This article consists of a step by step refutation of criticisms made by Dr. Hans Jellen in a presentation entitled “Renzulli-it-is: a national disease in gifted education” delivered at the Illinois State Conference on the Gifted, on 14th November 1983. The three-ring conception of giftedness (abilities, creativity and task orientation) is justified and supporting research is quoted. The Student Product Assessment Form (SPAF) is defended and compared to Jellen's unadopted S1U 0–100 Approach, and the widely adopted Enrichment Triad Model for developing programmes for the gifted is compared to Jellen's entirely untried “more-of-the-same” approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CooperC. (1983). Administrators' attitudes towards gifted programs based on enrichment Triad/Revolving Door Identification Model: Case studies in decision-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
2.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
3.
GardnerH. (1984). Assessing intelligences: A comment on testing Intelligence Without I.Q. tests. Phi Delta Kappan. 65, 699–700.
4.
GetzelsJ. W.JacksonP. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
5.
GubbinsJ. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of talent pool students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
6.
GuilfordJ. P. (1967). The nature of human intellience. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
JellenH. G. (1981). A multi-lingual glossary for differential education for the gifted (DEG). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.
8.
JellenH. G. (November 14, 1983). Renzulli-it-is: A National Disease in gifted education. Presentation at the Illinois State Conference on the Gifted, Peoria.
9.
MagoonR. A.JellenH. G. (1978). The SIU 0–100 approach: An effective way to motivate gifted students. G/C/T Magazine, 3, 46–50.
10.
McNemarQ. (1964). Lost: Our intelligence? Why? American Psychologist, 19, 871–882.
11.
MitchellB. M. (1982). An update on the state of gifted and talented education in the U.S.Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 357–358.
12.
PritchardM. C. (1951). The contribution of Leta S. Hollingworth to the study of gifted children. In WittyP., (Ed.), The Gifted Child. New York City: D. C. Heath, 47–85.
13.
ReisS. M. (1981). An analysis of the productivity of gifted students participating in programs using the revolving door identification model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
14.
ReisS. M.CellerinoM. B. (1983). Guiding gifted students through independent study. Teaching Exceptional Children, 15, 136–141.
15.
ReisS. M.GubbinsE. J.DelisleJ. R. (1981). The revolving door identification and programming model. Exceptional Children, 48, 152–156.
16.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (1982). A research report on the revolving door identification model: A case for the broadened conception of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 619–620.
17.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
18.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
19.
RenzulliJ. S. (1982). What makes a problem real: Stalking the ellusive meaning of qualitative differences in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, No. 4, 148–156.
20.
RenzulliJ. S. (1982). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Copernicus: We regret to inform you … Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 11–14.
21.
RenzulliJ. S. (1983). Guiding the gifted in the pursuit of real problems: The transformed role of the teacher. The Journal of Creative behavior17, No. 1, 49–59.
22.
RenzulliJ. S. (1984, revised). Technical report of research studies related to the revolving door identification model. Bureau of Educational Research, University of Connecticut.
23.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M.SmithL. H. (1981). The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
24.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H.ReisS. M. (1982). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working with gifted students. The Elementary School Journal, 82, 185–194.
25.
SpeedF. (August1984, in press). Survey of gifted programs in Canada 1984. Special Education in Canada, 58.
26.
StanleyJ. C.KeatingD. P.FoxL. H. (Eds.) (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
SternbergR. J. (1981). Intelligence and nonentrenchment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 1–16.
28.
SternbergR. J. (1982). Lies we live by: Misapplication of tests in identifying the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, No. 4, 157–161.
29.
SternbergR. J. (1984). Testing intelligence without I. Q. tests. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 694–698.
30.
TermanL. M. (1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist, 9, 221–230.
31.
TermanL. M. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 127–133.
32.
ThorndikeR. L. (1963). The measurement of creativity. Teachers College Record, 64, 422–424.
33.
TorranceE. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative behavior, 6, 236–252.
34.
VernonP. E. (1967). Psychological studies of creativity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 153–164.
35.
WardV. S. (1980). Differential education for the gifted. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office.
36.
WodtkeK. H. (1964). Some data on the reliability and validity of creativity tests at the elementary school level. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 21, 399–408.
