In most industrialized societies, the regular educational system does not meet the educational needs of gifted pupils, causing a lag in their school achievement. One way in which more challenge can be provided to gifted children is with an enrichment program. In the present study, cognitive, socioemotional, and attitudinal effects of a triarchic enrichment program were examined in a pretest–posttest control group design. Participants were 66 upper elementary school students. With positive effects on practical intelligence, motivation, self-concept, and enjoyment of science being found, the results of this study indicated that the pull-out program is a valuable experience in the cognitive and socioemotional development of gifted children.
BaloghL.DavidI.NagyK.TóthL. (2001). Learning techniques and self-knowledge with talented schoolchildren. In BalgohL.TóthL. (Eds.), Gifted development at schools: Research and practice (pp. 159–167). Debrecen, Hungary: Department of Educational Psychology, University of Debrecen.
2.
BarnettL. B.DurdenW. G. (1993). Education patterns of academically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 161–168.
3.
BatterhamR. (2000). The chance to change. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
4.
BøeM. V.HenriksenE. K.LyonsT.SchreinerC. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47, 37–72.
5.
BuiS. A.CraighS. G.ImbermanS. A. (2011, May). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on achievement (NBER Working Paper 17089). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17089
6.
BurkamD. T.LeeV. E.SmerdonB. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297–331.
7.
CaleonI. S.SubramaniamR. (2007). Augmenting learning in an out-of-school context: The cognitive and affective impact of two cryogenics-based enrichment programmes on upper primary students. Research in Science Education, 37, 333–351.
8.
CaleonI. S.SubramaniamR. (2008). Attitudes towards science of intellectually gifted and mainstream upper primary students in Singapore. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 940–954.
9.
CallahanC. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory Into Practice, 44, 98–104.
10.
CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC. A.PluckerJ. (1997). Project START: Using a multiple intelligences model in identifying and promoting talent in high-risk students (Research Monograph No. 95136). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
11.
CornellD. G.DelcourtM. A.GoldbergM. D.OramG. (1994). Low incidence of behavior problems among elementary school students in gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 4–19.
12.
DenessenE.VosN.DamenT.KochS.LouwsM.WigboldusD. (2011). Explicit and implicit measures of teacher attitudes toward science and technology. In de VriesM.van KeulenH.PetersS.Walma van der MolenJ. (Eds.), Professional development for primary teachers in science and technology (pp. 107–120). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
13.
FarengaS. J.JoyceB. A. (1998). Science-related attitudes on science course selection: A study of high ability boys and girls. Roeper Review, 20, 247–251.
14.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.WhitingG. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74, 289–309.
15.
FreedmanM. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343–357.
16.
FreemanJ. (2000). Families, the essential context for gifts and talents. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 573–585). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
17.
GagnéF. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103–111.
18.
GallagherJ. J. (2003). Issues and challenges in the education of gifted students. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 11–23). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
GardnerH. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory into practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
20.
GonzalesP.WilliamsT.JocelynL.RoeyS.KastbergD.BrenwaldS. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009-001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
21.
GrigorenkoE. L.JarvinL.SternbergR. J. (2002). School-based tests of the triarchic theory of intelligence: Three settings, three samples, three syllabi. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 167–208.
22.
GuayF.MarshH. W.BoivinM. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspective on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 124–136.
23.
HeinzN.FinsterwaldM.UrbanN. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12, 199–214.
24.
HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
25.
HoogeveenL.van HellJ.MooijT.VerhoevenL. (2004). Educational arrangements for gifted children: Meta-analysis and overview of international research. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: ITS/CBO/Orthopedagogiek, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
26.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T.TaylorB. (1993). Impact of cooperative and individualistic learning on high-ability students’ achievement, self-esteem, and social acceptance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 839–844.
27.
KornilovS. A.TanM.ElliottJ. G.SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (2012). Gifted identification with Aurora: Widening the spotlight. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 117–133.
28.
LensW.RandP. (2000). Motivation and cognition: Their role in the development of giftedness. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 193–202). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
29.
LiepmannD.BeauducelA.BrockeB.AmthauerR. (2010). IST Intelligentie Structuur Test: Handleiding met normen voor studenten [IST Intelligence Structure Test: Manual with student norms]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Hogrefe.
30.
MarshH. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280–295.
31.
MarshH. W. (1990). The influences of internal and external frames of reference on the formation of math and English self-concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 107–116.
32.
MarshH. W.SeatonM.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.HauK. T.O’MaraA. J.CravenR. G. (2008). The big-fish-little-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: Implications for theory, methodology, and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 319–350.
33.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students form high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144–154.
34.
MillerJ.LietzP.KotteD. (2002). On decreasing gender differences and attitudinal changes: Factors influencing Australian and English pupils’ choice of a career in science. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 4, 69–92.
35.
MinneB.RensmanM.VroomenB.WebbinkD. (2007). Excellence for productivity?The Hague, The Netherlands: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
36.
MooreJ. M. (2001). The effects of inquiry-based summer enrichment activities on raising eight graders’ knowledge of science processes, attitude toward science and perception of scientists (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3011938)
37.
MorganA. (2007). Experiences of a gifted and talented enrichment cluster for pupils aged five to seven. British Journal of Special Education, 34, 144–153.
38.
NeberH.FinsterwaldM.UrbanN. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12, 199–214.
39.
NeihartM. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 330–341.
40.
Onderwijsraad. (2007). Presteren naar vermogen, alle talenten benutten in het funderend onderwijs [Achieving according to ability, making use of all talents in primary and secondary education] . The Hague, The Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
41.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2008). Encouraging student interest in science and technology studies. Paris, France: Global Science Forum.
42.
PhilipsN.LindsayG. (2006). Motivation in gifted students. High Ability Studies, 17, 57–73.
43.
PreckelF.GötzT.FrenzelA. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 451–472.
44.
Programme for International Student Assessment. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework—Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
45.
PyrytM. C.MasharovY. P.FengC. (1993). Programs and strategies for nurturing talents/gifts in science and technology. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.PassowA. H. (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 453–471). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
46.
RobinsonN. M. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2., pp. 59–68). Iowa City: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, The University of Iowa.
47.
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.
48.
SchroverE. (2010). Het grote vooruitwerklabboek [The Thinker-Tinker-Lab book]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Stichting Ontwikkeling Leermethoden.
49.
ShavelsonR. J.HubnerJ. J.StantonG. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441.
50.
SimpsonR. D.OliverJ. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74, 1–18.
51.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SternbergR. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
53.
SternbergR. J. (2003). Implications of the theory of successful intelligence for career choice and development. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 136–152.
54.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight.
55.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (2004). Successful intelligence in the classroom. Theory Into Practice, 43, 274–280.
56.
SternbergR. J.TorffB.GrigorenkoE. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 374–384.
57.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science, 12, 3–54.
58.
TanM.AljughaimanA. M.ElliottJ. G.KornilovS. A.Ferrando-PrietoM.BoldenD. S.. . .GrigorenkoE. L. (2009). Considering language, culture, and cognitive abilities: The international translation and adaptation of the Aurora Assessment Battery. In GrigorenkoE. L. (Ed.), Multicultural psychoeducational assessment (pp. 443–468). New York, NY: Springer.
59.
Van der SteegM.VermeerN.LanserD. (2011). Nederlandse onderwijsprestaties in perspectief [Dutch educational achievements in perspective]. The Hague, The Netherlands: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
60.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342–358.
61.
VaughnV. L.FeldhusenJ. F.AsherJ. W. (1991). Meta-analysis and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92–98.
62.
VorstH. C. M.SmitsJ. A. E.OortF. J.StouthardM. E. A.DavidS. A. (2008). Schoolvragenlijst voor basisonderwijs en voortgezet onderwijs: handleiding en verantwoording [School questionnaire for primary and secondary education: SVL user manual]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pearson.
63.
WeinburghM. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387–398.
64.
WorrellF. C.ErwinJ. O. (2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 319–340.
65.
ZeidnerM.SchleyerE. (1999). The effect of educational context on individual difference variables, self-perceptions of giftedness, and school attitudes in gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 687–702.
66.
ZieglerA.HellerA. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness form a meta-theoretical perspective. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
