rs. In F. A.
Karnes, & K. R. Stephens (Eds.), Practical strategies series in gifted education. Waco,
TX: Prufrock.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & de Brux, E. (2007). A study of identication and
achievement proles of performance task-identied gifted students over 6 years.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted,31(1), 734.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & Evans, B. L. (2007). Patterns of identication and
performance among gifted students identied through performance tasks: A three-
year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly,51(3), 218231.
Veenman, M. V., & Spaans, M. A. (2004). Relation between intellectual and
metacognitive skills: Age and tasks differences. Learning and individual differences,
15, 159176.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waldorf, M., Wiedl, K. H., & Schöttke, H. (2009). On the concordance of the tree reliable
change indexes: An analysis appling the dynamic wisconsin card sorting test.
Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology,8(1), 6380.
Weschler, D. (1994). WISC-R: Escala de inteligencia de Wechsler para niños revisada.
Madrid: TEA.
Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. The American Psychologist,55,
181M.D. Calero et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 176181
... O artigo de Montero-Linares et al. (2013) traz dados que demonstram diferença estatisticamente significativa entre crianças com AH/SD e típicas no desempenho em tarefa verbal de atenção sustentada e memória de trabalho, bem como no potencial de automatização de tarefas. Verificou-se, também, em comparação às crianças sem AH/SD, desempenho superior nos domínios de memória visual, raciocínio verbal, construção perceptual (Calero et al., 2011) e nos índices de inteligência fluída (Li & Shi, 2019), que vai ao encontro do achado de Berg e McDonald (2018). Na pesquisa de Li e Shi (2019), as crianças com superdotação tiveram maior autoestima e as crianças típicas tiveram melhor desempenho em tarefa de baixa impulsividade. ...
... No entanto, a maioria das pesquisas refere-se a aspectos da cognição e da identificação e avaliação, deixando aparente uma lacuna nos estudos sobre o desenvolvimento psicológico, autonomia, relações interpessoais e familiares, dentre outros. Evidenciam-se as diferenças, em comparação às crianças típicas, no funcionamento neuropsicológico de crianças com AH/SD, nas áreas de integração sensorial, habilidades visuais, auditivas, memória de trabalho, de curto e longo prazo, raciocínio matemático, verbal e em leitura, inteligência fluida, atenção, aprendizagem e organização perceptual (Berg & McDonald, 2018;Calero et al., 2011;Li & Shi, 2019;Liu et al., 2011;Martin-Lobo et al., 2018;Montero-Linares et al., 2013;. Sobre aspectos da relação familiar, de um modo geral, nas suas áreas de habilidade, as crianças superdotadas apresentam desempenho mais elevado que as expectativas de seus pais (Daglioglu & Suveren, 2013), bem como demonstram estratégias adequadas de tomada de decisão e recebem suporte de seus pais para isso (Ersoy et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
RESUMO: Este estudo de revisão sistemática teve como objetivo identificar as características de crianças com altas habilidades/superdotação. Os critérios de inclusão foram: artigos científicos sobre pesquisas empíricas, publicados no período de 2010 a 2019, com participantes com altas habilidades/superdotação, menores de 12 anos, e a avaliação de altas habilidades/superdotação deveria ter, pelo menos, um teste de inteligência associado a outros instrumentos. Os critérios de exclusão foram: nenhum grupo composto apenas por crianças com altas habilidades/superdotação, não apresentar resultados exclusivos às crianças com altas habilidades/superdotação ou o grupo de crianças com altas habilidades/superdotação ter participantes com dupla excepcionalidade, deficiência física ou sensorial. A busca dos artigos foi feita nas bases Scopus e Web of Science em janeiro de 2020 e em abril de 2020. Foram analisados 29 artigos, agrupados em cinco categorias. Os resultados são apresentados em síntese narrativa e confirmam o caráter heterogêneo das altas habilidades/superdotação. A maioria dos artigos explorou características da cognição e dos processos de identificação e avaliação das crianças. Dentre as principais limitações, estão a obtenção de artigos com autores repetidos e a obtenção incompleta dos artigos potencialmente relevantes. Esta pesquisa contribui para a visibilidade sobre as características de crianças com superdotação, com um enfoque geral e amplo.
... In the same vein, some studies have shown an equivalent learning progression in intellectually gifted and average children (Vogelaar et al., 2017a;2017b;Vogelaar et al., 2019). Although there are some contradictory results (Calero et al., 2011;Kanevsky & Geake, 2004), the rapidity of learning in IGC seems not to distinguish from IAC in terms of learning potential. The specificity of intellectual giftedness concerns the high capacity to learn and to generalize their newly acquired knowledge in other contexts (Calero et al., 2011;Vogelaar et al., 2017aVogelaar et al., , 2017bVogelaar et al., , 2019. ...
... Although there are some contradictory results (Calero et al., 2011;Kanevsky & Geake, 2004), the rapidity of learning in IGC seems not to distinguish from IAC in terms of learning potential. The specificity of intellectual giftedness concerns the high capacity to learn and to generalize their newly acquired knowledge in other contexts (Calero et al., 2011;Vogelaar et al., 2017aVogelaar et al., , 2017bVogelaar et al., , 2019. This high learning capacity might be linked to their high performance in reasoning (Caropreso & White, 1994), working memory (Calero et al., 2007;Hoard et al., 2008;Leikin et al., 2013;van Viersen et al., 2014), metacognitive abilities (Oppong et al., 2019) and executive functions (Arffa, 2007). ...
Full-text available
Intellectually gifted children have higher performance in many domains of attention than intellectually average children. However, these empirical findings are not consistent in the literature. Few studies investigated the characteristics of alerting, orienting, and executive control networks in intellectually gifted children. The aim of our study was to investigate their characteristics of attentional abilities compared to intellectually average children. Fifty‐five intellectually gifted children (age range 8–14 years old) were compared to 55 intellectually average children (age range 8–14 years old) using the Attention Network Test (ANT) to assess these three attentional constructs. Intellectually gifted children made fewer errors than intellectually average children in the processing of the ANT. In terms of attention network scores, they also outperformed intellectually average children in executive control only. Intellectually gifted children do not differ from intellectual average children in terms of the speed of processing in a speeded task such as ANT, but they stand out in terms of accuracy of processing. Intellectually gifted children have better ability to focus volitionally in order to solve a simple perceptual conflict than intellectually average children.
... Empirical studies support the conclusion that cognitive characteristics are associated with giftedness, such as high processing speed, effective representation of problems, flexibility in the choice of strategies and solutions, a broader knowledge base, etc. (Aubry et al. 2021;Calero et al. 2011;Geake 2008;Rodríguez Naveiras et al. 2019;and Steiner and Carr 2003). Nevertheless, it remains difficult to establish from the literature whether or not there are non-cognitive characteristics associated with giftedness. ...
Full-text available
For several years, there was a growing interest in intellectual giftedness and in particular in the non-cognitive specificities of gifted individuals. This topic attracted much public attention and sometimes led to contradictions with the scientific literature. The current review synthesizes a broad set of results related to non-cognitive specificities of intellectual gifted in children and adolescents. This synthesis of scientific research on giftedness and its associated non-cognitive features does not support the conclusion that there is a stable profile across gifted individuals that would consistently separate them from non-gifted individuals. A few specificities in some areas are noted, but they are not necessarily being systematic. These specificities often turn out to be in favor of gifted youth, contrary to the view sometimes defended in the general public that gifted individuals suffer from major everyday difficulties. Finally, methodological issues are listed regarding the designs of existing studies, with recommendations for future research in the field.
... A dynamic system is of special importance for the underachieving gifted, gifted from economically or culturally disadvantaged backgrounds, or gifted with disabilities (Calero et al., 2011;Kaniel, 2010;Kaniel, & Reichenberg, 1990;Kirschenbaum, 1998;Lidz, & Macrine, 2001). A dynamic assessment provides means for assessing students who have had no experience in ability tests, whose culture is focused on cooperative rather than competitive values (David & Wu, 2009b), and students who are tested in a language which is not their mother tongue and thus need either more time for completing the tasks or some explanations in order to be sure they have understood the directions. ...
... (xiii) Learning that grants liberty to students (learner-centered) is a learning process that provides the broadest possible autonomy to students to explore knowledge through various sources. Such a learning process may precede other peers (Calero et al., 2011;Cropley & McLeod, 1986;Park & Oliver, 2009;Sak, 2004;Scot et al., 2008;Scott et al., 2016;Swartz, 1993). ...
Full-text available
Academically talented students are students who have above average abilities, particularly in the academic since birth, and can develop through a process of training. As their ability to process learning and information is faster than the average students, they are prone to feel frustrated if they are treated the same as the average students. Hence, this study analyzes the content and learning process in-depth required by these academically talented students. The analysis document through the embedded multiple-case design was used for data collection in this study. The data were analyzed qualitatively using NVIVO 12.0 software. The results of the analysis showed that the learning content for academically talented students are; (i) content based on current issues, (ii) significant content, (iii) challenging content, (iv) advanced content, (v) inspiring content), (vi) thematic-integrative, (vii) critical knowledge and experience construction content-based, and (viii) controversial content issue and active debate. While the learning process for academically talented students are; (i) independent study, (ii) problem solving, (iii) criticism learning, (iv) effective learning, (v) inspired learning, (vi) higher-order thinking learning (HOTs), (vii) guesswork learning), (viii) inquiry learning, (ix) possibility learning, (x) exploring learning, (xi) flexibility learning), (xii) straight learning, and (xiii) giving students liberty (learner-centered). Considering the results of this study, to develop the ability of academically talented students to the maximum, behavioristic and constructivist learning and a varied combination of both can be applied.
Full-text available
The article highlights the problems of developing giftedness in children and approaches to support them in Yakutia. The problem of educating gifted children and creating conditions for the evolution of their unique potential is becoming one of the main modernization areas in the Russian education system. The study goal: to study the situation of supporting musically gifted children of Yakutia. Research methods: study and analysis of theoretical sources, Russian and foreign experience in supporting children’s giftedness, processing and analysis of statistical data, analysis of experience in supporting children’s giftedness in Yakutia. The scientific novelty of the research consists in teaching musically gifted children and studying their phenomenon through the prism of a system of pedagogical conditions that ensure their personal growth on the basis of a Higher School of Music and a general education institution that provides training at three successive levels of education: primary, secondary and higher. The study result is based on the analysis of the researchers’ views, we attempted to systematize knowledge about giftedness, a set of measures to accompany musically gifted children held in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) were highlighted and the pedagogical conditions reflected in the recommendations were identified.
Full-text available
Low socioeconomic status (SES) has an adverse effect on children’s cognitive development and academic achievement. The dynamic test is based on the concept of Vygotsky's “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD), which is an effective and necessary supplement to the conventional intelligence test. It can identify the cognitive potential especially for children with low SES, more comprehensively and accurately. This assessment can classify high-potential children who have not yet shown good cognitive performance but are likely to perform well through the intervention and assessment process. The domains of conservation and relations in the Inventory of Piaget’s Developmental Task (IPDT) have been proved to be applicable to children’s cognitive potential assessment in the lower grade of elementary school. Purpose of this study was to construct a dynamic test based on the representation, classification, and regulation domains of the IPDT in senior primary school children. Furthermore, the newly developed IPDT dynamic test was applied to the cognitive intervention study of low SES children to examine the improvement of cognitive ability and academic achievement of low SES children with different potentials after the inferential cognitive intervention. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the dynamic test, ninety-one children in the fifth grade of a primary school were randomly selected as participants. The dynamic assessment consisted of four steps: pre-test, intervention, migration, and post-test, with each step having a set of questions. According to the theoretical basis and operation methods of the formulating intervention steps in the conservation and relations domains of IPDT, the intervention steps were divided into six levels, and the participants were prompted to answer step by step. The results showed that the passing rate of the participants increased with the interventional levels, indicating that the intervention was appropriate and effective at all levels. The study further distinguished the SES of 320 fifth-grade children from two primary schools, and evaluated children’s cognitive potentials through the adapted dynamic test of IPDT. Furthermore, the procedure of “pretest–inference cognitive intervention–posttest” was used to explore the cognitive changes and mathematical academic promotion of the low SES children with different potential. On the basis of controlling the pre-test scores, an ANCOVA was performed on the post-test scores of Raven’s inference test in children of different potential groups. The results showed that the post-test scores among the groups were significantly different. In the intervention group, the scores of the low SES children with high potentials were significantly higher than that of other three low SES groups, but without significant differences with the performance of middle SES children having high potentials. The post-test scores of math achievement also showed similar results. The scores of low SES children in control groups were significantly lower than those of middle SES children. In addition, the growth scores on Raven’s test of the two intervention groups were significantly higher than the other groups. In summary, according to the results of our research, two conclusions can be drawn: Firstly, the revised IPDT dynamic test in the domains of representation, classification, and regulation can effectively evaluate children’s cognitive potentials. Secondly, according to the revised IPDT dynamic test, it is inferred that cognitive intervention has different effects on low SES children with different potentials. After the intervention, children’s cognitive ability and math performance were improved in varying degrees. Low SES children with high potentials benefited more than children with low potential.
Full-text available
One of the main objectives of dynamic assessment (DA) is assessment of learning processes and learning potential of children coming from diverse cultural backgrounds, various socioeconomic (SES) groups, and children with special needs.
The concept of organization of dynamic testing allowing a student to materialize their search activity when solving intellectual problems in the form of activities to transform objects in the virtual environment is proposed. Methods of registration of significant quantitative parameters allowing to identify priority ways of carrying out learning activities using the dynamic computer testing simulators are considered. Scenarios used in dynamic computer testing simulators actualizing different types of human intellectual activity are described.
Five issues about giftedness are discussed. First, the origins of giftedness are explored. The view that giftedness is entirely a product of training is critiqued. There is indirect evidence for atypical brain organization and innate talent in gifted children: Many gifted children and savants have enhanced right-hemisphere development, language-related difficulties, and autoimmune disorders. Second, the intense motivation of gifted children is discussed. Third, it is argued that gifted children have social and emotional difficulties that set them apart. Fourth, evidence for the often uneven cognitive profiles of such children is presented. Finally, the relationship between childhood giftedness and "domain" creativity in adulthood is discussed. Few gifted children go on to become adult creators because the skills and personality factors required to be a creator are very different from those typical of even the most highly gifted children.
what is giftedness? Most disciplines of psychology have had difficulties with defining their technical terms, and the situation is no different with the term “giftedness.” A definition should give a formal and concise description of the meaning of a concept or construct. Unfortunately, the scientific language of psychology is full of words inherited from everyday language and terms such as giftedness are not only linked to synonyms like “high ability,” “aptitude,” or “talent” but each term can assume different meanings. These meanings carry a long history of cultural use, “folk” wisdom, and/or misconception. Furthermore, a concise definition is almost impossible because the context within which the definition is made may refer to a process, key elements of giftedness, provisions for the gifted, or education of the gifted. In addition, it is not easy completely to separate theoretical and practical concepts because adherence to a theory of giftedness determines one’s research and educational approaches. If all this was not bad enough, the meanings are tainted by an emotionalism that seems to engulf the concept of giftedness. For example, in German the word for giftedness can be begabung or hochbegabung. The connotation with hochbegabung can be value laden, associating giftedness with elitism.A similar situation exists in French (doués or surdoués) and in Spanish (dotado or superdotado). Such a connotation evokes emotional reactions and negative feelings that have hampered worldwide progress in educating the gifted (Williams & Mitchel, 1989).
I am quite confident that the conception of giftedness set forth in this chapter differs significantly from those found in the other chapters of this book in that the conception I advance is no conception at all. By that, I do not mean that I have chosen not to advance a conception of giftedness. Rather, I am actively advancing the idea of no conception of giftedness as a positive development for the field of gifted education. To be clear about what I am advocating, let me state my position unequivocally. I believe that the concept of the gifted child is logically, pragmatically, and-with respect to the consequences of its application in American education-morally untenable and that the aims of the field of gifted education would have a greater likelihood of being realized if we were to dispense with it altogether. Because I realize that this is a radical position for a contributor to this book to take, I want to clarify my motivation and my positionality before advancing my argument. I write as one who considers himself to be a scholar in and of the field of gifted education. I have taught in programs for gifted students, and my doctorate is in this field. I believe that there are individual differences in elementary and secondary students’ school performance that probably derive from a complex of ability and motivational, social, cultural, sociopolitical, and other factors and that these have important educational implications.
Since 1957, when the Soviet Union launched its satellite Sputnik, until the dissociation of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian tradition of educating gifted children had been world-renowned. However, with a restructuring of society’s major domains of functioning in the early 1990s, the Soviet system of complete federal support for gifted education all but disappeared. In this chapter, we argue that the system, despite the challenges of the 1990s, has survived its toughest times. We illustrate that, by capitalizing both on past and current theories of giftedness and cognitive development, the field of gifted studies in Russia continues to develop and that it is in the process of re-creating itself in the changed social and cultural context of Russia. Russian definitions and approaches to giftedness can be described as very different from Western approaches, particularly the American psychometric approach. For various social, political, cultural, and historical reasons, Soviet (Russian) psychological and pedagogical science developed its own unique theoretical and methodological paradigms. The Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 resulted in a regime that tried (or claimed) to minimize individual differences and establish equity in all areas of human enterprise. Empirical research into individual differences was viewed unfavorably, because it would imply testing, quantification of variation between people, and, consequently, challenging the underlying ideological societal postulates.
A decisive factor in the determination of effective gifted education is the fit between the individual cognitive and noncognitive (e.g., motivational and other personality) factors of the developmental and learning processes on the one hand and the environmental influences that are mainly from the social settings of family, school, and peers on the other hand. This chapter is based on multidimensional conceptions of giftedness and talent, such as the Munich Model of Giftedness (MMG), as well as on interaction models, such as the Aptitude-Treatment Interaction (ATI) by Cronbach and Snow (1977) and Corno and Snow (1986). When considering the MMG as an example of a multifactorial conception of giftedness, along with the recently developed dynamic process approach to this model (Munich Dynamic Ability-Achievement Model of Giftedness [MDAAM]), the following questions arise: How should gifted individuals be identified and instructed? And how should their learning outcomes or excellent performance be assessed? These and other questions will be answered according to the MMG and the MDAAM, respectively. giftedness and talent from a theoretical point of view Our knowledge regarding giftedness and talent is supplied by different sources of information and research paradigms. Approaches that are particularly relevant to conceptualizing giftedness or talent are the psychometric approach, the expert-novice paradigm, explanatory approaches from the field of cognitive science or cognitive psychology, and social psychology, as well as retrospective and prospective (longitudinal) studies.