This article discusses kinds of transformational giftedness, or giftedness that makes a positive, meaningful, and possibly enduring difference to the world. We extend previous work by suggesting that there are two kinds of transformation that matter: self-transformation and other-transformation. Combining these two kinds of transformation yields a 2 × 2 grid of four kinds of giftedness: non-transformational giftedness (no transformation), transformational giftedness (self- and other-transformation combined), self-realized giftedness (whereby one transforms oneself but not others), and other-realized giftedness (whereby one transforms others but not oneself). We open with a discussion of some of the history of conceptions of giftedness. Then we discuss transformational giftedness as it has been defined in the recent past. We then introduce our concepts of self- and other-transformation. We also describe two other kinds of giftedness—inert giftedness, which is giftedness in personal attributes that has not been realized in interactions with others and the world; and transactional giftedness, which is a give-and-take form of giftedness whereby one meets certain societal expectations in exchange for being identified as gifted. We finally conclude that the gifted movement needs to focus much more on developing transformational giftedness, or at least the potential for it, in our young people.
Positive creativity is creativity that makes the world a better place—that makes a positive, meaningful, and potentially enduring difference to the world. Positive creativity can be a bit of a slippery concept in that, what is positive to one person or one group may be neutral or even negative to another group. Much of teaching young people for positive creativity, therefore, involves providing the tools to decide what positive creativity means to them, and teaching them how to defend their decision. This essay focuses especially on alternative conceptions of what positive creativity means. It considers a variety of approaches, such as definitional models—objective and subjective betterment; ratings, including from layperson and experts; philosophical models—utilitarian and categorical-imperative models; decision-theory models—minimax, maximin, and maximax models; psychologically based models—a Four-C model and a model based on wise creativity. The essay also discusses steps toward teaching explicitly for positive creativity.
Using Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory, this study investigated the school experiences of nine high-ability students from three secondary schools in rural Western India. Analyses of semistructured interviews revealed several interconnected systems of influences on the school experiences of participants. Intrapersonal aspects such as positive academic self-perceptions, constant pursuit for academic excellence, and mixed feelings about being formally identified as gifted directly affected school experiences. In the participants’ immediate environment, school aspects such as teacher–student relationships, teaching methods, and curricular content had the most prominent influence on their school experiences. Interactions between family and the school systems had direct and mixed influences on participants’ school experiences. Besides the adversities of rural education, participants emphasized the unique strengths of rural settings in India including the role of extended families, strong rural attachment, and positive relationships with school, teachers, and community that positively contributed to their school experiences. Implications for rural gifted education in India are discussed.
Most conceptions of giftedness overly focus on the gifted “individual” and leave out the social and global context in which the individual grows. However, human lives are intricately interconnected. An individual’s actions can have large effects on other individuals, societies, and nature. In this article, I argue a paradigm shift is needed in the way giftedness is construed today. I draw on the three C’s conception of giftedness in which gifted behaviors are seen as an interplay of competence in action, commitment to task, and concern for others. I discuss seven profiles of gifted behaviors: Profile 1—competent (high competence); Profile 2—committed (high commitment); Profile 3—concerned (high concern); Profile 4—indifferent expert (high competence and commitment); Profile 5—amateur altruist (high commitment and concern); Profile 6—uncommitted thinker (high competence and concern); and Profile 7—fully developing talent (high competence, commitment, and concern). Further, I discuss how this taxonomy can inform education and identification practices in gifted education.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.