The purpose of the article is to articulate and compare three major approaches or paradigms of gifted education, so that researchers and practitioners can be more explicit about their assumptions, goals, and educational strategies in their research and practice. We first define the term paradigm, and then delineate three paradigms in the historical context. We then compare and contrast the three paradigms to elucidate their continuities and discontinuities. Finally, we discuss the importance of articulating the paradigmatic nature of approaches for educational and research purposes. The ultimate purpose of articulating the distinct approaches is to seek a common research agenda with clarity, rigor, and relevance.
AmbroseD.VanTassel-BaskaJ.ColemanL. J.CrossC. T. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 453-478. doi:10.1177/016235321003300402
2.
AssoulineS. G.Foley NicponM.WhitemanC. (2010). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with specific learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 102-115. doi:10.1177/0016986209355974
3.
BerlinerD. C.BiddleR. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
BettsG.NeihartM. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 248-253. doi:10.1177/001698628803200202
5.
BettsG.NeihartM. (2004). Profiles of the gifted and talented. In SternbergR. (Ed.), Definitions and conceptions of giftedness (pp. 97-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
6.
BloomB. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
7.
BorlandJ. H. (2003). The death of giftedness. In BorlandJ. H. (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105-124). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
BrodyL. E. (2004). Meeting the diverse needs of gifted students through individualized educational plans. In BootheD.StanleyJ. C. (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 129-138). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
10.
CallahanC. M.MillerE. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 38-51). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CanipeS. (2012, June). Introduction to National Consortium of Specialized Secondary Schools in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (NCSSSMST). A keynote speech at the Forum on Identification and Education of Gifted and Talent Students in High School, Fuzhou, China.
12.
CarrollJ. B. (1997). Psychometrics, intelligence, and public perception. Intelligence, 24, 25-52. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90012-X
13.
ColemanL. J. (1985). Schooling the gifted. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
14.
ColemanL. J. (2004). Is consensus on a definition in the field possible, desirable, necessary?Roeper Review, 27, 10-11.
15.
ColemanL. J.CrossT. L. (2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
16.
ColemanM. R. (2012). Response to intervention (RtI) approaches to identification practices within gifted education. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 152-158). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
ColemanM. R.HughesC. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted students with RtI framework. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 14-17.
18.
CrossT. L.ColemanL. J. (2005). School-based conception of giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 52-63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19.
CsikszentmihalyiM.RathundeK.WhalenS. (1993). Talented teenager. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20.
DaiD. Y. (2005). Reductionism versus emergentism: A framework for understanding conceptions of giftedness. Roeper Review, 27, 144-151. doi:10.1080/02783190509554308
21.
DaiD. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
22.
DaiD. Y. (2011). Hopeless anarchy or saving pluralism? Reflections on our field in response to Ambrose, VanTassel-Baska, Coleman, and Cross. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 705-730. doi:10.1177/0162353211416437
23.
DaiD. Y. (2012). Giftedness in the making: A response to Ziegler and Phillipson (2012). High Ability Studies, 23, 47-50. doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679090
24.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (in press). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide for theory-driven, practice-focused research. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
25.
DaiD. Y.ColemanL. J. (2005). Epilogue: Conclusions and implications for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 374-388. doi:10.4219/jeg-2005-336
26.
DaiD. Y.RenzulliJ. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114-130. doi:10.1177/0016986208315732
27.
DaiD. Y.SpeerschneiderK. (2012). Cope and grow: An affective curriculum of talent development. Talent Development & Excellence, 4, 181-199.
28.
DaiD. Y.SwansonJ.ChengH. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies during 1998-2010 (April). Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 126-138. doi:10.1177/0016986210397831
29.
DeweyJ. (1990). The school and society, and the child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1902)
30.
EricssonK. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP. J.HoffmanR. R. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
EricssonA. (2012, April). From ability to mastery. Presentation at the Research Summit at Center for Talented Youth, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
32.
EyreD. (2009). The English model of gifted education. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1045-1059). New York, NY: Springer Science.
33.
FeldhusenJ. F. (1992). TIDE: Talent identification and development in education. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.
34.
FeldhusenJ. F. (2003). Lewis M. Terman: A pioneer in the development of ability tests. In ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 155-169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
FeldmanD. H. (1992). Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education: Some thoughts on a changing national scene. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.AmbroseD. L. (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from 1991 Henry and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 89-94). Uninville, NY: Trillium.
36.
FeldmanD. H. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In BorlandJ. H. (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 9-33). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
37.
GagnéF. (1985). Gifted and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112. doi:10.1177/001698628502900302
38.
GagnéF. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103-111. doi:10.1080/02783199509553709
39.
GagnéF. (1999). My convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts, and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 109-136.
GagnéF. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98-119). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
42.
GagnéF. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In MacFarlaneB.StambaughT. (Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 61-80). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
43.
GallagherJ. J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 5-12. doi:10.1177/001698620004400102
44.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
45.
GottfredsonL. S. (1997). Editorial: Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13-23. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8
46.
HaenslyP.ReynoldsC. R.NashW. R. (1986). Giftedness: Coalescence, context, conflict, and commitment. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 128-148). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
HallV. C. (2003). Educational psychology from 1890 to 1920. In ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 3-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
HertzogN. B. (2009). The arbitrary nature of giftedness. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 205-214). New York, NY: Springer Science.
49.
HollingworthL. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York, NY: World Book.
50.
HoltonG. (1981). Thematic presuppositions and the direction of scientific advance. In HeathA. F. (Ed.), Scientific explanation (pp. 1-27). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
51.
HorowitzF. D.SubotnikR. F.MatthewsD. J. (Eds.). (2009). The development of giftedness and talent across the life span. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
52.
KaplanS. (2003). Is there a gifted-child pedagogy?Roeper Review, 25(4), 165. doi:10.1080/02783190309554223
53.
KerrB. A. (1997). Developing talents in girls and young women. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 483-497). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
54.
KingE. W.ColemanM. R.MillerA. (2011). Response to intervention: The changing role of school psychologists in relation to gifted students. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 341-358. doi:10.1080/15377903.2011.616578
55.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
LangerJ. A. (2012). Interplay of creative and critical thinking in instruction. In DaiD. Y. (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 65-82). New York, NY: Routledge.
57.
LohmanD. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent identification: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333-360. doi:10.4219/jeg-2005-341
58.
LohmanD. F. (2009). Identifying academically talented students: Some general principles, two specific procedures. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook of giftedness (pp. 971-997). New York, NY: Springer Science.
59.
LubinskiD. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) “‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96-111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96
60.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
61.
MargolinL. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyer.
62.
MatthewsD. J.FosterJ. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 64-69. doi:10.1080/02783190609554340
63.
McBeeM. T.McCoachD. B.PetersS. J.MatthewsM. S. (2012). The case for a schism: A commentary on Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (2011). Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 210-214. doi:10.1177/0016986212456075
64.
MoonS. M.RosselliH. C. (2000). Developing gifted programs. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 499-521). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
65.
MorelockM. J. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19, 4-12. doi:10.1080/02783199609553774
66.
NeihartM. (2010, July). The revised profiles of the gifted and talented: A research-based approach. Keynote speech at the 11th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
67.
PassowA. H. (1981). The nature of giftedness and talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 5-10.
68.
PassowA. H. (1985). Intellectual development of the gifted. In LinkF. R. (Ed.), Essays on the intellect (pp. 23-43). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
69.
PhillipsonS.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.). (in press). Development of excellence in East-Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness. London, England: Routledge.
70.
PiirtoJ. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
71.
ReisS. M.BurnsD. E.RenzulliJ. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
72.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10, 113-125. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX1002_5
73.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B.LittleC. A.MullerL. M.KaniskanR. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 462-501. doi:10.3102/0002831210382891
74.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.
75.
RenzulliJ. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
76.
RenzulliJ. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
77.
RenzulliJ. S. (1998). A rising tide lifts all ships. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 105-111.
78.
RenzulliJ. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 3-54.
79.
RenzulliJ. S.DaiD. Y. (2003). Education of the gifted and talented. In GuthrieJ. W. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 930-936). New York, NY: Macmillan.
80.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A schoolwide plan for the development of creative productivity. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 216-266). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
81.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
82.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2009). A technology-based application of the schoolwide enrichment model and high-end learning theory. In ShavininaL. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1203-1223). New York, NY: Springer.
83.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M.SmithL. H. (1981). The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
84.
RobinsonA. R. (2012). Psychological science, talent development, and educational advocacy: Lost in translation?Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 202-205. doi:10.1177/0016986212456077
85.
RobinsonN. M.RobinsonH. B. (1982). The optimal match: Devising the best compromise for the highly gifted student. In FeldmanD. (Ed.). New directions for child development: Developmental approaches to giftedness aid creativity (pp. 79-94). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
86.
RobinsonW.CampbellJ. (2010). Effective teaching in gifted education: Using a whole school approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
87.
RoeperA. (2006). The “I” of the beholder: A guide to an essence of a child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
88.
RogersK. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324
89.
Sapon-ShevinM. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
90.
Sapon-ShevinM. (1996). Beyond gifted education: Building a shared agenda for school reform. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 194-214.
91.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-115). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
92.
ShepardL. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
93.
ShoreB. M.DelcourtM. A. B. (1996). Effective curricular and program practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 138-154.
94.
SieglerR. S.KotovskyK. (1986). Two levels of giftedness: Shall even the twain meet. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 417-435). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
95.
SilvermanL. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love.
96.
SimonH. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
97.
StainbackW.StainbackS. (1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
98.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
99.
SternbergR. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359-375.
100.
SternbergR. J. (2007). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of being and acting intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36, 148-155.
101.
SternbergR. J.JarvinL.GrigorenkoE. L. (2011). Explorations in giftedness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
102.
SubotnikR. F. (2006). Longitudinal studies: Answering our most important questions of prediction and effectiveness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 379-383.
103.
SubotnikR. F.JarvinL. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 343-357). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
104.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (1997). Restructuring special programs to reflect the distinctions between children’s and adults’ experiences with giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3-4), 101-116. doi:10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681868
105.
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
106.
TannenbaumA. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York, NY: Macmillan.
107.
TermanL. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
108.
TomlinsonC. 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.
109.
TomlinsonC. A. (2004). The Möbius effect: Addressing learner variance in schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 516-524. doi:10.1177/00222194040370060601
110.
TomlinsonC. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice?Theory Into Practice, 44, 262-269. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4403_11
111.
TomlinsonC. (2008). Differentiated instruction. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 167-179). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
112.
TorranceE. P. (1963). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
113.
TorranceE. P. (1970). Encouraging creativity in the classroom. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
114.
TreffingerD. J.CrossJ. A. (1994). Authentic assessment and talent development: A professional development module. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.
115.
TreffingerD. J.FeldhusenJ. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 181-193.
116.
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.
117.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.CrossT. L.OlenchakF. R. (2009). Social-emotional curriculum with gifted and talented students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
118.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (2008). Curriculum and instructional considerations in programs for the gifted. In PfeifferS. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 347-366). New York, NY: Springer.
119.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.WoodS. (2010). The integrated curriculum model. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 345-357.
120.
WardV. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach. Columbus, OH: Charles C. Merrill.
121.
WardM. (1982). Myth: The “ostrich syndrome”: Do gifted programs cure sick regular programs?Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 34-36. doi:10.1177/001698628202600112
122.
WinnerE. (1997). Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling. American Psychologist, 52, 1070-1081. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.10.1070
123.
WittyP. A. (1958). Who are the gifted? In HenryN. B. (Ed.), Education of the gifted. 57th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part 2 (pp. 41-63). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
124.
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:10.1177/0016986212456080
125.
ZieglerA. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411-436). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
126.
ZieglerA.HellerK. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In HellerK. A.MönkF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3-21). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
127.
ZieglerA.PhillipsonS. N. (2012). Toward a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 25, 3-30. doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679085
128.
ZieglerA.RaulT. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11, 113-136. doi:10.1080/13598130020001188
