Overview of Strategies for Recognizing Creative Potential in Gifted Learners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63437/3083-6425-2026-2(101)-15Keywords:
creatively gifted students, giftedness identification, creativity assessment, divergent thinking, gifted educationAbstract
The article provides an analytical overview of international approaches to identifying creatively gifted students. It examines the theoretical foundations of giftedness with a particular focus on creativity as a core component of gifted behavior. Drawing on major theoretical models, including the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné), the Three-Ring Model (Renzulli), and the WICS theory (Sternberg), the study highlights the central role of divergent thinking and creative potential in giftedness identification. The article reviews key diagnostic approaches used in Western educational practice, including standardized creativity tests (Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Remote Associates Test), expert-based assessment methods (Consensual Assessment Technique), creativity checklists, and rating scales such as the Gifted Rating Scale (GRS) and the Student Behavioral Characteristics Rating Scale (SRBCSS). Particular attention is given to the strengths and limitations of these instruments, including issues of validity, domain specificity, and reliance on evaluator expertise. The study also synthesizes empirical findings from international research, demonstrating the complexity of creativity assessment and the influence of cognitive, motivational, and personality factors such as openness, persistence, and problem-solving ability. Cross-cultural perspectives from the United States, Europe, Turkey, Korea, and other regions are analyzed to show variations in identification practices and educational approaches. The results indicate that no single method is sufficient for accurately identifying creatively gifted students. A multi-method approach combining tests, checklists, expert judgment, and behavioral observation is the most effective strategy. The article concludes that further adaptation of international diagnostic tools and the development of culturally sensitive assessment frameworks are necessary for improving gifted identification practices.
Downloads
References
References
1. Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Russell, C. M. (2012). Identifying and assessing creativity as a component of giftedness. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 60-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428196.
2. Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98-120). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.008.
3. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246-280). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.015.
4. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 87-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10.
5. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1.
6. Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Creativity and giftedness: Published instrument uses and abuses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 110-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629503900207.
7. Torrance, E. P. (2008). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual-Figural (Streamlined) Forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
8. Mednick, S. A. (1968). The Remote Associates Test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 213-214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1968.tb00104.x.
9. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
10. Baer, J. (1993). Why you shouldn't trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 51, 80-83.
11. Proctor, R. M. J., & Burnett, P. C. (2004). Measuring cognitive and dispositional characteristics of creativity in elementary students. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 421-429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534553.
12. Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2007). The Gifted Rating Scales-School Form: An analysis of the standardization sample based on age, gender, race, and diagnostic efficiency. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 39-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986206296658.
13. Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
14. Hernández Ortiz, A. F., López-Martínez, O., & Corbalán Berná, F. J. (2020). Creative talent and personality: A primary education study. Sustainability, 12(10), 4203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104203.
15. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). London, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807916.003.
16. López Martínez, O., & Navarro, J. (2010). Rasgos de personalidad y desarrollo de la creatividad. Anales de Psicología, 26, 151-158.
17. Şule, G., Kanlı, E., Özyaprak, M., Leana-Taşcılar, H. E., & Juriševic, M. (2017). Serving gifted children in developmental and threshold countries. Cogent Education, 4(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1332839.
18. Akar, İ., & Şengil-Akar, Ş. (2011). Primary school in-service teachers' perceptions of giftedness. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 20, 423-436.
19. Özsoy, Y. (2014). Metaphors of science and art center students, teachers and parents regarding gifted students. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 2, 74-87.
20. Nguyen, H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314-1334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012702.
21. Kim, K. H., Shim, J., & Hull, M. (2009). Korean concepts of giftedness and the self-perceived characteristics of students selected for gifted programs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 104-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013324.
22. Petersen, J. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 342-348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.002.
23. Arís, N., Gutiérrez, M. Á. M., & Cano, J.-D. V. (2021). Dimensions of creativity in secondary school high-ability students. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11, 953-961. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11030070.
24. Brajcic, M., Kuscevic, D., & Bakrac, M. P. (2018). Identification of artistically gifted children in visual arts teaching. Croatian Journal of Education-Hrvatski Casopis Za Odgoj i Obrazovanje, 30(3), 765-788.
