Sternberg's Triarchic Theory

Sternberg criticizes traditional intelligence tests for narrowly measuring analytic skills; he argues that intelligence should be defined more broadly, encompassing creative and practical skills as well. Sternberg approaches the question of intelligence from three perspectives – in relation to an individual's internal world; in relation to an individual's experience; and in relation to an individual's environment. For Sternberg, intelligence is not a fixed entity; it can change in composition as well as improve over time. As a result, his theory has practical applications for instruction in the classroom. Although Sternberg's theory contributed to our understanding of intelligence, it has received a great deal of criticism as well. In addition, other theories have since been proposed, extending our understanding in new directions.

Keywords Adaptability; Analytic Intelligence; Automaticity; Creative Intelligence; Environmental Adaptation; Environmental Selection; Environmental Shaping; Knowledge Acquisition Components; Metacomponents; Performance Components; Practical Intelligence; Relative Novelty; Self-Management; Synthetic Intelligence

Educational Theory > Sternberg's Triarchic Theory

Overview

Robert Sternberg's lifelong interest in the study of intelligence began as a child in elementary school in the 1950s. Thinking back upon his classroom experience, he writes, "I knew exactly what our school psychologist looked like. Whenever she entered the classroom, I would panic: her grand entry meant that we were about to take an IQ test, and the mere thought of it left me petrified" (Sternberg, 1998. p. xi). Needless to say, Sternberg never performed well on tests of intelligence, but his "failure" fueled a curiosity that would ultimately define his career. When he reached graduate school, he discovered that little was truly known about intelligence:

[A]mong the scientific disciplines the field of intelligence has not been notable for rapid progress, either in theory or in practical application. Tests, for the most part, look pretty much the way they did when Alfred Binet…invented the first one at the turn of the [twentieth] century (Sternberg, 1988, p. 4).

Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence shed new light on a neglected but important field of study.

Five Red Herrings

Before delving into the specifics of Sternberg's theory, it is perhaps important to better understand the context in which it was developed. As Sternberg (1988) himself explained, progress in the field had been thwarted by a number of obstacles, all of which set the stage for new developments. These obstacles – or what Sternberg (1988) refers to as red herrings – are outlined briefly below.

• Complexity and Artificiality: According to Sternberg (1988), psychometricians had been looking for intelligence in all the wrong places. Rather than defining it simply, and in such a way that it had real-world applicability – psychologists devised complex tests to measure obscure skills. Ultimately, the intelligence tests they created had "little if anything to do with the kinds of thinking people do in their everyday lives" (Sternberg, 1988, p. 4).

• Politicization . Politics, Sternberg (1988) argues, should never be mixed with science. Both are important, but each should 'play out' in their separate spheres. Because the study of intelligence has been influenced by politics, educators and psychologists have focused on what Sternberg calls peripheral issues – such as heredity, race, and social-class – before spending time developing a solid theoretical base. "Such issues may be worthy of study and debate, but preferably after the basic research on the nature of intelligence is well under way" (Sternberg, 1988, p. 6).

• Technology without science. In most fields, technology is driven by science. In the study of intelligence, the opposite is true. Intelligence tests were developed over a century ago, and have been in widespread use ever since, despite the absence of foundational research. Intelligence testing has been a profitable adventure, thus educators and psychologists continued to use it, without any clear understanding of what they are measuring (Sternberg, 1988).

• Single entity. Many tests purport to measure intelligence as a single entity – a one-dimensional construct that captures intelligence in a single number. Sternberg (1988, 1991) argues, however, that researchers have long suggested intelligence is multi-dimensional. "There is little evidence that any scientist studying intelligence – past or present – actually believed it is just a single thing" (Sternberg, 1988, p. 9).

• Fixed entity. Those who produce and administer intelligence tests would like the public to believe that intelligence is a fixed entity, that it doesn't change over time. Tests scores wouldn't be helpful, after all, if they changed every time a person took the test (Sternberg, 1988). Evidence suggests, however, that intelligence can be increased; through instruction and activity, individuals can improve their intelligence.

In addition to these five red herrings, Sternberg sought to develop a model of intelligence that didn't fall victim to what he viewed as misguided assumptions driving current tests and theories of intelligence. Most tests of intelligence are timed, for example, implying a relationship between intelligence and speed. According to Sternberg (1988) however, evidence suggests that a reflective cognitive style is associated with greater intelligence than an impulsive one (Sternberg, 1988). Similarly, intelligence is often associated with verbal ability; people with large vocabularies who are able to read and comprehend vast amounts of information quickly are assumed to be smarter than individuals who know fewer words or who read more slowly. Sternberg (1988) argues, however, that it is the way an individual uses his resources – knowing which things to read and knowing when to read quickly or slowly – more than a general ability to read quickly, that determines intelligence. Similarly, it is not the size of one's vocabulary that necessarily determines how smart someone is, but rather, their ability to decipher meaning within context. Finally, Sternberg (1988) argues that people use multiple strategies to solve problems, and no test can measure all such strategies.

Sternberg's Definition of Intelligence

Sternberg's first task was to define intelligence more broadly. Intelligence had largely become associated with academic achievement and he wanted to show that intelligence was about much more than simply success in school. For Sternberg, then, intelligence is the equivalent of self-management:

Intelligence is not just some dry and dusty quality of mind that is brought to bear when we take IQ tests or try to solve complicated algebra or physics problems. Rather, it is a quality that we use continually in our everyday lives – on the job, in our interpersonal relationships, in decision making. In this context, intelligence can be understood as mental self-management – the manner in which we order and make sense of the events that take place around and within us (Sternberg, 1988, p. x).

Thus, intelligence, he argued, is a cultural concept invented to explain why some people succeed in their environments and others do not. Citing examples of people who succeed in school, but not in 'real-life,' and vice versa, Sternberg argued there must be more to intelligence than is currently measured by most tests. Thus, he identified three profiles of intelligence, outlined below:

Analytical Intelligence: Analytical intelligence, Sternberg argues, is the type of intelligence most often measured on traditional tests of IQ (Fujitsubo, 1998). Students who do well in school, or earn high scores on achievement tests, are typically analytical thinkers. They are good at analysis, comparing and contrasting, evaluation, and explanation.

Creative (Synthetic) Intelligence: The second type of intelligence, what Sternberg (1988, 1998, 2001) alternately refers to in the literature as both creative and synthetic intelligence, taps a different set of skills than those described above. Those who create, design, imagine, and suppose are synthetic thinkers; thus, a graduate student who didn't score high on the GRE, for example, but later proved to be adept at research, is one who is more creatively intelligent than analytically intelligent.

Practical Intelligence: Finally, Sternberg (1988, 1998, 2001) argued that intelligence also involves the ability to apply what one has learned. Those who are skilled at using and implementing what has been learned in the classroom to their everyday experience are individuals who are practically skilled. An analytic student might be able to compare and contrast different business plans, a creative student might be able to develop a new business plan, but a practical student is one who can make a business plan work in 'real life.'

Although these three different profiles were presented as if an individual has strengths in just one area, Sternberg (1991) argues that people typically have a combination of all three. Furthermore, the balance among the three might change over time, so that someone who is analytical earlier in life, becomes more creative as time passes. Intelligence, he argues, is as much about knowing when to use which ability, as it is about strength in any one area (Sternberg, 1991).

Evolution of Triarchic Theory

Although Sternberg (1985, 1988) identified three profiles of intelligence or types of abilities, the name of his theory – triarchic intelligence – evolved from his understanding of how intelligence manifests itself. That is, he wanted to better understand how certain factors – internal factors, experiential factors, and environmental factors – impact intelligent behavior in all three types of people described above. Thus, he titled his theory triarchic because he was attempting to answer the three questions outlined below.

What is the Relationship of Intelligence to the Internal World of the Individual?

Of the three questions posed, the first – the relationship of intelligence to the internal world of the individual – is the one that has received the most research attention. How a person thinks, or the mental processes she uses when confronted with a problem, are obvious components of intelligence. Sternberg (1985, 1988, 1998) identified three important processes: metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-acquisition components.

Metacomponents

Sternberg (1988) suggests that metacomponents are used to plan, monitor, and evaluate problem solving. They comprise the "core of mental self-management, so that no matter how able one is in other aspects of intelligence, deficits in executive processing can often result in truly unintelligent behavior" (Sternberg, 1988, p. 79). There are numerous executive processes, but Sternberg has identified seven as being the most critical. These include the ability to recognize the existence of a problem, define the nature of a problem, generate a set of steps needed to solve a problem, select a strategy for solving a problem, represent information about a problem, allocate mental and physical resources to a problem, and monitor the solution to a problem.

Performance Components

Whereas the metacomponents make decisions about what to do, the performance components are the ones actually carrying out or executing the plan (Sternberg, 1991). The number of performance components is large, because different components are used in solving different types of problems. Sternberg (1991) uses the performance components involved in inductive reasoning – encoding, inference, mapping, and application - as one example. Encoding involves retrieving information from long term memory relevant to the problem at hand. Inference requires identifying a relationship between two items; mapping then requires determining relationships between relations. Finally, application involves applying a relation identified in one set of items to a second set. Word analogies provide a concrete example; the relationship identified in the first pair of words is then applied to identify the appropriate word in the second pair.

Knowledge-Acquisition Components

Sternberg (1991) defines knowledge acquisition components as those used to learn new information. Once again, he proposes three sub-processes: selective encoding, or the separation of relevant information from irrelevant information; selective combination, or the ability to put relevant pieces of information together; and selective comparison, the ability to determine how 'old information' might be helpful in new situations.

What is the Relationship of Intelligence to the Experience of the Individual?

While educators often look at intelligence as an internal property – something that exists solely within the individual – Sternberg (1985) argues that intelligence should also be considered in relation to the type of task being performed. That is, an individual's experience is relative to the task being performed also tells us something about that person's intelligence. How well do they perform tasks they've never performed before? How well do they perform tasks they've repeated time and time again? Sternberg addresses these two questions in his discussion of task novelty and automaticity.

Relative Novelty

As Sternberg (1985) himself admits, the idea that intelligence "involves the ability to deal with novel tasks is far from novel" (p. 68). He adds, however, that the degree of novelty is an important factor to consider; asking a five-year-old to do calculus, for example, would not be a good measure of intelligence. Rather, "the task that is presented should be novel, but not totally outside the individual's past experience" (Sternberg, 1985, p. 69). Furthermore, because people's experience varies, not all tasks will measure intelligence to the same extent for everyone.

Automaticity

On the flip side, how and how well a person performs a task they have encountered many times before also provides information about a person's intelligence. Sternberg (1991) argues that individuals who have the ability to automatize performance once a task becomes familiar have more resources leftover to address novel demands and tasks, and therefore have a distinct advantage over those less able to automatize. He warns, however, that automatization has its risks as well; people who automatize well sometimes lose flexibility, or fail to notice when a familiar task has changed in an important way (Sternberg, 1991).

What is the Relationship of Intelligence to the Environment?

In addition to looking at intelligence in terms of the type of tasks an individual is being asked to perform, Sternberg (1985) suggests that intelligence should also be understood in a larger environmental context. A focus on the environment, he argues, helps eliminate what he calls 'the predictor-criterion' confusion about intelligence. "This confusion – epitomized by the view that intelligence is what IQ tests test – results when the intelligence tests…come to be viewed as better indicators of intelligence than the criterial, real—world intelligent behaviors they are supposed to predict" (Sternberg, 1985, p. 44). Thus, for Sternberg, a critical component of intelligence is how well an individual adapts, selects, a shapes real-world environments important in one's life.

Environmental Adaptation

Sternberg (1988, 1991) defines environmental adaptation as the ability to adjust one's behavior to fit to the circumstances of one's environment. Intelligence tests, he argues, fail to measure adaptive skills, but they are necessary for survival in everyday life. Starting a new job, maintaining friendships, working with someone from another culture, or walking through an unfamiliar neighborhood are all examples of activities that require adaptive skills.

Environmental Selection

Sternberg (1991) argues that it is not always adaptive to adapt; sometimes the best solution in a given circumstance is 'to get out.' Thus, intelligent behavior sometimes requires us to find a new job, leave a marriage, or find the nearest exit in a dangerous situation.

Environmental Shaping

With regard to shaping, Sternberg (1991) writes, "I believe that if there is a pinnacle of practical intelligence, it is in the ability of an individual to shape an environment" (p. 51). Shaping is necessary when attempts to adapt have failed, or when selection is not an option; a person who is dissatisfied in her job but cannot leave for financial reasons may decide to turn her job into something she would like it to be.

Applications

Teaching for Intelligence

One of the central tenets of Sternberg's theory is that intelligence can be taught. It may be partially hereditarily determined, but it is not a fixed entity, and it can shift in its make-up (e.g. from creative to analytical) and improve over time. If intelligence can be taught, one may wonder why individual differences between people persist. Why is one person smarter than another, if it's possible for everyone to improve? Sternberg's research suggests that while everyone can improve, we cannot all achieve the exact same level; a gifted and average student both improve through instruction, "but the amount of difference at the end of training is about the same as the amount of difference at the beginning" (Sternberg, 1991, p. 53).

All of which begs the question, how exactly can intelligence be taught? Sternberg (1998) recognizes that there is often a gap between theory and practice and suggests that "one way of bridging this gap is to be clear on how psychological theory should be translated into educational practice" (p. 65). Toward this end, he developed a set of twelve principles – condensed and outlined below – to help guide teachers in the classroom (Sternberg, 1998). Being clear about how a theory is to be implemented also helps researchers determine if improvement, or lack thereof, can be attributed to the theory or extraneous variables. His guidelines are as follows:

• The goal of instruction is to help students create a knowledge base; the knowledge base should be well and flexibly organized, and allow for easy retrieval.

• Instruction and assessment should involve analytic, creative, and practical skills.

• Instruction should allow students to identify and capitalize upon their strengths; similarly, it should allow them to recognize and correct or compensate for weaknesses.

• Instruction should include, at various times, metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge acquisition components. They should be integrated with one another within instruction, rather than separated.

• Instruction should present tasks that are challenging, but not too challenging, achieve an appropriate balance between task novelty and automaticity.

• Instruction should take into account individual differences in mental strategies (e.g., verbal, quantitative) as well as modalities for input and output.

• Instruction should help students adapt to, select and shape their environment.

In 2013 Sternberg published an article on cognitive education, which is education that seeks to improve the cognitive (mental) skills of the student so that the students can lead constructive and satisfying lives. “There are many different models for cognitive education,” he wrote, “but I have constructed a career doing cognitive education through a ‘theory of successful intelligence’—a theory that can be used in teaching not only on a small scale but also on a large scale” (Sternberg, 2013).

Measuring Intelligence

According to Sternberg, frequently used tests of intelligence such as the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet tests are good at measuring analytic and memory skills, but fall short when assessing practical and creative ones. Sternberg (1988) therefore developed his own test – the Sternberg Multidimensional Abilities test – to fill the gap. His test includes verbal items, quantitative items, and figural items, and is available for people of any age above five. The test provides sub-cores for the three main parts of the triarchic theory – internal mental processes, experience (novelty and automaticity), and environment – and is available in multiple parallel forms for retesting purposes. Importantly, Sternberg assumes scores on his test will change for an individual over time. "To me, the whole point of testing is not to obtain an immutable score but rather to suggest strengths upon which an individual can capitalize and weaknesses that he can remediate" (Sternberg, 1988, p. 71).

Sternberg does admit that conventional tests of intelligence yield a g factor, and that these tests do predict a wide range of outcomes in school, workplace, and “other aspects of people’s lives” (Parmenter, 2011). However, he asserts that the general factor emerges only with respect to the academic or analytical aspect of intelligence. He suggests that when the assessments of creative and practical abilities are included, the presence of the generalfactor is diminished (Parmenter, 2011).

The globalization of the economy in the 21st Century has resulted in increased expectations for educational outcomes for all students, and, in some societies, a renewed interest in assessing and accommodating “gifted” children (Kornilov, Tan, Elliott, Sternberg, & Grigorenko, 2012). Assessment procedures designed for the identification of gifted students have become more refined in many cases, but there is an “ever-present danger of having too narrow a perspective.” An assessment approach, such as the Aurora Battery, based on a theory of intelligence encompassing multiple abilities, may be useful in broadening the scope of conceptions and measures of giftedness (Kornilov, Tan, Elliott, Sternberg, & Grigorenko, 2012).

Viewpoints

As Sternberg himself admits, "to the extent that any idea is creative, it will encounter resistance" (Fujitsubo, 1998, p. 227). And indeed, his theory – groundbreaking and creative when proposed – has generated some criticism. Glenn (1985), for example, points out that triarchic theory gives little attention to changes in intelligence across the lifespan; thus developmental psychologists may find it lacking. Glenn (1985) also suggests that the applicability of the theory to real-life settings has yet to be established, since Sternberg investigated only a narrow range of real life situations. Others suggest the theory has little empirical grounding (Itzkoff, 1985). Sternberg's use of terms such as automaticity, for example, are vague, leading Itzkoff (1985) to ask "of what use are such terms if they do not stand for something unequivocal, solid, discrete, and analyzable?" (p. 104). With increasing research attention being given to behavior in relation to brain functioning and physiology, Itzkoff (1985) implies that Sternberg's theory lacks credibility and scientific validity.

Sternberg portrayed the study of intelligence as a somewhat forgotten field, and while that may have been the case in the mid to late twentieth century, it is no longer true today. A number of competing theories of intelligence have since been proposed, the most often cited being Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. The theoretical development and end result of Gardner's theory contrasts significantly with Sternberg's; Messick (1992), who compared both theories, writes that "there is surprisingly little overlap at a deep-structure or even a surface level between two formulations that both aspire to provide seminal theories of the intellectual sphere" (p. 365). In conclusion, it is perhaps appropriate to suggest Sternberg stimulated conversation about an important topic, but his word won't necessarily be the last. Of his own theory, he writes "it is not the only possible theory [to explain intelligence]…and I hope other theories will be proposed" (Sternberg, 1988, p. 58).

Terms & Concepts

Analytical Intelligence: One of the three profiles of intelligence identified by Sternberg; analytic intelligence measures a person's ability to analyze, compare and contrast, evaluate, and explain. It is the type of intelligence most often required to succeed in academic environments, or to perform well on IQ or other standardized tests. Sternberg's triarchic theory is intended to expand our notions of intelligence beyond just the analytical.

Automaticity: When confronted with familiar tasks, individuals will begin to automatize mental processes. Automaticity allows them to conserve resources so that they are available for more difficult or novel tasks. While automaticity is associated with intelligence, it has risks as well, often leading to reduced flexibility and the inability to detect changes in one's environment.

Creative Intelligence: One of the three profiles of intelligence identified by Sternberg, also referred to as synthetic intelligence. Sternberg argues that people who are creative might not necessarily perform well in school or on standardized tests – both of which typically measure analytic intelligence – but that they will succeed in environments that require them to design, imagine, hypothesize, or create.

Environmental Adaptation: Adaptation is defined as the ability to adjust one's behavior to fit to the circumstances of one's environment.

Environmental Selection: In certain situations, it may be maladaptive to adapt to an environment. Selecting a new environment – and leaving the old one behind – may be the best solution to a problem.

Environmental Shaping: Sternberg defines shaping as the pinnacle of practical intelligence. If an individual cannot leave an environment, and has been unable to adjust his behavior to the circumstances, he might then change the environment instead.

Knowledge Acquisition Components: One of the three processes identified by Sternberg as a critical internal mental process related to intelligence. Knowledge acquisition components allow an individual to learn new information; they include selective encoding, selective combination, and selective comparison.

Metacomponents: One of the three processes identified by Sternberg as a critical internal mental process related to intelligence. Metacomponents are used to plan, monitor, and evaluate problem solving and are critical to effective self-management.

Performance Components: One of the three processes identified by Sternberg as a critical internal mental process related to intelligence. Whereas metacomponents make decisions about how to solve a problem, performance components actually carry out the plan.

Practical Intelligence: One of the three profiles of intelligence identified by Sternberg. Individuals who have practical intelligence are able apply and use what they learn in more traditional academic settings to real-world settings.

Relative Novelty: Intelligence is determined by an individual's prior experience in relation to a task, as well as that person's internal processes. We tend to think of intelligent people as those who succeed when confronted with new challenges or novel tasks. Sternberg argues that a task completely outside a person's experience is too novel, and therefore won't measure intelligence. Furthermore, not all tasks measure intelligence to the same degree because people come to them with different experiences.

Self-Management: Sternberg defines intelligence as mental self-management, or the ability to order and make sense of the events that surround us. Part of self-management is the ability to adapt, select, and shape one's environment. It also involves the ability to capitalize on one's strengths and either remediate or compensate one's weaknesses.

Synthetic Intelligence: One of the three profiles of intelligence identified by Sternberg, also referred to as creative intelligence. Sternberg argues that people who have synthetic intelligence might not necessarily perform well in school or on standardized tests – both of which typically measure analytic intelligence – but that they will succeed in environments that require them to design, imagine, hypothesize, or create.

Bibliography

Fujitsubo, L.C. (1998). Developing and enhancing successful intelligence in introductory psychology students: An interview with Robert J. Sternberg. Teaching of Psychology, 25 , 227-231. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1007187&site=ehost-live

Glenn, S. (1985). Beyond IQ (Book Review). British Journal of Psychology, 76 , 548-549. Retrieved August 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5701530&site=ehost-live

Itzkoff, S. (1985). Beyond IQ (Book Review). Educational Studies, 17 , 101-106. Retrieved August 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7583716&site=ehost-live

Kornilov, S.A., Tan, M., Elliott, J.G., Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2012). Gifted identification with Aurora: Widening the spotlight. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 117–133. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=71456897&site=ehost-live

Messick, S. (1992). Multiple intelligences or multilevel intelligence? Selective emphasis on distinctive properties of hierarchy: On Gardner's Frames of Mind and Sternberg's Beyond IQ in the context of theory and research on the structure of human abilities. Psychological Inquiry, 3 , 365-384. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7402563&site=ehost-live

Parmenter, T.R. (2011). The essential Sternberg. Essays on intelligence, psychology, and education. Journal of Policy & Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 8, 218–219. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65278899&site=ehost-live

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Viking Penguin, Inc.

Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Giftedness according to the triarchic theory of human intelligence. In N. Colangelo and G. Davis (Eds.), The handbook of gifted education (pp. 45-54). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster.

Sternberg. R. J. (1998). Principles of teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychology, 33 (2/3), 65-72. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=996475&site=ehost-live

Sternberg, R.J. (2013). What is cognitive education? Journal of Cognitive Education & Psychology, 12, 45–58. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85941861&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Mandelman, S.D., Barbot, B., Tan, M., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2013). Addressing the 'quiet crisis': Gifted identification with Aurora. Educational & Child Psychology, 30, 101–109. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87590785&site=ehost-live

Sternberg, R. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Sternberg, R., & Davidson, J. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Jarvin, L. (2001). Improving reading instruction: The triarchic model. Educational Leadership, 58 , 48-51. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4216068&site=ehost-live