tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post898359375344308105..comments2024-03-19T22:10:49.383-04:00Comments on Gifted Challenges™: What's in a Name? Gifted or High Aptitude Learner?Gail Post, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01482577821092891593noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post-51173275584863453612013-12-16T09:19:49.636-05:002013-12-16T09:19:49.636-05:00Rebecca,
Thank you for your comprehensive response...Rebecca,<br />Thank you for your comprehensive response. I actually don't think my post was in disagreement with what you state. I am not in favor of "achievement" as an indicator of giftedness. In fact, I was suggesting aptitude as another construct to move away from that assumption. However, I see your point that the term aptitude can preclude the understanding that giftedness incorporates the emotional sensitivities. Unfortunately, the term "gifted" also precludes that understanding and incites a range of controversy among people who resent the term. Regardless, gifted individuals require advocacy. I appreciate your energy toward that effort. <br /> Gail Post, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01482577821092891593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6702344196398061245.post-73419564769776730472013-12-16T01:01:21.622-05:002013-12-16T01:01:21.622-05:00I could not disagree with you more. As an advocate...I could not disagree with you more. As an advocate for gifted children, I feel that you definition ( as well as the entire movement toward talent development) leaves out a critical aspect of the gifted experience.In 1982, gifted advocate and legend Annmarie Roeper utilized her decade long years of research with gifted children to create her own definition of giftedness, stating “Giftedness is a greater awareness, a greater sensitivity, and a greater ability to understand and transform perceptions into intellectual and emotional experiences.” The majority of the public is not aware that giftedness has an emotional as well as an intellectual component. The concept of giftedness was broadened throughout the years to include a larger segment of the population in part, as an attempt to make it less elitist (Silverman, 1995). The change was driven by the acceptance and popularity in the community with Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory and his disdain for the IQ test. In accordance with this movement, the Columbus Group (1993) provided a new definition of giftedness that reads, “children and youth with outstanding talent perform or who the potential to perform at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared to others of their age, experience, or environment.” This movement from the term gifted to talented appears to move the focus on a child’s accomplishments and many feel that something critical is lost in the process. The shift in thinking focuses on a child’s performance in a particular area and this negates an entire realm of the gifted experience. In The Moral Sensitivity of Gifted Children and the Moral Evolution of Society, Silverman (1995) warns that this one dimensional view of giftedness neglects the interrelated constructs of the gifted experience in a way that provides a message to gifted children that their value is determined solely by their performance. In doing so, we lose the humanness and moral dimension of gifted experience. I agree with Jim Delisle (2001) in In Praise of Elitism when he says, “if being an elitist means that I believe gifted individuals need to be understood as the complex intellectual and emotional beings that they are, then I suppose I am elitist. I feel that the field has moved in a negative direction with the movement toward talent development because of its focus on achievement.rebeccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03140909962435162583noreply@blogger.com