INTRODUCTION

This unit is intended to extend your understanding of the theoretical and research base for policy and provision in the field of gifted education/talent development. The present state of the field and the changes occurring in it will be examined while you will also be encouraged to identify and investigate contentious issues and problem areas that warrant further research.

 

Objectives

By the end of this unit, students will have:

1. An understanding of current developments within the field of gifted education/talent development.

2. An understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of influential research, argument and policy in the field of talent development.

3. An appreciation of issues and problems in talent development that warrant further investigation.

4. The ability to synthesise and evaluate information from at least one detailed literature search of an aspect of the field of talent development.

 

Recommended Reading

There is no prescribed text for this unit.

Recommended for further reading are:

• Shore, B.M., Cornell, D.G., Robinson, A. & Ward, V.S. (1991) Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Teachers College Press. [371.95/R311]

There are multiple copies of this book in our library, so you will not necessarily need to buy it.

• Heller, K.A., Monks, F.J. & Passow, A.H. (Eds) (1993) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford: Pergamon. [371.95/H477i] 

Several copies of this are available in our library.

 

Content

1. Alternative perspectives on, and future directions in, gifted education/talent development.

2. Contentious issues in gifted education/talent development.

3. Influential reports and policy statements in gifted education/talent development.

4. Notable research projects in gifted education/talent development, past and present.

 

Material

During this unit you will be sent the following material:

(1) Unit Overview

(2) Resource Material

 

There is no residential school for this unit.

 

Assessment

• You are required to submit two assignments. Each assignment is worth 50%.

• Each assignment is to be about 2500-3000 words in length. However, there is no penalty for exceeding this suggested length, provided your discussion is to the point.

• There is no examination in this unit.

• The following grades will be used on assignments: High Distinction, Distinction, Credit, Pass, Unsatisfactory

 

Assignments

Assignment 1: Core Report, 50%, 2500-3000 words

Due: Mid April (semester 1) or Mid September (semester 2)

Much provision for the highly able does not extend beyond Bloom, Gardner and divergent thinking tasks which are, at best, a small step in the direction of appropriately differentiated curriculum. What should a talent development program comprise?

You may focus your response solely upon school level provision but you may also include district, regional or broader considerations, if you wish. Cite theoretical writing, research evidence and practical experience from Australia and overseas to support your argument.

Assignment 2: Issue Report, 50%, 2500-3000 words

Due: Early June (semester 1) or Early November (semester 2)

 

Choose one of the following:

A. Critically evaluate either a significant report on the education of the gifted and talented or your state’s official policy statement on the education of the gifted and talented, supporting your discussion with evidence from research and other literature.

or

B. Nominate up to five articles published in the last decade that will have, or could have, the greatest impact on the field of talent development. Explain and defend your choice.

or

C. Does Sternberg’s ‘successful intelligence’ notion offer hope for the disadvantaged and underachieving, or is it likely to maintain the underrepresentation of children from such groups in programs and provision for the gifted/talented?

or

D. Evaluate the contribution to the gifted and talented field of the writing of one, or two, of the following: Camilla Benbow, Barbara Kerr, George Betts, June Maker, Eddie Braggett, Sally Reis, Barbara Clark, Joseph Renzulli, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Sylvia Rimm, Francoys Gagné, Linda Silverman, Howard Gardner, Robert Sternberg, Miraca Gross, Abraham Tannenbaum, John Feldhusen, Lewis Terman, Leta Hollingworth, Paul Torrance.

Other people may be added to this list by negotiation.

or

E. Compile a literature review of one aspect of talent development, justifying your choice and identifying what further research is needed.

or

F. Choose one, or two, of the ‘recommended practices’ examined by Shore et al. (1991) and evaluate their conclusions about these practices in light of your own investigation of the available research evidence. [Note that significant new research may have been published since their time of writing.]

or

G. Evaluate the criticisms of gifted education made
either  in Sapon-Shevin’s book, Playing Favorites: Gifted Education and the Disruption of Community
or  in Margolin’s book, Giftedness Personified: The Emergence of Gifted Children.

or

H. Critically evaluate inservice provision, or professional development, in the field of gifted education in your district and/or state, drawing upon relevant literature to support your conclusions and to suggest how it might be improved.

or

I. "Evaluation is often the orphan child of program management. Too often an afterthought, evaluation has a bad name because it is not done well or at the right time." (Seeley, in Maker, 1986: 265)

Discuss the differences between good and bad program evaluation and outline some evaluation procedures that are both defensible and realistic. Are there any special difficulties or problems associated with evaluating programs/provisions for the gifted and talented?

or

J. Critically discuss at least one evaluation of a gifted and talented program, noting the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used and commenting on the soundness of the findings. [Suitable examples may be found in journals (published as articles or as research reports), in conference proceedings and in commissioned reports (such as those published by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, in the USA).]

or

K. Is there a ‘tall poppy syndrome’ in Australia? If so, analyse its origins and forms. If not, analyse why the notion prevails.

or

L. Negotiate an appropriate literature review task of your own choice. This may relate to any aspect of talent development but approval must be obtained from the unit coordinator. If wishing to take up this option you will need to send in a written proposal by early May (semester 1) or early September (semester 2), though discussing it by phone or email before then is highly desirable.

...

References

Some other sources from our UNE library or website are briefly summarised below:

Alexander, J.L. (1996) Long-term effects of an early intervention program for gifted and talented students. Unpublished EdD dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. [371.95/A376L]
‘The purpose of the study was to determine the long-term effects of a three-year, self-contained program for students who were identified by the local school district as gifted and talented .... The population consisted of 109 students from eleven elementary schools who were formally identified for a full-time, self-contained gifted class for the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades. ...
Students in the experimental group showed significant differences from the control group on all measures of achievement.’ (Abstract)

Avery, L.D. & Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1997) Making evaluation work: One school district’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (4), 124-132.
‘Given the paucity of evaluation studies of gifted programs in the literature, this article shares the experiences of the Greenwich Public Schools in sponsoring an external evaluation of their K-8 program for gifted and talented youngsters. The article explains the methodology used in the evaluation, discusses findings and recommendations, and describes how the results were translated into program improvement efforts. Also addressed are the evaluators’ observations about lessons learned in the process of the evaluation; these lessons reflect on the utility of information gathered.’ (p.124)

Bailey, S., Braggett, E. & Robinson, M. (Eds) (1990) The challenge of excellence: ‘A vision splendid’. Melbourne: AAEGT. [371.95/W927, 1989]
Comprises selected papers from the Eighth World Conference on Gifted and Talented children, in Sydney, including reports of research from Australia and overseas.

Borland, J.H. (1996) Gifted education and the threat of irrelevance. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (2), 129-147.
‘In this paper, I argue that, when one subjects the field of gifted education to critical appraisal, the most important finding that emerges is a sense that the field is increasingly irrelevant in the educational scheme of things. ... Instead of asking the questions that are and ought to be basic to our field, we have left that task to others, contenting ourselves instead with defending gifted programs as if they were an end, not a means to an end. I develop this argument in the context of a number of fundamental questions that bear on the theory and practice of educating gifted students, questions that have, for the most part, been raised by individuals outside the field of gifted education.’ (p.129)

Borland, J.H. (1989) Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press. [371.95/B735p]
In addition to chapter 9, reprinted in the Resource Material, see chapter 3, ‘A system approach to planning programs for the gifted’, chapter 4, ‘Conducting a needs assessment’, chapter 8, ‘Appropriate curriculum for the gifted’, and chapter 10, ‘Final thoughts and conclusions’.

Bronzell, P.J. (1995) An analysis of selected gifted early adolescent protagonists in children’s and young adult literature. Unpublished EdD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, USA. [809.89282/B869a]
‘The study analyzed five gifted early adolescent protagonists in children’s and young adult literature. ... Protagonists were analyzed according to the characteristics, needs, and dynamics of giftedness as posited by Buescher. Dabrowski’s theory of emotional development, or positive disintegration, was used to analyze the adolescent’s emotional restructuring.
The findings of this study suggest that there exists a body of literature that reflects the ever-changing chaotic reality that is experienced by the gifted early adolescent.’ (pp.i-ii)

Callahan, C.M. (1996) A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (2), 148-163.
‘By examining contributions and triumphs of the field (eg, recognition of individual differences, innovative assessment, commitment to high standards and raising the ceiling of instruction, stress on process and metacognitive skills, and real-world problem solving) in conjunction with the weakness of our field (eg, the notion of a program, persistent narrowness of definition and identification, inappropriate adoption of measurement models as bases for curriculum development, lack of evaluation, and poor relationships with other programs), we may be able to stimulate discussions of ways to move the field forward theoretically and practically.’ (p.148)

Chamberlain, M.A. (1993) Philosophy for Children program and the development of critical thinking of gifted elementary students. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Kentucky.
‘A triangulation research strategy was utilized in which both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered and analyzed. ... The New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills and the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes, two tests of critical thinking, comprised the quantitative data. Qualitative data included (1.) audio recordings of group discussions (2.) student journal entries written during 10 minutes following each discussion session.’ (p.i)

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G. & Ambroson, D.L. (Eds) (1992) Talent development: Proceedings from The 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow. [371.9507/T143]
Comprises six ‘Keynote addresses’, thirteen ‘Invited papers’ and 24 other short research reports, on a range of issues. See, for example, Feldman’s ‘Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education?’ and ‘Extreme giftedness: A developmental view’, Cohen’s ‘From ownership to "allship": Building a conceptual framework for educating the gifted and creative’, and Jenkins-Friedman’s and Tollefson’s ‘Resiliency in cognition and motivation and its applicability to giftedness’.

Craven, R.G. & Marsh, H.W. (1997) Threats to gifted and talented students’ self-concepts in the big pond: Research results and educational implications. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6 (2), 7-17.
‘Educators and parents often assume that GAT students’ needs are best met in educational environments in which the average ability of students is high (eg selective high schools, special programs and classes for GAT primary students). Such educational environments are also assumed to enhance all GAT students’ self-concepts by providing an academically stimulating environment. In contrast to this "conventional wisdom" self-concept research and theory calls into question these assumed benefits for every GAT students and suggests that some educational environments may negatively influence some GAT students’ self-concepts. The purpose of this paper is to review advances in self-concept research and to relate these to questioning the assumed benefits of educational environments in which the average ability level of students is high. The self-concept literature suggests that maximising GAT students’ self-concepts needs to be: a) recognised by educators as a critical concern; b) proactively addressed and accounted for in selective educational environments; and c) considered a priority area for developing a range of strategies for diverse high ability educational settings.’ (p.7)

Dobyns, S.M. (1992) An observational study of classroom practices with gifted and high ability students. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Connecticut. [371.956/D634o]
An example of the use of naturalistic observation as a methodology. The study addressed two questions: 1. What curricular and instructional practices are used in regular classrooms with gifted and talented students? 2. Does the presence of a gifted program in a school change the regular classroom practices used with gifted and talented students? The researcher spent two days of structured observations in each of 46 third or fourth grade classrooms. A ‘Classroom Practices Record’ instrument was developed to record information about the occurrences and types of teaching observed.

Eby, J.W. & Smutny, J.F. (1990) A thoughtful overview of gifted education. New York: Longman. [371.95/E16t]
See chapter 10, ‘Evaluating your gifted program’.

Elliott, M. L. (1998) Gifted adolescent boys: Signs of neglect. Reach for the Stars: Proceedings of the AAEGT 7th National Gifted Conference. Hobart, 18-20 June. http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/tag/aaegt7/elliott.htm

Enersen, D.L. (1993) Positive partnerships: Improving interactions among parents of gifted children and educators. Unpublished PhD thesis, Purdue University, USA. [371.95/E56p]
‘This study examined a specifically designed parent education intervention for parents of gifted children. ...
Four assertions emerged from the analysis of the data: 1) Parents of gifted children need information and support; 2) Parents have beliefs about teachers and school that engender conflict; 3) Teachers have beliefs about gifted children and their parents that engender conflict; and 4) Parent education is an effective way to meet the needs of parents.’ (pp.xii-xiii)

Fetterman, D.M. (1993) Evaluate yourself. Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. [CR371.95/F421e]
‘This discussion will highlight some of the common sense ways of reflecting upon one’s programmatic achievements and shortcomings, and discuss briefly the value of an external evaluation component in that reflective process. It will also provide standard questions to ask in the process of an evaluation and outline both general evaluation guidelines and guidelines specific to the evaluation of gifted and talented education programs. These guidelines can be adapted to the individual local context. A detailed case example is presented to illustrate the scope and multifaceted nature of a program evaluation.’ (p.1)

Gedo, J.E. & Gedo, M.M. (1992) Perspectives on creativity: The biographical method. Norwood: Ablex. [153.35/G296p]
‘We are convinced that methodological works cannot be useful unless they demonstrate the principles they espouse through concrete examples. Hence, we have decided to organize this book as a methodological sampler, illustrating each of the main tactical avenues of the biographer by means of a brief illustration culled from our own work.’ (p.vii) Includes coverage of Mozart, Goya, Magritte, and Freud.

Gross, M.U.M. (1993) Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge. [371.951/G878e]
This book is based upon Miraca’s doctoral research study and as well as being thought provoking and informative it also provides a useful model for other researchers, particularly those employing a case study methodology (see in particular Chapter 3, ‘Methodology and procedures of the study’, and the questionnaire and interview Appendices at the end of the book).

Gross, M.U.M. (1997) How ability grouping turns big fish into little fish - or does it? Of optical illusions and optimal environments. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6 (2), 18-30.
‘Shifts in self-esteem were monitored for three groups of Australian students during their first year of secondary education: students in Comprehensive (mixed-ability) High Schools, students in Selective High Schools for academically gifted children, and Selective High School students undertaking a program of acceleration which compacted school years 7 and 8 into a single year.

Both Comprehensive High School students and Selective High School students not in the acceleration program experienced a significant decline in academic self-esteem over the course of the year; however Selective High School students in the accelerated program experienced no significant decline in academic self-esteem. Academic, social, general, and total self-esteem were significantly higher for Selective High School students than for Comprehensive High School students on all test administrations, while Selective High School students in the accelerated program displayed significantly higher social, general, home/parents and total self-esteem than Selective High School students who were not accelerated.

Shifts in self-esteem appear to be linked to the students’ motivational orientation towards task-involvement or ego-involvement, with ego-involved students displaying lower self-esteem than task-involved students on all self-esteem subscales.’ (p.18)

Hahn, K.A. (1993) The effects of a collaborative decision-making model on gifted students. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of South Florida. [158.4/H148e]
‘There were two parts to the study. The first part focused on student outcomes that examined the quantitative effects of the MPC [Managing Productive Classrooms] model on achievement, leadership skills, attitude toward school, locus of control, and self concept. The second part was an observational study that examined the MPC processes as evidenced in observable changes in student behavior related to goal setting, leadership skills, cooperative action planning, and decision making. The second part used observations, surveys, and open ended interviews of students to gather data.’ (p.57)

Hebert, T.P. (1991) Meeting the affective needs of bright boys through bibliotherapy. Roeper Review, 13 (4), 207-212.
‘This article describes six issues confronting gifted boys: image management, self-inflicted pressure, the trauma of being labeled ‘different’, male bonding, cultural expectations, and gender role conflict. The article then delineates suggestions for bibliotherapy as a counseling strategy through which gifted boys may gain insights to deal with the dilemmas they face.’ (p.207)

Hebert, T.P. (1995) Using biography to counsel gifted young men. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 6 (3), 208-219.
‘This article focuses on four issues confronting bright young men: underachievement, self-inflicted pressure in athletics, cultural alienation, and father-son relationships. The author proposes the use of biography as a counseling strategy through which bright young men may gain helpful insights to deal with the problems they face.’ (p.208)

Heller, K.A., Monks, F.J. & Passow, A.H. (Eds) (1993) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford: Pergamon. [371.95/H477i]
A wide-ranging overview that comprises 53 chapters covering seven sections: ‘Historical perspective and perennial issues’, ‘Conceptions and development of giftedness and talent’, ‘Identification of giftedness and talent’, ‘Programs and practices for nurturing the gifted and the talented’, ‘Other components of nurturing giftedness and talent’, ‘Examples of country efforts, policies, programs and issues’, ‘Present and future education of the gifted and talented.’ Includes contributions from many notables in the field.

Hewitt, P.L. & Flett, G.L. (1991) Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualisation, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (3), 456-470.
Outlines three types of perfectionism: self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism and socially-prescribed perfectionism.

Hoover, S.M. (1993) Cluster grouping of gifted students at the elementary level. Roeper Review, 16 (1), 13-15.
‘Clustered students are grouped heterogeneously with students of low and average ability but regrouped as a cluster within the same classroom for instruction in areas where their skills are at much higher levels. Since students of all ability levels are in the same classroom, it is easy to move above-average students who are performing at high levels into the cluster groups.’ (p.15)

Howard, D.D. (1995) A naturalistic study of the psychological development of highly gifted young girls. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Denver. [155.455/H848n]
‘This study has documented that young highly cognitively gifted girls also demonstrate advanced psychosocial development. Observed intense sensitivities may drive their developmental potential and advanced perspective taking permeates their inter and intrapersonal life experiences.’ (pp.218-219)

Jackson, N.E. & Roller, C.M. (1993) Reading with young children. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. [CR372.4/J13r]
‘This report provides research-based answers to questions parents and teachers ask about how reading and writing develop from, infancy to about age 6 years. The unusually rapid development of these skills in some young children is considered in a major section on precocious readers.’ (p.ix)

Johnson, S.E. (1992) The effects of methodological science process skill training in environmental science on intermediate student creative productivity. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Connecticut, USA. [371.956/J69e]
‘This study compared the effect of three instructional methods in environmental science (Type I exploratory activities, Type II methodological training, and combined Type I/Type II activities) and the influence of grade level, gender, achievement scores, attitude toward science, and self-efficacy for creative productivity on the initiation of scientific investigations.

A quasi-experimental, nonequivalent control group pretest-posttest design was used to examine the effects of the variables during the ten weeks of the study, and grade level and pre-treatment self-efficacy for creative productivity scores were covaried for all analyses. The subjects were 342 above-average 4th, 5th and 6th grade students in 11 states.’ (Abstract)

Lambie, K.R. (1993) Metamemory as a factor in describing the learning characteristics of economically disadvantaged gifted children. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Georgia. [371.95/L224m]
Three research questions were posed: 1. Are there differences in the metamemorial knowledge of nontraditionally identified gifted subjects compared to traditionally identified gifted subjects? 2. Are there developmental differences in the metamemorial knowledge of younger subjects (ie, grades one and two) compared to older subjects (ie, grades four and five)? 3. Is there an interaction between grade (first and second, and fourth and fifth grade) and group (traditional and nontraditional) in the metamemorial knowledge? Data were analysed using two statistical procedures, Categorical data MODelling (CATMOD) and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

Lloyd, L. (1997) Multi-age classes: An option for all students? The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6 (1), 11-20.
‘Multi-age classes formed by choice are currently undergoing a resurgence in popularity. ... This article describes and discusses the reported advantages of multi-age classes in general and examines their potential significance for students of high ability. It is concluded that any type of grouping is unlikely, by itself, to cause any change in cognitive or affective variables, but to the extent that a teacher of a multi-age class is committed to a focus on individual students and developmentally appropriate (not age-related) learning, might such a class prove to be a desirable option.’ (p.11)

Maker, C.J. (Ed.) (1986) Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted. Rockville: Aspen. [371.950973/M235c]
In addition to Seeley’s chapter, reprinted in Resource Material Set 1, see Section II, ‘Qualitatively different: Is it a key concept in developing curricula?’ and the other chapters in Section IV, ‘Policies, program development, and evaluation: What can we defend, and how should it be defended?’ - especially chapter 21, ‘Defensible evaluations of programs for the gifted and talented’, chapter 22, ‘Evaluation for gifted education: Synthesis and discussion’, and chapter 23, ‘A response to "Evaluation for gifted education"’. Maker’s overview, in Section V, ‘Defensible programs for gifted students’, provides a useful, concise summary of earlier discussion.

Morelock, M.J. (1996) On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19 (1), 4-12.
‘This article traces the development of the confusion enveloping the field today. It finds its roots in the very beginnings of the modern study of giftedness and talent and charts its contemporary opposing Movements: the Talent Development Movement and the Columbus Group Movement. It is argued that these two movements exemplify the culmination of two strands of research, theory and practice - ‘the gifted achiever’ strand and ‘the gifted child’ strand. Vygotskian theory is proposed as providing a conceptual framework which can accommodate what had been learned about giftedness and talent since the advent of IQ testing, resolve differences in the field by providing an overarching theoretical synthesis, and orient us toward future directions for research and practice.’ (p.4)

National Association for Gifted Children (1986) Research and evaluation convention proceedings. Las Vegas: NAGC. [371.95/N277R]
Contains numerous 2- to 6-page abstracts of research papers from the 1986 NAGC Annual Convention, grouped under the headings of ‘Sex differences’, ‘Gifted youth and their families’, ‘Problem solving’, ‘Program and curriculum effectiveness’, ‘Acceleration’, ‘Professional development’, and ‘Methodological issues and evaluation techniques’.

O’Grady, A.L. (1995) The onset of academic underachievement among gifted adolescents: Causal attributions and the perceived effects of early interventions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Connecticut, USA. [371.95/O35o]
‘The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of gifted adolescents who were experiencing the onset of academic underachievement in junior high. ... Using a phenomenological approach ... data were gathered from parent and student questionnaires, school records, progress reports, and interviews of students. A case study analysis and multicase analysis were conducted ....
The students reported that these factors contributed to the onset of their academic underachievement in junior high: an alienating school environment, inadequate school survival skills, deficiencies in personal ability, the influence of peers, and problems with parents.’ (Abstract)

Olenchak, F.R. (1988) The Schoolwide Enrichment Model in elementary schools: A study of implementation stages and the effects on educational excellence. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Connecticut, USA. [370.973/O45s]
This investigation of Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model ‘involved 1,698 students and 236 teachers in kindergarten through grade six from 11 schools representing a wide range of socioeconomic and demographic levels. A variety of instruments was used to assess and compare variables among the groups.’ (Abstract)

Pizzat-Tinnin, P.M. (1995) Preservice teachers’ beliefs regarding instruction for the gifted. Unpublished EdD dissertation, University of Virginia, USA. [371.950973/P695p]
‘Using video-based cases of gifted students as a vehicle for promoting preservice teachers’ thinking, six prospective teachers were interviewed during their teaching associateship. The volunteer participants were audio taped as they described their thinking about instructing three different cases of high ability learners.
Cross case analysis revealed that teachers’ critical thinking about instruction increased as they acquired practical knowledge in the classroom.’ (pp.i-ii)

Reis, S.M. (1981) An analysis of the productivity of gifted students participating in programs using the Revolving Door Identification Model. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Connecticut, USA. [371.95/R375a]
An example of a doctoral study of an aspect of Renzulli’s enrichment triad model in practice. Includes details of the research instruments used. ‘The purpose of this study was to develop a product rating scale, the Student Product Assessment Form, which was used by raters to assess the differences in the quality of products completed by male and female students in the gifted programs’ in twelve school districts throughout Connecticut. Used analysis of variance and a qualitative analysis. (Abstract)

Robertson, E.H. (1988) Gifted adolescent academic underachievement: What the adolescents say. Unpublished EdD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, USA. [371.95/R649G]
‘The researcher conducted structured in-depth interviews with two small groups of gifted adolescent underachievers to obtain their perceptions, feelings, and thoughts about identity, personal competence, academic competence and purpose, and the relationship of their life experiences to personal identity, education, and self-esteem. The data were triangulated through interviews with college-aged subjects from an earlier pilot study and with six middle-aged successful adults who were self-defined as being gifted and underachieving in high school.’ (Abstract)

Robinson, A. (1991) Cooperative learning and the academically talented student. Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. [Q371.25/N277c]
‘The research base on cooperative learning was examined for its applicability to academically talented students. Common types of cooperative learning are described with highlights of the model characteristics as they apply to academically talented students. ... Advantages and disadvantages of the various models for academically talented students were summarized. The weaknesses in the cooperative learning literature, as it relates to academically talented students, were also identified.’ (p.vii)

Rogers, J.A. (1993) Understanding spatial intelligence through problem-solving in art: An analysis of behaviors, processes, and products. Unpublished EdD dissertation, University of Arizona. [371.95/R727u]
‘Subjects were videotaped as they solved a series of five increasingly more complex and open-ended problems ... in each of Gardner’s intelligences, and as they responded to interview questions. ... Qualitative methods were used to analyze the spatial portion of the videotapes of eighteen of the original subjects.’ (p.16)

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994) Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: State University of New York Press. [371.950973/S241p]
‘This book is about something important that is happening in our nation’s schools, a phenomenon called ‘gifted education’, which identifies certain children as eligible to receive particular kinds of educational experiences, often segregated from their ‘nongifted’ peers. These programs speak to us of unequal educational opportunities, racism, elitism, and exclusion, but somehow we have learned these are things we’re ‘not supposed to talk about’. And so, this book is about silence and about silencing, and it is about breaking the silence.’ (p.xix)

Shore, B.M., Cornell, D.G., Robinson, A. & Ward, V.S. (1991) Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Teachers College Press. [371.95/R311]
‘The authors have identified 101 recommended practices in gifted education chosen from 100 books and 'discuss the sources of the advice to carry out each practice, the research - especially empirical research - which supports or refutes each practice, the implication of the state of knowledge for practice, and the research still needed to strengthen our knowledge base.’’ (p.xiii) The practices cover ‘Advocacy and administration’ (10), ‘Identification and assessment’ (15), ‘Curricular and program policies’ (24), ‘Advice to educators’ (17), ‘Advice to parents’ (10), ‘Advice to professionals’ (6), ‘Social and emotional adjustment’ (8), and ‘Special groups of gifted children’ (11).

Southern, W.T. & Jones, E.D. (Eds) (1991) The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press. [371.95/A168]
A very good example of literature reviews. Includes chapters on ‘Academic acceleration: Background and issues’, ‘Selection of candidates for early admission to kindergarten and first grade’, ‘Objections to early entrance and grade skipping’, ‘Affective development in accelerated students’, ‘Young college students: Assessing factors that contribute to success’, ‘Identification of candidates for acceleration: Issues and concerns’, ‘Practical concerns in assessment and placement in academic acceleration’, and ‘Evaluation of acceleration programs’.

Sternberg, R.J. (1992) Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [153.9/S839m]
This is ‘a book about how people in various disciplines, but especially psychology, have viewed intelligence. The main theme is that theories of intelligence are guided by underlying metaphors of mind. To understand the theories and their interrelations properly, one has to understand the underlying metaphor. Moreover, in comparing theories, it is important to distinguish between comparisons that occur within versus across metaphors.’ (p.ix)

Sternberg, R.J. & Berg, C.A. (Eds) (1992) Intellectual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [155/I61]
Childhood and adulthood are explored via six major approaches to development, the psychometric, Piagetian, neo-Piagetian, information-processing, learning, and contextual.

Sternberg, R.J. (1996) Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster. [153.9/S839s]
‘We must never lose sight of the fact that what really matters most in the world is not inert intelligence but successful intelligence: that balanced combination of analytical, creative, and practical thinking skills. ... It is my contention that successful intelligence should be taught, because it is the kind of intelligence that will be the most valuable and rewarding in the real world after school - both in our work and in our personal lives.’ (p.269)

Sternberg, R.J. & Detterman, D.K. (Eds) (1986) What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition. Norwood: Ablex. [153.9/W555]
‘The field of intelligence has evolved from one that concentrated primarily upon psychometric issues in 1921 to one that concentrates primarily upon information processing, cultural context, and their interrelationships in 1986. Prediction of behavior now seems to be somewhat less important than the understanding of that behavior, which needs to precede prediction.’ (p.162) The book comprises ‘Two dozen brief essays by foremost experts in the field of intelligence’ (p.vii), including Anastasi, Eysenck, Gardner, and Sternberg.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1988) Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [371.953/C737]
See chapters 2 to 5, on curriculum planning and development, measuring student outcomes, developing scope and sequence, and developing units of instruction. The chapters on adapting curriculum in content areas and on integrating curriculum may also be of interest.

Vialle, W.J. (1991) Tuesday’s children: A study of five children using multiple intelligences theory as a framework. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of South Florida. [155.413/612t]
Another example of multiple case study methodology, involving observation and interviewing to provide triangulation. The five children studied were Afro-American and of preschool age. For anyone interested in Gardner’s multiple intelligences this is worth a look, too.

Willard-Holt, C. (1993) Caged birds do sing: Gifted students with cerebral palsy. Unpublished PhD thesis, Purdue University. [371.95/W696c]
‘This research concentrated on students with a special physical disability - cerebral palsy - who are also unable to communicate by speaking. The primary research goal was to describe the unorthodox ways in which these students express their giftedness.’ (p.3) This thesis provides an example of ‘qualitative cross-case study’ methodology, involving two detailed case studies within a conceptual framework of phenomenology and symbolic interactionism.

For further enquiries of an academic nature, please contact:

Dr Peter Merrotsy
Ph: (02) 6773 3832
Email

©TalentEd is located at the School of Education, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.

This page updated: 19 November 2007