One component of the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act was provision for research on a national scale. In response, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) was created to design and implement a research portfolio. Based on emphasis in the Javits Act on underrepresented populations, on issues of identification and programming, and on priorities of an initial NRC/GT needs assessment, we elected to concentrate on summarizing the NRC/GT research reflecting identification practices, the status of current curricular and instructional strategies and practices, the development of challenging curricula, and the effectiveness of various professional development strategies as potential catalysts for change. The history underlying the development of the Javits Act and the organization and operation of the NRC/GT are described in the article titled “Laying the Base for the Future: One Cornerstone of the Javits Act” in this special issue of the Journal of Advanced Academics (JOAA).
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: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
2.
AzanoA.MissettT. C.CallahanC. M.OhS.BrunnerM.FosterL. H.MoonT. R. (2011). Exploring the relationship between fidelity of implementation and academic achievement in a third-grade gifted curriculum: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 693-719.
3.
BorlandJ. H. (2013). Identification of gifted students. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 323-342). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
4.
BrightonC. M.HertbergH. L.MoonT. R.TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M. (2005). The feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school (RM05210). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
5.
BrightonC. M.MoonT. R.JarvisJ. M.HockettJ. A. (2007). Primary grade teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and talent: A case-based investigation (RM07232). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
6.
BrownS. W.RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.ZhangW.ChenC.-H. (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 68-79.
7.
BurnsD. E.GubbinsE. J.ReisS. M.WestbergK. L.DinnocentiS. T.TiesoC. L. (2004). Applying gifted education pedagogy in the regular education classroom: Professional development module (PDMCD04). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
8.
CallahanC. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory Into Practice, 44, 98-105.
9.
CallahanC. M.AzanoA. P.OhS.HaileyE. P. (2012, April). What works in gifted education: Integrated language arts curricular models for gifted students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
10.
CallahanC. M.HunsakerS. L.AdamsC. M.MooreS. D.BlandL. C. (1995). Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students (Research Monograph 95130). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
11.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2013a, November). National surveys of gifted programs. Paper presented at the 60th annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Indianapolis, IN.
12.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2013b). Status of elementary gifted programs. Charlottesville: University Virginia, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
13.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2013c). Status of high school gifted programs. Charlottesville: University Virginia, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
14.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2013d). Status of middle school gifted programs. Charlottesville: University Virginia, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
15.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS.AzanoA. (in press). Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted students. American Educational Research Journal.
16.
CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC. A.MoonT. R.TomchinE. M.PluckerJ. A. (1995). Project START: Using a Multiple Intelligences model in identifying and promoting talent in high-risk students (Research Monograph 95136). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
17.
CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC. A.PizzatP. M. (1993). Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted student. Charlottesville: University Virginia, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
18.
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). 2012-2013 state of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
19.
DelcourtM. A. B.LoydB. H.CornellD. G.GoldbergM. D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes (Research Monograph 94108). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
20.
de WetC. F.GubbinsE. J. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted students: A qualitative study. Roeper Review, 33, 97-108.
21.
DonovanM. S.CrossC. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22.
ErwinJ. O.WorrellF. C. (2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 74-86.
23.
FordD. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 4-14.
FrasierM. M.HunsakerS. L.LeeJ.FinleyV. S.FrankE.GarcíaJ. H.MartinD. (1995). Educators’ perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted children from economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient backgrounds (RM95216). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
26.
FrasierM. M.HunsakerS. L.LeeJ.FinleyV. S.GarcíaJ. H.FrankE. (1995). An exploratory study of the effectiveness of the staff development model and the research-based assessment plan in improving the identification of gifted economically disadvantaged students (RM95224). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
27.
FrasierM. M.HunsakerS. L.LeeJ.MitchellS.CramondB.KriselS.. . .FinleyV. S. (1995). Core attributes of giftedness: A foundation for recognizing the gifted potential of economically disadvantaged students (RM95210). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
28.
FrasierM. M.MartinD.GarcíaJ. H.FinleyV. S.FrankE.KriselS.KingL. L. (1995). A new window for looking at gifted children (RM95222). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
29.
FrasierM. M.PassowA. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential (Research Monograph 94112). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
30.
GallagherJ.ColemanM. R. (1992). State policies on the identification of gifted students from special populations: Three states in profile (ED 3439 348). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
31.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
32.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.Jensen SheffieldL. (2009). The impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 188-202.
33.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.SheffieldL. J.SpinelliA. M. (2007). Project M3: Mentoring mathematical minds—A research-based curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 566-585.
34.
GentryM. L. (1999). Promoting student achievement and exemplary classroom practices through cluster grouping: A research-based alternative to heterogeneous elementary classrooms (RM99138). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
35.
GrigorenkoE. L.MeieraE.LipkaJ.MohattG.YanezE.SternbergR. J. (2004). Academic and practical intelligence: A case study of the Yup’ik in Alaska. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 183-207.
36.
GubbinsE. J. (2005). Professional development. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 535-562). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
37.
GubbinsE. J. (2013). Professional development for novice and experienced teachers. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 503-515). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
38.
GubbinsE. J.McCoachD. B.ForemanJ. L.GilsonC. M.Bruce-DavisM. N.RubensteinL. D.. . .WatermanC. (2013). Impact of pre-differentiated and enriched curricula on general education teachers and their students (RM13242). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
39.
GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.RenzulliJ. S.BrownS. W. (1993, Fall). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, pp. 3-5.
40.
GubbinsE. J.WestbergK. L.ReisS. M.DinnocentiS.TiesoC. L.MullerL. M.. . .BurnsD. E. (2002). Implementing a professional development model using gifted education strategies with all students (RM02172). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
41.
GuskeyT. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to promote visionary leadership. NAASP Bulletin, 87, 4-20. Retrieved from http://bul.sagepub.com/content/87/637/4
42.
HardawayN.Marek-SchroerM. F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted minority study. Roeper Review, 15, 73-77.
43.
HunsakerS. L.FinleyV. S.FrankE. L. (1997). An analysis of teacher nominations and student performance in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 19-24.
44.
HunsakerS. L.FrasierM. M.FrankE.FinleyV. S.KlekotkaP. (1995). Performance of economically disadvantaged students placed in gifted programs through the research-based assessment plan (RM95208). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
45.
HunsakerS. L.FrasierM. M.KingL. L.Watts-WarrenB.CramondB.KriselS. (1995). Family influences on the achievement of economically disadvantaged students: Implications for gifted identification and programming (RM95206). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
46.
JohnsenS. K. (2013). Traditional perspectives on identification. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 92-104). New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
JohnsenS. K.RyserG. R. (1997). The validity of portfolios in predicting performance in a gifted program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 253-267.
48.
LakinJ. M.LohmanD. F. (2011). The predictive accuracy of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning tests: Consequences for talent identification and program diversity. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 595-623.
49.
LohmanD. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 111-138.
50.
MarlandS. P.Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, volume 1: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
51.
MatthewsM. S.KirschL. (2011). Evaluating gifted identification practice: Aptitude testing and linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 155-180.
52.
McBeeM. (2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 283-297.
53.
McCoachD. B.GubbinsE. J.ForemanJ.RamboK. E.RubensteinL. D. (2014). Evaluating the Efficacy of Using Predifferentiated and Enriched Mathematics Curricula for Grade 3 Students A Multisite Cluster-Randomized Trial. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 272-286.
54.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M. (2008). Primary teachers conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447-480.
55.
PassowA. H.FrasierM. M. (1994). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 198-202. doi:10.1080/02783199609553734
56.
PassowA. H.RudnitskiR. A. (1993). State policies regarding education of the gifted as reflected in legislation and regulation (CRS93302). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
57.
PassowA. H.RudnitskiR. A. (1994). Transforming policy to enhance educational services for the gifted. Roeper Review, 16, 271-275.
58.
ReisS. M.EckertR. D.SchreiberF. J.JacobsJ.BriggsC.GubbinsE. J.. . .MullerL. (2005). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model Reading study (RM05214). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
59.
ReisS. M.GentryM.ParkS. (1995). Extending the pedagogy of gifted education to all students (Research Monograph 95118). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
60.
ReisS. M.GubbinsE. J.BriggsC.SchreiberF. J.RichardsS.JacobsJ.. . .AlexanderM. (2003). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress (RM030184). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
61.
ReisS. M.LittleC. A.FogartyE. A.HousandA. M.HousandB. C.SweenyS. M.. . .MullerL. M. (2010). Case studies of successful Schoolwide Enrichment Model–Reading (SEM-R) classroom implementations (RM10240). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
62.
ReisS. M.PurcellJ. H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom teachers in the curriculum compacting process. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 147-170.
63.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L. (1994). The impact of staff development on teachers’ ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 127-135.
64.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L.KulikowichJ.CaillardF.HébertT.PluckerJ.. . .SmistJ. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
65.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L.KulikowichJ. M.PurcellJ. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say?Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123-129.
66.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.
67.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). Equity, excellence, and economy in a system for identifying students in gifted education: A guidebook (RM05208). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
68.
RenzulliJ. S.CallahanC. M.GubbinsE. J. (2014). Laying the base for the future: One Cornerstone of the Javits Act. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25, 338-348.
69.
RenzulliJ. S.D’SouzaS. L. (2014). Intelligences outside the normal cure: Co-cognitive factors that contribute to the creation of social capital and leadership skills in young people. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 343-361). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
70.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
71.
SternbergR. J. (1995). A triarchic approach to giftedness (Research Monograph 95126). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
72.
SternbergR. J. (1999). Successful intelligence: Finding a balance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 436-442.
73.
SternbergR. J.ClinkenbeardP. R. (1995). A triarchic view of identifying, teaching, and assessing gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 255-260.
74.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
75.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
76.
SternbergR. J.FerrariM.ClinkenbeardP. R.GrigorenkoE. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129-137.
77.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L.BirneyD. P.FredineN.JarvinL.JeltovaI. (2007). Dynamic instruction for and assessment of developing expertise in four ethnic groups (RM07226). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
78.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L.FerrariM. (2004). Giftedness and expertise (RM04198). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
79.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L.HartL.JarvinL.KwiatkowskiJ.NewmanT.StepanossovaO. (2007). Transitions in the development of giftedness (RM07230). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
80.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L.LipkaJ.MeierE.MohattG.YanezE.. . .WildfeuerS. (2004). Academic and practical intelligence (RM04200). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
81.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L.TorffE. L.JarvinL. (2004). Modern theories of intelligence applied to assessment of abilities, instructional design, and knowledge-based assessment (RM04196). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
82.
SternbergR. J.JarvinL.GrigorenkoE. L. (2011). Explorations in giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
83.
TiesoC. L. (2002). The effects of grouping and curricular practices on intermediate students’ math achievement (RM02154). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
84.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
85.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342-358.
86.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.JohnsonD.AveryL. D. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110-123.
87.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.Jr. (Eds.). (1995). Profiles of successful practices for high ability students in elementary classrooms (Research Monograph 95122). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
88.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.Jr. (1997). A multi-site case study of successful classroom practices for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 42-51.
89.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.Jr.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993a). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.
90.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.Jr.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993b). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Research Monograph 93104). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
91.
WileyK.BrunnerM. M. (2014). Nonverbal assessment and identification. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 465-479). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
