Gifted Child Quarterly

To provide an overview of the specific components that must be considered when making decisions about research in the field of gifted education, the authors describe and evaluate the three types of evidence— speculative or anecdotal, theoretical, and empirical—commonly offered in the literature of the field. Empirical, or evidence-based, research can be quantitative or qualitative (or mixed methods); it also can be interventional or non-interventional. An explanation and example of each type of empirical evidence are provided, along with key guidelines for reviewing and judging each one. Next, the authors offer general considerations for evaluating specific components of research, regardless of the type of study (e.g., source of evidence, research design, research questions, effect size, sample, instrumentation). Considerations for judging meta-analyses are also offered.

Typical standardized achievement tests cannot provide accurate information about gifted students' abilities because they are not challenging enough for such students. Talent searches solve this problem through above-level testing—using tests designed for older students to raise the ceiling for younger, gifted students. Currently, talent search programs serve gifted students from grades 2 through 8 throughout the mainland United States and in several foreign countries. Extensive research demonstrates that above-level test scores differentiate among levels of giftedness and have important implications for educational planning. Students with high scores learn advanced material rapidly and well and thrive in accelerated learning settings. Therefore, talent searches have followed up on testing with educational programs, many of which focus on acceleration. Decades of research have documented both academic and psychosocial benefits to participants. Perhaps the greatest challenge ahead of the talent searches is that of facilitating the appropriate education of gifted students in the school setting.

Although the academic gains associated with acceleration and peer ability grouping are well documented, resistance to their use for gifted students continues because of concerns that such practices will cause social or emotional harm to students. Results from the broad research indicate that grade skipping, early school entrance, and early admission to college have socioaffective benefits for gifted students who are selected on the basis of demonstrated academic, social, and emotional maturity, but may be harmful to unselected students who are arbitrarily accelerated on the basis of IQ, achievement, or social maturity. There is little research on the socioaffective effects of peer ability grouping. The limited evidence indicates strong benefits for highly gifted students and possibly for some minority or disadvantaged gifted students. Robust evidence does not exist to support the idea that heterogeneous classroom grouping per se significantly increases the risk for adjustment problems among moderately gifted students. Recommendations for best practice based on the available evidence are presented.

This article provides an overview of existing research on 11 curriculum models in the field of gifted education, including the schoolwide enrichment model and the talent search model, and several others that have been used to shape high-level learning experiences for gifted students. The models are critiqued according to the key features they contribute to student learning, teacher use, and contextual fit, including alignment to standards and use with special populations of gifted and nongifted learners. The authors also provide a set of key principles derived from the research studies on what has been learned as a field about curriculum and instruction for the gifted. The article concludes with a set of practical considerations for educators in implementing any of the curricula analyzed and specific district applications of the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM) that illustrate effective implementation over time.

This project was a 2-year investigation of elementary school children placed in programs for high-ability learners. The primary purpose of the study was to investigate academic and affective changes in students during their first 2 years in a gifted program. Students were assessed during the fall of one year and the spring of the next year. Subjects were from 14 different school districts in 10 states and included African American and Caucasian/ non-Hispanic students. The study compared students enrolled in gifted programs (special school, separate class, pull-out, within-class), high-achieving students from districts in which no program was available at the designated grade levels, and nongifted students in regular classrooms. This project focused on academic and affective student outcomes through multiple administrations of an achievement test, a self-perception survey, and a motivation inventory. In addition to comparing programs in general, an important dimension of the project was to examine characteristics of students from traditionally underserved populations. This was accomplished by including the variables of racial/ ethnic status and the social status of participants. Results revealed that there were differences in cognitive and affective outcomes across program types. Therefore, it is strongly advised that educators conduct ongoing evaluations of their programs to be better able to monitor and address all students' needs.

This article discusses five reconsiderations (lessons) the research on the education of the gifted and talented suggests. Although several of the considerations derive from traditional practice in the field, some reconsideration is warranted because of more currently researched differences in how the gifted learner intellectually functions. It is argued that thinking of the gifted learner as idiosyncratic, not necessarily one of many classified as “the gifted,” requires a reconceptualization of how to appropriately and fully serve this unique learner. The research synthesized here covers the period from 1861 to present and represents the entire body of published research studies and representative literature (theory, program descriptions, and persuasive essays). Implications for service development and implementation are also discussed.