Which of the following types of intelligence refers to the ability to use language effectively?

A The Theory of Multiple Intelligences

According to Howard Gardner (1983), intelligence is not a unitary construct at all, but rather a multiple construct. According to Gardner, there is not one intelligence, but seven “multiple intelligences.” These multiple intelligences are (1) linguistic intelligence, used in reading, writing, speaking, and listening; (2) logical-mathematical intelligence, used in thinking logically and in solving mathematics problems; (3) spatial intelligence, used in negotiating the physical environment; (4) musical intelligence, used in singing and in appreciating music; (5) bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, used in athletics and in dancing; (6) interpersonal intelligence, used in relating to other people; and (7) intrapersonal intelligence, used in understanding ourselves. These intelligences are relatively independent, although they may be linked by higher order modules. If one accepts this theory, then conventional intelligence tests would be seen as being quite limited, concentrating as they do on linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial intelligences, but measuring little or nothing of the other four intelligences.

Gardner tested his theory not by collecting experimental evidence in support of the theory, but rather by reviewing various literatures relating to human abilities and finding results that are consistent with his theoretical proposal. For example, he believes that the literatures on brain functioning, idiots savants, and cognitive development are supportive of the kinds of claims he is making. When it comes to matters of definition, as of the term “intelligence,” it is not clear that there is really any empirical operation that can specify the correctness or incorrectness of a proposal, but there is certainly evidence to suggest the existence of the abilities of which Gardner speaks. Whether they are all intelligences, and whether they are really as distinct as Gardner claims, is a matter for debate.

Memory and Language

Early in the 1970s the fields of memory and language began to intersect. In 1973 John Anderson and Gordon Bower published Human Associative Memory (Anderson and Bower, 1973), which presented a model of memory for linguistic materials. The model combined information processing with recent developments in linguistics and AI, thereby linking the three major research directions that led to the cognitive revolution. The model used networks similar to that considered above to represent semantic knowledge, and used memory-search processes to interrogate these networks (see the middle of Figure 1). The Anderson and Bower book was quickly followed by other large-scale theoretical efforts that combined information processing, modern linguistics, and computer models. These efforts included Kintsch (1974), which focused on memory for paragraphs rather than sentences, and Norman et al. (1975), Anderson (1976), and Schank and Abelson (1977), which took a more computer-science perspective and focused on stories and other large linguistic units.

As psychologists became aware of related developments in linguistics and AI, so researchers in the latter disciplines become aware of pertinent work in psychology. Thus evolved the interdisciplinary movement called ‘cognitive science.’ In addition to psychology, AI, and linguistics, the fields of cultural anthropology and philosophy of mind also became involved. The movement eventuated in numerous interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., Rumelhart et al., 1986), as well as in individual psychologists becoming more interdisciplinary.

3.1 Memory and Language

Early in the 1970s the fields of memory and language began to intersect. In 1973 John Anderson and Gordon Bower published Human Associative Memory (Anderson and Bower 1973), which presented a model of memory for linguistic materials. The model combined information processing with recent developments in linguistics and artificial intelligence (AI), thereby linking the three major research directions that led to the cognitive revolution. The model used networks similar to that considered above to represent semantic knowledge, and used memory-search processes to interrogate these networks (see the middle of Fig. 1). The Anderson and Bower book was quickly followed by other large-scale theoretical efforts that combined information processing, modern linguistics, and computer models. These efforts included Kintsch (1974), which focused on memory for paragraphs rather than sentences, and Norman, Rumelhart, and the LNR Research Group (1975), Anderson (1976), and Schank and Abelson (1977), which took a more computer-science perspective and focused on stories and other large linguistic units.

As psychologists became aware of related developments in linguistics and artificial intelligence, so researchers in the latter disciplines become aware of pertinent work in psychology. Thus evolved the interdisciplinary movement called ‘cognitive science.’ In addition to psychology, AI, and linguistics, the fields of cultural anthropology and philosophy of mind also became involved. The movement eventuated in numerous interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., Rumelhart et al. 1986), as well as in individual psychologists becoming more interdisciplinary.

Multiple Intelligences in Interaction

Although researchers and practitioners continue to debate what constitutes an intelligence and to suggest further intelligences, theoretical work on MI has turned to how the intelligences interact. Although defined, in part, by their independent functioning, brain locations, psychometric factors, and developmental pathways, the intelligences do not work in isolation to create performances. The power of an MI approach is that individuals’ diverse profiles of intelligences can be used in concert to engage tasks, achieve goals, solve problems, and create products. For example, dancing combines musical intelligence's processing of rhythm and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence's movement control.

Furthermore, different people can demonstrate similar performances using different combinations of intelligences. For example, compare three equally good dancers: one dancer may draw on spatial intelligence to navigate the dance floor and spin his partner around, whereas another dancer may call on logical-mathematical intelligence to count steps and keep in time, whereas a third dancer may emphasize the connection with his partner using interpersonal intelligence.

Also note that most performances are not completed by one person. People work and play in teams and groups; outcomes are based on complementarity of resources, including intelligences. One person's intelligences interact with other people's intelligences. Ballroom dancers must adjust to each other, which may mean calling on intrapersonal, interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, and linguistic intelligences in a way they might not have needed if they were dancing alone.

Moran and Gardner discuss how intelligences can interact in three broad ways: bottlenecking, compensation, and catalysis. Intelligences bottleneck when one interferes with the expression or development of a different intelligence. For example, a language-based paper-and-pencil test may bottleneck the expression of other intelligences, such as when the subject matter examined is musical or logical-mathematical. Intelligences compensate when a stronger intelligence offsets the impact of a weaker one. For example, in Creating Minds, Gardner discussed how Albert Einstein was relatively weak in math, for a Nobel Prize winning physicist, but he more than made up for it with his strong spatial intelligence. Intelligences catalyze when one stimulates the use or growth of another. For example, while attempting to sway an audience, a public speaker's spatial and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences can multiply the effectiveness of their interpersonal intelligence.

Interactions may help explain why there is much diversity in expression of intelligences. A public speaker and a poet both may have strong linguistic intelligences. However, public speaking also draws on bodily-kinesthetic and interpersonal intelligences, and poetry draws on musical and perhaps logical-mathematical intelligence for structuring, and existential intelligence for addressing big issues. Thus, with multiple intelligences, there can be multiplicative as well as additive effects of intelligences. The moderate correlations among multiple intelligences scales may reflect these interactions. Furthermore, neuroscientific studies continue to show that higher ‘intelligence’ seems associated with higher interconnectivity among brain regions.

Finally, these interactions caution researchers and teachers not to confuse an intelligence with a domain – even when they have the same name. Intelligences interact to produce performances valuable to a domain. Domains are subsets of culture that focus on the use and perpetuation of a particular symbol system or body of knowledge. Examples of domains are history, music, visual art, physics, and business. Musical intelligence is not the only intelligence used in the music domain. Linguistic intelligence for lyrics, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence for playing an instrument, and interpersonal intelligence for coordinating with others in a symphony also may be called for. Similarly, someone with strong musical intelligence may employ it in a variety of domains, including poetry, acoustic engineering, or medicine to understand the sounds and rhythms a body makes in health or disease.

Domains and Domain Specificity

The concept of a domain as a set of representations or understandings underlying comprehension of a specific area of knowledge and performance of the tasks associated with that domain is, at the conceptual level, a fairly clear one. Applying this definition in a way that demarcates domain boundaries can be a much more contentious exercise, however.

In 1983 Howard Gardner published Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, and the domains (or, as Gardner termed them, ‘intelligences’) that he described have become familiar to many readers and are especially influential in the field of education. Gardner has distinguished the following intelligences:

linguistic intelligence (abilities having to do with understanding and using the sounds, rhythms, and meanings of words and the functions of language);

musical intelligence (abilities having to do with understanding and employing rhythm, pitch, timbre, and musical expressiveness);

logical-mathematical intelligence (abilities having to do with finding logical and numerical patterns and producing chains of reasoning);

spatial intelligence (abilities having to do with understanding the visual-spatial world and transformations within that world);

bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (abilities having to do with control of one's body movements);

interpersonal intelligence (abilities having to do with understanding and responding appropriately to the feelings, moods, and motivations of others);

intrapersonal intelligence (abilities having to do with understanding one's own feelings, moods, and motivations, with assessing accurately one's own strengths and weaknesses, and with drawing upon such knowledge to guide one's behavior);

naturalist intelligence (abilities having to do with recognizing, categorizing, and drawing inferences about features of the environment; this intelligence was added later and was not part of the original list of seven intelligences).

Gardner's classification is based on such evidence as: (a) the effects of brain trauma, such as strokes, that influence functioning in one domain but not others; (b) the existence of prodigies and autistic savants who show extreme abilities in one domain but not others; (c) psychometric evidence that suggests consistency among the skills that lie within a given domain and independence between the skills that fall in different domains; and (d) the existence of a set of core information-processing operations that can deal with specific kinds of input.

Gardner's eight intelligences are not the only way that domains have been conceptualized, but they will suffice as an illustration of the idea of broadly defined cognitive domains. The term domain is often also used to refer to general fields of knowledge or ways of knowing without specifying clear-cut boundaries between domains, and the breadth of what may be properly called a domain is in most instances not precisely defined. For example, a child's understanding of gravity may be viewed as a different domain of knowledge than her understanding of object permanence, number, animacy, and so on. It is also possible to lump many such understandings together as a single larger and more inclusive domain (in which case, e.g., a child's understanding of gravity and her understanding of object permanence, number, animacy, etc., might be thought of as all falling within the domain of early mathematical and scientific concepts). Overall, as the idea that development is domain specific has increased in popularity among psychologists, the number of such domains has also tended to increase, and the breadth of the hypothesized domains has tended to shrink.

Some writers use the term microdomain to refer to subsets of skills that seem to go together and yet have somewhat separate developmental histories. The use of pronouns, for example, can be considered a microdomain within the larger linguistic domain, and counting skills can be thought of as a microdomain within the larger mathematical domain. There are not clear guidelines for demarcating domains and microdomains, and usages often overlap.

An important area of disagreement among those who argue for the significance of distinct domains of knowledge is the possibility of interaction among the skills and knowledge that make up the various cognitive domains. Some theorists argue for strict modularity; under such an interpretation, each information-processing module is encapsulated and cannot make use of representations from other modules. One oft-cited example of such an encapsulated module is the perceptual system, which is at least relatively immune from input from other modules (and thus one's beliefs or preferences cannot interfere, or can interfere at most only slightly, with what one sees or hears – and the fact that one does not want or expect to see an elephant in one's living room will in no way interfere with actually seeing or hearing an elephant if one should appear there!). Strict modularity is an extreme version of domain specificity, but modularity and information encapsulation are not essential features of theories of domain specificity.

Multiple intelligences

Performing artists, even more than the generators who create the works to be performed, have body intelligence and emotional expressivity (Piirto, 1998). Howard Gardner (1993) believed that talent and creativity operate within a domain-specific field. Even if there are domain-general creative traits, individuals who train in one specific performance field manifest unique talents that are common to other individuals working within the same performance field. For example, dancers’ physical talents are expressed very differently from the physical talents of musicians. But both performing artists require speed, agility, and stamina even though they also possess very different talents and specific physical skill sets. Gardner identified seven different forms of intelligence, and many of these forms are evident in performing artists. For example, actors have linguistic, spatial, bodily–kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences. Musicians have musical, bodily–kinesthetic, and often logical–mathematical intelligences, and dancers share many intelligences found within actors and musicians, especially strong kinesthetic and visual expressivity (Alter, 1984). Certainly, an individual performer, regardless of field, will demonstrate strengths differently but the essential advantage of defining intelligence as multiple possibilities is that it supports the identification and ultimately the nurturing of talented individuals who may not be recognized as gifted based on IQ scores (Gardner, 1993; Piirto, 1995, 1998Piirto, 1995Piirto, 1998; Fig. 3.2).

Prior to Gardner’s concept of multiple intelligences, general intelligence was viewed as a single phenomenon. The distinction between general intelligence and multiple intelligences follows the pattern of domain-general and domain-specific creativity. Gardner (1983) described the following seven domain-specific intelligences:

Musical–Rhythmic: Individuals with this form of intelligence are sensitive to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. Musicians, opera singers, and musical theater performers have substantial literacy in music, including a deep understanding and recognition of rhythm, pitch, meter, tone, melody, or timbre. Dancers also have substantial musical intelligence, even if it is expressed in a more bodily–kinesthetic way.

Visual–Spatial: An aptitude for spatial judgment and the ability to visualize with the mind’s eye are hallmarks of this form of intelligence. Spatial ability is included in general intelligence testing, although visual–spatial intelligence as described by Gardner captures the creative manipulation of space that is common practice in the arts. With the exception of musical performances, all the performing arts require this form of intelligence in order to stage or film performances.

Verbal–Linguistic: Like visual–spatial intelligence, verbal–linguistic intelligence is evaluated in general intelligence testing. This form of intelligence is amplified in individuals who display a facility with words and languages. Verbal–linguistic intelligence is critical in most of the performing arts, especially in opera, theater, and film. Performing artists in these fields have a great aptitude to memorize words and tell stories.

Logical–Mathematical: This form of intelligence features logic, abstraction, reasoning, numbers, and critical thinking. Logical reasoning is part of general intelligence. Many performing artists demonstrate a strong aptitude for logical reasoning; e.g., choreographers and composers frequently engage this type of intelligence to create new works, and the performers quickly learn to decipher this creative expression.

Bodily–Kinesthetic: The control of one’s bodily motions and the capacity to handle objects skillfully is the hallmark of this intelligence. Inherent in this form of intelligence is an innate sense of timing, coordination, and goal-directed actions. Every performing artist has heightened bodily–kinesthetic intelligence. In fact, this form of intelligence could be regarded as one of the domain-general factors in all performing artists.

Interpersonal: Most performing artists, regardless of personality traits such as introversion or extraversion, have high interpersonal intelligence. This form of intelligence is characterized by heightened sensitivity to others’ moods, feelings, motivations, and needs. Individuals with interpersonal intelligence are able to work as part of a group, a variable that is critical within all the performing arts.

Intrapersonal: This form of intelligence includes introspective and self-reflective capacities. Performing artists spend long hours engaging in this form of intelligence, especially a deep understanding about the strengths and weaknesses of the self. This depth of introspection enables performers to emotionally express the works they perform. Actors are perhaps the most highly talented in this form of intelligence but all the performing arts fields require self-reflection.

Later Gardner added naturalistic, existential, and moral intelligence to his earlier seven intelligences. He believed that each individual possessed a unique pattern and blend of intelligences. In Creating Minds (1993) these multiple intelligences were identified in the case studies of unambiguous creative individuals. The influence of these multiple intelligences also informs imaginative exploration. The complexity provided by these interacting forms of intelligences is manifested in all the great performing arts works. The creators manipulate their craft to give an aesthetic and authentic appeal, the performing artists give expression to these works, and the audience implicitly or explicitly recognizes the complexity of these multiple intelligences. All are components within generative cognition (Policastro & Gardner, 1999) and the deliberate practice of performing artists. They are understood best when referenced to a cultural context and to educational background (Matare, 2009). Talent, culture, education, and multiple intelligences all influence the unique attributes of performing artists.

1 Aims or Objectives

Any curriculum is always a selection. Sets of justifications for curricular inclusion may be divided broadly into four types: logical delineations between domains of knowledge, distinctive mental or cognitive operations, cross-cultural social distinctions, and deliberative activity about the ideal society.

An example of logical delineations is Hirst's (1974) forms of knowledge and experience: logico-mathematical, empirical, interpersonal, moral, esthetic, religious, and philosophical. Each of these forms has distinctive kinds of concepts and distinctive ways of determining truth from falsehood. Hirst claimed, therefore, that each has a separate logical form. An example of the second type of justification is Gardner's (1983) seven forms of intelligence: language or linguistic intelligence, logical–mathematical analysis, spatial representation, musical analysis, bodily kinesthetic thinking, interpersonal knowledge, and intrapersonal knowledge. His justification for inclusion of these forms of intelligence is psychological: individual learners have cognitive or mental modules which are separate and act separately from other mental modules. Individuals have been shown to differ in their capacity to perform these different types of operations. A third set of justifications moves us out of the mind and focuses on the culture we inhabit. Lawton (1989) argues that all societies have cultural subsystems: sociopolitical, economic, communication, rationality, technology, morality, belief, esthetic, and maturation. Because these are universal and cross-cultural, Lawton concludes that curriculum developers should seek to represent the forms of knowledge which underpin them. A fourth set of justifications focuses on the arrangements made by particular societies, both currently and in the future. The normative needs of society are given precedence over logical, cultural, or psychological justifications. This is best exemplified in relation to the debate about the respective merits of academic and vocational curricula.

10.2.1 Cybercartography and Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence theory

One of the most widely applied cognitive learning theories is Howard Gardners's MI Theory. In the early 1980s, Gardner questioned not only the typical uniform style of teaching but also the concept of a singular intelligence. He argued that students learn in very different ways and outlined seven intelligences to describe these differences. These intelligences were presented in his widely read book Frames of Mind (Gardner, 1983). Gardner argued that we all exhibit these seven intelligences. However, we have strengths and weaknesses in different ones. The seven intelligences are:

Linguistic intelligence: ‘involves the sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals’;

Logical-mathematical intelligence: ‘involves the capacity to analyse problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically’;

Musical intelligence: ‘entails skill in performances, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns’;

Bodily kinesthetic intelligence: ‘entails the potential of using one's whole body or parts of the body (like the hand or mouth) to solve problems or fashion products’;

Spatial intelligence: ‘features the potential to recognize and manipulate patterns of wide space as well as the patterns of more confined spaces’;

Interpersonal intelligence: ‘denotes a person's capacity to understand the intentions, motivations, and desires of other people and, consequently, to work effectively with others’; and

Intrapersonal intelligence: which ‘involves the capacity to understand oneself, to have an effective working model of oneself—including one's own desires, fears, and capacities—and to use information effectively in regulating one's own life’ (Gardner, 1999: 41–43).

Gardner later added an eighth intelligence, Naturalist intelligence: a person's ability to identify plants and animals in the surrounding environment (Gardner, 1999, 2000a) and Gardner is now arguing for nine intelligences (Gardner, 2008), adding spiritual and existential intelligence.

Gardner claims that educators tend to focus on teaching to the first two intelligences (Linguistic Intelligence and Logical-mathematical intelligence), often neglecting students who exhibit other learning forms. Therefore, he sees MI theory as a basis for education reform that will encourage educators to look for ways to reach these other intelligences. Gardner continues to research MI theory and its use in education together with the Education Research Group at Harvard. His latest thinking can be found in the 2011 edition of Frames of Mind and in the electronic publications on his web site (http://HowardGardner.com/). MI theory is less popular with theoretical psychologists such as those who argue that the empirical evidence for MI is weak and that there is really only one intelligence (Schaler, 2006). However, the principles behind MI theory closely emulate many of the central concepts of Cybercartography. Cybercartographic theory and practice developed completely independently of the theory of MI until 2004 when the link with Gardner's work was made (Baulch et al., 2005). Gardner now specifically looks at the applications of MI theory for education and in the preface Gardner (2011) argues for the ‘individualization’ and ‘pluralization’ of education. By ‘individualization’ he means tailoring teaching and learning as far as possible to the abilities of the individual learner:

put concretely we can approach topics in a number of different ways (often termed “entry points” to the same topic). We can make use of some of the analogies drawn from a range of domains and we can express the key notions or concepts in a number of different symbolic forms…By pluralizing I mean that an educator should decide on which topics, concepts, or ideas are of greatest importance and should then present them in a variety of ways. Pluralization achieves two important goals: when a topic is taught in multiple ways, one reaches more students. Additionally, the multiple modes of delivery convey what it means to understand something well. When one has a thorough understanding of a topic one can typically think of it in several ways. Conversely, if one is restricted to a single mode of conceptualization and presentation, one's understanding (whether teacher or student) is likely to be tenuous

(Gardner, 2011: xvi).

In an earlier paper, Gardner argues ‘as human beings, we are the kind of creatures who can learn in many ways: through exploration with our hands, the use of our several senses, the silent observation of other persons, conversation and argument, and the development of many kinds of symbols—ranging from painting or graphs to semaphore or dance notations’ (Gardner, 2000a: 32) and in 2008 while looking at four new directions for MI Theory he argues that one of the four new directions should be ‘devising of computer software and virtual realities that present or teach the same topic via the activation of different intelligences’ (Gardner, 2008: 1).

This supplements his earlier arguments on the potential of multimedia: ‘…the new technologies make the material vivid, easy to access, and to play well—and they readily address the multiple ways of knowing that humans possess’ (Veenma and Gardner, 1996). Gardner is, however, aware that indiscriminate use of technology can be disruptive (Gardner, 2012) and he argues for the careful use of technology to meet defined teaching and learning goals.

Gardner's ideas fit well with the theory and practice of Cybercartography in relation to education, especially in the Nunavut context. All of his intelligences have relevance to education in Nunavut but his eighth intelligence—naturalist intelligence—is particularly appealing in the context of developing a curriculum that incorporates Inuit experience and ways of knowing as will be outlined later in this chapter. Whether this is a unique intelligence, as Gardner asserts, or whether it is part of a more general intelligence as his critics argue, there is no doubt that it must play a large part in developing new approaches to teaching and learning in the Nunavut context.

There is a limited literature on the application of Gardner's theories in geography and cartography (Baulch et al., 2005) and none that we are aware of that are specifically related to Nunavut. Many of the assertions made on theoretical grounds will have to be tested in the realities of the educational contexts outlined later in this chapter where Gardner's theoretical constructs provide a general basis for the development of cybercartographic atlases for educational purposes.

Teaching and Learning in Homeschooling

Most parents who homeschool do not possess teaching credentials and the vast majority of them do not have college degrees, but that does not prevent them from helping their children learn. Rather than view themselves as teachers of all subjects, homeschool parents often cast themselves in the role of facilitator, connecting their children to classes and teachers as needed. These parents learn to be better teachers of their children by doing it every day; they are free to discard texts and classes that are not working and to try something different quickly. One study was able to compare the test scores between an extreme of teacher contact – certified teachers who homeschooled their children – to nonteacher parents and found “an insignificant relationship between the test scores of homeschooled students and whether the parent-teachers were state-certified teachers” (Ray and Wartes, 1991).

Many homeschoolers begin by purchasing a curriculum, following its instructions and, if it works for them, they continue using it. Most homeschooling parents are confident teaching the basic school subjects to young children, especially for the early elementary years, but if they get in over their heads, they are able to find help. There are curriculum fairs, private consultants, support networks and local groups, private tutors, and other resources for homeschooling parents to fall back on.

2 Definition Problems and Newer Conceptions of Giftedness

The terms giftedness and talent are used synonymously in everyday language and the scientific literature (Heller et al. 1993, 2000, Colangelo and Davis 1997). Because gifted or talented individuals are a very heterogeneous set of persons, a comprehensive theory is hardly possible. Furthermore, Ziegler and Heller (2000) identify a series of empirical, ontological, and meta-theoretical difficulties with conceptions of giftedness and talent.

‘For example, several conceptions of giftedness incorporate genetic influences as a significant component of the basic meaning of talent. In fact, there is a large body of research that proves that genetic influences account for some inter-individual differences. Wagner (1999) indicates … that these genetic influences have only been proven by untrained persons.’ Ericsson drew the plausible conclusion that ‘the estimated performance barriers seen as genetically fixed upper boundaries can be overcome through suitable learning processes’ (Ziegler and Heller 2000, p. 3).

Eysenck and Barrett (1993) view giftedness as a ‘fuzzy concept’ that can be defined as synonymous with general intelligence, creativity, and special (e.g., artistic or scientific) ability. Gallagher and Courtwright (1986) point out two distinct meanings based on the psychological context (with a focus on individual differences) and educational practice (with a focus on individual needs and special educational programs). Sternberg and Davidson (1986) analyzed no less than 17 different conceptions, which they divided into explicit and implicit terms. An example of an implicit conception was delivered by Tannenbaum who viewed the interaction of five factors—general ability, special ability, nonintellective (motivational, etc.), environmental, and chance factors—as resulting in gifted/talented performance. Also Renzulli's giftedness model is counted by Sternberg and Davidson among the implicit theories, while Gagné's or the Munich psychometric model as well as Sternberg's cognitively-based triarchic model of intellectual giftedness are examples of explicit (empirical, experimentally confirmable) theories. A common basis shared by these newer conceptions is that giftedness is conceptualized as a differential construct. For greater detail see Ziegler and Heller (2000).

Contrary to the older IQ-based definitions (e.g., Terman defined giftedness by IQ-scores of 135 and higher), models of giftedness developed in the 1980s and 1990s represent multidimensional or typological conceptions. The following is a list of examples:

(a)

The Three Ring Model by Renzulli (1986). According to this model, giftedness is a result of above average intelligence, creativity, and task commitment. This was expanded by Mönks to include family, school, and peer group, making a dynamic Six Factor Model; see Renzulli (1986), Mönks and Mason (2000).

Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Originally Gardner (1983), Gardner postulated seven distinct human intelligences: linguistic, logical–mathematical, spatial, bodily–kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. Recently he has added ‘naturalistic’ (the ability to discern patterns in the living world) as an eighth intelligence and two further candidates (8 1/2): ‘existential’ and ‘spiritual’ intelligences, which have not yet been confirmed empirically (Ramos-Ford and Gardner 1997). This typological model synthesizes psychometric, cognitive psychological, and neuropsychological approaches to conceptualize giftedness (a more accurate label than ‘intelligence’).

Gagné's Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent, the newest version of which was presented by the author (2000). Gagné differentiates between three concepts: genetically determined gifts (aptitude domains), talents (fields of exceptional performance), and catalysts (personality vs. environmental supportive factors). The gifts—intellectual, creative, socioaffective, sensorimotor, and other factors—are transformed, with the assistance of catalysts as well as learning and training processes, into domain-specific talents, e.g., in arts, sports, science, and technology.

The Munich Typological Model of Giftedness by Heller et al. (see Heller and Feldhusen 1986, Heller 1992/2001). This multidimensional giftedness model consists of seven relatively independent ability factor groups (predictors), various performance domains (criterion variables), as well as personality (motivational, etc.) and social environmental factors which serve as moderators for the transition of individual potentials into excellent performances in various domains. High ability or giftedness is defined as an individual (intellectual, creative, etc.) potential for outstanding achievements in one—not too narrowly defined—domain (one-sided talent) or two—seldom more—domains (multi-talent). Hence giftedness is conceptualized as a multifactorized ability construct within a network of noncognitive (motivational) and social moderators as well as performance-related variables. For diagnostic purposes (identification), the differentiation between predictor, criterion, and moderator variables (in Gagné's model, so-called ‘catalysts’) is of particular interest (see Fig. 1). The validity of this model of giftedness has been confirmed in several enlarged studies both in Germany and in international settings (cf. Heller 1992/2001, Perleth and Heller 1994, pp. 77–114). The Münchner Hochbegabungs-Testbatterie (MHBT) [Munich High Abilities Test] by Heller and Perleth eds. which measures the various model variables (predictors, moderators) has recently been published.

The Triarchic Theory of Intellectual Giftedness developed by Sternberg in 1985 (see Sternberg 1986, 1997) represents a process-oriented conception. In cognitive psychological research paradigms, thinking and problem-solving processes stand in the limelight. The triarchic theory consists of three subtheories: a) the componential-subtheory, whereby metacognitive competencies regarding the planning, monitoring, and control of actions, performance components in the sense of encoding and the solution of problems, and knowledge-acquisition components are of major significance; b) the experiential- or two-facet-subtheory with the aspects of automatization or subroutine vs. insight or creative thinking in the solution of (new kinds of) problems; and c) the contextual subtheory, which refers to sociocultural dependence of talent definitions.

Further process-oriented conceptions of giftedness are discussed by Siegler and Kotowsky in their literature survey (1986). Their two levels of giftedness correspond to those delineated by Renzulli through his division into ‘schoolhouse giftedness’ (intelligence) and ‘creative–productive giftedness’ (creativity). The diagnostic implications of these have often been confirmed, in that (multifactorial) intelligence tests can predict scholastic success, although they cannot be (exclusively) used to predict academic or career success. On the other hand, creativity tests have proved to be unreliable predictors of scholastic success, although they can often explain significantly larger portions of the variance in career success than intelligence tests. This brings us to our next question regarding the advantages and disadvantages of various research approaches.