What is giftedness renzulli

I have written in some detail about this transformed role of the learner Renzulli, a , and will only say at this point that it serves as the main rationale for the Type III dimension of the Enrichment Triad Model discussed later in this article. The idea for creative productive giftedness and the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness came from the broad range of research I reviewed on the nature of human abilities Renzulli, , b, as well as numerous case studies about people of unusual accomplishment both young people and adults who would not have been identified or served in special programs if we relied solely on cognitive ability test scores.

These observations also led me to another conclusion about the temporal and situational nature of creative productive giftedness, and especially the creativity and task commitment components of the Three Ring Conception.

Whereas lesson learning giftedness, which is mainly accounted for in the above average ability circle of the Three Ring Conception, tends to remain stable over time, persons do not always display maximum creativity or task commitment. Highly creative and productive people have peaks and valleys of high level output.

Some persons have commented that the valleys are as necessary as the peaks, because they allow for reflection, regeneration, and the accumulation of input for subsequent endeavors. Similarly, creative productive giftedness tends to be contextual or domain specific.

The temporal and situational nature of creative productive giftedness has resulted in some misunderstanding and criticism about the Three Ring Conception Kontos, et al. This Venn diagram was intended to convey figurally the dynamic properties of the concept, i.

But my best efforts at both semantic and figural communication have, nevertheless, resulted in interpretations that clearly were not intended.

It was for this very reason i. The primary purpose of a Venn diagram is to portray this type of interactive relationship. The issue of performance versus potential is probably the aspect of my work on the conception of giftedness that is most frequently discussed in the literature.

But first, allow me to highlight an important phrase from the original definition , p. My intention was to convey the message that all three clusters need not be manifested by candidates for special services; but rather that they be identified as capable of developing these characteristics. Webb et al. Similar statements focus on creativity. Since, to my knowledge, none of the above commentators did any research on students or programs using the Triad Model or the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, I am left with the uneasy feeling that their conjecture is more journalistic than scientific.

The major reason for the interpretations discussed above undoubtedly lies in the type of research that led me to the conclusions that are summarized in the research rationale for the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness Renzulli, , Since this research dealt mainly with factors that contributed to the development of creative and productive behavior in adults, an obvious but not necessarily valid conclusion on the parts of some writers is that these same traits should be required of children in order to gain admission to programs for the gifted.

It is, therefore, only a short leap in logic to the kinds of statements quoted above, and the belief that young people, regardless of ability, will be overlooked if they do not display task commitment or creativity. Clearly, this is not what I intended, but to understand the rationale and the practical implications for identification of the Three Ring Conception, we must examine another major concept underlying the model.

This concept is the important distinction between two types of information that allow us to examine and estimate human potential. Status information is undoubtedly the best way for identifying students with high levels of schoolhouse giftedness, and it can also be used to identify a talent pool of above average ability students. But the temporal and contextual nature of creativity and task commitment require that we look for these behaviors within situations where such behaviors are displayed and hopefully encouraged.

These interactions occur when students come into contact with or are influenced by persons, concepts, or particular pieces of knowledge. The influence of the interaction may be relatively limited, or it may have a highly positive and extremely motivating effect on certain individuals. If the influence is strong enough and positive enough to promote further exploration and follow-up on the part of an individual or group of students with a common interest, then we may say that a dynamic interaction has taken place.

In addition to the general enrichment provided in special program situations, we also trained classroom teachers to use a form called the Action Information Message so that they could serve as referral agents whenever students reacted in highly positive ways to regular classroom experiences.

Although this approach to identification and programming departs significantly from traditional practices, its effectiveness has been documented by a series of research studies and field tests in schools with widely varying socioeconomic levels and program organizational patterns.

The talent pools in each school were designated but not divided into two groups. Both groups participated equally in all program activities, and they were not aware of their group designations. This instrument provides individual ratings for eight specific characteristics of product quality and seven factors related to overall product quality. The validity and reliability of SPAF were established through a year-long series of studies that yielded reliability coefficients as high as 0.

A double blind method of product coding was used so that judges did not know group membership i. Questionnaires and interviews were used to examine several other factors related to overall program effectiveness. Many classroom teachers reported that their high level of involvement in the program had favorably influenced their teaching practices.

Parents whose children had been placed previously in traditional programs for the gifted did not differ in their opinions about the program from parents whose children had been identified as gifted under the expanded Three Ring Conception criteria.

And resource teachers—many of whom had been involved previously in traditional programs for the gifted—overwhelmingly preferred the expanded talent pool approach to traditional reliance on test scores alone. In fact, several resource teachers in the experimental study said that they would resign or request transfers to regular classrooms if their school systems reverted to traditional identification practices. This study established the importance of nonintellective factors in creative production and verified earlier research related to the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness.

Using a step-wise multiple regression technique to study the correlates of creative production, Gubbins found that above average ability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for high level productivity. The roles of task commitment and time commitment and the importance of student interests were verified.

Several factors related to improved productivity were identified. First, although the model provides special services to larger numbers of students than do traditional programs for the gifted, the greater involvement of classroom teachers especially through Curriculum Compacting and the rotation of students in and out of Type III enrichment activities actually increases, rather than decreases, the level of services to identified students.

Third, programs for the gifted that rely on traditional identification procedures may not be serving the wrong students, but they are certainly excluding large numbers of well above average pupils who, given the opportunity, resources, and encouragement are capable of producing equally good products. High levels of productivity can only occur when above average ability interacts with other factors such as task commitment and creativity. It is these other factors that enable students to create products of exceptional quality.

In a larger context, it also provides an alternative to the traditional approaches that have been the subject of so much criticism by anti-grouping advocates and persons concerned about the underrepresentation of minorities and low SES students in special programs. When I review the work of researchers such as Albert , Albert and Runco , Simonton and Sternberg , , to name just a few, I realize that we are dealing with an almost infinite number of interactions in the making of giftedness.

I was aware of this extended complexity, but being a pragmatic as well as theoretical person, I felt the need to concentrate on building practical identification and programming procedures.

But we also need to explore new research paradigms that focus on the intensive study of young people at work in demanding learning situations that place a premium on creative productivity. I have written about the dimensions that such research might take elsewhere Renzulli, Suffice it to say at this time, I believe the intensive study of young people at work holds the highest promise for adding major new dimensions to the Three Ring Conception.

At this point in time, I am confident enough with the three rings to go ahead in more practical directions, and leave further contributions to trait theory to others. A Little More Historical Background Gifted education emerged in a big way in the United States in the late s, mainly as a result of Sputnik and the very influential Marland Report , which became a rallying point for interested educators and policy makers.

As the movement grew in size and influence, the gifted education community engaged in an almost desperate quest to establish an identity that would show how gifted education differed from general education. This quest for identity continues to this day, as it should, and I still hold firmly to the challenge set forth in the preface of the original book on Triad:.

It was about this time that I began work on a programming model that paralleled the conclusions reached from work on the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, and especially the distinction I made between schoolhouse and creative productive giftedness.

This second major focus of my work, The Enrichment Triad Model, also emerged from my own research on the evaluation of programs for the gifted, and from observations of educational practices that were used in programs for the gifted in the s and s.

These observations included reflections on my own experience in starting a gifted program in the post-Sputnik era. My doctoral dissertation dealt with program evaluation Renzulli, ; and as part of that work, I had the opportunity to visit and to examine from an evaluative perspective numerous programs for gifted and talented students.

The two types of pedagogical as opposed to organizational practices that characterized the field before Triad were 1 advanced or accelerated content and 2 a conglomeration of process-oriented enrichment activities based on the thinking skills models of Bloom and Guilford Sometimes included in this second category were affective domain activities based on the work of writers such as Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia and Kohlberg and Mayer Although I believed, and still believe, that both of these approaches play an important role in the development of potential in young people, I also had serious reservations about whether or not they could serve as a defensible rationale for qualitatively differentiated programs.

I will discuss these two categories of practice in reverse order. The Process-Oriented Activities. The first reservation, which was put forth in my early writing on Triad, was about the conglomeration of kits, games, puzzles and disjointed enrichment activities that were usually found in resource rooms and pull-out programs.

Although these process-oriented activities were both enjoyable and challenging, I raised two questions about their potential to serve as a rationale for qualitative differentiation. I argued, however, that these experiences were appropriate for all students. I further argued that they should be blended into general education because they represent a form of cognitive development that has higher transfer value than the traditional content based curriculum.

The fact that general education did not make much use of the process models at that time was not a sufficient rationale for arguing that they were only good for the gifted. The major thrust in general education over the past two decades has been a momentous investment in the development of thinking skills for all students. My second reservation about the process models has to do with the ways in which they typically are taught.

Since this reservation is the same as my concern about the accelerated content approach, I will cover this topic in the section that follows.

I want to emphasize at this point that I am not criticizing the pedagogy of the process models, but rather arguing that they cannot serve as a rationale for qualitative differentiation because they represent the same pedagogy as that which is predominant in general education. The Accelerated Content Approach. Although the accelerated content or advanced curricular unit approaches certainly have value in advancing what I have described above as lesson-learning giftedness, I view them as examples of quan titative rather than qualitative differentiation.

In order to understand what is meant by quantitative differentiation, I need to draw a comparison between this approach and regular curricular experiences, which are the mainstay of general education.

I have attempted to define real problems elsewhere, and pointed out in that article Renzulli, b why I believe Type III Enrichment is a bona fide rationale for the development of creative productive giftedness. The core argument in this rationale is derived from the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, and the belief that qualitatively different learning experiences should approximate the modus operandi of creative and productive individuals.

In other words, if we want to produce more of these kinds of persons, then we should look to the make-up of individuals and the styles of their work that resulted in notable accomplishment. Although I am not against lesson learning giftedness or the roles that advanced content and process play in the development of both kinds of giftedness, I do argue for a different kind of pedagogy for producing creative productive giftedness. This pedagogy, which is summarized in the following section, is for better or worse, what I consider to be the major contribution of my work to the field.

Two Model Learning Theory More books, articles, and papers have been written about the process of learning than perhaps any other topic in education and psychology. And when we add the vast amount of material that has been written about models of teaching and theories of instruction, the sheer volume of literature is nothing short of mind boggling!

It is not my intention to review this multitudinous literature as background for the discussion on Type III Enrichment that follows, nor will I argue about the number of unique theories that actually exist, or the advantages and disadvantages of various paradigms for guiding the learning process. I will argue, however, that in spite of all that has been written, every theory of teaching, learning, and instruction can be classified into one of two general models.

There are, obviously, occasions when a particular approach transcends both models; however, for purposes of clarifying the main features of Type III Enrichment, I will treat the two main models as polar opposites. Both models of learning and teaching are valuable in the overall process of schooling, and a well-balanced school program must make use of both of these general approaches to learning and teaching. Although many names have been used to describe the two models that will be discussed, I will simply refer to them by their classical names, the deductive model and the inductive model.

The Deductive Model is the one with which most educators are familiar and the one that has guided the overwhelming majority of what takes place in classrooms and other places where formal learning is pursued. Lists of behavioral objectives and standards based approaches to curriculum are applied examples of the deductive model. The Inductive Model, on the other hand, represents the kinds of learning that take place outside of formal learning or traditional classroom situations, but that can be integrated into school learning with the proper engineering.

A good way to understand the difference between these two types of learning is to compare how learning takes place in a typical classroom with how someone might learn new material or skills in real world situations.

Classrooms are characterized by relatively fixed time schedules, segmented subjects or topics, predetermined sets of information and activity, tests and grades to determine progress, and a pattern of organization that is largely driven by the need to acquire and assimilate information and skills imposed by curriculum guides, lists of standards or behavioral objectives or, indirectly, by statewide testing programs.

The major assumption in the deductive model is that current learning will have transfer value for some future problem, course, occupational pursuit, or life activity. Contrast this type of learning with the more natural chain of events that take place in inductive situations such as a research laboratory, business office, or film studio. The goal in these situations is to produce a product or service.

All resources, information, schedules, and sequences of events are directed toward this goal, and evaluation rather than grading is a function of the quality of the product or service as viewed through the eyes of a client or consumer.

Everything that results in learning in a research laboratory, for example, is for present use, and, therefore, looking up new information, conducting an experiment, analyzing results, or preparing a report is focused primarily on product delivery rather than some amorphous future situation. Even the amount of time devoted to a particular project cannot be determined in advance because the nature of the problem and the unknown obstacles that might be encountered as the problem unfolds prevent us from prescribing rigid schedules.

Qualitative Differentiation Type III Enrichment is essentially an inductive approach to learning; and as such, I argue that it is qualitatively different from most learning experiences provided in most school situations.

My argument is not an indictment of deductive learning. Indeed, high levels of creative productivity require large amounts of knowledge and the use of process skills that are almost universally taught through deductive methods.

Rather, my argument simply is we need to achieve balance between the two major approaches. I have elaborated on two model learning theory and the differences between deductive and inductive learning elsewhere Renzulli, b, , pp. There is, obviously, a middle ground for each continuum, and I do not believe that all learning should favor the right side of each continuum presented in Figure 1. Some learning situations are undoubtedly more efficient when carried out in structured settings, and even drill and worksheets have value in accomplishing certain goals of basic skill learning.

But because I believe that schools are first and foremost places for talent development, there are times within the overall process of schooling when we can and should make a conscious commitment to apply Type III learning strategies to selected aspects of schooling. Figure 1. The dimensions of two-model learning theory.

Click on the figure to see it as a PDF file. Underlying this approach are a number of key features that characterize this type of enrichment. By way of summary, the ultimate goal of Type III Enrichment and the key features which underlie it is to replace dependence and passive learning with independence and engaged learning.

Although all but the most conservative educators will agree with these key features, much controversy exists about how these or similar features may be applied in everyday school situations. A danger also exists that these key features might be viewed as yet another idealized list of glittering generalities that cannot easily be manifested in schools that are overwhelmed by the deductive model of learning and the standards based and test-driven curriculum.

Developing a school program based on this approach to learning is not an easy task. Over the years, however, we have achieved a fair amount of success by gaining faculty, administrative, and parental consensus on a small number of easy-to-understand concepts and related services, and by providing resources and training related to each concept and service delivery procedure.

On a personal note, I am especially proud of our annual summer Confratute Program, which over the past 20 years has trained thousands of educators from around the world in practical ways to apply this pedagogy.

When I open my mail and see yet another example of an outstanding product by a young person, I feel that my efforts, and those of my colleagues, have been worthwhile!

I do believe, however, that my work has dealt with non-cognitive development in two ways. The Type II dimension of the Triad model is a recommended vehicle for providing young people with process activities that deal with important issues such as self-concept, interpersonal relations, and the development of feelings, attitudes, and values.

In this regard, Type III Enrichment is a more important vehicle for promoting genuine affect and helping young people to explore dimensions of their social and emotional development. Thus, for example, we noted remarkable changes in attitude and commitment toward disabled persons when a group of middle school students developed a personal library of original, large print stories for a partially sighted schoolmate.

In another Type III investigation, a fifth grade boy developed an original computer program to study the time, location, and frequency of arrests associated with drunk driving in his community. His work resulted in increased police patrols in high incidence locations and a subsequent decline in drunk driving incidents. He also started the first local chapter of Students Against Driving Drunk. A group of elementary students conducted a comprehensive study of the benefits of, and procedures for composting household garbage.

They prepared manuals for distribution to local citizens and mounted a vigorous public awareness campaign. Their work was so successful that a grant was obtained to purchase a commercial composting unit for their school, and now all cafeteria waste is recycled by students to produce enriched soil. These examples point out what I believe to be the most important part of the Three Ring Conception and the Triad model—that is, encouraging talented young people to apply their abilities, creativity, and task commitment to solve personally meaningful problems they encounter in their schools and communities.

A number of people have suggested that the Enrichment Triad Model has potential applications beyond those for which it was originally intended.

One of these suggestions by Donald Treffinger led to a discussion of the model as a paradigm for creative productivity Renzulli, Others have suggested that it has applications as a curriculum development model. More recently, a book by Margaret Beecher has used the Triad model as a guide for developing curricular activities across all grade levels and subject matter areas. These initiatives notwithstanding, I regret that further thought and research were not devoted to the full ramifications of a complete curriculum development strategy based on the Triad model.

I have taken a rather uncommon approach toward the coverage of regular curricular material and the development of special curricular units for high achieving students. The reasons for this attitude are threefold. First, forces that are far more powerful than the gifted community have and probably always will determine the content of the regular curriculum. For this reason, I have simply argued for curricular modification e.

This is frequently true even in cases where unusual or exotic topics of study are selected, where the focus is on broad themes or interdisciplinary topics, or when the writers of such materials claim to challenge the higher mental processes.

Third, the developers of special units have not reported research in refereed journals that verifies the benefits for identified students only. Their claims are based mainly on an appeal to face validity, a concept that has generally been abandoned by modern theorists and researchers.

Another regret related to Triad is, that despite my best efforts, persons using the model frequently focus on the individual cells rather than the interconnections that are portrayed by the arrows in the diagram. Each type of enrichment is intended to serve as leverage for the other types.

All in all, however, I still stand solidly behind Triad, and believe that when used in combination with compacting and various acceleration options, it is a viable plan for developing both schoolhouse and creative productive giftedness. The last regret related to Triad is more nearly a challenge to myself—or any interested persons who might like to take on what could prove to be a very valuable endeavor.

It was my hope when I developed Triad and trained teachers in the use of the model that they would become proficient in locating Type II Enrichment materials, and integrating them with various topics in the regular curriculum.

Nevertheless, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of excellent Type II enrichment materials available from dozens of publishers and non-commercial sources. Although these materials do not have a strong research base, it would be worthwhile to gather systematically information about user satisfaction based on the opinions of practitioner experts i. If I had the time and resources I would love to examine the quality of these materials, and perhaps even do some controlled research on those that are widely used.

But gathering and evaluating materials is only half the job! If we expect them to be used in more than a haphazard manner, someone will need to examine which junctures within the regular curriculum these materials can provide the most relevant extensions and enrichment. This project would, in effect, provide the field with an integrated scope and sequence framework of process related materials.

Special programs for the gifted reached their zenith in the U. But another force began to emerge in general education as the result of a federal report entitled A Nation At Risk that was to have an extremely unfavorable impact on the gifted education movement.

This force was the powerful equity-in-education movement and a host of related school reform initiatives that sought to improve what was viewed as a declining education system. The inability of the education establishment to make any significant improvements in schooling for at-risk students, even after decades of federal and state expenditures in the billions of dollars, caused educational leaders and policy makers to seek nothing short of desperate solutions for school improvement.

Many gifted programs were eliminated or severely curtailed, funding in some states was decreased or withdrawn altogether, and leadership personnel in many state departments of education were dismissed. This criticism, not all of which was unjustified, opened the door for the first time to what Feldman called a true paradigm shift in the ways in which we view identification and programming for gifted and talented students.

As a leading liberal in the field, this paradigm shift gave my work an opportunity for consideration that clearly did not exist under a conservative dominated field. In the mid s, Sally Reis and I began experimenting with the feasibility of a plan that would incorporate the development of talents in all students. Our work in several school districts led us to understand that when excellent gifted programs were in place, benefits were clearly demonstrated for other students as well.

We believed that a broad based approach to differentiation i. In other words, a consistent democratic philosophy of education for all students legitimizes differentiation for all students. As indicated in the section above on Triad, I always believed that general enrichment i.

We found in our research that when enrichment was viewed as a schoolwide goal and responsibility, a number of good things started to happen for all of the major participants identified students, non-identified students, special program teachers, and regular classroom teachers.

Classroom teachers were more willing to carry out Curriculum Compacting for their highest achieving students. This service, in and of itself, dramatically increased the amount of differentiation for high achieving students. Classroom teachers also became more skillful at spotting high levels of interest and submitting Action Information Messages 7 to resource teachers, and the majority of classroom teachers participated more eagerly in planning and carrying out Types I and II Enrichment.

Rather than feeling isolated, and sometimes even alienated from other teachers, they began to feel more like members of a team with a common talent development mission. They experienced satisfaction as a result of sharing some of their general enrichment know-how with classroom teachers, and they were able to concentrate their efforts with targeted students on Type III Enrichment. This concentration gave the resource teachers stronger feelings of specialization, especially in view of the fact that so much of their previous focus on thinking skills was now being assimilated into the regular curriculum.

Changes in attitude were also observed among identified and non-identified students; however, these impressions from informal observation now pointed to the need for some systematic research. Before summarizing this research, a brief overview of the model will be presented. Sally Reis and Miriam Morales-Taylor, which discusses how academically talented students in many urban areas in our Northeastern corner of the country have limited access to gifted and talented programs due to lack of funding and attention focused on students who are achieving well below grade level.

A study of talented and gifted seventh through ninth grade students demonstrated increased independence and engagement through using the Renzulli Learning System, resulting in higher achievement. Research from the University of Connecticut found that use students using the Renzulli Learning System self-reported higher engagement and satisfaction with their learning experience in and out of the classroom.

In this article, a reexamination of current gifted and talented programming is intended to generate future research, extend dialogue among scholars, and inspire continued support for programming based on theory and related research. The SEM provides enriched learning experiences and higher standards for all children through three goals: developing talents in all children, providing a broad range of advanced level enrichment experiences for all students, and provide follow-up advanced learning for children based on interests.

A study from the Wichita State University illustrated how the Renzulli Learning System can assist in helping gifted but underachieving students reverse underachievement and become more engaged and active learners. A Study from the University of Georgia demonstrated significantly higher growth in reading comprehension, oral reading fluency, and social studies achievement in students who participated in the Renzulli Learning System versus students who did not participate in the Renzulli Learning System.

The Renzulli Learning System utilizes the Schoolwide Enrichment Model which has been studied and field-tested for over 35 years. This model has been shown to enhance entire school communities, not just individual students or classrooms. Referenced research in support of the validity of the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness. The conception and definition presented in this chapter have been developed from a decidedly educational perspective. A white paper by Dr. Sally Reis outlines the role of differentiation in promoting student growth and how the Renzulli Learning System helps students pursue their interests and leverage their talents.

The Enrichment Triad Model Developed as an enrichment model to be used with the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness to increase challenge, interest, and engagement for gifted students, the Enrichment Triad Model encourages creative productivity in young people by exposing them to various topics, areas of interest, and fields of study, and training them to apply advanced content, process-training skills, and methodology training to self-selected areas of interest.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model SEM Developed by Renzulli and Reis, the SEM is widely implemented as an enrichment program used to develop the strengths and talents of all students, and as a program to challenge and engage academically talented students.

A Cross-Cultural Perspective about the Implementation and Adaptation Process of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model: The Importance of Talent Development in a Global World This paper provides an over-view of the SEM and the broad range of regions in which the model is currently implemented, as well as an examination of the reasons for its widespread acceptance among educators around the world. An Infusion-Based Approach to Enriching the Standards-Driven Curriculum By infusing prescribed standards with the richness of what lies beyond the standards or textbook, the academic and creative experiences of students become three-dimensional, as they recognize that the world Is much bigger, and much more exciting than they could have ever imagined.

Closing the Achievement Gap Utilizing a strength-based pedagogy and differentiation benefits not just talent and gifted students but entire school communities. By creativity Renzulli understands the fluency, flexibility, and originality of thought, an openness to experience, sensitivity to stimulations, and a willingness to take risks.

Under task commitment he understands motivation turned into action like perseverance, endurance, hard work, but also self-confidence, perceptiveness and a special fascination with a special subject. Renzulli argues that without task commitment high achievement is simply not possible.