youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fRm8rvRDYJg#t=405
youtube.com/watch?v=d0Cm_wFnQ60
Joseph Renzulli's (1978) "three ring" definition of giftedness is one frequently mentioned conceptualization of giftedness. Renzulli's definition, which defines gifted behaviors rather than gifted individuals, is composed of three components as follows: Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits—above average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity.[10] Individuals capable of developing gifted behavior are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance. Persons who manifest or are capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional programs.
While White students represent the majority of students enrolled in gifted programs, Black and Hispanic students constitute a percentage less than their enrollment in school.[30] For example, statistics from 1993 indicate that in the U.S., Black students represented 16.2% of public school students, but only constituted 8.4% of students enrolled in gifted education programs. Similarly, while Hispanic students represented 9% of public school students, these students only represented 4.7% of those identified as gifted.[31] However, Asian students make up only 3.6% of the student body, yet constitute 14% in the gifted programs.
In a plenary address at the annual Congress of the American National Association for Gifted Children in November 1985, Sternberg reported that the number of students of Asian background in American programmes for gifted children exceeded the normative expectations from population figures by a factor of five. Entrance to programmes for gifted children in the U.S. is usually set at a level to accommodate moderately gifted children rather than the highly or exceptionally gifted; thus an interesting pattern seems to be developing an over-representation of Asian children by a factor of five in the population of moderately gifted students and by a considerably greater factor-15 or over among the exceptionally gifted. A student has to be extremely gifted mathematically to score more than 700 on the SAT-M by the age of 13; only 4 per cent of college-bound 17 and 18 year olds in the U.S. attain such a score!
To illustrate this point: in a normal population with a mean IQ of 100, and a standard deviation of 15, 228 children in every 10,000 would have an IQ score two standard deviations above the mean, that is, a score of IQ 130 or higher. However, with a mean shift upwards of half a standard deviation, as reported by Jensen for Asian Americans, no fewer than 668 children in 10,000 would score in the IQ 130+ range. Many American gifted programmes which employ an IQ criterion for entrance set their entry level at IQ 130; in this situation, 6.68 per cent of Asian children would be eligible to enter these programmes on the basis of IQ as opposed to only 2.28 per cent of Caucasian children-an overrepresentation by a factor of 2.93. Yet Sternberg reports an overrepresentation by a factor of 5! Why do American gifted programmes contain almost twice the number of Asians than could be statistically expected from Jensen's projections. The children of this study have scored at or above IQ 160 on the Standford-Binet Intelligence Test L-M, an instrument with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation fo 16. Thus these children score at least 3.75 standard deviations above the mean. Fewer than 9 children in 100,000 score at or beyond this level. However, if we shift the mean upwards by 0.5 of a standard deviation, to investigate the implications of Jensen's findings and if we assume the standard deviation for the Asian population to be the same as that for non-Asians, then the criterion score of IQ 160 for entrance to this study becomes only 3.25 standard deviations above the new mean. Beyond this point lie not 9, but 58, children in 100,000. If Jensen's findings regarding a higher Asian mean are correct, and if they hold good for the Asian-Australian population as well as Asian-Americans, then we could expect to find Asian-Australians over-represented in the study by a factor of 6.5. Yet the over-representation actually found id an astonishing 15.6!
