This article discusses kinds of transformational giftedness, or giftedness that makes a positive, meaningful, and possibly enduring difference to the world. We extend previous work by suggesting that there are two kinds of transformation that matter: self-transformation and other-transformation. Combining these two kinds of transformation yields a 2 × 2 grid of four kinds of giftedness: non-transformational giftedness (no transformation), transformational giftedness (self- and other-transformation combined), self-realized giftedness (whereby one transforms oneself but not others), and other-realized giftedness (whereby one transforms others but not oneself). We open with a discussion of some of the history of conceptions of giftedness. Then we discuss transformational giftedness as it has been defined in the recent past. We then introduce our concepts of self- and other-transformation. We also describe two other kinds of giftedness—inert giftedness, which is giftedness in personal attributes that has not been realized in interactions with others and the world; and transactional giftedness, which is a give-and-take form of giftedness whereby one meets certain societal expectations in exchange for being identified as gifted. We finally conclude that the gifted movement needs to focus much more on developing transformational giftedness, or at least the potential for it, in our young people.

The purpose of this concurrent mixed-methods study was to assess the quality of online learning with a focus on student motivation in the context of a talent development program. Data were collected from 221 Indian students from fifth to tenth grades for three academic years during their participation in 14 online and 10 in-person courses. Students, teachers, and parents responded to a measure of classroom quality assessing five constructs—appeal, meaningfulness, academic self-efficacy, challenge, and choice. In addition, 41 online sessions were observed by program staff using an additional measure of instructional quality. Participants rated online learning to be highly supportive of learning motivation. No significant differences were observed in student motivation by program format, gender, or program level. Qualitative analysis revealed specific affordances and challenges in supporting student motivation in online learning. Implications in the context of out-of-school programs for students with intellectual gifts and talents are discussed.

In this article, we reviewed how intelligence tests were developed and normed, with a careful eye to underserved groups. Based on state recommendations, five group-administered and five individually-administered tests were reviewed for demographics; invariance testing; validity and reliability reporting; and gifted identification suitability. We found only one test included Indigenous youth in their sample; only one test reported racial group means; only two provided internal consistency estimates for different subgroups; and only four reported group invariance testing. Therefore, we concluded that tests developed on samples that omit those to which results are applied, or tests that are developed without regard to how the test functions across different groups should not be used to make high stakes decisions about gifted identification.

Positive creativity is creativity that makes the world a better place—that makes a positive, meaningful, and potentially enduring difference to the world. Positive creativity can be a bit of a slippery concept in that, what is positive to one person or one group may be neutral or even negative to another group. Much of teaching young people for positive creativity, therefore, involves providing the tools to decide what positive creativity means to them, and teaching them how to defend their decision. This essay focuses especially on alternative conceptions of what positive creativity means. It considers a variety of approaches, such as definitional models—objective and subjective betterment; ratings, including from layperson and experts; philosophical models—utilitarian and categorical-imperative models; decision-theory models—minimax, maximin, and maximax models; psychologically based models—a Four-C model and a model based on wise creativity. The essay also discusses steps toward teaching explicitly for positive creativity.

Courage is one of the most significant psychological constructs for society, but not one of the most frequently studied. This paper presents a process model of courage consisting of decision-based pathways by which one comes to enact a courageous action. We argue the process of courage begins with a trigger involving an actor(s) and a situation(s). The actor(s) then engage(s) in four key assessments concerning (a) immediacy of the situation, (b) meaningfulness, value, and relevance to the actor, (c) adequacy of efficacy to act, and (d) decision to act with courage. The central component of this process entails an approach-avoidance conflict involving assessments of perceived risks and potential noble outcomes of acting with courage. The decision to act may result in courageous actions assuming it satisfies the four elements: intentionality, objective and substantial risk, a noble purpose, and meaning in time and place. Courageous actions have consequences. Finally, the consequences shape the actors’ experience, which feeds into the trigger, closing the loop. Potential moderators of the courage process as well as potential tests of the model have been discussed.

Criterion-referenced testing is usually applied to the assessment of achievement. In this article, we suggest how it can also be applied to the assessment of adaptive intelligence, that is, intelligence as adaptation to the environment. In the era of the Anthropocene, we argue that adaptive intelligence is what is most important not only for individual success, but also for success in terms of preservation of the world as we know it. We define criterion-referenced testing and compare it to norm-referenced testing. We then discuss two kinds of scoring of criterion-referenced testing, namely, with respect to external criteria and with respect to internal (theory-based) criteria. We then discuss past research on intelligence that could be viewed as criterion-referenced. Finally, we suggest how criterion-referencing could be applied to the assessment of adaptive intelligence.