This study aims to provide a better understanding of high intellectual abilities and of how to address the educational needs of those who possess such abilities. Within the emergent paradigm, high intellectual abilities are understood as multidimensional and as the result of lifetime development; that is, not only are they the result of their neurobiological basis but also of the interrelation among opportunity, personality, psychosocial factors, and individual effort. This study describes the basis of a program of extracurricular enrichment and its interrelation with research procedures and results.
BartfurthM.RitchieK. C.IrvingJ.ShoreB. (2009). A metacognitive portrait of gifted learners. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness: Part IV (pp. 397-417). New York, NY: Springer.
2.
BennettG. K.SeashoreH. G.WesmanA. G. (2000). Test de aptitudes diferenciales (DAT-5) manual [Differential Aptitude Test]. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones.
3.
Besjes-de BockK. M.RuyterD. J. (2011). Five values of giftedness. Roeper Review, 33, 198-207.
4.
BettsG. T.NeihartM. (2004). Profiles of the gifted and talented. In SternbergR.J. (Ed.), Definitions and conceptions of giftedness (pp. 97-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
5.
CastellóA. (2008). Bases intelectuales de la excepcionalidad: Un esquema integrador [Intellectual foundations of exceptionality: An integration scheme]. Revista española de Pedagogía, 240, 203-220.
6.
CastellóA.BatlleC. (1998). Aspectos teóricos e instrumentales en la identificación del alumnado superdotado y talentoso. Propuesta de un protocol [Theoretical and instrumental aspects on the identification of gifted and talented students: A proposal form]. Faisca Revista Altas Capacidades, 6, 26-66.
7.
ChanD. W. (2010). Healthy and unhealthy perfectionists among academically gifted Chinese students in Hong-Kong: Do different classification schemes make a difference?Roeper Review, 32, 88-97.
8.
DaiD. (2005). Reductionism versus emergentism: A framework for understanding conceptions of giftedness. Roeper Review, 27, 144-151.
9.
DaiD.RenzulliJ. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114-130.
10.
DaiD.SwansonJ. A.ChengH. (2011). State of the research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998–2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 126-138.
GrigorenkoE. (2011). Recent research in the field of giftedness: The field in 30 minutes or less. Online Educational Research Journal. Available from http://www.oerj.org
13.
HartnettD. N.NelsonJ. M.RinnA. N. (2004). Gifted or ADHD? The possibilities of misdiagnosis. Roeper Review, 26, 73-76. doi:10.1080/02783190409554245
14.
HellerK. A. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness and its impact on identification and programming. Gifted and Talented International, 20, 30-36.
15.
International Panel of Experts for Gifted Education. (Ed.). (2009). Professional promotion of the gifted and talented: Recommendations for the qualification of experts in gifted education. Salzburgo, Austria: ÖZBF.
16.
JaušovecN. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative and average individuals while solving complex problems: An EEG study. Intelligence, 28, 213-237.
17.
JaušovecN.JaušovecK. (2004). Differences in induced brain activity during the performance of learning and working memory tasks related to intelligence. Brain Cognition, 54, 65-74.
18.
JinS. H.KwonY. J.JeongJ. (2006). Gifted and normal children during scientific hypothesis generation. Brain Cognition, 62, 191-197.
19.
MatthewsD. J.FosterJ. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 64-69.
20.
MillerE. R. (2004). Studying the meaning of giftedness: Inspiration from the field of cognitive psychology. Roeper Review, 27, 172-177.
PérezL. (2006). Alumnos con capacidad superior: Experiencias de intervención educative [Gifted students: Experiences of educative intervention]. Madrid, Spain: Síntesis.
23.
PyrytM. C. (2007). The giftedness/perfectionism: Recent research and implications. Gifted Education Intelligence, 23, 141-147.
24.
RenzulliJ. (2005). Equity, excellence, and economy in a system for identifying students in gifted education: A guidebook. Storrs, CT: NACGT.
25.
RosnerW. (in press). El perfeccionismo, ¿una cabeza de Janus? [Perfectionism: The head of Janus?]. En Sastre-RibaS. (Ed.), Alta capacidad intelectual, funcionamiento intelectual y programas de enriquecimiento. Bilbao, Spain: EdicionesG9.
26.
Sastre-RibaS. (2004). La superdotación a examen: Un abordaje psicológico [Giftedness in exam: A psychological analysis]. Faisca Revista de Altas Capacidades, 11, 5-16.
27.
Sastre-RibaS. (2011). Funcionamiento metacognitivo en niños con altas capacidades [Metacognitive functioning in gifted children]. Revista de Neurología, 52(s1), s11-s18.
28.
Sastre-RibaS.DomènechM. (2003). Metacognición y resolución diferencial de un problema de insight: Un estudio comparativo entre adolescentes con alta capacidad intelectual y aptitudes medias [Metacognition and differential resolution of an insight problem: A comparative study among adolescents with high intellectual ability and adolescents with average skills]. Faisca Revista Altas Capacidades, 10, 5-25.
29.
Sastre-RibaS.FonsecaE.SantarénM. (in press). El Cuestionario de satisfacción del alumnado [The student satisfaction survey] (CSA). Psicothema.
ShoreB. M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative differences in how gifted children think. In FriedmanR. C.ShoreB. M. (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 167-187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
32.
SteinerH. H. (2006). A microgenetic analysis of strategic variability in gifted and average-ability children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 62-74.
33.
SteinerH. H.CarrM. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Psychological Review, 15, 215-246.
34.
SynderK. E.NietfeldJ. L.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (2011). Giftedness and metacognition: A short term longitudinal investigation of metacognitive monitoring in the classroom. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 181-193.
35.
TorranceE. P. (1974). The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
36.
TreffingerD. J. (2009). Guest Editor Special Issue: Demythologising gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 229-232.
37.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 199-216.
38.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.JohnsenS. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 182-205.
39.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.MacFarlaneB.FengA. (2008). A cross-cultural study of exemplary teaching: What do Singapore and the United States secondary gifted class teachers say?Gifted and Talented International, 21, 38-47.
40.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.WoodS. (2010). The integrated curriculum model. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 345-357.
41.
VeenhamM. V. J.Van Hout-WoltersB. H. A. M.AfflerbachP. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14.
42.
WinnerE. (2000). Giftedness: Current theory and research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 153-156.
