Gifted Education International

This conversation was prompted by a blog entry posted by Tim Dracup in January 2012. The subsequent e-exchange between Tim and Barry Hymer explored a number of issues central to the nature and aetiology of giftedness, confronting these issues from contrasting ontological and epistemological stances. As a result, their conversation includes arguments over the value of social constructivism and the nature of ‘empirical evidence’, equity and incidence, and related socio-political factors. Areas of agreement and continuing disagreement are provided. The subsequent exchange has been lightly edited and abridged for the purposes of this journal. Barry’s contributions are italicised.

In this reflective conversation, Dr. Joe Renzulli and Dr. Sally Reis respond to questions about the newly developed Renzulli Learning System. They discuss the system in light of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) and provide information regarding it's use with curriculum compacting and Renzulli's “Three Ring Conceptualization of Giftedness”. Lastly, the “new literacies” in gifted education are discussed.

The study was conducted during the Easter holidays of 2010 at Rawmarsh City Learning Centre with 16 students from school years 8 to 11 who had participated, during their infant years, in a gifted and talented Key Stage One Enrichment Cluster. The students represented a wide range of backgrounds, and five were identified as being on the autistic spectrum. The Enrichment Cluster was known as original ways of learning through enrichment technology and socialisation (OWLETS). OWLETS aimed to address the lack of provision for exceptionally able young children, while supporting them in overcoming any weaknesses in relation to socialisation or engagement. The cluster design was inspired by Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model. The study investigated the students’ perspective of key features of their experiences at OWLETS and throughout their subsequent education, examining their views on learning and teaching, and was facilitated by the production of a video with student voices spoken by avatars. Findings showed that those with additional special needs preferred primary school and described struggles in secondary; the other 11 students were more positive about secondary education than primary. All the students viewed opportunities for personalised learning and effective teacher–student relationships as key, and they suggested that children who demonstrate exceptional ability benefit from opportunities to socialise and work collaboratively with similarly gifted peers throughout all stages of education. The study indicated that Renzulli’s model, in this simple format, has the potential to enrich a whole-school approach, meeting the needs of all children including the exceptionally able.

This article summarises the actions taken by a Catholic secondary school in England to improve the learning, motivation and well-being of its students. It describes the theories of mindset, as proposed by Dweck (2006); aspects of self-determination, as described by Kasser and Ryan (1993); and intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, as detailed by Vansteenkiste et al. (2006). This paper also refers to the theory of visible learning by John Hattie (2012) and describes the actions taken by the school to embed the principles of mindset and the outcomes of this intervention. The implementation of mindset was a gradual process, in which the headteacher targeted two year groups in the school to launch the ideas. In parallel, he trialled the principles in the maths classes that he taught. His experience is described in the evaluation 2009–10 (see Addendum 1). Furthermore, the school carried out much work on the nature of praise and how this can improve students’ motivation and encourage a ‘growth mindset’. This led to the grade descriptors for interim school reports being changed to reflect this new emphasis. Students themselves revised these descriptors to make them more student-friendly and to provide them with clear statements about how to improve.

This article is an attempt at a systematic presentation of the knowledge of problems related to the value system of gifted persons. Psychological literature was reviewed to make the reader familiar with the concept of the value system and to present the current state of research. The problem of the value system of gifted persons was discussed from the perspective of its relationship with intelligence, abilities and school achievement. From a theoretical point of view, a multi-dimensional description of those issues allows readers to get acquainted with the problem of value preferences in gifted persons. On the educational plane, it allows psychologists, educationalists and teachers to avail themselves of the findings from the research review in their work with schoolchildren and young people with outstanding achievements.

A number of characteristics are shared between attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and gifted populations. They include issues with sustaining attention, following directions, and completing tasks. When an individual is both gifted and has ADHD (gifted–ADHD) he has unique educational needs that may put him at risk for underachievement. To date the literature largely addresses how to remediate perceived deficits. Less has been written about how to develop the talent of these twice-exceptional individuals. The present semi-autobiographical narrative proposes that inquiry-based instruction within an authentic community of practice can play an integral role in talent development for gifted–ADHD undergraduate students.

Many parents of gifted, talented and high-ability children seek counseling in the belief that a diagnosis of their child as ‘gifted’ will solve the problems they and their child are encountering. In Israel, most children are screened for giftedness using the Szold examinations in grade 2 or 3 between the ages of 7 and 9 years. The Szold test screens for mathematical–logical and verbal abilities, but it does not screen for creativity. In the letter of ‘acceptance/rejection’, the only information given is whether or not the child is entitled to participate in the local program for the gifted. In this article I will endeavor to explain why it is not always desirable or necessary to seek an additional clinical diagnosis of potential ability because the problems expressed by both parents and children derive from emotional causes, particular learning disabilities or a mismatch between the child’s potential and the level of curricula provision.