As scholars in the field of gifted education continue to explore ways of improving the educational services provided to gifted and talented students, attention must be paid to the infinite amount of potential that an interdisciplinary theory offers. To this end, the following essay explores the intersections of sociocultural theory and gifted education. More specifically, it extends sociocultural theory to the field of gifted education by proposing a new lens for not only expanding the responsibilities of the field in terms of its ability to properly identify gifted students, but also for educating new teachers of the gifted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AspyD.RoebuckF. (1972). An investigation of the relationship between student levels of cognitive functioning and the teacher's classroom behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 65, 365–368.
2.
BaldwinA. Y. (Ed.). (1978). Educational planning for the gifted. Overcoming cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic barriers. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EC111413)
3.
ClarkB. (2002). Growing up gifted (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
4.
CrossT. (2005). An evolving field. Roeper Review, 28, 5–8.
5.
DanielsH. (2004). Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: Routledge/Falmer.
6.
EvansK. (1996). Policy for the identification of students for gifted programs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8, 74–87.
7.
FordD. (2003). Desegregating gifted education: Seeking equity for culturally diverse students. In BorlandJ. H. (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 143–158). New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
HedegaardM. (1996). The zone of proximal development as zone of basic for instruction. In DanielsHarry (Ed.), Introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 171–195). New York: Routledge.
9.
JohnsenS. K. (1997). Assessment beyond definitions. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 136–152.
10.
KanevskyL. S. (1995). Learning potentials of gifted students. Roeper Review, 17(3), 157–164.
11.
KanevskyL. S.SheppardS. (1999). Nurturing gifted students' metacognitive awareness: Effects of training in homogenous and heterogeneous classes. Roeper Review, 21, 266–273.
12.
KathnelsonA.ColleyL. (1982). Personal and professional characteristics valued in teachers of the gifted. Paper presented at California State University, Los Angeles.
13.
KitanoM. (2003). What's missing in gifted education reform. In BorlandJ. H. (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 159–170). New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
LindseyM. (1980). Training teachers of the gifted and talented. New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
MahnH. (1999). Vygotsky's methodological contribution to sociocultural theory. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 341–250.
16.
MakerC. J.NielsenA. B. (1995). Teaching models in the education of the gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Publishers.
17.
MastenW. G. (1981). Approaches to identification of gifted minority students. Jackson, MS: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EC160451)
18.
MorelockM. J. (2003). Pretend play and maternal scaffolding: Comparisons of toddlers with advanced development, typical development, and hearing impairment. Roeper Review, 26, 41–51.
19.
NaglieriJ. A.FordD.Y. (2003). Addressing under-representation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155–160.
20.
PassowH.FrasierM. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 193–202.
21.
RenshawP. (1992, November). The sociocultural theory of teaching learning: Implications for the curriculum in the Australian context. Paper presented at the 22nd annual conference of Australian Association for Research in Education, Geelong, Victoria.
SpindlerG.SpindlerL. (1992). Cultural process and ethnography: An anthropological perspective. In LeCompteM.MillroyW.PreissleJ. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 53–92). New York: Academic Press.
24.
Vanderslice (1999, March). Rural Hispanic children and giftedness: Why the difficulty in identification? Paper presented at 19th annual meeting of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Albuquerque, NM.
25.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
VygotskyL. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum.
27.
VygotskyL. S. (1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 2. The fundamentals of defectology. New York: Plenum.
28.
WinkJ.PutneyL. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
WoodD. J.BrunerJ. S.RossG. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
30.
ZimmermanB.SchunkD. (Eds.). (2003). Educational psychology: A century of contributions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates.
