WG1: Introduction
Exam: seven open ended questions about mandatory literature and lectures. Questions are in English,
answers can be in English or Dutch. You can’t switch in between.
Children don’t show so obvious that they are talented. We don’t know if they’ll be a Nelson Mandela.
Someone might have so many talents and high abilities, that there is no spark, the person isn’t
happy, satisfied, healthy. These are all problems we see in young people and adults despite of or
because of their high abilities. We need to remember this: it’s not important that they are gifted or
not gifted. We want them to be happy and live a fulfilling life. We wish this for every child, but for
gifted children this might be a bigger challenge.
There are many definitions of giftedness, so you can say there isn’t one we can agree on. It makes
things complicated: people could be talking about different things when talking about giftedness. If
there isn’t one definition, are the myths and legends really myths? There are too many people who
think they know all about it and this can be harmful for the children. We create myths because we
don’t understand something, we’ll make up our own theory to understand it.
There are different theories and models about giftedness; there is a difference in the emphasis. The
most current models are multidimensional dynamic visions, e.g. Gagné: the achievements of a
student depend on innate capacities, personal and environmental factors. We all have natural
abilities. We all achieve on a certain level. The competencies don’t always reflect the natural abilities.
People look at the achievements (high grades = gifted). But something happens in between: it’s not
enough to have the natural abilities. There are other characteristics and the environment; they
influence the process. It can be positive to the development or it can hinder it. This is not the only
model that reflects this vision.
,Gagné did it a bit different: the intrapersonal influences and the environment are intertwined. The
way the environment influences the person, depends on the characteristics of the person. You have
to look at the person to know what kind of environment is needed. This makes it challenging.
Model of Subotnik. Eminence = excellence. There is some overlap in these models. It’s another way
of looking at it. They also say something about how you should teach in the different stages. At the
start, we should teach for falling in love. But we do a lot of teaching for technique and skip the first
step (make them curious). After this you need to mentor for personalized niche: cater to the person.
Little-c creativity: everyday creativity (solving a problem).
Big-c creativity: big arts (a painting).
WG2: Conceptions of Giftedness
When did we start talking about the concept of giftedness? Probably from when human kind existed,
they would talk about who is better in something than another. Being good in fighting was
considered as a gift.
We start at the end of the 19th century (Galthen, cousin of Darwin). The first one who looked at it in a
scientific way: what is genius? He observed people that he considered to be geniuses (all men
ofcourse). Het discovered that the fathers of these men were also geniuses. So he considered
genialness hereditary.
, 1904 (Spearman): in France, the first IQ test was made. It was to determine if children were able to
go to school. If we know beforehand, we don’t have to struggle: children with difficulties just don’t
go to school. Spearman said: we have a test, so now we have a factor which we can measure. The g-
factor.
1920: Stenfort-Binet test. Gifted group vs. non-gifted group. If someone is very intelligence, they
must have another problem (be socially awkward, etc). The children he followed were called the
termites (longitudinal). It was the first real investigation of the effects of intelligence. He found that
the gifted group had better studies, better jobs, more money and were happier in general. Some
individuals in the gifted group didn’t have that. Some of the non-gifted were. Two persons in de non-
gifted group got the Nobel Prize, nobody in the gifted group. He thought intelligence says everything
in life. But he found out it was not true. Then a lady said something about the environment of an
individual. The environment influences the process of intelligence.
1947: This person said there are more factors than the g-factor. Seven to be exact.
1966: Horn & Catell made a difference between crystallized and fluid intelligence.
1978: an article was published by Joseph Renzulli “what makes giftedness?”. This was
the start of a new way of looking at giftedness. It’s not only the intelligence that counts.
He also says it’s called “above average abilities”. It’s not the only thing you need to show
gifted behavior. You also need to be creative and have task commitment (the three ring
concept). He said there’s also a difference between the school-house giftedness (similar
to crystallized) and creative productive giftedness (similar to fluid).
Franz Mönks was impressed by the model of the previous guy, but he said he missed
something. He wanted to add the environment to the model: the multifactor model.
Another way of looking at it is Howard Garner’s way. We focus too
much on academic giftedness, and there are other kinds of giftedness
as well: multiple intelligences. A lot of critics that it wasn’t scientifically.
Maybe see it more like a vision.
Gagné makes clear that change is possible (see above for model).
Actiotope model (Ziegler): Quite similar to Gagné. Ziegler wants to stretch the dynamics more. Every
action that you do has influence on everything.
Exam: seven open ended questions about mandatory literature and lectures. Questions are in English,
answers can be in English or Dutch. You can’t switch in between.
Children don’t show so obvious that they are talented. We don’t know if they’ll be a Nelson Mandela.
Someone might have so many talents and high abilities, that there is no spark, the person isn’t
happy, satisfied, healthy. These are all problems we see in young people and adults despite of or
because of their high abilities. We need to remember this: it’s not important that they are gifted or
not gifted. We want them to be happy and live a fulfilling life. We wish this for every child, but for
gifted children this might be a bigger challenge.
There are many definitions of giftedness, so you can say there isn’t one we can agree on. It makes
things complicated: people could be talking about different things when talking about giftedness. If
there isn’t one definition, are the myths and legends really myths? There are too many people who
think they know all about it and this can be harmful for the children. We create myths because we
don’t understand something, we’ll make up our own theory to understand it.
There are different theories and models about giftedness; there is a difference in the emphasis. The
most current models are multidimensional dynamic visions, e.g. Gagné: the achievements of a
student depend on innate capacities, personal and environmental factors. We all have natural
abilities. We all achieve on a certain level. The competencies don’t always reflect the natural abilities.
People look at the achievements (high grades = gifted). But something happens in between: it’s not
enough to have the natural abilities. There are other characteristics and the environment; they
influence the process. It can be positive to the development or it can hinder it. This is not the only
model that reflects this vision.
,Gagné did it a bit different: the intrapersonal influences and the environment are intertwined. The
way the environment influences the person, depends on the characteristics of the person. You have
to look at the person to know what kind of environment is needed. This makes it challenging.
Model of Subotnik. Eminence = excellence. There is some overlap in these models. It’s another way
of looking at it. They also say something about how you should teach in the different stages. At the
start, we should teach for falling in love. But we do a lot of teaching for technique and skip the first
step (make them curious). After this you need to mentor for personalized niche: cater to the person.
Little-c creativity: everyday creativity (solving a problem).
Big-c creativity: big arts (a painting).
WG2: Conceptions of Giftedness
When did we start talking about the concept of giftedness? Probably from when human kind existed,
they would talk about who is better in something than another. Being good in fighting was
considered as a gift.
We start at the end of the 19th century (Galthen, cousin of Darwin). The first one who looked at it in a
scientific way: what is genius? He observed people that he considered to be geniuses (all men
ofcourse). Het discovered that the fathers of these men were also geniuses. So he considered
genialness hereditary.
, 1904 (Spearman): in France, the first IQ test was made. It was to determine if children were able to
go to school. If we know beforehand, we don’t have to struggle: children with difficulties just don’t
go to school. Spearman said: we have a test, so now we have a factor which we can measure. The g-
factor.
1920: Stenfort-Binet test. Gifted group vs. non-gifted group. If someone is very intelligence, they
must have another problem (be socially awkward, etc). The children he followed were called the
termites (longitudinal). It was the first real investigation of the effects of intelligence. He found that
the gifted group had better studies, better jobs, more money and were happier in general. Some
individuals in the gifted group didn’t have that. Some of the non-gifted were. Two persons in de non-
gifted group got the Nobel Prize, nobody in the gifted group. He thought intelligence says everything
in life. But he found out it was not true. Then a lady said something about the environment of an
individual. The environment influences the process of intelligence.
1947: This person said there are more factors than the g-factor. Seven to be exact.
1966: Horn & Catell made a difference between crystallized and fluid intelligence.
1978: an article was published by Joseph Renzulli “what makes giftedness?”. This was
the start of a new way of looking at giftedness. It’s not only the intelligence that counts.
He also says it’s called “above average abilities”. It’s not the only thing you need to show
gifted behavior. You also need to be creative and have task commitment (the three ring
concept). He said there’s also a difference between the school-house giftedness (similar
to crystallized) and creative productive giftedness (similar to fluid).
Franz Mönks was impressed by the model of the previous guy, but he said he missed
something. He wanted to add the environment to the model: the multifactor model.
Another way of looking at it is Howard Garner’s way. We focus too
much on academic giftedness, and there are other kinds of giftedness
as well: multiple intelligences. A lot of critics that it wasn’t scientifically.
Maybe see it more like a vision.
Gagné makes clear that change is possible (see above for model).
Actiotope model (Ziegler): Quite similar to Gagné. Ziegler wants to stretch the dynamics more. Every
action that you do has influence on everything.
