The paper argues that educators of the gifted have overlooked important evidence on the power of special environments because of our habit of considering cognitive outcomes and an outsider view of evidence as the standard for judging the benefits of special environments. The author proposes that social context be used as a construct to help rethink how to study the benefits of special environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BloomB. (ed.) (1985). Developing talent in young people.New York: Ballantine.
2.
BloomB. (1982). Social-test interaction: Toward an antropological perspective. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, March.
3.
ClinkenbeardP. R. (1991). Unfair expectations: A pilot study of middle school students’ comparisons of gified and regular classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 56-63.
4.
ColemanL.CrossT. (1987). Free to be me: Summative education of the 1987 Tennessee Governor’s Schools. Nashville, TN: State Department of Education.
5.
ColemanL.CrossT. (1988).Is being gifted a social handicap?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 41-56.
6.
Coleman1.CrossT.Terharr-Yonkers (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in school: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the education of the gifted, 15, 44-55.
7.
GetzelsJ. W.JacksonP. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley.
8.
GlazerN. (1987). In search of excellence and equity in our nation’s schools. Harvard educational Review, 57, 196-199.
9.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quaterly, 36, 73-77.
10.
OakesJ. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21, 12-21.
11.
PopkewitzT. (1984). Paradigm and ideology in educational research: The social function of the intellectual. London: Falmer.
12.
RobinsonA. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative for talented students. Journal for the education of the gifted, 14, 9–27.
13.
RogersK. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut.
14.
ShoreB. M.CornellD. G.RobinsonA.WardV. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
15.
TorranceE. P. (1960). Educational achievement of the highly intelligent and the creative: Eight partial replications of the Getzels-Jackson study. Minneapolis: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota.
16.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1989). Patterns of influence on gifted learners. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
17.
VaughnV.I.FeldhusenJ.F.AsherJ.W. (1991). Meta-analysis and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Journal for the education of the gifted, 35, 92-98.
