Terpene

thcscience_admin
Page 1
BEING
GIFTED
IN
SCHOOL
second edition
second edition
Being
Gifted
in
School<br/>
an
introduction
to development, guidance,
and teaching
Laurence J. Coleman
<br/>
& Tracy L. Cross
First published in 2005 by Prufrock Press Inc.
Published 2021 by Routledge <br/>
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group
Cover design by Marjorie Parker and layout design by James Kendrick
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or
by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
Notice:<br/>
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data<br/>
Being gifted in school : an introduction to development, guidance, and teaching / by Laurence J.
Coleman and Tracy L. Cross.—2nd ed.<br/>
p. cm.<br/>
Includes bibliographical references and index.<br/>
1. Gifted children—Education. I. Cross, Tracy L. II. Title.<br/>
LC3993.C587 2005<br/>
371.95—dc22<br/>
2005009386
ISBN 13: 978-1-5936-3154-3 (hbk)
ISBN 13: 978-1-6182-1838-4 (pbk)
To those special teachers who inspired us
and to Tom Cross for his inspiration
Contents
1. Definitions and Models of Giftedness 1
Who Are the Gifted? 5
Definitions of Giftedness 5
Ex Post Facto 6
Measurable IQ 6
Achievement 8
Creativity 8
Social Talent 9
Interaction of Attributes 11
Percentage-Type and Development 11
Omnibus 12
The Varieties of Giftedness
14
Case 1: Dora—An Embarrassment of Riches 15
Case 2: Sarah—A Discrepancy in Ability 15
Case 3: Francine—A Talented Musician
With a Moderate IQ 16
Case 4: Edwin—A School Failure With a High IQ 16
Case 5: Marshall—A Physically Handicapping Condition 16
Case 6: David—Underachievement
With a Tradition of Education 17
Case 7: Dylan—A Shy Gifted Twin With Many Talents 17
Factors That Influence Definitions of Giftedness
19
A School-Based Conception of Giftedness
20
Who Is Not Gifted?
22
Are the Gifted Handicapped?
23
Conclusion
24
For Discussion
24
2. The Lives of Gifted People
27
The Database
28
Early Research: Portrait of a Gifted Child
29
Issues in the Portrait of a Gifted Child
33
Validity of the Portrait 33
Sociocultural Environment 34
Selection of Gifted Students 34
Sex Differences 35
Stability of IQ 38
Socioeconomic Status and Ethnic Issues 38
Special Abilities and IQ 38
Emotional Stability 40
The Creatively Gifted 41
The Gifted as Adults
41
Definitions 42
A Brief Sketch
42
Sources of Life Satisfaction 43
Career Choices and Accomplishments 46
Career Portraits 53
Predictors of Adult Accomplishment 56
The Nonmodal Gifted
60
Conclusion
61
For Discussion
62
3. Identifying the Gifted
65
Universal Assumptions
67
Procedural Concerns
69
Measurement
72
Who Controls the Process? 72
Types of Measurement 73
Typical Identification Systems: A Summary and Critique 95
Identifying the Nonmodal Gifted Child:
A Continuing Dilemma
98
Gifted Disabled 99
Culturally Different Gifted 102
Solutions for Identifying Nonmodal Gifted Children 105
Summary of Identification of the Nonmodal Gifted 114
Special Issues in Identification
115
Identifying Nonacademic Ability 116
Motivation and Identification 119
Early Identification 120
Interrelationship Between Abilities and Identification 122
Secondary School Identification 124
What Identification Cannot Do For Teachers
125
Why Do Children Get Missed?
126
Conclusion
127
For Discussion
128
4. Families: Guidance Considerations
131
General Familial Descriptors
133
Familial Patterns of Behavior 136
Family Member Concerns 138
Special Problems for Parents 141
Child-Rearing Problems 142
The Parent/School Relationship
143
General Principles 143
Family Relations With the School
144
The Teacher and Frequently Asked Questions by Parents
149
How Can We Tell Whether Our Child Is Gifted? 149
What Can We Do to Help Our Child Develop? 151
What Should We Do at Home to Promote Giftedness? 152
What Do Those Test Scores Mean?
154
Why Isn't Our Child Weil-Rounded? 155
Should We Accelerate Our Child? 156
For Discussion
158
5. Coping With Giftedness: Guidance
and Counseling Considerations
161
Defining the Territory
162
Sources of Conflict in the Lives of Gifted Children
164
General Mixed Messages 166
Gifted-Role Messages 169
Gender-Role Messages 171
Summary 172
Traits and Guidance Problems: An Interactive View
172
Managing Identity 173
Stigma of Giftedness 174
The Teacher's Reaction 178
On-Grade Behavior 179
Working With the Teacher 180
Problems for Special Groups
181
Culturally Diverse Gifted 181
Gifted Women
182
Gifted Students With Disabilities 185
Special-Ability Gifted 186
Strategies Used in the Process of Managing Identity
188
The Continuum of Visibility 190
Successful Strategies: Implications for Guidance 194
Underachievement: An Unsuccessful Strategy? 196
Developmental Models and Guidance
199
The Place of Models 199
The Universal Developmental Model 199
The Behavioral-Cognitive Model 202
The Domain-Specific Developmental Model 204
Incorporating the Models in a Guidance Program 207
A Program of Guidance 209
Notes on Problem Behaviors 215
Conclusion
216
For Discussion
217
6. Creativity: Psychology,
Development, and Teaching
219
Definitions of Creativity
220
Classifying-Definitions 221
A Working Definition 222
The Basic Questions
223
The Question of Measurement 223
The Question of Intelligence and Creativity 233
A Question of Process
238
The Creative Process and Development
242
The Trait Approach and Development 242
The Process Approach and Development 245
Cultural/Historical Conditions and Development 247
The Question of Education: Teaching for Creativity
249
Theory as an Organizing Principle 249
The Nature of the Evidence 251
Materials and Programs 258
Summary 259
Conclusion
259
For Discussion
261
7. Administrative Arrangements,
Program Prototypes, and the Teacher
263
Challenges the Gifted Present to the School
265
Three Models
266
Variables Relevant to Program Planning
269
Enrichment 270
Acceleration 270
Special Grouping in Settings 270
Combining the Variables 271
The Acceleration-Enrichment Controversy 271
Common Premises in Program Planning 278
Some Typical Program Options
278
Out-of-School 279
Special Schools 280
Early Admission 281
Grade Skipping 281
Grade Telescoping 282
Subject-Specific Acceleration 282
Accelerated Enrichment Classes 283
Special Course Enrichment 283
Individualized Approaches: Independent
Study, Tutoring, and Mentoring 284
Mainstreaming and Inclusion 285
Evaluating Programs
286
Selecting Personnel: Teachers and Mentors
288
Attributes of a Teacher 288
Challenges Confronting Teachers of the Gifted 290
Attributes of Mentors 291
Examples of Successful Programs
293
The Roeper School 293
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM ) 294
The Indiana Academy for Science,
Mathematics, and the Humanities 296
Talent Searches: The Center for Talented Youth
297
Centerville City Schools
299
The International Baccalaureate
of North America (IBNA) 301
Conclusion
303
For Discussion
304
8. Curriculum Theory and Practice
307
The Purpose of Schooling
309
What Is a Differentiated Curriculum?
309
Real Differences? 310
Quantitative or Qualitative Differences?
310
Models Used for Curriculum Building
313
Direct Models 314
Indirect Models 318
The Discipline-Specific Curriculum Model
322
Comparing the Models 324
Unanswered Questions 326
An Idealized Curriculum?
328
Conclusion
329
For Discussion
330
9. Teaching Theory
333
Principles of Teaching
336
Content-Related Principles 336
Diagnostic-Related Principles 336
Learning-Related Principles 337
Teaching Systems
337
The Diagnostic Teaching-Prescriptive
Instruction System (DT-PI) 338
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) System 339
Problem-Based Learning System (PBL) 340
Self-Directed Learning (SDL) System 341
Summary of Teaching Systems 343
Moving Into the Classroom: General Teaching Methods
345
The Recitation Method.
345
The Lecture Method 346
The Discussion Method 347
The Tutoring/Coaching Method 349
The Simulation and Gaming Method 350
The Discovery Method 351
The Observational Method
352
The Independent Study Method 353
The Materials-Driven Method 354
Summary of General Teaching Methods 355
Conclusion
356
For Discussion
357
10. Teaching Methods and Best Practices
359
Teaching Nonmodal Gifted Children
360
Statements About the Obvious 362
Statements About the Not-So-Obvious 363
What Does This Mean for Teachers? 363
What Does This Mean for Curricula
for Nonmodal Learners? 363
What Does This Mean for Teaching Diverse Learners? 364
Kinds of Teaching Decisions
365
The Basis of Teaching Decisions 366
Background of Our Interpretation
of Learning and Development 366
Planning Decisions
368
A Digression: Meaningless
Learning and Teaching Recipes 379
Action Decisions
381
Useful Techniques for Teachers
382
Differentiation in the Classroom 384
Curriculum Compacting 385
A Cache of Techniques 389
Conducting Active Discussions 390
Specialized Methods Tied to Special Goals
393
Creativity and Problem Solving 393
Attitudes and Values
397
Research Skills and Independent Study Skills
398
Summary 400
Instructional Materials and Media
401
Evaluating and Preparing Instructional Materials 402
Adapting Materials
404
Creating Materials 405
Summary 407
Conclusion
407
For Discussion
408
References
409
Index
447
Chapter
One
Definitions
and Models
of Giftedness
Key Concepts
•
The basic concept of giftedness has existed in
different
societies throughout the world for thousands of
years.
•
Giftedness is viewed both positively and negatively
by educators and the public.
•
Stereotypes of giftedness are remarkably resistant to
change.
•
Giftedness is not a synonym for genius.
•
Since the 1950s, new definitions of giftedness have
become increasingly broad.
•
The many definitions of giftedness may be grouped
into categories.
•
Gifted children come in countless varieties.
The
idea that human beings possess a wide range of abilities and skills
is not new. For centuries, societies throughout the world have
recognized
that some individuals are more successful at some tasks than
others. To address the needs of those with high ability, societies have
developed various organizational structures. Individuals with
important
and valued skills have received more recognition and support than others.
Consequently, every society has gained from the efforts of gifted and talented
individuals.
Because the recognition of people of high ability and talent is not new and
because such recognition may benefit a society, it is not surprising that there
is a history of organized programs for
the identification and education of the
gifted. In ancient Greece, Plato proposed a plan whereby gifted children
would be identified and educated. He suggested that these children were to be
found within all levels of society and that they could be identified by their
abilities to learn through trial and error, notice superstition, and discern deceit.
Those who met the criteria were to be educated in science and philosophy
(Freehill, 1961).
Further indications of interest in the gifted can be found in later
historical
periods. In 8th-century France, Emperor Charlemagne is reported to have
been interested in finding talent among the common man (Hildreth, 1966).
In the 15th and 16th centuries, during the spread of the Turkish Empire, an
effort was made to recruit talented children from all social classes. Scouts were
to locate children among the subjugated Christian populations and bring
them to a special school in Constantinople where they were to be trained in
Islamic science, religion, and art and to serve the interests of the empire
(Freehill, 1961; Hildreth).
Interest in the gifted in the United States can be found in the writings of
its founders. Most notably, Thomas Jefferson proposed that tests be instituted
DEFINITIONS
AND
MODELS
OF
GIFTEDNESS
to identify the talented and that they be educated at public expense.
In this
regard, Jefferson wrote, "We hope to avail the State of these talents which
nature has sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, but which perish
without
use, if not sought for and activated" (Hildreth, 1966, p. 43). This line of
reasoning advocated by Jefferson has persisted over the last 200 years with
varying levels of interest. Efforts to identify and establish
programs for gifted
and talented children have occurred across the country, especially in the latter
part of the 19th century (Tannenbaum, 1958). Many of the ideas inherent in
these efforts have continued in somewhat modified forms until today,
reflecting
the variety of ideas that exist about the education of gifted and talented
children (Passow, 1979).
Along with this variety of positive efforts can be found negative efforts,
although the
presence
of novel abilities is not usually met with highly visible
repressive acts. Instead, gifted people receive negative reactions that are
expressed in much subtler ways from parents, educators, and society at large.
When prospective parents say, "I just want a normal, healthy child," they
may be stating their fear of having a child with learning problems, as well as
their fear of having a "different" child. Normality is attractive. Abnormality,
even if it is supernormality, is not desirable. Consider this familiar statement,
which might be overheard at a family gathering: "We love Mary, we love her
for her abilities, but why can't she be like us?" What kind of subtle message is
Mary likely to be receiving about herself? This discomfort with giftedness has
also been observed when parents brag about their child to others while asking
the child to be less visible.
Educators, too, have their own forms of negative reactions to gifted
abilities.
A most effective brake is put on ability when children are required to
master underlying steps and knowledge after they have already demonstrated
mastery at a higher level. One might suspect
that the goal of creating well-rounded
children has a concealed, homogenizing, negative effect on children
with special abilities.
The
presence of negative images about gifted people is obvious from many
other sources. Popular sayings or proverbs such as "The cream always rises to
the top" and "A flash in the pan" are prime examples. Other sayings like "Smart
Alec" and "Don't get smart with me" are common criticisms in our society.
Moreover, popular movies portray gifted people as frail (Powder, 1995);
psychologically
damaged (Shine, 1996); dysfunctional (Little Man Tate, 1991);
idealistic, but misguided (The Nutty Professor, 1996); and even violent (Good
Will Hunting, 1997). Perhaps the simplistic notion of compensation—that
bright people are physically weak or socially inadequate—is a form of
hostility
toward high ability.
The persistence of these images and myths about the gifted is striking
because evidence to the contrary has been present for 80 years (Terman, 1925).
These myths or stereotypical notions pervade most areas of life. Some of them
are summarized in Table 1.1 by Sellin and Birch (1980). Note how these
myths cover schooling, family life, and interpersonal relationships.
BEING
GIFTED
IN SCHOOL
TABLE 1.1
Persisting Myths About Gifted and Talented People
TABLE 1.1
Persist: ig Myths About Gifted and Talented People
1. Parents of
average or retarded children cannot have gifted children.
2. Gifted and talented people are physically weak.
3. Gifted and talented people are morally lax.
4. Gifted and talented people tend to be mentally unstable.
5. Gifted and talented people are socially inept and narrow in interests.
6. Most eminent men and women were indifferent scholars as children.
7. Most gifted and talented children are "flash-in-the-pan" performers.
8. Gifted and talented people have a single talent.
9. Gifted and talented people tend to be odd.
10. Gifted and talented people tend to feel superior to other people.
11. Grade skipping, or acceleration, harms gifted and talented children.
12. Gifted and talented children require a different curriculum.
13. Teachers are poor
identifiers of gifted and talented children.
14.
Special classes are to be preferred to inclusion in regular grades.
15. The identification of gifted and talented children should be
delayed until grade 3.
16. Enrichment of the regular curriculum is not effective.
17. Parents of gifted and talented children are conceited.
18. An IQ_test is the only identifier of giftedness and talent.
19. Gifted and talented people require no undue educational provisions.
20. Society has little need of its gifted and talented citizens.
21. College graduates are brighter than noncollege graduates.
22. Special education of the gifted and talented causes elitism among
students.
23. Gifted and talented students dominate other students in regular
grades.
24. Memory is the best index of human intelligence.
25. Interest in educating gifted and talented people has been of
importance
only since the 1960s.
Note. From Educating Gifted and Talented Learners (p. 29), by D. F. Sellin and J. W. Birch, 1980,
Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems. Copyright ©1980 by D. F. Sellin. Reprinted with permission.
The persistence of these notions is the darker side of society's response to
special abilities. Given these notions, it is no wonder that the talents of gifted
children, especially young women and culturally different people, are
frequently
covered by a cloak of incompetence. After all, why should one
deliberately
choose to show off one's difference in an unaccepting environment?
The impact of these popular stereotypical notions is examined at different
points in this text in discussions about the impact of giftedness on the family
and on the
person.
Who are the Gifted?
The
concept of giftedness is commonly confused with the
concept of
genius. The two concepts are not synonymous, although they are frequently
treated as such, The Oxford English Dictionary (Brown, 1993) defines gifted as
"Endowed with a gift or gifts; spec. exceptionally talented or intelligent" (p.
1088) and genius as "Inborn exalted intellectual
power; instinctive
and
extraordinary
imaginative, creative, or inventive capacity .
.
.
; a person having this"
(p. 1076).
Although not synonymous,
the concepts are related to each other. Some
of this confusion
may come from Terman's practice of referring to very high
IQ scores as being in the genius range
of intelligence. In order to distinguish
between genius and giftedness, consider the following statements. A gifted
child is rarely a genius. This statement is true because gifted children do not
make contributions that are unique to their time in history. Prodigies are not
geniuses. They do remarkable things for their age, but rarely things that exceed
what gifted adults achieve or they themselves produce later in life.
A genius may have been identified as a gifted child. The criteria and
procedures
that are used to identify high ability in children are not the same as
those used to define genius. A gifted child
may
become a genius. And, while
we would like to identify the seeds of genius in children, currently we can only
show that gifted children are likely to become gifted adults. We cannot
demonstrate that being gifted points in
any significantly predictable way to
genius.
These statements add
up to the conclusion that more clarity can be
brought to the
concept of being gifted in America by disassociating the two
terms. The distinction can be sharpened by remembering Bronowski's (1973)
attempt to distinguish between being extraordinarily clever and being a
genius: "he was a genius, in the sense that a genius is a man with two great
ideas" (p. 443).
Definitions of Giftedness
A closer look at the historical perspective on programs previously outlined
reveals differing viewpoints on the identification of particular abilities. The
disagreement
about what constitutes giftedness has led to an almost bewildering
array of proposals on how to define giftedness. These definitions are probably
a consequence
of the values of the
person making the proposal, the social
climate
of the time, and the gradual changes in our knowledge about human
abilities.
The many varieties of definitions are organized in this section to illustrate
their evolution and their differences. The historical point of departure is the
end of the 19th century, and the definitions to be discussed are relevant to the
United States. One should remember that a discussion about definitions of
giftedness is inevitably tied to how one might identify people with gifted
characteristics.
The definitions of giftedness are summarized in Table 1.2 .
Ex Post Facto
Before the 20th century, the majority of definitions could be called ex post
facto definitions of giftedness (Lucito, 1963). These definitions designated a
person as gifted when he or she made an outstanding and new contribution to
society. If one were to identify the gifted using this definition, it would be
appropriate to wait for the contribution to become readily apparent. This type
of definition effectively eliminates most children from consideration because
it is unlikely that a child would produce something that could be called new
and outstanding for a culture. Incidentally, many gifted people were
recognized
only after their death. An example in this century is the
composer
Belá
Bartók, who died unrecognized and in near poverty in 1945.
The ex post facto definitions are fatalistic because they suggest that
giftedness
will emerge over time. Those who argue that "true" giftedness will
emerge are comfortable with this type of definition. People who subscribe to
Galton's idea of "hereditary genius" (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) like this
type of definition. The continued appeal of ex post facto definitions may relate
to their inherent reminder that giftedness is important to a society because its
expression in adults helps to advance, or at least strengthen, a society.
Measurable IQ
After the turn of the 20th century, concern began to grow about
educating
all children and nurturing their abilities. Because the school was the major
vehicle for educating children, it is not surprising that these new definitions
centered around the continual debate over the
purpose
of education as it
applied to the development of children's abilities.
One
group
of definitions proposed that high ability in reasoning and
judgment was essential to any idea of giftedness. In France, a test was
developed
to distinguish between people who had sufficient reasoning and
judgment
to succeed in school and those who did not. The Binet-Simon test
(Binet & Simon, 1905), one of the first attempts to develop a
paper-and-pencil
test of intelligence, was quickly recognized as a way to sample these
intellectual
abilities. It was adapted to the United States and gained widespread use
as the Stanford-Binet. These definitions may be called IQ definitions because
they became equated with high scores on tests that yielded IQ scores. These
tests of intelligence were thought to be relatively independent of
socioeconomic
status and political considerations and, therefore, more fair than
previous
testing methods. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
TABLE 1.2
Definitions
Definitions of Giftedness
Giftedness
Ex Post Facto
Designate a person as gifted when he or she
has made an outstanding and new
contribution
to society.
Measurable IQ_
Propose that high ability in reasoning and
judgment are essential to any idea of
giftedness.
Achievement
Stress general academic achievement and
specific academic achievement.
Creativity
Creativity^—the ability to do something new
or novel in one's environment—is what
distinguishes
the truly gifted from those who
are only very intelligent or are high
achievers.
Social Talent
Recognize the social forces involved in the
development of abilities. Propose that
giftedness
is marked by consistent high
performance
in a socially valued activity.
Interaction of Attributes Conceptualize giftedness as the interaction
among various attributes.
Percentage-Type
A certain percentage of any group should be
viewed as gifted or talented.
Development
Precocity in a valued area indicates giftedness.
Omnibus
The demonstration of achievement,
potential
ability, or both in one or more specified
areas.
The IQ type of definition was accepted in the 1920s and is still widely
accepted today (Borland, 1989; Gagné, 1998; Gust, Waldron, & Cross, 1997;
Silverman, 1993). Gross (2004), in her study of exceptionally and profoundly
gifted children, purported that, although many definitions of giftedness have
acknowledged various domains of abilities, the domain of intellectual
giftedness
remains highly important. She also added that the intelligence quotient
remains a useful index. Continued acceptance of IQ definitions of giftedness
is also probably related to the "special" qualities of objectivity and validity
ascribed to these tests by the public, as well as their place in Terman's work.
The power
and universality of these standardized tests within schools can also
be linked directly to their practical application as devices for classifying
children
into groups, presumably to facilitate instruction (Sattler, 1988).
Achievement
While IQ definitions were popular, not everyone found them to be
satisfactory
explanations of giftedness. One concern was the observation that
intelligence
tests were only fairly good at predicting school success (Getzels &
Dillon, 1973). People with the highest intelligence scores did not consistently
get the highest grades, and a better predictor of general school success was
previously earned grades. Likewise, there was doubt that high intelligence
scores were indicative of future potential in all academic areas. High IQ scores
were frequently inadequate predictors of performance in specific academic
areas (Stanley, 1973).
Given these concerns, proponents for this type of identification believe a
better definition might be one that stresses general academic achievement and
specific academic achievement. An achievement definition would make sense
because it applies to schooling. General achievement would serve as a direct
measure of how gifted children are expected to behave in school (Gallagher &
Gallagher, 1994). Specific academic achievement would serve as a predictor of
how someone could be expected to achieve in a more narrowly defined area,
such as mathematics (Stanley & Benbow, 1986). A logical end point would be
professional schools where success is predicted by academic aptitude and
where students are trained for future significant contributions.
Creativity
The IQ-type definition and the achievement-type definitions do not
include all the aspects of human ability that may be associated with or
described by giftedness. One additional aspect that has been repeatedly
mentioned
is creativity (Lucito, 1963). Proponents of this kind of definition are
persuaded that the ability to do something new or novel in one's environment
is the most significant of human abilities. It is creativity, proponents believe,
that distinguishes the truly gifted from those who are only very intelligent or
are high achievers.
While support for a creativity-type definition had existed for many years,
it was never dominant in practice. However, in the 1950s, J. P. Guilford's
research rekindled concern for creativity when he pointed out that IQ tests did
not tap
this ability. Leaders in the field of gifted education seized
upon
this
observation and incorporated creativity into definitions of giftedness (Fliegler
& Bish, 1959; Renzulli, 1977; Tannenbaum, 1997). The result was an
explosion
in research on creativity and human abilities. A perusal of any journal
concerned with gifted children, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, attests to
the pervasiveness of the creativity definition. In fact, it has probably surpassed
the achievement-type definition in popularity.
Social Talent
While the four definition orientations—ex post facto, measurable IQ,
achievement, and creativity—seem to address a wide number of questions
about giftedness, a number of issues remain unresolved about what constitutes
an adequate definition of giftedness:
1.
Why do some people perform at a high level, but not score well on
tests indicating high ability?
2.
Why are some ethnic
groups underrepresented in programs when
it is clear that they possess many gifted and talented people?
3.
Why are standardized tests unsatisfactory in identifying abilities
such as artistic and musical talent?
4.
Why is it that the range
of talents recognized and rewarded in
adults is much broader than those recognized in children?
Contemporary theorists recognize that these issues need to be considered
when formulating adequate definitions of giftedness. Thus, social-talent
definitions,
which
propose
that giftedness is marked by consistent, high
performance
in a socially valued activity, acknowledge that social forces play a role in
the development of abilities. Theorists also consider the distinction between
giftedness and talent in their definitions. Bloom (1985) and Feldhusen (1993),
for example, have proposed definitions of giftedness as manifestations of
talent
that should be or have been developed.
Gagné (1985, 1995, 2003) has proposed the Differentiated Model of
Giftedness and Talent (DMGT; see Figure 1.1 ), which differentiates between
giftedness (natural abilities) and talent (systematically developed skills). The
model explores the developmental relationship between gifts/aptitudes and
talents (i.e., that aptitudes are the constituent elements of talents), the
important
role of learning and practice in transforming abilities into developed
skills, and the role of intrapersonal catalysts (e.g., motivation and volition) and
environmental catalysts (e.g., significant people) to this developmental
process.
Thus, the social-talent definition of giftedness has the advantage of
recognizing
the relativity of the
concept of giftedness and of pointing out that
Figure 1.1. The Differentiated Model
of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT)
Note. From "Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel?," by F. Gagné, 1999, Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 22, p. 231. Copyright ©1999 by The Association for the Gifted. Reprinted with permission.
the expression of giftedness is tied to what people are rewarded for in real life,
as well as the environmental factors potentially influencing the successful
development of talent (Coleman, Sanders, & Cross, 1997; Feldhusen &
Treffinger, 1979; Sternberg & Zhang, 1995; Tannenbaum, 1997).
Unfortunately, the very relativity of this idea makes some people who want a
more absolute or objective definition uneasy because there might be
inconsistency
from one culture to another in the non-IQ intelligence definition of
who is considered gifted.
Gardner (1983, 1993) acknowledges the social and cultural influences in
defining intelligence in his book, Frames of Mind, in which he outlined his
theory of multiple intelligences (MI). These include at least seven
intelligences,
or categories of human abilities, thought to be distinct from one
another: logical-mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial,
bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal. He has more recently added a
naturalist
intelligence and has proposed that existentialist intelligence be
considered for future inclusion in these categories (Von Karolyi, Ramos-Ford,
& Gardner, 2003). Gardner (1993) defined intelligence as "the ability
to solve problems, or to create products, that are valued within one or more
cultural settings" (p. x). He noted that individuals may have strengths or
weaknesses in one or several areas and that an individual may excel in one
category, but have no remarkable abilities in the other areas. Paired with the
idea of multiple intelligences is the recognition that traditional means of
intellectual measurements (such as IQ tests) would not be adequate for
determining giftedness.
Subsequent to Frames of Mind came Sternberg's triarchic model of
intelligence,
which offers three kinds of giftedness: analytic, synthetic, and
practical
(Sternberg, 1985, 2003a). Analytic giftedness is the ability to take
apart
problems and understand the parts. Because conventional tests of intelligence
place an emphasis on analytic reasoning, individuals with strengths in this area
tend to do well on them. Synthetic giftedness is seen in individuals who are
unusually creative and insightful, while practical intelligence centers on the
ability to apply analytic and synthetic abilities to everyday, pragmatic
situations.
Like Gardner's theory, Sternberg noted that nontraditional means of
identification were necessary for both the synthetic and practical areas of
giftedness.
An important difference between the two theories is that evidence of
Gardner's theory can be seen in school-age students, while evidence of
Sternberg's theory is more easily seen in adult populations. This is especially
true for practical intelligence.
Another conception of giftedness as a manifestation of developing talent
over time has been called the theory of deliberate practice or the novice/expert
model (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer,
1993). In this model, the
person
is goal-oriented, and maintains conscious
training over long periods of time. While expertise can be worked toward in
virtually any area, societies will clearly impact the development of expertise by
the way they do or do not support preferred areas of study. For example, the
U.S. government is encouraging the development of language expertise in
areas different from those it encouraged prior to the terrorists attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Interaction of Attributes
While Gardner's and Sternberg's theories emphasize areas of strength and
weakness (i.e., an individual may be gifted in a particular area, but not
another), other theorists conceptualize giftedness as the interaction among
various
attributes. Renzulli (1986), for example, views giftedness as the interaction
among three clusters: above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity
(see Figure 1.2 ). Tannenbaum (1983, 2003) similarly envisions giftedness as
the center of five interacting elements: general ability, special aptitude,
nonintellectual
factors, environmental factors, and chance factors (see Figure 1.3 ).
Percentage-Type and Development
While most definitions of giftedness can be categorized within the five
types of definitions described above, two other types have been presented in
Figure 1.2. Renzulli's model of giftedness
Note. Copyright © Joseph Renzulli. Reprinted with permission.
the literature. Lucito (1963) reported a percentage-type definition, which
argues that a certain percentage of any group should be viewed as gifted or
talented. This type of definition creates a standard that fluctuates depending
on the
group
and the trait measured. Getzels and Dillon (1973) have
proposed
another category, called the development definition, which points out
that the gifted frequently are noticed because they accomplish certain tasks
before their
peers.
It is their precocity in a valued area that makes them
gifted.
Omnibus
By tracing these types of definitions, one can see that the notion of what
constitutes giftedness has become more and more broad. Getzels and Dillon
(1973) have called such broad definitions omnibus definitions.
This evolution was evidenced in the definition proposed by Fliegler
(1961), which included elements of all the definitions. This definition
pro-
Figure 1.3. Tannenbaum's model
Note. From "Nature and Nurture of Giftedness" (p. 47), by A. J. Tannenbaum, in Handbook of Gifted
Education (5th ed.), N. Colangelo & G. A Davis (Eds.), 2003, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Copyright
©2003 by Allyn and Bacon. Reprinted with permission.
posed that a person was gifted when he or she demonstrated at least two of
the following: high intelligence, high creativity, high achievement, or a talent.
A more recent example was proposed by Marland (1972) in a report to
Congress:
Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally
qualified people who, by virtue of outstanding abilities, are capable
of high performance. These are children who require differentiated
educational
programs
and/or services beyond those normally pro-
vided by the regular school
program in
order to realize their
contribution
to self and society.
Children capable of high performance include those with
demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in
any
of the
following areas, singly or in combination:
1. general intellectual ability
2. specific academic aptitude
3. creative or productive thinking
4. leadership ability
5. visual and performing arts
6. psychomotor ability.
It can be assumed that utilization of these criteria for
identifying
the gifted and talented will
encompass a minimum of 3 to 5
percent of the school population. (p. 2)
This definition has been since restated in 1978 to exclude psychomotor
giftedness.
The Varieties of Giftedness
As one reads the Marland (1972) definition, it is apparent that giftedness
comes in
many varieties.
A
person
who has a suspected high ability in one
area or a person
who has many high abilities may both be considered gifted.
Given all the possible combinations of abilities, one can locate many varieties
of giftedness. Some of this variety is captured in the following seven case
histories:
1.
Dora—An Embarrassment of Riches.
2.
Sarah—A Discrepancy in Ability.
3.
Francine—A Talented Musician With a Moderate IQ.
4.
Edwin—A School Failure With a High IQ.
5.
Marshall—A Physically Handicapping Condition.
6.
David—Underachievement With a Tradition of Education.
7.
Dylan—A Shy Gifted Twin With Many Talents.
All of the people in these case histories meet the omnibus definition of
giftedness.
Some may seem surprising. Note the differences among the cases.
Case 1: Dora—An Embarrassment of Riches
In school, Dora was judged to be the brightest. At 8 years of age, she was
doing fifth-grade work, and she had a Stanford-Binet IQ of 168. Her
paternal
grandparents, who had elementary school educations, raised her after her
parents died when Dora was very young. Her two brothers had IQs of 129 and
155. Dora's aunt took particular interest in her development.
Dora taught herself to read at age 5. Reportedly, she could recite nursery
rhymes at 13 months and complete songs when she began to talk. She was an
avid reader. She had been characterized as having high ideals and as being
friendly, conscientious, inquisitive, humorous, and mature for her age. Dora's
interests were similar to those of other children, yet she preferred quiet games.
In high school, those interests continued. She devoted time to reading, tennis,
and piano. She was described as "very pretty."
Upon entering school, her abilities started to become
apparent. She was the
top
student in her class. By third grade, she was observed reading advanced
books and magazines such as National Geographic. Her success in school
continued
with achievement test scores that were 3 or more years ahead of her
classmates.
Although her work warranted it, her grandparents refused permission for
her acceleration. In high school, Dora continued to get excellent grades.
Dora had always been popular with her classmates. She was friendly and
outgoing. In high school, she was class president as a freshman and served on
the school literary publications. She was attracted to Latin and Greek and
wanted to be a teacher (Burks, Jensen, & Terman, 1930, pp. 252-255).
Case 2: Sarah—A Discrepancy in Ability
Sarah was a bright 8-year-old. At 7 years, she had a full-scale score of 121
on the WISC-R. Her verbal IQ was 131, but her performance IQ was 104—
an unusual discrepancy.
She entered school at 5. In kindergarten, she was ready for reading at
home, hut her teacher was not responsive. The teacher expressed concern
about Sarah's preference for talking to her even though Sarah was popular
with her
peers.
Sarah never caused any classroom disturbances. Throughout
school, she was observed to be immature in motor activities, and as a result
she avoided such activities. At the end of second grade, she asked for harder
work. At that time, she achieved at the 7.1, 6.2, and 3.5 grade levels on the
WRAT in reading, spelling, and arithmetic, respectively. At the beginning of
the next school year, her scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test were
consistent with previous tests.
Sarah was a middle child. Her parents were both professionals. Before the
adoption of another sibling and the birth of a younger sibling, she was an only
child for 5 years. Her parents supported her interests, which were primarily
intellectual. In the midst of active playing with friends, she was observed to
withdraw to do something by herself. Reading dominated everything. Sarah
was quite opinionated and made connections among ideas readily. She had
many friends.
Case 3: Francine—A Talented Musician With a Moderate IQ
Franeine was tested at age 12 because of her unusually advanced musical
ability. Her performance at concerts generated much public attention, and
people spoke of her as having a "wonderful" future. Her family was very
supportive
of her talent, as they seemed interested in its financial value. Despite
their modest economic condition, the family bought a grand piano and
provided
costly lessons. Her father and brother were tailors, and her sister had a
small part in the Metropolitan Opera Company.
Francine had one primary interest: music. Her hobby was the piano, and
she had little interest in school and was a poor
student. At age 12, she scored
116 on the Stanford-Binet. She did best on subtests calling for imagery and
problem solving and least well on verbal tests. Francine's physical development
seemed normal. She seemed to have abundant energy. She was impulsive and
very individualistic. She saw herself as someone who mattered. She definitely
seemed to stand out (Root, 1931, pp. 91-93).
Case 4: Edwin—A School Failure With a High IQ
Edwin was a bright young man. At
age 10, he had an IQ on the Stanford-Binet
of 141. On a later testing at age 16, he had a similar score. Both of his
parents were professionals, and they were ambitious about giving Edwin
encouragement and help by providing rich cultural opportunities. In
elementary
school, he had an outstanding record. In sixth grade, he was reported to
be brilliant and meticulous in his work. A similar report was available for 8th
grade. At 12, he entered high school, and great success was anticipated. By 16,
the school asked that he withdraw because he was failing three subjects and
had already failed many others, including geometry, Latin, and literature. The
school tried to help him. I here was no ready explanation for his failures.
Edwin said he did not like to study.
Edwin seemed to have the usual interests. He claimed he liked school, and
he had many friends. Edwin was dismissed from the football team for poor
grades (Burks et al., 1930, pp. 279-281).
Case 5: Marshall—A Physically Handicapping Condition
Marshall was identified with an IQ of 144 at 11
years of age. He had a
frail physique because he had suffered polio as a baby. He walked with a
pronounced
limp.
Marshall came from a disharmonious family. His parents frequently
quarreled,
and they lived on the verge of economic disaster even with the children
working to help support the family. His father was not interested in the fam-
ily and physically abused the children, while his mother, who was reported to
be unstable, was devoted to them, especially to Marshall. The other children,
a sister and a brother, had normal and below-normal IQs, respectively.
In sixth grade, Marshall was several years ahead of his classmates on
standardized
tests. In high school, he began a chess club and was involved in the
debating club. Marshall entered college and planned to became a lawyer. He
joined the debating and chess clubs. He had a dean's list grade-point average.
All this was accomplished while he supported himself through school.
Marshall was quiet, hard-working, and optimistic. He had a desire to do
things well. At 15, he had to be hospitalized for a breakdown, which seemed
related to his family situation (Burks et al., 1930, pp. 283-287).
Case 6: David—Underachievement With a Tradition of Education
David came to the attention of school authorities in first grade. The
teacher was upset over his unorthodox and creative behavior. When tested,
David was found to be functioning on the Stanford-Binet at about 140.
Although he followed two achieving sisters into school, school and David
apparently did not mix. Throughout his academic career, he was a marginal
student, and he was even held back in first grade. Few school subjects held any
interest, although he loved creative writing. He particularly hated sports.
David was popular with his
peers.
He was elected class president, but
declined the honor. He was characterized as generous, nonmaterialistic,
opinionated,
and quite concerned about the values operating in our urban, highly
technical society.
David came from a family with a long tradition of education—five
generations
of educated African Americans. The family was oriented toward
professional
careers: The father was a university professor and the mother and two
sisters were a librarian, a university professor, and an architect, respectively.
The parents recognized David's talents and wanted him to be happy.
Since high school, David has been busy moving around. After he barely
passed his freshman year
of college, he joined the Coast Guard for 2 years.
David returned to college, left again, and enlisted in the Navy. The Navy
taught him to be a photojournalist, which he reportedly likes very much.
David continues to write, but has submitted nothing for publication. At
present,
he is still trying to find himself
Case 7: Dylan—A Shy Gifted Twin With Many Talents
Dylan was identified by his parents at age4 with a highly developed
receptive and expressive vocabulary. He was the younger
of twins, and his
brother was also identified as gifted. Both were assessed at age 6 to have
WISC-III IQ scores greater than 137, and both spent their first 5 grades in a
self-contained gifted program. The brother was outgoing and interested in
other people. He became a leader in school, often drawing attention to him-
self. Dylan, on the other hand, was shy, with an advanced sense of appropriate
behavior. He found most game playing to be childish and too unimportant to
participate in. He grew contemptuous of athletics and what he perceived to be
unwarranted attention and value placed on them by our society.
In school, Dylan struggled to find value and meaning in
many class
assignments. He could be noncompliant, creating tense situations between
himself and his teachers and parents. His performance in areas of interest were
regularly extraordinary. Writing book-length stories (his award-winning
fourth-grade junior author story was 200 pages in length), art, and working on
computers were his passions. Between his fourth- and fifth-grade years, Dylan
composed three additional books of fiction exceeding 150
pages
in length.
Repetitive assignments in mathematics and highly structured assignments on
any topic resulted in noncompliance.
To date, his teachers have recognized his multiple talents and have made
some efforts to coax him along. His shyness, need for meaning in his work,
independence, and passions make him a challenge to teach and a strong
candidate
for underachievement. The self-contained
program for gifted students
has been a place of acceptance and growth for his twin, while Dylan has
struggled,
sensing that some of the other students and specialty teachers (e.g.,
physical
education) do not accept him.
Many other descriptions of individuals are possible because the Marland
(1972) definition is such an expansive one. The omnibus definitions seem to
be an attempt to reconcile the difficulties of formulating a definition that
satisfies
one's sense of justice and the practical requirements of setting up a
program.
Omnibus definitions have the advantage of recognizing that giftedness
may be expressed in
many ways
and come from unlikely sources. The seven
case histories are an attempt to illustrate this point. Three cases are recent
examples, while the remainder represent children who have been identified as
gifted over a 70-year period. If one wants a sense of a typically gifted child,
then Dora probably comes the closest. The range
of definitions and our case
studies suggest that giftedness can be seen as existing across several
dimensions,
as illustrated below:
many interests .
.
single interest
general ability .
.
. specific ability
balanced .
imbalanced
well-rounded .
.
.
unidimensional
committed .
.
. uninvolved
demonstrated .
.
. potential
stability .
.
. instability
The omnibus definition makes it possible to incorporate all these dimensions
under one rubric. Other definitions would have varying degrees of difficulty
adapting to the opposing points of each dimension. This list of bipolar
descriptors is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is it meant to suggest that one
group is preferable to another. The list is only means to represent terms
commonly
used in discussions about the meaning of giftedness.
Factors That Influence
Definitions of Giftedness
It is the very responsiveness of the omnibus definition that creates
shortcomings.
One problem is that the definition is difficult to put into operation
because it recognizes so many varieties
of giftedness. Each ability suggests a
separate procedure for its identification ( Chapter 3 on identification will
expand on this idea).
Another problem is estimating how many people could potentially be
identified as gifted. There is no real way to estimate the number of children
who might be gifted. For example, the Fliegler (1961) definition suggests 20%
of children are gifted, while the Marland (1972) definition suggests 3-5%.
With an omnibus definition, one is faced with the absurdity that all children
are to be considered gifted. While the notion of all children having talents is
attractive and appealing, it is not a useful or a realistic definition. It is not
useful
in that the notion is so broad that it becomes difficult, maybe impossible,
to discuss special provisions for the gifted and
compare
research and
program
effectiveness. It is not realistic because it avoids the issues of limited resources
and the fact that societies do value some abilities more than others. The
process
of defining giftedness is never neutral.
What has given rise to these many proposals for defining giftedness?
Several factors seem important to the process of continual redefinition.
First, there is our notion of intelligence (Borland, 1989; Gallagher, 1975;
Plomin, 1997). Intelligence is no longer viewed as a unitary factor; rather, it is
viewed as being composed of a variety of factors. Environment is now
considered
to be important to the development of intelligence. In fact, dissatisfaction
with the operational definition of intelligence contained in the IQ test has
continued to grow because of the failure to sample enough of what comprises
intelligence. It is probable that this source of dissatisfaction will never
diminish.
Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences and Sternberg's triarchic model
are current examples of the recognition that IQ scores represent only a small
portion of what giftedness can be.
Another source of redefinition is largely sociopolitical. Since the early
1900s, cultural
groups
have wondered why so few of their numbers have been
identified as gifted. The emerging consciousness and increased political power
of these groups—including African Americans, Hispanics, people with
disabilities,
and people who are economically disadvantaged, among others—
have kept the issue of an adequate definition alive. Their criticisms cannot be
overlooked (Coleman et al., 1997; Howley, Howley & Pendarvis, 1995;
Sapon-Shevin, 1994).
A third impetus for changing definitions has come from research into
intelligence and creativity, which has shown that creativity is not synonymous
with intelligence and that creativity may be nurtured. It has become apparent
that intelligence test scores are not able to predict consistently who among the
gifted will make the most creative contributions in
many fields. Other
evidence
has indicated that successful artists and musicians do not necessarily
have IQ scores in the gifted range, assuming the IQ criterion is two standard
deviations above the norm.
A fourth source for change in the definition of giftedness has been our
changing world. In the early 1900s, the United States was far different from
what it is today The explosion in information, the rapid rate of change, and
the many technological advances of the 20th century have brought about
significant
changes in our lifestyle. These trends indicate that different abilities
and talents are needed for success in today's society than were needed at the
turn of the century. Toffler (1970) has written quite eloquently on this point.
A fifth source of influence has been follow-up studies of adults who were
gifted students, and other studies considering potential and achievement. This
research over the
past 10 years has shed light on life experiences that
successful
adults attributed to their own development (Subotnik & Arnold, 1993),
while other studies investigated the daily lives of gifted adolescents
(Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993). Combined, these two lines
of research have illustrated the social and sociocultural dynamics involved in
the successes and failures of students of high intellectual ability.
All the factors that have influenced the evolution of a definition make it
apparent that giftedness is a relative concept. Its meaning is related to changes
in our knowledge and to changes in our social and political lives. One should
not search for an absolute definition of giftedness because it does not exist.
Efforts to find the truly or the really gifted are shortsighted and misplaced
when applied to children. Unless one uses an ex post facto definition, one must
recognize that definitions applied to children are only statements about their
probable functioning as adults. The definitions state that, at this time and
place, a child exhibits characteristics or potentials denoting evidence of
giftedness
and evidence of special promise. Not all people of high ability achieve
eminence, and no definition can predict with infallible accuracy those people
who will be the greatest within a generation. However, a meaningful
definition
should be able to predict outstanding performance in a manner greater
than chance alone.
A School-Based Conception of Giftedness
Given all the issues involved in formulating a definition, one should be
hesitant about proposing yet another one. Even so, a definition will be
proposed
here in order to clarify our perspective as the authors of this text. The
concerns expressed throughout are premised on this one definition. Although
other viewpoints are explored and expressed, the evidence is, of course, colored
by our conceptions of giftedness.
Our school-based conception of giftedness (SCG) is intended to
encourage
clearer communication among educators, administrators, and school
boards concerning the role and responsibilities of our schools in developing
talent (Cross & Coleman, 2005). The SCG differs from other conceptions by
proposing a change in the criteria that describes giftedness by accounting for
changes in abilities with advancing age
in school. The criteria become
narrower
with increased age, which means that, in the early grades, giftedness
would
appear more in the areas of general ability or specific skills; but, as the
child moves through school, evidence of ability and achievement would
manifest
within specific areas of study (Coleman, 1985a; Coleman & Cross, 2000;
Cross & Coleman). This is a developmental model that has roots in the
writings
of Feldman (1997), Fliegler (1961), Newland (1976), Renzulli (1977),
and Simonton (1997).
In the SCG, preadolescent gifted children have potential or demonstrated
high ability in two areas: general cognitive ability and creative ability.
Adolescent gifted children have demonstrated ability in abstract thinking,
have produced creative works in some worthwhile area, and have
demonstrated
consistent involvement in activities of either type. It is estimated that
approximately 6% of the school-age population would fit the SCG because of
the association between abstract thinking and creative production.
The elements in this definition have been selected for specific purposes.
The distinction between preadolescent and adolescent children recognizes
that a good definition should foster identification, nurture talent, and make a
statement about future behavior. The SCG does these things by noting that
general abilities are important signs of giftedness and that general abilities are
nonspecific predictors of adult accomplishments. The inclusion in
preadolescents
of high-level general cognitive ability, creativity, or both recognizes the
interrelationship between these abilities. While they are not the same
phenomenon,
they do seem to converge at some point beyond average ability,
making them the bedrock
upon
which gifted behavior is based. However, the
change in the criteria states that gifted children must, at some point in time,
be expected to express
their potential. The indication of potential is no longer
sufficient for being considered gifted in adolescence. This change in the
criteria
is really a change to an adult, real-world standard of giftedness, which
means demonstrating one's ability in a performance or in a creative product
and demonstrating one's involvement in a field of knowledge.
This makes sense for several reasons. The SCG recognizes the relative
stability
of interests that are evident by age
12 in
many people (Albert, 1980;
Hildreth, 1966). Another reason is that it recognizes the cumulative effects of
development that are relatively invisible before adolescence (Simonton, 1997).
In this manner, the criteria pay attention to children who do not perform well
on standardized tests, but show promise in specific fields (Wolf, 1981). The
criteria recognize that involvement in a field of study becomes more evident
as one begins to master that field (Bloom & Sosniak, 1981; Sosniak, 1997).
This position is also consistent with information on the expression of
creativity
in various fields of endeavor (Feldman, 1997; Lehman, 1953). ( Chapter 6
on creativity develops this point further.)
A final reason for the change in the criteria is the recognition that the
peak performance in most gifted people's careers comes in early adulthood,
and signs of this performance are evident in their youth. In her study of
giftedness,
Cox (1926) noted, "the superior youths ... pursued high ideas,
developed
significant interests, and created new expressions of scientific and
philosophical thought before they had reached the age
of manhood" (p. 218).
See Cross and Coleman (2005) for a thorough description of the
SCG. In that chapter, they conclude by claiming that
Ultimately giftedness is a consequence
of the development of the
individual over time. Although people generally follow certain
forms of universal development such as those described in
developmental
psychology, the
pattern of those developing extraordinary
talent is necessarily nonuniversal by its very nature (Feldman, 1997).
It may represent common patterns within specific disciplines and
therefore will be both idiosyncratic and normal. Hence, people may
be born with the potential to be gifted, but many do not actually
become gifted; because to be gifted means gifted at something.
In our society, not every talent domain can be the responsibility of schools
to develop. The SCG helps clarify the role and responsibilities of America's
schools in developing the talent of its students.
Who is Not Gifted?
An analysis of the varieties of giftedness might lead one to conclude that
giftedness is everywhere, which is probably accurate. Giftedness may be found
in all
groups of
humans. However, it is a mistake to conclude from this
discussion
that everyone is to be thought of as gifted. Not all people with high
ability
are to be considered gifted. Everyone has abilities, and everyone has worth.
Everyone has the potential for making a contribution to the development of
him- or herself and to the development of society. These contributions are a
consequence
of individual abilities and the conditions operating at the time.
While all contributions may be valuable, not all contributions have equal
value. Some contributions bring more benefit to a person
and to a society than
others. The people who make such contributions are the gifted, although no
assumption should be made that those people were trying to make such a
contribution.
People who do not make such contributions are not gifted.
The point where this distinction about giftedness and nongiftedness
blurs is in the discussion of children. It is obvious that children, especially
young children, have a small probability of making such contributions. That
is why our identification procedures should be broad and keyed to signs of
giftedness. It is our task to cultivate these abilities so they may
flower. Yet,
it serves no honest
purpose to claim that all these abilities have germinated
or will germinate when it is readily apparent that it has not happened. The
SCG
proposes
the point at which the gardener picks the flowers that are
likely to be "best of show." Those who show their unique potentials have a
greater probability of contributing to all of us. The gardener realizes that
the best will sometimes be missed; but, in the long run, the mistakes will
even out.
Are the Gifted Handicapped?
Giftedness is different from nongiftedness. It is the differences that
permit
us to identify the gifted, and while they are present throughout a person's
life, they are not necessarily obvious. Gifted people do not experience life in
the same ways as the nongifted because of their abilities. Chapter 5 is devoted
to a discussion of this point.
It is not uncommon for people to ask whether these ability differences
handicap the gifted. This question may arise
because of the increased interest
in the disabled and the fact that texts on handicapped or exceptional people
include chapters on the gifted.
It is our position that the gifted are handicapped. They are handicapped
because they meet two conditions.
The first condition is deviation from the norm. By definition, the gifted
possess
abilities that place them outside the normal range. In this manner, they
are similar to the disabled. It makes no difference that their abilities may be
thought of as strengths, rather than weaknesses. Sometimes, these strengths
have been viewed as signs of weakness or disease, often carrying stigmatizing
effects (Coleman, 1985a; Cross, Coleman, & Terharr-Yonkers, 1991). Indeed,
as the text will later describe, these very strengths have often been interpreted
by some as weaknesses.
The second condition is the inadequacy of the school
program. The issue
is whether the needs of the gifted can be met within the typical school
program.
One may say that needs have been met when social adjustment and
learning are optimal. In an optimal situation, gifted children would be placed
at their instructional level. Given the varied interests and learning rates of the
gifted, it is difficult to see how the typical program
with
peers
and with a
carefully
controlled curriculum can meet their needs at their instructional levels.
In this manner, the gifted are similar to other children with disabling
conditions
in that the school environment inhibits their growth by not responding
to their needs; thus, they need special services.
Given these two conditions, the gifted are handicapped. Their handicap is
defined not by pathology, but rather by their differences and by the inadequacy
of regular education to meet their needs. It should be possible to remove the
second condition by modifying the school. At this point in history, there is
little
evidence to suggest that such modifications for the gifted will be extensive.
However, it has been made clear in several government reports over the years
(Martinson, 1972; U.S. Department of Education, 1993) that special
education
provisions benefit the gifted.
Conclusion
Chapter 1 has concerned itself with the many varieties
of giftedness.
Interest in the education and development of giftedness has existed since
ancient times and has had both positive and negative effects on gifted people.
Over the last century, interest has increased, and a bewildering series of
definitions
has been proposed as part of a larger evolutionary process
tied to our
new knowledge of child development, the emergence
of a new social
consciousness
toward minority groups, newer technologies, and an increased
understanding of giftedness. The result of the evolution is an expansion of the
definition of giftedness to include multiple abilities and talents found across
American society. The new expanded definitions have increased the
complexity
of the identification
process
because more decisions are required about the
relative importance of several abilities. The question of measurement is ever
present. In some ways, the expansion of the definition may be an illusion
because the
power
of the IQ remains and the interrelationships among
advanced abilities need to be explored. Many of the issues raised by the
varying
definitions will
reappear throughout the text as information on
identification,
guidance, and programming is examined.
For Discussion
1.
How would you respond to an individual who claims that
money directed at gifted education programs would be better
spent elsewhere because "the cream always rises to the top"?
2. A number of myths about gifted and talented persons are
presented
in Table 1.1 .
Reflect on the myths associated with
schooling and discuss the implications of these myths on
classroom practice.
3. Reflecting on the information concerning definitions of
giftedness,
how would you respond to an individual who asks you
what percentage of students are gifted?
4. Reflect on and discuss how changes in political and social
climates
have affected definitions of giftedness.
5. Considering the various definitions of giftedness, identify
individuals (from the past or present) who would be
considered
gifted under a particular definition. Would these same
individuals be considered gifted under more than one
definition?
6. What are the educational implications for designating a
person
as gifted under one definition but not another.
7. In the conclusion, it is noted: "In some ways, the expansion of
the definition may be an illusion. The power of the IQ
remains." Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
References
Abraham, W. (1977). Parents talk. In National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented,
Gifts, talents, and the very young (pp. 27-42). Ventura, CA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Schools.
Achter, J. , Lubinski, D. , & Benbow, C. (1996). Multipotentiality among the intellectually gifted: "It was never
there and already it's vanishing." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 65—76.
Adams, C. (1996). Gifted girls and science: Revisiting the issues Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7,
447—458.
Albert, R. S. (1980). Exceptional gifted boys and their parents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 174-179.
Albert, R. , & Runco, M. (1986). The achievement of eminence: A model based on a longitudinal study of
exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp.
332-357). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Alvino, J. , McDonnel, R. , & Richert, S. (1981). National survey of identification practices in gifted and talented
education. Exceptional Children, 48, 124-132.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
American Association for Gifted Children (AAGC) . (1978). On being gifted. New York: Walker.
Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological testing (4th ed.). London: Collier-MacMillan.
Anastasi, A. , & Schaefer, C. E. (1969). Biographical correlates of artistic and literary creativity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 53, 267—283.
Anastasi, A. , & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Anderson, L. , & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's
taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Arieti, S. (1981, March). Simple but undervalued: Attitudes and conditions fostering creativity. Paper presented at
the National/State Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented Second National Conference on Creativity,
Memphis, TN.
Arnold, K. (1993a). The Illinois valedictorian project: Early adult careers of academically talented female high
school students. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Longitudinal studies in contemporary
gifted education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Arnold, K. (1993b). The lives of female high school valedictorians in the 1980s. In K. D. Hulbert & D. T. Schuster
(Eds.), Women's lives through time: Educated American women of the 20th century. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Assouline, S. , & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (1997). Talent searches: A model for the discovery and development of
academic talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 170-179).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Assouline, S. , & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Developing mathematical talent: A guide for challenging and
educating gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Aulls, M. (1998). Contributions of classroom discourse to what content students learn during curriculum
enactment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 56-69.
Austin, A. B. , & Draper, D. C. (1981). Peer relationship of the academically gifted: A review. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 25, 129—133.
Ausubel, D. P. , & Robinson, F. G. (1969). School learning: An introduction to educational psychology. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Baca, L. (1980). Issues in the education of culturally diverse exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 46, 583.
Bachtold, L. M. (1976). Personality characteristics of women of distinction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1,
70—78.
Bachtold, L. M. (1978). Reflections of gifted learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 116-124.
Bachtold, L. (1980). Speculation on a theory of creativity: A physiological basis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50,
699—702.
Bachtold, L. M. , & Werner, E. E. (1970). Personality profiles of gifted women: Psychologists. American
Psychologist, 25, 234—243.
Bachtold, L. M. , & Werner, E. E. (1972). Personality characteristics of women scientists. Psychological Reports,
32, 391—396.
Bachtold, L. M. , & Werner, E. E. (1973). Characteristics of creative women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 33,
391—396.
Baer, J. (1994). Performance assessments of creativity: Do they have long-term stability? Roeper Review, 17,
7—11.
Baird, L. J. (1972). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), The seventh mental
measurement yearbook (pp. 836—838), Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Baker, J. , Bridger, R. , & Evans, K. (1998). Models of underachievement among gifted preadolescents: The role
of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 5—15.
Baldwin, A. Y. (1977). Tests can underpredict: A case study. Phi Delta Kappan, 58, 620-621.
Baldwin, A. (1993). Teachers of the gifted. In K. A. Heller , F. J. Mönks , & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International
handbook of research and development of giftedness and talented (pp. 621-629), New York: Paradigm.
Ball, O. , & Torrance, E. P. (1980). Effectiveness of new materials developed for training and streamlined scoring
of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, Figural A and B forms. Journal of Creative Behavior, 4, 199—202.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Banks, J. A. (1994). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practices. In L. D. Darling-
Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 3-49). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Banks, J. A. , & Banks, C. A. (Eds.). (1993). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (2nd ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Barbe, W. B. (1963). One in a thousand. Columbus, OH: Department of Public Instruction.
Barr, D. (1990). A solution in search of a problem: The role of technology in educational reform. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 14, 79—95.
Barren, F. (1968). The measurement of creativity. In D. K. Whitla (Ed.), Handbook of measurement and
assessment in behavioral sciences (pp. 338—366). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
Baum, S. M. , & Olenchak, F. R. (2002). The alphabet children: GT, ADHD, and more. Exceptionality, 10 ( 2),
77—91.
Baum, S. , Emerick, L. J. , Herman, G. N. , & Dixon, J. (1989). Identification programs and enrichment strategies
for gifted learning disabled youth. Roeper Review, 12, 48-53.
Bayley, N. (1970). Development of mental abilities. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Manual of child psychology (3rd ed.,
pp. 163-209). New York: Wiley.
Bellack, A. A. (1966). The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Benbow, C. P. , & Lubinski, D. (1994). Individual differences among the gifted: How can we best meet their
educational needs? In N. Colangelo , S. G. Assouline , & D. L. Ambrosen (Eds.), Talent development II:
Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent
Development (pp. 83-100). Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.
Benbow, C. P. , & Lubinski, D. (1997). Intellectually talented children: How can we best meet their needs? In N.
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 155-169). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Benbow, C. P. , & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Intellectually talented students: Family profiles. Gifted Child Quarterly,
24, 119—122.
Benbow, C. , & Stanley, J. (1983). Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Bennett, G. K. , Seashore, H. G. , & Wesman, A. G. (1990). The differential aptitudes test (5th ed.). San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
Berliner, D. C. , & Gage, N. L. (1976). The psychology of teaching methods. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), The psychology
of teaching methods (pp. 1-20). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bernal, E. M. (2002). Three ways to achieve a more equitable representation of culturally and linguistically
different students in GT programs. Roeper Review, 24, 82-88.
Bernal, E. M., Jr. (1979). The education of the culturally different gifted. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the
talented: Their education and development (Vol. 78, pp. 395-400). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bernal, E. M., Jr. , & Reyna, J. (1975). Analysis and identification of giftedness in Mexican-American children: A
pilot study. In B. O. Boston (Ed.), A resource manual of information on educating the gifted and talented (pp.
53—60). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Bessemer, S. P. , & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and syntheses. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 15, 158—178.
Betts, G. (1988). The autonomous learner model. In J. S. Renzulli & S. M. Reis (Eds.), Systems and models for
developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 134-156). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Binet, A. , & Simon, T. (1905). Methodes nouvelles pour le diagnostique du niveau intellectuel des anormaux.
L'annee Psychologique, 11, 245-336.
Bishop, W. E. (1968). Successful teachers of the gifted. Exceptional Children, 34, 317-325.
Blake, K. (1981). Educating exceptional pupils. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Blaubergs, M. S. (1978). Overcoming the sexist barriers to gifted women's achievement. In National/State
Leadership Training Institute of the Gifted and the Talented, Advantage: Disadvantaged gifted (pp. 7-39).
Ventura, CA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Schools.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of education objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook
I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green.
Bloom, B. S. (1982). The role of gifts and markers in the development of talent. Exceptional Children, 48,
510—522.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.
Bloom, B. S. , & Sosniak, L. A. (1981). Talent development vs. schooling. Educational Leadership, 39 ( 2 ),
86—94.
Bondi, A. M. , & Koubik, N. A. (1980). Ask . . . and you shall conceive. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14,
235—241.
Boodoo, G. , Bradley, C. , Frontera, R. , Pitts, J. , & Wright, L. (1989). A survey of procedures used for identifying
gifted learning disabled children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 110—114.
Borg, W. R. (1964). The evaluation of ability grouping (Cooperative Research Project No. 577). Logan: Utah
State University.
Borg, W. , Gall, M. , & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Borland, J. (1978). Teacher identification of the gifted: A new look, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2,
22—32.
Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
Borland, J. (1996). Gifted education and the threat of irrelevance, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19,
129—147.
Borland, J. (1997). Evaluating gifted programs. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
education (2nd ed., pp. 253-268). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Borland, J. (2003). Evaluating gifted programs: A broader perspective. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 293-310). Boston: Pearson Education.
Borland, J. , Schnur, R. , & Wright, L. (2000). Economically disadvantaged children in a school for the
academically gifted: A postpositivistic inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13-
32.
Borland, J. , & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.
Bostick, L. (1980). Parent advocacy. In National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the
Talented, Educating the preschool/primary gifted and talented (pp. 183-194). Ventura, CA: Office of the
Superintendent of Public Schools.
Boyce, L. , VanTassel-Baska, J. , Burruss, J. , Sher, B. , & Johnson, D. (1997). A problem-based curriculum:
Parallel learning opportunities for students and teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 363—379.
Brandwein, P. (1955), The gifted student as future scientist. New York: Harcourt-Brace.
Brody, L. E. , & Mills, C.J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 30, 282—286.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives.
Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),
International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643-1647). Oxford: Pergamon Press/Elsevier
Science.
Bronowski, J. (1973). The ascent of man. Boston: Little, Brown.
Brown, L. (1993). The new shorter Oxford English dictionary (Vol. 1). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press
and Clarendon Press.
Brown, L. , Sherbenou, R. J. , & Johnsen, S. K. (1997). Test of nonverval intelligence-3rd ed. (TONI-3). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
Brown, M. (1979). Cognitive development and the learning of mathematics. In A. Floyd (Ed.), Cognitive
development in the school years (pp. 351—373), New York: Wiley.
Bruch, C. B. (1971). Modification of procedures for identification of the disadvantaged gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 15, 267 - 272.
Brunelle, E. (Ed.), (1979). Apollo and Dionysius. Journal of Creative Behavior, 5(1), 37-43.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Bruner, J. S. (1968). On knowing. New York: Atheneum.
Bull, K. S. , & Davis, G. A. (1980). Evaluating creative potential using the statement of past creative activities.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 14, 249-257.
Bullough, V. , Bullough, B. , & Mauro, M. (1981). History and creativity: Research problems and some possible
solutions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 102-116.
Bunderson, C. V. , & Faust, G. W. (1976). Programmed and computer-assisted instruction. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),
The psychology of teaching methods (pp. 44-90). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burks, B. S. , Jensen, D. W. , & Terman, L. (1930). The promise of youth: Follow-up studies of a thousand gifted
children: Genetic studies of genius , Vol. 3. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Burns, D. (1990). The effects of group training activities on students' initiation of creative investigations. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 34, 31-36.
Busse, T. V. , & Mansfield, R. S. (1980). Theories of the creative process. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14,
91—103.
Callahan, C. M. (1978). Developing creativity in the gifted and talented. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children.
Callahan, C. (1993). Evaluation programs and procedures for gifted education: International problems and
solutions. In K. A. Heller , F. J. Mönks , & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and
development of giftedness and talented (pp. 605-618). New York: Paradigm.
Callahan, C. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition ?
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 148—163.
Callahan, C. M. , Cunningham, C. M. , & Plucker, J. A. (1994). Foundations for the future: The socio-emotional
development of gifted, adolescent women. Roeper Review, 17, 99—105.
Callahan, C. M. , Tomlinson, C. A. , & Pizatt, P. M. (Eds.). (1996). Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices
and innovations in the identification of gifted students. Charlottesville: National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented, University of Virginia.
Cardwell, P. (1995). Role-playing games and the gifted student. Gifted Educational International, 11, 39-46.
Casserly, P. L. (1979). Helping able young women take math and science seriously in school. In N. Colangelo &
R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 346-369). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Cassidy, J. (1981). Parental involvement in gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 4, 284—287.
Castille, L. (1998). The effect of analogy instruction on young children's metaphor comprehension. Roeper
Review, 21, 27-31.
Cattell, R. B. (1950). Handbook for the individual of group Culture Fair Intelligence Test. Scale I. Champaign, IL:
I.P.A.T.
Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University . (2004). Recommended planning and resource guide,
Midwest Talent Search. Evanston, IL: Author.
Chambers, J. A. , Barren, F. , & Sprecher, J. W. (1980). Identifying gifted Mexican-American students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 24, 123-128.
Chan, D. W. (2004). Social coping and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 30-41.
Ciha, T. E. , Harris, R. , Hoffman, C. , & Potter, M. (1974). Parents as identifiers of giftedness: Ignored but
accurate. Talents and Gifts, 18, 191-195.
Clark, B. (1988). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (3rd ed.).
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (4th ed.).
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (5th ed.).
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Clark, G. , & Zimmerman, E. (1987). Tending the special spark: Accelerated and enriched curricula for highly
talented art students. Roeper Review, 10, 10-17.
Clark, G. , & Zimmerman, E. (2001). Identifying artistically talented students in four rural communities in the
United States. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 104-114.
Clasen, D. , & Clasen, R. (1997). Mentoring: A time-honored option for education of the gifted and talented. In N.
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 218-229). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Clasen, D. R. , & Clasen, R. E. (2003). Mentoring the gifted and talented. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 254-267). Boston: Pearson Education.
Cohn, S.J. (1979). Acceleration and enrichment: Drawing the base lines for further study. In W. C. George , S.J.
Cohn , & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 3-12). Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cohen, L. M. , & Frydenberg, E. (1996). Coping for capable kids: Strategies for parents, teachers, and students.
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Colangelo, N. (1991). Counseling gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
education (pp. 273-284). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Colangelo, N. (1997). Counseling gifted students: Issues and practices. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 353-365). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Colangelo, N. (2000). Counseling gifted students. In K. A. Heller , F. J. Mönks , R. J. Sternberg , & R. F. Subotnik
(Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 595-607). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Colangelo, N. (2003). Counseling gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
education (3rd ed., pp. 373-387). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Colangelo, N. , Assouline, S. , & Gross, M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's
brightest students, Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin and Jacqueline Blank International Center for Gifted
Education and Talent Development.
Coleman, J. M. (1981, December). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparisons. Paper
presented at the Council for Exceptional Children/The Association for the Gifted National Conference on the
Gifted and Talented Child, Orlando, FL.
Coleman, L. J. (1975). Interpersonal evaluation of the gifted associated with the sociometric structure of special
classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH.
Coleman, L. J. (1976, February). A systematic procedurefor school districts to use for identifying gifted/talented
children from varying cultural settings. Paper presented at the Regional Conference on Culturally Different Gifted,
Nashville, TN.
Coleman, L.J. (1977). An evaluation of seven techniques for evaluating the comprehensibility of instructional
materials and recommendations for their use. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 12, 339—344.
Coleman, L. J. (1981). Reducing reading levels: Simplify the verb. Teaching Exceptional Children, 13, 62—65.
Coleman, L. J. (1983, May/June). An unsolved mystery: Interpreting grade scores or how come my seven year
old scored at the sixth grade level and she can't do fourth grade work. G/C/T, 28, 24-27.
Coleman, L. (1985a). Schooling the gifted. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Coleman, L.J. (1985b, April). Using a decision-making protocol to improve instructional prescriptions for the
gifted. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Anaheim, CA.
Coleman, L. J. (1991). The invisible world of professional practical knowledge of a teacher of the gifted Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 151—165.
Coleman, L. J. (1992). The cognitive map of a master teacher of the gifted conducting discussions with gifted
children. Exceptionality, 3, 1-16.
Coleman, L. (1994). Portfolio assessment: A key to identifying hidden talents and empowering teachers of young
children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 65-69.
Coleman, L. (1995). The power of specialized educational environments in the development of giftedness: The
need for research on social context. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 171—176.
Coleman, L.J. (Ed.), (1996). Critical appraisals of gifted education [Special issue]. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 19(2).
Coleman, L. J, (1997). Studying ordinary events in a field devoted to the extraordinary. Peabody Journal of
Education, 72, 117—132.
Coleman, L. J. (2003.) Gifted child pedagogy: Meaningful chimera? Roeper Review, 25, 163-165.
Coleman, L. , & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11,
41—56.
Coleman, L. J. , & Cross, T. L. (1992). Gifted high school students' advice to science teachers. Gifted Child
Today, 15 ( 5 ), 25—26.
Coleman, L. J. , & Cross, T. L. (1993). Relationships between programming practices and outcomes in a summer
residential school for gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 420—441.
Coleman, L.J. , & Cross, T. L. (2000). Social-emotional development and the personal experience of giftedness.
In K. A. Heller , F. J. Mönks , R. J. Sternberg , & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and
talent (2nd ed., pp. 203-212). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Coleman, L. J. , & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and
teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Coleman, L. , & Gallagher, S. (1997). Notes from the editor's desk. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20,
329—331.
Coleman, L. J. , & Sanders, M. D. (1993). Social needs, social choices, and masking one's giftedness. Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education, 5, 22—25.
Coleman, L. , Sanders, M. , & Cross, T. L. (1997). Perennial debates and tacit assumptions in the education of
gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 1-11.
Cooke, G. (1976). Peer nominations: A useful tool for identifying gifted and talented students. Talents and Gifts,
19 ( 1 ), 3.
Cooke, G. , & Baldwin, A. Y. (1979). Unique needs of a special population. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and
the talented: Their education and development (Vol. 78, pp. 388-394). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cornell, D. (1984). Families of gifted children. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.
Cornell, D. , Callahan, C. , Bassin, L. , & Ramsay, S. (1991). Affective development in accelerated students. In
W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 74-101). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Cornish, R. L. (1968). Parents', pupils', and teacher perception of a gifted child's ability. Gifted Child Quarterly,
12, 14—17.
Cox, C. M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses: Genetic studies of genius , Vol. II. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Cox, J. , Daniel, N. , & Boston, B. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Crockenberg, S. B. (1972). Creativity tests: A boon or boondoggle for education? Review of Educational
Research, 42 ( 1 ), 27—45.
Cross, T. (1997a). Report of the evaluation of the 1996 Governor's Institutes of Vermont. Unpublished
manuscript.
Cross, T. (1997b). Psychological and social aspects of educating gifted students. Peabody Journal of Education,
72, 180 - 200.
Cross, T. L. (2004). On the social and emotional lives of gifted children: Issues andfactors in their psychological
development (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Cross, T. , Coleman, L. , & Stewart, R. (1993). The social cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the
stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 16, 37-40.
Cross, T. , Coleman, L. , & Stewart, R. (1995). Psychological diversity of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the
stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 16, 37-40.
Cross, T. , Coleman, L. , & Terharr-Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools:
Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 44—55.
Cross, T. , & Coleman, L. (2005). School-based conception of giftedness. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.),
Conceptions of giftedness (2nd. ed, pp. 52-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and psychology of discovery and invention. New York:
HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. , & Getzels, J. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products:
A study of artists Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47—52.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. , Rathunde, K. , & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
CTB/McGraw-Hill . (2003). California achievement test, sixth edition (CAT/6). Monterey, CA: Author.
Dai, D. Y. , & Schader, R. (2001). Parents' reasons and motivation for supporting their child's music training.
Roeper Review, 24, 23-31.
Dai, D. Y. , & Schader, R. (2002). Decisions regarding music training: Parental beliefs and values. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 46, 135—144.
Damiani, V. (1996). The individual family support plan: A tool to assist special populations of gifted learners.
Roeper Review, 18, 293-297.
Daurio, S. P. (1979). Educational enrichment vs. acceleration: A review of the literature. In W. C. George , S.J.
Cohn , & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 13-63). Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Davis, G. A. , & Rimm, S. (1979). Identification and counseling of the creatively gifted. In N. Colangelo & R. T.
Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 225-336). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Davis, G. , & Rimm, S. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Day Hulbert, K. , & Tickton Schuster, D. (1993). Women's lives through time: Educated American women of the
twentieth century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
de Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. New York: Harper & Row.
de Bono, E. (1971). Lateral thinking for measurement. New York: American Management Association.
DeHaan, R. F. , & Wilson, R. C. (1958). Identification of the gifted. In DeHaan et al. (Eds.), Education for the
gifted (Vol. 57; pp. 166-192). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Delcourt, M. (1994). Characteristics of high-level creative productivity: A longitudinal study of students identified
by Renzulli's three-ring conception of giftedness. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman:
Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 401—426). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Delisle, J. (1987). Preventing discipline problems with gifted students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19,
32—38.
Delisle, J. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional development of youth. New York: Longman.
Delph, J. L. (1980). How to live successfully with the gifted child. In National/State Leadership Training Institute
on the Gifted and the Talented, Educating the preschool/primary gifted and talented (pp. 167—182). Ventura,
CA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Schools.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard
Educational Review, 58, 280-298.
Dembinski, R. J. , & Mauser, A. J. (1978). Parents of the gifted: Perceptions of psychologists and teachers
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 1, 5-14.
Dettman, D. F. , & Colangelo, N , (1980). A functional model for counseling parents of gifted students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 24, 158-161.
Derricott, R. , & Blyth, A. (1979). Cognitive development: The social dimension. In A. Floyd (Ed.), Cognitive
development in the school years (pp. 284—316). New York: Wiley.
d'Heurle, A. , Mellinger, J. , & Hapgood, E. (1959). Personality, intellectual, and achievement patterns in gifted

Leave a Reply