Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Over the past century, strong applications of psychometrics have resulted in an ideology and practices of identification in the field of gifted education. In recent years, an alternative ideology that construes giftedness in an inclusive light and promotes democratic practices has emerged. This ideology posits a new meaning-making system of giftedness that is process-based rather than person-based. In this article, we elaborate some conceptual principles of this emerging ideology. First, we reflect on the nature of giftedness as a social construct using a symbolic interactionist perspective and articulate the dialectical evolution of collective meanings of giftedness. Second, we address the interdependency between an individual and a context when it comes to helping students realize their giftedness. Third, we accentuate a growth orientation and outline the importance of considering giftedness as a process-based entity. Furthermore, we provide a T:CAD conception of giftedness along with ideas for transaction-focused practices that aim to encourage the rendering of this emerging ideology in practice.

Keywords

definition and/or conception of giftedness/talent philosophical/theoretical history inclusion egalitarianism symbolic interactionism social construct affordance self-knowledge ecological psychology

Introduction

Even though the idea of giftedness was not alien to ancient societies (Stanley, 1976; Tannenbaum, 2000), a more systematic discourse on giftedness and the implementation of gifted education only began at the turn of the 20th century. Among other contributing factors, two major forces were particularly helpful in realizing gifted education. First, the compulsory education movement that occurred amid the industrial era exerted considerable influence on the development of gifted education (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2015). In the 19th century, sharp expansion of industrialization ushered in a demand for a large skilled workforce, which in turn resulted in the rise of mass schooling (Carl, 2009). As access to education widened, the diversity of students enrolled in school also increased. In this mass schooling context, educators began to notice the advanced learning needs of students at the higher end of the achievement distribution in the regular curriculum (Davis et al., 2015). In response to these learning needs, differentiated provisions for gifted students (e.g., accelerated programs and specialized schools) began to proliferate in the late 19th century (Freeman, 2002; Jolly, 2018; Nazzaro, 1977).

Second, the emergence of psychometric measurements also contributed substantially to the development of gifted education. Rooted in the empiricist tradition of the 19th century (such as the work of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel), Francis Galton (1822-1911) conducted a study on giftedness that investigated its genetic etiology. Later, with the introduction of more sophisticated psychometric measurements of intelligence, such as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (Terman, 1916), gifted education quickly grew into an educational discipline as educators became able to identify students with greater learning potentials and select students for gifted programs based on their performance on intelligence tests (Jolly, 2018).

Over the past century, strong applications of psychometrics have resulted in an ideology and practices of identification in the field of gifted education. Since its onset, giftedness has been understood as, and believed to be, an innate quality that speaks to exceptional intellectual capabilities that belong to only a small fraction of students. The core pedagogical mission associated with this meaning-making system was to discover groups of gifted students who demonstrate evidence of or possess capabilities in reaching exceptional achievements and/or eminence. However, the adoption of giftedness as a categorical construct (that distinguishes students as either gifted or not gifted) based on psychometric cutoffs has provoked concerns of elitism and reductionist practices (Lupart, 2012; Lupart & Webber, 2012; Porath, 2012).

In recent years, an alternative ideology that construes giftedness in an inclusive light and promotes democratic practices is emerging. Under this alternative ideology, giftedness is understood as a person-in-situ transaction in which the complex nature of the interaction between a person and a learning context is highlighted (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Lo & Porath, 2017; Plucker & Barab, 2005). As person-in-situ transaction suggests, giftedness is a function of context, personal qualities, and development; furthermore, giftedness is relevant to all individuals and outlined as an inclusive guiding framework. In other words, this emerging ideology proposes a new meaning-making system of giftedness that is process-based rather than person-based and focuses on learning paths that lead to excellence (Ziegler, 2005) for all rather than on who is deemed to need special education by virtue of their score on a test of intelligence. To put it simply, this meaning-making system places a strong focus on how to become “gift-ed” rather than those who are “gifted.” In this article, we elaborate the development and some conceptual principles of this emerging ideology and provide ideas for transaction-focused practices that will further encourage the generation of applications of this alternative ideology.

Giftedness as a Living Concept

Our day-to-day life consists of constant interaction and communication with others through the use of symbols and significations (see Symbolic Interactionism, Blumer, 1969). A symbol is a socioculturally derived construct that reflects joint understanding of things, actions, events, and social concepts (in this section, we use the terms symbol and social construct interchangeably). While symbols provide means for people to communicate, converse, and interact, these processes result in modifications of the joint meaning of a symbol (Charon, 1995). That is, the very existence and evolution of meanings of a social construct organically reflects our evolving society and minds. Likewise, it is through constant communication and interaction that a social construct can gain further relevance and conceptual advancement over time in a cultural setting (Benzies & Allen, 2001).

Like the organic evolution of many social constructs, the meaning of giftedness has been modified, realigned, and redefined through a collective interpretive process (Borland, 1997; Lo & Porath, 2017). The first known usage of the word gifted was recorded in the 17th century and it had been used to describe individuals who demonstrate exceptional achievements linked to endowed gifts and talents (Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 2008). This was the dominant conception of giftedness prior to modern onset of gifted education in the 20th century (Jolly, 2018; Lo & Porath, 2017). A perfect example can be found in Francis Galton’s book Hereditary Genius (1869), where he concluded that eminence resulted largely from genetic inheritance and ran in families. Although his work is considered distasteful today for its strong connotations of eugenics and elitism, it nevertheless started an era that viewed giftedness as a scientifically treatable topic and piqued an interest in studying individual differences on the higher end of the spectrum.¹ Prior to Galton’s scientific treatment of giftedness (i.e., endeavors to discover the origin of giftedness with systematic approaches), it had been associated with divinity and mythology. Gradually, with the influence of the scientific revolution, giftedness came to be understood in more abstract terms, such as aptitude, sensory disposition, over-excitability, and cognitive ability.

Today, the term gifted has strong pedagogical connotations. It is commonly referred to as an educational category and reflects dimensional complexity. Evidently, the collective understanding of the term gifted has evolved (some might say been enriched) substantially from what it meant in the 17th century. For instance, the National Association for Gifted Children in the United States posits the following:

Children are gifted [italics added] when their ability is significantly above the norm for their age. Giftedness may manifest in one or more domains such as: intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, or in a specific academic field such as language arts, mathematics or science. (National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.)

As early as 1910, Guy Whipple started to use the term gifted in a psychometric fashion, a conceptualization that has influenced the common practices we have today (Jolly, 2007). It was also around this time that the term gifted made its first appearance in educational textbooks, used to denote a group of students with greater learning potentials in comparison to their peers (e.g., Henry, 1920; Hollingworth, 1926; Stedman, 1924; Whipple, 1919). In the 1920s, the term gifted gained further relevance in education after Lewis Terman introduced the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (a revision of the Binet-Simon Scale), which popularized the idea of differentiating students’ learning potentials by intelligence measurement.² Later, with the surge of the compulsory education movement that ushered in a greater need for meeting the diverse needs of students increasingly enrolled in public education (Davis et al., 2015), the pedagogical connotations of the term gifted remained. It has been used in a categorical fashion since the 1920s for the purpose of differentiating a group of students defined as exceptionally intelligent, psychometrically speaking, who need stimulation beyond what an age-related curriculum can provide (Stanley, 1976).

The concept of giftedness continues its symbolic evolution today. Under the influence of the inclusive education movement and an increasingly egalitarian social milieu, more scholars in the field of gifted education started to question the pedagogical implications of having a psychometric condition categorized as gifted (e.g., Borland, 2013; Lo & Porath, 2017; McBee, McCoach, Peters, & Matthews, 2012; Peters; 2016; Reis, 2003). From a pedagogical point of view, the strong (post-) positivist focus on finding a mind that is “truly gifted” is questionable and could obscure the “how” and “when” (Jackson, 2000; Porath, 2013; L. T.Rose, Daley, & Rose, 2011) in meeting the advanced learning needs that exist only when a given learning context is taken into account. Moreover, researchers have also questioned the ethical implications of categorizing students into gifted versus those not so identified, often described as “non-gifted” (e.g., Barab & Plucker, 2002; Borland, 2013; Matthews, Ritchotte, & Jolly, 2014; Sutherland, 2012). While it is still emerging, a major shift concerning the symbolic nature of “gifted” is apparent (Lo & Porath, 2017). This current shift incorporates more complexity that involves systemic sensitivity, ethical practices, and egalitarian considerations.

Giftedness as Person-In-Situ Transactions

At the beginning of the 21st century, a discourse that conceptualized giftedness as a context-dependent entity emerged (e.g., Barab & Plucker, 2002; Dai, 2017; Hymer, 2012; Lo & Porath, 2017; Plucker & Barab, 2005). In comparison to conventional views that regard giftedness as a self-contained entity (i.e., prepossessed conditions awaiting proper identification), the developing discourse conceptualizes giftedness as emergent, situated, and dynamic. Aligning with this discourse, giftedness has been outlined as, for example, “emerging excellence” (Plucker & Barab, 2005, p. 206), “optimal interactualized transaction between an individual and his or her environment” (Lo & Porath, 2017, p. 352), and functional person-in-situ transactions (Barab & Plucker, 2002), all of which address the importance of process and context.

As Plucker and Barab (2005) noted, a transactional view of giftedness highlights dynamic flows and the relational nature between a person and the context where he/she is situated. This primary focus on investigating the dynamic individual–environment interaction rejects a conventional reductionist view that thinks of “persons and situations as independent variables” (Snow, 1992, p. 19) and adopts a systemic thinking that outlines persons-in-situations as integrated systems where interactions are highlighted (Bunge, 2000; Davis et al., 2015; Lo & Porath, 2017; Wan, 2011; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017). When giftedness is outlined as person-in-situ transactions, personal factors, contextual factors, and factors associated with person-in-situ dynamics are all to be considered as relational parts of an integral whole that contributes to giftedness formation (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Barab & Roth, 2006; Lo & Porath, 2017). To put it simply, a functional transaction occurs when an individual realizes, sustains, and optimizes his/her dispositions and abilities under the parameters set by a society in a given time. To use Mozart as an example, there is no doubt about the existence of his exceptional musical disposition and ability. However, he would not have been able to enact his disposition and develop his ability to accomplish such excellence without a context that provided conditions (e.g., a time/place that valued arts highly) conducive to developing his musical disposition/ability. Likewise, we are not able to know what Mozart could have achieved if he had been born in, say, Mongolia. However, we can be certain that he would not have been the Mozart whom we know today. Meanwhile, we could also fathom that his other abilities and dispositions would/could have been induced by opportunities that Mongolia had otherwise provided.

Ecological psychology provides a fertile ground for this new school of thought. Founded by James Gibson, ecological psychology addresses the importance of understanding the occurrence of an action (e.g., learning) in a system from a relational perspective (Barab & Plucker, 2002). That is, an action can occur only if an individual recognizes (or is made to recognize) certain features of an environment that furnish possibilities of the action. For example, a water pond is swimmable to organisms who have the ability to swim (such as fish) or capability to learn how to swim (such as human beings); a doorknob is turnable to individuals who have the capability and intention to open the door. Two terms, namely affordance and effectivity, are central to understanding the integrated nature of persons-in-situations. Affordances address the possibilities of action that an environment provides, offers, and furnishes ( E. J.Gibson, 2000; J. J. Gibson, 1979/1986; Young, Depalma, & Garrett, 2002). In daily language, affordances are often suffixed with “-able” to address the functional value of an environment, such as a “climbable” hill, a “steppable” ladder, and so on (Pufall & Dunbar, 1992; Warren, 1984). Reciprocally speaking, effectivities are behaviors that an individual can produce so as to actualize possibilities of action (Barab & Roth, 2006; Chemero, 2003; Greeno, 1994; Shaw, Turvey, & Mace, 1982).

Essentially, affordances and effectivities are codetermined in nature (see Figure 1 for an illustration). For educators, in order to engage students to enact their effectivities (e.g., academic abilities), they need to invoke proper attunement to, and resonance with, the affordances (e.g., enrichment opportunities) of a school environment among students (Barab & Roth, 2006). Barab and Plucker (2002) articulated that “the responsibility of the educator is to establish contexts for learning that support individuals in becoming more adept at functioning as part of multiple systems” (p. 175). Adopting the idea of creating a smart context that attunes learners with a larger set of opportunities and fosters emerging excellence has major implications for teaching practices. On a curriculum level, it is vital for educational leaders and policy makers to create a curricular milieu that mirrors increasing possibilities provided by our evolving society (Plucker, McWilliams, & Guo, 2017). An educational reform occurring in British Columbia, Canada (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2015), spoke to the efforts of making its general education more gifted. For example, the reform addresses core competencies (e.g., communication, collaboration, critical and creative thinking, and social-emotional skills) that a student needs in order to make a successful transition to functional adulthood and develop lifelong learning skills. As a case in point, the reform in British Columbia also features coding/programming skills that have become increasingly relevant to the current generation of digital natives (McWilliams & Plucker, 2014; Plucker, McWilliams, et al., 2017; Prensky, 2001). More important, the reform strives to establish an open system that recognizes, values, and encourages the development of multiple forms of intelligences and talents. Conceivably, when a school system affords and supports the development of multiple pathways, it becomes more inclusive since more individuals in the system are encouraged to embark on a gift-ed process (i.e., person-in-situ transactions) that highlights their unique intelligences, talents, strengths, and/or interests. Colloquially speaking, more individuals are potentially to be recognized as “winners” in an open system.

Figure 1.

The dynamic nature of a person-in-situ transaction.

Similarly, on a school level, a school principal can create a flexible and resource-rich setting that affords students to explore and sustain their learning interests. As Hertzog (2017) stated, “Because potential talent needs to be nurtured and developed in young children, educators have a responsibility to be thoughtful and intentionally create optimal environments for talent development” (p. 220). Renzulli and Reis’ (1985) schoolwide enrichment model (also see Renzulli, 2008) provides a good example for talent development in an inclusive school environment. In the schoolwide enrichment model, school leaders and teachers work as a team and strive to create an enriched environment by (1) assessing students’ unique profiles of intelligences, talents, and learning interests (e.g., using the “Total Talent Portfolio” developed by Purcell and Renzulli, 1998) and (2) providing a continuum of learning opportunities (e.g., regular classes, interest clusters) that address the variation (types and levels) of abilities.

To address the importance of affordances on a classroom level, a classroom can and should be constructed in an enriched and talent-friendly manner so that it becomes a smart context that provides opportunities for exploring, discovering, and idea-expressing (Curtis & Carter, 2003; Heard & McDonough, 2009; Helm, Beneke, & Steinheimer, 1998) necessary for students to further develop their talents and giftedness. Thus, a smart context is a classroom enriched physically, materially, intellectually, and instructionally so that it excites and engages students. Using the language of the Reggio Emilia approach, a classroom functions as a third teacher when it “listens to” students (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 2011) and responds with authentic learning opportunities that promote transactions (Dewey, 1938). Readers seeking inspirations for elevating the affordances of a classroom can refer to Hertzog’s (2017) article wherein a wide range of “makeover” ideas (e.g., creating a nurturing and aesthetic environment, integrating inquiry-based learning) are provided to help teachers transform a traditional classroom into a talent nursery.

Giftedness as a Lived Process

Over the past century, educators and researchers in gifted education have collectively adopted a verificational view that sees giftedness as a verifiable condition, that is, a static view that considers giftedness as a self-contained entity that only pertains to some individuals (Lo & Porath, 2017; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017). As Hollingworth (1938), one of the modern day gifted education pioneers, famously put it, “Before we can educate the genius, we must discover him in childhood” (p. 306). Fittingly, the notions of “discovery” and “in childhood” reflect a strong verificational view rooted in positivist and post-positivist traditions. Sustained by the surge of psychometric studies in the following decades, giftedness has been associated with innateness and exclusivity, both of which speak to a fixed-mindset orientation in understanding the developmental nature of human possibilities and potentials (Dweck, 2006; Tirri, 2016).

Progressively, a growing number of educators and researchers are espousing a transactional view that sees giftedness as person-in-situ transactions (i.e., process-based entities rather than person-based entities). The core undertaking of gifted education has been switched from identifying the limited few for special services to promoting an actualizing process that one can live through their giftedness. This process-focused ideology naturally speaks to a growth-mindset orientation (Dweck, 2006; Tirri, 2016) in that it highlights the potential and growing nature of human possibilities. Therefore, giftedness is conceptualized as a lived process that can be reflected on and examined formatively. In this light, giftedness also becomes “a pedagogical goal achievable by all rather than measurable predictions for some” (Lo & Porath, 2017, p. 345).

As we mentioned in the previous section, the dimensions of talent development are contingent on the affordances that a learning context furnishes. However, affordances alone are not sufficient for the initiation and sustenance of an actualizing process. In order for a student to actualize possibilities for any action, he/she needs to be aware of (or be apprised of) the possibilities for action in a learning context as well as his/her effectivity set and strengths (Barab & Plucker, 2002). As Turvey and Shaw (1995) noted, successful person-in-situ transactions are contingent on how individuals perceive and react to the environmental opportunities. It is therefore important for an educator to apprise students of not only the learning opportunities but also their potentials in reacting to these opportunities (i.e., self-knowledge). Lo (2014) illustrated the significant role that self-knowledge plays in inducing agentic actions in the LINK (i.e., Label-INduced-Knowledge) model. He studied labeling effects among students with exceptionalities and articulated how an account of well-constructed self-knowledge could help students develop positive adaptive behaviors (such as advocacy, goal setting, and self-regulation). The LINK model centralized a constructive role that an educator can adopt in translating self-knowledge into powerful actions. That is, more than creating a rich learning context, an educator should also strive to promote self-knowledge among leaners with regard to their developing and developable abilities, capacities, and skills. Along the same line, Fogarty (2008) discussed the importance of teachers being aware of the state-of-the-art knowledge of intellectual/learning potentials and creating a classroom climate that induces the variety of human potentials and promotes self-knowledge. In her words, an intelligence-friendly classroom can serve as a “caring companion and mindful guide to the intellect of each and every child in it” (p. 143). For instance, Gardner’s (2006) evolving theory of multiple intelligences, Sternberg’s (1996) successful intelligence, Dai’s (2017) foundational domains of human effectivities, Feuerstein’s theory of structural cognitive modifiability (see Feuerstein, Rand, Huffman, & Miller, 1980), and various theories that tap into moral and social-emotional realms of intelligence (e.g., Coles, 1998; Goleman, 1995) all provided substantial understanding of the nature and development of human potentials and possibilities. As a case in point, the Churchill Center and School, Missouri, saw increased student involvement and ownership in learning after having students with learning disabilities participate in a Demystification Conference designed to help them gain deep understandings of their strengths and weakness in the classroom and by demystifying the medical terms associated with their learning conditions (Elfrink, 2008).

In addition to cultivating self-knowledge of personal strengths among students, scholars have also addressed social-emotional components (e.g., motivation, perseverance) that can help further translate self-knowledge into actualization. For example, de Ruyter (2003) discussed the importance of helping students construct realistic ideals/goals and use these as navigation aids. She defined ideals as “imagined excellences” (p. 467) that are not yet realized. In her words, “Education should therefore involve several worthy ideals that children can commit themselves to as well as critical reflection on the ways in which people are committed to and try to actualize them” (de Ruyter, 2003, p. 467). Likewise, stemming from Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory, Aviram and Assor (2010) highlighted a form of interest-based learning wherein students are encouraged to express their authentic interests, given choices to match their interests, and provided with learning opportunities that cultivate the development of “reflection- and exploration-based personal goals and interests” (p. 121).

Furthermore, teachers should consider some meta-cognitive components that can help students monitor/progress through an actualizing process. Providing life models can be a good general strategy (Betts, Kapushion, & Carey, 2016; Kingore, 2001; Lo, 2014; Vidergor, 2015) for students to reflect on the dynamics and contingencies involved actualizing giftedness. By encouraging in-depth case studies of autobiographical and biographical books and films focusing on prominent figures in areas of interests, students can grasp a better understanding of how giftedness is developed through life experiences. By doing so, a better understanding of the procedural dynamics in turn helps students meta-cognitively reflect on their own “gift-ed” process.

To conclude, we see giftedness as a state of self-actualization contingent on cognitive, social-emotional, and meta-cognitive components of agency. We concur with Dearden (1983), who once noted: “I take that with intellectual as with any other sort of development, the nature of the earlier stages can best be appreciated by looking at the final accomplishment” (p. 214). By embracing the idea of giftedness as a lived process, a knowledgeable teacher then becomes a catalyst who helps students realize possibilities of action afforded by a learning context through inducing their motivation and agency.

From Discourse to Practices

Reconceptualizing Giftedness

In this article, we traced the development of, and further elaborated on, the emerging discourse on giftedness and some conceptual shifts in gifted education (see Table 1 for a synthesis). First, we reflected on the nature of giftedness as a social construct using a symbolic interactionist perspective and articulated the dialectical evolution of collective meanings of giftedness. Today, the emerging understandings of giftedness have departed from a static view that sees giftedness as a stable innate condition and increasingly reflects more complexity and reflexivity. Second, we addressed the interdependency between an individual and a context when it comes to helping students realize their giftedness. Delineating giftedness as functional person-in-situ transactions, we emphasized the importance of constructing a stimulating learning context that affords opportunities for students to explore and sustain their unique abilities, talents, strengths, and interests. Third, we accentuated a growth orientation and outlined the importance of considering giftedness as a process-based entity embodied by various developmental opportunities. We suggested educators make efforts to provoke agential actions, such as inducing self-knowledge and cultivating personal goals among students. To sum up, we consider giftedness as a process-based entity pertaining to all individuals and the transaction (T) of such is situated in a sociocultural context (C), induced by individual agency (A), and accrued through incremental development (D). With an intention to invite further discussion, we will provide a synthesis of our conception of giftedness in light of a T:CAD framework, followed by a comparison with some contemporary models of giftedness.

Table 1.

A Comparison of the Established Discourse and the Emerging Discourse on Giftedness.

	Person-based ideology	Process-based ideology
Understanding of giftedness	Relatively static innate quality, pertaining to just a small percentage of students	Dynamic actualizing process, relevant to all students
Core undertaking	Identification: Psychometrics driven, focusing on discovering the right minds through measurements	Transaction: Ecological psychology driven, focusing on discerning the relational nature between an individual and an environment
Pedagogical relevance	An education for “the gifted”	An education that is gifted
Reflected axiology	Exclusivity, elitism	Inclusivity, egalitarianism

A T:CAD Conception of Giftedness

Based on a transactional perspective, giftedness is conceptualized as a transacted entity of an individual’s gift profile. It is a gradual development sustained by the interaction of an individual with his/her environment. A gift speaks to natural endowment existing in forms of human potentials (e.g., dispositions, abilities, intelligences, and talents) that can be activated, and become effective, in a given sociocultural context through guidance and exercises. Socioculturally speaking, a gift may be valued more in a particular time and context, and vice versa, a gift may be underappreciated or concealed in a particular time and context. The attainment of giftedness relies on actions by agents that lead to self-actualization. Thus, the validation of giftedness should include personal relevance. However, we also recognize that a well-elaborated account of giftedness may sustain or extend the standards of excellence set by a sociocultural domain.

To further clarify the T:CAD conception of giftedness, we will put it in juxtaposition with two other contemporary models (see Table 2), namely, the differentiated model of giftedness and talent (henceforth DMGT) from Gagné (2004, 2017) and the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (henceforth 3-Ring) from Renzulli (1978, 2005).

Table 2.

A Comparison of DMGT, 3-Ring, and T:CAD Conceptions of Giftedness.

	Natural endowment	Self-actualization	Exceptional performance
DMGT	Gifts		Talents
3-Ring			Giftedness
T:CAD	Gifts	Giftedness	Excellence

Note. DMGT = differentiated model of giftedness and talent.

With regard to the notion of gift, T:CAD is akin to the one described in DMGT since they both indicate the diversity of human potentials and address the importance of context and development. However, T:CAD and DMGT differ majorly in their educational focus. While T:CAD embraces an inclusive thinking that suggests every student can, and should be given opportunities to, become “gift-ed,” DMGT proposes a threshold (i.e., 10%) that reflects a categorical thinking and confines the model to the education of a small segment of our student population.

With regard to the concept of giftedness, both T:CAD and 3-Ring contemplate giftedness as a process-based entity and emphasize the importance of individual agency (such as motivation in 3-Ring and self-knowledge in T:CAD). However, T:CAD outlines giftedness as a state of self-actualization in which personal relevance is considered, whereas 3-Ring outlines giftedness as exceptional achievements in which social relevance is involved (i.e., must sustain or extend domain-specific standards). As such, giftedness in T:CAD is considered attainable to all individuals and is judged upon personal reflection whereas giftedness in 3-Ring is considered attainable among individuals who possess above-average ability (i.e., top 15% to 20%) and are creative.

Furthermore, readers may have noticed the (dis)similarity between the notion of excellence in T:CAD and the notion of “talents” in DMGT. While T:CAD and DMGT are similar in that they both correspond the ideas of domain-specificity and rarity of prevalence, they differ operationally in how exceptional performances are defined. In defining exceptional performances, DMGT suggests the top 10% in each domain to be considered as talents (in correspondence to its 10% threshold of giftedness). T:CAD, however, adopts a more naturalistic thinking and proposes using consensual standards suggested by social psychologists (see, e.g., Amabile’s [1996] notion of consensual assessment and Csikszentmihalyi’s [2014] notion of gate keepers).

This comparison certainly does not speak to a comprehensive review and warrants further development. For example, we have not included some other key conceptions of giftedness³ that have also informed contemporary gifted education practices. While we believe that such a comprehensive systematic review is valuable to the field, it is beyond the scope of this article. Nonetheless, by providing a brief juxtaposition here, we hope to not only further illuminate our transactional perspective but also curtail some existing jangle fallacies associated with the mixed word usages (e.g., the usage of giftedness) in our field (Plucker, Rinn, & Makel, 2017).

Reorienting Gifted Education

From Essentialist Thinking to Inclusive Thinking

As we have seen, over the past century, gifted education has been strongly influenced by psychometric studies and has espoused an ideology of identification. Under this distinct meaning system, giftedness has been conceptualized as an innate and relatively stable condition that belongs to only a small fraction of the student population. Deriving from this belief, gifted education has, collectively, reflected an essentialist thinking and been criticized for promoting elitism and potentially entrenching social gaps (Borland, 1997, 2013; Dai & Renzulli, 2008; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2017).

Echoing a sociocultural perspective, transactional gifted education addresses the context-dependency of talent development and recognizes the diverse human potentials that have shaped our evolving society today (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Hymer, 2009, 2012; Kornhaber, Krechevsky, & Gardner, 1990; McWilliams & Plucker, 2014; Plucker, McWilliams, et al., 2017). Thus, transactional gifted education endorses an inclusive thinking that values and celebrates the diverse and varied human potentials in dispositions, abilities, intelligences, and talents. As Hymer (2012) argued, “Gifts and talents are grown and created in an individual’s response to and interaction with her physical, social and intellectual environment” (p. 111). By addressing this interactive nature between a learner and a learning environment, the emphasis of gifted education then turns to help all students realize and transact their gifts through providing them a smart context wherein opportunities for activating, exercising, and elaborating their gifts and becoming “gift-ed” are abundant. In other words, transactional gifted education pleads with educators to imagine schools as not only a context for learning but also a context for talent socialization—a place where students can become familiar with, and appreciative of, the multiple forms of human potentials and endeavors.

From Discrete Programming to Integrative Programming

In alignment with the essentialist thinking, gifted programming has been practiced in a binary fashion. The design and implementation of gifted education services and provisions have been concentrated on meeting the needs of the selected few. As a result, gifted education has been considered as a discrete unit in relation to general education in the school system (Dai & Chen, 2013; Ziegler & Vialle, 2017).

Consistent with developmental theories (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978), a transaction-focused gifted education favors a more integrative programming style that speaks to the continuous and malleable nature of development. First, it promotes the inclusion of development-embedded approaches in order to respond to a range of developmental potentials and encourage a growth-mindset in general education settings. For example, Beghetto and Kaufman’s (2010, 2014) Four C model of creativity, Tomlinson et al.’s (2009) Parallel Curriculum (see also Tomlinson, 2014), and Betts et al.’s (2016) autonomous learner model all emphasize the importance of sustaining students’ growth through scaffolding and providing growth-encouraging feedback. Second, it also argues for proactive programming to address learning needs and readiness that may exceed the ceiling of services that a teacher can provide in a regular classroom setting. At a school level, for example, Peters, Erstad, and Matthews (2017) and Johnsen, Parker, and Farah (2015) urged the implementation of a Response-to-Intervention framework (see National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010) to monitor students’ growth and identify advanced learning needs. Similarly, Treffinger, Young, Nassab, and Wittig (2004) proposed a Levels of Services approach that adopts Universal Design for Learning principles (see D. H. Rose, Meyer, Strangman, & Rappolt, 2002), advocating for tiered services for meeting various levels of developmental potentials and readiness in general school settings. Likewise, further learning opportunities should also be integrated into a general education system to extend the service spectrum and to ensure service capacity for meeting advanced learning needs that may exceed the limits of school-level services and/or require regional (e.g., district, province/state) recourses. Many existing gifted education services (e.g., Assouline, Lupkowski-Shoplik, & Colangelo’s [2017] tiered acceleration options, Brody’s [2017] university-based enrichment programs, and Stoeger, Duan, Schirner, Greindl, and Ziegler’s [2013] mentoring), can readily be resituated in this new meaning making system without substantial modification.

From Identificational Assessment to Transactional Assessment

Amid the rapid development of psychometric studies in the past century, gifted education has thrived on assuming a gifted condition by virtue of a student’s performance on psychometric measurement.⁴ The practice of assessment in gifted education has, by and large, been conducted in a verificational manner to determine whether a student possesses a gifted condition or not. Even though common identification practices today have adopted multidimensional approaches (McBee, Shaunessy, & Matthews, 2012), these approaches still centrally rely on the interpretation of a student’s performance on an IQ or cognitive test.

In light of a transactional gifted education, assessment is considered as a crucial partner to both teaching and learning. Data collected are used to elucidate a learner’s unique learning profile and monitoring a learner’s growth and developmental potentials in a specific area. That is, instead of using assessment for identificational purposes, educators are encouraged to use assessment for transactional purposes (i.e., promoting further growth and development) by adopting growth-oriented assessment frameworks, such as Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development and Feuerstein et al.’s (1986) Learning Potential Assessment. In practice, transactional assessment should focus on providing ongoing feedback to learners to encourage further growth and sustaining evidence necessary for justifying referral decisions on more advanced learning opportunities. Approaches corresponding to this transactional orientation are already abundant. For example, Feldhusen (1994) and Purcell and Renzulli (1998) promoted using multidimensional learning profiles to help student reflect on their learning potentials in various areas of talents and abilities; Tomlinson et al. (2009) and VanTassel-Baska (2001) included rubric design that highlights growth and learning potential in inclusive classroom settings. With regard to developmental potentials in academic areas, scholars (e.g., Lidz & Elliott, 2006; Peters et al., 2017; Peters, Matthews, McBee, & McCoach, 2014) have also advocated for implementing Response-to-Intervention frameworks and/or a more dynamic assessment system to collect data that could support screening and inform evidence-based decision making for referrals to more advanced learning opportunities. Importantly, through collecting students’ responses to more complex and challenging activities (such as an inquiry-based learning project), a teacher will have better opportunities to observe a student’s unique combination of strengths and weakness in learning. On a side note, by collecting ongoing assessment information, it is more likely for a teacher to refer a student who simultaneously demonstrates advanced development in some areas (e.g., abstract thinking, critical thinking, creativity) and setbacks in other areas (e.g., executive functioning, written output) for full psychoeducational assessment for potentially undiagnosed exceptionalities⁵ (e.g., learning disabilities).

To sum up, it is clear that threads of thoughts and practices that speak to a transactional gifted education are evident. Indeed, the field of gifted education has accumulated a plethora of good practices that can be reoriented and resituated to address a transactional perspective. As Peters (2016) noted, “The good news is that nearly all of gifted education ‘best practices’ could stay the way it is” (p. 127). However, for a meaning making system in a nebulous stage to gain better understanding and acceptance, it requires further discussion and debate for reaching a potential consensus that can in turn support systematic changes. Furthermore, it requires effort at a policy level (i.e., policy making and policy analysis) to address structural issues (Plucker, Makel, Matthews, Peters, & Rambo-Hernandez, 2017) and encourage early adopters to put forth pedagogical changes such as in teacher training models.

Closing Remarks

Of note, while we outlined an emerging discourse that emphasizes process and posits that everyone “can” transact their gift profile and become gift-ed, it is not our intention to discount the unique social-emotional challenges associated with exceptional cognitive development. As shown by research, some cognitively high-functioning individuals do exhibit social-emotional maladjustment in school settings (see, e.g., Adelson, 2007; Gross, 2002; Neihart, 1999; Webb, 2013) and/or demonstrate issues related to asynchronous development (see, e.g., Peterson, 2012, 2015; Robinson, 1996; Roeper, 2012). However, these findings were confined to cases studies and clinical studies that only pertained to a subpopulation among students conventionally identified as gifted (Richards, Encel, & Shute, 2003). Empirical studies have shown that the majority of students conventionally identified as gifted are well-adjusted and demonstrate fewer social-emotional issues in comparison to their age peers (e.g., Garland & Zigler, 1999; Nail & Evans, 1997; Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; Richards et al., 2003; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012; Terman & Oden, 1947). That said, while some learning, social-emotional, and/or developmental challenges are unique to people who exhibit high cognitive functions, having a score that surpasses a predetermined cutoff (e.g., above two standard deviations in a normalized distribution) on a cognitive test does not always equate to the needs mentioned above. Moreover, when gifted is used as an educational category, it could foster the inaccurate belief that it represents a homogenous group who exhibit similar traits and face similar challenges (Guldemond, Bosker, Kuyper, & van der Werf, 2007; Shaywitz et al., 2001). Pedagogically speaking, limiting services to the group of students identified as gifted might very well dismiss some advanced learning needs demonstrated by students who do not score high enough in a cognitive test at a given time (Peters, 2016; Peters, Kaufman, Matthews, McBee, & McCoach, 2014). Indeed, as Peters (2016) resoundingly argued, “the end goal of K-12 gifted education is to provide students in need with some service or intervention that they would not otherwise receive” (p. 125).

Here, we have argued for a sensible and nonreductionist gifted education that could potentially have a two-pronged approach. First and foremost, it should strive to promote an education that is gifted wherein all students are encouraged and supported in becoming gifted in an enriched learning environment. By doing so, the field of gifted education can find a broadened relevance to general education as well as set a justifiable ground for serving students with more advanced learning needs. Second, when considering serving students with advanced leaning needs, the core mission should be identifying discrepancies between a student and a regular grade-level curriculum and providing a more optimal match between child and curriculum (Peters, 2016; Robinson & Robinson, 1982). As Peters, Matthews et al. (2014) articulated, “It is not high ability itself that creates a need for intervention; rather, it is a mismatch between the child’s ability and the pacing, depth, and content of the instruction provided that creates the need for intervention” (p. 27). Correspondingly, Lo and Porath (2017) also suggested that gifted educators discern the differences between a person-based pedagogy (that sees giftedness as an innate condition) and a needs-based pedagogy (that sees learning needs as locally realized “conditionality” [p. 345]).

It is clear that the field of gifted education has been undergoing some conceptual shifts in recent years (see Lo & Porath, 2017). While a new discourse is emerging, our hope is that this article has contributed to further clarification and to engage more conversation in the development of the emerging discourse. Since its modern onset in the 1920s, the field of gifted education has gained a firm conceptual foothold based in psychometric studies and put forth many meaningful practices. By delineating the emerging discourse and a new wave of thinking, we have presented an opportunity for field researchers and educators to reflect on what intellectual and pedagogical legacy we could and would like to establish in the years to come. Once we are engaged in efforts to understand the complexity of giftedness and what makes it, we can further pursue a productive discourse on the realization of its conceptual promises.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

C. Owen Lo

Author Biographies

C. Owen Lo is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education at the University of British Columbia, Canada, where he directs gifted education programs and teaches courses in gifted education and qualitative methods. His current research is focused on policy analysis, narrative review, inclusive gifted education, educational labeling, and teacher training and professional development.

Marion Porath was a professor emerita at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Her research interests included the development of giftedness across the life span, arts-based approaches to studying giftedness, and neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive and emotional development.

Hsiao-Ping Yu is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education at National Taiwan Normal University. Her recent research interests speak to issues related to gender, gifted education curriculum development, gifted program evaluation, and teacher training and professional development.

Chen-Ming Chen is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education at National Kaohsiung Normal University. His recent research interests include science education, talent rearing, STEM gifted education, and teacher training and professional development.

Kuei-Fang Tsai is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education at National Pingtung University. She is currently holding the chair position in the department. Her research interests include teacher training, teacher belief and efficacy, and curriculum development in gifted education.

I-Chen Wu is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Her research focuses on self-knowledge, self-determination, and learning experiences of students with special needs. She is currently working on a federally funded researcher project that focuses on self-knowledge and self-inclusion.

References

Adelson

J. L.

(2007). A “perfect” case study: Perfectionism in academically talented fourth graders. Gifted Child Today, 30(4), 14-20. doi:10.4219/gct-2007-490

Amabile

T. M.

(1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Assouline

Lupkowski-Shoplik

Colangelo

(2017). Academic acceleration. In Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

M. C.

(Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 1-19). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Aviram

Assor

(2010). In defence of personal autonomy as a fundamental educational aim in liberal democracies: A response to Hand. Oxford Review of Education, 36, 111-126. doi:10.1080/03054981003593480

Barab

S. A.

Plucker

J. A.

(2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165-182. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3

Barab

S. A.

Roth

W. M.

(2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3-13. doi:10.3102/0013189X035005003

Beghetto

R. A.

Kaufman

J. C.

(2010). Broadening conceptions of creativity in the classroom. In Beghetto

R. A.

Kaufman

J. C.

(Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 191-205). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Beghetto

R. A.

Kaufman

J. C.

(2014). Classroom context for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25, 53-69. doi:10.1080/13598139.2014.905247

Benzies

K. M.

Allen

M. N.

(2001). Symbolic interactionism and a theoretical perspective for multiple method research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33, 541-547. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01680.x

10.

Betts

Kapushion

Carey

R. J.

(2016). The autonomous learner model. In Ambrose

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century (pp. 201-220). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

11.

Blumer

(1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

12.

Borland

J. H.

(1997). The construct of giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3-4), 6-20. doi:10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681863

13.

Borland

J. H.

(2013). Problematizing gifted education. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 69-80). New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Brody

L. E.

(2017). Meeting the individual educational needs of students by applying talent search principles to school settings. In Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

M. C.

(Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 43-63). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

15.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015, August). Introduction to British Columbia’s redesigned curriculum. Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/pdf/curriculum_intro.pdf

16.

Bunge

(2000). Systemism: The alternative to individualism and holism. Journal of Socio-Economics, 29, 147-157. doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00058-5

17.

Carl

(2009). Industrialization and public education: Social cohesion and social stratification. In Cowen

Kazamias

A. M.

(Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 503-518). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

18.

Charon

J. M.

(1995). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

19.

Chemero

(2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15, 181-195, doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5

20.

Coles

(1998). The moral intelligence of children: How to raise a moral child. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

21.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2014). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In The systems model of creativity (pp. 46-61). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

22.

Curtis

Carter

(2003). Designs for living and learning. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

23.

Dai

D. Y.

(2017). Envisioning a new foundation for gifted education: Evolving complexity theory (ECT) of talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 172-182. doi:10.1177/0016986217701837

24.

Dai

D. Y.

Chen

(2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57,251-168. doi:10.1177/0016986213490020

25.

Dai

D. Y.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2008). Snowflakes, living system, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114-130. doi:10.1177/0016986208315732

26.

Davis

Sumara

Luce-Kapler

(2015). Engaging minds: Cultures of education and practices of teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

de Ruyter

D. J

. (2003). The importance of ideals in education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37, 467-482. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.00339

28.

Dearden

R. F.

(1983). Autonomy and intellectual education. Early Child Development and Care, 12, 211-228. doi:10.1080/0300443830120303

29.

Dewey

(1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: MacMillan.

30.

Dweck

C. S.

(2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine.

31.

Edwards

Gandini

Forman

(2011). Introduction: Background and starting point. In Edwards

Gandini

Forman

(Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation (3rd ed., pp. 5-26). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

32.

Elfrink

M. W.

(2008). Helping students understanding and accept their learning disabilities: The demystification conference. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/6157/

33.

Feldhusen

J. F.

(1994). Talent Identification and Development in Education (TIDE). Gifted Education International, 10, 10-15. doi:10.1177/026142949401000103

34.

Feuerstein

Rand

Huffman

M. B.

Miller

. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

35.

Feuerstein

Rand

Jensen

Kaniel

Tzuriel

Shachar

N. B.

Mintzker

(1986). Learning potential assessment. Special Services in the Schools, 2(2-3), 85-106. doi:10.1300/J008v02n02_07

36.

Fogarty

(2008). The intelligence-friendly classroom: It just makes sense. In Presseisen

B. Z.

(Ed.), Teaching for intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 142-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

37.

Freeman

(2002). Out-of-school educational provision for the gifted and talented around the world. London, England: Department for Education and Skills, U.K. Government.

38.

Gagné

(2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119-147. doi:10.1080/1359813042000314682

39.

Gagné

(2017). The integrated model of talent development (IMTD): From theory to educational applications. In Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

M. C.

(Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 149-182). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

40.

Galton

(1869). Hereditary genius. London, England: MacMillan.

41.

Gardner

(2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.

42.

Garland

A. F.

Zigler

(1999). Emotional and behavioral problems among highly intellectually gifted youth. Roeper Review, 22, 41-44. doi:10.1080/02783199909553996

43.

Gibson

E. J.

(2000). Where if the information for affordances. Ecological Psychology, 12, 53-56. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1201_5

44.

Gibson

J. J.

(1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Original work published in 1979)

45.

Goleman

(1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

46.

Greeno

J. G.

(1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101, 336-342. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.336

47.

Gross

(2002). Social and emotional issues for exceptionally intellectually gifted students. In Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children (pp. 19-30). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

48.

Guldemond

Bosker

Kuyper

van der Werf

(2007). Do highly gifted students really have problems? Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 555-568. doi:10.1080/13803610701786038

49.

Heard

McDonough

(2009). A place for wonder. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

50.

Helm

J. H.

Beneke

Steinheimer

(1998). Windows on learning: Documenting young children’s work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

51.

Henry

T. S.

(1920). Classroom problems in the education of gifted children. In The nineteenth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

52.

Hertzog

N. B.

(2017). Designing the learning context in school for talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 219-228. doi:10.1177/0016986217705712

53.

Hollingworth

L. S.

(1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York, NY: MacMillan.

54.

Hollingworth

L. S.

(1938). An enrichment curriculum for rapid learner at Public School 500. Teachers College Record, 39, 296-306.

55.

Hymer

B. J.

(2009). Beyond compare? Thoughts towards an inclusional, fluid, and nonnormative understanding of giftedness. In Balchin

Hymer

Matthews

D. J.

(Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 299-307). London, England: Routledge.

56.

Hymer

B. J.

(2012). An act of GRACE? What do contemporary understandings in psychology have to contribute to the future of gifted education? Gifted Education International, 29, 108-124. doi:10.1177/0261429412447707

57.

Jackson

N. E.

(2000). Strategies for modeling the development of giftedness in children. In Friedman

R. C.

Shore

B. M.

(Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 27-54). Washington, DC: American Psychological.

58.

Jensen

A. R.

(2002). Galton’s legacy to research on intelligence. Journal of Biosocial Science, 34, 145-172. doi:10.1017/S0021932002001451

59.

Johnsen

S. K.

Parker

S. L.

Farah

Y. N.

(2015). Providing services to students with gift and talents within a Response-to-Intervention framework. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 226-233. doi:10.1177/0040059915569358

60.

Jolly

J. L.

(2007). Historical perspectives: Guy. M. Whipple. Gifted Child Today, 30(1), 55-57. doi:10.4219/gct-2007-21

61.

Jolly

J. L.

(2018). A history of American gifted education. New York, NY: Routledge.

62.

Kingore

(2001). Biographies and autobiographies: Life models in the classroom. Understanding Our Gifted, 13(3), 13-15.

63.

Kornhaber

Krechevsky

Gardner

(1990). Engaging intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 25, 177-199. doi:10.1080/00461520.1990.9653110

64.

Lidz

C. S.

Elliott

J. G.

(2006). Use of dynamic assessment with gifted students. Gifted Education International, 21, 151-161. doi:10.1177/026142940602100307

65.

C. O.

(2014). Labeling and knowing: A reconciliation of implicit theory and explicit theory among students with exceptionalities. Journal of Educational Research, 107, 281-298. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.807490

66.

C. O.

Porath

(2017). Paradigm shifts in gifted education: An examination vis-a-vis its historical situatedness and pedagogical sensibilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 343-360. doi:10.1177/0016986217722840

67.

Lupart

J. L.

(2012). Toward a unified system of education: Where do we go from here? Exceptionality Education International, 22(2), 3-7. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol22/iss2/3

68.

Lupart

Webber

(2012). Canadian schools in transition: Moving from dual education systems to inclusive schools. Exceptionality Education International, 22(2), 8-37. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol22/iss2/4

69.

Matthews

M. S.

Ritchotte

J. A.

Jolly

(2014). What’s wrong with giftedness? Parents’ perceptions of the gifted label. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 24, 372-393. doi:10.1080/09620214.2014.990225

70.

McBee

M. T.

McCoach

D. B.

Peters

S. J.

Matthews

M. S.

(2012). The case for a schism: A commentary on Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (2011). Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 210-214. doi:10.1177/0016986212456075

71.

McBee

M. T.

Shaunessy

Matthews

(2012). Policy matters: An analysis of district-level efforts to increase the identification of underrepresented learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 326-244. doi:10.1177/1932202X12463511

72.

McWilliams

Plucker

(2014). Brain cancer, meat glue, and shifting models of outstanding human behavior: Smart contexts for the 21st century. Talent Development and Excellence, 6(1), 47-55.

73.

Nail

J. M.

Evans

J. G.

(1997). The emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents: A view of global functioning. Roeper Review, 20, 18-21. doi:10.1080/02783199709553845

74.

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). What is gifted? Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/what-giftedness

75.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RtI: A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.

76.

Nazzaro

J. N.

(1977). Exceptional timetables: Historic events affecting the handicapped and gifted. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

77.

Neihart

(1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical studies say? Roeper Review, 22, 10-17. doi:10.1080/02783199909553991

78.

Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children. What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

79.

Peters

S. J.

(2016). The bright versus gifted comparison: A distraction from what matters. Gifted Child Today, 39, 125-127. doi:10.1177/1076217516628917

80.

Peters

Erstad

Matthews

M. S.

(2017). Advanced academics. In Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

M. C.

(Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 267-282). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

81.

Peters

S. J.

Kaufman

S. B.

Matthews

M. S.

McBee

M. T.

McCoach

D. B.

(2014, April 15). Gifted ed. is crucial, but the label isn’t. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/04/16/28peters_ep.h33.html

82.

Peters

Matthews

M. S.

McBee

M. T.

McCoach

D. B.

(2014). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

83.

Peterson

J. S.

(2012). The asset–burden paradox of giftedness: A 15-year phenomenological, longitudinal case study. Roeper Review, 34, 244-260. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.715336

84.

Peterson

J. S.

(2015). School counselors and gifted kids: Respecting both cognitive and affective. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 153-162. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00191.x

85.

Plucker

Barab

(2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness: Learning to embrace the messy joys of subjectivity. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 201-216). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

86.

Plucker

J. A.

Makel

Matthews

M. S.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

(2017). Blazing new trails: Strengthening policy research in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 210-218. doi:0016986217701838

87.

Plucker

J. A.

McWilliams

Guo

(2017). Smart contexts for 21st-century talent development. In Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

M. C.

(Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 227-248). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

88.

Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

(2017). Introduction. In Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

M. C.

(Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. ix-xviii). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

89.

Porath

(2012). Thinking inclusively about gifted education: A tribute to Judy Lupart. Exceptionality Education International, 22(2), 40-41. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol22/iss2/6

90.

Porath

(2013). The gifted personality: What are we searching for and why? Talent Development & Excellence, 5, 5-10. doi:10.1097/00004703-1982090000

91.

Prensky

(2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816

92.

Pufall

Dunbar

(1992). Perceiving whether or not the world affords stepping onto or over: A developmental study. Ecological Psychology, 4, 17-38. doi:10.1080/10407413.1992.10530791

93.

Purcell

J. H.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1998). Total talent portfolio: A systematic plan to identify and nurture gifts and talents. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

94.

Reis

(2003). Reconsidering regular curriculum for high achieving students, gifted underachievers, and relationship between gifted and regular education. In Borland

J. H.

(Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 186-200). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

95.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184. doi:10.1177/003172171109200821

96.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davison

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217-245). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

97.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2008). A practical approach for developing the gifts and talents of all students. In Presseisen

B. Z.

(Ed.), Teaching for intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 245-287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

98.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

99.

Richards

Encel

Shute

(2003). The emotional and behavioural adjustment of intellectually gifted adolescents: A multi-dimensional, multi-informant approach. High Ability Studies, 14, 153-164. doi:10.1080/1359813032000163889

100.

Robinson

Clinkenbeard

P. R.

(2008). History of giftedness: Perspectives from the past presage modern scholarship. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 13-31). New York, NY: Springer.

101.

Robinson

N. M.

(1996). Counseling agendas for gifted young people: A commentary. Journal for the Education for the Gifted, 20, 128-137.

102.

Robinson

N. M.

Robinson

H. B.

(1982). The optimal match: Devising the best compromise for the highly gifted student. New Directions for Child Development, 17, 79-94. doi:10.1002/cd.23219821708

103.

Roeper

(2012). Asynchrony and sensitivity. In Neille

Piechowski

C. S.

Tolan

S. S.

(Eds.), Off the charts! Asynchrony and the gifted (pp. 170-181). Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks.

104.

Rose

D. H.

Meyer

Strangman

Rappolt

(2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

105.

Rose

L. T.

Daley

S. G.

Rose

D. H.

(2011). Let the questions be your guide: MBE as interdisciplinary science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5, 153162. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01123.x

106.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

107.

Shaw

Turvey

Mace

(1982). Ecological psychology: The consequence of a commitment to realism. In Weimer

Palermo

(Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes (pp. 159-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

108.

Shaywitz

S. E.

Holahan

J. M.

Freudenheim

D. A.

Fletcher

J. M.

Makuch

R. W.

Shaywitz

B. A.

(2001). Heterogeneity within the gifted: Higher IQ boys exhibit behaviors resembling boys with learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 16-23. doi:10.1177/001698620104500103

109.

Shechtman

Silektor

(2012). Social competencies and difficulties of gifted children compared to nongifted peers. Roeper Review, 34, 63-72. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.627555

110.

Snow

R. E.

(1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5-32. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_3

111.

Stanley

J. C.

(1976). Concern for intellectually talented youths: How it originated and fluctuated. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 5(3), 38-42. doi:10.1080/15374417609532726

112.

Stedman

(1924). Education of the gifted. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.

113.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

114.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2003). WICS as a model of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14, 109-137. doi:10.1080/1359813032000163807

115.

Stoeger

Duan

Schirner

Greindl

Ziegler

(2013). The effectiveness of a one-year online mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education, 69, 408-418. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.032

116.

Sutherland

(2012). Paradigmatic shift or tinkering at the edges? High Ability Studies, 23, 109-111. doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679107

117.

Tannenbaum

A. J.

(2000). A history of giftedness in school and society. In Heller

K. A.

Mönks

F. J.

Sternberg

R. J.

Subotnik

R. F.

(Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 23-53). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

118.

Terman

L. M.

(1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

119.

Terman

L. M.

(1926). Genetic studies of genius: Volume 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

120.

Terman

L. M.

Oden

M. H.

(1947). Genetic studies of genius: Volume IV. The gifted child grows-up: Twenty-five years follow up of a superior group. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

121.

Terman

L. M.

Oden

M. H.

(1959). Genetic studies of genius: Volume V. The gifted group at mid-life. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

122.

Tirri

(2016). Holistic perspectives on gifted education for the 21st century. In Ambrose

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century (pp. 101-110). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

123.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

124.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Kaplan

S. N.

Renzulli

J. S.

Purcell

J. H.

Leppien

J. H.

Burns

D. E.

. . . Imbeau

M. B.

(2009). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and challenge advanced learners (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

125.

Treffinger

D. J.

Young

G. C.

Nassab

C. A.

Wittig

C. V.

(2004). Enhancing and expanding gifted programs: The levels of service approach. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

126.

Turvey

M. T.

Shaw

R. E.

(1995). Toward an ecological physics and a physical psychology. In Solso

R. L.

Massaro

D. W.

(Eds.), The science of the mind: 2001 and beyond (pp. 144-169). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

127.

VanTassel-Baska

(2001). Assessment of gifted student learning in the language arts. Journal of Advanced Academics, 13, 67-72. doi:10.4219/jsge-2002-369

128.

Vidergor

H. E.

(2015). Teaching a second language: Using biographies of eminent people to enhance creativity. In Vidergor

H. E.

Harris

C. R.

(Eds.), Applied practice for educators of gifted and able learners (pp. 543-558). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

129.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

130.

Wan

P. Y.

(2011). Reframing the social: Emergentist systemism and social theory. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

131.

Warren

E. H.

(1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 683-703. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.683

132.

Webb

J. T.

(2013). Searching for meaning: Idealism, bright minds, disillusionment, and hope. Tucson, AZ: Great Potential.

133.

Whipple

G. M.

(1919). Classes for gifted children. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.

134.

Young

M. F.

Depalma

Garrett

(2002). Situations, interaction, process and affordances: An ecological psychology perspective. Instructional Science, 30, 47-63.

135.

Ziegler

(2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411-436). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

136.

Ziegler

Stoeger

(2017). Systemic gifted education: A theoretical introduction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 183-193. doi:0016986217705713

137.

Ziegler

Vialle

(2017). Using the Actiotope Model of Giftedness to bridge the gap between experiences and practices. In Plucker

J. A.

Rinn

A. N.

Makel

M. C.

(Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 203-225). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Giftedness in the Making: A Transactional Perspective

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Giftedness as a Living Concept

Giftedness as Person-In-Situ Transactions

Giftedness as a Lived Process

From Discourse to Practices

Reconceptualizing Giftedness

A T:CAD Conception of Giftedness

Reorienting Gifted Education

From Essentialist Thinking to Inclusive Thinking

From Discrete Programming to Integrative Programming

From Identificational Assessment to Transactional Assessment

Closing Remarks

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References