It is argued that the debate between Renzulli, on the one hand, and Jarrell and Borland, on the other, is miscast. Definitions (of giftedness or anything else) are not tested by empirical research, but rather serve as presuppositions for it, except in the case of research on implicit theories (people's conceptions). Three criteria are proposed for evaluating definitions. Renzulli's definition does fairly well, although of course not perfectly, in meeting these criteria. It is suggested we need to think in terms not only of multiple components of giftedness, but of multiple kinds of giftedness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JarrellR.BorlandJ. (1990). The research base for Renzulli's three-ring conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 288–308.
2.
RenzulliJ. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
3.
RenzulliJ. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In SternbergR.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 51–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
RenzulliJ. (1990). “Torturing data until They confess.” An analysis of the analysis of the three-ring conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 309–321.
5.
RenzulliJ.ReisS.SmithL. (1981). The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
6.
SternbergR. (1986). A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In SternbergR.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 223–243). New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
SternbergR. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In SternbergR. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 125–147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
SternbergR.DavidsonJ. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
