Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Three Ring Conception of Giftedness: A Change in Direction from Being Gifted to the Development of Gifted Behaviors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent

Abstract

This chapter focuses on creative-productive giftedness and proposes that young people showing creative potential and an investigative mindset should also have access to special opportunities, resources, and encouragement. It also describes the evolution of the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness, with its three interacting clusters of traits: above average (not necessarily superior) ability, task commitment, and creativity. Various considerations that have guided the development of the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness include the differences between two kinds of assessment. The first, assessments of learning, focuses on what students already know based on cognitive and achievement test scores. This approach to the development of giftedness and talents in all areas of human productivity takes into consideration factors related to another type of student data called assessment for learning. Factors include sensitivity to traits such as curiosity, interests, preferred instructional styles and expression styles, enjoyment of learning, collaboration, communication, cooperation, planning, and self-regulation. Recurring questions about the Three Ring Conception of Giftedness are discussed, as is the overall goal of both this definition and the recommended programming approach called the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. That goal is to increase the world’s reservoir of creative and productive young people who will contribute to the scientific, economic, social, and cultural development of mankind and to preserve the earth’s resources for future generations.

Not everything that can be counted counts. And not everything that counts can be counted.

—Albert Einstein

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity”. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, S. M., Hébert, T. P., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for mini-c creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., & Sosniak, L. A. (1981). Talent development vs. schooling. Educational Leadership, 38, 86–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branson, R. (1998, September 11). At school I was dyslexic and a dunce. The Times, 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, N. (2012, October 8). Sir John Gurdon, Nobel Prize winner, was ‘too stupid’ for science at school. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk

  • Crowe, C. (1979). Rolling Stone #296: Joni Mitchell. Retrieved from http://www.theuncool.com/journalism/rs296-joni-mitchell/

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delcourt, M. A. B. (1993). Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining energy, interest, and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, J. O., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. Y. (2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in gifted education: Social inequality and deficit paradigms. Roeper Review, 36, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.919563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. Y., & Whiting, G. W. (2016). Considering Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin: How gifted education affects access to elite colleges for Black and underrepresented students. Gifted Child Today, 39, 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516628914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grissom, J. A., & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hébert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, C. (2010). Executive function in the classroom: Practical strategies for improving performance and enhancing skills for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakin, J. M. (2016). Universal screening and the representation of historically underrepresented minority students in gifted education. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16630348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., & Weinberg, S. L. (2016). Public pre-k and test taking for the NYC gifted-and-talented programs: Forging a path to equity. Educational Researcher, 45, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Miller, E. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride, J. (2011). Steven Spielberg: A biography (2nd ed.). Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCoach, D. B., Siegle, D., Callahan, C. M., Gubbins, E. J., Hamilton, R., & Tutweiler, S. (2016, April). The identification gap: When just as good isn’t enough. Poster session presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster. (2016). The Merriam-Webster dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1993). Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow-up study after 18 years. Roper Review, 15, 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, L. (2003, April). Growing up Maya Angelou. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/

  • National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1202_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Education International, 18, 15–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940301800104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332–357). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (1988). A decade of dialogue on the three-ring conception of giftedness. Roeper Review, 11, 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity in young people. In F. J. Mönks & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future (pp. 51–72). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 3–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 33–40, 57–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (2005). Equity, excellence, and economy in a system for identifying students in gifted education programs: A guidebook (RM05208). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved from https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/research-based_resources/renzulli2/

  • Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Operation Houndstooth: A positive perspective on developing social intelligence. In J. Van Tassel-Baska, T. Cross, & F. R. Olenchak (Eds.), Social-emotional curriculum with gifted and talented students (pp. 79–112). Waco, TX, Prufrock Press..

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S., Koehler, J., & Fogarty, E. (2006). Operation Houndstooth intervention theory: Social capital in today’s school. Gifted Child Today, 29(1), 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2011). Rating the executive functions of young people. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/research-based_resources/renzulli3/

  • Renzulli, J.S., Sands, M.M., & Heilbronner, N.N. (2011). Operation houndstooth: a positive perspective on developing social intelligence. In A. Ziegler, and C. Perleth (Eds.), Essays in Honour of Kurt Heller (pp. 217–244). Hamburg, Germany: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S., Sytsma, R. E., & Berman, K. B. (2002). Operation Houndstooth Model. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S., & Waicunas, N. (2016). An infusion-based approach to enriching the standards-driven curriculum. In S. M. Reis (Ed.), Reflections on gifted education: Critical works by Joseph S. Renzulli and colleagues (pp. 411–428). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R. (1990). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity, and health: “Afterview” for CRJ issues on creativity and health. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 300–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New York, NT: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tough, P. (2013). How children succeed. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2016). 2013–2014 Civil rights data collection: A first look. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/

  • Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westberg, K. L. (2010). Young creative producers: Twenty-five years later. Gifted Education International, 26, 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Joseph S. Renzulli & Sally M. Reis

Authors
  1. Joseph S. Renzulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sally M. Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph S. Renzulli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Robert J. Sternberg

  2. Department of Graduate Education, Rider University, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA

    Don Ambrose

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Renzulli, J.S., Reis, S.M. (2021). The Three Ring Conception of Giftedness: A Change in Direction from Being Gifted to the Development of Gifted Behaviors. In: Sternberg, R.J., Ambrose, D. (eds) Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation