my favorite is Renzulli's 3 Ring Concept.
Mine too.
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,
There is one conception of giftedness some schools have selected to use that will put your child at a decided disadvantage. Developed by Joseph Renzulli in 1978, the so-called Three-Ring conception of giftedness relies on the following qualities to be identified: above-average intelligence (no problem there), creativity (and how is this measured?), and task commitment (sustained efforts on all
things academic). However, these qualities alone are not sufficient to be identified as gifted; according to Renzulli, the child must show that he or she is applying these attributes in a visible way, in a tangible product. If not, the gifted
door is shut to him or her. Thus, a child of 7 who asks questions about life and death and God would not be considered gifted, unless he chose to put together some type of project—a diorama of the universe, perhaps? And, a ninth grader with a 140 IQ would not be considered gifted unless she manufactured some type of product to prove how smart she is. Her keen insights into the human condition would not suffice to qualify her as gifted. And kids who underachieve in school? Forgetaboutit. Using Renzulli’s conception of giftedness, an
“underachieving gifted child” is a contradiction of terms.
Based solely on the work of grown-ups who have achieved eminence due to their adult accomplishments, this view of giftedness has no place in the world of
children.
