Based on the Actiotope Model of Giftedness, this article introduces a learning-resource-oriented approach for gifted education. It provides a comprehensive categorization of learning resources, including five exogenous learning resources termed educational capital and five endogenous learning resources termed learning capital. Evidence from the literature is presented that supports the validity of each of the categories. Finally, 12 implications of a learning resource orientation for gifted education are discussed in relation to four areas: gifted education orientations, gifted identification, gifted education principles, and gifted learning resources management.
AbergM. A. I.PedersenN. L.TorénK.SvartengrenM.BäckstrandB.JohnssonT.KuhnH. G. (2009). Cardiovascular fitness is associated with cognition in young adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 20906–20911. doi:10.1073/pnas.0905307106
2.
AllenC. R.HollingC. S. (2008). Cross-scale structure and the generation of innovation and novelty in discontinuous complex systems. In AllenC. R.HollingC. S. (Eds.), Discontinuities in ecosystems and other complex systems (pp. 219–233). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
3.
AllenJ. L.RapeeR. M.SandbergS. (2012). Assessment of maternally reported life events in children and adolescents: A comparison of interview and checklist methods. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34, 204–215. doi:10.1007/s10862-011-9270-5
4.
AmmermüllerA.LauerC. (2007). Bildung und nationale Prosperität [Education and national prosperity]. In HellerK. A.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Begabt sein in Deutschland (pp. 31–48). Münster, Germany: LIT Verlag.
BanduraA.BarbaranelliC.CapraraG. V.PastorelliC. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187–206. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00273
7.
BarabS. A.PluckerJ. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3
8.
BartonN. H.HewittG. M. (1985). Analysis of hybrid zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16, 113–148. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.16.110185.000553
9.
BaumertJ.StanatR.WatermannR. (Eds.). (2006). Disparitäten im Bildungswesen: Differenzielle Bildungsprozesse und Probleme der Verteilungsgerechtigkeit [Disparities in education: Differential educational processes and problems of distributive justice]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
10.
BeamishR. (1990). The persistence of inequality: An analysis of participation patterns among Canada’s high performance athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 25, 143–155.
11.
BloomB. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
12.
ChaddockL.HillmanC. H.BuckS. M.CohenN. J. (2011). Aerobic fitness and executive control of relational memory in preadolescent children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43, 344–349. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181e9af48
13.
ChiM. T. H.GlaserR.FarrM. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
CoyleD. (2009). The talent code: Greatness isn’t born. It’s grown. Here’s how. New York, NY: Bantam.
15.
CunhaF.HeckmanJ. (2007). The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review, 97, 31–47. doi:10.1257/aer.97.2.31
16.
CurcioG.FerraraM.De GennaroL. (2006). Sleep loss, learning capacity and academic performance. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 10, 323–337. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2005.11.001
17.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151–168. doi:10.1177/0016986213490020
18.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1–44. doi:10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
19.
DavidsonJ. W.HoweM. J.MooreD. G.SlobodaJ. A. (1996). The role of parental influences in the development of musical performance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 399–412. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1996.tb00714.x
20.
DebatinT.HoppM.VialleW.ZieglerA. (2015). Why experts can do what they do: The effects of exogenous resources on the Domain Impact Level on Activities (DILA). Psychological Testing and Assessment Modeling, 57, 94–110.
21.
DettmersS.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.KunterM.BaumertJ. (2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: Using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 467–482. doi:10.1037/a0018453
22.
DittonH.KrüskenJ. (2009). Bildungslaufbahnen im differenzierten Schulsystem. Entwicklungsverläufe von Bildungsaspirationen und Laufbahnempfehlungen in der Grundschulzeit [Educational careers in the differentiated school system. Courses of development of educational aspirations and career recommendations in elementary school]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 12, 74–102. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-531-92216-4_4
23.
DowneyD. B.Vogt YuanA. S. (2005). Sex differences in school performance during high school: Puzzling patterns and possible explanations. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 299–321. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00014.x
24.
DweckC. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
25.
EhmkeT.JudeN. (2010). Soziale Herkunft und Kompetenzerwerb [Social background and competence acquisition]. In KliemeE.et al et al. (Eds.), PISA 2009: Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt (pp. 231–254). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
26.
EkelundU.LuanJ.SherarL. B.EsligerD. W.GriewP.CooperA., & International Children’s Accelerometry Database Collaborators. (2012). Moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk factors in children and adolescents. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307, 704–712. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.156
27.
EricssonK. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In EricssonK. A. (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
EricssonK. A. (2001). The path to expert performance: Insights from the masters on how to improve performance by deliberate practice. In ThomasP. (Ed.), Optimizing performance in golf (pp. 1–57). Brisbane, Australia: Australian Academic Press.
29.
EricssonK. A. (2003). The development of elite performance and deliberate practice: An update from the perspective of the expert-performance approach. In StarkesJ.EricssonK. A. (Eds.), Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 49–81). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
30.
EricssonK. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP.HoffmanR. R. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685–706). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
31.
EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP. J.HoffmanR. R. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RomerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
33.
FeldhusenJ. (1982). Myth: Gifted education means having a program! Meeting the needs of gifted students through differentiated programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 37–41.
34.
FletcherI. M.JonesB. (2004). The effect of different warm-up stretch protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in trained rugby union players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18, 885–888.
35.
FreemanJ. (2006a). Emotional problems of the gifted child. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 481–485. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1983.tb00123.x
36.
FreemanJ. (2006b). Giftedness in the long term. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 384–403. doi:10.4219/jeg-2006-246
37.
FuligniA. J. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The role of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development, 68, 351–363. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01944.x
38.
GarnA. C.JollyJ. L. (2015). A model of parental achievement-oriented psychological control in academically gifted students. High Ability Studies, 26, 105–116. doi:10.1080/13598139.2015.1028614
39.
GilmanB. J. (2008). Academic advocacy for gifted children: A parent’s complete guide. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
40.
GrassingerR.PorathM.ZieglerA. (2010). Mentoring: Conceptual foundations and effectivity analysis. High Ability Studies, 21, 27–46. doi:10.1080/13598139.2010.488087
41.
GruberH.LehtinenE.PalonenT.DegnerS. (2008). Persons in the shadow: Assessing the social context of high abilities. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 237–258.
42.
GundersonL. H.FolkeC.JanssenM. (2006). Generating and fostering novelty. Ecology and Society, 11(1), Article 50.
43.
HancockD. J.Ste-MariD. M.SchinkeR. J. (2010). The development and skills of expert major junior hockey player agents. Talent Development & Excellence, 2, 51–62.
44.
HanushekE. A.KimkoD. D. (2000). Schooling, labor force quality, and the growth of nations. American Economic Review, 90, 1184–1208. doi:10.1257/aer.90.5.1184
45.
HarackiewiczJ. M.BarronK. E.TauerJ. M.ElliotA. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562–575. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.562
46.
HarderB.TrottlerS.VialleW.ZieglerA. (2015). Diagnosing resources for effective learning via teacher and parent checklists. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 57, 201–221.
47.
HarderB.TrottlerS.ZieglerA. (2013). Die Entwicklung der Nürnberger Bildungs- und Lernkapital Checkliste [Development of the Nuremberg Educational and Learning Capital Checklist]. Journal für Begabtenförderung, 13(2), 37–47.
48.
HattieJ. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge.
49.
HattieJ.BiggsJ.PurdieN. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136. doi:10.3102/00346543066002099
50.
HellerK. A. (2000). Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter [Giftedness in childhood and adolescence]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Verlag.
51.
HellerK. A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychology Science, 46, 302–323.
52.
HellerK. A.ReimannR.SenfterA. (2005). Hochbegabung im Grundschulalter: Erkennen und Foerdern [Identification of the gifted in preschool and elementary school]. Münster, Germany: LIT.
53.
HongS.HoH.-Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 132–142. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.32
54.
HuntC.RapeeR. M.PetersL. (2012). Development of a measure of the experience of being bullied in youth. Psychological Assessment, 24, 156–165. doi:10.1037/a0025178
JablonkaE.LambM. J. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57.
JeltovaI.GrigorenkoE. L. (2005). Systemic approaches to giftedness: Contributions of Russian psychology. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 171–186). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
58.
KelsoJ. A. S. (2003). Cognitive coordination dynamics. In TschacherW.DauwalderJ.-P. (Eds.), The dynamical systems approach to cognition: Concepts and empirical paradigms based on self-organization, embodiment and coordination dynamics (pp. 45–71). Singapore: World Scientific.
KleinJ. (2001). Attention, scholastic achievement and timing of lessons. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 301–309. doi:10.1080/00313830120074224
61.
KliemeE. (2004). Begründung, Implementation und Wirkung von Bildungsstandards: Aktuelle Diskussionslinien und empirische Befunde [Justification, implementation and impact of educational standards: Current lines of discussion and empirical findings]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 50, 625–634.
62.
KuusisaariH. (2014). Teachers at the Zone of Proximal Development: Collaboration promoting or hindering the development process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 46–57. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.06.001
63.
Leana-TaşcılarM. Z. (2015). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness: Its relationship with motivation, and the prediction of academic achievement among Turkish students. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 32, 41–55. doi:10.1017/edp.2015.6
64.
LeeV. E.BrykA. S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, 172–192. doi:10.2307/2112866
65.
LehmannM.GastmannU.PetersenK. G.BachlN.SeidelA.KhalafA. N.KeulJ. (1992). Training-overtraining: Performance, and hormone levels, after a defined increase in training volume versus intensity in experienced middle- and long-distance runners. British Journal Sports Medicine, 26, 233–242. doi:10.1136/bjsm.26.4.233
66.
LernerR.OvertonW. F. (2008). Exemplifying the integrations of the relational developmental system: Synthesizing theory, research, and application to promote positive development and social justice. Journal of Adolescence Research, 23, 245–255. doi:10.1177/0743558408314385
67.
LiJ. (2004). A Chinese cultural model of learning. In FanL.WongN.-Y.CaiJ.LiS. (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives form insiders (pp. 124–156). Singapore: World Scientific.
68.
LishJ. D.WeissmanM. M.AdamsP. B.HovenC. W.BirdH. (1995). Family psychiatric screening instrument for epidemiologic studies: Pilot testing and validation. Psychiatry Research, 57, 169–180. doi:10.1016/0165-1781(95)02632-7
69.
LupatschJ.HadjarA. (2011). Determinanten des Geschlechterunterschieds im Schulerfolg: Ergebnisse einer quantitativen Studie aus Bern [Determinants of gender differences in educational attainment: Results of a quantitative study from Bern]. In HadjaA. (Ed.), Geschlechtsspezifische Bildungsungleichheiten (pp. 177–202). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
70.
LynnR.VanhanenT. (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations. Westport, CT: Praeger.
71.
MacLeodJ. (1987). Ain’t no makin’ it: Leveled aspiration in low-income neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
72.
MandlH.FriedrichH. F. (2006). Handbuch Lernstrategien [Handbook of learning strategies]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
73.
ManturzewskaM. (1990). A biographical study of the life-span development of professional musicians. Psychology of Music, 18, 112–139. doi:10.1177/0305735690182002
74.
MaslowA. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
75.
MatthewsM. S. (2009). Gifted learners who drop out: Prevalence and prevention. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 527–536). New York, NY: Springer.
76.
McElvanyN.BeckerM.LüdtkeL. (2009). Die Bedeutung familiärer Merkmale für Lesekompetenz, Wortschatz, Lesemotivation und Leseverhalten [The importance of family characteristics on reading skills, vocabulary, reading motivation and behavior]. Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 41, 121–131. doi:10.1026/0049-8637.41.3.121
77.
McInerneyD. M. (2008). Personal investment, culture and learning: Insights into school achievement across Anglo, Aboriginal, Asian and Lebanese students in Australia. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 870–879. doi:10.1080/00207590701836364
78.
MertonR. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1, 894–904.
79.
MicaA.PeisertA.WinczorekJ. (Eds.). (2011). Sociology and the unintended: Robert Merton revisited. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
80.
MidgleyG. (Ed.). (2003). Systems thinking. London, England: Sage.
81.
MirmanN. J. (2003). Identifying and selecting teachers. In SmutnyJ. F. (Ed.), Designing and developing programs for gifted students (pp. 39–47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
82.
MößleT.KleimannM.RehbeinF.PfeifferC. (2006). Mediennutzung, Schulerfolg, Jugendgewalt und die Krise der Jungen [Media usage, school success, youth violence and the crisis of boys]. Zeitschrift für Jugendkriminalrecht und Jugendhilfe, 3, 295–309.
83.
ObergriesserS.StoegerH. (2015). The role of emotions, motivation, and learning behavior for underachievement and results of an intervention. High Ability Studies, 26, 167–190. doi:10.1080/13598139.2015.1043003
84.
OhH.SutherlandM.StackN.del Mar Badia MartínM.BlumenS.NguyenA.-T.. . . ZieglerA. (2015). A cross-cultural study of possible iatrogenic effects of gifted education programs: Tenth graders’ perceptions of academically high performing classmates. High Ability Studies, 26, 152–166. doi:10.1080/13598139.2015.1044080
PaschalR. A.WeinsteinT.WalbergH. J. (1984). The effects of homework on learning: A quantitative synthesis. The Journal of Educational Research, 78, 97–104. doi:10.1080/00220671.1984.10885581
87.
PhillipsonS. N.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.). (2013). Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. London, England: Routledge.
88.
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. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 201–216). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
89.
PreckelF.KrampenG. (2016). Entwicklung und Schwerpunkte in der psychologischen Hochbegabungsforschung [Development and focal points in the psychological giftedness research]. Psychologische Rundschau, 67, 1–14. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000289
90.
ReisS. M. (2005). Feminist perspectives on talent and development: A research-based conception of giftedness in women. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 201–216). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
91.
RindermannH.SailerM.ThompsonJ. (2009). The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development. Talent Development & Excellence, 1, 3–25.
RyanA. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35, 101–111. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3502_4
SchneiderB.LeeY. (1990). A model for academic success: The school and home environment of East Asian students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 21, 358–377. doi:10.1525/aeq.1990.21.4.04x0596x
96.
SchnieringC. A.RapeeR. M. (2002). Development and validation of a measure of children’s automatic thoughts: The Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale. Behavior Research and Therapy, 40, 1091–1109. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00022-0
97.
ScottW. R.DavisG. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. London, England: Routledge.
98.
SeidelT.ShavelsonR. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77, 454–499. doi:10.3102/0034654307310317
99.
SeligmanE. P.CsikszentmihalyiM. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5
100.
ShafferD.GouldM. S.BrasicJ.AmbrosiniP.FisherP.BirdH.AluwahliaS. (1983). A Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS). Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, 1228–1231. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790100074010
101.
ShavininaL. V. (Ed.). (2009). International handbook on giftedness. New York, NY: Springer.
102.
ShekD. T. L.ChanL. K. (1999). Hong Kong Chinese parents’ perceptions of the ideal child. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133, 291–302. doi:10.1080/00223989909599742
103.
ShihM.PittinskyT. L.AmbadyN. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity, salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00111
104.
ShoreS. M.SachsM. L.LidickerJ. R.BrettS. N.WrightA. R.LibonatiJ. R. (2008). Decreased scholastic achievement in overweight middle school students. Obesity, 16, 1535–1538. doi:10.1038/oby.2008.2542008
105.
SimontonD. K. (2005). Genetics of giftedness: The implications of an emergenic–epigenetic model. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 312–326). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
106.
SmithC. (2001). Sleep states and memory processes in humans: Procedural versus declarative memory systems. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 5, 491–506. doi:10.1053/smrv.2001.0164
107.
SontagC.StoegerH. (2015). Can highly intelligent and high-achieving students benefit from a training of self-regulated learning in a regular classroom context?Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 43–53. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.008
108.
Sotelo-DynegaM.OrtizS. O.FlanaganD. P.ChaplinW. (2013). English language proficiency and test performance: An evaluation of bilinguals with the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 791–797. doi:10.1002/pits.21706
109.
StarkesJ.EricssonK. A. (Eds.). (2003). Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
110.
StarrW. (1976). The Suzuki violinist: A guide for teachers and parents. Secaucus, NY: Warner.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
113.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
114.
StevensonH. W.LeeS. Y.StiglerJ. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science, 231, 693–699.
115.
StoegerH. (2007). Berufskarrieren begabter Frauen [Careers of gifted women]. In HellerK. A.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Begabt sein in Deutschland (pp. 266–290). Berlin, Germany: LIT.
116.
StoegerH.FleischmannS.ObergriesserS. (2015). Self-regulated learning (SRL) and the gifted learner in primary school: The theoretical basis of and empirical findings on a research program dedicated to ensuring that all students learn to regulate their own learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 257–267. doi:10.1007/s12564-015-9376-7
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
119.
SuchańB.BergmüllerS. (2010). Leistungsunterschiede zwischen Schulen [Performance differences between schools]. In SuchańB.Wallner-PaschonC.SchreinerC. (Eds.), TIMSS 2007. Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft in der Grundschule (pp. 214-231). Graz, Austria: Leykam.
120.
ValsinerJ.RosaA. (Eds.). (2007). Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
121.
VeasA.CastejónJ.-L.O’ReillyC.ZieglerA. (2017). Mediation analysis of the relationship between educational capital, learning capital and underachievement among gifted secondary school students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
122.
VialleW. (2013). The “tiger mother” factor: Curriculum, schooling and mentoring of Asian students in an Australian context. In PhillipsonS. N.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (pp. 147–166). London, England: Routledge.
123.
VladutA.LiuQ.Leana-TaşcılarM.VialleW.ZieglerA. (2013). A cross-cultural validation study of the Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital (QELC) in China, Germany and Turkey. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55, 462–478.
124.
VladutA.VialleW.ZieglerA. (2015). Learning resources within the actiotope: A validation study of the QELC (Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital). Psychological Testing and Assessment Modeling, 57, 40–56.
125.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
126.
ZieglerA. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In SternbergR.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411–434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
127.
ZieglerA.BakerJ. (2013). Talent development as adaption: The role of educational and learning capital. In PhillipsonS.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (pp. 18–39). London, England: Routledge.
128.
ZieglerA.DebatinT.StoegerH. (2017). Learning resources and talent development from a systemic point of view. Manuscript submitted for publication.
129.
ZieglerA.GrassingerR.HarderB.StögerH. (2012). Das Beratungskonzept der Landesweiten Beratungs- und Forschungsstelle für Hochbegabung (LBFH) [The counseling concept of the state-wide office for giftedness counseling and research (LBFH)]. In ZieglerA.GrassingerR.HarderB. (Eds.), Konzepte der Hochbegabtenberatung in der Praxis (pp. 96–128). Münster, Germany: LIT.
130.
ZieglerA.PhillipsonS. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23, 3–30. doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679085
131.
ZieglerA.StoegerH. (2016). Gifted identification kit 4-6 for the United Arab Emirates. Dubai, United Arab Emirates: Hamdan Award for Distinguished Academic Performance.
132.
ZieglerA.StoegerH.BalestriniD. (2017). Systemic gifted education. In CrossJ. RO’ReillyC.CrossT. L. (Eds.), Providing for the special needs of students with gifts and talents (pp. 15-55). Dublin, Ireland: CTYI Press.
133.
ZieglerA.StoegerH.VialleW. (2012). Giftedness and gifted education: The need for a paradigm change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 194–197. doi:10.1177/0016986212456070
134.
ZieglerA.VialleW.WimmerB. (2013). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness: A short introduction to some central theoretical assumptions. In PhillipsonS.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (pp. 1–17). London, England: Routledge.
