The aim of this study was to examine gifted British and Polish college students’ (N = 30) retrospective perceptions of their school environments in relation to talent development using a semi-structured, in-depth interview. Qualitative analyses revealed how school and teachers influenced gifted students’ talent development. Findings indicate that, according to both the British and the Polish students, teachers play an extremely important role in their talent development. The environment in English schools was depicted as considerably more facilitative than the Polish school environment, although both have their advantages and disadvantages. Although this research study does not claim universal representation, the findings may be of significance to school, educational, and psychological practices on preventive, teaching, and interpersonal levels.
AbdulkadirogluA.AngristJ. D.PathakP. A. (2011). The elite illusion: Achievement effects at Boston and New York exam schools (Working Paper 17264). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17264
2.
AmbroseD.Van Tassel-BaskaJ.ColemanL. J.CrossT. L. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 453–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300402
3.
BaudsonT. G.PreckelF. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000011
4.
BeckerM.LüdtkeO.TrautweinU.KöllerO.BaumertJ. (2012). The differential effects of school tracking on psychometric intelligence: Do academic-track schools make students smarter?Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027608
5.
BeredayG. Z. F. (1964). Comparative method in education. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
6.
BettsJ. R.ZauA. C.RiceL. A. (2003). New insights into school and classroom factors affecting student achievement (Report Number ED497303). Public Policy Institute of California.
7.
Blumen-PardoS. (2002). Effects of a teacher training workshop on creativity, cognition, and school achievement in gifted and non-gifted second-grade students in Lima, Peru. High Ability Studies, 13(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130220132307
8.
Blumen-PardoS. (2013). New trends in talent development in Peru. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213492925
9.
BochniarzA.GrabowiecA. (2019). Uczeń zdolny w rzeczywistości polskiej szkoły [Gifted student in the Polish school]. Lubelski Rocznik Pedagogiczny, 38(3), 255–269.
10.
BradyM.KoshyV. (2014). Reflections on the implementation of the gifted and talented policy in England, 1999-2011. Gifted Education International, 30(3), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429413486862
BrownP.PowerS.TholenG.AllouchA. (2016). Credentials, talent and cultural capital: A comparative study of educational elites in England and France. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.920247
13.
BrymanA. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
14.
BuiS. A.CraigS. G.ImbermanS. A. (2011). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on achievement (Working Paper 17089). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://doi.org/10.3386/w17089
15.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS.AzanoA. P.HaileyE. P. (2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 137–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549448
16.
CampbellL.VasquezM.BehnkeS.KinscherffR. (2010). APA ethics code commentary and case illustrations. American Psychological Association.
17.
ChanD. W. (2011). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong student perspective. Roeper Review, 33(3), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.580499
18.
CheungH. Y.HuiS. K. F. (2011). Competencies and characteristics for teaching gifted students: A comparative study of Beijing and Hong Kong teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210397832
19.
ChoyL. T. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), 99–104.
20.
CieslikowskaJ. (2008). Miejsce nauczyciela w systemie edukacji uczniów zdolnych—na podstawie koncepcji i praktycznych rozwiązań Josepha Renzulliego [The teachers’ in the education system of gifted students: Based on the concepts and practical solutions of Joseph Renzulli]. In LimontW.CieślikowskaJ.DreszerJ. (Eds.), Zdolności, talent, twórczość (pp. 27–38). Wydawnictwo UMK.
21.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossU. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. The University of Iowa.
22.
ColemanL. J.GuoA.DabbsC. S. (2007). The state of qualitative research in gifted education as published in American journals: An analysis and critique. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986206296656
23.
ColemanL. J.MickoK. J.CrossT. L. (2015). Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607322
24.
CooperC. R.BaumS. M.NeuT. W. (2004). Developing scientific talent in students with special needs: An alternative model for identification, curriculum, and assessment. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(4), 162–169.
25.
CroftL. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 558–571). Pearson.
26.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide to theory-based, practice-focused research. Prufrock Press.
27.
DanielsS.PiechowskiM. M. (2009). Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability and emotional development of gifted children, adolescents, and adults. Great Potential Press.
28.
De Souza FleithD. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554022
29.
De WetC. F.GubbinsE. J. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted students: A quantitative study. Roeper Review, 33(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.554157
DyrdaB. (2012). Edukacyjne wspieranie rozwoju uczniów zdolnych. Studium społeczno-pedagogiczne [Educational support for the development of gifted students. Social and pedagogical study]. ŻAK Wydawnictwo Akademickie.
32.
EilamB.VidergorH. E. (2011). Gifted Israeli students’ perceptions of teachers’ desired characteristics: A case of cultural orientation. Roeper Review, 33(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.554156
33.
FeldhusenJ. F. (1992). Talent identification and development in education (TIDE). Center for Creative Learning.
34.
FeldhusenJ. F. (2001). Talent development in gifted education (Report No. EDO-EC-01-5, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455657). ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.
35.
FinneganF.MerrillB. (2017). “We’re as good as anybody else”: A comparative study of working-class university students’ experiences in England and Ireland. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1081054
36.
FlickU. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE.
37.
FreemanJ. (2005). Permission to be gifted: How conceptions of giftedness can change lives. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 80–97). Cambridge University Press.
38.
FreemanJ.RaffanJ.WarwickI. (2010). Worldwide provision to develop gifts and talents: An international survey. CfBT Education Trust.
GallagherJ. J. (2015). Peer acceptance of highly gifted children in elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214565549
42.
GeakeJ. G.GrossM. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ negative affect toward academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208319704
43.
GierczykM. (2019). Uczeń zdolny w polskiej i angielskiej przestrzeni szkolnej. Studium komparatystyczne [Able student in Polish and English school space: A comparative study]. University of Silesia in Katowice.
44.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
45.
GodorB. P. (2019). Gifted metaphors: Exploring the metaphors of teachers in gifted education and their impact on teaching the gifted. Roeper Review, 41(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1553219
46.
GralewskiJ. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and possibilities for its development in Polish high schools: A qualitative study. Creativity. Theories–Research–Applications, 3(2), 292–329. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2016-0019
47.
Gromkowska-MelosikA. (2015). Elitarne szkolnictwo średnie. Między reprodukcją społeczno-kulturową a ruchliwością konkurencyjną [Elite secondary schooling. Between sociocultural reproduction and contest mobility]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
48.
GubbinsE. J. (2002). NRC/GT query: Are programs and services for gifted and talented students responsive to beliefs?The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsletters/spring021/
49.
GuillK.LüdtkeO.KöllerO. (2017). Academic tracking is related to gains in students’ intelligence over four years: Evidence from a propensity score matching study. Learning and Instruction, 47, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.001
50.
HansenJ. B.FeldhusenJ. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800304
51.
HaycockK. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. A Publication of the Education Trust, 3(2), 1–14.
HenfieldM. S.WooH.LinY. C.RauschM. A. (2014). Too smart to fail: Perceptions of Asian American students’ experiences in a collegiate Honors program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214521659
54.
HertzogN. B. (2017). Designing the learning context in school for talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217705712
HowleyC.BickelR. (2000). Results of a four-state study: Smaller schools reduce harmful impact of poverty on student achievement. Rural School and Community Trust.
57.
HubermanM.MilesM. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion. SAGE.
58.
JacobsonL. O. (2000). Editor’s choice: Valuing diversity—Student teacher relations that enhance achievement. Community College Review, 28(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155210002800104
59.
KanevskyL. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want?Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211422098
60.
KanevskyL.KeighleyT. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554235
KitsantasA.BlandL.ChirinosD. S. (2017). Gifted students’ perceptions of gifted programs: An inquiry into their academic and social-emotional functioning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(3), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217717033
63.
KolanowskaE. (2018). The system of education in Poland 2018. Foundation for the Development of the Education System.
64.
KonstantopoulosS.ModiM.HedgesL. V. (2001). Who are America’s gifted?American Journal of Education, 109(3), 344–382. https://doi.org/10.1086/444275
65.
KoshyV.Pinheiro-TorresC. (2013). “Are we being de-gifted, Miss?” Primary school gifted and talented co-ordinators’ responses to the Gifted and Talented Education Policy in England. British Educational Research Journal, 39(6), 953–978. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3021
66.
KoshyV.Pinheiro-TorresC.Portman-SmithC. (2012). The landscape of gifted and talented education in England and Wales: How are teachers implementing policy?Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2010.509514
67.
KoshyV.SmithC. P.CaseyR. (2018). England policy in gifted education: Current problems and promising directions. Gifted Child Today, 41(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517750700
68.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2014). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE.
69.
LaineS.KuusistoE.TirriK. (2016). Finnish teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640936
LimontW. (2004). Teoria i praktyka edukacji uczniów zdolnych [Theory and practice in gifted education]. Impuls.
72.
LimontW. (2013). Support and education of gifted students in Poland. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212468065
73.
LoC. O.PorathM. (2017). Paradigm shifts in gifted education: An examination vis-à-vis its historical situatedness and pedagogical sensibilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722840
74.
MaroneyS. A.FinsonK. D.BeaverJ. B.JensenM. M. (2003). Preparing for successful inquiry in inclusive science classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990303600102
75.
MatthewsM. S.McBeeM. T. (2007). School factors and the underachievement of gifted students in a talent search summer program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207299473
76.
McLureL. (2006). Are we nearly there yet? In SmithC. M. M. (Ed.), Including the gifted and talented: Making inclusion work for more able learners (pp. 69–83). Routledge.
77.
MeyerC. B. (2001). A case in case study methodology. Field Methods, 13(4), 329–352.
78.
MiedijenskyS. (2018). Learning environment for the gifted—What do outstanding teachers of the gifted think?Gifted Education International, 34(3), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429417754204
79.
MillerA. L.DumfordA. D. (2018). Do high-achieving students benefit from Honors college participation? A look at student engagement for first-year students and seniors. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(3), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218781753
80.
MillsC. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700404
81.
MönksF. J.PflügerR. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European centuries: Inventory and perspective. Radboud University Nijmegen.
82.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447–480. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-793
83.
MoonT. R.CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC. A.MillerE. M. (2002). Middle school classrooms: Teachers’ reported practices and student perceptions (Report No. RM02164). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
84.
NeihartM.TeoC. T. (2013). Addressing the needs of the gifted in Singapore. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213494821
85.
NeumeisterK. L. S.WilliamsK. K.CrossT. L. (2009). Gifted high-school students’ perspectives on the development of perfectionism. Roeper Review, 31(4), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190903177564
86.
NiehausK.AdelsonJ. L. (2014). School support, parental involvement, and academic and social-emotional outcomes for English language learners. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 810–844. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214531323
87.
Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. (2013). The most able students: Are they doing as well as they should in our non-selective secondary schools? (Report No. 130118). https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//17786/
88.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.ThomsonD. (2015). Talent development as a framework for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556531
89.
OrmrodJ. E.SaklofskeD. H.SchweanV. L.AndrewsJ. J. W.ShoreB. M. (2010). Principles of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
90.
PerroneK. M.WrightS. L.KsiazakM.CraneA. L.VannatterA. (2010). Looking back on lessons learned: Gifted adults reflect on their experiences in advanced classes. Roeper Review, 32(2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783191003587918
91.
PfeifferS. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n01_03
92.
PfeifferS. I. (2013). Serving the gifted (1st ed.). Routledge.
93.
PfeifferS. I. (2020). Giftedness and talent development in children and youth. In WardP.SchraagenJ. M.GoreJ.RothE. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of expertise (pp. 103–127). Oxford University Press.
94.
PlunkettM.KronborgL. (2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International, 26(1–2), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2011.11673587
95.
PreckelF.GolleJ.GrabnerR.JarvinL.KozbeltA.MüllensiefenD.Olszewski-KubiliusP.SchneiderW.SubotnikR.VockM.WorrellF. C. (2020). Talent development in achievement domains: A psychological framework for within- and cross-domain research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 691–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895030
96.
RayneriL. J.GerberB. L.WileyL. P. (2006). The relationship between classroom environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middle school students and the impact on levels of performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000203
97.
RenzulliJ. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity in young people. In MönksF. J.PetersW. A. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children: Talent for the Future (pp. 51–72). Van Gorcum.
98.
RenzulliJ. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208400109
99.
RenzulliJ. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
100.
RobinsonA.AdelsonJ. L.KiddK.CunninghamC. M. (2018). A talent for tinkering: Developing talents in children from low-income households through engineering curriculum. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738049
101.
RobinsonA.ClinkenbeardP. R. (2008). History of giftedness: Perspectives from the past presage modern scholarship. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 13–31). Springer.
102.
RogersK. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306324
103.
RowanL.TownendG. (2016). Early career teachers’ beliefs about their preparedness to teach: Implications for the professional development of teachers working with gifted and twice-exceptional students. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1242458
104.
RussellJ. L. (2018). High school teachers’ perceptions of giftedness, gifted education, and talent development. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(4), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18775658
105.
SamardzijaN.PetersonJ. S. (2015). Learning and classroom preferences of gifted eighth graders: A qualitative study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215592498
106.
SekowskiA. E. (2001). Osiągnięcia uczniów zdolnych [Achievements of talented students]. Catholic University of Lublin.
107.
ShentonA. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
108.
SiegleD.RubensteinL. D.MitchellM. S. (2014). Honors students’ perceptions of their high school experiences: The influence of teachers on student motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513496
109.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
110.
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, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
111.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2018). The relationship between expertise and giftedness: A talent development perspective. In HambrickD. Z.CampitelliG.MacnamaraB. N. (Eds.), The science of expertise: Behavioral, neural, and genetic approaches to complex skill (pp. 427–434). Routledge.
112.
TannenbaumA. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). Allyn & Bacon.
113.
TeddlieC.YuF. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430
114.
ThompsonP. (2000). The voice of the past: Oral history. Oxford University Press.
115.
TirriK. (2017). Teacher education is the key to changing the identification and teaching of the gifted. Roeper Review, 39(3), 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2017.1318996
TourónJ.FreemanJ. (2018). Gifted education in Europe: Implications for policymakers and educators. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), Handbook on giftedness and talent (pp. 54–70). American Psychological Association.
118.
TreffingerD. J.IsaksenS. G. (2005). Creative problem solving: The history, development, and implications for gifted education and talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900407
119.
Van RijnsoeverF. J. (2017). (I can’t get no) saturation: A simulation and guidelines for sample sizes in qualitative research. PLOS ONE, 12(7), Article e0181689. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181689
120.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ. (2001). The talent development process: What we know and what we don’t know. Gifted Education International, 16(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940101600105
121.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ. (2003). Selecting instructional strategies for gifted learners. Focus on Exceptional Children, 36(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17161/fec.v36i3.6801
122.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ.JohnsenS. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 182–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207299880
123.
WangM. C.WalbergH. J. (1991). Teaching and educational effectiveness: Research synthesis and consensus from the field. In WaxmanH. C.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 81–104). McCutchan.
124.
WarneR. T.PriceC. J. (2016). A single case study of the impact of policy changes on identification for gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215624159
125.
WhittonD. (2006). The training of teachers of gifted students in universities in Australia. Gifted Education International, 21(2–3), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940602100310
ZieglerA.HellerK. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SubotnikR.SternbergR. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). Pergamon.
