This article is an attempt to (1) conceptually clarify and stabilize the meaning of ‘Differential Education for the Gifted (DEG)’ in form of a taxonomy, and (2) to justify DEG within a procedural democracy. With these objectives in mind, the author hopes to counteract the atheoretical nature of so-called ‘gifted, talented,’ or ‘creative’ education by offering a conceptually tight knowledge base for DEG. The writer also intends to make a strong case for DEG by convincing those educators who still question, label, or oppose differential educational treatment of gifted youth as being elitist or anti-democratic in an egalitarian society.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernsteinB. (1973). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. InBrownR.(Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 363–392). London, UK: Tavistock.
2.
BloomB., et al. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: McKay.
3.
DerrR. (1973). A taxonomy of social purposes of public schools: A handbook. New York: McKay.
4.
EysenckH. (1979). The structure and measurement of intelligence. New York: Springer.
5.
HarrowA. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain. New York: McKay.
6.
HollingworthL. (1936). The development of personality of highly intelligent children. In Fifteenth yearbook of the department of elementary school principals (pp. 274–278). Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
7.
HolmesB. (1981). Comparative education: Some considerations of method. London, UK: Allen/Unwin.
8.
JellenH.WhiteB. (1980). Current thought: 50 contemporary concepts in DEG. In WardV. (Author), Differential education for the gifted (pp. xxix-lxxi). Los Angeles: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented.
9.
JellenH. (1981). A multi-lingual glossary for differential education for the gifted (DEG). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, U.S.A.
10.
JellenH. (1985) Renzulli's enrichment scheme for the gifted: Educational accommodation of the gifted in the American context. Gifted Education International, Vol. 3 No. 1.
11.
KohlbergL. (1958). The development of moral thinking and choice in the years 10 to 16. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, U.S.A.
12.
KrathwohlD., et al. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (Handbook II: The affective domain). New York: McKay.
13.
MooreT. (1974). Educational theory: An introduction. London, UK: Routledge/Kegan.
14.
NewlandT. (1976). The gifted in socio-educational perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice/Hall.
15.
PetersR. (1966). Ethics and education. London, UK: Allen/Unwin.
16.
PhenixP. (1964). Realms of meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
SimpsonE. (1965–66). The classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
18.
WardV. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Books.
19.
WardV. (1980). Differential education for the gifted. Los Angeles: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented.
