Joseph S. Renzulli

What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition.

Giftedness needs to be redefined to include three elements: above-average intelligence, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity.

The Enrichment Triad Model: a Plan for Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented

Khatena, J. Project talented and gifted second evaluation report (ESEA Title III, Region II, W.V.). Prepared for the West Virginia State Department, Charleston, West Virginia (Unpublished manuscript), 1975 (c) Khatena, J. Developmental patterns and creative orientations on Something About Myself. Talents and Gifts, 1975, 17(3), 23-26. (d) Khatena, J., & Torrance, E.P. Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory. Huntington, W.V.: Marshall University (Unpublished manuscript), 1976. Renzulli, J. S. New directions in creativity. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Torrance, E. P. Discontinuities in creative development. In E. P. Torrance & W. F. White (Eds.), Issues and advances in educational psychology, Itasca, III.: F. E. Peacock, 1966, Pp. 154-163.

Scale for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students

I Learning Characteristics II Creativity Characteristics III Motivation Characteristics IV Leadership Characteristics V Artistic Characteristics VI Musical Characteristics VII Dramatics Characteristics VIII Communication Characteristics (Precision) IX Communication Characteristics (Expressiveness) X Planning Characteristics XI Mathematics Characteristics XII Reading Characteristics XIII Technology Characteristics XIV Science Characteristics

Exploring the Link between Giftedness and Self-Concept.

We explored three broad issues in the article. First, do gifted and nongifted children differ in their self-concepts? Second, what are the effects on the self-concept of labeling the child as gifted? Third, are there any effects on self-concept of placing a child in special programs for the gifted? The review begins with a discussion of theoretical and methodological issues associated with the self-concept and giftedness constructs. This is followed by a meta-analysis of studies bearing on the three issues. Two types of studies are reviewed: (a) cases where gifted and average students are compared in terms of the self-concept and (b) studies in which gifted children are exposed to differential programming and the effects on self-concept explored. The studies indicated generally higher academic self-concepts for gifted students, but otherwise the results of the investigations were highly variable. The article concludes with a discussion of research and practical implications.

Emerging Conceptions of Giftedness: Building a Bridge to the New Century

This article describes a continuum of definitions of giftedness from conservative to liberal, and how these definitions relate to the development of the 3-ring conception of giftedness. In this definition, above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity are seen as 3 interactive clusters of traits that gifted students may exhibit or are capable of developing. The 3-ring conception of giftedness provides an operational definition that can be used by schools as the basis for identification that, in turn, leads to more targeted programming options for gifted students. Recent research related to the 3-ring conception focuses on the infinite number of interactions that contribute to giftedness including personality and environmental factors that have an impact on ones ability to engage in creative and productive endeavors.

Reversing Underachievement: Creative Productivity as a Systematic Intervention.

This study combined qualitative and quantitative methodology in a multiple case study to examine the phenomenon of underachievement and the effect of using creative productivty (Type III) enrichment as a systematic intervention in reversing the pattern. Twelve teachers who rcccivcd training in the Enrichment Triad Model selected 17 students identified as gifted who were also underachieving in their school performance. The l7 students, ages v-l3, included five girls and twelve boys. All students were guided through a Type III study by their referring teacher during one school year. Questionnaires, interest surveys, interviews, product evaluation, and participant observations provided information about individual students in the context of pursuing Type III investigations. The findings regarding the use of creative productivity to address underachievement were numerous. First, a variety of factors contributed to the underachievement of students with high academic potential including: emoti<>nal issues (dysfunctional families); social and behavioral issues (the influence of an inappropriate peer group): the lacl< of an appropriate curriculum (siudents not motivated bv the regular curriculum) ; and a suspected learning disability or poor SCII-I-COLI[~ttiOll. The most compelling finding of this research study was the positive gains made by the students through their involvement in the Type III intervention. Eightytwo percent of the students madc positive gains during the course of the year and in the year following the intervention. Most were no longer underachieving in their school settings at the end of the intervention. Five aspects of the process evolved as important foci for different groups of students: 1) the relationship with the teacher, 2) presentation of self-regulation strategies, 3) opportunity to investigate their own issue of underachievement, 4) the opportunity to work on an area of interest in their preferred learning style and 5) the opportunity to interact with an appropriate pacer group. Nothing may be as frustrating to educators and parents as a bright young mind that seems to be wasted. In fact. concern over tlie problem of undcTé1chieH’ment, csl-)CciLt’tlB among potentially high-achieving students, has increased substantially in recent years (Reid, 199 1 professional have agreed for decades that lhe phenomenon of undo achievement is complex, baffhng, and challenging (Pass«w and Goidberg, 195t3; Rimll1, ~1986; Whitmore, 192i0). Although there is considerablc research on uncterachieBement among students with high academic potential (HAP), the onh consensus of researchers concerns the factors I hell contribute to the problem. Evidencc abcntt effective intervention strategies is inconsistent and inconclusive. liuo major approaches nnderhe attempts at irOrrvuntioll ccntnscliny and education. White some evidence points to positive gains using familv UHII1sL’lil1!, (Colangelo, 1984; Rimm, 1986), psvchologictl imun-coPutting ~=;.!~’t=.·~2~&°~’~. to Use îÎ1C prob!cm oj I_mdl°rascl~irs°cment un~<>i3y ili~~li abi)itB students !!a.sbeeti a Lli;ill<iipi<. to edn.ca.toi:: ,. a<-id pat-;.tti , ;tiil c, tJ>i<I<.i %!;<i;di>ip « ii;>t 16<_.i< >j <. iii::.. c<>rririlmiu t<> 1hu l~r:~!plu.~l _r-ICl Cil~clily rll m ;t:; -r i, thai!)asci)j()B’cd’.B’id(’s~)iB’~’1s~!CCL’s’.,it!rcB’or..in~.!h. pattern ,)1 LiIJdtT~B{-’hiB_’B:C’]lL’i]l llE:~,~u i~~-‘7~1:~;~ ?u-~ ... what ciusisc. Tlw lindin,,;, 01 this’;llUh ,11.,_’: ;tit cxptatiatiunoipossihtc cause’, that ulderlir?l,c’ ~w;~l;lem and alert pl<>ius.si<nials to BBatc)i ¡’Ol 1r11ip, sBn)p)on]s<)f LfiE’SC l~tCtlli:5 SiICII £io ~lll Illlcli~l;~ll(S,s_‘(I learning disability 01 elJ1()lion~tI ptohktlis, Iftadtd) tic~n, tlteir rrsearch c>fier~ n stratc~wfi><iii«I to be highly crfeetivc in !’eBcrsing unLl<.i-achicx-ciii<.>it regardless of the underlying plobkll1s indIBidLl~11 stLl dents experience. The atI atE~~v consists 01 engaging the studcnl in an inve;;tigation 01 a ITa! Plobkm (Rcn7ulli’s Type ill Enrichment) guided bB art encouraging teacher, ¡Bn~¡]vsi:; 01 the p!ïJL’L’~::; ¡-,’Bt’dled specific t<a;h«I lJcha;.I<>ix kit to he’ integl’~¡j to the successor il>e I>iteix<iiti<>11. These stratE’<~iE=:; ~-<ll i serB’e as a guide to professionab interested in helping students to achieB’e success. Most i II1port~BJl t h, the’ sludv provide5 support for the notion that III 01’_’ is gained by developing and tespecting students’individual gifts, talents, and interests ili:t<i I>-, L’il()rl>, aimed at reinediationo(BBeaknesses and ~’limiij;.Iti()tl of inappropriate b<.liax.I<>1-. Kcscurcl~ I i I oi t I ii, nuwns~ iilo was sulyonWwl t I I ltiet tltc Juvits AW Pr<x~rant (Grain No. R.’()(1RIIIIIII) ns ’ld’lliIliqt’IÙllw the Ollice ctt Educational Rcseare!] and Illl!,I()BC’llh’IlI. I’,S fJe’!,’lI’tllll’IlI ()f hltll’atiot1. Grantees UIllkTt;Jki!l~ I i I) 1 .m<· cillot I to c:Bprt’ss ltcclv° their profL’ssiollal (~ow·nuarnl· I, ~i 1]([ no mllicial cndm~cmcW slu~ttlcl he interte<I.

Assumptions Underlying the Identification of Gifted and Talented Students

This study examined a national sample of classroom teachers, teachers of the gifted, administrators, and consultants from rural, suburban, and urban areas regarding their assumptions about the gifted identification process. Respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with 20 items that reflected guidelines for a comprehensive identification system. Five factors were derived from 20 items. Respondents favored the use of individual expression criteria, ongoing assessment, multiple criteria for identification, and consideration of contextual factors. Teachers of the gifted and respondents from urban areas were more likely to favor these strategies. The sample opposed restricting identification to the sole use of achievement or IQ scores.

Research Related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model1

The Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model (SEM) is a product of 15 years of research and field testing and combines the previously developed Enrichment Triad and Revolving Door Identification Models. SEM has been implemented in school districts worldwide, and extensive evaluations and research studies indicate the effectiveness of the model. In this article, a brief explanation of SEM is provided as a summary of the research conducted on this approach. The review of the research is subdivided into (a) the effectiveness of the model as perceived by key groups, (b) research related to creative productivity, (c) research relating to personal and social development, (d) the use of SEM with underserved populations, (e) research on self-efficacy, (f) the use of SEM as a curricular framework, (g) research relating to learning styles and curriculum compacting, and (h) longitudinal research on the SEM. Research suggests that the model is effective at serving high-ability students in a variety of educational settings and in schools that serve diverse ethnic and socioeconomic populations.

Reexamining the Role of Gifted Education and Talent Development for the 21st Century: A Four-Part Theoretical Approach.

Why and how should a society devote special resources to the development of giftedness in young people for the twenty-first century? If we agree that the goals of gifted education and talent development are to maximize young people’s opportunities for self-fulfillment and increase society’s reservoir of creative problem solvers and producers of knowledge, then it would seem wise that programming and services enhance students’ capacity for creative productivity, not just content acquisition. This general theory for the development of human potential is discussed through an exploration of four research-based subtheories: the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, the Enrichment Triad Model, Operation Houndstooth, and Executive Functions. In this article, a reexamination of current gifted and talented programming is intended to generate future research, extend dialogue among scholars, and inspire continued support for programming based on theory and related research.

The Reform Movement and the Quiet Crisis in Gifted Education

The reform movement in education appears to focus on the ways in which schools are organized and managed rather than on the interaction that takes place among teachers, students, and the material to be learned. In the process of designing reform to encourage our most promising students and also to meet the needs of at-risk students, we need to examine the types of changes currently being advocated. An examination of the various reform efforts and the effect that they are having on gifted education is provided in this article. Rather than allowing all reform movements to affect our students without our consent (especially those that call for the elimination of grouping), we need to address the impact of gifted education programs and practices and how they might influence the reform effort. We must also be concerned with continued advocacy for gifted programming, creating and maintaining exemplary programs and practices that can serve as models of what can be accomplished for high ability students. Simply to allow high ability students to be placed in classrooms in which no provisions will be made for their special needs is an enormous step backwards for our field. To lose our quest for excellence in the current move to guarantee equity will undoubtedly result in a disappointing, if not disastrous, education for our most potentially able children.