Starting from an appreciation of history, this article considers aspects on developing cognitive excellence in the context of core tensions and themes surrounding gifted education that continue to be relevant to present scholarship and society. We discuss some of the knowns and unknowns regarding cognitive talent development in the context of history, research methods, policy, and politics with a focus on the intersection between the fields of gifted education and cognitive aptitudes in the U.S. with novel considerations for advances in methodology.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa.
2.
BellemareM. F. (2022). Doing economics: What you should have learned in grad school—but didn’t. The MIT Press.
3.
BenbowC. P.StanleyJ. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 249–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.249
4.
BerlinerD. C. (2008). Research, policy, and practice: The great disconnect. In LapanS. D.QuartaroliM. T. (Eds.), Research essentials: An introduction to designs and practices (pp. 295–326). Jossey-Bass.
5.
BermanE. P. (2022). Thinking like an economist: How efficiency replaced equality in U.S. public policy. Princeton University Press.
6.
BernerA. R. (2017). Pluralism and American public education: No one way to school. Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
BogenschneiderK.CorbettT. (2021). Evidence-based policymaking: Envisioning a new era of theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
8.
BookerL.ConawayC.SchwartzN. (2019). Five ways RPPs can fail and how to avoid them: Applying conceptual frameworks to improve RPPs. William T. Grant Foundation.
9.
BrykA. S. (2015). 2014AERA distinguished lecture: Accelerating how we learn to improve. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15621543
10.
CallahanC. M. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329601900203
11.
ConawayC. (2020). Maximizing research use in the world we actually live in: Relationships, organizations, and interpretation. Education Finance and Policy, 15(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00299
12.
de la TorreJ. (2008). An empirically based method of q-matrix validation for the Dina model: Development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(4), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2008.00069.x
13.
DixsonD. D.PetersS. J.MakelM. C.JollyJ. L.MatthewsM. S.MillerE. M.Rambo-HernandezK. E.RinnA. N.RobinsJ. H.WilsonH. E. (2020). A call to reframe gifted education as maximizing learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(4), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978057
14.
FarrellC. C.PenuelW. R.CoburnC. E.DanielJ.SteupL. (2021). Research-practice partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation.
15.
GallagherJ. J. (2002). Society’s role in educating gifted students: The role of public policy. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476370.pdf
16.
GardnerJ. W. (1984). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too?W. W. Norton & Company.
17.
GoodhartD. (2020). Head, hand, heart: Why intelligence is over-rewarded, manual workers matter, and caregivers deserve more respect. Free Press.
18.
GreeneJ. P.McShaneM. Q. (2018). Failure up close: What happens, why it happens, and what we can learn from it. Rowman & Littlefield.
HodgesJ.MohanS. (2019). Machine learning in gifted education: A demonstration using neural networks. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219867483
21.
HuffK.GoodmanD. P. (2007). The demand for cognitive diagnostic assessment. In LeightonJ. P.GierlM. J. (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 19–60). Cambridge University Press.
22.
JollyJ. L. (2018). A history of American gifted education. Routledge.
23.
JollyJ. L.RobinsJ. H. (Eds), (2022). Special issue: The Marland report 50 years later (45, p. 3).Journal for the Education of the Gifted1.
24.
KalenzeE. (2019). What the academy taught us: Improving schools from the bottom up in a top-down transformation era. John Catt.
25.
LovelessT. (2021). Between the state and the schoolhouse: Understanding the failure of common core. Harvard Education Press.
26.
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(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96
27.
LubinskiD. (2016). From terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 900–944. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675476
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2021). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman?Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220925447
30.
MarantoR.WaiJ. (2020). Why intelligence is missing from American education policy and practice, and what can be done about it. Journal of Intelligence, 8(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8010002
31.
NeisserU.BoodooG.BouchardT. J.Jr.BoykinA. W.BrodyN.CeciS. J.HalpernD. F.LoehlinJ. C.PerloffR.SternbergR. J.UrbinaS. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77
32.
PluckerJ. A.PetersS. J. (2016). Excellence gaps in education: Expanding opportunities for talented students. Harvard Education Press.
33.
RavitchD. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. Simon & Schuster.
34.
RitchieS. J. (2016). Intelligence: All that matters. Teach Yourself.
35.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
36.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383
37.
Sanchez-EscobedoP. A. (Ed), (2013). Talent development around the world. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
38.
SandelM. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good?Farrar.
39.
SchlotterM.SchwerdtG.WoessmannL. (2011). Econometric methods for causal evaluation of education policies and practices: A non-technical guide. Education Economics, 19(2), 109–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2010.511821
40.
SingerJ. D. (2019). Reshaping the arc of quantitative educational research: It’s time to broaden our paradigm. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(4), 570–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1658835
41.
StanleyJ. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.216
42.
Steenbergen-HuS.MakelM. C.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417
43.
SubasiA.ErcelebiE. (2005). Classification of EEG signals using neural network and logistic regression. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 78(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2004.10.009
44.
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: a journal of the American Psychological Society, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Harvard University Press.
47.
WaiJ.BaileyD. H. (2021). How intelligence research can inform education and public policy. In BarbeyA. K.KaramaS.HaierR. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 434–447). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635462.028
48.
WaiJ.BenbowC. P. (2021). Educational interventions on behalf of the gifted: Do they have lasting links with development? In VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Ed.), Talent development in gifted education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 115–130). Routledge.
49.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.SteigerJ. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019454
WeissC. H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531–545.
53.
WolfP. (Ed), (2019). School choice: Separating fact from fiction. Routledge.
54.
WooldridgeA. (2021). The aristocracy of talent: How meritocracy made the modern world. Skyhorse.
55.
ZhangZ.BeckM. W.WinklerD. A.HuangB.SibandaW.GoyalH.written on behalf of AME Big-Data Clinical Trial Collaborative Group (2018). Opening the black box of neural networks: Methods for interpreting neural network models in clinical applications. Annals of Translational Medicine, 6(11), 216. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.05.32
