The document discusses various models of giftedness, defining gifted individuals as those demonstrating exceptional ability or achievement across multiple domains such as mathematics, music, and language. It explores the interaction of creativity, above-average ability, and task commitment in determining giftedness, while also highlighting environmental factors and personal attributes that influence development. Additionally, the document addresses the psychological well-being of gifted children, suggesting that they often experience positive mental health outcomes compared to non-gifted peers, though some studies point to vulnerabilities due to social differences.

1. Gifted Children
 Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of
aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or
competence (documented performance or achievement in top
10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any
structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g.,
mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills
(e.g., painting, dance, sports)
(NAGC, n.d.)

2. Models of Giftedness
(Renzulli, 1986)
 Three- Ring Model: This model presents giftedness as an interaction of three attributes:
above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity
 Above average ability, task commitment, and creativity must ALL be present before the
criteria of giftedness can be met, otherwise the child is not considered to be gifted this
model makes a direct connection between creativity and giftedness.
 However, this connection does not “guarantee” giftedness, according to this particular
model. There must be an interaction with above-average ability and task commitment as
well.
 Criticism: A lack of consistency in definitions of creativity and a corresponding lack of
evidence for measurement validity are the primary critiques of the creativity ring
(Jarrell & Borland, 1990)

3. Triarchic Theory of Intelligence
 Sternberg (2000)
 giftedness is present when an individual demonstrates high levels of intelligence
Three types of intelligence:
 Analytic: consists of abilities used to analyze, judge, evaluate, compare
 Creative: consists of abilities used to create, invent, discover, imagine, suppose, and
hypothesize;
 Practical: and practical intelligence consists of abilities used to apply, put into practice, and
implement.
 The individual must capitalize on strengths and compensate for weaknesses; adapt to, shape,
and select environments; and balance the three aspects
 According to this theory, an individual can be strong or weak in any given type of intelligence.
 Given this postulate, it only follows that giftedness can be manifested within any of the three
areas and that different “combinations” of strengths and weaknesses can lead to different
patterns of giftedness If children are matched with their strengths, according to their pattern of
giftedness, their educational experience has the potential to be enhanced.
(Sternberg, 2000)

4. Star Model:
Tannenbaum (2003)
 superior general Intelligence
 distinctive special aptitudes
 Non- intellective
 Requisites
 environmental supports
 Chance
 this conceptualization of giftedness is applied more broadly, not limiting itself to
academic achievement or a single domain
 Considers traditional concept of giftedness (Superior Intelligence) but also
considers domain specific abilities ( Distinctive special aptitude)
 Considers the factors outside of gifted person (Chance, environmental support)
 The non intellective requisites refer to creativity, motivation, self-concept, and any
other individual characteristics related to giftedness but not falling within a strictly
cognitive realm of functioning

5.  This model extends the conceptualization of giftedness outside of the focus on the individual
to acknowledge the importance of environmental factors and the role of chance, which
sets it apart from the previously discussed theories of giftedness. (Nurture aspect of
giftedness)
 Another difference between the star model and the others presented thus far is the
treatment of creativity as a construct. The star model places creativity and motivation in the
same category (non intellective requisites), whereas the three-ring model acknowledges
these elements as separate from one another that interact,

6. Dynamic Theory
 Babaeva (1999)
 Based on Vygovsky’s theory sociocultural environment presents a barrier for
positive psychological development process of compensation to overcome
the obstacle successful adjustment and incorporation of the experience into
future functioning
(Vygotsky, 1997)
 Due to these barriers and generated solutions, the individual incorporates
the information into a higher level of functioning, eventually resulting in the
manifestation of giftedness.
 Babaeva found that creativity increased over time for children who were
placed in classrooms using challenging curricula, developed based on the
Dynamic Theory of Giftedness, that were slightly above their ability level.
 emphasizes the process of how giftedness develops It also diverges from the
other models in its reliance on environmental factors in the
conceptualization of giftedness.

7. Domain Specific: Musical and Artistic
 (Winner, 2000)
 focused on the development and characteristics of artistic and musical giftedness.
 According to this theory, giftedness is defined by precocity, intense motivation, and
qualitative differences in learning and understanding the information in the domain
 Makes differences between creativity with “c” ( solving problems, making discoveries in
novel ways) and “C” (making changes on the level of the domain)
 This model attributes the presence of giftedness to a combination of innate aptitude
coupled with an intense drive to develop mastery of the domain and asserts that hard work
in the absence of a predisposed ability is not sufficient to develop giftedness
 rather than citing creativity as one of many components of giftedness, this theoretical
perspective states that “creativity is an inextricable part of giftedness”
(Winner, 2003)

8. Critical points to consider:
 Though the nature–nurture debate is not confined to the field of gifted research, this theory
emphasizes the nurture explanation, which contrasts with other theories that focus on the
nature aspect or a combination of both.
 Other models, such as the three-ring model, dodge this debate entirely, focusing on how
the various components interact instead of how the components have come into
existence.
 The star model does acknowledge that the elements of giftedness can change and
fluctuate, which is a main characteristic of the dynamic theory, but the star model also
asserts that some stable and unchanging aspects of the components are present, which
the dynamic theory does not.
(Miller, 2012)

9. Differentiated Model of Giftedness:
 Gagne (1999)
 makes a distinction between giftedness, considered to be aptitude domains;
talents, considered to be fields in which these aptitudes are expressed; and
developmental processes, considered to be the connecting path between the
abilities of giftedness and their expression as talents
 Additionally, this model acknowledges how intrapersonal characteristics,
environmental factors, and chance can also influence different aspects of the
process.
 Giftedness
 developmental processes
 talent expression
 intrapersonal attributes
 environmental factors
 Chance
(Gagne, 2009)

10. Psychological Well-being
 Lombroso (1891) ‘divergence hypothesis: exceptionally high levels of intelligence are
associated with maladjustment and potentially psychopathology.
 This viewpoint was supported by works published by subsequent theorists, such as Witty and
Lehman (1929) and Kretschmer (1931).
 Seemingly since this time, there has been a common perception that giftedness is
inexorably coupled with poor psychological well-being (Nail & Evans, 1997).
 Terman (1947) reported that data from his sample of over 1500 gifted people (all with
Stanford-Binet IQs over 140) indicated that there was no difference between the wellbeing
of these individuals and non-gifted members of the general population. (Terman’s scale
however was limited in representation of young people from other ethnic backgrounds)
 there was a suggestion that the gifted group were in fact better adjusted than the ‘normal’
population
(Walker & Pernu, 2002).

11. Hollingworth (1942) suggested;
 gifted group who experience poor mental health is a subset of talented and gifted.
“exceptionally gifted” (1% of population).
 These children attempt deliberate underachievement to be socially more acceptable
 For children who’s IQ is higher than 160, are too different from their peers, therefore social
isolation is unavoidable.
 “socially optimal giftedness” (between 125- 155)
 There appears to be a small but measurable
 difference between gifted and non-gifted
 learners in terms of their scores on indicators of mental health and well-being, favouring the
gifted and talented students.
 That is, in general gifted children and young people experience more positive psychological
health and well-being than their non- gifted peers.

12.  Primary and secondary school-aged gifted pupils had more positive outcomes than their
non gifted counterparts, so age does not seem to have an affect
 No evidence to suggest that the educational environment of students (mainstream schools
or targeted ‘pull-out’ programmes) has a differential impact on their mental health and
well-being.
 Psychological well-being measures related to self-concept and self-esteem did not appear
to consistently favour either gifted or non-gifted individuals; by comparison, gifted learners
received significantly more positive scores on indicators of mental health.
 There does not appear to be a difference in psychological health and well-being indicators
for students classified as ‘exceptionally gifted’ compared to the wider ‘gifted’ grouping.
(Jones, 2013)

13. Two dominant views:
 Gifted children are protected from maladjustment by their superior intelligence.
 Gifted children are better adjusted than not gifted ones, because they have better
understanding of themselves and others due to their cognitive capacities, they cope better
with stress and conflicts
 It is supported by many studies
(Baker, 1995; Jacobs, 1971; Kaiser, Berndt, & Stanley, 1987; Neihart, 1991; Ramasheshan,1957;
Scholwinski & Reynolds, 1985).
 Gifted children are more vulnerable to adjustment difficulties due to their difference.
 Gifted children are more sensitive to interpersonal issues and experience greater degrees of
alienation and exclusion due to their cognitive capacities.
(Lombroso, 1889)

14. Controversial findings of studies;
 No difference in self- concept between gifted and non-gifted children
(Tong & Yewchuk, 1996)
 Gifted children have significantly more positive self concepts
(Milgram & Milgram, 1976)
 Gifted children have lower self- concept
(Lea-Wood & Clunies-Ross, 1995)
 Literature suggests that gifted children exhibit same or lower levels of depression or
anxiety than non- gifted children (Mash & Barkley, 1996, Parker, 1996)
 There is no empirical support for higher levels of depression among gifted children
and adolescents.
 gifted sample exhibited significantly more prosocial behaviour. The gifted children
interacted more cooperatively and demonstrated more sharing of playthings than
did the average children. In this study gifted children demonstrated advanced
social skills
(Martin, 2010, Barnett & Fischela, 1985)

15.  Some studies show that children with IQ > 120, are more vulnerable to eating disorders
(Dally & Gomez, 1979) however some contradicts this finding (Touyiz, 1986).
 Garner (1991) suggested that early labelling of Children as gifted, will increase parental
expectations for performance which can lead to perfectionism.
 Parents also may over valuate children’s abilities, which would increase the child’s
expectation to meet parental needs.
 Perfectionism, competitiveness, and high performance expectations from others are
characteristics of the gifted that are viewed as possible contributors to the onset of eating
disorders.