Fifty college students were interviewed about their prior experiences in gifted programs and their perspectives on the impact of these experiences on their lives. Interview questions probed the types of experiences they remembered, including the types of instruction they had, their relations with peers, and their views about how their experiences in gifted programs affected other parts of their lives. Data were analyzed qualitatively with additional topics and themes emerging. In this paper, the author shares their voices and discusses the implications of their reports.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashman, A. (2000). Amanda's perspective on being gifted. Gifted Child Today, 23(1), 50-52.
2.
Avery, L., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district's experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 124-132.
3.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
4.
Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. M. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted?Gifed Child Quarterly, 3, 105-110.
5.
Brown, C. (1997). Gifted identification as a constitutional issue. Roeper Review, 19, 157-162.
6.
Callahan, C. (1992). Determining the effectiveness of educational services: Assessment issues. In Challenges in gifted education: Developing potential and investing in knowledge for the 21st century (pp. 109-114). Columbus: Ohio State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EC301131)
7.
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.
8.
Carter, K. R. (1992). A model for evaluating programs for the gifted under non-experimental conditions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 166-183.
9.
Colangelo, N. (1997). Counseling gifted students: Issues and practices. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 353-363). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
10.
Colangelo, N., & Brower, P. (1987). Labeling gifted youngsters and long-term impact on families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 3, 75-78.
11.
Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2000). Dissociation and integration of talent development and personal growth: Comments and suggestions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 247-251.
12.
Davalos, R. A., & Haensly, P. A. (1997). After the dust has settled: Youth reflect on their high school mentored research experience. Roeper Review19, 204-207.
13.
Delisle, J. R., (1984). Gifted children speak out. New York: Walker.
14.
Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
15.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1982). To be or not to be gifted: What is the question?The Elementary School Journal, 82, 299-303.
16.
Ford, D. (1995). Desegregating gifted education: A need unmet. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 52-60.
17.
Grant, B. A., & Piechowski, M. (1999). Theories and the good: Toward child-centered gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 4-12.
18.
Greene, J. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530-544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Grenier, M. E., (1985). Gifted children and other siblings. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 164-167.
20.
Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1992). A longitudinal examination of life choices of gifted and talented young women. Gifted Child Quarterly36, 207-212.
21.
Janos, P. M., Fung, H. C., Robinson, N. M. (1985). Self-concept, self-esteem, and peer relations among gifted children who feel “different.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 78-81.
22.
Kunkel, M. A., Chapa, B., Patterson, G., & Walling, D. D. (1995). The experience of giftedness: A concept map. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 126-134.
23.
Landrum, M. (2001). An evaluation of the Catalyst Program: Consultation and collaboration in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 139-151.
24.
Moon, S. (1995). The effects of an enrichment program on the families of participants: A multiple-case study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 198-208.
25.
Moon, S., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38-48.
26.
Oaks, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992) Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570-608). New York: Macmillan.
27.
Reis, S. (2001, November). Wiy gifted programs make a difference in children's lives and how to ensure that these programs continue. Keynote address at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Cincinnati, OH.
28.
Reis, S. M., Callahan, C. M., & Goldsmith, D. (1994). Attitudes of adolescent gifted girls and boys toward education, achievement, and the future. Gifted Education International, 9, 144-151.
29.
Renzulli, J. S. (1998, October). A rising tide lifts all ships. Developing the gifts and talents of all students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 105-111.
30.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 7-20.
31.
Ring, B., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (1993). The gifted label, gifted children, and the aftermath. Gifted Education International, 9, 33-35.
32.
Robinson, A. (1990). Does that describe me? Adolescents' acceptance of the gifted label. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 245-255.
33.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1993). Gifted education and the protection of privilege: Breaking the silence, opening the discourse. In L. Weiss & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices (pp. 45-73). Albany: State University of New York Press.
34.
Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
35.
Southern, T. W. (1992). Lead us not into temptation: Issues in evaluating the effectiveness of gifted programs. In Challenges in gifted education: Developing potential and investing in knowledge for the 21st century (pp. 103-108). Columbus: Ohio State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EC 301 131)
36.
Subotnik, F. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1994). Longitudinal study of giftedness and talent. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 1-23). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
37.
Subotnik, R. F., & Steiner, C. L. (1994). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science: A longitudinal study of 1983 Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 52-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1996). Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted education have an instructional identity?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 155-174.
