Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion How do you all define gifted?

Oh, me too, me too!

More and more I'm thinking that we've got it all wrong when we think of "gifted" or "intelligent" as being on the same railroad track as everyone else, just moving along it faster. A gifted 4-year-old is not the equivalent of a NT 8-year-old. And I'm not just talking about asynchronies, I mean that the intellectual process is fundamentally different.

(Like you, I'm alert to this issue because of my kid. Hanni didn't talk early and shows no signs of being an early reader, but she offered her first causal explanation when she was still in the two-word stage. She doesn't fit the stereotype of a gifted kid, but there is so clearly something astonishing about the way her mind works.)

I think that when we test kids early, we are inevitably measuring the wrong thing. What we want to know is whether the kid will grow up to be a person who is capable of complex and sophisticated thought. What we are able to measure is whether the kid is ahead of the curve on mastering the basics. There is some correlation between these, but they are not the same thing.

The science of understanding giftedness is still in its infancy. We need to know a lot more about what is going on in gifted brains, and what signs of that can be detected early on, before we'll really have a handle on this. (I'm thinking along the lines of how it's now possible to identify kids at risk for autism very early on, just by watching videos of the kid and knowing what to watch for. But a lot of basic science had to happen to get to that point.)

Back to my own experience, what I see in my kid is a skill at constructing mental models of a situation and playing around with hypotheses about how it works or how it might work under different conditions. This is a skill that is lacking in some of the grad students in my department's PhD program, and I can pretty much predict who will bomb out of the program based on it. It is absolutely essential for playing in the big leagues, and it cannot be taught. And I can see it in my 4-year-old, but I'm damned if I could figure out how to test for it.

Mine too.

To me the definition of gifted in this forum;s context means the ability of a an individual to learn and master a field of study or endeavor without effort and at a rate of pace that is magnitudes quicker than the average of the general population

*Yes*. Exactly. I too see PhD students who can't do this, when my own child has been able to do it for years. Weird, isn't it?

I think that is not true of all highly intelligent people.

There is different types of thinking. I think visual spatial types are more likely to mentally test hypostheses, or more easily than other types of thinkers but because they are different doesn't mean each is not gifted.

I think the early natural ability is "gifted". Now exceptionally gifted, or profoundly gifted. I think the PG label is too easily thrown about these days.

Having a 2e child, I'm not so sure on this one. I'll admit to not studying Renzulli's concept in any detail, but what Jim Delisle wrote in his Parenting Gifted Kids Book and in this excerpt here has left me with significant concern about that conceptualization of giftedness,

Renzulli says,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In our identification model (Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981), we have used above average ability as the major criterion for identifying a group of students who are referred to as the Talent Pool. This group generally consists of the top 15-20% of the general school population. Test scores, teacher ratings, and other forms of status information" (i.e., information that can be gathered and analyzed at a fixed point in time) are of practical value in making certain kinds of first-level decisions about accessibility to some of the general services that should be provided by a special program.

This procedure guarantees admission to those students who earn the highest scores on cognitive ability tests. Primary among the services provided to Talent Pool students are procedures for making appropriate modifications in the regular curriculum in areas where advanced levels of ability can be clearly documented. It is nothing short of common sense to adjust the curriculum in those areas where high levels of proficiency are shown. Indeed, advanced coverage of traditional material and accelerated courses should be the "regular curriculum" for youngsters with high ability in one or more school subjects.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semart13.html

He also says that it is important to have these decisions made by human beings, not a formula. Does that mean somebody with an ax to grind might apply Renzulli's criteria in the way that Delisle describes? Sure it does! When you give a team of human beings the authority to make an educational decision on their own best judgment, anything might happen. But that doesn't mean what Delisle describes is the way Renzulli intended the model to be used.

I considered going to graduate school at UConn (where Renzulli works), but then I saw the 80s clipart in some of the presentations that department had on the web. Call me overexcitable, but I just would not be able to handle it. Those would get under my skin.

I think Hunter Elementary uses the 3 ring concept. They definitely want demonstrated commitment to task.

I want to ask, though, is it any task?

Will the gifted student that is obsessed with how a radio works, going to be the same about how to build a chair?

So, is he saying that 15-20% of the school population would be considered or would be guaranteed admission (sorry I didn't read the whole article beyond what you linked)? Not to make Delisle the ultimate authority on giftedness, but I happen to like him ... in any case, I know the he has expressed concern in other places that using above average ability not superior ability isn't a good way to create programs the meet the needs of the gifted.

eta: so I've gone back and quickly perused the article and it appears to me that he is using the top 15-20% as the group who would be considered based on "above average ability." Once you've got that piece, you also have to exhibit task commitment and creativity to be gifted. Since he does seem to focus a lot on gifted behaviors over innate differences that make one a gifted individual, I do see as how this could be implemented the way pps have seen in their school where a child who is ided is bumped out of GT based on lack of task commitment.

Where I'm at, I see some of that too. You never lose your GT identification but you are not guaranteed services/placement in advanced or GT classes unless you show

Most conversations about giftedness are pretty school based .because. the intervention or community response to giftedness only makes sense in an educational setting.  It doesn't require physical treatment.  It's not a medical condition.  It's a thinking condition.  That's under the school's jurisdiction.  In other words they're the only ones that are interested at all about identifying giftedness for the purpose of doing anything about it (which varies by state).   

There is funding for the arts and science and businesses that recruit talented adult people.  But they're not looking to define giftedness as a whole or offer services to gifted people carte blanc, they're looking for a specific thing that fits into their project or purpose.  Maybe marketers also research for customers for nerdy items.  Hey- maybe that's who should identify gifted kids early.  Radio Shack & Barnes and Nobles have already salaried market research teams to define their targets.

What about a child makes a parent hang out on a giftedness forum?  I have kids.  I am  interested in education.

That's a good question. 
I also feel a little fellowship.  Fellowship is strange.  Critics say it feels good to hang out with like-minded people but it makes you dull because you all know the same things.  Those who participate in fellowship disagree, since nobody often sees eye to eye and how can you hash out the finer points except in the fellowship of interested parties.  And anyway, we don't know the same things.  What is unique to the Internet is that every word is recorded over time.  That's cool because it makes it more like an interactive book / fellowship mash up.   

I still think looking at charts is academic.  And I'm glad you are able to facilitate his learning (I reworded "teach him" just for you.  <3).  I'm really glad he gets to have more time where he's thriving instead of being stuck where he wasn't.
It's Still studying Books.

I had a friend long ago who had small children who said, "somebody should make a picture book encyclopedia set with all the knoweledge in the world for little babies to "read".  I think they made it but it's called You Tube.