Advocates of special programs for gifted learners have claimed for years that the needs of gifted and talented students are not addressed in regular classrooms in the United States. Are these claims justifiable? The Classroom Practices Survey, conducted by the University of Connecticut site of The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, investigated this issue through a survey of nearly 4000 third and fourth grade classroom teachers. The results of this nationwide survey indicated that only a limited number of teachers make any modifications in their instructional and curricular practices with gifted and talented students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchambaultF. X.Jr.WestbergK. L.BrownS. W.HallmarkB. W.EmmonsC. L.ZhangW. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph 93102) Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
2.
BrownS. W.ArchambaultF. X.Jr.ZhangW.WestbergK. L. (1995, Spring). A follow-up study of interaction effects on the Classroom Practices Survey. The NRC/GT Newsletter, pp. 6–9.
3.
CarterK. R.SwansonH. L. (1989, March). An analysis of the most prominent gifted journal articles since the Marland Report: Implications for research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
4.
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (1987). The 1987 state of the states gifted and talented education report Topeka, KS: Author.
5.
CoxJ.DanielN.BostonB. (1985). Educating able learners. Austin, IX: University of Texas Press.
6.
DooleyC. (1993). The challenge of meeting the needs of gifted readers. The Reading Teacher, 46, 546–551.
7.
DeweyJ. (1933). How we think: A reassessment of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
8.
Educational Products Information Exchange Institute (EPIE). (1979). Grant progress report NIE-G-790083. Mimeograph, Stonybrook, NY: EPIE.
9.
FullanM. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership50 (6), 12–17.
10.
FullanM. (1993). Change forces. New York: Falmer.
11.
GoodladJ. (1984). A place called school. NY: McGraw-Hill.
12.
HatlrupR. A.BickelW. E. (1993). Teacher-researcher collaborations: Resolving the tension. Educational Leadership, 50 (60), 38–40.
13.
KirstM. W. (1982). How to improve schools without spending more money. Phi Delta Kappan, 64 (1), 6–8.
14.
LutzF. W.LutzS.B.(1980). Gifted pupils in the elementary school setting: An ethnographic study. (Project No. EC 124 520)Boston, MA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 191 190)
15.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L.KulikowichJ.CaillardF.HebertTPluckerJ.PurcellJ.RogersJ.SmistJ. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
16.
RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
17.
RenzulliJ. S.(1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
18.
TaylorB. M.FryeB. J.(1988). Pretesting: Minimizing time spent on skill work of intermediate readers. The Reading Teacher, 42, 100–103.
19.
TomlinsonC. A.(1994). Gifted learners too: A possible dream?Educational Leadership, 52(4), 68–69.
20.
U. S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A Case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
