Potential or Performance?

[RodThompson]

Just wanted put a topic up for debate.....

How do you define gifted...

Is gifted based on acheivements ie meeting milestones early and getting ahead

Or is it potential ie is having a high iq on its own enough to qualify for a label of gifted

Is it both?

If a child has a high iq but is not academically motivated are they still a gifted child?

As a scientific definition IQ over a certain value can be stated as gifted (here it can vary but I have heard of 134, 137 or 140 used a cut off!). Though here I think I would say IQ in the gifted range (ie not exactly the same as saying gifted).

Personally I prefer it being used with reference to a particular trait eg gifted writer/mathematician/musician........ where an achievement/ability level has been obtained. On a personal level I think gifted should mean they have derived some pleasure/benefit out of the subject (as "gifted" sounds like it should be a pleasure ).

I prefer if a label is to be given to a child the phrase "advanced in..." or "very able in...." as it has less pressure on the holder.

If you think of it as which came first the chicken or the egg, its obvious that gifted performance has to come from high potential, however, I guess what you're really asking is can someone be gifted without being a high achiever. And that answer is not quite so straight forward.

Imo if someone has a high iq then yes, they have the potential to be 'gifted' but that doesn't mean they are actually gifted, it's just like someone might have the potential to be a good runner, if they dont train or perform, they won't live up to their potential to become an Olympic athlete. But even this analogy isn't perfect, because one of the things that's common to the truly gifted, is that they actually learn things quicker than others, so in a way, they don't have to train/practise as hard as other clever people to achieve the same results. That is not to say that they don't work hard for their achievements, gifted people are just like the rest of us, some are hard workers & some aren't. So bearing this in mind it might make you wonder why a gifted person would then not then reach their potential, but there are lots of different reasons that could happen, the most obvious of which is that they never found/where exposed to the the branch of the subject they are truly gifted in!

I think it is one of those words that has been hijacked and is almost meaningless because it means different things to different people in different contexts. too subjective. too loaded with negative connotations.

I would prefer things to be stated as x has an iq of about ... alongside x is working x years ahead of chronological age on the joe bloggs scale (whatever that is) in this that or the other subject area. then you could see mismatch of attainment/potential, if there was one. in a way, the level assessments at school help, but are not always helpful if schools aren't testing to a higherr level by not providing a harder test. also not helpful if your dc is good at something other than the core subjects, or is good at say reading not writing, calculations but not shapes, space and measures or whatever it is. eyfes is also a bit useless if the child in school is perfectly capabble of doing maths at a higher level but actually spends all their time in the sand/outdoor play area and can not be assessed as they do not choose to do something.

as you can tell, i have dcs at the lower end of schooling and have worked at the lower end only.

one thing about attainment, dd is attaining fairly well at the moment, but she has had 1:1 teaching with an early years teacher who knows most of the correct language to use and how to teach early reading. I think she is achieving as much as she possibly could, but another child who has not had that input and is achieving less may have a higher iq/potential and would achieve more if they had had more input.

I am convinced that not all people with high IQs or a specific talent have the opportunity to achieve. And by opportunity I mean a mix of a supportive environment, resources, chance and other similar enablers.

There was someone I know whose son was selected for the Olympics - the child started the sport when a coaching team went round a load of primary schools looking for talent and potential - he had never even known of the sport when the team assessed him and took him on board. Just one example, in fact I know 2 children in this same situation!

Someone might have a gift for music and never have access to a musical instrument or a gift for ballet and never get the opportunity to do that either. And so on!

With academic subjects it should be easier but often peer pressure is such that someone with a high IQ might choose to dumb themselves down not to stand out. I think it is a bit of a misnoma that someone with a high IQ has an innate interest in learning or drive to succeed - often this is not the case.

Just a few thoughts.

Gifted=being allowed to do what you enjoy doing to your heart's content without other people putting pressure on you.

Succinctly put, rabbitstew! I agree with most the above.

Giftedness is an innate ability you're born with, but without putting some effort in you will not remain gifted, surely?

I knew a man (ok, an ex! ) who was supremely gifted in languages - could pick up a native accent in a matter of minutes. He never made an effort to learn my language (or any others), so only ever learnt a couple of amusing phrases. My husband, on the other hand, has no innate ability for languages whatsoever but has put in a lot of effort to learn my language (which is a difficult one to learn) and now understands huge amounts of conversation and can confidently have a basic conversation.

Innate ability (i.e. giftedness) is only a part of the story!