Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:38:00.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - The Development of Gifted and Talented Students’ Creativity in School Contexts

from Part V - Special Populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Sandra W. Russ
Affiliation:
Case Western Reserve University, Ohio
Jessica D. Hoffmann
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Although the development of creativity is an oft-stated goal for students, it is seldom infused into school curricula, nor are teachers explicitly trained on how to promote it within their classrooms, even in the context of selective programs. We have several goals for this chapter. The first is to describe our view of the current status of creativity education for advanced pre-university students, noting its minimal presence except in artistic domains. Second, we differentiate the concepts of gifted education and talent development, favoring the latter as the direction of the future for enhancing the role of creativity. Third, we address some challenges for applying creativity in the gifted and talented classroom.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychological Association, Center for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2017). Top 20 principles from psychology for pre-K–12 creative, talented, and gifted students’ teaching and learning. www.apa.org/ed/schools/teaching-learning/top-twenty-principles.aspxGoogle Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49 , 283291. doi:10.1177/001698620504900402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 97111. doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.1982.tb00326.xGoogle Scholar
Edmunds, A. L., & Edmunds, G. A. (2005). Sensitivity: A double-edged sword for the pre-adolescent and adolescent gifted child. Roeper Review, 27(2), 6977. doi:10.1080/02783190509554293Google Scholar
Gagné, F. (2013). The DMGT 2.0: From gifted inputs to talented outputs. In Callahan, C. M. & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 5668). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gere, D. R., Capps, S. C., Mitchell, D. W., & Grubbs, E. (2009). Sensory sensitivities of gifted children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(3), 288295. doi:10.5014/ajot.63.3.288CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality, 33(3), 309329. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6494.1965.tb01389.xGoogle Scholar
Jarvin, L., & Subotnik, R. F. (2010). Wisdom from conservatory faculty: Insights on success in music performance. Roeper Review, 32 , 7887. doi:10.1080/02783191003587868Google Scholar
Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24, 18311836. doi:10.1177/0956797613478615Google Scholar
McClusky, K. W., Baker, P. A., & McCluskey, A. L. A. (2005). Creative problem solving with marginalized populations: Reclaiming lost prizes through in-the-tranches interventions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 330341. doi:10.1177/001698620504900406Google Scholar
Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Creative out-of-school activities in intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishment in young adults: A longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 7787. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nusbaum, E., & Silvia, P. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39, 3645. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002Google Scholar
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2017). The role of domains in the conceptualization of talent. Roeper Review, 39, 5969. doi:10.1080/02783193.2017.1247310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. (2015). Talent development as a framework for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 38, 4959. doi:10.1177/1076217514556531Google Scholar
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns for creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18, 948952. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9280.2007.02007.xGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalysis of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103114. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_3Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock.Google Scholar
Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 127151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10692–008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaheen, R. (2010). Creativity and education. Creative Education, 1, 166169. doi:10.4236/ce.2010.13026Google Scholar
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158176. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860Google Scholar
Stanley, J. C. (1980). On educating the gifted. Educational Researcher, 9(3), 812. doi:10.2307/1175006Google Scholar
Starko, A. (2018). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27, 1120. doi:10.3102/0013189X027003011Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Edmiston, A. M., Cook, L., & Ross, M. D. (2010). Mentoring for talent development, creativity, social skills, and insider knowledge: The APA Catalyst Program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 714739. doi:10.1177/1932202x1002100406Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1) 354. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056Google Scholar
Tirri, K. (2007). Comparison of academically average and gifted students’ self-rated ethical sensitivity. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 587601. doi:10.1080/13803610701786953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tirri, K. (2011). Combining excellence and ethics: Implications for moral education for the gifted. Roeper Review, 33(1), 5964. doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.530207Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms–technical manual. Princeton, NJ: Personal Press.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1977). Creativity in the classroom: What research says to the teacher. Washington, DC: NEA.Google Scholar
Vuyk, M. A., Krieshok, T. S., & Kerr, B. A. (2016). Openness to experience rather than overexcitabilities: Call it like it is. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 192211. doi:10.1177/0016986216645407Google Scholar
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484492. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.97.3.484Google Scholar
Worrell, F. C., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2019). The psychology of high performance: Overarching themes. In Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (Eds.), The psychology of high performance: Developing human potential into domain specific talent (pp. 369385). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/0000120–018Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×