Rena F. Subotnik

Rena F. Subotnik


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

36Years (1991-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2011 in Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RSRena F. Subotnik
Rena F. Subotnik
POPaula Olszewski-Kubilius
Paula Olszewski-Kubilius
FWFrank C. Worrell
Frank C. Worrell
For nearly a century, scholars have sought to understand, measure, and explain giftedness. Succeeding theories and empirical investigations have often built on earlier work, complementing or sometimes clashing over conceptions of talent or contesting the mechanisms of talent development. Some have even suggested that giftedness itself is a misnomer, mistaken for the results of endless practice or social advantage. In surveying the landscape of current knowledge about giftedness and gifted education, this monograph will advance a set of interrelated arguments: The abilities of individuals do matter, particularly their abilities in specific talent domains; different talent domains have different developmental trajectories that vary as to when they start, peak, and end; and opportunities provided by society are crucial at every point in the talent-development process. We argue that society must strive to promote these opportunities but that individuals with talent also have some responsibility for their own growth and development. Furthermore, the research knowledge base indicates that psychosocial variables are determining influences in the successful development of talent. Finally, outstanding achievement or eminence ought to be the chief goal of gifted education. We assert that aspiring to fulfill one’s talents and abilities in the form of transcendent creative contributions will lead to high levels of personal satisfaction and self-actualization as well as produce yet unimaginable scientific, aesthetic, and practical benefits to society. To frame our discussion, we propose a definition of giftedness that we intend to be comprehensive. Giftedness is the manifestation of performance that is clearly at the upper end of the distribution in a talent domain even relative to other high-functioning individuals in that domain. Further, giftedness can be viewed as developmental in that in the beginning stages, potential is the key variable; in later stages, achievement is the measure of giftedness; and in fully developed talents, eminence is the basis on which this label is granted. Psychosocial variables play an essential role in the manifestation of giftedness at every developmental stage. Both cognitive and psychosocial variables are malleable and need to be deliberately cultivated. Our goal here is to provide a definition that is useful across all domains of endeavor and acknowledges several perspectives about giftedness on which there is a fairly broad scientific consensus. Giftedness (a) reflects the values of society; (b) is typically manifested in actual outcomes, especially in adulthood; (c) is specific to domains of endeavor; (d) is the result of the coalescing of biological, pedagogical, psychological, and psychosocial factors; and (e) is relative not just to the ordinary (e.g., a child with exceptional art ability compared to peers) but to the extraordinary (e.g., an artist who revolutionizes a field of art). In this monograph, our goal is to review and summarize what we have learned about giftedness from the literature in psychological science and suggest some directions for the field of gifted education. We begin with a discussion of how giftedness is defined (see above). In the second section, we review the reasons why giftedness is often excluded from major conversations on educational policy, and then offer rebuttals to these arguments. In spite of concerns for the future of innovation in the United States, the education research and policy communities have been generally resistant to addressing academic giftedness in research, policy, and practice. The resistance is derived from the assumption that academically gifted children will be successful no matter what educational environment they are placed in, and because their families are believed to be more highly educated and hold above-average access to human capital wealth. These arguments run counter to psychological science indicating the need for all students to be challenged in their schoolwork and that effort and appropriate educational programing, training and support are required to develop a student’s talents and abilities. In fact, high-ability students in the United States are not faring well on international comparisons. The scores of advanced students in the United States with at least one college-educated parent were lower than the scores of students in 16 other developed countries regardless of parental education level. In the third section, we summarize areas of consensus and controversy in gifted education, using the extant psychological literature to evaluate these positions. Psychological science points to several variables associated with outstanding achievement. The most important of these include general and domain-specific ability, creativity, motivation and mindset, task commitment, passion, interest, opportunity, and chance. Consensus has not been achieved in the field however in four main areas: What are the most important factors that contribute to the acuities or propensities that can serve as signs of potential talent? What are potential barriers to acquiring the “gifted” label? What are the expected outcomes of gifted education? And how should gifted students be educated? In the fourth section, we provide an overview of the major models of giftedness from the giftedness literature. Four models have served as the foundation for programs used in schools in the United States and in other countries. Most of the research associated with these models focuses on the precollegiate and early university years. Other talent-development models described are designed to explain the evolution of talent over time, going beyond the school years into adult eminence (but these have been applied only by out-of-school programs as the basis for educating gifted students). In the fifth section we present methodological challenges to conducting research on gifted populations, including...

24 December 2009 in Roeper Review
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RSRena F. Subotnik
Rena F. Subotnik
RTRobert H. Tai
Robert H. Tai
RRRochelle Rickoff
Rochelle Rickoff
JAJohn Almarode
John Almarode
Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology are commonly viewed as the “crown jewel” of their respective school districts and, many times, of their respective states. These schools are intended to coalesce the most academically talented, science-focused students in each district or state and typically draw excellent teachers as well. As the nation considers policies to address Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education issues, options for additional functions are likely to arise. Currently no existing studies provide a comprehensive analysis of the contribution these schools make over and above regular high schools to the STEM pipeline. This article presents the extant literature on variables that have been shown to predict participation in STEM careers on the part of adolescents in and out of specialized high schools. The literature review is followed by a description of a recently embarked 3-year National Science Foundation (NSF)-sponsored study designed to answer the following questions: Are specialized STEM high-school graduates more likely to remain in the STEM pipeline than students with similar achievement and interests who attended regular public high schools? Which educational/instructional practices used by specialized STEM high schools are associated with higher STEM pipeline retention rates in college and higher rates of entrance into STEM-related professions?

29 October 2019 in New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
POPaula Olszewski‐Kubilius
Paula Olszewski‐Kubilius
RSRena F. Subotnik
Rena F. Subotnik
LDLauren Cassani Davis
Lauren Cassani Davis
FWFrank C. Worrell
Frank C. Worrell

1 January 2012
Verified
Dataset
Closed access
RSRena F. Subotnik
Rena F. Subotnik
POPaula Olszewski-Kubilius
Paula Olszewski-Kubilius
FWFrank C. Worrell
Frank C. Worrell

6 December 2012 in ZDM – Mathematics Education
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RLRoza Leikin
Roza Leikin
RSRena F. Subotnik
Rena F. Subotnik
DPDemetra Pitta-Pantazi
Demetra Pitta-Pantazi
FSFlorence Mihaela Singer
Florence Mihaela Singer
IPIldiko Pelczer
Ildiko Pelczer

19 December 2020
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
PDF file
RSRena F. Subotnik
Rena F. Subotnik
POPaula Olszewski-Kubilius
Paula Olszewski-Kubilius
FWFrank C. Worrell
Frank C. Worrell