Gifted education has a rich history and a solid if uneven research base. As policy makers and educators increasingly turn their attention to advanced students and educational excellence, the time is ripe for a dispassionate analysis of the field’s conceptual and empirical strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of this special feature article is to highlight advances in theories and research related to giftedness and gifted education, note the promising areas for additional research, and propose next steps for improving the quality and utility of empirical work in this important area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchambaultF. X.Jr.WestbergK. L.BrownS.HallmarkB. W.EmmonsC.ZhangW. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph No. 93102). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
2.
AssoulineS. G.MarronM.ColangeloN. (2014). Acceleration. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 15–28). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
3.
BarabS. A.PluckerJ. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Talent development in an age of situated approaches to learning and thinking. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3
4.
BeghettoR. A. (2014). Creativity: Development and enhancement. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 183–196). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
5.
BeghettoR. A.KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.). (2010). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BeghettoR. A.PluckerJ. (2006). The relationship among schooling, learning, and creativity: “All roads lead to creativity” or “You can’t get there from here”? In KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ. (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 316–332). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BorlandJ. H. (2014). Identification of gifted students. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 323–342). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
8.
BrightonC. M.HertbergH. L.MoonT. R.TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC.M. (2005). The feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school (RM 05210) (ED505377). Storrs University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
9.
CallahanC. M. (2009). Making the grade or achieving the goal: Evaluating learner and program outcomes in gifted education. In KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Method and materials for teaching the gifted (3rd ed., pp. 221–258). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
10.
CallahanC. M.AzanoA.OhS.HaileyE. (2012, April). What works in gifted education: Integrated language arts curricular models for gifted students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
11.
CallahanC. M.HunsakerS. L.AdamsC. M.MooreS. D.BlandL. C. (1995). Instruments used in the identification ofgifted and talented students (Report No. RM-95130). Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
12.
CallahanC. M.RenzulliJ. S.DelcourtM. A. B.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (2013). Considerations for identification of gifted and talented students. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 83–91). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
CastejonJ. L.PerezA. M.GilarR. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of Project Spectrum activities: A second-order g factor or multiple intelligences?Intelligence, 38, 481–496. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.07.002
14.
CattellR. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. New York, NY: Elsevier.
15.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS.GrossM. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
16.
ColemanL. J.GuoA.DabbsC. S. (2007). The state of qualitative research in gifted education as published in American journals: An analysis and critique. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 51–63. doi: 10.1177/0016986206296656
17.
CollinsC. A.GanL. (2013). Does sorting students improve scores? An analysis of class composition (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 18848). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
18.
CornoL.CronbachL. J.KupermintzH.LohmanD. F.MandinachE. B.PorteusA. W.TalbertJ. E. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
DaiD. Y.SwansonJ. A.ChengH. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998-2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 126–138. doi: 10.1177/0016986210397831
20.
DelisleJ. R.RenzulliJ. S. (1982). The Revolving Door Identification and Programming Model: Correlates of creative production. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 89–95.
21.
DweckC. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press.
22.
FengA. X.VanTassel-BaskaJ.QuekC.BaiW.O’NeilB. (2004). A longitudinal assessment of gifted students’ learning using the integrated curriculum model (ICM): Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 27, 78–83. doi: 10.1080/02783190509554294
23.
FordD. Y. (2012). Culturally different students in special education: Looking backward to move forward. Exceptional Children, 78, 391–405.
24.
FoustR. C.Hertberg-DavisH. M.CallahanC. M. (2008). “Having it all” at sleep’s expense: The forced choice of participants in Advanced Placement courses and International Baccalaureate programs. Roeper Review, 30, 121–129. doi: 10.1080/02783190801955293
25.
GagnéF. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103–111. doi: 10.1080/02783190801955293
26.
GagnéF. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In HellK. A.MőnksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. (Eds.), International handbook for research on giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 67–79). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
27.
GaltonF. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.
28.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
29.
GardnerH. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 200–209.
30.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.SheffieldL. J. (2009). The impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 188–202. doi: 10.1177/001698209334964
31.
GavinM. KCasaT. M.FirmenderJ. M.CarrollS. (2013). The impact of advanced geometry and mathematics curriculum units on the mathematics achievement of first grade students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 71–84. doi: 10.1177/0016986213479564
32.
GiessmanJ. A.GambrellJ. L.StebbinsM. S. (2013). Minority performance on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Second Edition, versus the Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 6: One gifted program’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 101–1009.
GubbinsE. J. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of gifted students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
35.
GuilfordJ. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
36.
GuilfordJ. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
37.
Hertberg-DavisH. L.CallahanC. M. (2008). A narrow escape: Gifted students’ perceptions of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 199–216.
38.
Hertberg-DavisH. L.CallahanC. M. (2014). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 47–64). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
39.
HollingworthL. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. Oxford, United Kingdom: Macmillan.
40.
HollingworthL. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York, NY: World Book.
41.
JensenA. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
42.
JohnsenS. K. (1999). Renzulli’s model: Needed research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 102–116.
43.
KaufmanJ. C.PluckerJ. A.BaerJ. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
44.
KulikJ. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 13–22). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
45.
KulikC. L. C.KulikJ. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415–428.
46.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77.
47.
KyburgR. M.Hertberg-DavisH. M.CallahanC. M. (2007). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs: Optimal learning environments for talented minorities?Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 172–215.
48.
LiQ.KaufmanJ. C. (2014). Creativity: Definitions and conceptualizations. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 173–182). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
49.
LohmanD. F. (2005). Review of Naglieri and Ford (2003): Does the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test identify equal proportions of high-scoring White, Black, and Hispanic students?Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 19–28.
50.
LohmanD. F.GambrellJ. L. (2012). Using nonverbal tests to help identify academically talented children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 25–44.
51.
LovelessT. (1998). Making sense of the tracking and ability grouping debate. Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
52.
LovelessT. (2009). Tracking and detracking: High achievers in Massachusetts middle schools. Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
53.
LubinskiD. (2004). Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 23–38). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
54.
MacKinnonD. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. The American Psychologist, 20, 273.
55.
MakelM. C. (in press). The empirical march: Making science better at self-correction. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
56.
MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A.HegartyB. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 537–542.
57.
MarlandS. P.Jr. (1971, August). Education of the gifted and talented-volume 1: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 056 243)
58.
MatthewsM. S.PetersS. J.HousandA. (2012). Regression discontinuity design in gifted and talented education research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 105–112.
59.
McBeeM. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Advanced Academics, 17, 103–111.
60.
McBeeM. (2010a). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 283–297.
61.
McBeeM. T. (2010b). Modeling outcomes with floor or ceiling effects: A brief introduction to the Tobit model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 314–320.
62.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.WatermanC. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rules. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 69–89.
63.
MissettT. C.McCormickK. M. (2014). Conceptions of giftedness. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 143–158). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
64.
MoonT. R.CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC. A.MillerE. M. (2002). Middle school classrooms: Teachers’ reported practices and student perceptions (Research Monograph 02164). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
65.
MullisI. V. S.MartinM. O.MinnichC. A.StancoG. M.VictoriaA. A.CenturinoA. S.CastleC. E. (Eds.). (2011). TIMSS 2011 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science. Volume 2: L–Z and benchmarking participants. Boston, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
66.
NaglieriJ. A.FordD. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155–160.
67.
NaglieriJ. A.FordD. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 29–36.
68.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2011). State of the states in gifted education: 2010–2011. Washington, DC: Author.
69.
NeihartM.ReisS. M.RobinsonN. M.MoonS. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
70.
NomiT. (2010). The effects of within-class ability grouping on academic achievement in early elementary years. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 56–92.
71.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
72.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (1999). A critique of Renzulli’s theory into practice models for gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 55–66.
73.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.ThomsonD. (2014). Talent search. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 633–643). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
74.
PellegrinoJ. W.HiltonM. L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
75.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2010). Multi-group construct validity evidence of the HOPE Scale: Instrumentation to identify low-income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 298–313.
76.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2012a). Additional validity evidence and across-group equivalence of the HOPE teacher rating scale. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 85–100.
77.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2012b). Group-specific norms and teacher rating scales: Implications for underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 125–144.
PluckerJ. A. (2000). Flip sides of the same coin or marching to the beat of different drummers? A response to Pyryt. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 193–195.
80.
PluckerJ. A.BarabS. A. (2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness: Learning to embrace the messy joys of subjectivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. A. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 201–216). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
81.
PluckerJ. A.BeghettoR. A.DowG. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.
82.
PluckerJ. A.BurroughsN.SongR. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K–12 education. Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Education and Evaluation Policy.
83.
PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M.TomchinE. M. (1996). Wherefore art thou, multiple intelligences? Alternative assessments for identifying talent in ethnically diverse and economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 81–92.
84.
PluckerJ. A.ChienR.ZamanK. (2006). Enriching the high school curriculum through postsecondary credit-based transition programs [Education Policy Brief, 4(2)]. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
85.
PluckerJ. A.EspingA. (2014). Intelligence 101. New York, NY: Springer.
86.
PluckerJ. A.HardestyJ.BurroughsN. (2013). Talent on the sidelines: Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass. Storrs: Center for Education Policy Analysis, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://cepa.uconn.edu/mindthegap.
87.
PluckerJ. A.MakelM. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In KaufmanJ. C.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 48−73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
88.
PluckerJ. A.MakelM. C.HansenJ. A.MullerP. A. (2008). Achievement effects of the Cleveland voucher program on high ability elementary school students. Journal of School Choice, 1(4), 77–88. doi: 10.1300/15582150802098746
89.
PluckerJ. A.MakelM. C.RappK. E. (2008). The impact of charter schools on promoting high levels of mathematics achievement. Journal of School Choice, 1(4), 63–76. doi: 10.1300/15582150802098738
90.
PyrytM. C. (2000). Finding “g”: Easy viewing through higher order factor analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 190–192. doi: 10.1177/001698620004400305
91.
ReisS. M.BoeveH. (2009). How academically gifted elementary, urban student respond to challenge in an enriched, differentiated reading program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 203–240.
92.
ReisS. M.GubbinsE. J.BriggsC.SchreiberF. J.RichardsS.JacobsJ. K.. . . RenzulliJ. S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 315–338. doi: 10.1177/001698620404800406
93.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 119–130. doi: 10.1002/pits.10144
94.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
95.
RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.). (1984). Technical report of research studies related to the Revolving Door Identification Model (2nd ed.). Storrs: Bureau of Educational Research and Service, The University of Connecticut.
96.
RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.). (1988). Technical report of research studies related to the Revolving Door Identification Model (2nd ed., Vol. II). Storrs: Bureau of Educational Research and Service, The University of Connecticut.
97.
RenzulliJ. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century. Exceptionality, 10(2), 67–75. doi: 10.1207/S15327035EX1002_2
98.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In SternbergR .J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–280). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
99.
RenzulliJ. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150–159. doi: 10.1177/0016986212444901
100.
RenzulliJ. S.D’SouzaS. (2014). Intelligences outside the normal curve: Co-cognitive factors that contribute to the creation of social capital and leadership skills in young people. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 343–362). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
101.
RenzulliJ. S.SytsmaR. E. (2008). Intelligences outside the normal curve: Co-cognitive traits that contribute to giftedness. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 57–84). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
102.
RitchieS. J. (2013). Review of Giftedness 101. Intelligence, 41, 275-276.
103.
RogersK. B. (2010). Academic acceleration and giftedness: The research from 1990 to 2008. A best-evidence synthesis. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS.LohmanD.MarronM. A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Wallace Symposium poster session on academic acceleration (pp. 1–6). Iowa City: The University of Iowa.
104.
SadlerP. M. (2010). Advanced placement in a changing educational landscape. In SadlerP. M.SonnertG.TaiR. H.KlopfensteinK. (Eds.), AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement program (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
105.
SawyerR. K. (Ed.). (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
106.
SawyerR. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
107.
SimonsenB.LittleC. A. (2011). Single-subject research in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 158–162. doi: 10.1177/0016986211398331
108.
SlavinR. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336. doi: 10.3102/00346543057003293
109.
SlavinR. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471–499. doi: 10.3102/00346543060003471
110.
SlavinR. E.BraddockJ. H.III. (1993). Ability grouping: on the wrong track. College Board Review, 168, 11–17.
111.
SnowR. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5–32. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2701_3
112.
SpearmanC. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293. doi: 10.2307/1412107
113.
StanleyJ. C. (1973). Accelerating the educational progress of intellectually gifted youths. Educational Psychologist, 10, 133–146. doi: 10.1080/00461527309529108
114.
Steenbergen-HuS.MoonS. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 39-53.
115.
SternbergR. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Viking.
116.
SternbergR. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
117.
SternbergR. J. (2011). The theory of successful intelligence. In SternbergR. J.KaufmanS. B. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 504–527). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
118.
SternbergR. J.CastejónJ. L.PrietoM. D.HautamäkiJ.GrigorenkoE. L. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test in three international samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 1–16. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.17.1.1
119.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L.ZhangL. F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 486–506. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00095.x
120.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54. doi: 10.1177/1529100611418056
121.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 176–188. doi: 10.1177/0016986212456079
122.
TannenbaumA. J. (1958). History of interest in the gifted. In HenryN. B. (Ed.), Education for the gifted: The 57th yearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2 (pp. 21–38). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.1037/13174-002
123.
TannenbaumA. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspctives. New York, NY: Wiley.
124.
TermanL. M. (1926). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Vol. 1. Genetic studies of genius (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
125.
ThurstoneL. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
126.
TiesoC. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 60–89.
127.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2006). NAGC symposium: A report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 339–341. doi: 10.1177/001698620605000406
128.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrackenB.FengA.BrownA. (2009). A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in Title I classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 7–37.
129.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.ZuoL.AveryL. D.LittleC. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted-student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 30–44. doi: 10.1177/001698620204600104
130.
VisserB. A.AshtonM. C.VernonP. A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34, 487–502. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.004
131.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.Jr.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Research Monograph 93104). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
132.
WestbergK. L.DaoustM. E. (2004). The results of the replication of the classroom practices survey replication in two states. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
133.
WileyK.HébertT. P. (2014). Social and emotional traits of gifted youth. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 593–608). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
134.
WorrellF. C. (2009). Myth 4: A single test score or indicator tells us all we need to know about giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 242–244. doi: 10.1177/0016986209346828
135.
WorrellF. C. (2014). Ethnically diverse students. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 237–254). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
136.
WorrellF. C.Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F. (2012). Important issues, some rhetoric, and a few straw men: A response to comments on “Rethinking giftedness and gifted education.”Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 224–231. doi: 10.1177/0016086212456080
