In this response to Renzulli's 25-year review of his work, I develop 3 questions for examining his perspectives: (a) Does Renzulli's conception reflect the gifted population? (b) Do school system practices reflect the conception? and (c) How do implemented practices of the model affect the school system and the gifted student? I argue that no classroom observational studies critically examine the dynamic interaction of Renzulli's Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, that within a school context it is difficult to operationalize, and that its complexity limits the number of implementation studies that focus on its effects. I suggest new questions for research and encourage studies that examine closely the database's underlying current practices promulgated in the field of gifted education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnastasiA. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
2.
BaumS. M.RenzulliJ. S.HébertT. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235.
3.
BorkowskiJ.PeckV. (1986). Causes and consequences of metamemory in gifted children. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 182–200. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BourneL. E. (1966). Human conceptual behaviour. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
5.
BrunerJ. S.GoodnowJ. J.AustinG. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
6.
CarrollJ. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A surveyof factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CronbachL. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
8.
DavidsonJ.SternbergR. (1984). The role of insight in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 58–64.
9.
DelcourtM. A. (1988). Creative/productive behavior in secondary school students: A multicase study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
10.
DelcourtM. A. (1993). Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining energy, interest, and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 23–31.
11.
DelisleJ. R.RenzulliJ. S. (1982). The revolving door identification and programming model: Correlates of creative production. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 89–95.
12.
GubbinsE. J. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of talent pool students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
13.
HickeyD. T. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 32, 175–193.
14.
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. (1988). P. L. 100–297, Title IV, Part B, Sec. 1101.
15.
JohnsenS. K. (1997). Assessment beyond definitions. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3 & 4), 136–152.
16.
JohnsenS. K.HaenslyP. A. (1996). Mustard seed project. (Final performance report for Javits Act Program, #R206A30106). Washington, DC: Office of Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education.
17.
JohnsenS. K.RyserG. (1997). The validity of portfolios in predicting performance in a gifted program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 253–267.
18.
KanevskyL.RapagnaS. (1990). Dynamic analysis of problem solving by average and high-ability children. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 6, 15–30.
19.
KeatingD. P.BobbittB. L. (1978). Individual and developmental differences in cognitive processing components of mental ability. Child Development, 49, 155–167.
20.
LidzC. S. (1997). Dynamic assessment approaches. In FlanaganD. P.GenshaftJ. L.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (pp. 281–296. New York: The Guilford Press.
21.
MarlandS. P.Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
22.
MerriamS. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
MessickS. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In WainerH.BraunH. I. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33–46. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
MossP. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229–258.
25.
OlenchakF. R.RenzulliJ. S. (1989). The effectiveness of the schoolwide enrichment model on selected aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 36–46.
26.
OliphantC. C. (1986). A descriptive study of factors associated with teacher identification of gifted students. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1691.
27.
ReisS. M.PurcellJ. H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom teachers in the curriculum compacting proces. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 147–171.
28.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (1982). A case for a broadened conception of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 619–620.
29.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
30.
RenzulliJ. S. (1986). Three-ring conception of giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
RenzulliJ. S. (1988a). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 298–409.
32.
RenzulliJ. S. (1988b). A decade of dialogue on the three-ring conception of giftedness. Roeper Review, 11, 18–25.
33.
RenzulliJ. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity through the pursuit of ideal acts of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 170–181.
34.
RenzulliJ. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 3–54.
35.
RenzulliJ. S.PurcellJ. H. (1996). Gifted education: A look around and a look ahead. Roeper Review, 18, 173–178.
36.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
37.
RimmS. B.DavisG. A. (1976). GIFT: An instrument for the identification of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10, 178–182.
38.
RobinsonA. W. (1980). A study of the effectiveness of a special class for academically gifted elementary students on the enhancement of the characteristics of giftedness. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1380.
39.
RitchieS. P. (1980). Creativity and risk-taking in young children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 539.
40.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (1992). Development of a causal model of processes determining job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 89–92.
41.
ScruggsT.MastropieriM. (1985). Spontaneous verbal elaborations in gifted and nongifted youths. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 1–10.
42.
SeegersG.BoekaertsM. (1993). Task motivation and mathematics achievement in actual task situations. Learning and Instruction, 3, 133–150.
43.
SengeP. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Currency Doubleday.
44.
ShavininaL. V.KholodnajaM. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 3–35.
45.
SieglerR. S.KotovskyK. (1986). Two levels of giftedness: Shall ever the twain meet? In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 417–435. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
SpanP.CorsmitOvertoom R. (1986). Information processing by intellectually gifted pupils solving mathematical problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 273–295.
47.
SpanglerR. S.SabatinoD. A. (1995). Temporal stability of gifted children's intelligence. Roeper Review, 17, 201–210.
48.
SpearmanC. E. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.
49.
SpeckA. M. (1984). The task commitment of young gifted children: A micro-ethnographic study of the effects of teacher and peer behavior on creative productivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
50.
ThorndikeR. M. (1997). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
51.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.Jr.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120–146.
52.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S.RodriguezD. (1998). The development of children's motivation in school contexts. In PearsonP. D.NejadIran A. (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 73–118. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
53.
WinebrennerS. (1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
