A critical examination of the current status of the field called gifted education reveals many paradoxes; or, perhaps more accurately, it reveals triumphs and disappointments. Hard and critical looks at the field by those of us who are advocates for gifted children are difficult at best. By examining contributions and triumphs of the field (e.g., recognition of individual differences, innovative assessment, commitment to high standards and raising the ceiling of instruction, stress on process and metacognitive skills, and real-world problem solving) in conjunction with the weakness of our field (e.g., the notion of a program, persistent narrowness of definition and identification, inappropriate adoption of measurement models as bases for curriculum development, lack of evaluation, and poor relationships with other programs), we may be able to stimulate discussions of ways to move the field forward theoretically and practically.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbeelL. B.CallahanC. M.HunsakerS. L. (1994). The use of published instruments in the identification of gifted students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
2.
ArchambaultF. X.WestbergK. L.BrownS. W.HallmarkB. W.EmmonsC. L.ShangW. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Research Monograph 93102). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
3.
AzarB. (1995). Searching for intelligence beyond “g.”The APA Monitor, 26, 1, 32.
4.
BloomB. S. (Ed.). (1954). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman.
5.
CallahanC. M. (1983). Issues in evaluating programs for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 3–7.
6.
CallahanC. M.CaldwellM. S. (1984). Using evaluation results to improve programs for the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 7, 60–74.
7.
CornellD. G.CallahanC. M.BassinL. E.RamsayS. G. (1991). Affective development in accelerated students. In SouthernW. T.JonesE. (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 74–101). New York: Teachers College.
8.
DelcourtM. A. B.LoydB. H.CornellD. G.GoldbergM. D. (in press). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on students learning outcomes (National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Research Monograph 940608). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
9.
FeldhusenJ.BaskaL. (1989). Identification and assessment of the gifted. In FeldhusenJ.VanTassel-BaskaJ.SeeleyK. (Eds), Excellence in educating the gifted (pp. 85–102). Denver, CO: Love.
10.
GuilfordJ. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill
11.
Harrington-LuekerD. (1992). Where more is better. Executive Educator, 14(6), 24–26.
12.
KaplanS. N. (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curricula for the gifted. In RenzulliJ. S., (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 180–193). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
13.
MargolinL. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
14.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
PassowA. H. (1982a). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented: A point of view. In Curricula for the gifted/talented: Selected Proceedings of the First National Conference on Curricula for the Gifted and Talented (pp. 4–20). Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools Office.
16.
PassowA. H. (1982b). The relationship between the regular curriculum and differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. In Curricula for the gifted/talented: Selected Proceedings of the First National Conference on Curricula for the Gifted and Talented. Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools Office.
17.
RenzulliJ. S. (1975). A guidebook for evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. Ventura County, CA: Office of the Superintendent of Schools.
18.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide to developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
19.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.
20.
RenzulliJ. S. (1982). What makes a problem real: Stalking the elusive meaning of qualitative differences in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 148–156.
21.
RenzulliJ. S. (1989). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 298–309.
22.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
23.
ResnickD. P.GoodmanM. (1994). American culture and the gifted. In RossP. O. (Ed.), National excellence: A case for developing America's talents. An anthology of readings (pp. 109–124). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
24.
RossP. O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
25.
Sapon-ShevinM. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
26.
StanleyJ. C.GeorgeW. C.SolanoC. H. (Eds.). (1977). The gifted and creative: A fifty-year perspective. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
27.
TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183–189.
TreffingerD. J. (1986). Fostering effective independent learning through individualized programming. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 429–460). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.DobynsS. M.SalvinJ. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Research Monograph 93104). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
