Historia de los derechos laborales

History has evidence of thriving cultures educating their gifted. Documented evidence names ancient Egypt, China, Greece, Rome, the Middle Ages in Europe and Africa, the Middle East and its Islamic universities, Polynesia and the modern era (Barkan & Bernal 1991: 144). Many civilisations did not neglect the enriched

education of the cognitively gifted individual. Kokot (1999: 22, 23) argues that some learners stand out “by virtue of their abilities” and that we may never ignore them and their particular needs.

An aspect which deserves attention is the recognition of giftedness. Recognising giftedness is the first step towards providing gifted learners with an appropriate education that will help them in fulfilling their potential (Gallagher & Gallagher 1994: 393). Giftedness does not equal effortlessness and cognitively gifted learners deserve support to help them realise their potential (Kokot 1999: 22). As discussed under 4.2, many researchers have attempted to define the concept of cognitive giftedness and the commonalities shared by all cognitively gifted learners in an attempt to recognise giftedness (Brown et al. 2005: 69). Multiple criteria, such as the Kranz Talents and the Clark’s Checklist, have been implemented to indicate a learner’s possible giftedness and subsequent outstanding academic achievement (Kokot 1992: 94, 95). The monumental Terman study, for example, discusses the interests of gifted children and that these children learn to read easily (Gallagher & Gallagher 1997: 38). It is not surprising to learn that the children were chosen for the study on the basis of their verbal skills. Deiner (2010: 356) notes that developmental differences in children are likely to be more apparent in the area of verbal skills. Since the development of the Binet-Simon intelligence test in 1905, the better part of the 20th century saw the classic formula for intelligence testing applied (Winner 2005: 153). According to this, a normal intelligence quotient ranges from 85 to 100 and only 1 per cent of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 and over (Kaufman & Lichtenberger 2006: 4). Intelligence was therefore synonymous with the result of the test as the IQ was seen as an absolute measure of intelligence. Intelligence testing was regarded as the only method by which cognitive giftedness could be verified. Brown et al. (2005: 69) explain how a child can be labelled as gifted or not by a score on an intelligence test. When viewing giftedness as a score, it is thus often seen as a static concept and not as something dynamic that changes according to situations. To see giftedness as an absolute concept focusses on the view that a learner is either gifted or not. In contrast to that, Brown et al. (2005: 77) discuss a relative view where giftedness is viewed as a dynamic concept, that is, varying degrees of gifted behaviours that are seen in certain learners “at certain times and under certain circumstances”. Regardless of the realisation that cognitive ability

cannot be summarised as a test score, many people still believe that a high IQ test score indicates giftedness (Brown et al. 2005: 68; Borland 2009: 237).

The more relative approach, which acknowledges the dynamic nature of intelligence, requires a broader base of recognition (Brown et al. 2005: 68). It is noted that intelligence tests should be used for diagnostic purposes rather than for classification. Borland (2009: 236) comments on the fact that in educational practice, “the idea that giftedness either equals or requires a high IQ is far from dead”. This viewpoint of equating IQ and giftedness is problematic for many reasons, for example, the fact that the quantitative expression of IQs seems to have the effect that many people take them much too seriously (Borland 2009: 237). Sternberg (1997: 43) refers to his triarchic view of giftedness when he explains that giftedness can never be captured by a number. Kokot (2005: 470) also dismisses the IQ score as fully measuring intelligence, and refers to giftedness as genetic potential that can only come to fruition within an interrelated system. She emphasises innate potential, which might be dormant or unrealised, for outstanding achievement. Important for this study is her insistence that the realisation of the potential relies on the essence of the individual’s experience of home, school, society and self (Kokot 2005: 472). Current wisdom and broadened conceptions thus ask for a viewpoint of cognitive giftedness that lies beyond the context of individually administered intelligence tests (Borland 2009: 237).

Gardner (in Ramos–Ford & Gardner 1997: 55, 56) widens the context of giftedness to include seven areas of various talents, which he names “multiple intelligences”. For education, this has the implication of catering for a variety of strengths, weaknesses and learning modalities. Sternberg’s (1997: 43) Triarchic Theory of Intelligence focusses on how information is processed, how past information is used to deal with current situations and how we adapt to real-life environments. He refers to giftedness as three rings having “analytic, synthetic and practical abilities” and explains the three rings as follows (Sternberg 1997: 43):

• Analytic giftedness is the ability to dissect an issue and understand the various parts.

• Synthetic giftedness is noted in people who are intuitive, creative and insightful, and who are masterful when dealing with novel situations. Practical

giftedness involves the application of analytic and synthetic abilities to realise situations (Sternberg 1997: 43).

Although school performance differs from significant adult achievement (Gallagher & Gallagher 1994: 42), Simonton (2008: 252) notes that precocious development during childhood and adolescence actually foretells the distinction of achievement in adulthood. Gagne (2007: 102) describes this precociousness as “behaving beyond the typical behaviours of one’s chronological age”. Kearney (1996: 2) comments on this precocity and the asynchronous development which accompanies it. Asynchronous development can refer to different rates for physical, cognitive and emotional development (Kokot 2005: 472; Kearney 1996: 2).

Barkan and Bernal (1991: 145) note that the education of the gifted should include: • The identification of all learners from all levels of society who possess

exceptional abilities. These abilities could be potential or actual manifestations in the areas of general intellectual ability, academic aptitude or achievement. • Challenging learners who are thinking on the highest standard of ability.

• The encouragement of underachieving learners with high achievement potential.

• The promotion of higher level thinking skills for the purposes of creation and production.

Gifted learners are usually highly observant, consistent thinkers who use a variety of flexible mental processes (Wiechers & Kokot 1994: 252). Some characteristics of giftedness are now discussed.